Rutgers University
Ph.D. in Management Program
MGMT 558: Theory and Research in Business Policy & Strategy
Fall 2003, Wednesday 10 – 12:50, Engelhard 303
Dr. Marguerite Schneider
Phones: 973-596-3294(w), 201-420-9370(h). Fax: 973-596-3074
e-mail: mschneid@adm.njit.edu
MY OFFICE INFO: 4029 Central Avenue Building. My hours are Tuesday and Thursday
1:00 – 2:00 and 4:00 – 5:00, and by appointment (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday).
Course Description and Objectives:
This is a doctoral seminar on theory and research in strategic management. Strategy is a
highly eclectic field that reflects a range of influences, including various schools of
economics, organization theory, psychology, etc. It also is an academic field with a
unique relationship to the actual practice of strategy in organizations. The research
conducted in the academic component of strategy can and sometimes does have a large
influence on actual strategy practice. This results in the creation of a somewhat
idiosyncratic responsibility being thrust on those conducting research in this field vis-àvis other fields. And, conversely, actual events in strategy practice can and sometimes do
have a large influence on strategy research. For example, the general failure of unrelated
diversification – the conglomerate movement of the 1960s and 1970s – led to new
theorizing and the unearthing of old theory that had not been en vogue. The degree to
which this academic-practitioner relationship taints the field and makes it less academic,
or energizes the field and makes it more vital, is a large subject of debate.
As a doctoral course on strategy, it involves a critical review of a wide variety of
approaches to strategy research. We will focus on a number of topics, examining both
theoretical and empirical work related to the topics. However, students should be
apprised that strategy is a very large field, so that we will not be covering all topics
within its domain nor will we be covering more than a modest percentage of the articles
within each topic. If I were to overload you with many, many papers, you would
remember little and get lost in the details, not “seeing the forest for the trees”. Instead,
the goal is to introduce students to the field - to the main research questions in the field,
and some seminal and recent research topics and methods within it – so that they may
gain exposure to then develop their own research interests. Further, additional student
groundwork in strategy will be necessary to prepare for the comprehensive exams, just as
additional groundwork is necessary to prepare for other areas of the comprehensive
exams.
The main objectives of the course, stated in order, are: (1) to prepare students for the
strategy component (as well as other components) of the comprehensive exam, (2) to
whet student interest in some topics within strategy, and (3) to train students to frame
research within the field and then engage in the research.
As such, we will be focusing on the content of readings (what they have to say) as well as
the more difficult analysis of the readings’ research methods (how they are able to it).
Last, we will also step back and analyze the craft of academic writing in strategy – how
the researchers shape their arguments through use of language, to convey a story (how
they say it). Toward the end of the course, you should have a solid sense of research in
the field, how research is conducted in the field, and how researchers convey their
research in article form. An understanding of all three components is necessary for you
to successfully pass the comprehensive exam and develop your own research interests
into a dissertation and publications.
This seminar is an introductory course, and has no perquisites. Some second-year
students enter it with exposure to courses in research methods, organization theory,
innovation and technology, international business, etc., and are ready to discuss course
material at a level that reflects their first-year experience. But, many students are new to
the program, and this is their first exposure to thinking at the doctoral level. We must be
respectful and mindful of these differences, which lead to an eclectic student mix and
hopefully will lead to a communal sense of the joys and challenges of the various stages
of the doctoral program. In a doctoral program, students should learn from each other
and learn to support each other regarding their progress in the program. As a doctoral
student, you should accept that you are to a large degree self-managed and self-led in a
team with other students, operating within the confines and guidance set forth by faculty
and program administration.
Method of the Course:
The course consists of a series of linked seminars. I will present some views, but it is
vital to the course and to your development that the class is able to hear a great deal about
what you think. As humans, we jump to a higher level of learning and develop deeper
understanding of a subject when we are able to air and convey our thoughts to others
(versus keeping the thoughts in our own heads). Thus, participation in class discussion is
vital for all. Each student must take responsibility for the success of the class.
