Mgt 791 syllabus - WordPress.com
29
1 MGT 791: Strategic Management Spring 2012 Glenn Hoetker Room BA 323E, Wednesday, 1:00—3:30 [email protected] Room BA 367G http://hoetker.faculty.asu.edu Version of 1/5/2012 Overview and Objectives This course is a doctoral level seminar on the major theoretical approaches to the field of business policy / strategic management (hereafter strategy). The main objective of the course is to familiarize students with the basic assumptions, concepts and theories underlying the field. Because strategy is an evolving subject area and undergoing continual change, be forewarned: the boundaries of the field are fuzzy, subjective, and open to interpretation and reinterpretation. In addition, students should realize that in 15 weeks the topics and readings chosen are inevitably a subset of those with which doctoral students need to be familiar. The idea of the course, then, is to provide you with an exposure to some of the major theoretical ‘lenses’ underpinning the field. Further exploration on the part of the student is not just a good idea; it is essential. In this sense, the course is an important building block for the major milestones ahead in the Ph.D. program at ASU: comprehensive examinations, dissertation proposal, and, ultimately, the dissertation itself. In addition, the seminar will emphasize the following objectives: 1. Each student should develop a mental model of the literature in Strategic Management and show an understanding of and appreciation for the key concepts and theories in Strategy. 2. Each student should be able to critically review academic, practitioner, and peer research and develop constructive reviews of such literature. 3. Each student should develop new ideas and/or approaches that advance some portion of the theory/research in Strategic Management. 4. Each student should be able to communicate both verbally and in writing, current knowledge, critical evaluations and new ideas in strategic management topics developed in this seminar. Course structure This seminar is intended to develop you as a contributor to the scholarly community. As such, you are expected to be an active participant in not only your learning, but also that of your peers. The class is discussionoriented. My role is not to lecture, but rather to guide and facilitate the discussion. Obviously, this only works if we are all well prepared for thoughtful discussion.
Transcript of Mgt 791 syllabus - WordPress.com
1
MGT 791: Strategic Management Spring 2012 Glenn Hoetker
Room BA 323E, Wednesday, 1:00—3:30
Room BA 367G http://hoetker.faculty.asu.edu
Version of 1/5/2012
Overview and Objectives
This course is a doctoral level seminar on the major theoretical approaches to the field of business policy / strategic management (hereafter strategy). The main objective of the course is to familiarize students with the basic assumptions, concepts and theories underlying the field. Because strategy is an evolving subject area and undergoing continual change, be forewarned: the boundaries of the field are fuzzy, subjective, and open to interpretation and reinterpretation. In addition, students should realize that in 15 weeks the topics and readings chosen are inevitably a subset of those with which doctoral students need to be familiar. The idea of the course, then, is to provide you with an exposure to some of the major theoretical ‘lenses’ underpinning the field. Further exploration on the part of the student is not just a good idea; it is essential. In this sense, the course is an important building block for the major milestones ahead in the Ph.D. program at ASU: comprehensive examinations, dissertation proposal, and, ultimately, the dissertation itself. In addition, the seminar will emphasize the following objectives:
1. Each student should develop a mental model of the literature in Strategic Management and show an understanding of and appreciation for the key concepts and theories in Strategy.
2. Each student should be able to critically review academic, practitioner, and peer research and develop constructive reviews of such literature.
3. Each student should develop new ideas and/or approaches that advance some portion of the theory/research in Strategic Management.
4. Each student should be able to communicate both verbally and in writing, current knowledge, critical evaluations and new ideas in strategic management topics developed in this seminar.
Course structure
This seminar is intended to develop you as a contributor to the scholarly community. As such, you are expected to be an active participant in not only your learning, but also that of your peers. The class is discussion-‐oriented. My role is not to lecture, but rather to guide and facilitate the discussion. Obviously, this only works if we are all well prepared for thoughtful discussion.
2
Since this is a foundations course, we need to balance depth and breadth. Depth requires that are able to discuss a common set of papers, which works against breadth. Structure of each session These factors drive the design of this course. Each session will include
• Discussion of the class readings • Discussion of the individual papers. See below for details. • Reviewing and publishing.
Discussion of class readings1 One or more students will be assigned as the lead discussant for each session. To perform the responsibility of the lead discussant, you will need to become completely familiar with the subject matter (be sure to read the material more than once!) and think through the issues critically. If the content seems difficult, the lead discussant should work to at least be clear on what the problems are, even if the answer does not seem evident. The lead discussant role is to make sure that the discussions proceed in a meaningful manner along well-‐informed ideas.
To assist in your preparation of this role, the lead discussant is responsible for preparing a written summary of the assigned material. These can be in the form of Word or PowerPoint documents. Please post your summary on the course’s Blackboard page by Wed 9 a.m. in your assigned week. You should plan on no more than a 10 minute introduction of the overall topic, and no more than a 5 minute introduction of each assigned article (you may assume that everyone is familiar with the work, having read the assigned material at least once). The summary can be in outline form, but the content should focus on not merely regurgitating the material, but on abstracting the main points, and conducting a critical evaluation. In particular, your written summary should include:
1. Complete citation of book/paper 2. Definition of key concepts 3. Assumptions, theoretical arguments, and their justification 4. Conclusions, and theoretical/empirical significance of results 5. Your evaluation of the papers strengths and weaknesses 6. Identified linkages to other concepts and models
These papers are our common base for the session, so every student is expected to have read them thoughtfully and be prepared to contribute insights and, especially, questions. Discussion of individual papers Each student not leading the discussion of class readings is responsible for preparing and delivering a summary/analysis of one paper from this section. Most weeks this means willl only discuss a subset of the papers listed. You are not expected to read the other papers in the individual papers section, but are certainly welcome to!
