1

Revised 8/29/14

Strategic Management PhD Seminar MHR 870 – Fall 2014

Instructors: Hart Posen Russ Coff hposen@bus.wisc.edu RCoff@bus.wisc.edu

(608) 263-6437 Class time: W 9:00-12:00, room 5115 (Weinert Ctr) Office Hrs: by appointment

Course Overview and Objectives This doctoral level strategy seminar invites students to explore drivers of performance heterogeneity

among firms. Why do some firms out-perform others? The topic is integrative in that the answer draws on theory from economics, sociology, and even psychology as well as management and organizational theory that is interdisciplinary. In studying this topic, we will also focus on the process of conducting management research. What is the anatomy of a scholarly contribution and how does one conduct research in this field? Learning Objectives

The primary overarching goal is to help doctoral students become independent scholars who are knowledgeable in the field of strategic management. Specifically, students will be able to:

1. Develop an understanding of the concepts, theory, and research in strategic management; 2. Summarize, integrate, and evaluate and research in strategic management; 3. Develop new ideas and/or approaches that advance this research literature and that might

serve as starting points for publishable research papers; and 4. Master research process skills critical to success in an academic career such as the ability to

think clearly and communicate effectively both orally and in written form.

Seminar Format and Assignments Like other seminars you have taken, the assignments are built around understanding the readings and

generating new research directions. The grading falls into the four areas reflected in the table to the right. Each is examined below. Class preparation and participation (35%)

You are expected to be an active (and constructively critical) participant in all class sessions. Preparation before class is essential, and an important part of the evaluation of performance will be based on student preparedness and internalization of concepts as evidenced by in-class discussion. This component of the grade has two key elements: preparation of reading assignments before class and participation in class discussion.

Component % of Grade Class preparation and participation

35%

Paper Critiques/Reviews

15%

Research “proposal” 50%

2

Participation in discussions. Doctoral seminars are very small so the quality of the learning experience depends greatly on each person. A student who sits back and listens (however intently) is likely to detract from others’ learning experience. Your class contributions should go well beyond “I liked this reading” and “I didn’t like that one” (although these reactions are important). Try to dig deeper and ask questions like:

ü What is missing? ü What relevant questions aren’t answered? ü What are the article’s broader implications? ü What assumptions does this perspective make

about people? Firms? Markets?

ü How tenable are those assumptions? ü You might also want to compare and contrast the

articles on the questions above: How are these articles similar or different?

ü What studies should be done to develop theory in the area under discussion?

Participants will prepare to discuss at least one of the assigned readings. Each seeks to contribute to theory and empirically test the predictions offered. Participants should be prepared to discuss all aspects of the theoretical and methodological contribution.

Paper Critiques/Reviews (15%) Over the course of the semester, you will be reading a lot of research papers. You will do two

published paper reviews and one “friendly” review of a classmates paper. In reviewing a paper, your job is to identify the extent of the paper’s contribution. You may consider the following basic structure.

1. Identify the gap in the literature that the paper addresses. Is there a gap the paper fills, is the gap interesting and important? Are there ways that the gap could be better/more-clearly identified?

2. Identify how does the paper fill the gap. Is the theoretical claim compelling and logically consistent? That is, do you buy the theory proposed? Why or why not? Are there ways that the theory might be strengthened?

3. For empirical papers — Identify the extent to which the empirics provide a compelling test of the theory. Is the empirical context appropriate to test the theory? Are the theoretical constructs well matched to the empirical variables? Do you believe that the empirical results provide evidence that tends to support the theory? What might you have done to improve the empirical test?

Published paper review/critique. You may select any two papers you wish (from two different sessions) to write your reviews. Your reviews should be two pages (page-length specified here and elsewhere are double-spaced) and submitted by email at least one day in advance of the session in which the paper is discussed.

Review of classmate’s term project. Part of your class preparation will include providing feedback on a classmate’s term paper. The fact that this will not be a blind review process should sensitize you to the need for constructive feedback. While the confidentiality of a blind review process gives the reviewer the freedom to provide frank, direct, and undiluted feedback without fear of negative consequences. Nevertheless, this confidentiality is not a license to be rude, insulting, or inappropriate. Rather, you should keep your criticisms constructive – i.e., focused on specific, concrete changes that could realistically improve the rough draft, taking into account all of the constraints on this term project assignment and on research projects in general. The peer review should be about 2 to 3 pages long.

