Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In this paper we use simulations to examine how endogeneity biases the results reported by
ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. In addition, we examine how instrumental variable
techniques help to alleviate such bias. Our results demonstrate severe bias even at low levels of
endogeneity. Our results also illustrate how instrumental variables produce unbiased coefficient
estimates, but instrumental variables are associated with extremely low levels of statistical
power. Finally, our simulations highlight how stronger instruments improve statistical power
and that endogenous instruments can report results that are inferior to those reported by OLS
regression. Based on our results, we provide a series of recommendations for scholars dealing
with endogeneity. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
(yet untrue) coefficient estimates. At the same work that tests proposed theoretical perspectives.
time, correcting for endogeneity with instrumental We contribute to strategy research by providing
variables increases the likelihood of reporting recommendations to improve current practices
coefficient estimates that are near their true values, used by researchers, reviewers, and editors grap-
but these reported estimates are rarely statistically pling with the effects of endogeneity. We believe
significant. current practices must be improved to prevent both
Second, our simulations reveal and highlight Type I and Type II errors. As we describe later, our
the individual roles of instrument strength and review of articles published in SMJ between 2005
instrument endogeneity. Weaker instruments (i.e., and 2012 reveals alarming inconsistencies regard-
instruments weakly correlated with the endoge- ing how strategy researchers approach and remedy
nous variable) result in higher standard errors (i.e., endogeneity. We are hopeful that our simulations
lower efficiency), which decrease the likelihood will help to improve the rigor of the empirical
of reporting statistically significant relationships studies designed to test our theories and enhance
when they exist. In contrast, instrument endo- the overall quality of knowledge in our field that
geneity results in statistically significant coefficient is based on the results of these empirical tests.
estimates that differ from their true values (i.e.,
biased). In fact, the results of our simulations show ENDOGENEITY
that endogenous instruments often produce coeffi-
cient estimates that are inferior to those reported Endogeneity defined
by OLS regression (i.e., the “cure” is worse than While many scholars in strategic management
the “disease”). discuss endogeneity, it is important to clarify the
Third, our simulations demonstrate that stan- precise meaning of the term. Endogeneity is most
dard tests detecting the presence of endogeneity typically described in the context of ordinary least
are highly dependent on the quality of the squares (OLS) regression. Equation 1 represents a
instrumental variables used in the analyses. Our basic OLS regression equation:
results indicate that these tests will rarely detect
existing endogeneity when researchers use weak yi = α + βxi + εi (1)
instruments. These tests perform even more poorly
when the instruments are themselves endogenous. In this equation, y i represents the dependent
Our simulations highlight the ease with which variable, α represents a constant, β represents
researchers (and reviewers and editors) may the coefficient, x i represents the independent
use test results mistakenly to dismiss concerns variable, and εi represents the error term. The
regarding endogeneity. error term in an OLS regression model illustrates
Taken together, our results allow us to extend the extent to which the independent variables
previous recommendations for authors, reviewers, predict the dependent variable and should vary
and editors considering the potential impact of randomly. When the error term is correlated
endogeneity. Given our findings regarding the per- with an independent variable, however, the errors
nicious effects of endogeneity at even low lev- are not random; this leads to biased coefficient
els, our recommendations center around testing estimates (for a review see Kennedy, 2008). Bias
for endogeneity. Bascle (2008) presents a compre- occurs when the coefficient estimate based on a
hensive approach for scholars to implement when sample does not on average equal the true value
dealing with endogeneity. The first step in this of the coefficient in the population (Cohen et al.,
approach involves asking, “Is there an endogeneity 2003: 117). Therefore, a critical assumption of
problem?” (Bascle, 2008: 287). Our simulations OLS regression is that the independent variable
provide a counterintuitive result that researchers and the error term are uncorrelated.
must first identify strong and exogenous instru- According to Kennedy (2008), four different
ments before they can know whether endogeneity issues may potentially introduce endogeneity in
is problematic. Only with such instruments can OLS regression models: errors-in-variables (i.e.,
researchers effectively test for the presence of and measurement error), autoregression, omitted vari-
dismiss concerns regarding endogeneity. ables, and simultaneous causality. In each of these
The relevance of strategy research depends scenarios, OLS regression reports biased coeffi-
on both theory generation and the empirical cients. Instead of estimating the “true” relationship
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 35: 1070–1079 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/smj
1072 M. Semadeni, M. C. Withers and S. Trevis Certo
between the independent variable and the depen- use estimators other than least squares, such
dent variable, OLS regression mistakenly includes as generalized method of moments (GMM) or
the correlation between the independent variable limited-information maximum likelihood (LIML).
and the error term in the estimation of the inde- Researchers employ such techniques when the
pendent variable’s coefficient. endogenous variable does not represent a dichoto-
mous decision.
