MANA 8331 - Strategy and Organization Theory - Spring 09

Meeting Time: Thursday 1pm-4pmClassroom: 313

Overview and Objectives

This course is a doctoral level seminar on the major theoretical approaches to the fields of strategic management / business policy and organization theory (OT). The main purpose of the course is familiarize students with the basic assumptions, concepts and theories underlying these fields. In addition, the seminar will emphasize the following objectives:

  1. Each student should develop a mental model of the literature in Strategic Management and OT and show an understanding of and appreciation for the key concepts and theories in Strategy and OT.
  2. Each student should be able to critically review academic, practitioner, and peer research and develop constructive reviews of such literature.
  3. Each student should develop new ideas and/or approaches that advance some portion of the theory/research in Strategic Management or OT.
  4. Each student should be able to communicate both verbally and in writing, current knowledge, critical evaluations and new ideas in strategic management and OT topics developed in this seminar.

Approach

The format of the course will be that of a research seminar, meaning active, engaged reading of the week’s material followed by an intensive group discussion. This means that each student must take responsibility for the success of the class. Students must be prepared by reading all the assigned materials. Students must also evaluate this material, critique it, analyze how it fits with other literatures, etc.

Emphasis is placed upon articles that have appeared in the major peer-reviewed journals within the field. Readings are also chosen from books and edited volumes. A mixture of ‘classics’ and contemporary works has been chosen to provide students with an understanding of the origins of particular theories and debates as well as an understanding of the evolution of scholarly thought through to the present time.

Course Requirements / Evaluation

Grading will be based on three components:

Classroom Contribution and Weekly Article Summaries (35%)

As you prepare for class discussions, be ready to answer the following questions about each of the assigned articles:

  • What question is the author trying to address? How important is this question?
  • What assumptions does the author make? How valid are these assumptions?
  • How does the author address the research question? If this is an empirical piece, is the methodology appropriate? If this is a review piece, what is your assessment of the state of the field?
  • What conclusions does the author draw? Are these conclusions justified in light of the empirical evidence presented by the author? How important are these conclusions?
  • How does this paper advance our knowledge in the field?
  • How could this work be extended or refined?
  • How is this work related to other articles assigned for the same class session or previous class sessions?

In addition to active involvement in the classroom discussion, each student will also be required to write a 1-2 page summary/analysis of 1 or 2 articles each week (articles to be determined the week before). Each write-up will be distributed to all class participants and will also include two questions the student wants to add to the class about the article. These summaries will be from one to two pages (typed, single spaced) in length, and will have the following format:

  1. Title of reading (complete citation)
  2. Summarized by: student’s name
  3. Purpose of Reading:this section should describe how this reading fits in a broader stream of research, why it was written, what its fundamental objective is, etc.
  4. Theoretical Argument: this section should summarize the theoretical argument of the reading, its basic assumptions, propositions, etc.
  5. Results, Conclusions, and Integration: this section should summarize any empirical results, any theoretical conclusions, implications of the reading, how it fits with others this week or other weeks, etc.
  6. Two questions for discussion in class

Summaries will be gathered at the beginning of the class during which a reading is discussed.

Article Review (15%)

Students will be given a peer paper to review at the time of the first draft. They will be expected to provide a critical, yet constructive critique of the paper and recommendations for improvement. The review will be a “blind” review, meaning the author’s and reviewer’s names will not be on the manuscripts. Each student will have one week to complete this review.

Research Paper (50%)

A major paper is due at the end of the semester. This paper should be a conceptual manuscript that could be submitted to Academy of Management Review after further revision. Certainly the quality should be acceptable to submit to a national meeting. This paper must be original work and must be relevant to a topic covered in the course. To help you structure this major project the following schedule of assignments must be adhered to:

  1. A detailed outline of your idea (2-3 pages) is due February 12. The purpose of this outline is to help you set up your research question and decide how to approach the issues. This allows us to help you determine how to proceed. In this paper you should outline your intentions for the project, present the primary variables of interest, and explain their relationships. You should also include a preliminary set of references to show a start at a literature review.
  2. Two print copies of the first draft of the paper are due March 26. The purpose of the draft is threefold:
    1. To keep you on track to complete the paper
    2. To allow other students to critique your paper and provide feedback (peer review)
    3. To allow me to review the paper and provide feedback before the final draft.
  3. The final revised draft is due May 7 and is worth 50% of your final grade.

