Course Overview and Objectives - Carpenter Strategy Toolbox



Strategic Management PhD SeminarMHR 870 – Fall 2016(Version 2016-09-02)Instructors: Hart Posen Russ Coffhposen@wisc.edu RCoff@wisc.eduClass time:W 1:00-4:00, room 3111 (except Sept 14 & 21)F 1:00-4:00, room 5115 (Sept 2 & 23)Office Hrs:by appointmentCourse Overview and ObjectivesThis doctoral level strategy seminar invites students to explore drivers of performance heterogeneity among firms. Why do some firms out-perform others? The topic is integrative in that the answer draws on theory from economics, sociology, and even psychology as well as management and organizational theory that is interdisciplinary. In studying this topic, we will also focus on the process of conducting management research. What is the anatomy of a scholarly contribution and how does one conduct research in this field? A key element of our pedagogical approach is the use of a reading list that includes not only ‘classic’ papers that defined a domain a research literature within strategy, but also new and forthcoming papers that help to explicate the current state of these literatures. Learning ObjectivesThe primary overarching goal is to help doctoral students become independent scholars who are knowledgeable in the field of strategic management. Specifically, students will be able to:Develop an understanding of the concepts, theory, and research in strategic management;Summarize, integrate, and evaluate and research in strategic management;Develop new ideas and/or approaches that advance this research literature and that might serve as starting points for publishable research papers; andMaster research process skills critical to success in an academic career such as the ability to think clearly and communicate effectively both orally and in written form.Seminar Format and AssignmentsLike other seminars you have taken, the assignments are built around understanding the readings and generating new research directions. The grading falls into the four areas reflected in the table ponent% of GradeClass preparation and participation35%Paper Critiques/Reviews15%Term paper50%Class preparation and participation (35%)You are expected to be an active (and constructively critical) participant in all class sessions. Preparation before class is essential, and an important part of the evaluation of performance will be based on student preparedness and internalization of concepts as evidenced by in-class discussion. This component of the grade has two key elements: preparation of reading assignments before class and participation in class discussion.Participation in class discussions. Doctoral seminars are very small so the quality of the learning experience depends greatly on each person. A student who sits back and listens (however intently) is likely to detract from others’ learning experience. Your class contributions should go well beyond “I liked this reading” and “I didn’t like that one” (although these reactions are important). Try to dig deeper and ask questions like:What is missing?What relevant questions aren’t answered?What are the article’s broader implications?What assumptions does this perspective make about people? Firms? Markets?How tenable are those assumptions?You might also want to compare and contrast the articles on the questions above: How are these articles similar or different?What studies should be done to develop theory in the area under discussion?Participants will prepare to discuss at least one of the assigned readings. Each seeks to contribute to theory and empirically test the predictions offered. Participants should be prepared to discuss all aspects of the theoretical and methodological contribution.Post-class research idea generation. Identifying research opportunities is an important skill to develop as a researcher. After each class session (starting in session 2), you are responsible for creating a research idea from each session of the course. You need to write up your idea in the form of a paper abstract - one paragraph only, not to exceed 250 words. Try to articulate the intended contribution of your paper idea, a key hypothesis, and how your theory might be tested.Post your idea as a PDF in the dropbox share in the folder “Submission - weekly research ideas,” under the appropriate session number. Name your submission with your last name. Your idea must be submitted no later than 8am on the day preceding the subsequent session. That is, your idea submission for session s2 must be submitted no later than 8am on the day before session s3. We will start each class session with a brief discussion of the research ideas generated in the prior session. Please read your classmates ideas in the Dropbox prior to class, and come to class prepared to identify and discuss the research idea from the previous week (other than your own) that is the most promising.Paper Critiques/Reviews (15%)Over the course of the semester, you will be reading a lot of research papers. You will do two published paper reviews and one “friendly” review of a classmate’s paper. In reviewing a paper, your job is to identify the extent of the paper’s contribution. You may consider the following basic structure.Identify the gap in the literature that the paper addresses. Is there a gap the paper fills, is the gap interesting and important? Are there ways that the gap could be better/more-clearly identified?Identify how does the paper fill the gap. Is the theoretical claim compelling and logically consistent? That is, do you buy the theory proposed? Why or why not? Are there ways that the theory might be