Instrumental variables must fulfill two condi-
Endogeneity in strategy research tions: relevance and exogeneity (Kennedy, 2008).1
Shaver’s (1998) work on international entry modes Relevance refers to the degree to which the instru-
represents perhaps the most influential study of ment corresponds with the endogenous variable.
endogeneity in strategic management. Shaver uti- A literature on instrument strength (i.e., strong
lizes a sample of firms engaging in international vs. weak instruments) examines how relevance
expansion to study whether acquisitions or Green- influences model results, and scholars have cre-
field ventures lead to higher levels of firm per- ated recommendations based on the F-statistics
formance. According to Shaver, managers choose of first-stage regressions to determine instru-
entry modes based on their perceptions of antic- ment relevance (Stock, Wright, and Yogo, 2002).
ipated performance. It is these unobservable per- The general conclusion of this research indicates
ceptions that potentially lead to endogeneity in this that stronger (higher F-statistics)—as opposed to
empirical context. weaker (lower F-statistics)—instruments are better
Shaver’s ideas have caused scholars to con- for two-stage approaches. Complementing instru-
sider the potential endogeneity of a variety of ment relevance, exogeneity refers to the degree
independent variables. Hamilton and Nickerson to which an instrument is uncorrelated with the
(2003: 51) summarize this perspective by stat- disturbance term in the second stage. Testing for
ing: “the field of strategic management is fun- instrument exogeneity allows researchers to reduce
damentally predicated on the idea that manage- the chance that they replace one endogenous inde-
ment’s decisions are endogenous to their expected pendent variable with another (see Bascle, 2008).
performance outcomes—if not, managerial deci- Perhaps the most problematic aspect of instru-
sion making is not strategic; it is superfluous.” mental variable estimation involves identifying
Accordingly, almost all firm-level variables (e.g., suitable instruments. In practice it remains diffi-
R&D spending, acquisitions, etc.) can be con- cult to find variables that correlate strongly with
sidered decisions made by managers to influence the endogenous variable but not with the error
firm outcomes. Shaver’s introduction to endogene- term in the second stage. Instrument relevance
ity involved a dichotomous independent variable: and exogeneity often work against one another. As
the managerial decision to engage in an acqui- instrument strength increases (i.e., the instrument
sition versus a Greenfield venture. Nevertheless, becomes more like the endogenous independent
scholars have also treated continuous variables variable), it is perhaps not surprising that it may
such as employee stock ownership (Wang, He, be related to the error term in the same way as the
and Mahoney, 2009), human capital investments endogenous variable.
(Sirmon and Hitt, 2009), and CEO hubris (Li and
Tang, 2010) as endogenous variables. Instrumental variables in strategy research
To understand better how strategy researchers use
instrumental variables, we reviewed all empirical
OVERCOMING ENDOGENEITY WITH papers appearing in SMJ between 2005 and
INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES 2012 that incorporated instrumental variables to
analyze continuous endogenous variables. We
Instrumental variables noted the degree to which researchers (1) tested for
Strategy researchers rely on instruments to model endogeneity; (2) used more than one instrument;
continuous endogenous independent variables. The (3) tested for instrument strength; and (4) tested
terms instrumental variable estimation and two-
stage least squares are often used interchange- 1 Exogeneity and endogeneity are opposites (i.e., a variable that
ably, but instrumental variable techniques may is not “ex ogenous” is “end ogenous”).