For further advice on reviewing, please see the Academy of Management Journal’s “Guidelines for Reviewers” web page at: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/reviewer_guidelines.html. You will receive the rough draft for you to review at class meeting #13. Please submit your review via email in advance of class meeting #14, and bring three printed-stapled copies of your peer review at class meeting #14.

3

Original research project (50%)

You are required to prepare a 10 to 20 page term project that is a proposal for a research project. If executed, this could become the basis of a publishable paper or dissertation. It should be aimed at either adding new knowledge to the strategy field or bringing a new perspective to existing findings. Either way, it should be executed in a way that would be “interesting” in the sense of the Murray Davis “That’s Interesting” article.

Format. This research paper should adhere to the format and submission guidelines provided by the Academy of Management Journal (see http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/style_guide.html for details), and should be organized roughly as follows:

1) Your introduction should identify the existing “conversation” you are joining, what is missing from this conversation, and how you intend to fill that gap. If your first two pages don’t clearly explain your point, and why it is important, most readers will lose interest – especially reviewers.

2) A “Theory” section where you review the literature needed to put your contribution into focus. Then develop, explain, and justify your unique contribution. A complete theory would include three main elements – what causes what, why and how, and under what conditions:

a. What causes what? An empirically falsifiable prediction, with Independent and dependent variables that are clearly articulated and defined.

b. Why and how? A logical and internally-consistent causal mechanism, which provides a bridge or a process through which the assumptions and boundary conditions provided in part (c) below will lead naturally to the prediction provided in part (a) above.

c. Under what conditions? A clear statement of the bare minimum set of assumptions and boundary conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the causal mechanism in part (b) above to apply, and in order for the prediction in part (a) above to be derived. (Imposing additional assumptions and boundary conditions beyond the bare minimum is viewed as undesirable, because it unnecessarily restricts the theory’s range of applicability.)

d. Carve out a “bite-sized” contribution. Because it is nearly impossible to develop a complete, new, full-blown, paradigm-shifting theory in the space you will have, you may prefer to aim for making a smaller “bite-sized” contribution to theory, such as: ü Articulating a theory’s hidden assumptions

or boundary constraints. ü Examining interesting special cases, where

more and/or stronger predictions can be derived under additional assumptions or boundary constraints.

ü Finding inconsistencies within a theory. ü Articulating previously overlooked points of

inconsistency between theories. ü Introducing a new construct or variable. ü Questioning an existing conceptual construct

or variable.

ü Deriving new predictions from an old theory (or theories).

ü Synthesizing multiple theories, where the combined whole differs from the sum of the parts – i.e., interaction effects, where the combination of theories generates new and different predictions.

ü Extending a theory, by considering the consequences of relaxing restrictive assumptions or boundary constraints.

ü Importing theories, constructs, or variables across levels of analysis.

3) A “Methodology” section in which you describe a research design that would be appropriate to test your question or idea, using data that could realistically be collected, organized, and analyzed within a one year time horizon (taking into account the financial constraints, data-access constraints, and time constraints on a typical doctoral student). Although this section will most likely consider how and where you might collect data, it is nevertheless possible that the relevant data might be readily available (e.g., in public databases or in data sets already collected

4

by other researchers), in which case you are strongly encouraged to go ahead and perform the actual data analysis and report the results in the paper, in a separate “Results” section.

4) Length: Less is more. We have specified page limits that will push you to be very concise – this can be a special challenge. Accordingly, you should heed the following words of wisdom from the “Notice to Contributors” printed in every issue of Administrative Science Quarterly:

“We are interested in compact presentations of theory and research, suspecting that very long manuscripts contain an unclear line of argument, multiple arguments, or no argument at all. Each manuscript should contain one key point, which the author should be able to state in one sentence. Digressions from one key point are common when authors cite more literature than is necessary to frame and justify an argument.”

Schedule. You should start thinking about your topic early in the semester, and you should discuss your initial thoughts with me, so we can point you towards related work. If your desired topic is covered late in the semester, you will need to read ahead to get started. This term project will probably require you to do additional reading beyond the syllabus. In order to help you structure and pace your work, you must submit intermediate work-in-progress products as outlined below, and the topic of your term project must be approved (so don’t get too far along before coordinating with the instructor):

1) Term project topic must be approved by me by class meeting #5, either verbally or via e-mail. 2) Printed outline of the proposed term project, 2 to 3 pages in length (necessary in order to gain

approval of instructor) is due by class meeting #7, but may be submitted earlier. This outline itself will not be graded, but rather will be used to provide developmental feedback. However, failure to submit an outline by the deadline may result in a reduced grade for the term project.