strengthened?For empirical papers — Identify the extent to which the empirics provide a compelling test of the theory. Is the empirical context appropriate to test the theory? Are the theoretical constructs well matched to the empirical variables? Do you believe that the empirical results provide evidence that tends to support the theory? What might you have done to improve the empirical test?Review of published paper. You may select any two empirical papers you wish to write your reviews (no more than one from a session). Your reviews should be two pages (page-length specified here and elsewhere are double-spaced) and submitted as a PDF via dropbox in the appropriately named file under “Submission - review of published papers” prior to the start of the session in which the paper is discussed. In general, a review should include concise numbered points that mark the paper’s specific strengths and limitations. Typically these address the extent and nature of the contribution, logic and flow of the theory/hypotheses, and any methodological issues that should be addressed.Review of classmate’s term paper. Part of your class preparation will include providing feedback on a classmate’s term paper. The fact that this will not be a blind review process should sensitize you to the need for constructive feedback. While the confidentiality of a blind review process gives the reviewer the freedom to provide frank, direct, and undiluted feedback without fear of negative consequences. Nevertheless, this confidentiality is not a license to be rude, insulting, or inappropriate. Rather, you should keep your criticisms constructive – i.e., focused on specific, concrete changes that could realistically improve the rough draft, taking into account all of the constraints on this term project assignment and on research projects in general. The peer review should be about 2 to 3 pages long. For further advice on reviewing, please see the Academy of Management Journal’s “Guidelines for Reviewers” web page at: will receive the rough draft of your classmate’s paper for you to review in class session s13. Please submit your review in advance of class session s14 as a PDF document in the Dropbox under “Submission - review of classmate term paper.” Place your review in the folder of the person being reviewed and label the file appropriately, e.g., Rak’s review of Tom’s paper would be in Tom’s folder and labeled as “Rak review of Tom”. Also, please bring six printed-stapled copies of your peer review to class session s14. In class, be prepared to discuss the most significant comment or suggestion.Term Paper - Original research project (50%)You are required to prepare a 10 to 20 page term project that is a proposal for a research project. If executed, this could become the basis of a publishable paper or dissertation. It should be aimed at either adding new knowledge to the strategy field or bringing a new perspective to existing findings. Either way, it should be executed in a way that would be “interesting” in the sense of the Murray Davis “That’s Interesting” article.Format. This research paper should adhere to the format and submission guidelines provided by the Academy of Management Journal (see for details), and should be organized roughly as follows:Your introduction should identify the existing “conversation” you are joining, what is missing from this conversation, and how you intend to fill that gap. If your first two pages don’t clearly explain your point, and why it is important, most readers will lose interest – especially reviewers.A “Theory” section where you review the literature needed to put your contribution into focus. Then develop, explain, and justify your unique contribution. A complete theory would include three main elements – what causes what, why and how, and under what conditions: What causes what? An empirically falsifiable prediction, with Independent and dependent variables that are clearly articulated and defined.Why and how? A logical and internally-consistent causal mechanism, which provides a bridge or a process through which the assumptions and boundary conditions provided in part (c) below will lead naturally to the prediction provided in part (a) above.Under what conditions? A clear statement of the bare minimum set of assumptions and boundary conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the causal mechanism in part (b) above to apply, and in order for the prediction in part (a) above to be derived. (Imposing additional assumptions and boundary conditions beyond the bare minimum is viewed as undesirable, because it unnecessarily restricts the theory’s range of applicability.)Carve out a “bite-sized” contribution. Because it is nearly impossible to develop a complete, new, full-blown, paradigm-shifting theory in the space you will have, you may prefer to aim for making a smaller “bite-sized” contribution to theory, such as:Articulating a theory’s hidden assumptions or boundary constraints.Examining interesting special cases, where more and/or stronger predictions can be derived under additional assumptions or boundary constraints.Finding inconsistencies within a theory.Articulating previously overlooked points of inconsistency between theories.Introducing a new construct or variable.Questioning an existing conceptual construct or variable.Deriving new predictions from an old theory (or theories).Synthesizing multiple theories, where the combined whole differs from the sum of the parts – i.e., interaction effects, where the combination of theories generates new and different predictions.Extending a theory, by