For your paper, you will prepare a 1-‐3 page summary/analysis. Each write-‐up will be distributed to all class participants, meaning that at the end of the semester students will
1 Thanks to Rajshree Agarwal of the University of Maryland for much of this wording!
3
have a large collection of article summaries – an excellent way to prepare for comprehensive exams. These summaries will be from one to three pages (typed, single spaced) in length, and will have the following format:
1. Complete citation of reading 2. Summarized by: student’s name 3. The research question 4. The theoretical basis for the argument 5. The principal hypotheses 6. Empirical approach 7. Key findings 8. Theoretical and empirical significance 9. Your brief evaluation of the papers strengths and weaknesses
The purpose of this segment is to combine our efforts in order to acquaint each of us with a broad swath of research. In order to do that, it is necessary for each of us to provide a careful, concise write-‐up. Long sloppy “summaries” of a paper are easier to produce, but are not useful and will be evaluated accordingly.
Please post your summary on the course’s Blackboard page by Wed 9 a.m. in your assigned week Be prepared to introduce your paper in under 10 minutes, as well as answer questions regarding it. Remember that your classmates have probably not read the paper. You are expected to be an active participant when your fellow students are presenting. In particular, help us explore questions like:
ü What is missing? ü What relevant questions aren’t
answered? ü What are the article’s broader
implications? ü What assumptions does this
perspective make about people? Firms? Markets?
ü How tenable are those assumptions? ü You might also want to compare and
contrast the articles on the questions above: How are these articles similar or different?
ü What studies should be done to develop theory in the area under discussion?
We will conclude this part of each session by outlining new research questions that are raised by the research -‐-‐ you will be able to define extensions of the research, unanswered questions, and avenues for future research. Reviewing and publishing Our long-‐term success in the professions depends on our ability to navigate the publication process as authors. To a degree many do not appreciate, our ability to contribute to that process as referees also influences our success. In sessions 2-‐7, we will discuss deciding where to publish, responding to referees and editors, and writing a good referee report. I will expect you to prepare thoughtfully for each session, although the only written assignment is the referee report you will prepare for session 7. In sessions 8-‐13, we will
4
focus on the scholarly writing process, working towards the research paper you will turn in at the end of the semester. Research Paper
Your goal for the research paper is to prepare a draft of (at least the front end of) a publication-‐quality article. The focus of the paper is up to you. You may choose, for example, to develop an in-‐depth critique of a particular point of view; expose critical and non-‐obvious inconsistencies between the approaches; pursue in-‐depth development of testable hypotheses concerning a theory or confluence of theories; develop an empirical research design aimed at theory development or testing; or conduct empirical research using real data. In evaluating your paper, my central criterion will be that of significance: how important are the ideas or empirical results that you generate for advancing the state of the art in strategic management research? The work must advance well beyond a simple literature review. You must use this paper as an opportunity to push the thinking within the field forward in a significant way. In general, a paper of 15-‐25 pages is sufficient to accomplish this purpose. The paper will be due during our final class meeting, at which time you will also briefly present the work (see below)
Course Evaluation Grading reflects the primary ‘outcome objective’ of the class, namely to prepare students with a foundation of knowledge needed to succeed as scholars in the strategy field. Final grades will be based on
• Classroom contribution, including discussion and weekly article summaries (35%) • Reviewing and publishing activities (15%) • Pseudo-‐comp exam in session 6 (10%) • Research paper and presentation (40%)
5
Overview of Class Topics
Sess Date Topic
1 1/11/12 What is Strategic Management?
2 1/18/12 Being a Strategy Researcher in a Business School
3 1/25/12 Industrial organization economics
4 2/1/12 Vertical scope and Transaction Costs
5 2/8/12 Capabilities and the Resource Based View
6 2/15/12 Pseudo-‐comp
7 2/22/12 Sources of Resource-‐based advantages
8 2/29/12 Schumpeterian/Dynamic View of Strategy
9 3/7/12 Governance, agency & resource dependence theories
10 3/14/12 TMT and upper echelons
3/21/12 No class-‐-‐spring break
11 3/28/12 Networks and Strategy
12 4/4/12 Diversification
13 4/11/12 Socio-‐cognitive views of Strategy
14 4/18/12 Strategic Process: Goals and Decision Making
Final Final exam: What do we know about performance heterogeneity?
6
Session 1: What is Strategic Management? Background and key questions This week’s readings introduce the field of strategic management. There is actually not a clear consensus on what strategy even is, which raises interesting questions about how to study it. I would start with Porter (1996) and Mitzenberg & Waters as views on what strategy is as a phenomenon. Then read Nag et al and Hoskinsson et al for views of what strategic management is as a scholarly field. Lastly, Barney and Porter (1981) introduce two significant approaches to strategy. We’ll discuss each paper as a class. In particular, we’ll try to develop answers to the following questions. Also, please be prepared to briefly introduce yourself and your research interests.
1. How would you define strategy? 2. How would you define strategy as a scholarly field?
Class readings Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1): 99-‐120. Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M., Wan, W., & Yiu, D., 1999. Theory and research in strategic
management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 417-‐456. Mintzberg H, Waters JA. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic
Management Journal 6(3): 257-‐272 Nag, R., Hambrick, D.C., and Chen, M.J. 2007. What is strategic management, really?
Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal. 28: 935-‐956.
Porter ME. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review 74(6): 61-‐78 Porter, M.E. 1981. The contributions of industrial organization to strategic
management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4): 609-‐620. Reviewing and publishing Trust me on this one. Before class, please watch Adam Savage’s TED/EG 2009 talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/adam_savage_s_obsessions.html). While putatively about “His fascination with the dodo bird, and how it led him on a strange and surprising double quest,” I think there are some worthwhile insights we can apply to our work as academics. What ideas, positive or negative, do you think we can take from his talk and apply to our work as academics?
