Strategy/OT research © Mike W. Peng 1 Challenges in Strategy and Organization Theory Research Mike W. Peng Provost’s Distinguished Professor of Global

Strategy/OT research © Mike W. Peng 1

Challenges in Strategy and Organization Theory Research

Mike W. PengProvost’s Distinguished Professor of Global Strategy

University of Texas at Dallas

Editor-in-Chief, Asia Pacific Journal of Management

www.utdallas.edu/~mikepengwww.utdallas.edu/~mikepeng


Macro organizational research• Strategy and OT: Boundaries are blurred• The big question: What determines the success

and failure of firms around the world? (Peng, 2004, JIBS)

• My experience and advice: Be programmatic in your research– Of course, you will learn from and collaborate with

your advisor as a PhD student– But you don’t want to do your advisor’s research


Guidelines on topic selection (R. Tung, 2005, Asia Pacific Journal of Management)

• What are the significant and important trends that have broad implications for theory and practice in the future?

• Is the topic sustainable over an extended period of time and not just a fad?

• Will the topic be broad enough to generate interest among a sufficiently large group of researchers?

• How much research attention has the topic received so far?

• What is my competitive advantage in this area?• Am I truly passionate and excited about the topic?


A paper’s success is substantially determined at the outset (S. Rynes, 2006, IACMR talk)


Research Formulation• Minimum standards:

– “That’s interesting!”– 4 - 6 smart people test

• Maximum goals:– “I’ll never think about the issue the same way again!”– Publication becomes a ritual citation (e.g., Barney,

Child, Jensen, Hofstede, Porter, Williamson . . . cite Peng & Heath 96 for China/emerging econ research and Lyles & Salk 96 for IJV learning)


A programmatic research strategy Emerging markets strategies Export strategies (dissertation)

• Conceptual: Peng & Heath (1996 AMR) Peng & Ilinitch (1998 JIBS)Peng (2003 AMR)Peng, Lee, & Wang (2005 AMR) Trabold (2002 JIBS) – A test of Meyer & Peng (2005 JIBS) Peng & IlinitchLee, Peng, & Barney (2007 AMR)Peng, Wang, & Jiang (2008 JIBS)

• Qualitative: Peng (1997 OS) Peng, Hill, & Wang (2000 JMS)

• Quantitative: Luo & Peng (1999 JIBS) Peng & York (2001 JIBS)Peng & Luo (2000 AMJ)Tan & Peng (2003 SMJ) Peng, Zhou, & York (2006

JWB)Peng (2004 SMJ) -- A replication of TraboldTong, Reuer, & Peng (2007 AMJ)Peng, Zhang, & Li (2007 MOR)

• Research book: Peng (2000 Sage) Peng (1998 Quorum)• Practitioner: Peng (1997 CBR; 2001 AME;

2006 HBR)• Special issue: Wright, Filatotchev, Hoskisson, [Source] M. W. Peng, 2005,

& Peng (2005 JMS) From China strategy to global • Textbook: 2006: Global Strategy strategy, Asia Pacific Journal of

Management, 22(2): 123-141


Strategies in emerging economies20-15

Figure 20.6

Organiza-tional slack (Tan & Peng 2003 SMJ)

Organiza-tional slack (Tan & Peng 2003 SMJ)

Firm growth & social networks

(Peng & Luo 2000 AMJ)

Firm growth & social networks

(Peng & Luo 2000 AMJ)

Organiza-tional

learning (Luo & Peng 1999 JIBS)

Organiza-tional

learning (Luo & Peng 1999 JIBS)

Strategic groups

(Peng, Tan, & Tong 2004JMS)

Strategic groups

(Peng, Tan, & Tong 2004JMS)

THEORY PAPERS: The growth of the firm (Peng & Heath 1996 AMR)

Institutional transitions and strategic choices (Peng 2003 AMR)An institution-based view of IB strategy (Peng et al. 2008 JIBS)

THEORY PAPERS: The growth of the firm (Peng & Heath 1996 AMR)

Institutional transitions and strategic choices (Peng 2003 AMR)An institution-based view of IB strategy (Peng et al. 2008 JIBS)

Corporategovernance(Peng 2004SMJ)

Corporategovernance(Peng 2004SMJ)


Geographic & substantive diversification

20-15

Figure 20.6

Keiretsu networks

Japan(Peng et al. 2001 JIM)

Keiretsu networks

Japan(Peng et al. 2001 JIM)

InterlocksHong Kong(Au et al.

2000 APJM)

InterlocksHong Kong(Au et al.

