Why Marshall
Leadership
Dean Geoffrey Garrett
Dean's Cabinet
Boards
Real-World Learning
Human Leadership
Tech Fluency
Global Opportunities
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Teaching + Innovation
Experiential Learning Center
Open Expression Statement
Programs
Undergraduate Programs
Admissions
Degrees
BS Business Administration (BUAD)
Business Emphases
BS Accounting (ACCT)
World Bachelor in Business (WBB)
BS Business of Cinematic Arts (BCA)
BS Artificial Intelligence for Business (BUAI)
Undergraduate Minors
Graduate Programs
MBA Programs
Full-Time MBA (FTMBA)
Executive MBA (EMBA)
Part-Time MBA (MBA.PM)
International MBA (IBEAR)
Online MBA (OMBA)
Specialized Masters
MS Business Administration (MSBUSAD)
MS Business Analytics (MSBA)
MS Entrepreneurship + Innovation (MSEI)
MS Finance (MSF)
MS Global Supply Chain Management (MSGSCM)
MS Marketing (MSMKT)
MS Social Entrepreneurship (MSSE)
Master of Business for Veterans (MBV)
Master of Management Studies (MMS)
Accounting Masters
Master of Accounting (MAcc)
Master of Business Taxation (MBT)
Master of Business Taxation for Working Professionals (MBT.WP)
PhD Program
Accounting
Data Sciences + Operations
Finance
Management + Organization
Marketing
Graduate Certificates
GC in Business Analytics
GC in Financial Analysis + Valuation
GC in Management Studies
GC in Marketing
GC in Optimization + Supply Chain Management
GC in Strategy + Management Consulting
GC in Sustainability + Business
GC in Technology Commercialization
GC in Library and Information Management – Online
Executive Education Redirect
Departments
Business Communication (BUCO)
Faculty
Data Sciences and Operations (DSO)
Finance + Business Economics (FBE)
Leventhal School of Accounting (ACCT)
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies (BAEP)
Management and Organization (MOR)
Marketing (MKT)
Institutes + Centers
Peter Arkley Institute for Risk Management
Brittingham Social Enterprise Lab
Center for Investment Studies
Initiative on Digital Competition
Randall R. Kendrick Global Supply Chain Institute
Center for Effective Organizations
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
VanEck Digital Assets Initiative
Institute for Outlier Research in Business
Center for Global Innovation
Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making
Trojan Network
Recruiting
Undergraduate
Graduate
Career Services
Giving + Support
Alumni Engagement + Resources
Student Organizations
Commencement
Hyo Kang is an Assistant Professor of Management and Organization at USC Marshall School of Business. Hyo’s research broadly lies in firm strategy and business economics, with a focus on technological innovation and entrepreneurship. The key question in his research is how entrepreneurs as well as established firms strategically manage their innovation processes and outcomes in response to ever-changing business environments – both market and nonmarket dimensions. His works explore three different types of competition – product market competition, competition for labor forces, and competition for intellectual property rights – and how relevant policies reshape firm innovation strategies.Hyo earned his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business (Business and Public Policy Group). He holds a B.A. in Economics and an M.A. in Business Administration from Seoul National University.
Areas of Expertise
NEWS + EVENTS
Research Informing Policy
Professor Hyo Kang’s research cited in FTC-recommended policy change.
Awards Season
USC Marshall announced a number of awards to faculty and staff in an end-of-semester virtual ceremony.
RESEARCH + PUBLICATIONS
Knowledge protection strategies are crucial to innovating firms facing the risk of knowledge leakage. We examine the threat of worker departure as a key mechanism through which firms choose between patents and secrecy. We exploit a 1998 California court decision that ruled out-of-state noncompetes were not enforceable in California, thereby creating a loophole limiting non-California firms in their enforcement of noncompetes against their workers. When facing a higher threat of worker departure, firms strategically increased patent filings, exchanging legal protection for public disclosure of the invention. These effects were magnified for large-sized firms and for those in complex and fast-growing industries. Further mechanism tests on the possession of trade secrets, inventor migration, saliency of the decision, and independent inventors support our theoretical account.
Despite the upsurge in cross-border R&D collaboration within multinational corporations (MNCs), firms often fail to realize the full potential of cross-border R&D teams. We examine under what conditions geographic diversity might lead to higher or lower innovation performance by focusing on the moderating roles of team composition. We first demonstrate that the geographic diversity of an MNC’s research team has a curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) relationship with the team’s innovation performance. Building upon group learning theory, we further claim that this non-linear relationship is strengthened by the technical experience heterogeneity of researchers but weakened by repeated collaboration among researchers. Our analyses on the top 25 multinational pharmaceutical companies and their 59,998 patents registered from 1981 to 2012 provide strong support for our hypotheses. When geographic diversity is relatively low, teams with different levels of technical experience and more fresh collaborators improve performance by amplifying the benefits of sourcing diverse knowledge. With high geographic dispersion, on the other hand, minimal experience heterogeneity and more instances of past collaboration lead to better performance by facilitating the integration of diverse knowledge. The results shed light on the importance of technical and social relationships among researchers in sourcing and integrating location-specific knowledge and ultimately enhancing team performance.
Most research on non‐competes has focused on employees; here we study how non‐competes affect firm location choice, growth, and consequent regional concentration, using Florida's 1996 legislative change that eased restrictions on their enforcement. Difference‐in‐differences models show that following the change, establishments of large firms were more likely to enter Florida; they also created a greater proportion of jobs and increased their share of employment in the state. Entrepreneurs or establishments of small firms, in contrast, were less likely to enter Florida following the law change; they also created a smaller proportion of new jobs and decreased their share of employment. Consistent with these location and job creation dynamics, regional business concentration increased following the law change in Florida. Nationwide cross‐sections demonstrate consistent correlations between state‐level non‐compete enforcement and the location, employment, and concentration dynamics illustrated in Florida.
This study examines factors underlying three phases of change or persistence in industrial leadership in the sector of interchangeable-lens cameras over the past century. During this period there were two major phases of leadership change, both associated with the emergence of innovations involving major discontinuities in the industry’s core technologies. First, Japan won market leadership from Germany in the mid-1960s after commercializing the single-lens reflex (SLR) camera that replaced the previously dominant German rangefinder camera. Second, in the late-2000s, Japanese latecomer firms and a Korean firm developed Mirrorless cameras, which allowed them to capture the majority of market share from the incumbent Japanese leaders. We also examine the long period (about 60 years) between these two phases of change, during which leading Japanese firms were able to sustain their market leadership despite the digital revolution from the 1980s to 1990s. This paper explores the factors influencing these contrasting experiences of change and persistence in industry leadership. The analysis integrates several aspects of sectoral innovation systems – i.e., windows of opportunity associated with technology, demand, and institution – as well as the strategies of incumbents and latecomer firms. The conclusions highlight the complex and diverse combinations and importance of the factors that help explain the patterns of shifts in leadership.