considering the consequences of relaxing restrictive assumptions or boundary constraints.Importing theories, constructs, or variables across levels of analysis.A “Methodology” section in which you describe a research design that would be appropriate to test your question or idea, using data that could realistically be collected, organized, and analyzed within a one year time horizon (taking into account the financial constraints, data-access constraints, and time constraints on a typical doctoral student). Although this section will most likely consider how and where you might collect data, it is nevertheless possible that the relevant data might be readily available (e.g., in public databases or in data sets already collected by other researchers), in which case you are strongly encouraged to go ahead and perform the actual data analysis and report the results in the paper, in a separate “Results” section.Length: Less is more. We have specified page limits that will push you to be very concise – this can be a special challenge. Accordingly, you should heed the following words of wisdom from the “Notice to Contributors” printed in every issue of Administrative Science Quarterly:“We are interested in compact presentations of theory and research, suspecting that very long manuscripts contain an unclear line of argument, multiple arguments, or no argument at all. Each manuscript should contain one key point, which the author should be able to state in one sentence. Digressions from one key point are common when authors cite more literature than is necessary to frame and justify an argument.”Schedule. You should start thinking about your topic early in the semester, and you should discuss your initial thoughts with me, so we can point you towards related work. If your desired topic is covered late in the semester, you will need to read ahead to get started. This term project will probably require you to do additional reading beyond the syllabus. In order to help you structure and pace your work, you must submit intermediate work-in-progress products as outlined below. All submission are as PDF documents via Dropbox in your named subfolder of the folder “Submission - term paper intro draft final.”Draft of introduction is due in prior to the start of class session s7. The introduction should not exceed 1.5 page double-spaced. This draft introduction itself will not be graded, but rather will be used to provide developmental feedback. However, failure to submit an outline by the deadline may result in a reduced grade for the term project.Rough draft of the paper due prior to the start of session s13. This draft paper itself will not be graded, but rather will be used to provide developmental feedback from your classmates. However, failure to submit an outline by the deadline may result in a reduced grade for the term project.Final paper are due by December 20, 2016.There will be no incomplete grades given. If you want to further develop and polish the paper, you are encouraged to do so after the end of the semester, but this additional work will NOT be graded by using the “incomplete” grade to extend the term project deadline.Presentation. You will give a 15-minute presentation about your project in a MHR brown bag session on December 12 & 19. Presentation order will be determined by random draw. 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 6 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.Overview of Class Topics and Assignments?Date and TopicAssignments/Deadlines1. (9/02/16, H&R): Introduction (Contribution, Map of the field)2. (9/7/16, H): Industrial Organization - Rivalry and its Restraint(9/14/14 & 9/21/14) No Class (Strategic Management Society Berlin Conference)Get to work on term paper.3. (9/23/16 Friday, H): Behavioral approaches to strategy4. (9/28/16, R): Resource-Based View (acquiring resources & sustaining advantages)5. (10/5/16, H): Knowledge and Routines as Strategic Assets as Strategic Assets6. (10/12/16, H): Innovation, Change, and Technology Strategy7. (10/19/16, R): Human CapitalDraft of term paper intro due.8. (10/26/16, R): Responding to Change – Dynamic Capabilities and Beyond9. (11/2/16, H): Exploration and Exploitation: Drivers of Firm Heterogeneity?10. (11/9/16, H&R): Real Options & Decision-making Under Uncertainty11. (11/16/16, R): Corporate Strategy - Economic Logic of Diversification12. (11/23/16, R): Corporate Governance & TMT13. (11/30/16, R): Corporate Strategy – M&A and AlliancesTerm Paper Rough Draft due.Each student to suggest forthcoming paper for s15.14. (12/7/16, H&R): Student feedback and discussion of your term paper draftsFriendly reviews of student papers due a day in advance of class.15. (12/14/16): Forthcoming papers - student choiceFinal paper due 12/20/2016(12/12 & 12/19): Student presentations (MHR Brown Bag)Detailed Topics and Reading List Required readings are in the “papers” folder in the Dropbox share (this folder contains some of the supplemental readings as well). Supplemental readings are indicated by *, and include additional classic papers, and more recent solid papers that represent a starting point for deeper exploration of a literature. The supplemental list is not an exhaustive list of key papers in a literature.1. (9/02/16, Friday, H&R): Introduction (Contribution, Map of the field)Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece. 1994. Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda. 9-54. Nag, Hambrick, and Chen. 2007. What is Strategic Management, Really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal 28: 935-956.Bartunek, Rynes, and Ireland. 