Participation should not just convey that you have “done the readings”, that is assumed.
Rather, your participation should convey that you have thought deeply about the
readings, the theory and methods used in them, and how the authors have conveyed the
research. Given the weekly reading load, the level of difficulty of the readings, and that
other course components occur simultaneously with weekly reading preparation, this is
not easy to do. But, it is what you must do to do well in the course and on the
comprehensive exams.
2
Finally, you should convey a sense of critique of the readings. Some questions to think
about as you read include:
-
-
What research question(s) are being addressed?
What are the researcher(s)’ embedded assumptions about organizations and
strategy?
How does each reading fit together with the others, and with other literature
within and outside of strategy?
How does each reading fit into, and enhance or hurt, the field of strategy?
Is a particular reading clearly outstanding and influential, is it reasonable within
the general criteria of the field, of did the author(s) apparently get lucky that the
manuscript got through the review process and got published?
Based upon the scant selection of readings, what seem to be research questions
that could be the subject of study in a doctoral dissertation today? This last
question is very important, for it might spark you or others in the class to do
research in an area, either for the course paper or for your dissertation.
It is STRONGLY suggested though not required that you make notes regarding each
reading, which will be invaluable to you to preparation for the comps and in conducting
research for the course and for later projects. I have found that in many cases, my own
hand-written notes at the beginning of each article and within it suffice. In other cases, it
is necessary that I develop a more formal typed page or two regarding the reading. You
may want to do one, the other, or both. If you would like, I can review your note-making
to make suggestions once or twice, but I am not going to require that you submit formal
write-ups of each article (or an overview of all of them) each week. To me, to do so
would defy the self-managed, self-led aspect of being in a doctoral program.
Strategy requires a mix of analysis and intuition. Pay attention to both aspects of your
reaction to the readings. You may not have answers to all of the questions worked out
per reading before class, but you must have something to say. The purpose of the
seminar is to further develop your ideas based upon the conversation that transpires.
Student Evaluation:
1) General Student Contribution and Preparation: 30%
A) Each student will lead a class discussion. If we have more students than
classes, we will split some topics up into two discussions per the class,
each student covering half of the day’s articles. We will start with the
second-year students, who have some experience to do this well and can
serve as role models for the newer students.
B) Each student is expected to contribute to each class discussion. It is
quality, not quantity, of participation that matters more, though frequent
participation may indicate good preparation. Pontification and
obfuscation are not viewed as contributing to the discussion. Domination
tactics detract from the learning process, and will be politely cut short,
while influence tactics are wise and will be rewarded.
3
2) Student Book Review: Report and Synopsis Presentation: 10%
Each student will write a review of a book in or related to the strategy field
and present their review to the class. A copy of the review will be given to
each student, and each student will also prepare a 5 minute synopsis of their
review to the class. Both the review and the synopsis presentation are due
on 11/19.
A list of suitable books is included at the end of the syllabus. If you are
interested in doing a book not on the list, that is fine but you must have my
permission. If you have done a book review in another course, and do the
same book here, you are really cheating yourself and hurting your scholarship.
I want you to review a book other than one you have already reviewed.
Please read several book reviews in Academy of Management Review or
other academic management journals before writing your book review. A
book review is about demonstrating knowledge of the book’s content, and
presenting an interesting, fun, and well-grounded evaluation of it that
encourages or discourages the reader from reading the book, within a set of
constraints (e.g., I would suggest this book to those highly interested in and
familiar with XXX – implying it is not recommended to the general
management academic.)
3) Mid-term: 20%
Doctoral program administration seems concerned that student evaluation in
courses is generally heavily weighted toward the end of the course. I agree
that this is not a good feedback process – by then, the effort is expended and
performance cannot be improved based upon the feedback. So, a mid-term
exam is in order. It will be take home. It will be a question or questions
similar to those in comprehensive exams. I do not expect you to know the
field, argue, and write at the same level as if you were actually taking the
comps, but I want to assess whether you are on the right track and help you
with this feedback.