3) Two printed copies of a rough draft of the term project, including references, are due by #13, along with PDF version via email. This rough draft will not be graded but will be used to provide developmental feedback.

4) Reviews of the rough drafts will be exchanged at class meeting #14, at which time you will also receive the instructor’s feedback.

5) Two single-sided printed copies of the completed term project are due by 12/18/14, along with PDF version via email.

There will be no incomplete grades given. If you want to further develop and polish the paper, you are encouraged to do so after the end of the semester, but this additional work will NOT be graded by using the “incomplete” grade to extend the term project deadline.

Presentation. You will give a 15-minute presentation about your project in a MHR brown bag session on 12/15/14. The time limit will be strictly enforced, so you should practice to make sure it isn’t too long. In this spirit, you should plan to use no more than 6 slides and don’t cram more material in by talking faster or using smaller fonts. Rather than trying to present your entire term project, you should try to sell the audience on what the project is and make them want to see the full paper. Try to achieve the quality one would hope to see in a research presentation at a major academic conference.

One purpose of this class presentation is to facilitate the generation of constructive feedback, ideas, and suggestions from your classmates about your term project. So, at the end of each presentation, there will be a brief period for the class to ask questions, give comments, and offer suggestions.

5

Overview of Class Topics and Assignments†

Date and Topic Assignments/Deadlines 1. (9/2/14, H&R): Introduction (Contribution, Map of the

field)

2. (9/10/14, H): Industrial Organization - Rivalry and its Restraint

3. (9/17/14, H): Bounded Rationality and its Implications (9/24/14) No Class (Strategic Management Society Madrid Conference)

Work on final papers

4. (10/1/14, R): Resource-Based View (acquiring resources & sustaining advantages)

5. (10/8/14, H): Knowledge and Routines as Strategic Assets as Strategic Assets

Term paper topics must be approved

6. (10/15/14, H): Innovation and its Determinants 7. (10/22/14, R): Human Capital Outline for term paper project 8. (10/29/14, R): Real Options & Decision-making Under

Uncertainty

9. (11/5/14, H): Exploration and Exploitation: Drivers of Firm Heterogeneity?

10. (11/12/14, H): Responding to Change – Dynamic Capabilities and Beyond

11. (11/19/14, R): Corporate Strategy - Economic Logic of Diversification

12. (11/26/14, R): Corporate Governance & TMT 13. (12/3/14, R): Corporate Strategy – M&A and Alliances Term Paper Rough Draft Due.

Each person recommends one forthcoming paper to discuss during next class.

14. (12/10/14, H&R): Wrap up – 1st half: student feedback on paper draft. 2nd half student choice of one forthcoming paper each

Friendly reviews due a day in advance of class.

15. (12/15/14): Final Paper Presentations (MHR Brown Bag Seminar)

Final paper due 12/18/14

† Click on any of the topics in the table to go to the readings for that session.

6

Detailed Topics and Reading List (Supplemental readings indicated by *)

1. (9/2/14, H&R): Introduction (Contribution, Map of the field)

Bartunek, Rynes, and Ireland. 2006 What Makes Management Research Interesting, and Why Does It Matter? . Academy of Management Journal 49(1): 9-15 .

Davis. 1971. That's Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1: 309-344 .

Glick, Miller, and Cardinal. 2007 Making a life in the field of organizational science Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(7): 817-835 .

Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece. 1994. Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda. 9-54. Nag, Hambrick, and Chen. 2007. What is Strategic Management, Really? Inductive derivation of a

consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal 28: 935-956. *Grant and Pollock. 2011. Publishing in AMJ Part 3: Setting the Hook. Academy of Management

Journal 54(5): 873-879. *Lehrer. 2010. THE TRUTH WEARS OFF: Is there something wrong with the scientific method?

The New Yorker. *Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin. 2012. Dynamics of the Evolution of the Strategy Concept 1962–

2008: A co-word analysis. Strategic Management Journal 33(2): 162-188. *Sternberg. 2013. Self-Sabotage in the Academic Career: 15 ways in which faculty members harm

their own futures, often without knowing it. Chronicle of Higher Education April 29.