A few reference points you might find helpful.
• Savage hosts the TV show, Mythbusters, which involves testing the validity of urban myths—often in ways that involve mayhem and explosions. You can find his bio at http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/meet/adam-‐savage.html.
• The dodo was a flightless bird driven to extinction by European settlers and their pets.
• The Maltese Falcon was the valuable statue at the heart of the famous detective novel and movie of the same name.
7
Session 2: Being a Strategy Researcher in a Business School Background and key questions Having focused on what strategic management is, we turn this week to what it means (or should mean) to research strategic management. Most fields of the physical and social sciences have fairly clear paradigms, which delineate assumptions, methods, and even legitimate areas of inquiry. There is debate, however, over (a) whether strategy has an underlying paradigm, (b) whether an underlying paradigm would be a good or bad thing, and (c) how strategy should appropriately relate to strongly paradigmatic disciplines such as sociology and economics. We’re not going to settle these debates, but we do need to think about their affect on the research we read, review and conduct.
I’ve selected 7 papers that will help us do so. Each has something to offer, but a coherent discussion will require us to focus our reading. Please start by reading Montgomery et al and Hambrick, focusing on their different views on the appropriate role of theory in strategy research. Moving from what should be to what is and why it matters, then read Glick et al and Boyd et al. For Boyd, focus the definitions and research question (pages 841-‐843) and the discussion of findings and implications (pages 851-‐853). Next, read Agarwal & Hoetker, which examines the relationship of management research to related disciplines, focusing on the questions and background (pages 1304-‐1308) and findings (1317-‐1320). The final two papers, Mahoney & McGahan and Davis, speak primarily to what makes a research question interesting and important. Davis merits repeated readings, but for today, read Part 1, especially sections 3-‐5; skim part 2, reading the twelve logical categories that constitute an ’Index of the Interesting’ without getting hung up on the details of his comments; and read just the first three sections of part 3, stopping on page 334. Class readings
Agarwal R, Hoetker G. 2007. A faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationship with related disciplines. Academy of Management Journal 50(6): 1304-‐1322
Boyd, B., Finkelstein, S., & Gove, S. 2005. How advanced is the strategy paradigm? The role of particularism and universalism in shaping research outcomes, Strategic Management Journal, 26: 841-‐854.
Davis MS. 1971. That's interesting!: Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1(2): 309-‐344
Glick, W.H., Miller, C.C., and Cardinal, L.B. 2007. Making a life in the field of organizational science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7): 817-‐835 .
Hambrick, D.C. 2004. The disintegration of strategic management: It's time to consolidate our gains Strategic Organization, 2(1): 91-‐98 .
Mahoney, J.T. and McGahan, A.M. 2007. The field of strategic management within the evolving science of strategic organizations, Strategic Organization, 5(1): 79-‐99.
Montgomery CA, Wernerfelt B, Balakrishnan S. 1989. Strategy content and the research process -‐ a critique and commentary. Strategic Management Journal 10(2): 189-‐197
8
Reviewing and publishing Perceived journal quality is one obvious consideration in deciding where to publish your work. Read the BPS survey of strategy journals and Podsakoff, Mackenzie,Bachrach and Podsakoff (2005). Focus on the take-‐aways, not the details. Note that the BPS survey is now 8 years old—we’ll discuss in class what has (and hasn’t) changed since then. 1. What do these two readings suggest to you about the best place to publish your work?
2. What other considerations should come into play when deciding where to publish?
9
Session 3: Industrial Organization Economics: Background and key questions Economics is a significant contributor to strategy research. While we could focus on many aspects of economics, I/O has clearly shaped strategy research most directly. Class readings
Caves, R. 1984. Economic analysis and the quest for competitive advantage. American Economic Review, March/April: 127-‐132.
Demsetz, H. 1973. Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1): 1-‐9.
Rumelt, R., D. Schendel & D. Teece 1991. Strategic management and economics. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, 12: 5-‐29.
Rumelt, R.P. 1991. How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal. Stigler, G.J. 1964. A theory of oligopoly. Journal of Political Economy. 72(1): 44-‐61.
Individual readings Caves RE, Ghemawat P. 1992. Identifying mobility barriers. Strategic Management
Journal 13(1): 1-‐12 Cool K, Djerickx I. 1993. Rivalry, strategic groups and firm profitability. Strategic
Management Journal 14(1): 47-‐59 Demsetz H. 1982. Barriers to entry. The American Economic Review 72(1): 47-‐57 McGahan, A. & Porter, M. 2005. Comment on ‘Industry, corporate and business-‐segment
effects and business performance: A non-‐parametric approach’ by Ruefli and Wiggins. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 873-‐880 and Ruefli, T. & R. Wiggins. 2005. Response to McGahan and Porter’s commentary on ‘Industry, corporate and business-‐segment effects and business performance: A non-‐parametric approach.’ Strategic Management Journal, 26: 881-‐886.
Porter ME. 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal 12(S2): 95-‐117
Ravenscraft DJ. 1983. Structure-‐profit relationship at the line of business and industry level. The Review of Economics and Statistics 65(1): 22-‐31
Stigler GJ. 1951. The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. Journal of Political Economy 59(3): 185-‐193
Reviewing and publishing I have included the reviews I received from AMJ on a paper with Will Mitchell and Anand Swaminathan. Please read through them. Since you’ve not read the paper, I don’t expect you to have any comments on the accuracy of the comments, but please think about the following issues: 1. Are the comments substantive? 2. Are the comments actionable? 3. Any thoughts about tone? 4. Do any comments seem inappropriate to you? 5. Before sending the article off to another journal, how much would you revise it? In your mind, what determines what you should revise?