2006 What Makes Management Research Interesting, and Why Does It Matter? . Academy of Management Journal 49(1): 9-15 . Davis. 1971. That's Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1: 309-344 .Glick, Miller, and Cardinal. 2007 Making a life in the field of organizational science Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(7): 817-835 .*See “Map of the Field” folder in Dropbox for documents highlighting some key topics in strategy.*Grant and Pollock. 2011. Publishing in AMJ Part 3: Setting the Hook. Academy of Management Journal 54(5): 873-879.*Lehrer. 2010. THE TRUTH WEARS OFF: Is there something wrong with the scientific method? The New Yorker.*Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin. 2012. Dynamics of the Evolution of the Strategy Concept 1962–2008: A co-word analysis. Strategic Management Journal 33(2): 162-188.*Sternberg. 2013. Self-Sabotage in the Academic Career: 15 ways in which faculty members harm their own futures, often without knowing it. Chronicle of Higher Education April 29.2. (9/7/16, H): Industrial Organization - Rivalry and its Restraint Caves, R.E., M. Porter. 1977. From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barriers: Conjectural Decisions and Contrived Deterrence to New Competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 91(2) 241-262.Porter, M. 1979. How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review 57(2) 137-145.Rumelt. 1991. How Much Does Industry Matter? Strategic Management Journal 12(3): 167-185.Bennett. 2013. Organization and Bargaining: Sales Process Choice at Auto Dealerships. Management Science 59(9): 2003-2018Lieberman, Marvin B., Roberto Garcia-Castro, and Natarajan Balasubramanian (2016), The VCA Model: Measuring Value Creation and Appropriation, Strategic Management Journal, forthcoming*See the Strategic Management Society Competitive Strategy Interest Group - but note that there is very little IO work any longer.*Brush, Bromiley, and Hendrickx. 1999. The Relative Influence of Industry and Corporation on Business Segment Performance: An Alternative Estimate Strategic Management Journal 20(6).*Chen. 1995. Competitive analysis and inter-firm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Journal 38(2): 7-12. *Gimeno, J. 1999. Reciprocal threats in multimarket rivalry: Staking out `spheres of influence’ in the U.S. airline industry. Strategic Management Journal 20(2) 101.*McGahan, A., M. Porter. 1997. How much does industry matter, really? Strategic Management Journal 18(Special Issue Supplement) 15-30.*Seamans, R.C. 2013. Threat of entry, asymmetric information, and pricing. Strategic Management Journal 34(4) 426-444.*Weiss, L.W. 1979. The structure-conduct-performance paradigm and antitrust. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1104-1140.9/14-9/21: No Class (Strategic Management Society Berlin Conference)3. (9/23/16 Friday, H): Behavioral approaches to strategy.Simon, H. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69:99-118.D. Kahneman and A. Tversky (1979). “An analysis of decision under risk”. Econometrica, 47: 263-291.Cyert, R., J. March. 1992. A behavioral theory of the firm xii, 252. (Ch 7 in 1992 edition “A summary of basic concepts…”)Porac, J.F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., and Kanfer, A. 1995. Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2): 203-227Elfenbein, Knott, and Croson. 2016. Equity stakes and exit: An experimental approach to decomposing exit delay. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.*See the Strategic Management Society Behavioral Strategy Interest Group *See the Behavioral Strategy Wiki: - !literature-matrix/ch6q*Simon, H.A. 1947. Administrative behavior. A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization Administrative behavior. Macmillan, New York*March, J., H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 262.*March, J.G., J.P. Olsen. 1975. The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research 3(2) 147-171.*Ocasio. 1997. Towards an Attention-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal 18: 187.*Levinthal, D.A. 2011. A behavioral approach to strategy: what’s the alternative? Strategic Management Journal 32(13) 1517-1523.*Gavetti, G., H.R. Greve, D.A. Levinthal, W. Ocasio. 2012. The Behavioral Theory of the Firm: Assessment and Prospects. The Academy of Management Annals 6(1) 1-40.*Mahoney and Qian. 2013. Market frictions as building blocks of an organizational economics approach to strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 34(9): 1019-1041.4. (9/28/16, R): Resource-Based View (acquiring resources & sustaining advantages)Barney. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99-120.Dierickx, I., K. Cool. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35(12) 1504-1512.Madsen, Tammy L. and Gordon Walker (2016), ‘Competitive heterogeneity, cohorts, and persistent advantage, Strategic Management Journal (Forthcoming).Priem and Butler. 2001. Tautology in the resource-based view and the implications of externally determined resource value: Further comments. Academy of Management Review 26(1): 57-66.Arend. 2008. Tests of the Resource-based View: Do the empirics have any clothes? Strategic Organization 4(4): 409-422. (Skim empirical RBV critique)* See the Strategic Management Society Competitive Strategy Interest Group *Arend and Lévesque. 2010. Is the Resource-Based View a Practical Organizational Theory? Organization Science 21(4): 913-933.*Barney and Felin. 2013. What Are Microfoundations? Academy of Management Perspectives 27(2): 138-155.