Advertisement

“Another roof, another proof”: the impact of mobility on individual productivity in science

  • Valentina Tartari
  • Francesco Di Lorenzo
  • Benjamin A. Campbell
Article

Abstract

The mobility of highly skilled employees is seen as a critical way for organizations to transfer knowledge and to improve organizational performance. Yet, the relationship between mobility and individual performance is still largely a theoretical and empirical puzzle. Integrating human capital mobility research and the economics of science literature, we argue that mobility of academics should have a positive effect on individual productivity. Additionally, we argue that this positive effect is strengthened when academics move towards better-endowed institutions. We find support for our predictions using a unique dataset of 348 academics working in biology department in the United Kingdom supplemented with qualitative evidence from a survey of the focal academic researchers.

Keywords

Mobility Academic researchers Scientific productivity Organizational resources Arellano–Bond 

JEL Classification

J24 J62 

References

  1. Abadie, A., Drukker, D., Leber Herr, J., & Imbens, G. W. (2004). Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in stata. Stata Journal, 4(3), 290–311.Google Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., & Stein, J. C. (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. The Rand Journal of Economics, 39(3), 617–635.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2008.00031.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aime, F., Johnson, S., Ridge, J. W., & Hill, A. D. (2010). The routine may be stable but the advantage is not: Competitive implications of key employee mobility. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 75–87.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aksnes, D. W., Rørstad, K., Piro, F. N., & Sivertsen, G. (2013). Are mobile researchers more productive and cited than non-mobile researchers? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists. Research Evaluation, 22(4), 215–223.  https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Almeida, P., Hohberger, J., & Parada, P. (2011). Individual scientific collaborations and firm-level innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, dtr030.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr030.
  6. Allison, P. D, Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320–1326.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Audretsch, D. B., Bozeman, B., Combs, K. L., Feldman, M., Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., et al. (2002). The economics of science and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(2), 155–203.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014382532639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Azoulay, P., Zivin, J. S. G., & Wang, J. (2010). Superstar extinction. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(2), 549–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borjas, G. J., & Doran, K. B. (2012). The collapse of the soviet union and the productivity of American mathematicians*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1143–1203.  https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, B. A., Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2012a). Rethinking sustained competitive advantage from human capital. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 376–395.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell, B. A., Di Lorenzo, F., & Tartari, V. (2018). Cross-organization collaboration and mobility of knowledge workers.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, B. A., Ganco, M., Franco, A. M., & Agarwal, R. (2012b). Who leaves, where to, and why worry? Employee mobility, entrepreneurship and effects on source firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(1), 65–87.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell, B. A., Kryscynski, D., & Olson, D. M. (2017). Bridging strategic human capital and employee entrepreneurship research: A labor market frictions approach. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 344–356.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cañibano, C., & Bozeman, B. (2009). Curriculum vitae method in science policy and research evaluation: The state-of-the-art. Research Evaluation, 18(2), 86–94.  https://doi.org/10.3152/095820209X441754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cañibano, C., Otamendi, J., & Andújar, I. (2008). Measuring and assessing researcher mobility from CV analysis: The case of the Ramón y Cajal programme in Spain. Research Evaluation, 17(1), 17–31.  https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208X292797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carnahan, S., Agarwal, R., & Campbell, B. A. (2012). Heterogeneity in turnover: The effect of relative compensation dispersion of firms on the mobility and entrepreneurship of extreme performers. Strategic Management Journal, 33(12), 1411–1430.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chiang, S.-H., & Chiang, S.-C. (1990). General human capital as a shared investment under asymmetric information. The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’Economique, 23(1), 175–188.  https://doi.org/10.2307/135526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coff, R. W. (1997). Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 374–402.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9707154063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not) (Working Paper No. 7552). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w7552. Accessed 8 September 2016
  23. Corredoira, R. A., & Rosenkopf, L. (2010). Should auld acquaintance be forgot? The reverse transfer of knowledge through mobility ties. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 159–181.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.803.Google Scholar
  24. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges, diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2010). Mobility versus job stability: Assessing tenure and productivity outcomes. Research Policy, 39(1), 27–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Filippo, D., Casado, E. S., & Gomez. (2009). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the study of mobility and scientific performance: a case study of a Spanish university, 18(3), 191–200.Google Scholar
  27. De Solla Price, D. (1986). Little science, big science…and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Deloitte. (2012). University Staff Academic Salaries and Remuneration. http://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/node/276.
  29. Di Lorenzo, F., & Almeida, P. (2017). The role of relative performance in inter-firm mobility of inventors. Research Policy, 46, 1162–1174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dokko, G., & Rosenkopf, L. (2009). Social capital for hire? Mobility of technical professionals and firm influence in wireless standards committees. Organization Science, 21(3), 677–695.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Drucker, P. F. (1998). Peter Drucker on the profession of management. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ernst, H., & Vitt, J. (2000). The influence of corporate acquisitions on the behaviour of key inventors. R&D Management, 30(2), 105–120.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Feldman, M. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2012). The economics of science and technology: An overview of initiatives to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  34. Fernandez-Zubieta, A., Geuna, A., & Lawson, C. (2015). What do we know of the mobility of research scientists and of its impact on scientific production (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2611203). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2611203. Accessed 26 August 2015.