10
Session 4: Vertical scope and Transaction Costs Background and key questions Few paradigms attract quite as much ferver as transaction costs economics (TCE). For its believers, it is an elegant, logically coherent and empirically supported approach to understanding diverse aspects of firm behavior and policy making. Others view it as misguided and misanthropic. Start with Williamson and Hart for background, Oxley for application, and David & Han and Ghoshal & Moran for counterpoint.
1. What is bounded rationality and why does it matter? 2. What is asset specificity and why does it matter? 3. What is opportunism and why does it matter? 4. Are these the appropriate base concepts for a theory of strategy?
Class readings David RJ, Han SK. 2004. A systematic assessment of the empirical support for
transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal 25(1): 39-‐58 Hart, O. 1989. An economist's perspective on the theory of the firm. Columbia Law
Review. 89: 1757-‐74. Ghoshal, S. & P. Moran 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory.
Academy of Management Review, 21: 13-‐47. Plus comment by Williamson and reply by G&M.
Oxley JE. 1997. Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: A transaction cost approach. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 13(2): 387-‐409
Williamson, O. 1988. The logic of economic organization. Journal of Law, Economics & Organizations, 4: 65-‐93.
Individual readings Argyres NS, Liebeskind JP. 1999. Contractual commitments, bargaining power, and
governance inseparability: Incorporating history into transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review 24(1): 49-‐63
Balakrishnan S, Wernerfelt B. 1986. Technical change, competition and vertical integration. Strategic Management Journal 7(4): 347-‐359
Crocker KJ, Masten SE. 1991. Pretia ex machina? Prices and process in long-‐term contracts. Journal of Law and Economics 34(1): 69-‐99
Dyer, J. 1997. Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 535-‐556.
Gulati R. 1995. Does familiarity breed trust -‐ the implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal 38(1): 85-‐112
Hoetker G, Mellewigt T. 2009. Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: Matching alliance governance to asset type. Strategic Management Journal 30(10): 1025-‐1044
Klein B, Crawford RG, Alchian AA. 1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. Journal of Law and Economics 21(2): 297-‐326
Masten, S.E., J.W. Meehan, Jr., and E.A. Snyder. (1991). "The costs of organization," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, pp. 1-‐25.
11
Mayer KJ, Argyres NS. 2004. Learning to contract: Evidence from the personal computer industry. Organization Science 15(4): 394
Ouchi, W. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129-‐141.
Oxley JE. 1997. Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: A transaction cost approach. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 13(2): 387-‐409
Poppo L, Zenger T. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal 23(8): 707-‐725
Sampson R. 2004. The cost of misaligned governance in R&D alliances. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 20(2): 484-‐526
Walker G, Weber D. 1984. A transaction cost approach to make-‐or-‐buy decisions. Administrative Science Quarterly 29(3): 373-‐391
Zajac, E.J. and C.P. Olsen. (1993). "From transaction cost to transactional value analysis: Implications for the study of interorganizational strategies," Journal of Management Studies, 30, pp. 131-‐145.
Reviewing and publishing After the paper was rejected at AMJ, we sent it to Management Science with certain revisions. I have included the reviews we received from Mgt. Science. In light of the questions from the prior session, be ready to compare and contrast the reviews from Management Science and AMJ. [I should note that I’ve received reviews of varying quality from each journal.]
1. What makes a review “good”?
2. How can you increase your chances of receiving a useful review?
12
Session 5: The resource-‐based view of the firm (RBV) and other “capabilities” approaches Background and key questions Somewhat less contentious than TCE, the capabilities literature focuses on the value of a firm’s resources and capabilities. There are several related formulations within this literature, RBV being a dominant one. Start with Barney, Dierickx & Cool, Penrose, and Wernerfelt. With that as background, move onto the three article discussion between Priem & Butler and Barney. Henderson & Cockburn provide an empirical application.
1. What is the fundamental logic of RBV? 2. Do you find it credible? Is there a risk of tautology? 3. What questions is it well equiped to answer?
Class readings Barney JB. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy.
Management Science 32: 1231-‐1241 Dierickx, I. & K. Cool. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive
advantage. Management Science, 35:1504-‐1511. Henderson R, Cockburn I. 1994. Measuring competence -‐ exploring firm effects in
pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal 15: 63-‐84 Penrose, E.T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 8-‐41. Priem, R. & Butler, J., 2001. “Is the resource-‐based view a useful perspective for
strategic management research?” Academy of Management Review, 22-‐40 and Barney, J. 2001. Is the resource-‐based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 41-‐56 and Priem, R. & Butler, J. 2001. Tautology in the resource-‐based view and the implication of externally determined resource value: Further comments. Academy of Management Review, 26: 57-‐66.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171-‐180.
Individual readings Argyres N. 1996. Evidence on the role of firm capabilities in vertical integration
decisions. Strategic Management Journal 17(2): 129-‐150 Amit, R. and PJ.H. Schoemaker. (1993). "Strategic assets and organizational rent,"
Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 33-‐46. Conner KR, Prahalad CK. 1996. A resource-‐based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus
opportunism. Organization Science: 477-‐501 Hoetker G. 2005. How much you know versus how well i know you: Selecting a supplier
for a technically innovative component. Strategic Management Journal 26(1): 75-‐96 Leiblein MJ, Miller DJ. 2003. An empirical examination of transaction-‐and firm-‐level
influences on the vertical boundaries of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 24(9): 839
Miller D, Shamsie J. 1996. The resource-‐based view of the firm in two environments: The hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal 39(3): 519-‐543
13
Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS. 1998. Technological overlap and interfirm
cooperation: Implications for the resource-‐based view of the firm. Research Policy 27(5): 507-‐523
Winter, S.G. (1988). "On Coase, competence, and the corporation," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 4, pp. 163-‐80.