The mid-term will be given out in class on 10/22, and is due back on
10/29.
4) Research Paper: 40%
A comprehensive research paper is required by the end of the semester, which
must be similar in format and style to an article in Academy of Management
Review, Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal, or
Organization Science.
You are to give me a 3-4 page, well cited research proposal of this paper (with
additional pages for references) by November 5. I will get this back to you
with commentary as to the efficacy of the topic and your proposed approach
to it.
4
You are also to prepare a brief (no more than 10 minutes, given the size of the
class and the need to discuss the day’s topic) presentation to the class for
November 5 regarding the proposal. Putting your ideas in words, and getting
feedback from the class, will provide further feedback regarding the proposal.
We will probably break the class into two sections to get this done within an
hour to hour and one-half.
The idea of a research paper in a doctoral course in inherently problematic, as clearly
there is insufficient time in a semester to learn enough about a topic to conduct empirical
research in an area, and then conduct the research. Yet, the requirement of a research
paper in a doctoral course requires no defense. Research is a large part of what
academics do, and you are most likely here to be trained to be an academic.
That said, the research paper should follow the model of a theory-building paper which
develops propositions, for their subsequent development into hypotheses and empirical
testing of the hypotheses. It should also have an eye toward later empirical study of the
propositions developed, and have a section which explores this. We will cover several
such papers throughout the semester, and you are of course to find such papers for the
literature review in the topic you will study. Use these papers as models in fashioning
your course research paper.
Perhaps you are a strictly qualitative, non-positivist research person, and are therefore
opposed to the idea of proposition building. If so, you must engage in sufficient theory
development in the paper to guide a subsequent grounded theory building effort, to be
conducted in a subsequent case study. Your paper should have an eye toward the later
case study and how it could best lead to new grounded theory.
The paper should be 15-20 pages of text, plus references. Also try to design and include
graphics and tables and include them after the references.
Final Note on Student Evaluation
Academics who are effective – who publish well, teach well, and provide quality service
to their institutions and the field – work toward deadlines. In terms of publication,
conference deadlines often drive the completion of the first comprehensive and
reasonably articulated draft of a paper. The flow of academic life – summers without
teaching, spring and winter breaks, days not teaching – creates its own set of deadlines
(e.g., my goal is to get this manuscript to a journal before September. I’ll start the
secondary library research on Friday, when I don’t teach.) The point is that I insist upon
receiving a reasonably polished and professional paper before the end of the semester.
I won’t give a grade of incomplete to anyone in the course unless there are truly
extenuating circumstances. While this may seem overly stern, it is actually doing you a
big favor. It is easy to get buried in incompletes that carry over into the next semester,
and fall so far behind that you can’t get out from under the burden of the backlog.
5
Summary of Dates: (Note: You also have a selected date to lead a class.)
10/22 Mid-term handed out in class
10/29 Mid-term due back in class
11/5 Research proposal due
11/19 Book report and presentation due
12/10 Research paper due
6
Weekly Schedule As of 9/15
1) Overview 9/3
2) Continuation of Overview 9/10
3) What is Strategy? 9/17
Bettis, R. A. 1991. Strategic management and the straightjacket: An editorial essay.
Organization Science, 2: 315-319.
(Hardcopy)
Mintzberg, H. 1990, Strategy formulation: Schools of thought. In Frederickson, J.W.
(Ed.), Perspectives on Strategic Management: 105-235. NY: Harper & Row.
(Hardcopy)
Mintzberg, H. 1990. The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 171-196.
(Blackboard)
Ansoff, H. I. 1991. Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s “The design school: Reconsidering the
basic premises of strategic management.” Strategic Management Journal, 12: 449-462.
(Blackboard)
Rumelt, R. P. Schendel, D. and Teece, D. J. 1991. Strategic management and economics.
Strategic Management Journal. 12 (Winter Special Issue): 5-29.
