June 2011

June 2011

:

:

/

June 2011 2

H40

H16H16

H41H42

June 2011

50%)(50%)50%) (50%)

(30%)(70%)

100 100 45196611

June 2011

3045

Word Word 122cm

June 2011

June 2011 6

(not double blind review) (not double blind review)

--Harsh critiques

bi d j d--biased judgment

--disagreements among reviewersg g

--helpful comment

June 2011

()(98.11.30)

1.2.75753.4.57

100%

1.

2.

50

3.

(

)

50

()

550

June 2011

50

100 --

()(98.11.30)

1.2 75752.75753.4.57

100% %

1.2. 3

70

3.

()

)30

()

3 30

June 2011

100 --

()(98.11.30)

981231

(

)

()()1.2.() ()

June 2011

research gap

CMV CMV

June 2011

C012C302

C302C302

1214

C0123045

June 2011

C012

1996(Professor John Lawler, Professor Johngseok Bae, Professor Pei-chuan Wu)Journal of International Business Studies2005Human Resource Management(co-authored with Professor Lawler and Professor Bae)Family Business Review (co-authored with Professor Tsao).(cont)

C012

L l J h Ch Sh h J * W P i Ch B J h k & B i Bi Hi h P f W k S t iLawler, John, Chen, Shyh-Jer*, Wu, Pei-Chuan, Bae, Johngseok, & Bai, Bing, High Performance Work Systems in Foreign Subsidiaries of American Multinationals: An Institutional Model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, (forthcoming) SSCI(*corresponding author)

Shih, Chih-ting & Chen, Shyh-Jer, The Social Dilemma Perspective on Psychological Contract fulfillment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Management and Organization Review (under review). SSCI

Chang, Po-chien & Chen, Shyh-Jer*. 2011. Crossing the Level of Employees Performance: HPWS, Affective Commitment, Human Capital, and Employee Job Performance in Professional Service Organizations. (under1st round revision), SSCI (*corresponding author) ) ( p g )

June 2011

Evans, Pucik, and Barsoux (2002) differentiated two major HR strategieslocal responsiveness (i.e., divergence from HR global standard) and globallocal responsiveness (i.e., divergence from HR global standard) and global integration (i.e., convergence toward HR global standard)adopted by MNCs to allocate the resources of their subsidiaries at host country. The global integration refers to the strategy that MNCs utilize HRM practices which are i il t th i h d t t d l th t th isimilar to their headquarters to deploy the resources at their overseas

subsidiaries. In this vein, the HRM strategy of MNC subsidiaries diverge toward those of locally owned companies (LOCs) at host companies. The advantage of global integration strategy is that MNC headquarters can advantage of global integration strategy is that MNC headquarters cantightly control and efficiently coordinate with the operations of their subsidiaries to ensure the consistency and full implementation of policies from MNCs (Boxall & Purcell, 2008; Evans, et al., 2002; Hannon, Huang, & J 1995)Jaw, 1995).

In contract, the local responsiveness strategy indicated that MNCs allow their overseas subsidiaries to adapt their HRM practices which similar to those LOCs at host

t i Thi t t d di ti MNC b idi i i icountries. This strategy passed on more discretion over MNC subsidiaries, increasing organizational flexibility and agility as the companies faced a more complicated, competitive, and uncertain environment at host-country. Therefore, the local responsiveness strategy leads to similarity of HRM practices between MNC subsidiariesresponsiveness strategy leads to similarity of HRM practices between MNC subsidiaries and LOCs at host country, but difference between MNC headquarter and subsidiaries (Evans, et al., 2002; Ferton_OCreevy, Gooderham, & Nordhaug, 2008).June 2011

C302 Example 1

A. Lawler, J., Chen, S.J.*, Wu, P., HR Practices and Organizational Turnover in Foreign

Subsidiaries of American Multinationals, International Journal of Human Resource M t ( d i ) SSCI(* di th )Management, (under reveiw) SSCI(*corresponding author)

Shih, C.T. & Chen, S.J., The Social Dilemma Perspective on Psychological Contract fulfillment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Management and Organization Review (under review). SSCI

