LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL
Ph.D. Seminar in Strategy Process
Spring Term 2009
Location: A127
Time: Thursdays 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Instructor: Louise Mors
Office: S337
Phone: 020 7000 8728
Email: lmors@london.edu
Assistant: Hanna Inberg
Email : hinberg@london.edu
Course description
Strategy and organization scholars often make a distinction between content and
process approaches to strategy. While strategy content usually is concerned with the
relationship between strategic positions and firm performance, classical research on
strategy process has focused on how firms find themselves in such positions in the
first place. Thus, a main criticism of strategy content research has been that it does
not address how strategic decisions are made and implemented, and therefore has
limited value to management. Not surprisingly, strategy process research has been
criticised for describing how strategic decisions are made and implemented without
taking into account the attractiveness of the positions attained.
Meanwhile, more recent developments in strategy and organization research have
begun to blur the distinction between process and content. Increasing interest in
evolutionary approaches to organizational adaptation, theories of dynamic
capabilities, complexity models, design theory, strategic entrepreneurship and
innovation, all suggest that the simple process/content distinction is becoming
outdated. In this seminar we will first trace this development by focusing on some of
the classical strategy process literature. We will then explore some of the more
recent takes on strategy process, focusing on the different ways this research
combines process and content arguments to develop strong theory.
Course Objectives
Though this course is intended to provide students with the knowledge required to
complete their degrees, it is equally concerned with their scholarly development.
Acknowledging the importance of publishing for career progress, this course will
have a significant focus on research. The intention is for students to experience the
process of conducting research and crafting a paper. This is knowledge best learnt
through practice.
In brief, this course aims at:
1.
2.
3.
Providing students with an overview of different ways of studying
strategy process, as discussed above.
Develop critical skills for the evaluation of work in this area
Pushing students to develop a theoretical argument related to a
strategy process question and to think about the appropriate
empirical evidence to test it.
Course Format
Rather than attempting an exhaustive survey of the vast literature attached to the
field of strategy process, this course focuses on key, influential readings. Students
will be required to read a smaller number of readings (starred articles) with the
understanding that they will study these in depth. In most cases I have also included
a few supplementary references, in case you are interested in deepening your
knowledge in a particular area. In approaching the required readings, you should
think about the following questions:
1. How is the research motivated and framed? What do the authors (implicitly or
explicitly) regard as incomplete in existing research such that their argument
constitutes a significant contribution?
2. What is the main theoretical argument of the paper? What causal
mechanisms are proposed and why? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of such theory?
3. What types of evidence do the authors bring to bear to support their
argument? How convincing is it? What other evidence might help them test
their argument better?
4. Is this paper a contribution to a “big picture” question in the field? Could the
work have made a bigger contribution in any other way?
Familiarity with general terms and concepts in the field is presumed. Students
wishing to brush up on some of the classics may refer to:
Mintzberg and Quinn, 1996, The Strategy Process: Concepts, contexts,
cases, 3rd edn. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall).
For a reminder of what constitutes theoretical development in the social sciences:
Sutton, R. I. And Shaw, B. M. (1995). “What Theory is Not”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol 40, 371-384.
Hedstrom, Peter and Richard Swedberg. (1998). “Social Mechanisms: an
Introductory Essay.” Pages 1-31 in Peter Hedström and Richard Swedberg,
(eds)., Social Mechanisms: an Analytical Approach to Social Theory. New
York: Cambridge University Press
Course Requirements
Weekly memos and class participation (30% of the grade)
Students must submit a two-page note criticizing one of the starred readings by 7:00
pm the evening before class. Please send these as email attachments to me by this
time. Each student will provide a 5-10 minute overview of his/her assigned reading
as part of the class discussion
Everyone, however, is expected to prepare all the required readings, not just the
ones they are writing about.
Students are also expected to actively participate in class, as the success of this
course depends on them reading the material and be prepared to talk critically about
it. The class participation grade will depend both on the quantity and quality of the
student’s contributions.
Leading class discussions (20% of the grade)
Each student will be required to facilitate and lead class discussion two or three
times during the course. They will be expected to present the main ideas of that
week’s readings to the rest of the class both pointing out complements and
contrasts, as well as contributions to the field (without discussing the individual
readings in detail).
Presenters will also be responsible for leading class discussion by posing reflective
and provocative questions to their classmates.
Details of who will lead each session will be provided in class. I will inform you by
email about the logistics of the first session.