(Blackboard)
Porter, M. E. 1996, What is Strategy?, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec: 61-78.
(Hardcopy)
Summer, C., et al., 1990. Doctoral education in the field of business policy and strategy.
Journal of Management, 16(2): 361-398.
(Hardcopy)
Prahalad, C.K., and Hamel, G. 1994. Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new
paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15(Summer), 5-16.
(Blackboard)
7
4) Goals, Planning, and Performance 9/24 (Jon)
(NOTE: All Blackboard except Illinitch, Hardcopy)
Simon, H. A. 1964. On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 9(1): 1-22.
Pearce, J. A. Freeman, E. B. and Robinson, R. B. 1987. The tenuous link between formal
strategic planning and financial performance. Academy of Management Review, 12(4):
656-675.
Allaire, Y. and Firsirotu, M. E. 1989. Coping with strategic uncertainty. Sloan
Management Review, 30(3): 7-16.
Quinn, J. B. 1978. Strategic change: “Logical incrementalism”. Sloan Management
Review. 20 (fall): 7-21.
Bettis, R. A. (1983). Modern financial theory, corporate strategy and public policy: Three
conundrums. Academy of Management Review, 8(3): 406-415.
Snow, C., and Hanbrick, D. 1980. Measuring organizational strategies: Some theoretical
and methodological problems. Academy of Management Review, 5: 527-538.
Hansen, G. S., and Wernerfelt, B. 1989. Determinants of firm performance: The relative
importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10:
399-411.
Illinitch, A. Y., D’Aveni, R. A. and Lewin, A. Y. 1996. New organizational forms and
strategies for managing in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(3):
1996.
8
5) Research Methods and Use of Theory 10/1 (Marguerite first 2, rest by Yi-Shin)
Examples of influential theory papers
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.
(Blackboard)
Miles, R., Snow, C., Meyer, A., and Coleman, H. 1978. Organization strategy, structure,
and process. Academy of Management Review, July: 546-562.
(Blackboard)
Other papers
Day, D. L., Farley, J., and Wind, J. 1990. New perspectives on strategy research: A view
from management science. Management Science, 36 (Introduction to the Special Issue).
(Blackboard)
Jick, T. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 602-611.
(Hardcopy ready, to be scanned and posted to Blackboard by Luiba)
Venkatraman, N., and Grant, N. 1986. Construct measurement in organizational strategy
research: A critique and proposal. Academy of Management Review, 71-87.
(Blackboard).
Godfrey, P. C., and Hill, C.W.L. 1995. The problem of unobservables in strategic
management research. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 519-533.
(Hardcopy, to be scanned and posted to Blackboard by Luiba)
Whetten, D. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14: 490-495.
(Blackboard)
Shrivastava, P. 1986. Is strategic management ideological? Journal of Management,
12(3): 363-377.
(Marguerite – Hardcopies to class)
Lewis, M. W., and Grimes, A. J. 1999. Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple
paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 672-690.
(Blackboard)
Snow, C. C., and Thomas, J. B. 1994. Field research methods in strategic management:
Contributions to theory building and testing. Journal of Management Studies, 31(4):
457-480.
(Marguerite – Hardcopies to class)
9
6) The Industrial Organization School 10/8 (Yanli)
Porter, M. E. 1979. How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review.
March/April: 137-156.
(Available hardcopy, to be scanned and posted to Blackboard by Dorothy)
Porter, M. E. 1981. The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management.
Academy of Management Review, 6, 609-620.
(Blackboard)
Wiggins, R. R., and Ruefli, R. W. 1995. Necessary conditions for the predictive validity
of strategic groups: Analysis without reliance upon clustering techniques. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 1635-1656.
(Blackboard)
Barney, J. B., and Hoskisson, R. 1990. Strategic groups: Untested assertions and research
proposals. Managerial and Decision Economics, 11, 187-198.