Reviewing and publishing This week I’ve provided the response letter we wrote to Management Science. Please look it over in advance and we’ll discuss it. A few things to think about:
1. What is our goal in this revision?
2. How important is it to agree with the reviewer? In preparation for the referee report you will write for the next session, we will discuss strategies for writing a report efficiently.
14
Session 6: Pseudo-‐comp Background and key questions/Class readings/Individual readings During class, you’ll have an open note exam in which you can use 3 hours to complete the answer to one question of two provided. The questions will be “comp-‐like” in that they extend across sessions we’ve had to date. Your answer should integrate across readings, cite references in the text, but it is not necessary to provide a reference section. This is deemed a “pseudo” comp exam because the questions will be over limited material and only those readings we’ve had in class are expected to be a part of your knowledge at the time of the exam. If you’ve been keeping up with class discussion and are well-‐organized, no additional preparation should be necessary. Reviewing and publishing Now it’s your turn to write a referee report. For the provided working paper, please provide a referee report, including notes to the author and notes to the editor. Please provide a brief, focused review of no more than three pages. For planning purposes, please note that I find writing a good referee report normally takes me between 5 and 8 hours of solid effort. We’ll discuss these next week.
15
Session 7: Sources of Resource-‐based advantages Background and key questions Now we turn to where resource based advantages come from and what makes them sources of sustained competive advantage. As knowledge is one critical resource, we’ll expand into what some would call the knowledge-‐based view of the firm. Start with Peteraf to frame the question, followed by Lieberman & Montgomery, Reed & DeFillippi, and Cohen & Levinthal for an examination of underlying mechanisms. Close with Capron & Pistre as an empirical application. Class readings
Capron, L. & Pistre, N. 2002. When do acquirers earn abnormal returns? Strategic Management Journal, 23: 781-‐794.
Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128-‐152
Lieberman, M. & Montgomery, D. 1988. First-‐mover advantages, Strategic Management Journal, 9: 41-‐58.
Peteraf. M. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-‐based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179-‐191.
Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R.J. 1990. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1): 88-‐102.
Individual readings Ahuja, G. & R. Katila. 2004. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic
situations. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 887-‐907. Hall, R. 1993. A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable
competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 607-‐618. Helfat, C. E., & Lieberman, M. B. 2002. The birth of capabilities: market entry and the
importance of pre-‐history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4): 725-‐760. Hoetker G, Agarwal R. 2007. Death hurts, but it isn't fatal: The postexit diffusion of
knowledge created by innovative companies. Academy of Management Journal 50(2): 446-‐467
King, A. & Zeithaml, C. 2001. Competencies and firm performance: Examining the causal ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 75-‐99.
Kogut B, Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3): 383-‐397
Lieberman MB. 1987. The learning-‐curve, diffusion, and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal 8(5): 441-‐452
Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. 1982. Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2): 418-‐438.
Reviewing and publishing We will discuss the referee reports you turned in last week.
16
Session 8: Schumpeterian/Dynamic View of Strategy Background and key questions As competitive environments change, firms must develop resources and capabilities that will create value in the new environment. The dynamic capabilities literature began, in many ways, as an extension of RBV, but was developed beyond that. This week’s readings bring together several strands all relate to a dynamic view of strategy. Jacobson sets the overall stage nicely. Then skim Nelson & Winter’s work on routines. Then read Teece et al and Eisenhardt & Martin as formal statements of the dynamic capabilities literature. Switching gears somewhat to the role of competitive response in strategy, close with Chen et al.
Everyone should skim Nelson and Winter and be ready to discuss it. I will lead the discussion on it.
1. What do we gain or lose by focusing on dynamics? 2. How do dynamic capabilities relate to routines?
Class readings Chen, M-‐J, Smith, K.F., & Grimm, C.M., 1992. Action characteristics as predictors of
competitive responses. Management Science, 439-‐455. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they?
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-‐11): 1105-‐1121. Jacobson, R., 1992. The ‘Austrian’ school of strategy. Academy of Management Review,
782-‐807. Nelson, R. and S. G. Winter (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Chapters 3-‐5. Teece, D.J., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509-‐33. Individual readings
Afuah, A. 2001. Dynamic boundaries of the firm: are firms better off being vertically integrated in the face of a technological change? Academy of Management Journal 44(6): 1211-‐28.
Barnett WP, Greve HR, Park DY. 1994. An evolutionary model of organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal 15(Winter): 11-‐28
Brown, Shona and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. 1997. "The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-‐Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly 42:1-‐34.
Chen PL, Williams C, Agarwal R. 2010. Growing pains: Pre-‐entry experience and the challenge of transition to incumbency. Strategic Management Journal
Ferrier, W.J., Smith, K.G., & Grimm, C.M., 1999. The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry dethronement: A study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of Management Journal, 372-‐388.
Karim S, Mitchell W. 2000. Path-‐dependent and path-‐breaking change: Reconfiguring business resources following acquisitions in the U.S. medical sector, 1978-‐1995. Strategic Management Journal 21(10-‐11): 1061-‐1081
17
Langlois R. 1992. Transaction-‐costs economics in real time. Industrial and Corporate Change 1(1): 99-‐127
Leonard-‐Barton, Dorothy (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (Summer): 111-‐125.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-‐87.
Mitchell W, Singh K. 1993. Death of the lethargic -‐ effects of expansion into new technical subfields on performance in a firms base business. Organization Science 4(2): 152-‐180
Mitchell W, Singh K. 1995. Spillback effects of expansion when product-‐types and firm-‐ types differ. Journal of Management 21(1): 81-‐100
Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge, and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities, Organization Science, 11(4): 448-‐469, 2000.
Zollo, M. & Winter, S. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 339-‐354.