Research exercises and term paper (50% of the grade)
Students will also be required to partake of an ongoing research exercise in which
they develop their own paper or research proposal. The emphasis of this exercise
will be to develop original theory and to search for the appropriate empirical evidence
to test it. Students will be required to hand in memos at regular intervals and present
them briefly during class. I will provide individual feedback after each presentation,
and you will be expected to incorporate this (and other students’ feedback) as
appropriate in the final paper. The timeline and details of this exercise are:
Date
One day before session 3
During session 3
One day before session 6
During session 6
Two days before session 10
During session 10
4 weeks after the end of
class
Section
Hand in memo on chosen research question
(1-2 pages)
Present your proposal to the class
Hand in literature review and theoretical
model (approx. 8 pages)
Present your theory and model to the class
Hand in a draft of the whole paper to me, and
distribute a copy to the other students
Present your paper and give feedback to
your colleagues
Hand in final paper (20 pages max.)
COURSE OUTLINE
Session 1: The Classics: January 15th
* Barnard, C.I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press (Part IV).
* Simon, H.A. (1976, originally 1945). Administrative Behaviour, New York: The Free
Press, (Chapters 1, 4 & 5).
* Chandler, A. D. Jr. (1962). Strategy and Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
(Introduction, Chapters 1 & 2).
* Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration, New York: Harper & Row
(Chapters 1 & 2).
Huff, A.S. & Reger, R.K. (1987). A Review of Strategic Process Research. Journal of
Management, 13 (2): 211-236.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of
Management Review, 24 (4): 691-710.
Session 2: Strategy Formulation: January 22nd
* Bower. J. L. and Doz, Y. (1979). “Strategy Formulation: A Social and Political
Process. In D. E. Schendel and C. W. Hofer (eds.) Strategic Management: A New
View of Business Policy and Planning, Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company,
pp152-166, 180-188.
* Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A Model of the Interaction of Strategic Behavior,
Corporate Context, and the Concept of Strategy, Academy of Management Review,
88 (1): 61-70.
* Szulanski, G. and Amin, K. (2001). Learning to Make Strategy: Balancing Discipline
and Imagination. Long Range Planning, 34 (5): 537-556.
* Szulanski, G., Doz, Y., and Ovetzky, Y. (2004). Incumbents’ Framing: Three
Established Companies Respond to the Internet. Advances in Strategic
Management, 21: 77-106.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration
Review, 19(2): 79-88.
Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the Resource Allocation Process: A Study of
Corporate Planning and Investment, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
(for further reference only).
Session 3: Planning vs. Emergent Strategies: January 29th
[The second half of this class will be devoted to students’ presentations of research
proposals]
* Bower, J. L. (1970). Planning Within the Firm. American Economic Review, May
1970.
* Mintzberg, H. (1990). The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of
Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol 11 (3), 171-195.
* Ansoff, H. I. (1991). Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s The Design School:
Reconstructing the Basic Premises of Strategic Management. Strategic Management
Journal, Vol 12 (6), 449-461.
* Mintzberg, H. (1991). Research Notes and Communications – Learning 1,
Planning 0 Reply to Igor Ansoff. Strategic Management Journal, Vol 12 (7), 463-466.
* Brews, P.J., & Hunt, M.R. (1999). Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn:
Resolving the Planning School/Learning School Debate. Strategic Management
Journal, 20 (10): 889-913.
Mintzberg, H. and McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy Formation in Adhocracy.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 30 (2), 160-197.
Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Homewood: IL,
Irwin (Chapters 1 & 2).
Session 4: Cognition, Learning and Decision Making: February 5th
* Cyert, R. & March, J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall (Chapters 1 & 2).
* Levinthal, Daniel A. and March, J.G. (1993). The Myopia of Learning. Strategic
Management Journal, 14 (8): 95-112.
* Gavetti, G. & Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking Forward and Looking Backward:
Cognitive and Experiential Search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (1): 113137.
* Bettis, Richard A. and Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The Dominant Logic: Retrospective
and Extension. Strategic Management Journal, Vol 16 (1): 5-14.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapters 7 &
8.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, Image, and Issue Interpretation:
Sensemaking Suring Strategic Change in Academia. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41(3): 370-403.
Eisenhardt, M. & Zbaracki, M.J. (1992). Strategic Decision Making. Strategic
Management Journal, 13 (8): 17-37.
Session 5: Resources and Dynamic Capabilities: February 12th
* Dierckx, I and Cool, K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of
Competetive Advantage. Management Science, Vol 35, No. 12, 1504-1511.
* Teece, D. Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol 18, issue 7, 509 –533.
* Baum, J.A. and Ingram, P. (1998). Survival-Enhancing Learning in the Manhattan
Hotel Industry, 1898-1980. Management Science, 44 (7): 996-1017.
* Priem, R. and Butler, J. (2001), “Is the Resource-Based ‘View’ a Useful
Perspective for Strategic Management Research?”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol 26, issue 1, 22-40.