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 35: 1070–1079 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/smj
Research Notes and Commentaries 1073
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 35: 1070–1079 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/smj
1074 M. Semadeni, M. C. Withers and S. Trevis Certo
variables.4 We used Stata’s “regress” command to generate the data for each simulation) value. An
invoke OLS regression, which we refer to as OLS unbiased estimator will report confidence intervals
when discussing the results. We then used Stata’s that include the true value in approximately
“ivreg” command to invoke a two-stage least 95 percent of the cases. PercSig refers to the
squares approach.5 With this approach, researchers percentage of simulations that report statistically
must specify two stages. The first stage involves significant coefficients. This measure assesses an
using an instrumental variable, z , to determine the estimator’s power (e.g., Cohen, 1992). Estimators
endogenous independent variable, x . The second reporting PercSig levels that exceed their “true”
stage then uses the predicted value from the first values (based on power calculations) indicate
stage as an independent variable in the second biased coefficients and/or standard errors.7
stage. The intuition behind this approach is that Examining 95int and PercSig together allows
the first stage “partials out” any common variance us to uncover interesting relationships. Although
between x and z , so the predicted value does not it is impossible to know a “true” value, fundamen-
share any variance that is related to the error term tally researchers should be interested in approxi-
in the second stage. We vary the strength of the mating the coefficient’s true value (95int). Practi-
instrument by modifying the correlation between cally speaking, however, researchers are also inter-
x and z . We report results for two alternative ested in identifying statistically significant rela-
instrumental variable approaches: (1) IVweak refers tionships (Bettis, 2012). PercSig reveals the condi-
to a two-stage approach using weak instruments tions under which endogeneity increases the prob-
(i.e., the correlation between x and z is 0.1), and ability of finding significance while decreasing the
(2) IVmod refers to a two-stage approach using probability of finding the “true” relationship.
moderate instruments (i.e., the correlation between
x and z is 0.33).6
RESULTS
Outcome measures Endogeneity and OLS
We examined how endogeneity influences the bias Table 1 illustrates the results of our simulations
and efficiency of OLS regression by creating four comparing OLS, IVWeak , and IVMod . This table
different outcome measures. We simulated 1,000 includes three different endogeneity conditions: no
iterations of each condition. For each condition, we endogeneity, low endogeneity, and medium endo-
saved the estimated β and the estimated standard geneity. For each endogeneity condition, Table
error. Beta Med represents the median estimate of 1 displays the four outcome measures associated
β for the 1,000 iterations in our simulations. with each of the estimators. We use two panels
SEMed represents the median standard error for to contrast between simulations with a true effect
the 1,000 iterations in our simulation. Values of (true β = 0.1 in the top panel) and without a
these measures that exceed (are less than) their true effect (true β = 0 in the bottom panel). Col-
true values suggest positive (negative) bias. umn 1 in Table 1’s top panel illustrates the effects
We also included two outcome measures that of endogeneity on OLS when the true value of
incorporated both the reported betas and standard B should equal 0.1. When there exists no endo-
errors to examine the significance of the results geneity, OLS reported an unbiased Beta Med of
reported by each estimator. The expression 95int 0.10. This unbiased beta, coupled with the reported
denotes the extent to which an estimator reports SE Med of 0.045 resulted in a 95int value of 95
a 95 percent confidence interval that includes the percent and PercSig of 60 percent.8
coefficient’s “true” (i.e., the coefficient used to When endogeneity was low, the reported beta
for OLS was twice its true value and increased
4
In supplementary analyses, we generated panel data and to 0.43 for moderate levels of endogeneity.
examined the effects of endogeneity on fixed- and random-
effects models. Our results were substantively similar to those
reported by OLS regression. 7 The regression simulations with no endogeneity provide the
5 In supplementary analyses, results for Stata’s GMM and LIML “true” values that are used for comparison purposes.
options for ivreg were virtually identical. 8
The reported power of 60 percent is consistent with statistical
6 The effect sizes we examined are consistent with standards power calculators using a sample size of 500 and an effect size
used in other disciplines (e.g., Stock et al. 2002). of 0.10.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 35: 1070–1079 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/smj
Research Notes and Commentaries 1075
Table 1. Main findings OLS vs. single instrument
Complementing the biased betas, Table 1’s top that endogeneity dramatically increases the extent
panel shows that endogeneity also biases the to which the reported coefficient is statistically
standard errors reported by OLS regression, significant, but this value is much less likely to
but this bias is opposite of that associated with be the true value.