(Available hardcopy, to be posted to Blackboard by Dorothy)
Rumelt, R. 1991. How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12,
167-185.
(Blackboard)
Caves, R., and Williamson, P. 1985. What is product differentiation, really? The
Journal of Industrial Economics, 34, 113-132.
(Blackboard)
Lieberman, M. B. 1987. The learning curve, diffusion, and competitive strategy.
Strategic Management Journal, 8, 441-452.
(Available hardcopy, to be scanned and posted to Blackboard by Danielle)
Foss, N. J. 1996. Research in strategy, economics, and Michael Porter. Journal of
Management Studies, 33(1): 1-24.
(Blackboard)
10
7) The Resource Based View 10/15 (Luiba)
Nelson, R. R. 1991. Why are firms different, and why does it matter? Strategic
Management Journal, 12: 61-74.
(Blackboard)
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Schuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533.
(Available hardcopy, to be scanned and posted to Blackboard by Yanli)
Barney, J., Wright, M., and Ketchen, D. J., Jr. 2001. The resource-based view of the firm:
ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6): 625-641.
(Blackboard)
Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstone of competitive advantage: A resource-based view.
Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179-191.
(Available hardcopy, to be scanned and posted to Blackboard by Deepa)
Collis, D. J. 1991. A resource-based analysis of global competition: The case of the
bearings industry. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 49-68.
(Blackboard)
Henderson, R., and Cockburn, I. 1994. Measuring competence: Exploring firm effects in
pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15. Special Winter Issue.
(Blackboard)
Priem, R. L., and Butler, J. E.2001. Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for
strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 22-40.
(Blackboard)
Barney, J. 2001. Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic
management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 41-56.
(Blackboard)
11
8) Diversification, Mergers and Acquisitions 10/22 (Toshanna)
Diversification
Markowitz, H. M. 1952. Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7, 77-91.
(Marguerite, Hardcopies in class)
Ramanujam, V., and Varadarajan, P. 1989. Research on corporate diversification: A
synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 523-551.
(Blackboard)
Rumelt, R. 1982. Diversification strategy and profitability. Strategic Management
Journal, 3, 359-369.
(Blackboard)
Chatterjee, S., and Wernerfelt, B. 1991. The link between resources and types of
diversification: Theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 33-48.
(Blackboard)
Markides, C., and Williamson, P. J. (1994). Related diversification, core competencies,
and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 149-165.
(Blackboard)
Mergers and Acquisitions
Lubatkin, M. H. 1983. Merger and the performance of the acquiring firm. Academy of
Management Review, 8, 218-225.
(Blackboard)
Jensen, M. 1988. Takeovers: Their causes and consequences. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 2, 21-48.
(Blackboard)
12
9) Vertical Integration versus Cooperative Strategies 10/29 (Dorothy)
Vertical Integration
Harrigan, K. R. 1985. Vertical integration and corporate strategy. Academy of
Management Journal, 28(2): 397-425.
(Blackboard)
D’Aveni, R., and Ravenscraft, D. 1994. Economics of integration versus bureaucracy
costs: Does vertical integration improve performance? Academy of Management
Journal, 37: 1167-1206.
(Blackboard)
Cooperation
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology. 3, 481-510.
(Hardcopy, to be scanned and posted to Blackboard by Chelin)
Kogut, B. 1988. Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical predictions. Strategic
Management Journal, 9: 319-332.
(Blackboard)
Ring, P. S., and Van de Ven, A. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19: 90-118.
(Blackboard)
Park, S. H., and Russo, M. V. 1996. When competition eclipses cooperation: An event
history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science, 42, 875-890.
(Blackboard)
Burgers, W. P. C., Hill, C. W. L., and Kim, W. C. 1993. A theory of global strategic
alliances: The case of the global auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 419432.
(Blackboard)
Garud, R., and Kumaraswamy, A. 1993. Changing competitive dynamics in network
industries: An exploration of Sun Microsystems’ Open Systems Strategy. Strategic
Management Journal. 14: 351-369.