Reviewing and publishing Write a research question that would motivate a paper you want to write. Bring two copies to class, one to submit and one to discuss.
18
Session 9: Governance, Agency & Resource Dependence Theories Background and key questions Both agency and resource dependence focus on how some aspect of the firm relate to dependencies across the firm boundry and how firms and managers respond to these. Start with the basics of agency theory: Eisenhardt, Fama & Jensen and Jensen & Meckling. Then read Pfeffer & Salancick and Hillman et al on resource dependence. The two come together in Hillman & Dalziel.
1. What are the central assumptions within agency theory? Do you believe them? 2. What are the central assumptions of resource dependence theory? Do you believe
them? Class readings
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57-‐74.
Fama, E. & Jensen, M. 1983 Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301-‐325.
Hillman AJ, Withers MC, Collins BJ. 2009. Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management 35(6): 1404-‐1427
Hillman, A. & Dalziel, T. 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource-‐dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review. 28: 383-‐396.
Jensen, M. & Meckling, W. 1976 Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-‐360.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. 1978. The External Control of Organizations, pp. 39-‐54 and143-‐170.
Individual readings Hoetker G, Swaminathan A, Mitchell W. 2007. The impact of buyer-‐supplier
relationships on the survival of modular and architectural component suppliers. Management Science 53(2): 178-‐191
Johnson, J., Daily, C. & Ellstrand, A. 1996 Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22: 409-‐438. *
Nickerson JA, Zenger TR. 2004. A knowledge-‐based theory of the firm: The problem-‐solving perspective. Organization Science 15(6): 617-‐632
Poppo L, Zenger T. 1998. Testing alternative theories of the firm: Transaction cost, knowledge-‐based, and measurement explanations for make-‐or-‐buy decisions in information services. Strategic Management Journal 19(9): 853-‐877
Reuer JJ, Ragozzino R. 2006. Agency hazards and alliance portfolios. Strategic Management Journal 27(1): 27-‐43
Robinson DT, Stuart TE. 2007. Financial contracting in biotech strategic alliances. Journal of Law & Economics 50(3): 559-‐595
Sundaramurthy, Chamu, James M. Mahoney and Joseph T. Mahoney (1997). Board structure, antitakeover provisions, and stockholder wealth. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (3): 231-‐245.
19
Walsh, James P. and James K. Seward (1990). On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15 (3): 421-‐458.
Zenger TR. 1994. Explaining organizational diseconomies of scale in research-‐ and-‐development -‐ agency problems and the allocation of engineering talent, ideas, and effort by firm size. Management Science 40(6): 708-‐729
Reviewing and publishing Submit as one document your revised research question and one or more hypotheses you would test as part of this paper. Again, bring two copies.
20
Session 10: TMT and upper echelons Background and key questions A firm’s top management has a decisive effect on the quality and nature of a firm’s strategy. Thus, it is important to understand how the nature of the firm’s TMT shapes its ability to formulate and execute strategy. Carpenter et al, Hambrick and Mason, and Hambrick et al provide theoretical background. Finkelstein & Hambrick and Haunschild et al provide empirical applications.
1. What aspects of a TMT are most important in shaping a firm’s strategy and performance?
2. What are the critical contingencies to be considered? Class readings
Carpenter, M.A., W.G. Sanders, & M.A. Geletkanycz. 2004. The upper echelons revisited: The antecedents, elements, and consequences of TMT composition. Journal of Management.
Finkelstein, S. & Hambrick, D.C., 1990. Top management team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 484-‐503.
Hambrick, D. & Mason, P., 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 193-‐206.
Hambrick, D.C., S. Finkelstein, & A. Mooney. 2004. Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors, Academy of Management Review.
Haunschild, P. R., Davis-‐Blake, A. & M. Fichman. 1994. Managerial overcommitment in corporate acquisition processes. Organization Science, 5(4): 528-‐540.
Individual readings Beckman, C. M. 2006. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 741-‐758. Carpenter, M.A., Sanders, W.G., & Gregersen, H.B., 2001. Bundling human capital with
organizational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal, 493-‐512.
Eisenhardt, K.M. & Schoonhoven, C.B., 1990. Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-‐1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 504-‐529.
Hayward, M.L.A. & Hambrick, D.C., 1997 Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 103-‐128.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H., and Carter, N. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2): 195-‐222.
Sutcliffe, K.M., & Huber, G.P. 1998. Firm and industry as determinants of executive perceptions of the environment. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8): 793-‐807.
Wiersema, Margarethe F. and Karen A. Bantel. 1992. "Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategic Change." Academy of Management Journal 35:91-‐121.
21
Reviewing and publishing Submit, as one document, your research question, revised hypotheses, and the logical development leading to one of those hypotheses.
22
Session 11: The relational view: Alliances, networks and strategy Background and key questions This is a massive research area. We’re going to touch very lightly on several aspects of it. I would start with Granovetter, followed by Burt and Mirzuchi & Galskiewicz. With that as background, read Uzzi as application. Close by skimming Gulati, who links the dyadic phenomenon of alliances with the structural phenomenon of networks. Class readings
Burt, R. S. 1992. The social structure of competition. Chapter 2 in Networks and Organizations. Eds N.Nohria and R. Eccles.
Gulati R. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal 19(4): 293-‐317 Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology.
78(6): 1360-‐1380. Mizruchi, M.S. & Galaskiewicz, J. 1993. Networks of interorganizational relations.
Sociological Methods and Research, 22(1): 46-‐70. Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of
embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35-‐67. Individual readings
Ahuja, G. 2000. The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal 21(3): 317-‐43.
Ahuja G, Katila R. 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal 22(3): 197-‐220
Axelrod R, Mitchell W, Thomas RE, Bennett DS, Bruderer E. 1995. Coalition formation in standard-‐setting alliances. Management Science 41(9): 1493-‐1508
Burt, R.S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(2): 339-‐65.