*Foss. 2011. Why Micro-Foundations for Resource-Based Theory Are Needed and What They May Look Like. Journal of Management 37(5): 1413.*Amit and Schoemaker. 1993. Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent Strategic Management Journal 14(1): 33-46 .*Denrell. 2004. Random Walks and Sustained Competitive Advantage Management Science 50(7): 922-934.*Henderson, Raynor, and Ahmed. 2012. How Long Must a Firm Be Great to Rule Out Chance? Benchmarking sustained superior performance without being fooled by randomness. Strategic Management Journal 33.*Jacobsen. 1988. The Persistence of Abnormal Returns. Strategic Management Journal 9(5): 415-430.*King and Zeithaml. 2001. Competencies and Firm Performance: Examining the Causal Ambiguity Paradox. Strategic Management Journal 22(1): 75-99.*Lieberman and Montgomery. 1988. First-Mover Advantages. Strategic Management Journal 9: 41-58.*Lippman and Rumelt. 1982. Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency Under Competition. Bell Journal of Economics 13(2): 418-438.*Peteraf. 1993. The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-based View. Strategic Management Journal 14(3): 179-191. *Mahoney and Pandian. 1992. The resource-based view of the firm within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 13(5): 363-380.*McEvily and Chakravarthy. 2002. The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: An empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal 23(4): 285.*Barney. 1986. Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy Management Science 32(10): 1231-1241 .*Schmidt, Jens and Thomas Keil (2013), ‘What Makes a Resource Valuable? Identifying the Drivers of Firm-Idiosyncratic Resource Value’, Academy of Management Review, 38 (2), 206-28.5. (10/5/16, H): Knowledge and Routines as Strategic AssetsNelson, R., S.G. Winter. 1982. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, xi, 437. **Ch 4-5** (Skim only)Kogut, B., and Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397.Makadok, R., and Walker, G. 2000. Identifying a distinctive competence: Forecasting ability in the money fund industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8): 853-864.Helfat, Constance (1994), ‘Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D’, Management Science, 40 (12), 1720.Moeen, Mahka and Rajshree Agarwal (2016), ‘Incubation of an industry: Heterogeneous knowledge bases and modes of value capture’, Strategic Management Journal, forthcoming*See the SMS Knowledge and Innovation Interest Group*Henderson, R., and Cockburn, I. 1994. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Special Issue): 63-84.*Knott, A. M., and McKelvey, B. 1999. Nirvana efficiency: a comparative test of residual claims and routines. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 38(4): 365-383.*Feldman and Pentland. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(1): 94.*Zollo, Reuer, and Singh. 2002. Interorganizational routines and performance in strategic alliances. Organization Science 13(6): 701.*Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J., and Syverson, C. 2008. Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability?. American Economic Review, 98: 394-425.*Loch, C.H., K. Sengupta, M.G. Ahmad. 2013. The Microevolution of Routines: How Problem Solving and Social Preferences Interact. Organization Science 24(1) 99-115.Winter, S. G. 1987. Knowledge and Competence as Strategic Assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The Competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal: 159-184.Knott, A.M., D. Bryce, H.E. Posen. 2003. On the strategic accumulation of intangible assets. Organization Science 14(2) 192-207.6. (10/12/16, H): Innovation, Change, and Technology StrategyCohen, W., D.A. Levinthal. 1989. Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99(397) 569-596.Christensen, C., J. Bower. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal 17(3) 197-218.Henderson, R., K. Clark. 1990. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1) 9-30.Aggarwal, V. & Posen, H. & Workiewicz, M. (2016). Adaptive Capacity to Technological Change: A Microfoundational Approach. Strategic Management Journal, ForthcomingRoy, Raja and Susan K. Cohen (2016), ‘Stock of downstream complementary assets as a catalyst for product innovation during technological change in the US machine tool industry’, Strategic Management Journal, n/a.*Utterback, J., W. Abernathy. 1975. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3(6) 639-656.*Tushman, M., P. Anderson. 1986. Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31(3) 439-465.*Henderson, R. 1993. Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. Rand Journal of Economics 24(2) 248-270.*Geroski, P. 1990. Innovation, Technological Opportunity, and Market Structure. Oxford Economic Papers 42(3) 586-602.*Teece, D.J. 1986. Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy. Research Policy 15(6) 285-305.*Cohen, W., D.A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1) 128-152*Ahuja and Lampert. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal 22(6-7): 521-543.*Winter, S.G. 2006. The logic of appropriability: From Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece. Research Policy 35(8) 1100-1106.*Tripsas, M. 1997. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal 18(Special Issue Supplement) 119-142.*Knott, A.M., H.E. Posen. 2009. Firm R&D behavior and evolving technology in established industries. Organization Science 20(2) 352.*Terlaak, Ann and Yan Gong (2008), ‘Vicarious Learning and Inferential Accuracy in Adoption Processes’, Academy of Management Review, 33 (4), 846-68.