(Blackboard)
13
10) Strategic Process and Decision Making 11/5 (Deepa)
Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L. 1982. Managerial response to changing environments:
perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 27: 548-570.
(Blackboard)
Dutton, J. E., and Jackson, S. E. 1987. Categorizing strategic issues: Links to
organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12(1): 76-90.
(Blackboard)
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Zbaracki, M. J. 1992. Strategic decision making. Strategic
Management Journal, 13:17-37.
(Blackboard)
Zajac, E. J., and Bazerman, M. H. 1991. Blind spots in industry and competitor analysis:
Implications of interfirm (mis)perceptions for strategic decisions. Academy of
Management Journal, 591-612.
(Blackboard)
Quinn, J. B. 1977. Strategic goals: Process and politics. Sloan Management Review, 2137.
(Blackboard)
Schneider, S. C., and DeMeyer, A. 1991. Interpreting and responding to strategic issues:
The impact of national culture. Strategic Management Journal, 307-320.
(Blackboard)
Hart, S., and Banbury, C. 1994. How strategy-making processes can make a difference.
Strategic Management Journal, 15: 251-269.
(Blackboard)
Weick, K. E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gluch
disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4): 628-653.
(Blackboard)
14
11) Institutional Economics and Theory of the Firm 11/12 (Neill)
Penrose, E. 1995. The theory of the growth of the firm. Forward to the third edition.
Oxford University Press.
(Marguerite provides Hardcopies)
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Chapter 17: Retrospect and Prospect. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
(Marguerite provides Hardcopies)
Schumpeter, J. A. 1991. The instability of capitalism. In Essays. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers, 47-72.
(Marguerite provides Hardcopies)
NOTE: Remainder from book to be purchased.
R. H. Coase. 1993. The nature of the firm (1937). In Williamson, O. E., and Winter, S.
G. (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins, evolution, and development. Oxford
University Press. 18-33.
R. H. Coase. 1993. The nature of the firm: Influence. In Williamson, O. E., and Winter,
S. G. (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins, evolution, and development. Oxford
University Press. 61-74.
O. E. Williamson. The logic of economic organization. In Williamson, O. E., and
Winter, S. G. (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins, evolution, and development.
Oxford University Press. 90-116.
Demsetz, H. 1993. The theory of the firm revisited. In Williamson, O. E., and Winter, S.
G. (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins, evolution, and development. Oxford
University Press. 159-178.
Winter, S. G. On Coase, competence, and the corporation. In Williamson, O. E., and
Winter, S. G. (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins, evolution, and development.
Oxford University Press. 179-195.
15
12) Corporate Governance 11/19 (Chelin)
Walsh, J. P., and Seward, J. K. 1990. On the efficiency of internal and external corporate
control mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15(3): 421-458.
(Blackboard)
Ryan, L. V., and Schneider, M. 2002. The antecedents of institutional investor activism.
Academy of Management Review, 27(4): 554-573.
(Blackboard and copies)
Chaganti, R. and Damanpour, F. 1991. Institutional ownership, capital structure, and firm
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 479-491.
(Blackboard)
Jensen, M. C., and Murphy, K. J. 1990. Performance pay and top management incentives.
Journal of Political Economy, 98: 225-264.
(Blackboard)
Baysinger, B., and R. E. Hoskisson. 1990. The composition of boards of directors and
strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review, 15,
72-87.
(Blackboard)
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., and Johnson, J. L. 1998. Meta-analytic
reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 19: 269-290
(Blackboard)
Sundaramurthy, C., and Lewis, M. 2003. Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of
governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 397-415.
(Blackboard)
Hambrick, D., and Mason. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its
top managers. Academy of Management Review, 421-458.
(Blackboard)
16
13) Knowledge and Learning 12/3 (Danielle)
Teece, D. J. 1998. Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets
for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, Spring.
(Blackboard)
Teece, D. J. 1998. Research directions for knowledge management. California
Management Review, Spring.
(Blackboard)
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2: 71-87.
(Blackboard)
Vermeulen, F., and Barkema, H. 2001. Learning through acquisitions. Academy of
Management Journal. 44(3): 457-476.
(Blackboard)
Berman, S. L., Down, J., and Hill. C. W. L. 2002. Tacit knowledge as a source of
competitive advantage in the National Basketball Association. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(1): 13-31.
(Blackboard)
Tsoukas, H. 2001. What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies,
38(7): 973-993.
(Blackboard)
Alvesson, M., and Karreman, D. 2001. Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept
of knowledge management. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7): 995-1018.
(Blackboard)
Swan, J., and Scarbrough, H. 2001. Editorial: Knowledge management concepts and
controversies. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7): 913-921.
(Blackboard)
17
14) Globalization and Strategy 12/10 (Silvia)
Note: All available via Blackboard.
Ghosal, S., and Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an
interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 603-625.
Pedersen, T., and Thomsen, S. 1997. European patterns of corporate ownership: A
twelve-country pattern. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4): 759-778.
Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of
Management Review, 28(2): 275-296.
Contractor, F., and Kundu, S. K. 1998. Model choice in a world of alliances: Analyzing
organizational forms in the international hotel sector. Journal of International
Business, 29(2): 325-358.
Doh, J. P. 2000. Entrepreneurial privatization strategies: order of entry and local partner
collaboration as sources of competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review,
25(3): 551-571.
Zahra, S. A., S. A., Ireland, R. D., and Hitt, M. A. 2000. International expansion by new
venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 925-950.
Birkinshaw, J. 2000. Upgrading of industry clusters and foreign investment.
International Studies of Management and Organization, 30(2): 93-113.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., and Kim, H. 1997. International diversification: Effects on
innovation and firm performance in product-diversified markets. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(4): 767-796.
Note: I have not assigned any articles here by Dunning or Cantwell only because these
articles are already assigned in other courses.
18
Books for Book Review
Some classics
** Penrose, Edith. 1995. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford Press.(Yanli)
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the
American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press.
Ansoff, H, Igor. 1988. The new corporate strategy. John Wiley & Sons.
Barnard, Chester Irving. 1968. The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.
** March, James G, and Simon, H. A. 1993. Organizations. Blackwell. (Dorothy)
Selznick, Phillip. 1984. Leadership in administration. University of California Press.
Thompson, James D. 2003. Organizations in action. Transaction Publishers.
** Simon, Herbert A. 1997. Administrative behavior. (Luiba)
Newer works
J.-C. Spender. 1989. Industry recipes: The nature and sources of managerial judgement.
Basil Blackwell.
Rapp, William V. 2002. Information technology strategies: How leading firms use IT to
gain an advantage. Oxford Press.
Kaplan, R. S. 2001. The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard
companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business School Press.
** Hamel, G. 2000. Leading the revolution. Harvard Business School Press. (Deepa)
** Mintzberg, Henry. 1998. Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic
management. Free Press. (Neill)
Teece, David J. 2000. Managing intellectual capital: Organizational, strategic, and policy
dimensions. Oxford University Press.
D’Aveni, Richard A. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic
maneuvering. Free Press.
** Brown, Shona L. and Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1998. Competing on the edge: Strategy
as structured chaos. Harvard Business School Press. (Danielle)
19
** Huff, Anne Sigismund and Huff, James Oran. 2000. When firms change directions.
Oxford University Press. (Toshanna)
** Useem, Michael, 1996. Investor Capitalism: How money managers are changing the
face of corporate America. Basic Books. (Silvia)
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.
** Stewart, T. A. 1999. Intellectual Capital: The new wealth of nations. Currency
Doubleday. (Yi-Shin)
** Cusamano, M. A., and Markides, C.C. 2001. (eds.) Strategic thinking for the new
economy: MIT Sloan Management Series. Jossey Bass. (Jon)
20