Chang, P.C. & Chen, S.J.*. HPWS, Affective Commitment, Human Capital, and Employee Job Performance in Professional Service Organizations. (under 1st round revision), SSCI (*corresponding author)

Bae, J., Chen, S.J., & Rowley, C., From A Paternalistic Model Towards What? HRMBae, J., Chen, S.J., & Rowley, C., From A Paternalistic Model Towards What? HRM Trends In Korea And Taiwan, Personnel Review, (forthcoming) SSCI

Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S.J., & Yeh, K. 2010. Managing in Ethnic Communities: Culture, Institutions, and Context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3):341-354. SSCISSCI

B.

June 2011

C302-Example 2

A1. Lawler, J., Chen, S.J.*, Wu, P., Bae, J., & Bai, B., High Performance Work Systems in

Foreign Subsidiaries of American Multinationals: An Institutional Model. Journal of I t ti l B i St di (f th i ) SSCI(* di th )International Business Studies, (forthcoming) SSCI(*corresponding author)

Bae, J., Chen, S.J., & Rowley, C., From A Paternalistic Model Towards What? HRM Trends In Korea And Taiwan, Personnel Review, (forthcoming) SSCI

Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S.J., & Yeh, K. 2010. Managing in Ethnic Communities: Culture, g gInstitutions, and Context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3):341-354. SSCI

A2. Shih, C.T. & Chen, S.J., The Social Dilemma Perspective on Psychological Contract

fulfillment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Management and Organization Review(under review). SSCI

Chang, P.C. & Chen, S.J.*. HPWS, Affective Commitment, Human Capital, and Employee Job g, . . , . . . , , p , p yPerformance in Professional Service Organizations., (under 1st round revision) SSCI(*corresponding author)

B B.

June 2011

June 2011

Introduction (Statement of research question)

Background (with some literature review)

Significance (intellectual merit and broad impacts)

Methodology (measurements and analysis)

Expected outcome of researchExpected outcome of research

Qualifications of the Team (with Vitas) and References etc.

May 2011

and References etc.

Funding (annual) and justification

Four Pillars of a quality Four Pillars of a quality researchResearch question

Theoretical contributionTheoretical contribution

Empirical rigorousness

Contribution to practice

May 2011

Research QuestionResearch Question

(curiosity) Example: Institutional isomorphism; Immigration

research; Perfume in job interview (JAP, 1983)

Example: Does utilization of high performance Example: Does utilization of high performance work system improve organizational performance?

May 2011

Background (Literature Review)g ( ) A proposal should be written in the shape of an

hourglass.o It begins with broad general statements, o progressively narrows down to the specifics of your study, and then o broadens out again to more general considerations.

Example: HR practices andOrganizational Performance

May 2011

The Literature ReviewThe Literature Review This section aims to summarize the current state

of knowledge in the area of investigationof knowledge in the area of investigation. o What previous research has been done on the problem?

o What are the pertinent theories of the phenomenon?

Discuss the literature but do not include an exhaustive historical review. o Assume that the reviewers are knowledgeable about the

field for which you are writing and does not require a complete digest.complete digest.

o Applicants should not to let the goal of brevity mislead them into writing jargons intelligible only to the

i li t

May 2011

specialist.

What is theoreticalWhat is theoretical contribution?

A li t t id h th i kcontribution? Applicants must consider how their work contributes to theory and explicitly frame this contribution for their reviewersthis contribution for their reviewers. Applicants should demonstrate to bridge research gap.

Meaningful new insights or implications for theory must be presented clearly, although these insights are able to develop in manythese insights are able to develop in many ways, including: o falsification of conventional understanding, g,o theory building through inductive or qualitative research, fi t ti i i l t ti f th

May 2011

o first-time empirical testing of a theory, o meta-analysis with theoretical implications,

HypothesesHypotheses

Example: high involvement HR practices p g pand organizational performance

May 2011

When you build the h thhypotheses Because most organization & management research

contain hypotheses (qualitative research is often contain hypotheses (qualitative research is oftenan exception), authors must be careful when building the theoretical logic in their hypothesis developmentdevelopment.

What is often missing in submitted proposals is the specification of the underlying theoretical specification of the underlying theoreticalmechanism or logic that explains the relationships among a set of variables.

O i k i i l il i One common mistake is to simply pile up previous empirical findings in an attempt to justify hypothetical links. Such a proposal will fall short

May 2011

hypothetical links. Such a proposal will fall shortof the theoretical contribution needed in a quality research.

How the value is added?How the value is added? Most organization researches are not going to generate a new theory from the greento generate a new theory from the green field. Instead, they generally work on improving what already exists.improving what already exists.

Value usually comes fromo Identify how this change affects the acceptedo Identify how this change affects the accepted relationships between the variables.

o Borrow a perspective from other fields and challenge the underlying rationales supporting accepted theories.

Simply adding or subtracting factors from an

May 2011

Simply adding or subtracting factors from an existing model seldom satisfies your reviewers

What is empiricalWhat is empirical rigorousness?

A i l f il h d d fg

Articles may fail to meet the standard for a

strong empirical contribution for a variety

of reasons.

o the use of operational measures that are not pproperly validated, or that do not appear to

capture the constructs developed in the

theoretical section of the paper (i.e., construct

validity problems).

o the use of inadequate research designs for testing the question at hand (e.g., designs with

May 2011

ambiguous/reverse causality, serious omitted-

variable biases, or common method variance).

Wh t i th t ib ti fWhat is the contributions for practice?practice? What should a manager do differently in his or her organization after reading your g g ymanuscript?

While practical relevance need not be While practical relevance need not be direct or immediate in all cases, authors should discuss the potential implicationsshould discuss the potential implications of their work for present or future managersmanagers.

If you cannot imagine a manager ever caring about your work even after further

May 2011

about your work, even after further development (by yourself or other scholars), your manuscript might not satisfy this

TSSCI, SSCI, SCI

May 2011

12100012 1000

May 2011

. 88%

. 78%78%

. 5030

. 12345

June 2011

5

100-1/4

1 Academy of Management Learning and Education 2 Academy of Management Journal *3 Academy of Management Perspective4 Academy of Management Review *5 Administrative Science Quarterly *6 Advances in International Management7 Advances in Strategic Management8 Applied Psychology: An International Review9 Asia Pacific Journal of Management

10 British Journal of Industrial Relations11 British Journal of Management12 Business Horizon13 California Management Review14 Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice15 E J l f W k d O i i l P h l15 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology16 European Management Journal17 European Management Review18 G d O i ti M t

June 2011

18 Group and Organization Management19 Harvard Business Review20 Human Performance

100-2/4

21 Human Relations *22 Human Resource Development Quarterly23 Human Resource Management24 Human Resource Management Review25 IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management26 Industrial and Corporate Change *27 Industrial and Labor Relations Review *28 Industrial Relations *29 i l i i29 International Business Review30 International Journal of Human Resource Management31 International Journal of Selection and Assessment32 I t ti l M k ti R i32 International Marketing Review33 Journal of Applied Behavioral Science34 Journal of Applied Psychology *35 Journal of Applied Social Psychology35 Journal of Applied Social Psychology36 Journal of Behavioral Decision Making37 Journal of Business Ethics38 Journal of Business Research

June 2011

38 Journal of Business Research39 Journal of Business Venturing40 Journal of International Business Studies *

100-3/4

41 Journal of International Management42 Journal of International Marketing43 Journal of Management *44 Journal of Management Inquiry45 Journal of Management Studies *46 Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology *47 Journal of Organizational Behavior *48 Journal of Product Innovation Managementg49 Journal of Small Business Management50 Journal of Vocational Behavior *51 Journal of World Business52 Leadership Quarterly53 Long Range Planning 54 Management and Organization Review55 Management International Review56 MIT Sloan Management Review57 Organization

June 2011

58 Organization Science *59 Organization Studies *60 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes *

100-4/4

61 Organizational Dynamics62 Organizational Research Methods63 Personnel Psychology *64 R&D Management65 Research in Organizational Behavior *66 R h i P l d H R M t66 Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management67 Research Policy *68 Research-Technology Management69 Small Group Research69 Small Group Research70 Strategic Management Journal *71 Strategic Organization72 Technovation72 Technovation73 74 75 76 77 78

June 2011

79 80 81

100-1/2

1 American Journal of Law and Medicine2 American Journal of Managed Care3 American Journal of Public Health4 Frontiers of Health Services Management5 Gerontologist6 Hastings Center Report7 Health Affairs *8 Health Care Financing Review9 Health Care Management Review

10 Health Care Strategic Management11 Health Economics12 Health Economics, Policy and Law13 Health Policy14 Health Policy and Planning15 H lth S i M t R h15 Health Services Management Research16 Health Services Research *17 Inquiry18 I t ti l J l f Q lit i H lth C

June 2011

18 International Journal for Quality in Health Care19 International Journal of Health Services20 Joint Commission Journal of Quality Improvement

100-2/2

21 Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research22 Journal of Health and Social Behavior22 Journal of Health and Social Behavior23 Journal of Health Care Finance24 Journal of Health Economics *25 J l f H lth P liti P li d L25 Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law26 Journal of Healthcare Management27 Journal of Public Health Policy28 Journal of the American Geriatrics Society29 Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences

and Social Sciences30 Law, Medicine, and Health Care31 Medical Care *32 Medical Care Research and Review33 Milbank Quarterly *34 Psychology Public Policy and Law35 Social Science & Medicine

June 2011

35 Social Science & Medicine36 Value in Health37

98()(1)

2004-20042008(Forth-coming)

[A+]

[A+A]

SSCITSSCI

SSCISCITSSCI

A+ A A- B+ SSCI SCI TSSCI ++

TSSCI

TSSCI+

(

552) 5 17 50 62 501 121 410 8188/530

(16 6)

4/530

(0 8%)

12/530

(2 3%)

220/530

(41 5%)

202/530

(38 1%)552) (16.6) (0.8%) (2.3%) (41.5%) (38.1%)

362 4 14 37 48 364 91 330 61

75/346 3/346 9/346 142/346 129/346 4 14 37 48 364 91 330 61

(21.7%) (0.9%) (2.6%) (41.0%) (37.3%)

(190) 1 3 13 14 137 30 80 20

13/184 1/184 3/184 79/184 73/184(190) 1 3 13 14 137 30 80 20

(7.1%) (0.5%) (1.6%) (42.9%) (39.7%)

1 98 552362190

June 2011

1.985523621902225303461842.++TSSCI

98 ()(2)

2004-2008(Forth-coming)

[A+]

[A+A]

SSCITSSCI

SSCISCITSSCIA+ A A- B+ SSCI SCI TSSCI +

SSCITSSCI

SCITSSCI+

(

5 17 50 62 501 121 410 8188/530 4/530 12/530 220/530 202/530

552) 5 17 50 62 501 121 410 81 (16.6%) (0.8%) (2.3%) (41.5%) (38.1%)

36/226 3/226 8/226 98/226 93/226239

4 12 13 35 201 29 178 1236/226

(15.9%)

3/226

(1.3%)

8/226

(3.5%)

98/226

(43.3%)

93/226

(41.2%)

1 5 37 27 295 84 229 6952/289 1/289 4/289 111/289 99/289

298

1 5 37 27 295 84 229 69(18.0%) (0.3%) (1.4%) (38.4%) (34.3%)

15 0 0 0 0 5 8 3 0

0/15

(0%)

0/15

(0%)

0/15

(0%)

11/15

(73 3%)

10/15

(66 7%)

June 2011

(0%) (0%) (0%) (73.3%) (66.7%)

98(3)

2004-2008(Forth-coming)

[A+]

[A+A]

SSCI

A+ A A B+ SSCI SCI TSSCI +coming)

SSCITSSCI

SSCISCITSSCI

A+ A A- B+ SSCI SCI TSSCI ++

( 13/93 1/93 8/93 43/93 31/93(99) 2 8 15 2 99 287 86 1

13/93(14.0%)

1/93(1.1%)

8/93(8.6%)

43/93(46.2%)

31/93(33.3%)