*Posen, H.E., J.S. Chen. 2013. An Advantage of Newness: Vicarious Learning Despite Limited Absorptive Capacity. Organization Science 24(6)7. (10/19/16, R): Human CapitalCoff. 1997. Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. The Academy of Management Review 22(2): 374-402.Campbell, Coff, and Kryscynski. 2012. Re-thinking Competitive Advantage from Human Capital. Academy of Management Review 37(3): 376-395.Chatain and Meyer-Doyle. 2016. Alleviating managerial dilemmas in human-capital-intensive firms through incentives: Evidence from m&a legal advisors. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.Frank and Obloj. 2013. Firm-specific human capital, organizational incentives, and agency costs: Evidence from retail banking. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.Wang, Zhao, and He. 2016. Increase in Takeover Protection and Firm Knowledge Accumulation Strategy. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.*See the SMS Strategic Human Capital Interest Group.*Becker. 1993. Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. .*Campbell, Ganco, Franco, and Agarwal. 2012. Who leaves, where to, and why worry? employee mobility, entrepreneurship and effects on source firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 33(2): 65–87.*Carnahan and Somaya. 2014. Alumni Effects and Relational Advantage: The Impact on Outsourcing when Your Buyer Hires Employees from Your Competitors. Academy of Management Journal.*Coff. 1999. When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science 10(2): 119-133.*Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, and Ketchen Jr. 2011. Does Human Capital Matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(3): 443-456.*Ethiraj and Garg. 2012. The Division of Gains from Complementarities in Human-Capital-Intensive Activity. Organization Science 23.*Groysberg, Lee, and Nanda. 2008. Can They Take It With Them? The Portability of Star Knowledge Workers' Performance. Management Science 54(7): 1213.*Hall. 1993. A Framework Linking Intangible Resources and Capabilities to Sustainable Competitive Advantage Strategic Management Journal 14(8): 607-618.*Hatch and Dyer. 2004. Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 25(12): 1155.*Lazear. 2009. Firm-Specific Human Capital: A Skill-Weights Approach. The Journal of Political Economy 117(5): 914.*Raffiee and Feng. 2014. Should I Quit My Day Job? A Hybrid Path to Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal.*Somaya, Williamson, and Lorinkova. 2008. Gone but not Lost: The different performance impacts of employee mobility between cooperators versus competitors. Academy of Management Journal 51(5): 936.*Song, Almeida, and Wu. 2003. Learning-by-hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science 49(4): 351-366.*Wang and Barney. 2006. Employee Incentives to Make Firm-Specific Investments: Implications for resource-based theories of corporate diversification. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review 31(2): 466-478.8. (10/26/16, R): Responding to Change – Dynamic Capabilities and BeyondTeece, D.J., G. Pisano, A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7) 509-533.Peteraf, Di Stefano, and Verona. 2013. The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strategic Management Journal 34(12): 1389-1410.Makadok, Richard (2001), ‘Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation’, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (5), 387-401.Danneels. 2016. Survey measures of first- and second-order competences. Strategic Management Journal: ForthcomingGirod and Whittington. 2016. Reconfiguration, restructuring and firm performance: Dynamic capabilities and environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal. Forthcoming*Blyler and Coff. 2003. Dynamic Capabilities, Social Capital, & Rent Appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strategic Management Journal 24(7): 677-686.*Danneels, E. 2008. Organizational antecedents of second-order competences. Strategic Management Journal 29(5) 519-543.*Eisenhardt and Martin. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal 21(10-11): 1105-1121.*Winter, S.G. 2003. Understanding Dynamic Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24(10) 991.*Wiggins, R.R. & Ruefli, T.W. (2005). Schumpeter’s Ghost: Is Hypercompetition Making the Best of Times Shorter? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10): 887–911.*Zollo and Winter. 2002. Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Organization Science 13(3): 339-354.*Posen, H.E., D.A. Levinthal. 2012. Chasing a moving target: Exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments. Management Science 58(3) 587-601. *Teece, David J (1987), ‘Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy’, The Competitive challenge : strategies for industrial innovation and renewal (185-219.9. (11/2/16, H): Learning, Exploration and Exploitation: Drivers of Firm Heterogeneity?March, J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1) 71-87.Rosenkopf, L., and Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4): 287.Kim, J.-Y., A. Miner. 2007. Vicarious learning from the failures and near-failures of others: evidence from the U.S. commercial banking industry. Academy of Management Journal 50(3) 687-714.Knott, A. & Posen, H. (2005). Is Failure Good?. Strategic Management Journal (26), 617-641.Stan, Mihaela and Phanish Puranam (2016), ‘Organizational adaptation to interdependence shifts: The role of integrator structures’, Strategic Management Journal, Forthcoming*Levinthal and March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal 14(S2): 95-112.