Davis, G.F. 1991. Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36(4): 583-‐613. *
Dyer, J. H. and Nobeoka, K. Creating and Managing a High-‐Performance Knowledge-‐Sharing Network: the Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal. 2000 Mar; 21(3):345-‐367.
Dyer, Jeffrey . Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal. 1996; 17(4):271-‐291.
Gulati, R. 1995. Does familiarity breed trust -‐ the implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal 38(1): 85-‐112.
Hamel, Gary. Competition for competence and inter-‐partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal. 1991; 12(Summer supplement):83-‐103.
Haunschild, P.R. 1993. Interorganizational imitation: The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative Science Quarterly. 38(4): 564-‐592
Koza, M.P., and A.Y. Lewin. 1999. The coevolution of network alliances: A longitudinal analysis of an international professional service network. Organization Science 10(5): 638-‐53.
23
Lorenzoni, G., and A. Lipparini. 1999. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal 20(4): 317-‐38.
Martin X, Mitchell W, Swaminathan A. 1995. Recreating and extending japanese automobile buyer-‐supplier links in north america. Strategic Management Journal 16: 589-‐619
Miner, A.S., T.L. Amburgey, and T.M. Stearns . 1990. Interorganizational linkages and population dynamics: Buffering and trannsformational shields. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 689-‐713.
Mitchell W, Singh K. 1996. Precarious collaboration: Business survival after partners shut down or form new partnerships. Strategic Management Journal 17(3): 95-‐115
Moran, P. Structural Vs. Relational Embeddedness: Social Capital and Managerial Performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2005 Dec; 26(12):1129-‐1151.
Powell, W. W.; Koput, K. W., and Smith-‐Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly. 41(1):116-‐145.
Zaheer, A. and Bell, G. G. Benefiting From Network Position: Firm Capabilities, Structural Holes, and Performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2005 Sep; 26(9):809-‐825.
Reviewing and publishing Submit, as one document, your research questions, hypotheses, and the revised logical development leading to one of those hypotheses.
24
Session 12: Diversification Background and key questions A critical strategic question for any firm is in which market or sets of markets it should compete. The study of diversification, the expansion of the firm into multiple markets, draws on many of the concepts we’ve studied to date, so it make a nice application in addition to its own importance. There is surprisingly little agreement as to even the basic facts regarding the relationship of diversification and performance. Hoskinson & Hitt provide a good overview. Amihud & Lev and Teece on why managers/firms might want to diversify. Campa & Kedia and Palich et al explore the performance impacts of doing so.
1. Is there a diversification discount? If so, why and when? Class readings
Amihud, Y. & Lev, B. 1981. Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. Bell Journal of Economics, 12: 650-‐657.
Campa, J.M. and Kedia, S. 2002. Explaining the diversification discount. Journal of Finance, 57(4): 1731-‐1762.
Hoskisson, R. & Hitt, M. 1990. Antecedents and performance outcomes of diversification: A review and critique of theoretical perspectives. Journal of Management, 16: 461-‐509.
Palich, L.E., Cardinal, L.B., & Miller, C.C. (1999). Curvilinearity in the diversification-‐performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2): 155-‐174.
Teece DJ. 1982. Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3(1): 39-‐63
Individual readings Barney JB. 1988. Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions -‐ reconsidering
the relatedness hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal 9: 71-‐78 Chatterjee S, Wernerfelt B. 1991. The link between resources and type of diversification
-‐ theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal 12(1): 33-‐48 Christensen HK, Montgomery CA. 1981. Corporate economic performance:
Diversification strategy versus market structure. Strategic Management Journal 2(4): 327-‐343
Helfat CE, Eisenhardt KM. 2004. Inter-‐temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal 25(13): 1217-‐1232
Karim S. 2009. Business unit reorganization and innovation in new product markets. Management Science 55(7): 1237-‐1254
Mitchell, W. 1989. Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 208-‐30.
Montgomery CA. 1985. Product-‐market diversification and market power. Academy of Management Journal: 789-‐798
Montgomery, C.A. & Wernerfelt, B. 1988. Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin's q. Rand Journal of Economics, 19(4): 623-‐632. *
25
Prahalad CK, Bettis RA. 1986. The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal 7(Nov-‐Dec): 485-‐501
Robins J, Wiersema MF. 1995. A resource-‐based approach to the multibusiness firm -‐ empirical-‐analysis of portfolio interrelationships and corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 16(4): 277-‐299
Qian L, Agarwal R, Hoetker GP. forthcoming. Configuration of value chain activities: The effect of pre-‐entry capabilities, transaction hazard and industry evolution on the decision to internalize. Organization Science
Rotemberg JJ, Saloner G. 1994. Benefits of narrow business strategies. American Economic Review 84(5): 1330-‐1349
Sears J, Hoetker G. 2011. Technological overlap, technological capabilities, and resource recombination in technological acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal Revise and resubmit
Silverman, B.S. 1999. Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-‐based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45(8): 1109-‐1124. *
Teece D. 1980. Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1: 223-‐247
Teece DJ, Rumelt R, Dosi G, Winter S. 1994. Understanding corporate coherence -‐ theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 23(1): 1-‐30
Villalonga B, McGahan AM. 2005. The choice among acquisitions, alliances, and divestitures. Strategic Management Journal 26(13): 1183-‐1208
Reviewing and publishing Submit, as one document, your research questions, the introduction to your paper, hypotheses, and the revised logical development leading to one of those hypotheses.
26
Session 13: Socio-‐cognitive views of Strategy Background and key questions Strategies are shaped by how firm’s percieve their markets and their competitors. These perceptions are influenced by both social and cognitive factors. There isn’t really an overarching paradigm here, so the order of the paper is probably less important than other weeks. That said, Ocasio and Dutton & Jackson are nice background to start with.