7777 2 6 12 2 91 264 71 1

12/72(16.7%)

1/72(1.4%)

6/72(8.3%)

34/72(47.2%)

23/72(31.9%)

(22) 0 2 3 0 8 23 15 0

1/21(4.8%)

0/21(0%)

2/21(9.5%)

9/21(42.9%)

8/21(38.1%)

June 2011

9899772262937221

Logistic Regression for 98

Constant -.63 (.00) (vs. ) -1.12 (.00) ( ) ( )(vs. ) .83 (.00) (vs ) 18 ( 39)(vs. ) -.18 (.39) (vs. ) .06 (.86) .66 (.00) -2 Log Likelihood 587.11*** gR square .33 N 569

June 2011

N 569

99

2005 2009

[A+] [A+A]

2005-2009

(Forthcoming)

[A+]

[A+A]

SSCI

SSCISCI

A+ A A- B+SSCI

SCITSSCI

++

552 7 32 76 62 584 140 300 81

71/541(13.1%)

7/541(1.3%)

28/541(5.2%)

226/54141.8%

211/541(39.0%)

410 7 31 57 51 479 118 250 68

60/399(15 0%)

7/399(1 8%)

27/399(6 8%)

168/399(42 1%)

156/399(39 1%)

410 (15.0%) (1.8%) (6.8%) (42.1%) (39.1%)

(142) 0 1 19 11 105 22 50 13

11/142(7.7%)

0/142(0%)

1/142(0.7%)

58/142(40.8%)

55/142(38.7%)

266

3 15 35 43 272 45 128 2631/261(11.9%)

3/261(1.1%)

14/261(5.4%)

111/261(42.5%)

109/261(41.8%)

270

4 15 40 19 306 88 169 5539/264(14.8%)

4/264(1.5%)

13/264(4.9%)

102/264(38.6%)

90/264(34.1%)

16 0 2 1 0 6 7 3 0 1/16(6 3%)

0/16(0%)

1/16(6 3%)

13/16(81 3%)

12/16(75 0%)

99552410142112541399142++TSSCI

(6.3%) (0%) (6.3%) (81.3%) (75.0%)

June 2011

99

2005-2009(

Forthcoming)

[A+]

[A+A]

SSCI

SSCISCI

A+ A A B+ SSCI SCI

++o t co g) A+ A A- B+ SSCI SCI

TSSCI

+

89 6 14 26 5 134 241 74 0

19/87 6/87 14/87 28/87 19/8789

6 14 26 5 134 241 74 0(21.8%) (6.9%) (16.1%) (32.2%) (21.8%)

6 12 23 5 126 221 66 0

17/64 6/64 12/64 18/64 11/6466 6 12 23 5 126 221 66 0 (26.6%) (9.4%) (18.8%) (28.1%) (17.2%)

0 2 3 0 8 20 8 0

2/23 0/23 2/23 10/23 8/2323 0 2 3 0 8 20 8 0

2/23(8.7%)

0/23(0%)

2/23(8.7%)

10/23(43.5%)

8/23(34.8%)

9989662322876423

June 2011

74%26%

17%35%46%

59%41%

35%65%

60%40% 60%40%

40%60%97 & 9849% 49%

June 2011

June 2011

Logistic Regression for (99)( )

Constant 2 55( 00)Constant 2.55(.00) .39(.29) 67( 03) .67(.03) -.09(.00) 64( 02)vs. -.64(.02) vs. .48(.04) vs. -.30(.19) vs. .69(.05) .93(.00) -2 Log Likelihood 520.43 N 541

June 2011

3-6

SMJ(1014) JIBS(975) MIR(528) JWB(385) SMJ(1014) , JIBS(975), MIR(528), JWB(385),IBR(620)

A53A3/5=0.6

June 2011

Logistic Regressiong g

(99)

Constant -1.05(.04)

1.07(.04) ( )

1.23(.00)

vs 62( 06)vs. -.62(.06)

vs. .56(.09)

vs. 1.03(.02)

-2 Log Likelihood 231.92

N 194

June 2011

May, 2011

May 2011

Research QuestionResearch Question

(curiosity) Example: Institutional isomorphism; Immigration

research; Perfume in job interview (JAP, 1983)

Example: Does utilization of high performance Example: Does utilization of high performance work system improve organizational performance?

May 2011

Background (Literature Review)g ( ) A proposal should be written in the shape of an

hourglass.o It begins with broad general statements, o progressively narrows down to the specifics of your study, and then o broadens out again to more general considerations.

Example: HR practices andOrganizational Performance

May 2011

The Literature ReviewThe Literature Review This section aims to summarize the current state

of knowledge in the area of investigationof knowledge in the area of investigation. o What previous research has been done on the problem?

o What are the pertinent theories of the phenomenon?

Discuss the literature but do not include an exhaustive historical review. o Assume that the reviewers are knowledgeable about the

field for which you are writing and does not require a complete digest.complete digest.

o Applicants should not to let the goal of brevity mislead them into writing jargons intelligible only to the

i li t

May 2011

specialist.

What is theoreticalWhat is theoretical contribution?

A li t t id h th i kcontribution? Applicants must consider how their work contributes to theory and explicitly frame this contribution for their reviewersthis contribution for their reviewers. Applicants should demonstrate to bridge research gap.

Meaningful new insights or implications for theory must be presented clearly, although these insights are able to develop in manythese insights are able to develop in many ways, including: o falsification of conventional understanding, g,o theory building through inductive or qualitative research, fi t ti i i l t ti f th

May 2011

o first-time empirical testing of a theory, o meta-analysis with theoretical implications,

HypothesesHypotheses

Example: high involvement HR practices p g pand organizational performance

May 2011

When you build the h thhypotheses Because most organization & management research

contain hypotheses (qualitative research is often contain hypotheses (qualitative research is oftenan exception), authors must be careful when building the theoretical logic in their hypothesis developmentdevelopment.

What is often missing in submitted proposals is the specification of the underlying theoretical specification of the underlying theoreticalmechanism or logic that explains the relationships among a set of variables.

O i k i i l il i One common mistake is to simply pile up previous empirical findings in an attempt to justify hypothetical links. Such a proposal will fall short

May 2011

hypothetical links. Such a proposal will fall shortof the theoretical contribution needed in a quality research.

How the value is added?How the value is added? Most organization researches are not going to generate a new theory from the greento generate a new theory from the green field. Instead, they generally work on improving what already exists.improving what already exists.

Value usually comes fromo Identify how this change affects the acceptedo Identify how this change affects the accepted relationships between the variables.

o Borrow a perspective from other fields and challenge the underlying rationales supporting accepted theories.

Simply adding or subtracting factors from an

May 2011

Simply adding or subtracting factors from an existing model seldom satisfies your reviewers

What is empiricalWhat is empirical rigorousness?

A i l f il h d d fg

Articles may fail to meet the standard for a

strong empirical contribution for a variety

of reasons.

o the use of operational measures that are not pproperly validated, or that do not appear to

capture the constructs developed in the

theoretical section of the paper (i.e., construct

validity problems).

o the use of inadequate research designs for testing the question at hand (e.g., designs with

May 2011

ambiguous/reverse causality, serious omitted-

variable biases, or common method variance).

Wh t i th t ib ti fWhat is the contributions for practice?practice? What should a manager do differently in his or her organization after reading your g g ymanuscript?

While practical relevance need not be While practical relevance need not be direct or immediate in all cases, authors should discuss the potential implicationsshould discuss the potential implications of their work for present or future managersmanagers.

If you cannot imagine a manager ever caring about your work even after further

May 2011

about your work, even after further development (by yourself or other scholars), your manuscript might not satisfy this

Final commentsFinal comments

May 2011

ReferencesReferences Miller, C.C. (2006) Peer review in the organizational and management sciences:organizational and management sciences: prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. AMJ, y, , ,49(3).

Bergh, D.D. (2003) Thinking strategically g , ( ) g g yabout contribution, AMJ, 46(2).

Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995) What , , ( )theory is not , ASQ, 40(3).

Whetten, D.A. (1989) What constitutes a

May 2011

, ( )theoretical contribution, AMR, 14(4).