Sorensen, J.B. and Stuart, T.E. (2000). Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational
Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (1): 81-112.
Barnett, W.P. and Sorenson, O. (2002). The Red Queen in Organizational Creation
and Development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (2): 289-325.
In pack 2
Session 6: Evolutionary Perspectives on Strategy: February 19th
[The second half of this class will be devoted to students’ presentations of literature
review and theory development]
* Lovas, B and Goshal, S. (2000). Strategy as Guided Evolution. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol 21 (9), 875-896.
* Phillips, D.J. (2002). A Genealogical Approach to Organizational Life Chances: The
Parent-Progeny Transfer Among Silicon Valley Law Firms, 1946-1996.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (3): 474-506.
* Sorenson, O. (2000). Letting the Market Work for You: An Evolutionary Perspective
on Product Strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (5): 577-592.
* Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking
Complexity, Theory and Time-paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 42 (1), 1-34.
* Burgelman, R. A. (1994). Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic
Business Exit in Dynamic Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 39
(1), 24-56.
Ruef, M. (2000). The Emergence of Organizational Forms: A Community Ecology
Approach. American Journal of Sociology, 106 (3): 658-714.
Padgett, J.F. (2001). Organizational Genesis, Identity and Control: The
Transformation of Banking in Renaissance Florence. In James E. Rauch and
Alessandra Casella (Eds.), Networks and Markets. New York: Russell Sage.
Session 7: Knowledge and the Firm: February 26th
* Kogut, B and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities,
and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397.
* Eisenhardt K, Santos F. (2002). Knowledge-Based View: A New Theory of
Strategy? In Handbook of Strategy and Management, Pettigrew A, Thomas H,
Whittington R, (eds.), pp.139-164, Sage Publications: London.
* Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.
Organization Science, 5(1): 14-37.
* Grant, R. M. (1996). “Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm.” Strategic
Management Journal 17(Winter Special Issue): 109-122.
* Conner, K. R. and Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm:
Knowledge versus Opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5): 477-501.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments:
Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration. Organization Science, 7(4):
375-386.
Szulanski G. (1996). Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of
Best Practice within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special
Issue): 27-43.
Session 8: Knowledge and Networks: March 5th
* Nahapiet J. and Ghoshal S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the
Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2): 242-266.
* Hansen, M. T. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in
Sharing Knowledge Across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44(1): 82-111.
* Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L. and Løvås, B. (2005). Knowledge Sharing in
Organizations: Multiple Networks, Multiple Phases. Academy of Management
Journal, 48(5): 776-793.
* Reagans R. and McEvily B. (2003). Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer:
The Effects of Cohesion and Range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (2): 240268.
* Reagans R. and Zuckerman E. (2001). Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The
Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams. Organization Science, 12 (4): 502-517.
Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J.W. and Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, Networks and
Knowledge Flow, Research Policy, 35 (7): 994-1017
Song J., Almeida P. and Wu G. (2003). Learning-by-Hiring: When is Mobility more
Likely to Facilitate Interfirm Knowledge Transfer? Management Science, 49 (4): 351365.
Ruef M. (2002). Strong Ties, Weak ties and Islands: Structural and Cultural
Predictors of Organizational Innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3):
427-449.
Session 9: Strategy Processes in the Multinational: Friday March 6th Room
P113 - NOTE DIFFERENT DATE AND LOCATION
[The second half of this class will be devoted to the study of an example of how a
paper evolves from idea to final version]
* Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991).Knowledge Flows and the Structure of
Control Within Multinational Corporation. Academy of Management Review, 16(4):
768-792.
* Nohria, N. and Goshal, S. (1997). The Differentiated Network: Organizing
Multinational Corporations for Value Creation, Jossey-Bass (Chapters 1 & 2).
* Hansen, M. T. and Løvås, B. (2004). How Do Multinational Companies Leverage
Technological Competencies? Moving from Single to Interdependent Explanations.
Strategic Management Journal, 25 (8/9): 801-822.
* Westney, D. E. and Zaheer, S. The Multinational Enterprise as an Organization.
Chapter 13 in Oxford Handbook of International Business. Oxford University Press.
* Ghoshal, S., Korine, H and G. Szulanski. 1994 Interunit Communication in
Multinational Corporations. Management Science, 40 (1): 96-110.
Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. (1998). Multinational Subsidiary Evolution: Capability
and Charter Change in Foreign-Owned Subsidiary Companies, Academy of
Management Review, 23(4): 773-795.
Schulz M. (2003). Pathways of Relevance: Exploring Inflows of Knowledge into
Subunits of Multinational Corporations. Organization Science, 14 (4): 440-459.
Session 10: Presentations and feedback: March 12th