Stevens Institute of Technology



Class Syllabus:

Contact Information

Professor: Ann Mooney, Ph.D., M.B.A., C.P.A.

Office: Babbio 637

Office Hrs.: After class + hours by appointment

Phone: (201) 216-5056

Email: amooney@stevens.edu

Course Website (webct):

For instruction on how to log on to webct:

Note: I check e-mail multiple times a day, so that is quickest way to get in touch with me. I am also in school most days, so feel free to just stop by if you need me and if I’m available, I’ll help. If I’m not available, we can see up a time to meet.

II. Course Materials

You will not have to purchase a textbook for this course. Instead, we will be reading articles – both from capstone/classic literature as well as more current literature. I have made all of these articles available for you on the course website found on webct.

III. Course Objectives

GOOD THEORY + GOOD METHODS = GOOD RESEARCH

The two main components of good research are good theory and good research methods. In fact, I would argue that among the two, theory is the most important. Unless there are fatal flaws in research design, methodology can always be improved. Theory, however, often is less easy to alter.

The problem is, not many people understand what good theory is. Thus, the principle objective of this course is to make you one of the few that do. It is impossible to teach you everything you need to know about theory in the context of one course. I’ve been studying theory for many years and I still have a lot to learn. Within a course, however, we can make real progress. Specifically, it is my goal that you understand:

1. What makes theory good theory

2. What some of the major theories are in management research

3. How these major theories were established

4. How these major theories have been applied to management research

5. How you can apply these major theories to your research

IV. Course Tests & Assignments

Your grade in the course will be based on the following:

Individual Assignments:

Class Participation 20%

Class Presentations of Theories 30%

Midterm Exam 25%

Final Paper 25%

Brief Description of Assignments (more thorough descriptions will be provided during the semester):

Class Participation

To get the most learning from this course, you must actively participate in the classroom experience. Participation first means coming to class. Participation also means actively participating in classroom discussions. We have a lot to learn from each other. Your participation will be graded at the end of the semester.

Class Presentation of Theories

In most class periods, you will be responsible for presenting a research article and facilitating discussion about it. The suggested format for this would be a 5 minute overview of the article (using 2-3 PowerPoint slides) with a 15-20 minute discussion to follow (time depends on how interested the class is in the article). See attached class schedule for list of theories and articles we will cover.

Take-Home Midterm Exam

An Exam will be given at the middle of the course and will include all material covered as of the date of the exam. The format of the exam will be discussed as it approaches.

Final Paper

At the conclusion of the course, a final paper will be due that shows you understand and can apply the theories from class. We will discuss this paper as the course progresses.

V. Academic Honesty Policy

Ethical Conduct

The following statement is printed in the Stevens Graduate Catalog and applies to all students taking Stevens courses, on and off campus : “Cheating during in-class tests or take-home examinations or homework is, of course, illegal and immoral. A Graduate Academic Evaluation Board exists to investigate academic improprieties, conduct hearings, and determine any necessary actions. The term ‘academic impropriety’ is meant to include, but is not limited to, cheating on homework, during in-class or take home examinations and plagiarism.“

Consequences of academic impropriety are severe, ranging from receiving an “F” in a course, to a warning from the Dean of the Graduate School, which becomes a part of the permanent student record, to expulsion.

Reference: The Graduate Student Handbook, Academic Year 2003-2004 Stevens

Institute of Technology, page 10.

Consistent with the above statements, all homework exercises, tests and exams that are designated as individual assignments must contain the following signed statement before they can be accepted for grading. ____________________________________________________________________

I pledge on my honor that I have not given or received any unauthorized assistance on this assignment/examination. I further pledge that I have not copied any material from a book, article, the Internet or any other source except where I have expressly cited the source.

Name (Print) ___________________ Signature ________________ Date: _____________

Please note that assignments in this class may be submitted to , a web-based anti-plagiarism system, for an evaluation of their originality.

Grading

|A: 89.5% - 100% |C: 70% - 79.5% |

|B: 80% - 89.5% |F: 69.5% and below |

VII. Submission Requirements

I expect professional, high-quality work on all assignments. Writing style, grammar, spelling, and overall presentation will be considered in determining your grades. Unless otherwise noted, all written assignments must be typed on a computer, double-spaced, with a 12-point font and one-inch margins.

All assignments must be submitted at the start of class on the day they are due. No late assignments will be accepted unless under extreme circumstances that you have discussed with me in advance of the due date. Failure to hand in the assignments by the designated date will result in grade of “0” for the assignment. Tests must also be taken on the designated dates.

VIII. Special Note

Throughout the course, I may make changes to any of the information outlined above. I will give you reasonable advance notice of such changes.

THEORIES IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

Class Schedule and Assignments

1/18/2007

|Date |Session |Topic |Readings |Presenters |

|1/18/07 |1 |Course Introduction |Sutton, R.I. & Staw, B.M. (1995). What theory is not. |N/A |

| | | |Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |DiMaggio, P.J. (1995).  Comments on "what theory is not".  | |

| | | |Administrative Science Quarterly,  40, 391-397. | |

| | | | |N/A |

|1/25/07 |2 |The Importance of |Weick, K.E. (1995).  What theory is not, theorizing is.  | |

| | |Theory |Administrative Science Quarterly,  40, 385-390. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Weick, K.E. (1989).  Theory construction as disciplined | |

| | | |imagination .Academy of Management Review,  14,  516-531. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Bacharach, S.B. (1989).  Organizational theories: Some criteria | |

| | | |for evaluation.  Academy of Management Review,  14,  496-515. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Ketchen, D.J. (2002).  Some candid thoughts on the publication | |

| | | |process. Journal of Management,  28, 585-590. | |

|2/1/07 |3 |Population Ecology & |Hannan & Freeman, (1977). The population ecology of | |

| | |Strategic Choice |organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929-64. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Young, R. C. (1988). Is Population Ecology a Useful Paradigm for | |

| | | |the Study of Organizations? American Journal of Sociology: 1-24.| |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Child, J. (1972). Organizational Structure, Environment and | |

| | | |Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice. Sociology. 6: 1-22. | |

| | | | | |

|2/8/07 |4 |Bounded Rationality and|Hambrick, D.C. and S. Finkelstein (1987). Managerial discretion: A| |

| | |Decision Making |bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in| |

| | | |Organizational Behavior. L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw. Greenwich,| |

| | | |CT, JAI Press. 9: 369-406. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The | |

| | | |structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative | |

| | | |Science Quarterly, 21: 246 – 275. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Cohen, March, & Olsen (1972). A garbage can model of | |

| | | |organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1-25 | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. | |

| | | |Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall. (no reading; overview from | |

| | | |Mooney) | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Simon, H.A. 1947. Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan.| |

| | | |(no reading; overview from Mooney) | |

| | | | | |

|2/15/07 |5 |Resource Based View of |Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-based view of the firm. | |

| | |the Firm |Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), pp. 171-180 | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive | |

| | | |advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 1, p. 99-120. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Conner, K. (1991) A historical comparison of resource-based | |

| | | |theory and five schools of thought within industrial | |

| | | |organizational economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? | |

| | | |Journal of Management, 17(1): 121-154. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten | |

| | | |years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 171-174 | |

|2/22/07 |6 |Upper Echelon Theory |Hambrick, D.C. & Mason, P.A. (1984). Upper echelons: The | |

| | | |organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of | |

| | | |Management Review, 9: 193 – 206. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Wiersema, M.F. & Bantel, K.A. (1992). Top management team | |

| | | |demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management | |

| | | |Journal. 35: 91 – 121. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Finkelstein, S. & Hambrick, D.C. (1996). Strategic leadership: | |

| | | |Top executives and their effects on organizations (in West’s | |

| | | |Strategic Management Series). Minneapolis, MN: West. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Hambrick, D.C., Finkelstein, A.C. & Mooney, A.C. (2005). | |

| | | |Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic | |

| | | |decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review. | |

| | | |Forthcoming. | |

| | | | | |

|3/1/07 |7 |Agency Theory |Fama, (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. | |

| | | |Journal of Political Economy 88: 288-307. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Fama & Jensen, (1983). Separation of ownership and control. | |