  35. Fernandez-Zubieta, A., Geuna, A., & Lawson, C. (2016). Productivity pay-offs from academic mobility: should I stay or should I go? Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(1), 91–114.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtv034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2014). The mover’s advantage: The superior performance of migrant scientists. Economics Letters, 122(1), 89–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.10.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gambardella, A., Giarratana, M. S., & Panico, C. (2010). How and when should companies retain their human capital? Contracts, incentives and human resource implications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Geuna, A., Kataishi, R., Toselli, M., Guzmán, E., Lawson, C., Fernandez-Zubieta, A., et al. (2015). SiSOB data extraction and codification: A tool to analyze scientific careers. Research Policy, 44(9), 1645–1658.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Groysberg, B., Lee, L.-E., & Nanda, A. (2008). Can they take it with them? The portability of star knowledge workers’ performance. Management Science, 54(7), 1213–1230.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hansen, L. P. (1982). Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica, 50(4), 1029–1054.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1912775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hagstrom, W. O. (1997). Inputs, outputs, and the prestige of university science departments. Sociology of Education, 44(4), 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 65(2), 261–294.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. HEFCE. (2011). Higher education-business and community interaction survey 2009–2010. Higher Education Council Funding for England.Google Scholar
  44. Hoffman, P. (1999). The man who loved only numbers: The story of Paul Erdos and the search for mathematical truth. Hyperion Books.Google Scholar
  45. Hoisl, K. (2007). Tracing mobile inventors—The causality between inventor mobility and inventor productivity. Research Policy, 36(5), 619–636.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jovanovic, B. (1979). Job matching and the theory of turnover. Journal of Political Economy, 87(5), 972–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1997). The critical importance of careers in collaborative scientific research. Revue d’économie industrielle, 79(1), 45–61.  https://doi.org/10.3406/rei.1997.1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lissoni, F., Montobbio, F., & Zirulia, L. (2013). Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 95, 49–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.08.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Long, J. S. (1978). Productivity and academic position in the scientific career. American Sociological Review, 43(6), 889–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy Sciences, 16, 317–323.Google Scholar
  52. Mackey, A., Molloy, J. C., & Morris, S. S. (2013). Scarce human capital in managerial labor markets. Journal of Management.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313517265.Google Scholar
  53. Mahoney, J. T., & Qian, L. (2013). Market frictions as building blocks of an organizational economics approach to strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1019–1041.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mawdsley, J. K., & Somaya, D. (2016). Employee mobility and organizational outcomes an integrative conceptual framework and research Agenda. Journal of Management, 42(1), 85–113.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315616459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Merton, R. K. (1968). The matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  58. Moser, P., Voena, A., & Waldinger, F. (2014). German-Jewish Emigres and US invention (Working Paper No. 19962). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19962. Accessed 26 August 2015.
  59. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2009). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 42–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9113-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nakajima, R., Tamura, R., & Hanaki, N. (2010). The effect of collaboration network on inventors’ job match, productivity and tenure. Labour Economics, 17(4), 723–734.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2009.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. OECD. (2010). Science, technology and industry outlook.Google Scholar
  62. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86–136.Google Scholar
  65. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. (2003). Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751–766.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.6.751.16026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Scopus Info. (2013). Scopus content overview. Elsevier. http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overview.
  68. Singh, J., & Agrawal, A. (2011). Recruiting for ideas: How firms exploit the prior inventions of new hires. Management Science, 57(1), 129–150.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Slavova, K., Fosfuri, A., & De Castro, J. O. (2015). Learning by hiring: The effects of scientists’ inbound mobility on research performance in Academia. Organization Science, 27(1), 72–89.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1026.Google Scholar
  70. Somaya, D., Williamson, I. O., & Lorinkova, N. (2008). Gone but not lost: The different performance impacts of employee mobility between cooperators versus competitors. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 936–953.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.34789660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235.Google Scholar
  72. Stern, S. (2004). Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science, 50(6), 835–853.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Heeringen, A., & Dijkwel, P. (1987). The relationships between age, mobility and scientific productivity. Part I. Scientometrics, 11(5–6), 267–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02279349.Google Scholar
  74. Waldinger, F. (2012). Peer effects in science: Evidence from the dismissal of scientists in Nazi Germany. The Review of Economic Studies, 79(2), 838–861.  https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdr029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wezel, F. C., Cattani, G., & Pennings, J. M. (2006). Competitive implications of interfirm mobility. Organization Science, 17(6), 691–709.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Strategy and InnovationCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Strategy and InnovationCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  3. 3.Fisher College of BusinessThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations