Está en la página 1de 16

UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof.

Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

University of Texas at Dallas School of Management Fall 2009 Organization, Strategy, and International Management (OSIM) Area

MAS 6V03: Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship
Dr. Mike W. Peng
Provost’s Distinguished Professor of Global Strategy (972) 883-2714 / Class time/room: Office hour: TA: Thursday 4-6:45 PM (Room 2.901) Thursday 12-12:45 PM and by appointment Erin Pleggenkuhle-Miles

Required texts: • Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. (eds.). (2005). Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development. New York: Oxford University Press. • Reading packet [It only contains readings not available for downloads from library search engines such as JSTOR or Business Source Premier. Such readings will be marked with the word “PACKET.” Part of your training is to learn how to access papers available online. My TA, Erin Pleggenkuhle-Miles, has most papers that you can borrow for photocopying. All my own papers are available at my website above. To reduce the physical volume (and to save a few trees), I strongly recommend two-sided printing. Reading requirements: • Skim all chapters from Smith and Hitt • Read all required papers for each session • Read at least one optional paper OVERVIEW This is the first time this seminar focusing on management scholarship is offered. It grows out of our awareness that our Ph.D. students need to have the “big picture” perspective regarding the nature of our scholarship and academia. As scholars, why do we do what we do? What is it that we do? How do we do a better job? How do we make stronger contributions not only to academia but also to society? The short-run aim of this course is to familiarize you with the various rules of the game associated with our profession. Its long-run aim is to enhance your odds for success as management scholars. All of you are aware that you are working on one Ph.D. in management. A fascinating aspect of this seminar is to help you realize that you are working on three Ph.D.s (!). In addition to the first one, you are also working on a Ph.D. in philosophy and a Ph.D. in marketing. In other words, this course does not train you in any specific theoretical/substantive area (that is the area of your first Ph.D. and you will receive plenty of training in other seminars), but exposes you to the broad challenges confronting management scholars today and in the future. In short, we focus on the two other Ph.D.s that you are also working on but that you probably are not aware of. By the end of this course, hopefully, you will become consciously aware of the two other Ph.D.s you are working on. When working on any topic, it is recommended that students start with the oldest papers and then work forward in time—this is also how I arrange the sequence of readings for each weekly module. This will give you a feel for


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

how the research on a particular topic has developed over time. Always be on the lookout for gaps or deficiencies in the literature. If you have not done so already, it is recommended that you become a student member of the Academy of Management (AOM), Academy of International Business (AIB), and Strategic Management Society (SMS) as soon as possible. While you can access their soft copy publications through our library without becoming a member, I have found that periodical appearances of hard copy publications from these professional associations in your mail box that you have paid for with membership dues are the best way to motivate you to keep up your reading of the most recent research. The course is aimed primarily at Ph.D. students, although interested MBA students are also welcome. For the latter group, the main benefit will be to obtain some flavor of Ph.D. training if you are interested in exploring this direction. Welcome on board! GRADING Good professional behavior (such as reading papers ahead of time, attending class, actively participating in discussion in class and afterwards) is naturally expected. However, as a Ph.D. student (and a future researcher), your success and failure will be entirely judged by the quality of your paper. Therefore, course grade is almost entirely based upon a term paper. It should critically review one or more of the topics covered during the seminar. Importantly, the paper should aim to be a publishable (or at least presentable—at a major academic conference) piece of research, and will be evaluated from this perspective. However, instead of just submitting a paper at the end of semester and getting a grade, we will follow a time table and grading scheme to imitate the “revise and resubmit” (R&R) process in the publication process: Timely submission and professionalism of a first draft: Timely submission and quality of your peer review of another student’s first draft: Quality of the presentation on the last day of class (15 minutes each—AOM style): Thoroughness in addressing the professor’s and peer’s comments in your final paper: Quality of the final, revised paper: 1% 1% 1% 2% 95%

In my experience as an author, reviewer, and editor, no competitively submitted paper is so perfect that it is accepted “as is” in the first round. At least one round (often more) of R&R is expected. Once you submit a first draft, a classmate and I will endeavor to provide two written reviews to you within two weeks. Then you will need to go through an R&R process for your final submission. PAPER The paper should identify at least one research question—please make sure that (1) it ends with a question mark (that is: ?) and that (2) it is spelled out within the first 2 pages, preferably in the first paragraph. Then organize the rest of the paper to address it. See my “notes on research strategy.” The topic can be based on one of the following two: 1. On any topic on the nature of management scholarship that we cover in the course. 2. However, I realize that all of you are new entrants into the profession. It is often hard to produce an insightful paper (remember: the criteria are publishable) on the topic of the nature of management scholarship by a junior scholar—senior scholars should pay more attention to this “high-level” topic. Therefore, I am also allowing you to write a paper on any substantive/theoretical topic. I prefer the


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

following ones: institutional theory, resource-based view, and transaction cost economics (see readings in the last three modules). But I am open to other suggestions. Most likely, your paper will be theory/conceptual paper (that is, with no data). The total length, all inclusive (with double spaced text, single [or 1.5] spaced references, and decent margins and font sizes), cannot go over 20 pages. Please limit your text to no more than 15 pages of double spaced text. The ideal model is a “research note” for Strategic Management Journal. The Academy of Management Review, until recently, offered a “research note” section with papers shorter than 20 pages, but it seems to have discontinued this. If your paper is an empirical paper, the total length cannot go over 35 pages, which is typical at major empirical journals such as the Academy of Management Journal. In addition to the idea in the paper, professionalism is crucial. While almost all manuscripts have a typo or two, an excessive number of such fixable problems will not be acceptable. Excuses such as “I don’t have time to check my spelling” or “complete my references” will usually result your paper being rejected by journals that you submit to. So, show professionalism—in both your first draft and final submission. Your presentation should imitate the typical 15-minute presentation at a major conference (such as the Academy of Management). Please prepare no more than 12 slides (Slide 1 is your title and name), print six slides to one page on both sides of the paper, and give the professor and the rest of the class a one-sheet handout. There will be approximately 5 minutes of questions and answers after your presentation. I, and the rest of the class, will attempt to give you some feedback during the presentation. Then you will have 1 day to revise the paper incorporating all comments, written and oral, received. The final submission should consist of: • A hardcopy of your final revised paper (double spaced text, references can be single spaced, the norm is 20-35 pages all inclusive—see above; of course, the shorter, the better!) • A separate response document addressing how your paper responds to the two earlier reviews (by me and by one classmate) and/or to oral comments made during your presentation point-by-point (single spaced, no more than 10 pages please) Please discuss with me regarding your possible paper topic as soon as possible. We will discuss the R&R process and show examples of response documents. For both the first draft and final submission to me, hard copies + soft copies (both) please. Soft copies only will not be accepted. (However, for the first draft submitted to all classmates, if they are OK with soft copies only, that will be fine with me). Discussion of paper ideas with classmates is acceptable and in fact encouraged. Your first draft will be circulated to all members of the class. However, the term paper has to be your work—that is, single authored by you. If you prefer to execute a project already under way with a faculty member, this paper has to be first authored by you. When in doubt, talk to me first. Your work does not end with the submission of your final revised manuscript. You are being trained to fight real battles. It is expected that during the winter break, you further revise the paper upon receiving my second-round review (in addition to the grade) and submit it to the 2010 Academy of Management meetings (the deadline is mid-January). Approximately in April, you will be hearing from the conference with 2-3 (real!) reviews with a decision whether to accept your paper or not. After receiving these comments, you are expected to consider sending the paper to a top journal, which can be done in late spring (before the Academy) or late summer (after the Academy, so that in case your paper gets accepted, you may get some feedback at the conference where you can incorporate in your journal submission).


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

UTD students, including first- and second-year students, have had a tradition of getting their papers accepted by major conferences such as AOM. Before graduation, our students have recently published in the Academy of Management Perspectives, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Business Ethics Quarterly, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of International Management, Journal of Management, Management Science, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal. However, make no mistake: Despite your best efforts, chances are that your first submission(s) to top journals will be (ruthlessly) killed. But that does not mean you should not try. That also means that it is so important for us to foster a spirit of collaboration through peer reviews and feedback so that collectively we can help each other improve the quality of our research (see next section) and enhance UTD’s reputation. PEER REVIEW A highly unusual (and I am sure value-adding) aspect of this course is that you are required to provide a written, peer review report on the first draft of a classmate’s work. You need to get out of your typical undergraduate and MBA mentality of finishing and submitting a paper on the last day and then forgetting about it. Publication is a long march—known as a marathon (some of the papers I published in 2008 were first written in 2000). Multiple drafts, revisions, and reviews (and often rejections) across multiple years are the norm. So get used to those. Always remember: Hard work, patience, and persistence pay (eventually). Once you submit your first draft to me and to all other classmates, you will be assigned to review another classmate’s first draft. Given the small number of students, it is not really realistic to truly maintain “anonymity.” You will know the authors’ identity from the cover page. As a reviewer, you will submit to me and to the author a review form (Appendix 3)—for learning purposes, your comments for the author will also be circulated to the rest of the class. In summary, you will write one review for another paper. I will also endeavor to provide a written review to all first drafts. Therefore, on your own first draft, you will receive two reviews, one from me and another from a fellow student. (Upon receiving your grade, you will also receive a second-round review from me.) Once you receive two written reviews and oral comments and questions during your presentation, it is your responsibility to address all these comments in your final paper. In addition, you will also need to prepare a separate response document, outlining how you address these comments. It is not realistic to expect that you will agree with and be able to address all comments raised. However, I (and your reviewer) expect you to thoroughly discuss all of them. Even in areas where you disagree, you need to tell us why. Don’t hide anything! BOOT CAMP An innovation I introduced in Fall 2008 is a “boot camp” (military-style realistic training). Once we have read and reviewed each other’s work, we’ll devote two class sessions to go over each paper—tentatively scheduled on November 5. I will critique/edit your paper “in front of the public” (on the big screen that all of you will see), and let you have a chance to defend/clarify your paper in front of me and your classmates (pretend that we are reviewers). The feedback will be friendly but highly critical, hands-on, and relevant—for the purposes of making you better soldiers (I mean, researchers). After you have received such feedback, you will have three weeks to get your paper into a better shape. The ultimate purpose of the boot camp, of course, is to help you shape the paper into a successful conference/journal submission (as outlined above).


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

CLASSROOM EXPECTATIONS You are expected to have read all the required (non-optional) readings assigned for that day and at least one optional paper. Prepare some questions and discussion points on every paper in writing (on your notebook) ahead of time. For each session, you will be assigned to at least one (sometimes two) required reading as a “resident expert.” For that work, you will prepare a one-page typed report (single sided, decent font size and margins please). The first half page is a brief summary (use bullet points please, do not cut and paste from published abstracts—that would be plagiarism), and the other half page is your comments, critiques, and/or questions. For example, how this paper connects to another one studied last week, this paper is still unable to answer Question X, etc. For each session, you will distribute one hardcopy of your resident expert report for every member of the class (including me). While these one-page resident expert reports will not be graded, keep them together with your notes. They will prove helpful as you take your Comprehensive Exam at the end of your Year 2. APPENDIX 1 AND 2: FOUNDATION BOOKS AND PAPERS Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 list a number of important books and papers that not only lay a foundation for this seminar, but also for your entire OSIM doctoral studies. It is not realistic to expect you to be able to read all these books in one semester or one year. Other PhD seminars may also cover some of these books and papers. However, we do expect you to be able to properly cite these foundation books and papers by the time you take your Comprehensive Exam. ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. An overview of management scholarship Management scholarship as a social/intellectual movement The search for impact The publishing game The rigor-relevance debate The focus on process and professionalism Study on your own Study on your own The social mission and the future of management scholarship The global competition Developing transaction cost economics and psychological contract theory Boot camp Developing the resource-based view and upper echelon theory Developing the institution-based view Thanksgiving Final presentations


Subject to minor changes at the discretion of the professor


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

WEEKLY TOPICS2 8/20:3 An overview of management scholarship • • • • Smith, K., & Hitt, M. 2005. Epilogue: Learning to develop theory from the masters. In Smith & Hitt (eds.), Great Minds in Management: 572-588. Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. 2007. The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, July-August: 115-121. Mitchell, T. 2007. The academic life: Realistic changes needed for business school students and faculty. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(2): 236-251. Lee, T. 2009. The management professor. Academy of Management Review, 34: 196-199.

Optional • • Becker, E., Lindsay, C. M., & Grizzle, G. 2003. The derived demand for faculty research. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24: 549-567. Tjosvold, D. 2008. Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, openminded researchers. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7(1): 73-85.

8/27: Management scholarship as a social/intellectual movement • • • • Frickel, S., & Gross, N. 2005. A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, 70: 204-232. Agarwal, R., & Hoetker, G. 2007. A Faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationship with related disciplines. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1304-1322. Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1281-1303. Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M.-J. 2008. New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements: The case of strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 33: 32-54.

Optional • • Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1346-1352. Davis, G. F., Morrill, C., Rao, H., & Soule, S. A. 2008. Social movements in organizations and markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 389-394.

9/3: The search for impact • • Astley, W. G. 1985. Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 497-513. Peng, M. W., & Zhou, J. Q. 2006. Most cited articles and authors in global strategy research. Journal of International Management, 12 (4): 490-508. [A survey of eight leading scholars who excel in both quantity and quality (citation impact) on how to craft high-impact research] Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31: 802-821.


Readings are arranged by the order of their year of publication, not by their importance. This will give you a feel for how the research on a particular topic has progressed over time. 3 Just for this week, copies of all readings other than those from the textbooks will be placed in your box ahead of time. I expect all of you to have read all required readings before we start the first class.


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

Podsakoff , P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. 2008. Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34: 641-720.

Optional • • • AACSB. 2008. Final report of the AACSB International Impact of Research Task Force. Tampa, FL: AACSB. Zahra, S., & Newey, L. 2009. Maximizing the impact of organization science: Theory-building at the intersection of disciplines. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (6, forthcoming in September). Markoczy, L., & Deeds, D. 2009. Theory building at the intersection: Recipe for impact or road to nowhere? Journal of Management Studies, 46 (6, forthcoming in September—a critique of Zahra & Newey)

9/10: The publishing game • Miller, C. C., Glick, W. H., & Cardinal, L. B. 2005. The allocation of prestigious positions in organizational science: Accumulative advantage, sponsored mobility, and contest mobility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 489-516. Starbuck, W. H. 2005. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16: 180-200. Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A., & Rynes, S. 2007. What causes a management article to be cited—article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 491-506. Leung, K. 2007. The glory and tyranny of citation impact: An East Asian perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 510-513.

• • •

Optional • • Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. 2007. Ring a ring o’Roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 640-655. Worrell, D. L. 2009. Assessing business scholarship: The difficulties in moving beyond the rigorrelevance paradigm trap. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1): 127-130.

9/17: The rigor-relevance debate • • • • • • Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. 2005. How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5): 96-104. DeAngelo, H., DeAngelo, L., & Zimmerman, J. L. 2005. What’s really wrong with US business schools? Working paper, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. [Download from SSRN] Pfeffer, J. 2007. A modest proposal: How we might change the process and product of managerial research. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1334-1345. Vermeulen, F. 2007. “I shall not remain insignificant”: Adding a second loop to matter more. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 754-761. Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 2008. Rigor and relevance in organization studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolution. Organization Science, 19: 177-183. Peng, M. W., & Dess, G. G. 2009. In defense of the spirit of scholarship. Working paper, UTD.

Optional (NOTE: Papers by Livia will be covered by her Research Methods seminar) • Donaldson, L. 2002. Damned by our own theories: Contradictions between theories and management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1): 96-106.


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

Baldridge, D. C., Floyd, S. W., & Markoczy, L. 2004. Are managers from Mars and academicians from Venus? Toward an understanding of the relationship between academic quality and practical relevance. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 1063-1074. Dess, G. G., & Markoczy, L. 2008. Rather than searching for the silver bullet, use rubber bullets: A view on the research-practice gap. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44: 57-62.

9/24: The focus on process and professionalism • • Harzing, A.-W. 2002. Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 127-148. Bass, F. M. 2004. A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science, 50: 18251832. [This is a reprint of the 1969 classic paper that later became known as the “Bass Model.” Professor Bass was the previous director of the UTD SOM Doctoral Program until he passed away on the job in 2006. I had the pleasure of working with him to restructure and enhance our program during 2005-06. As you read it, try to answer this question: Why did this 40-year-old paper become so famous?] Feldman, D. 2004. Editorial: The devil is in the details: Converting good research into publishable articles. Journal of Management, 30: 1-6. Peng, M. W. (2005). Notes on research strategy. [PowerPoint] Rynes, S. (2006). Making the most of the review process: Lessons from award-winning authors. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 189-190. [Introduction to two essays by authors of two AMJ best paper teams and two essays by two editors who handled these submissions] Rindova, V. 2008. Publishing theory when you are new to the game. Academy of Management Review, 33: 300-303. [Notes from AMR’s associate editor]

• • •

Optional • • Kirkman, B. (2006). Tips for publishing in, reviewing for, and serving AMJ. [PowerPoint] UTD faculty training materials distributed to trainees, February 2009 (compiled by Professor Rachel Croson), including the following pieces—Erin will make a hardcopy for all of you: o Miller, N. 2002. Following your scholarly passions. The Chronicle of Higher Education o Ms Mentor. 2007. The never-ending project. The Chronicle of Higher Education o Perlmutter, D. 2008. Taking time for R&R. The Chronicle of Higher Education o Worsham, L. 2008, What editors want. The Chronicle of Higher Education o Goldin, C. 2009. How not to perish, Newsletter o Noll, R. 2009. Responding to referees and editors, Newsletter. o Peng, M. W. 2009. Mike’s 1-slide checklist. o UT Austin Graduate School. 2009. Publication pointers for fledgling academic authors.

10/1: Study on your own (no class)—I will deliver a keynote speech at a conference “China Goes Global” at Harvard University 10/8: Study on your own (no class; there will be a make-up for this one)—I will co-chair an APJM Special Issue Conference on “Managing Corporate Governance Globally” at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver 10/15: The social mission and the future of management scholarship • • Stern, R. N., & Barley, S. R. 1996. Organizations and social systems: Organization theory’s neglected mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 146-162. Scott, W. R. 1996. The mandate is still being honored: In defense of Weber’s disciples. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 163-171.


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

• • • •

Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16: 332-343. Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1): 75-91. Palmer, D. 2006. Taking stock of the criteria we use evaluate one another’s work: ASQ 50 years out. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 535-559. Walsh, J. P., Meyer, A. D., & Schoonhoven, C. B. 2006. A future for organization theory: Living in and living with changing organizations. Organization Science, 17: 657-671.

Optional • Walsh, J. P., Tushman, M. L., Kimberly, J. R., Starbuck, B., & Ashford, S. 2007. On the relationship between research and practice: Debate and reflections. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16: 128-154.

10/22: The global competition in management scholarship • • • • Meyer, K. E. 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23: 119-137. Tsui, A. S. 2007. From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the Academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1353-1364. Zammuto, R. F. 2008. Accreditation and the globalization of business. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7: 258-268. Peng, M. W. 2009. Theorizing, publishing, and competing in a flat world. Working paper, UTD.

Optional • • Mangematin, V., & Baden-Fuller, C. 2008. Global contests in the production of business knowledge: Regional centers and individual business schools. Long Range Planning, 41: 117-139. Mudambi, R., Peng, M. W., & Weng, D. 2008. Research rankings of Asia Pacific business schools: global versus local knowledge strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25: 171-188.

10/29: Developing transaction cost economics and psychological contract theory DUE: Submit to the professor a softcopy + a hardcopy of your complete first draft, at the beginning of the class. Also give each member of class a copy (soft or hard copy depending on their preferences) • • Williamson, O. E. 2005. Transaction cost economics: The process of theory development, pp. 485-508 in Smith & Hitt. Rousseau, D. E. 2005. Developing psychological contract theory, pp. 190-214 in Smith & Hitt.

Optional • Williamson, O. E. 2000. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38: 595-613. [A substantive summary by Mr TCE—if you have no time, no need to go through this since this will be assigned as a required reading for my Strategic Management seminar in Fall 2010]

11/5: Boot camp—your review of your classmate’s paper is due via email to the author (and copy me and the rest of the class) by 5 PM on 11/4 (the day before). That way, the author will have a chance to read your review before coming to class. To make sure everyone gets it, bring N hardcopies of your review to class (N = number of students + 1 copy for the professor).


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

As a “brutal” boot camp, we will try to add another three hours (7-10 PM) today, going over all papers. We will order some pizzas and drinks. This will be counted as a make-up class for some lost class time. 11/12: Developing the resource-based view and upper echelon theory • • Barney, J. B. 2005. Where does inequality come from? The personal and intellectual roots of resourcebased theory, pp. 280-303 in Smith & Hitt. Hambrick, D. C. 2005. Upper echelons theory: Origins, twists and turns, and lessons learned, pp. 109-127 in Smith & Hitt.

11/19: Developing the institution-based view • Peng, M. W. 2005. From China strategy to global strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22: 123141. [This paper provides a road map to understand the evolution of my own work within the context of global strategy research] Scott, W. R. 2005. Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program, pp. 460-484 in Smith & Hitt. Peng, M. W., D. Wang, and Y. Jiang (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 920-936. Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. 2009. The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Executives (in press).

• • •

Optional • • Peng, M. W. (2002). Toward an institution-based view of strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 251-267. [First time the “institution-based view” label is used] Peng, M. W. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28: 275-286. [Determined by Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), publisher of the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), to be one of the “new hot papers” (based on citations) in the entire field of Economics and Business—in May 2004 a total of 12 papers are nominated, each representing a broad discipline such as Chemistry, Clinical Medicine, Computer Science, Immunology, Molecular Biology, Pharmacology, Physics, and Social Sciences (general). See If short on time, no need to look at it, since this paper will be assigned as a required reading in my Strategic Management seminar in Fall 2010.]

11/26: Thanksgiving holiday 12/3: Conclusions and Presentations • • • Each student makes a presentation, no more than 12 slides (Slide 1, title page, is mandatory, which means that you will only have 11 real slides) Print 6 slides on one side of the paper, print on both sides of the sheet, and distribute one such copy to each member of the class Each presentation will be no more than 15 minutes (standard conference presentation time), to be followed by Q&As of no more than 15 minutes on each paper.

DUE: Submit in hard copy + soft copy (1) your final paper and (2) a point-by-point response document on the reviews by me and your peer reviewer, within 1 day after the presentation—that is, no later than 12 noon, Friday, December 4, 2009 in (1) my snail mail letter box and (2) my email box.


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

Appendix 1: Management Foundation Books • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bartlett, C. and S. Ghoshal (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Buckley, P. and M. Casson (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan. Caves, R. (1996). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chandler, A. (1990). Scale and scope. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Cyert, R. and J. March (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. DiMaggio, P. and W. Powell, eds. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dunning, J. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham, UK: AddisonWesley. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. New York: Free Press. Hannon, M. and J. Freeman (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley. Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press. Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press. Rumelt, R. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Rumelt, R., D. Schendel, and D. Teece, eds. (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [NOTE there is a 3E in 2008] Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press. Williamson, O. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

Appendix 2: Important Social Science/Management Foundation Papers • • • • • • • • • • • Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6: 1-22. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (supplement): 95-120. DiMaggio, P. and W. Powell (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160 Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510. Gulati, R., N. Nohria, and A. Zaheer (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 203215. Hambrick, D. and P. Mason (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145-179. Ouchi, W. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129-141. Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 295-336. Williamson, O. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 269-296.


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

Appendix 3: AMJ and SMJ review forms, which we will use to provide peer review

Academy of Management Journal
Manuscript Evaluation Form

Manuscript # and title REVIEWER # and name DUE DATE:

Instructions: CRITERIA

Please rate this manuscript on the following criteria (place X under appropriate category): EVALUATION OF CRITERIA Completely inadequate Weak Marginal Satisfactory Strong

A. Conceptual adequacy B. Technical adequacy C. Appropriateness of the topic for AMJ D. Clarity of exposition E. Implications for practical application F. Potential significance of contribution

Your recommendation: 1. _____ Clear reject 2. _____ Doubtful, needs major revision for me to tell 3. _____ Promising, but needs major revision 4. _____ Accept with minor revision 5. _____ Accept as is If you recommend revision: Most suitable as: _____ Regular full length article ______ Shorter paper (“research note”) Comments to editor: Those that you DO NOT wish the author to see. No more than 1 paragraph please. Comments to author: No length limitation. I’d suggest no more than 2 pages (single spaced) NOTE TO PhD STUDENTS: At AMJ, author has no access to this evaluation form. Only “comments to author” will be sent together with the editorial decision letter. These comments will also be sent to all reviewers (while maintaining author anonymity). For our exercise, email me this form, which I will not share with anybody. Note that your “comments to author” will not only be shared with the author, but also with the entire class.


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

Editor-in- Chief

Professor Dan Schendel Krannert Graduate School of Management Purdue University W. Lafayette, IN 47907 USA Phone: 765-496-2324 FAX: 765-494-7506

Associate Editor Rich Bettis

REFEREE’S REPORT Title: Manuscript Number:


Please return to: Dan Schendel

AIM: The Strategic Management Journal publishes papers, research notes, and communications devoted to strategic management defined in the broadest sense and which appeal to either practitioners and/or academics, on an international basis, involved with profit and/or not-for-profit organizations. CRITERIA: The criteria for publication are: 1) competent scholarship, 2) readability, 3) contribution to the theoretical, conceptual, and/or empirical foundations of strategic management, 4) either or both academic and practitioner would find the work of value, 5) value is determined by originality and significance to some aspect of strategic management; 6) must be tested or testable in one or more of these ways: a) it is in accord with theory, or if in disagreement, is carefully argued and/or tested in other ways; b) it is internally consistent and logical; c) it has passed the practical test of successful use in an organization: or, d) it has been empirically tested with accepted research methodology rooted in scientific method.

ITEM: Select rating by marking “X” in the boxes labeled 1 (poor) to 5 (outstanding) Item Poor – 1 Low – 2 Average - 3 Acceptable - 4 Outstanding - 5 1. Technical Adequacy 2. Readability 3. Contribution to the Field 4. 4 4. Value to Reader: Academic Practitioner
5. Value in Terms of Originality

Not Apply

Originality Significance 6. Tested or Testable: Agreement with theory Consistency/Logic Empirical base
7. Length Relative to Message

EVALUATION: Considering the present version of this paper it is: __ Outstanding __ Publishable, not outstanding. The (ideas/methods/data/results) are of unusual interest __ Probably publishable, a sound contribution __ Marginally publishable in the SMJ (Could be a Research Note, 15 pages or less _____) __ Not publishable in the SMJ REVISION: Your recommendation for revision is __ Needs only routine copy editing __ Minor revisions are needed by the author as noted in my report __ Major revisions are suggested as noted in my report __ Probably cannot be revised satisfactorily
Referees’ names are held in confidence. Please type your comments to be communicated to the author on the page labeled “Referee’s Comments (for author).” These comments should be constructive and as helpful to the author as possible. Comments for the editor should be candid, direct, and to the point.


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

Please make your comments for authors (see next page) as positive and constructive as possible. Reserve your direct and candid comments for this page, which is for the Editor’s use only. It helps us all if you return this page electronically. If your evaluation is positive: Is the Title adequate? Are the Summary and Conclusions Adequate? Is the arrangement and sequencing of material suitable? Is adequate reference made to other work in the field? Are any portions of the paper, tables or figures unnecessary? Can any material be deleted without detriment? Is the paper of sufficient importance to accelerate its publication? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No

Please add your comments below. There is no need to duplicate here information provided in your report to the Author.

NOTE TO PhD STUDENTS: Similar to AMJ, SMJ author has no access to the evaluation form (the previous page and this page). Only “comments to author” will be sent together with the editorial decision letter. Unlike AMJ, these comments will not be sent to all SMJ reviewers (while maintaining author anonymity). In addition, SMJ asks reviewers to provide comments for editors’ eyes only, with a fixed format, whereas AMJ does not have such a format. For our exercise, if you want to choose the SMJ form (as opposed to the AMJ form), that is fine with me. Please email me the SMJ form, which I will not share with anybody. Note that your “comments to author” will not only be shared with the author, but also with the entire class (for collective learning purposes, despite the SMJ policy).


UTD / SOM / MAS 6V03 Ph.D. Seminar: Management Scholarship (Prof. Mike Peng / Fall 2009)

Appendix 4: Slides from My Highly Popular Talk on How to Write Better Papers
1. In every paper you write (for my seminar and all other purposes), follow my “secret ingredients” (per Kung Fu Panda)—everything on this 1-slide checklist. Check off every item for every paper you write. 2. Study at least one book from the useful references. I recommend The Elements of Style.

Mike’s 1-slide checklist
• Shorten your title (it’s not an abstract!)
– Do you really need your subtitle?

• • • • • • •

Finish the Introduction section in 2 pages Make sure to raise questions (using ?) in Intro Start your Methods no later than p 15 NO new ideas and cites in Findings (just your findings) Make sure you use the word CONTRIBUTIONS Have a 1-para Conclusion (Don’t end with Limitations) The shorter your paper, the better!
Research © Mike W. Peng


Useful references
• • • • • • The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition. Strunk, White, and Angell, 2000. Longman The Craft of Research. Booth, Colomb, and Williams, 1995. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. Anne Lamott, 1995. First Anchor Books Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article. Howard S. Becker, 1986. University of Chicago Press. The Chicago Manual of Style. By University of Chicago Press Staff, 2003. Publishing in the Organizational Sciences. Cummings and Frost, 1995. Sage Publications.
Research © Mike W. Peng