Both drafts of your paper should follow the style of the Academy of Management Review and not exceed 25 double-spaced pages of text (exclusive of references, exhibits, tables, etc.). No late papers will be accepted and no incomplete grades will be given for this course.

Policies

The University is committed to providing reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. A student needing such accommodations may make prior arrangements with the instructor for any exam or assignment so that accommodations can be made. Also, a student with a disability should seek information on services and assistance from the Center for Students with disabilities (713 743-5400).

The University of Houston recognizes the importance of academic honesty in maintaining high standards within academic programs. In the rare situation where there may be a breach of academic honesty, please bring this matter to my attention. I will take appropriate preventative action whenever possible. If you have any questions about the UH Academic Honesty Policy, please consult the Student Handbook or the Dean of Students Office (713 743-5470).

The CBA has a policy that requires all of its instructors to be evaluated by their students. The results of these evaluations are important to provide feedback to instructors on how their performance can be improved. In addition, these evaluations are carefully considered in promotion, salary adjustment, and other important decisions. We openly encourage students to provide constructive feedback to the instructors and to the CBA through the evaluation process.

Summary of Course Sessions

  1. Jan. 22 Introductions; Review of syllabus, class policies, and proceduresOverview of the fields of strategy and organization theory
  2. Jan. 29 Strategy-structure-environment: Contingency theory perspectives
  3. Feb. 5 IO perspectives on business strategy
  4. Feb. 12 Vertical scope and the theory of the firm: Transaction costs theory(Half session with Dr. Carlin)Outline of idea due (please email file to dvera@uh.edu)
  5. Feb. 19 Vertical scope and the theory of the firm: Transaction costs theory(Half session with Dr. Carlin)
  6. Feb. 26 Resource Based View of the Firm
  7. March 5 Dynamic capabilities perspective
  8. March 12 Knowledge and Learning-based perspectives
  9. March 19 SPRING BREAK
  10. March 26 Corporate diversification, Agency theory, Governance, and NetworksDraft due
  11. April 2 Strategic leadership and Strategic decision making
  12. Article review dueApril 9Resource dependence theory
  13. April 16 Institutional theory
  14. April 23 Organizational ecology
  15. April 30 Organizational change
  16. May 7 Paper due

Session 1: January 22, 2009

Introductions

Review of syllabus, class policies and procedures

Topic: Overview of the fields of strategy and organization theory

  • Strategy
    • Schendel, D. & Hofer, C. W. 1979. Strategic Management: A new view of business policy and planning. Little Brown & Co., Boston. Introduction.
    • Rumelt, R., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. 1991. Strategic management and economics, Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Winter Special Issue): 5-29.
    • Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M., Wan, W., & Yiu, D., 1999. Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25 (3): 417-456.
    • Nag, R., Hambrick, D.C. & Chen, M. J., 2007. What is strategic management, really? A consensus view on the essence of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 935-955.
  • Organization Theory
    • Scott, W.R., 1992. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 3rd Ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ch. 1.
    • Hinings, C.R. & Greenwood, R. 2002. Disconnects and Consequences in Organization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 411-421. (Response by Bartunek, Jean M. 2002. The Proper Place of Organizational Scholarship: A Comment on Hinings and Greenwood. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 422-427).
    • Davis, G. F. & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms. Organization Science, 16 (4): 332-343.

Session 2: January 29, 2009

Topic: Strategy-structure-environment: Contingency theory perspectives

  • Hofer, C.W. 1975. Toward a contingency theory of business strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 18: 784-810.
  • Miles, R.E. & Snow, C. C. 1978. Organizational strategy, structure and process. McGraw-Hill, New York. Chapters 1-2.
  • Van de Ven, A.H & Drazin, R., 1985. The concept of fit in contingency theory. In Barry M. Staw and Larry L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 333-365. JAI Press.
  • Venkatraman, N. & Prescott, J. E. 1990. Environment-strategy coalignment: An empirical test of its performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (1): 1-23.
  • Zajac, E. J., Kraatz, M. S., & Bresser, R. K.F. 2000. Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: A normative approach to strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4):429-456.
  • Hambrick, D. & Cannella Jr., A., 2004. CEOs who have COOs: Contingency analysis of an explored structural form. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (10): 959-979.

Session 3: February 5, 2009

Topic: IO perspectives on business strategy

  • Porter, M. 1981. The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6 (4): 609-620.
  • Porter, M. 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Winter Special Issue): 95-117.
  • McWilliams, A. & Smart, D. 1993. Efficiency vs. Structure-conduct-performance: Implications for strategy research and practice. Journal of Management, 19 (1): 63-78.
  • Rumelt, R.P., 1991. How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12 (3) 167-185.McGahan, A. & Porter, M., 1997. How much does industry matter, really? Strategic Management Journal, 18 (Summer Special Issue): 15-30.
  • Leask, G. & Parker, D., 2007. Strategic groups, competitive groups and performance within the U.K. pharmaceutical industry: Improving our understanding of the competitive process. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (7): 723-745.

Session 4: February 12, 2009 – Half session with Dr. Barbara Carlin (2:30pm to 4pm)

Session 5: February 19, 2009 – Half session with Dr. Barbara Carlin (2:30pm to 4pm)

Topic: Vertical scope and the theory of the firm: Transaction costs theory

  • Coase, R. 1937. The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4 (16): 386-405.
  • Ouchi, W. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129-141.
  • Williamson, O. 1991. Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Winter Special Issue): 75-94.
  • Ghoshal, S. & Moran, P. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1): 13-47. (Response by Williamson, 1996. Economic organization: The case for candor. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1): 48-57 and Reply by Moran & Ghoshal, 1996. Theories of economic organization: The case for realism and balance. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1): 58-72).
  • David, R. J. & Han, S. 2004. A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (1): 39-58.
  • Carter, R. & Hodgson, G. 2006. The impact of empirical tests of transaction cost economics on the debate on the nature of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 27(5): 461-476.
  • Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J & Kumar, N. 2006. Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (3): 519-543.

Session 6: February 26, 2009

Topic: The Resource Based View of the Firm

  • Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2): 171-180.Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1): 99-120.
  • Foss, N. J. & Knudsen, T. 2003. The resource-based tangle: Towards a sustainable explanation of competitive advantage. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 291-307. (Response by Peteraf & Barney, 2003. Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial Decision Economics, 24, 309-323.)Ray, G., Barney, J., & Muhanna, W. 2004. A capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (1): 23-37.
  • Amstrong, C. & Shimizu, K. 2007. A review of approaches to empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 33 (6): 959-986.
  • Newbert, S. 2007. Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (2): 121-146.

Session 7: March 5, 2009

Topic: Dynamic capabilities perspective

  • Winter, S. 1995. Four Rs of profitability: Rents, resources, routines, and replication. In C. A. Montgomery (Ed.), Resource-based and evolutionary theories of the firm, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 24:147-178.
  • Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7): 509-534.
  • Eisenhardt, K.M. & Martin, J. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10/11): 1105-1121.
  • Winter, S. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (10): 991-995.Subramaniam, M. & Youndt, M. A. 2005.The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3): 450-463.
  • Teece, D. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (13): 1319-1350.

Session 8: March 12, 2009

Topic: Knowledge and Learning-based perspectives

  • Grant, R. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 109-122.
  • Liebeskind, J. 1996. Knowledge, strategy and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 93-107.
  • Crossan, M., Lane, H., & White, R. 1999. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review 24(3): 522-537.
  • Bapuji, H. & Crossan, M. 2004. From questions to answers: Reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, 35 (4): 397-417.
  • Gupta, A., Smith, K., & Shalley, C. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4): 693-706.
  • Easterby-Smith, M. & Prieto, I. 2008. Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management: An integrative role for learning? British Journal of Management, 19 (3): 235-249.

Session 9: March 26, 2009

Topic: Corporate diversification, Agency theory, Governance, and Networks

  • Hoskisson, R. & Hitt, M. 1990. Antecedents and performance outcomes of diversification: A review and critique of theoretical perspectives. Journal of Management, 16 (2): 461-509.
  • Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1): 57-74.
  • Davidson III, W., Jiraporn, P., Young, S. & Nemec, C. 2004. Earnings management following duality-creating successions: Ethnostatistics, impression management, and agency theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2): 267-275.
  • Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. 1998. Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (3): 269-290.
  • Hambrick, D, Werder, A. & Zajac, E. 2008. New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19 (3): 381-385.
  • Borgatti, S. & Foster, P. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29 (6): 991: 1013.
  • Brass, D., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H., & Tsai, W. 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (6):795-817.

Session 10: April 2, 2009

Topic: Strategic leadership and Strategic decision making

  • Hambrick, D.C., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.
  • Hambrick, D.C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: an update. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2): 334-343.
  • Crossan, M., Vera, D. & Nanjad, L. 2008. Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in dynamic environments. Leadership Quarterly, 19 (5): 569-581.Chatterjee, A. & Hambrick, D. 2007. It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (3): 351-386.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. & Zbaracki, M. J. 1992. Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal. 13 (Winter Special Issue):17-37.Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Saint-Macary, J. 1995. Opening up decision making: The view from the black stool. Organization Science, 6 (3): 260-279.
  • Elbanna, S. & Child, J. 2007. Influences on strategic decision effectiveness: Development and test of an integrative model. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (4): 431-453.

Session 11: April 9, 2009

Topic: Resource dependence theory

  • Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill. Chapters 3 and 6.
  • Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row. Chapters 1 and 3.
  • Boyd, B. 1990. Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (6): 419-430.Casciaro, T. & Piskorski, M. 2005. Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (2): 167-199.
  • Hillman, A., Shropshire, C. & Cannella Jr., A. 2007. Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4): 941-952.

Session 12: April 16, 2009

Topic: Institutional theory

  • Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2): 340-363.DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48 (1): 147-160.
  • Zucker, L. 1977. The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42 (5): 726-743.Leblebici, H., Salancik, G., Copay, A., & King, T. 1991. Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3): 333-363.
  • Westphal, J., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. 1997. Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 366-394.
  • Sherer, P. & Kyungmook L. 2002. Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 102-119.

Session 13: April 23, 2009

Topic: Organizational ecology

  • Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49 (2): 149-164.Astley, W. 1985. The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (2): 224-241.Baum, J. & Mezias, S. 1992. Localized competition and organizational failure in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898-1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (4): 580-604.
  • Amburgey, T., Kelly, D., & Barnett, B. 1993. Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (1): 51-73.Amburgey, T. L. & Rao, H. 1996. Organizational ecology: Past, present, and future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5): 1265-1286.Audia, P., Freeman, J. & Reynolds, P. 2006. Organizational foundings in community context: Instruments manufacturers and their interrelationship with other organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51 (3): 381-419.

Session 14: April 30, 2009

Topic: Organizational change

  • Meyer, A. 1982. Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (4): 515-537.Haveman, H. 1992. Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 48-75.
  • Romanelli, E. & Tushman, M. 1994. Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (5): 1141-1166.
  • Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1): 254-285.
  • Armenakis, A. & Bedeian, A. 1999. Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25 (3): 293-315.
  • Pettigrew, A., Woodman, R., & Cameron, K. 2001. Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4): 697-713.
  • Lüscher, L. & Lewis, M. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (2): 221-240.