1. What do we gain by considering the role of cognition? 2. How do individual and social factors shape cognition?
Class readings Carpenter, M. & Westphal, J. 2001. The impact of director appointments on board
involvement in strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 639-‐660.
Dutton, J. & Jacson, S. 1978. Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12: 76-‐90.
Hambrick, D., Cho, T. & Chen, MJ. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:
Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 187-‐
Porac, T., Thomas, H., Paton, D. & Kanfer, A. 1995, Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 203-‐.
Individual readings Aldrich HE, Fiol CM. 1994. Fools rush in -‐ the institutional context of industry creation.
Academy of Management Review 19(4): 645-‐670 Chen M-‐J. 1996. Competitor analysis and inter-‐firm rivalry: Toward a theoretical
integration. Academy of Management Review 21: 100-‐134 Greve, H. R. 1998. Managerial cognition and the mimetic adoption of market positions:
What you see is what you do. Strategic Management Journal, 19(10): 967-‐988. Miller D, Chen M. 1994. Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: A study of the
U.S. Airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 1-‐23 Palmer, D., R.Friedland, & J.V. Singh. 1986. The ties that bind: Organizational and class
bases of stability in a corporate interlock network. American Sociological Review, 51:781-‐796.
Walsh, J. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6: 280-‐321.
Zajac, E. J. & Bazerman, M. H. 1991. Blind spots in industry and competitor analysis: implications of interfirm (mis)perceptions for strategic decisions. Academy of Management Review, 16: 37-‐56.
Reviewing and publishing Submit, as one document, your research questions, the revised introduction to your paper, hypotheses, and the logical development leading to one of those hypotheses.
27
Session 14: Strategic Process: Goals and Decision Making Background and key questions We’ve not given strategy process its fair share of attention this semester, but it is an important topic. It is also broad, so we’re going to focus on one particular aspect of it, how firms set their goals and make their decisions. This involves issues of both individual cognition and consensus formation within the firm. Start with Van de Ven, particularly the types of process research (pages 169-‐171) and his thoughts on executing a process research project (pages 181-‐183). Again, there isn’t an overarching paradigm, so you can read the remaining papers in whatever order you wish.
1. Do firms set goals? Or, is it just individuals? 2. Given your answer to (1), how are firm level decisions ultimately made?
Class readings Barr, P., Stimpert, L., & Huff, A., 1992. Cognitive change, strategic action, and
organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 15-‐36. Eisenhardt, K. & Zbaracki, M., 1992. Strategic decision making. Strategic Management
Journal, 17-‐37. Fredrickson, J.W. & Iaquinto, A.L., 1989. Inertia and creeping rationality in strategic
decision processes. Academy of Management Journal, 516-‐542. Fredrickson, J.W. & Mitchell, T.R., 1984. Strategic decision processes:
Comprehensiveness and performance in an industry with an unstable environment. Academy of Management Journal, 399-‐423.
Markoczy, L., 2001. Consensus formation during strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 1013-‐1031.
Van de Ven AH. 1992. Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal 13(5): 169-‐188
Individual readings Bourgeois, L. J., III. & Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1988. Strategic decision processes in high
velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science. 34(7): 816-‐835.
Cohen, M. D., J. G. March & J. P. Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1-‐25.
Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19: 79-‐88.
Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Théorêt A. 1976. The structure of "unstructured" decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(2): 246-‐275
Mintzberg H. 1978. Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science 24(9): 934-‐948 Mizruchi, M.S., and L.B. Stearns. 2001. Getting deals done: the use of social networks in
bank decision-‐making. American Sociological Review 66(5): 647-‐71. Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R., & Ragan, J.W., 1986. Group approaches for improving
strategic decision-‐making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 51-‐71.
Weick, Karl E. and Karlene H. Roberts. 1993. "Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks." Administrative Science Quarterly 38:357-‐381.
28
Williams C, Mitchell W. 2004. Focusing firm evolution: The impact of information infrastructure on market entry by us telecommunications companies, 1984-‐1998.
Reviewing and publishing Nothing. Keep working on your term paper.
29
Final exam period: What do we know about performance heterogeneity? We will meet during the assigned final exam period to accomplish two tasks that constitute the comprehensive examination for the class. Discussion After 15 weeks, we’re left with a key question. Does any of this really matter? What do we really know about whether firm strategies can lead to sustained superior performance? Please pick ONE of the papers below and be prepared to discuss how it speaks to this question.
Coff, R. 1999. When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-‐based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10: 119-‐133.
Denrell, J. 2004. Random walks and sustained competitive advantage. Management Science, 50(7): 922-‐934.
Jacobsen, R. 1988. The persistence of abnormal returns. Strategic Management Journal, 9(5): 415-‐430.
McEvily, S.K. and Chakravarthy, B. 2002. The persistence of knowledge-‐based advantage: An empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4): 285.
Wiggins, R.R. & Ruefli, T.W. 2002. Competitive advantage: Temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic performance. Organization Science, 13(1): 82-‐105.
Presentation of research paper You will give a 10-‐minute presentation about your project. The time limit will be strictly enforced, so you should practice to make sure it isn’t too long. In this spirit, you should plan to use no more than 5 slides and don’t cram more material in by talking faster or using smaller fonts. Rather than trying to present your entire term project, you should try to sell the audience on what the project is and make them want to see the full paper. Try to achieve the quality one would hope to see in a research presentation at a major academic conference. One purpose of this class presentation is to facilitate the generation of constructive feedback, ideas, and suggestions from your classmates about your term project. So, at the end of each presentation, there will be a brief period for the class to ask questions, give comments, and offer suggestions.