| | | |Journal of Law and Economics 26: 301-25. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency Theory: Assessment and Review. | |

| | | |Academy of Management Review. 14: 47-74. | |

|3/8/07 |8 |Institutional Theory |DiMaggio, P., and Powell, W., "The Iron Cage Revisited: | |

| | | |Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in | |

| | | |Organizational Fields," in The New Institutionalism in | |

| | | |Organizational Analysis, (Powell & DiMaggio eds), The University | |

| | | |of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 63-82. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Haveman, H. (1988). Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and | |

| | | |entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: | |

| | | |593-627. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Oliver, C. (1988). The collective strategy framework: An | |

| | | |application of competing predictions of isomorphism. | |

| | | |Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4): 543-561 | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Mizruchi, M., and Fein, L., “The Social Construction of | |

| | | |Organizational Knowledge: A Study of Coercive, Mimetic, and | |

| | | |Normative Isomorphism,” Administrative Science Quarterly, December| |

| | | |1999, Vol. 44, 4, pp. 653-683. | |

|3/22/07 (no |9 |Social Judgment Theory |TAKE HOME EXAMS DUE | |

|class on 3/15) | |and Attribution Theory | | |

| | | |Brehmer, B., 1976. Social judgment theory and the analysis of | |

| | | |interpersonal conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 985-1003. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Harvey, J. H. & Weary, G., 1985. Attribution: Basic Issues and | |

| | | |Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons. (no reading; summary | |

| | | |provided by Mooney) | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Heider, F., 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. NY:| |

| | | |John Wiley & Sons. (no reading; summary provided by Mooney) | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Mooney, A.C., Holahan, P. & Amason, A. Don’t take it personally: | |

| | | |Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. | |

| | | |Journal of Management Studies. Forthcoming. | |

|3/29/07 |10 |Social Network Theory |Granovetter, M. S. (1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties." The | |

| | | |American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360. | |

| | | |Brass, D. J., K. D. Butterfield and B. C. Skaggs (1998). | |

| | | |Relationships and Unethical Behavior: A Social Network | |

| | | |Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23: 14. | |

| | | |Burt, R. S. (1997). "The Contingent Value of Social Capital." | |

| | | |Administrative Science Quarterly 42(2): 339. | |

| | | |Moody, J. and D. R. White (2003). "Structural cohesion and | |

| | | |embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups." American | |

| | | |Sociological Review, 68(1): 103. | |

|4/5/07 |11 |Prospect Theory |Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis | |

| | | |of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47: 263-291. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and | |

| | | |the psychology of choice. Science, 211: 453-458. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Amason, A.C. & Mooney, A.C. (2005). Resource endowments, | |

| | | |strategic decision processing, and the paradox of organizational | |

| | | |performance. Working Paper. | |

|4/12/07 |12 |Shumpeterian Economics |Robbins, L.C. (1955) Schumpeter’s history of economic analysis. | |

| | | |Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69: 1-22. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Baumol, W. The Entrepreneur in Economic Theory (Ch.1) in | |

| | | |Enterpreurship, management and the structure of payoffs. MIT | |

| | | |Press: Cambridge. | |

| | | | | |

| | | |Evans, D. & Jovanovic, B. 1989. An estimated model of | |

| | | |entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. The Journal | |

| | | |of Political Economy, 97: 808-827. | |

| | | | | |

|4/19/07 |13 |Transaction Cost |Coase, Ronald H., (1937) "The Nature of the Firm," Economica, | |

| | |Economics |4(n.s.), 1937, 386-405. Reprinted in R.H. Coase, (1988) The Firm, | |

| | | |the Market, and the Law, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, | |

| | | |33-55. | |

| | | |Williamson, Oliver E., The Economics of Organization: The | |

| | | |Transaction Cost Approach American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, | |

| | | |No. 3. (Nov., 1981), pp. 548-577. [particularly: pp.555-62] | |

| | | |Williamson, O.E. A dynamic theory of interfirm behavior. | |

| | | |Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79: 579-607. | |

|4/26/07 |14 |Course Conclusion: |FINAL PAPERS DUE | |

| | |Bringing it all | | |

| | |together | | |

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download