2. (9/10/14, H): Industrial Organization - Rivalry and its Restraint Caves, R.E., M. Porter. 1977. From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barriers: Conjectural Decisions and

Contrived Deterrence to New Competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 91(2) 241-262. Porter, M. 1979. How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review 57(2) 137-145. Rumelt. 1991. How Much Does Industry Matter? Strategic Management Journal 12(3): 167-185. Gimeno, J. 1999. Reciprocal threats in multimarket rivalry: Staking out `spheres of influence’ in the

U.S. airline industry. Strategic Management Journal 20(2) 101. Seamans, R.C. 2013. Threat of entry, asymmetric information, and pricing. Strategic Management

Journal 34(4) 426-444. *Brush, Bromiley, and Hendrickx. 1999. The Relative Influence of Industry and Corporation on

Business Segment Performance: An Alternative Estimate Strategic Management Journal 20(6). *Chen. 1995. Competitive analysis and inter-firm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy

of Management Journal 38(2): 7-12. *McGahan, A., M. Porter. 1997. How much does industry matter, really? Strategic Management

Journal 18(Special Issue Supplement) 15-30. *Weiss, L.W. 1979. The structure-conduct-performance paradigm and antitrust. University of

Pennsylvania Law Review 1104-1140.

7

3. (9/17/14, H): Bounded Rationality and its Implications Simon, H. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69:99-118. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky (1979). “An analysis of decision under risk”. Econometrica, 47: 263-

291. Cyert, R., J. March. 1992. A behavioral theory of the firm xii, 252. (Ch 7 in 1992 edition “A

summary of basic concepts…”) Porac, J.F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., and Kanfer, A. 1995. Rivalry and the industry model

of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2): 203-227 Elfenbein, D.W., A.M. Knott. 2014. Time to exit: Rational, behavioral, and organizational delays.

Strat. Mgmt. J. n/a-n/a. *Simon, H.A. 1947. Administrative behavior. A study of decision-making processes in

administrative organization Administrative behavior. Macmillan, New York *March, J., H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 262. *March, J.G., J.P. Olsen. 1975. The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under

ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research 3(2) 147-171. *Ocasio. 1997. Towards an Attention-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal 18:

187. *Levinthal, D.A. 2011. A behavioral approach to strategy: what’s the alternative? Strategic

Management Journal 32(13) 1517-1523. *Gavetti, G., H.R. Greve, D.A. Levinthal, W. Ocasio. 2012. The Behavioral Theory of the Firm:

Assessment and Prospects. The Academy of Management Annals 6(1) 1-40. *Mahoney and Qian. 2013. Market frictions as building blocks of an organizational economics

approach to strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 34(9): 1019-1041. 9/24/14: No Class (Strategic Management Society Madrid Conference)

4. (10/1/14, R): Resource-Based View (acquiring resources & sustaining advantages)

Barney. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99-120.

Arend. 2008. Tests of the Resource-based View: Do the empirics have any clothes? Strategic Organization 4(4): 409-422.

Barney. 1986. Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy Management Science 32(10): 1231-1241 .

Dierickx, I., K. Cool. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35(12) 1504-1512.

Vomberg, Homburg, and Bornemann. 2015. Talented People and Strong Brands: The Contribution of Human Capital and Brand Equity to Firm Value. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

*Arend and Lévesque. 2010. Is the Resource-Based View a Practical Organizational Theory?

Organization Science 21(4): 913-933. *Barney and Felin. 2013. What Are Microfoundations? Academy of Management Perspectives

27(2): 138-155. *Foss. 2011. Why Micro-Foundations for Resource-Based Theory Are Needed and What They May

Look Like. Journal of Management 37(5): 1413.

8

*Amit and Schoemaker. 1993. Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent Strategic Management Journal 14(1): 33-46 .

*Chen, Delmas, and Lieberman. 2013. Production frontier methodologies and efficiency as a performance measure in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

*Denrell. 2004. Random Walks and Sustained Competitive Advantage Management Science 50(7): 922-934.

*Henderson, Raynor, and Ahmed. 2012. How Long Must a Firm Be Great to Rule Out Chance? Benchmarking sustained superior performacne without being fooled by randomness. Strategic Management Journal 33.

*Jacobsen. 1988. The Persistence of Abnormal Returns. Strategic Management Journal 9(5): 415-430.

*King and Zeithaml. 2001. Competencies and Firm Performance: Examining the Causal Ambiguity Paradox. Strategic Management Journal 22(1): 75-99.

*Lieberman and Montgomery. 1988. First-Mover Advantages. Strategic Management Journal 9: 41-58.

*Lippman and Rumelt. 1982. Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency Under Competition. Bell Journal of Economics 13(2): 418-438.

*Peteraf. 1993. The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-based View. Strategic Management Journal 14(3): 179-191.

*Mahoney and Pandian. 1992. The resource-based view of the firm within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 13(5): 363-380.

*McEvily and Chakravarthy. 2002. The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: An empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal 23(4): 285.

5. (10/8/14, H): Knowledge and Routines as Strategic Assets

Nelson, R., S.G. Winter. 1982. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, xi, 437. **Ch 4-5** Winter, S. G. 1987. Knowledge and Competence as Strategic Assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The

Competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal: 159-184. Kogut, B., and Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication

of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397. Makadok, R., and Walker, G. 2000. Identifying a distinctive competence: Forecasting ability in the

money fund industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8): 853-864. Knott, A.M., D. Bryce, H.E. Posen. 2003. On the strategic accumulation of intangible assets.

Organization Science 14(2) 192-207. *Henderson, R., and Cockburn, I. 1994. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in

pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Special Issue): 63-84. *Knott, A. M., and McKelvey, B. 1999. Nirvana efficiency: a comparative test of residual claims

and routines. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 38(4): 365-383. *Feldman and Pentland. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility

and change. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(1): 94. *Zollo, Reuer, and Singh. 2002. Interorganizational routines and performance in strategic alliances.

Organization Science 13(6): 701. *Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J., and Syverson, C. 2008. Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency:

Selection on Productivity or Profitability?. American Economic Review, 98: 394-425.

9

*Loch, C.H., K. Sengupta, M.G. Ahmad. 2013. The Microevolution of Routines: How Problem Solving and Social Preferences Interact. Organization Science 24(1) 99-115.

6. (10/15/14, H): Innovation and its Determinants

Geroski, P. 1990. Innovation, Technological Opportunity, and Market Structure. Oxford Economic Papers 42(3) 586-602.

Cohen, W., D.A. Levinthal. 1989. Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99(397) 569-596.

Ziedonis, R. 2004. Don ‘t Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms. Management Science 50(6) 804-820.

Sinclair, G., S. Klepper, W. Cohen. 2000. What’s experience got to do with it? Sources of cost reduction in a large specialty chemicals producer. Management Science 46(1) 28-45.

Posen, H.E., J.S. Chen. 2013. An Advantage of Newness: Vicarious Learning Despite Limited Absorptive Capacity. Organization Science 24(6)

*Utterback, J., W. Abernathy. 1975. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega

3(6) 639-656. *Teece, D.J. 1986. Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration,

Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy. Research Policy 15(6) 285-305. *Cohen, W., D.A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and

innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1) 128-152 *Ahuja and Lampert. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how

established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal 22(6-7): 521-543.

*Winter, S.G. 2006. The logic of appropriability: From Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece. Research Policy 35(8) 1100-1106.

*Knott, A.M., H.E. Posen. 2009. Firm R&D behavior and evolving technology in established industries. Organization Science 20(2) 352.

7. (10/22/14, R): Human Capital

Coff. 1997. Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. The Academy of Management Review 22(2): 374-402.

Campbell, Coff, and Kryscynski. 2012. Re-thinking Competitive Advantage from Human Capital. Academy of Management Review 37(3): 376-395.

Frank and Obloj. 2013. Firm-specific human capital, organizational incentives, and agency costs: Evidence from retail banking. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

Wang, He, and Mahoney. 2009. Firm-specific knowledge resources and competitive advantage: the roles of economic- and relationship-based employee governance mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal 30(12): 1265.

*Becker. 1993. Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to

education. . *Campbell, Ganco, Franco, and Agarwal. 2012. Who leaves, where to, and why worry? employee

mobility, entrepreneurship and effects on source firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 33(2): 65–87.

10

*Carnahan and Somaya. 2014. Alumni Effects and Relational Advantage: The Impact on Outsourcing when Your Buyer Hires Employees from Your Competitors. Academy of Management Journal.

*Coff. 1999. When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science 10(2): 119-133.

*Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, and Ketchen Jr. 2011. Does Human Capital Matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(3): 443-456.

*Ethiraj and Garg. 2012. The Division of Gains from Complementarities in Human-Capital-Intensive Activity. Organization Science 23.

*Groysberg, Lee, and Nanda. 2008. Can They Take It With Them? The Portability of Star Knowledge Workers' Performance. Management Science 54(7): 1213.

*Hall. 1993. A Framework Linking Intangible Resources and Capabilities to Sustainable Competitive Advantage Strategic Management Journal 14(8): 607-618.

*Hatch and Dyer. 2004. Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 25(12): 1155.

*Lazear. 2009. Firm-Specific Human Capital: A Skill-Weights Approach. The Journal of Political Economy 117(5): 914.

*Raffiee and Feng. 2014. Should I Quit My Day Job? A Hybrid Path to Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal.