*Levinthal. 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science 43(7): 934-950.*Katila, R., and Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1183-1194.*Benner and Tushman. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review 28(2): 238.*Levinthal and Posen. 2007. Myopia of Selection: Does Organizational Adaptation Limit the Efficacy of Population Selection? Administrative Science Quarterly 52(4): 586.*Knott, A.M., H.E. Posen, B. Wu. 2009. Spillover asymmetry and why it matters. Management Science 55(3) 373-388.*Posen, H.E., J. Lee, S. Yi. 2013. The power of imperfect imitation. Strategic Management Journal 34(2) 149-164.*Ahuja, G., R. Katila. 2004. Where Do Resources Come From? the Role of Idiosyncratic Situations. Strategic Management Journal 25(8/9) 887-907.*Giarratana and Mariani. Forthcoming. The relationship between knowledge sourcing and fear of imitation. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.*Gavetti, G., D.A. Levinthal. 2000. Looking Forward and Looking Backward: Cognitive and Experiential Search. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(1) 113-137.10. (11/9/16, H&R): Real Options & Decision-making Under UncertaintyKogut. 1991. Joint Ventures and the Option to Expand and Acquire. Management Science 37(1): 19-33.Vassolo, R S, Jaideep Anand, and T B Folta (2004), ‘Non-additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: A real options-based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology’, Strategic Management Journal, 25 1045-61.Posen, H. & Leiblein, M. & Chen, J. (2016). A behavioral theory of real options. Strategic Management Journal (under review)Guler, Isin (2007), ‘Throwing good money after bad? Political and institutional influences on sequential decision making in the venture capital industry’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 248-85.Lieberman, Lee, and Folta. 2016. Entry, exit, and the potential for resource redeployment. Strategic Management Journal.*Coff and Laverty. 2007. Real Options Meet Organizational Theory: Coping With Path Dependencies, Agency Costs, and Organizational Forms Advances in Strategic Management 24: 333-361.*Adner and Levinthal. 2004. What is not a Real Option: Identifying boundaries for the application of real options to business strategy. Academy of Management Review 29(1): 74-85.*Barnett. 2008. An Attention-Based View of Real Options Reasoning. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review 33(3): 606.*Bowman and Moskowitz. 2001. Real Options Analysis and Strategic Decision-Making. Organization Science 12(6): 772-777.*Kogut and Kulatilaka. 1994. Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value. Management Science 40(1): 123-139.*McGrath and Nerkar. 2004. Real Options Reasoning and a New Look at the R&D Investment Strategies of Pharmaceutical Firms. Strategic Management Journal 25(1): 1-22.*Miller and Folta. 2002. Option value and entry timing. Strategic Management Journal 23(7): 655.*Vassolo, Anand, and Folta. 2004. Portfolio effect in real options: The case of equity alliances in biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal 25: 1045-1061.*Wang and Lim. 2008. Real options and real value: the role of employee incentives to make specific knowledge investments. Strategic Management Journal 29(7): 701-721.*Klingebiel and Adner. 2014. Real Options Logic Revisited: The Performance Effects of Alternative Resource Allocation Regimes. Academy of Management Journal.11. (11/16/16, R): Corporate Strategy - Economic Logic of Diversification Williamson. 1991. Strategizing, Economizing, and Economic Organization. Strategic Management Journal 12(Winter): 75-94.Villalonga, Belen (2004), ‘Diversification Discount or Premium? New Evidence from the Business Information Tracking Series’, Journal of Finance, 59 (2), 479-506.Miller. 2006. Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 27(7): 601-619.Silverman and Ingram. 2016. Asset ownership and incentives in early shareholder capitalism: Liverpool shipping in the eighteenth century. Strategic Management Journal. ForthcomingMiller, Douglas J. and Hsiao-shan Yang (2016), ‘The Dynamics of Diversification: Market Entry and Exit by Public and Private Firms’, Strategic Management Journal, *See the SMS Corporate Strategy Interest Group*Conner and Prahalad. 1996. A resource- based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science 7(5): 477-501.*Alchian and Demsetz. 1972. Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization. American Economic Review 62: 777-795.*Campa and Kedia. 2002. Explaining the Diversification Discount Journal of Finance 57(4): 1731-1762.*Hennart. 1993 Explaining the Swollen Middle: Why most transactions are a mix of "market" and "hierarchy" Organization Science 4(4): 529-547 .*Masten. 2002. Modern evidence on the firm. American Economic Review 92(2): 428.*Palich, Cardinal, and Miller. 2000. Curvilinearity in the Diversification-Performance Linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal 21: 155-174.*Poppo and Zenger. 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.*Robins and Wiersema. 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.*Silverman. 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.*Williamson. 1981. The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach. American Journal of Sociology 87(3): 548-577.12. (11/23/16, R): Corporate Governance & TMTHambrick and Mason. 1984. Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review 9(2): 193-206.Westphal and Zajac. 2001. Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(2): 202-228.Martin, Wiseman, and Gomez-Mejia. 