Strategic commitment versus flexibility: the influence of target proprietary know-how on acquirer post-acqui-hire performance

Purpose This study aims to resolve a key strategic dilemma in acqui-hires: whether to pursue a strategy of “strategic commitment” (immediate integration) or “flexibility” (deferral) to unlock the value of a target's proprietary know-how. It investigates which real options logic yields superior post-acqui-hire performance and adjudicates between them using intellectual capital contingencies. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on real options theory and the intellectual capital framework, this study frames the integration choice as a contest between exercising a “growth option” and holding a “deferral option.” Using a unique dataset of 208 acqui-hires (2005–2021), ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models test how a target's proprietary know-how (structural capital) influences acquirer performance, and how this relationship is moderated by the founder's entrepreneurial experience (human capital) and venture capital (VC)-backed status (relational capital). Findings The analysis reveals that while target proprietary know-how is positively associated with acquirer performance, this effect is significantly strengthened by the founder's entrepreneurial experience and the target's VC-backed status. These findings provide strong empirical support for the strategic commitment perspective, suggesting that proactive structural integration to preempt talent flight is superior to a cautious, flexibility-based approach. Originality/value The study opens the “black box” of acqui-hire value creation by demonstrating that structural integration is critical for converting tacit human capital into firm performance. It refines real options theory for human-centric assets by identifying that the “option to wait” is eroded by asset depreciation risks, and extends entrepreneurship literature by tracing the post-acquisition value of founder capital.