*Somaya, Williamson, and Lorinkova. 2008. Gone but not Lost: The different performance impacts of employee mobility between cooperators versus competitors. Academy of Management Journal 51(5): 936.

*Song, Almeida, and Wu. 2003. Learning-by-hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science 49(4): 351-366.

*Wang and Barney. 2006. Employee Incentives to Make Firm-Specific Investments: Implications for resource-based theories of corporate diversification. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review 31(2): 466-478.

8. (10/29/14, R): Real Options & Decision-making Under Uncertainty

Kogut. 1991. Joint Ventures and the Option to Expand and Acquire. Management Science 37(1): 19-33.

Coff and Laverty. 2007. Real Options Meet Organizational Theory: Coping With Path Depedencies, Agency Costs, and Organizational Forms Advances in Strategic Management 24: 333-361.

Klingebiel and Adner. 2014. Real Options Logic Revisited: The Performance Effects of Alternative Resource Allocation Regimes. Academy of Management Journal.

Bennett, Seamans, and Zhu. 2015. Cannibalization and option value effects of secondary markets: Evidence from the US concert industry. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

Phadnis, Caplice, Sheffi, and Singh. 2014. Effect of scenario planning on field experts' judgment of long-range investment decisions. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

*Adner and Levinthal. 2004. What is not a Real Option: Identifying boundaries for the application of

real options to business strategy. Academy of Management Review 29(1): 74-85. *Barnett. 2008. AN ATTENTION-BASED VIEW OF REAL OPTIONS REASONING. Academy of

Management. The Academy of Management Review 33(3): 606.

11

*Bowman and Moskowitz. 2001. Real Options Analysis and Strategic Decision-Making. Organization Science 12(6): 772-777.

*Kogut and Kulatilaka. 1994. Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value. Management Science 40(1): 123-139.

*McGrath and Nerkar. 2004. Real Options Reasoning and a New Look at the R&D Investment Strategies of Pharmaceutical Firms. Strategic Management Journal 25(1): 1-22.

*Miller and Folta. 2002. Option value and entry timing. Strategic Management Journal 23(7): 655. *Vassolo, Anand, and Folta. 2004. Portfolio effect in real options: The case of equity alliances in

biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal 25: 1045-1061. *Wang and Lim. 2008. Real options and real value: the role of employee incentives to make specific

knowledge investments. Strategic Management Journal 29(7): 701-721.

9. (11/5/14, H): Exploration and Exploitation: Drivers of Firm Heterogeneity? March, J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1)

71-87. Gavetti, G., D.A. Levinthal. 2000. Looking Forward and Looking Backward: Cognitive and

Experiential Search. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(1) 113-137. Rosenkopf, L., and Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and

impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4): 287. Ahuja, G., R. Katila. 2004. Where Do Resources Come From? the Role of Idiosyncratic Situations.

Strategic Management Journal 25(8/9) 887-907. Kim, J.-Y., A. Miner. 2007. Vicarious learning from the failures and near-failures of others:

evidence from the U.S. commercial banking industry. Academy of Management Journal 50(3) 687-714.

*Levinthal and March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal 14(S2): 95-

112. *Levinthal. 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science 43(7): 934-950. *Katila, R., and Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search

behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1183-1194. *Benner and Tushman. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity

dilemma revisited. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review 28(2): 238. *Levinthal and Posen. 2007. Myopia of Selection: Does Organizational Adaptation Limit the

Efficacy of Population Selection? Administrative Science Quarterly 52(4): 586. *Knott, A.M., H.E. Posen, B. Wu. 2009. Spillover asymmetry and why it matters. Management

Science 55(3) 373-388. *Posen, H.E., J. Lee, S. Yi. 2013. The power of imperfect imitation. Strategic Management Journal

34(2) 149-164. *Giarratana and Mariani. Forthcoming. The relationship between knowledge sourcing and fear of

imitation. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a. 10. (11/12/14, H): Responding to Change – Dynamic Capabilities and Beyond

Christensen, C., J. Bower. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal 17(3) 197-218.

12

Tripsas, M. 1997. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal 18(Special Issue Supplement) 119-142.

Teece, D.J., G. Pisano, A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7) 509-533.

Drnevich, P.L., A.P. Kriauciunas. 2011. Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 32(3) 254-279.

Posen, H.E., D.A. Levinthal. 2012. Chasing a moving target: Exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments. Management Science 58(3) 587-601.

*Blyler and Coff. 2003. Dynamic Capabilities, Social Capital, & Rent Appropriation: Ties that split

pies. Strategic Management Journal 24(7): 677-686. *Danneels, E. 2008. Organizational antecedents of second-order competences. Strategic

Management Journal 29(5) 519-543. *Eisenhardt and Martin. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal

21(10-11): 1105-1121. *Henderson, R., K. Clark. 1990. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product

Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1) 9-30. *Henderson, R. 1993. Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation:

Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. Rand Journal of Economics 24(2) 248-270.

*Tushman, M., P. Anderson. 1986. Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31(3) 439-465.

*Winter, S.G. 2003. Understanding Dynamic Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24(10) 991.

*Wiggins, R.R. & Ruefli, T.W. (2005). Schumpeter’s Ghost: Is Hypercompetition Making the Best of Times Shorter? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10): 887–911.

*Zollo and Winter. 2002. Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Organization Science 13(3): 339-354.

11. (11/19/14, R): Corporate Strategy - Economic Logic of Diversification

Williamson. 1991. Strategizing, Economizing, and Economic Organization. Strategic Management Journal 12(Winter): 75-94.

Elfenbein and Zenger. 2013. What Is a Relationship Worth? Repeated Exchange and the Development and Deployment of Relational Capital. Organization Science: 131105054352004.

Sakhartov and Folta. 2015. Getting Beyond Relatedness As A Driver Of Corporate Value. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

Miller. 2006. Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 27(7): 601-619.

*Conner and Prahalad. 1996. A resource- based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism.

Organization Science 7(5): 477-501. *Alchian and Demsetz. 1972. Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization. American

Economic Review 62: 777-795.

13

*Campa and Kedia. 2002. Explaining the Diversification Discount Journal of Finance 57(4): 1731-1762.

*Hennart. 1993 Explaining the Swollen Middle: Why most transactions are a mix of "market" and "hierarchy" Organization Science 4(4): 529-547 .

*Masten. 2002. Modern evidence on the firm. American Economic Review 92(2): 428. *Palich, Cardinal, and Miller. 2000. Curvilinearity in the Diversification-Perforamance Linkage: An

examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal 21: 155-174. *Poppo and Zenger. 1998. Testing alternative theories of the firm: Transaction cost, knowledge-

based, and measurement explanations for make-or-buy decisions in information services. Strategic Management Journal 19(9): 853.

*Robins and Wiersema. 1995. A Resource-Based Approach to the Multibusiness Firm - Empirical-Analysis of Portfolio Interrelationships and Corporate Financial Performance. Strategic Management Journal 16(4): 277-299.

*Silverman. 1999. Technological Resources and the Direction of Corporate Diversification: Toward an Integration of the Resource-Based View and Transaction Cost Economics. Management Science 45(8): 1109-1124.

*Williamson. 1981. The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach. American Journal of Sociology 87(3): 548-577.

12. (11/26/14, R): Corporate Governance & TMT

Hambrick and Mason. 1984. Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review 9(2): 193-206.

Bermiss and Murmann. 2014. Who Matters More? The Impact Of Functional Background And Top Executive Mobility On Firm Survival. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

Seo, Gamache, Devers, and Carpenter. 2015. The Role Of Ceo Relative Standing In Acquisition Behavior And Ceo Pay. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

Zhu and Chen. 2015. Narcissism, Director Selection, And Risk-Taking Spending. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

*Davis. 1991. Agents Without Principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate

network. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 583-613. *Fredrickson and Iaquinto. 1990. How and Where CEOs Matter: Functional Background,

Organizational Diversity and Performance in High and Low-Discretion Environments. . *Hayward and Hambrick. 1997. Explaining the Premiums Paid for Large Acquisitions: Evidence of

CEO Hubris Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 103 - 127 . *Triana, Miller, and Trzebiatowski. 2013. The Double-Edged Nature of Board Gender Diversity:

Diversity, Firm Performance, and the Power of Women Directors as Predictors of Strategic Change. Organization Science: 131105054352004.

*Westphal and Khanna. 2003. Keeping Directors in Line: Social Distancing as a Control Mechanism in the Corporate Elite. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(3): 361.

*Zajac and Westphal. 1994. The costs and benefits of managerial incentives and monitoring in large U.S. corporations: When is more not better? Strategic Management Journal 15(S2): 121-142.

*Zajac. 1990. CEO Selection, Succession, Compensation and Firm Performance: A Theoretical Integration and Empirical Analysis. Strategic Management Journal 11(3): 217-230.

14

13. (12/3/14, R): Corporate Strategy – M&A and Alliances Villalonga and McGahan. 2005. The Choice Among Acquisitions, Alliances, and Divestitures.