2016. Going Short-Term or Long-Term? CEO Stock Options and Temporal Orientation in the Presence of Slack. Strategic Management Journal: ForthcomingQuigley, Crossland, and Campbell. 2016. Shareholder Perceptions of the Changing Impact of CEOs: Market Reactions to Unexpected CEO Deaths, 1950 - 2009. Strategic Management Journal: ForthcomingWhittington, Yakis-Douglas, and Ahn. 2016. Cheap talk? Strategy presentations as a form of chief executive officer impression management. Strategic Management Journal: Forthcoming * See the SMS Strategic Leadership and Governance Interest Group*Davis. 1991. Agents Without Principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 583-613.*Fredrickson and Iaquinto. 1990. How and Where CEOs Matter: Functional Background, Organizational Diversity and Performance in High and Low-Discretion Environments. .*Hayward and Hambrick. 1997. Explaining the Premiums Paid for Large Acquisitions: Evidence of CEO Hubris Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 103 - 127 .*Triana, Miller, and Trzebiatowski. 2013. The Double-Edged Nature of Board Gender Diversity: Diversity, Firm Performance, and the Power of Women Directors as Predictors of Strategic Change. Organization Science: 131105054352004.*Westphal and Khanna. 2003. Keeping Directors in Line: Social Distancing as a Control Mechanism in the Corporate Elite. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(3): 361.*Zajac and Westphal. 1994. The costs and benefits of managerial incentives and monitoring in large U.S. corporations: When is more not better? Strategic Management Journal 15(S2): 121-142.*Zajac. 1990. CEO Selection, Succession, Compensation and Firm Performance: A Theoretical Integration and Empirical Analysis. Strategic Management Journal 11(3): 217-230.13. (11/30/16, R): Corporate Strategy – M&A and AlliancesZollo and Singh. 2004. Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: post-acquisition strategies and integration capability in U.S. bank mergers. Strategic Management Journal 25(13): 1233.Villalonga and McGahan. 2005. The Choice Among Acquisitions, Alliances, and Divestitures. Strategic Management Journal 26: 1183-1208.Speckbacher, Neumann, and Hoffmann. 2014. Resource Relatedness and the Mode of Entry into New Businesses: Internal resource accumulation vs. access by collaborative arrangement. Strategic Management Journal.Weber, Mayer, and Macher. 2011. An Analysis of Extendibility and Early Termination Provisions: The Importance of Framing Duration Safeguards. Academy of Management Journal 54(1).Cho, Arthurs, Townsend, Miller, and Barden. 2016. Performance deviations and acquisition premiums: The impact of ceo celebrity on managerial risk-taking. Strategic Management Journal: ForthcomingAlliances*See the SMS Cooperative Strategies Interest Group*Ahuja. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(3): 425-455.*Burt. 2004. Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110(2): 349.*Gulati. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal 19(4): 293.*Lavie. 2007. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal 28(12): 1187.*Podolny and Baron. 1997. Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review 62(5): 673.*Reuer and Ragozzino. 2012. The Choice Between Joint Ventures and Acquisitions: Insights from Signaling Theory. Organization Science 23.*Uzzi. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 35.*Zollo, Reuer, and Singh. 2002. Interorganizational routines and performance in strategic alliances. Organization Science 13(6): 701.M&A*Barney. 1988. Returns to Bidding Firms in Mergers and Acquisitions: Reconsidering the Relatedness Hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal 9: 71-78.*Coff. 1999. How Buyers Cope with Uncertainty When Acquiring Firms in Knowledge-Intensive Industries: Caveat Emptor Organization Science 10(2): 144-161 .*Coff. 2003 Bidding Wars over R&D Intensive Targets: Knowledge, Opportunism and the Market for Corporate Control Academy of Management Journal 46(1): 74-85 .*Hayward et al. 1997. Explaining the Premiums Paid for Large Acquisitions: Evidence of CEO Hubris Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 103 - 127 .*Jemison and Sitkin. 1986. Corporate Acquisitions: A Process Perspective. Academy of Management Review 11(1): 145-163.*Karim and Mitchell. 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.*Morck, Shleifer, and Vishny. 1989. Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control. American Economic Review 79(4): 842-852.14. (12/7/16, H&R): Student feedback and discussion of your term paper draftsThe following readings explore the review process and may be of use in preparing feedback:*Agarwal, Echambadi, Franco, and Sarkar. 2006. Reap Rewards: Maximizing Benefits from Reviewer Comments Academy of Management Journal 49(2): 191-196.*Rynes, Sara L. (2006). Making the Most of the Review Process: Lessons from Award Winning Authors. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2): 189-190. *Rynes. 2006. Observations on "Anatomy of an R&R" and other Reflections. Academy of Management Journal 49(2): 208-214.*Beyer, Chanove, and Fox. 1995. The Review Process and the Fates of Manuscripts Submitted to AMJ Academy of Management Journal 38(5): 1219-1260 . *Floyd, Schroeder, and Finn. 1994. "Only if I'm First Author": Conflict over Credit in Management Scholarship Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 734-747 .15. (12/14/16): Forthcoming papers - Student choice(12/12 & 12/19): Student presentations (MHR Brown Bag) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download