coefficients. Although the standard errors remain Table 1’s bottom panel displays the same
constant for low levels of endogeneity, the information for simulations in which β should
reported standard errors are actually lower for equal 0 (i.e., there is no true effect). The results
moderate levels of endogeneity. As shown in illustrate that when endogeneity is low, OLS
Table 1, 95int decreases as endogeneity increases; will report a positive and statistically significant
relationship in 61 percent of the cases. When
the positively biased coefficient coupled with the
endogeneity increases to 0.33, OLS reports a
increasingly narrower confidence interval suggests
positive and statistically significant relationship in
the reported confidence interval for OLS will be 100 percent of the cases. These results illustrate
less likely to include the true coefficient value as how endogeneity leads researchers to report results
endogeneity increases. At the same time, Table 1 that support relationships that do not exist.9
shows that OLS is more likely to report a
statistically significant coefficient as endogeneity 9
We also ran the simulations modeling a negative relationship
increases. Taken together, these results indicate (i.e., B = −0.1). In these simulations, OLS was able to detect
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 35: 1070–1079 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/smj
1076 M. Semadeni, M. C. Withers and S. Trevis Certo
a statistically significant relationship in only 5 (0) percent of 11 We also ran the same simulations for the Hausman test, and
the cases with low (moderate) levels of endogeneity. When the
direction of endogeneity is opposite of the coefficient, the erratic the results were substantively similar.
12
results of OLS are much like those related to suppression. In other words, when empirical results are significant and in
10 This approach was conservative, as higher levels of endogene- the opposite direction from that suggested by well-established
ity produced dramatically more biased results. theory, negative endogeneity may be the culprit.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 35: 1070–1079 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/smj
Research Notes and Commentaries 1077
Table 2. Durbin-Wu-Hausman endogeneity test resultsa be driven by endogeneity as opposed to the theo-
rized relationships. Our results also highlight how
Observations even low levels of instrument endogeneity increase
100 (%) 500 (%) 1000 (%) reported betas by nearly 1,000 percent—a bias that
is worse than even OLS regression. While instru-
Panel A ment endogeneity increases the likelihood of statis-
No instrument endogeneity tically significant coefficients, it also decreases the
Instrument strength zero likelihood that the confidence intervals surround-
No endogeneity 4.9 5.0 5.2
Low endogeneity 5.0 4.8 5.0
ing these estimates include the true value.
Moderate endogeneity 5.4 5.4 5.5
Instrument strength weak Instrumental variables and type II errors
No endogeneity 5.3 4.7 4.6
Low endogeneity 5.6 5.6 5.9 Our simulations also provide a number of results
Moderate endogeneity 6.7 12.4 19.1 regarding instrumental variables that require dis-
Instrument strength moderate cussion. First, our simulations demonstrate that
No endogeneity 4.6 5.5 4.5 both weak and moderate instruments provide coef-
Low endogeneity 7.5 13.1 20.0
Moderate endogeneity 21.5 78.5 97.4 ficient estimates that closely approximate their true
values, but the associated standard errors greatly
Panel B exceed those of OLS. As a result, instrumental
Low instrument endogeneity variable techniques provide unbiased coefficient
Instrument strength zero estimates but are associated with extremely low
No endogeneity 17.6 60.9 87.6
Low endogeneity 17.5 60.7 88.5 levels of statistical power. Directly contrasting our
Moderate endogeneity 18.2 66.7 92.8 results regarding OLS, instrumental variables are
Instrument strength weak likely to produce confidence intervals that contain
No endogeneity 16.1 61.6 89.7 the true value of beta, but these estimates are rarely
Low endogeneity 14.1 53.3 81.4 statistically significant.