Strategic Management Journal 26: 1183-1208. Speckbacher, Neumann, and Hoffmann. 2014. Resource Relatedness and the Mode of Entry into

New Businesses: Internal resource accumulation vs. access by collaborative arrangement. Strategic Management Journal.

Mayer and Argyres. 2004. Learning to Contract: Evidence from the Personal Computer Industry. Organization Science 15(4): 394.

Bauer and Matzler. 2014. Antecedents of M&A success: The role of strategic complementarity, cultural fit, and degree and speed of integration. Strategic Management Journal 35(2): 269-291.

Alliances *Ahuja. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study.

Administrative Science Quarterly 45(3): 425-455. *Broschak and Block. 2014. With or Without You: When Does Managerial Exit Matter for the

Dissolution of Dyadic Market Ties? Academy of Management Journal. *Burt. 2004. Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110(2): 349. *Dyer. 1996. Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of

Japanese competitive advantage. Organization Science 7(6): 649. *Gulati. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal 19(4): 293. *Lavie. 2007. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation

in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal 28(12): 1187. *Oxley. 1999. Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: The impact of

intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 38(3): 283.

*Podolny and Baron. 1997. Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review 62(5): 673.

*Reuer and Ragozzino. 2012. The Choice Between Joint Ventures and Acquisitions: Insights from Signaling Theory. Organization Science 23.

*Stern, Dukerich, and Zajac. 2013. Unmixed signals: How reputation and status affect alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

*Uzzi. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 35.

*Zollo, Reuer, and Singh. 2002. Interorganizational routines and performance in strategic alliances. Organization Science 13(6): 701.

M&A *Barney. 1988. Returns to Bidding Firms in Mergers and Acquisitions: Reconsidering the

Relatedness Hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal 9: 71-78. *Coff. 1999. How Buyers Cope with Uncertainty When Acquiring Firms in Knowledge-Intensive

Industries: Caveat Emptor Organization Science 10(2): 144-161 . *Coff. 2003 Bidding Wars over R&D Intensive Targets: Knowledge, Opportunism and the Market

for Corporate Control Academy of Management Journal 46(1): 74-85 . *Haunschild. 1994. How much is that company worth?: Interorganizational relationships,

uncertainty, and acquisition premiums. Administrative Science Quarterly 39(3): 391.

15

*Hayward et al. 1997. Explaining the Premiums Paid for Large Acquisitions: Evidence of CEO Hubris Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 103 - 127 .

*Humphery-Jenner. 2013. Takeover defenses, innovation, and value creation: Evidence from acquisition decisions. Strategic Management Journal: n/a-n/a.

*Jemison and Sitkin. 1986. Corporate Acquisitions: A Process Perspective. Academy of Management Review 11(1): 145-163.

*Karim and Mitchell. 2000. Path-dependent and path-breaking change: Reconfiguring business resources following acquisitions in the U.S. medical sector, 1978-1995. Strategic Management Journal 21(10/11): 1061.

*Morck, Shleifer, and Vishny. 1989. Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control. American Economic Review 79(4): 842-852.

*Trautwein. 1990. Merger Motives and Merger Prescriptions. Strategic Management Journal 11(4): 283-295.

*Villalonga et al. 2005. The Choice Among Acquisitions, Alliances, and Divestitures. Strategic Management Journal 26: 1183-1208.

*Zollo and Singh. 2004. Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: post-acquisition strategies and integration capability in U.S. bank mergers. Strategic Management Journal 25(13): 1233.

14. (12/10/14, H&R): Wrap up – 1st half: student feedback on paper draft. 2nd half student choice of one forthcoming paper each

The following readings explore the review process and may be of use: *Agarwal, Echambadi, Franco, and Sarkar. 2006. Reap Rewards: Maximizing Benefits from

Reviewer Comments Academy of Management Journal 49(2): 191-196. *Rynes, Sara L. (2006). Making the Most of the Review Process: Lessons from Award Winning

Authors. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2): 189-190. *Rynes. 2006. Observations on "Anatomy of an R&R" and other Reflections. Academy of

Management Journal 49(2): 208-214. *Beyer, Chanove, and Fox. 1995. The Review Process and the Fates of Manuscripts Submitted to

AMJ Academy of Management Journal 38(5): 1219-1260 . *Floyd, Schroeder, and Finn. 1994. "Only if I'm First Author": Conflict over Credit in Management

Scholarship Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 734-747 . 15. (12/15/14): Final Paper Presentations (MHR Brown Bag Seminar)