Extending the role of headquarters beyond the firm boundary: entrepreneurial alliance innovation

Journal of Organization Design

Table 6 Pre-alliance trend analysis. The potential endogeneity problem stemming from pre-alliance trends is tested. The results show that there is no evidence that incumbent firms tend to align with nearby startup partners that outperformed before the alliance

Dependent variable: Distance CHQ to Startup	(6.1)	(6.2)	(6.3)	(6.4)
Sample:	Full	Full	Restricted	Restricted
Startup Patent Count	0.001		− 0.003
(One-Year Lagged)	(0.002)		(0.003)
Cumulative Startup Patent Count		− 0.000		− 0.000
(One-Year Lagged)		(0.000)		(0.000)
Horizontal Alliance	0.162	0.168	0.718	0.699
	(0.281)	(0.281)	(0.446)	(0.458)
Alliance Exploitation	− 0.320^*	− 0.322^*	0.003	0.028
	(0.172)	(0.173)	(0.228)	(0.224)
Alliance Equity and Joint Venture	0.032	0.015	− 0.103	− 0.067
	(0.250)	(0.250)	(0.429)	(0.430)
Incumbent Subsidiary Dispersion	0.002	0.002	− 0.013	− 0.012
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.011)	(0.011)
Incumbent Age	− 0.002	− 0.003	− 0.013	− 0.010
	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.011)	(0.010)
Incumbent Size (Logged)	− 0.009	− 0.011	0.095	0.085
	(0.100)	(0.100)	(0.260)	(0.255)
Startup Age	0.009	0.010	0.015	0.015
	(0.006)	(0.007)	(0.012)	(0.013)
Startup Size (Binary)	0.202	0.223	− 0.128	− 0.127
	(0.185)	(0.190)	(0.333)	(0.335)
Startup Manufacturing	− 0.231	− 0.228	− 0.029	− 0.050
	(0.147)	(0.146)	(0.317)	(0.320)
Startup Capital Investment (Cumulative)	− 0.001	− 0.001	− 0.005	− 0.004
	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.007)	(0.007)
Incumbent fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Year fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Startup location fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Incumbent location fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	1401	1401	233	233
Number of startup–incumbent dyads	376	376	179	179
Adjusted R²	0.352	0.351	0.369	0.362