Moderate endogeneity 10.3 35.2 60.9
Instrument strength moderate
No endogeneity 19.6 66.3 92.1 Testing for endogeneity
Low endogeneity 10.2 36.9 61.7
Moderate endogeneity 6.1 6.3 5.9 Finally, our simulations suggest that the effec-
tiveness of endogeneity tests depends on instru-
a
Values in the cells denote the percentage of the simulated DWH ment quality. In other words, weak and/or endoge-
tests that were significant (i.e., finding endogeneity present). nous instruments yield suspect results whereas
stronger, exogenous instruments reveal endogene-
OLS and type I errors ity. Accordingly, tests that rely on weak and/or
endogenous instruments may mislead authors,
The simulations reveal two important results asso- reviewers, editors, and general readers.
ciated with endogeneity in the context of OLS.
First, OLS coefficients become more biased (i.e.,
Recommendations
they become increasing larger than their true val-
ues) as endogeneity increases. Second, the stan- The results of our simulations allow us to provide
dard errors reported by OLS become smaller (i.e., a number of recommendations to researchers
they become increasingly smaller than their true confronting endogeneity. Our results indicate that
values) as endogeneity increases. It is not sur- stronger instrumental variables result in more
prising, then, that as endogeneity increases the 95 accurate betas as compared to OLS, and the benefit
percent confidence intervals reported by OLS are of stronger instruments involves reduced standard
less likely to include the true value of the coeffi- errors. Because of the importance of instrument
cient. At the same time, as endogeneity increases, relevance, strategy researchers should start by
OLS becomes more likely to report statistically identifying at least moderately strong instruments.
significant results. Endogeneity, then, may make Authors should always report instrument strength
it easier for researchers to find statistically sig- by noting the F-statistic in the first stage associated
nificant relationships, but such significance may with the addition of the instrumental variable(s)
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 35: 1070–1079 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/smj
1078 M. Semadeni, M. C. Withers and S. Trevis Certo
(e.g., Larcker and Rusticus, 2010; Stock et al., instruments, these tests will almost surely fail to
2002). Without this detail, it is difficult for readers report endogeneity—even when it exists. In our
to understand the influence of the instruments in view, approaches such as “We tested for endogene-
the models. Consistent with the recommendations ity and found that it was not an issue” are not
of econometricians (Angrist and Pischke, 2009; acceptable. Instead, reviewers, editors, and ulti-
Kennedy, 2008), researchers should report the full mately readers need to understand clearly the prop-
results for the first-stage models, and these models erties of the instruments used in endogeneity tests.
should include the controls used in the second-
stage (i.e., structural model).
Finding instrumental variables
After identifying moderately strong instruments,
researchers should also examine the potential Researchers interested in endogeneity understand
endogeneity of the instruments. Compared to that the most difficult aspect of instrumental vari-
exogenous instruments, endogenous instruments able analysis involves identifying suitable instru-
dramatically raise the likelihood of reporting a sta- ments. Nevertheless, economists may have some
tistically significant result. Given such enormous suggestions in this regard. Angrist and Pischke
bias, we recommend testing for instrument endo- (2009: 117) suggest that, “Good instruments come
geneity using the Sargan (1958) test or Hansen’s from a combination of institutional knowledge and
(1982) J-statistic (for other tests of instrument ideas about the processes determining the vari-
endogeneity, see Bascle, 2008). able of interest.” Because researchers in strategy
It should be noted that multiple instruments address a wide array of topics and contexts, it
are required to test for instrument endogeneity is difficult to provide advice that applies equally
(e.g., Kennedy, 2008). In supplementary analyses to all researchers. We propose that researchers in
not reported, our simulations also show that strategy can learn from the insights and examples
multiple instruments help to decrease standard offered by economists, who have been dealing with
errors. For these reasons, we cannot overempha- endogeneity for far longer. Kennedy (2008) sum-
size the importance of identifying multiple—as marizes a number of creative ideas in this regard.
opposed to single—instruments.13 Nevertheless, Distance from a college, for instance, can serve as
our results should give strategy researchers an instrument for years of education as a predictor
pause regarding the number of existing studies of wages. More generally, he also discusses how
in strategic management that have advanced researchers may employ lagged exogenous vari-
theory while using only a single—and potentially ables as instruments for endogenous predictors.
endogenous—instrument. If authors can only find In our view, though, the key to remedying endo-
one instrument of sufficient strength, they must geneity is to consider its effects before submit-
present compelling theoretical evidence that the ting manuscripts for review. If reviewers highlight
instrument is not itself endogenous. In this regard, endogeneity after the original submission, it will
authors should keep in mind that the instrumental likely prove difficult for authors to identify suitable
variable should be uncorrelated with the residuals instruments that fit neatly within existing models.
associated with the dependent variable—and not For researchers using archival data, for instance,
the dependent variable itself. it may prove difficult to identify a natural exper-
Finally, but perhaps most importantly, authors iment after the fact that helps to reframe a study
should compare their results to OLS (or a related examining the effects of a strategic decision (e.g.,
procedure such as logistic, fixed-effects regression, market entry) on firm performance. Correcting for
etc.) and test for endogeneity. We emphasize this is endogeneity in a post-hoc fashion is even more
the final step in the process, because quality (i.e., problematic for researchers relying on survey data.
relevant and exogenous) instruments are required
for the Hausman or DWH tests. Without quality
CONCLUSION
13 Furthermore, it is important to note that multiple endogenous
In sum, given noted publication biases that focus
instruments will not be able to detect instrument endogeneity. on statistical significance (Bettis, 2012), we can
Supplemental analyses found that detection requires at least one
moderately strong exogenous instrument among the multiple speculate that endogeneity has led to a myriad
instruments. of type I errors among published papers in
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 35: 1070–1079 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/smj
Research Notes and Commentaries 1079
strategy. While it is not our purpose to highlight Hamilton BH, Nickerson JA. 2003. Correcting for endo-
specific cases, we can safely presume that even geneity in strategic management research. Strategic
Organization 1(1): 51–78.
small amounts of endogeneity have resulted in Hansen LP. 1982. Large sample properties of generalized
a number of published papers that have resulted method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50(4):
in statistically significant results driven not by 1029–1054.
the purported independent variables but instead Hoetker G, Mellewigt T. 2009. Choice and performance
by endogeneity. We are hopeful that the results of governance mechanisms: matching alliance gover-
nance to asset type. Strategic Management Journal
and recommendations we provide are helpful to 30(10): 1025–1044.
authors, reviewers and editors. Kennedy P. 2008. A Guide to Econometrics (2nd edn).
Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
Larcker DF, Rusticus TO. 2010. On the use of instru-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS mental variables in accounting research. Journal of
Accounting and Economics 49(3): 186–205.
Li J, Tang Y. 2010. CEO hubris and firm risk taking in
We thank Brian Connelly, Ryan Krause, Don China: the moderating role of managerial discretion.
Lange and Phil Podsakoff for their constructive Academy of Management Journal 53(1): 45–68.
comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Sargan JD. 1958. The estimation of economic rela-
We also thank Margarethe Wiersema and two tionships using instrumental variables. Econometrica
anonymous reviewers for their guidance in shaping 26(3): 393–415.
Shaver JM. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when
the final manuscript. assessing strategy performance: does entry mode
choice affect fdi survival? Management Science 44(4):
571–585.
REFERENCES Shugan SM. 2004. Editorial: endogeneity in marketing
decision models. Marketing Science 23(1): 1–3.
Angrist JD, Pischke JS. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econo- Sirmon DG, Hitt MA. 2009. Contingencies within
metrics: an Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton Uni- dynamic managerial capabilities: interdependent
versity Press: Princeton, NJ. effects of resource investment and deployment on
Bascle G. 2008. Controlling for endogeneity with instru- firm performance. Strategic Management Journal
mental variables in strategic management research. 30(13): 1375–1394.
Strategic Organization 6(3): 285–327. Stock JH, Wright JH, Yogo M. 2002. A survey of weak
Bettis RA. 2012. The search for asterisks: compromised instruments and weak identification in generalized
statistical tests and flawed theories. Strategic Manage- method of moments. Journal of Business & Economic
ment Journal 33(1): 108–113. Statistics 20(4): 518–529.
Cohen J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin Wang HC, He J, Mahoney JT. 2009. Firm-specific knowl-
112(1): 155–159. edge resources and competitive advantage: the roles
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. 2003. Applied of economic- and relationship-based employee gov-
Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the ernance mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal
Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ. 30(12): 1265–1285.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 35: 1070–1079 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/smj