2000 APJM)

Interna-tionalization

Thailand (Peng et al. 2001 APJM)

Interna-tionalization

Thailand (Peng et al. 2001 APJM)

Chaebol diversificationSouth Korea(Lee et al. 2008 JWB)

Chaebol diversificationSouth Korea(Lee et al. 2008 JWB)

THEORY PAPERS: Strategy research in emerging economies (Wright et al. 2005 JMS)

The scope of the firm over time (Peng, Lee, & Wang 2005 AMR)Research in Central and Eastern Europe (Meyer & Peng 2005 JIBS)

Bankruptcy laws and entrepreneurship (Lee, Peng, & Barney 2007 AMR)

THEORY PAPERS: Strategy research in emerging economies (Wright et al. 2005 JMS)

The scope of the firm over time (Peng, Lee, & Wang 2005 AMR)Research in Central and Eastern Europe (Meyer & Peng 2005 JIBS)

Bankruptcy laws and entrepreneurship (Lee, Peng, & Barney 2007 AMR)

Corporategovernance

Russia(Peng et al.2003 JWB)

Corporategovernance

Russia(Peng et al.2003 JWB)


FROM CHINA STRATEGY TO GLOBAL STRATEGY

M. W. Peng (2005)Asia Pacific Journal of

Management (vol. 22: 123-141)


Frontiers of strategy/OT research

• The relationship over time and around the world– Stay away from simple linear relationship– Strategic choices during institutional transitions

• Example of a recent stream– What determines the scope of the firm over time? (Peng, Lee,

& Wang, 2005 AMR)– What determines the scope of the firm over time and around

the world? An Asia Pacific perspective (Peng & Delios, 2006 APJM)

– From diversification premium to diversification discount during institutional transitions (Lee, Peng, & Lee, 2008 JWB)


China/Asia researchers need more self-confidence

• Self-confidence: Meyer (2006 APJM)• Debate in APJM (2007/4, 25th anniversary)

– Au, Yang & Terjesen, Puffer & McCarthy– Ramaswamy– Meyer (rejoinder, 2007)

• Manifestations– Topic selection– Measurements– “A journal” designation


Data issues• Qualitative: Peng (1997 OS)

• Quantitative/survey: Luo & Peng (1999 JIBS); Peng & Luo (2000 AMJ); Peng, Buck, & Filatotchev (2003 JWB); Peng, Tan, & Tong (2004 JMS)

• Quantitative/archival: Peng (2004 SMJ assigned); Peng, Zhang, & Li (2007 MOR); Tong, Reuer, & Peng (2007 AMJ)

• Combining survey and archival sources: Tan & Peng (2003 SMJ assigned)

• No data are perfect, all can be challenged by reviewers—you need to defend your data


Publishing research is difficult for almost everyone…. (S. Rynes, 2006, IACMR talk)


Mike’s 1-slide checklist• Shorten your title (it’s not an abstract!)

– Do you really need your subtitle?

• Finish the Introduction section in 2 pages

• Make sure to raise questions (using ?) in Intro

• Start your Methods no later than p 15• NO new ideas and cites in Findings (just your findings)

• Make sure you use the word CONTRIBUTIONS• Have a 1-para Conclusion (Don’t end with Limitations)

• The shorter your paper, the better!


Research implementation

• A well-crafted article– Tells a good story: Beginning, middle, and end– Draws the reader into the plot– Shows a picture (worth 1,000 words?)

• Standard format, although boring, simplifies our task (and life!)– Qualitative studies may appear to be relatively

easier to conduct, but are a lot harder to write


The beginning (I)• Shorten your title: Easy to remember (and cite!)

– Peng and Heath (1996 AMR): The growth of the firm in planned economies in transitions: Organizations, institutions, and strategic choices (15 words)

– Peng (2003 AMR): Institutional transitions and strategic choices (5 words)

• Raise questions, preferably in the 1st sentence– Peng (2003 AMR): How do organizations make strategic

choices during the time of fundamental and comprehensive institutional transitions?

– Peng (2004 SMJ): Do outside directors on corporate boards make a difference in firm performance?

• Raise a question in the title– Peng, Lee, & Wang (2005 AMR): What determines the scope

of the firm over time? A focus on institutional relatedness


The beginning (II)

• Set forth the plot line– “This paper is about …”– “This topic is important because …”

• Draw the reader to think your way– “According to institutional theory …”

• Finish the Introduction section in 2 pages– Reviewers are impatient: “Please be explicit!”– Don’t waste precious space on “Section 2 is about >>>,

section 3 is about >>>”—nobody reads that– Use the last paragraph in your Intro to say: “This article

departs from (or contributes to) the literature in three ways. One >>> two >>> three >>>”


The middle (I)• Literature review

– Short, focused -- no need to cite 1,000 articles– Your focus: Puzzles? Contradictions? Gaps?

• Methodology– Bear in mind of replication needs by others– Full disclosure of imperfect approach is better

than no disclosure– Place the most technical (boring) stuff to the

appendix


The middle (II)• Results

– Only talk about results– No new cites or ideas please– Be explicit: Were hypotheses supported or not? – Interpret; don’t just repeat the tables

• “Shown in Table 1, X is significant.”

• “Shown in Table 1, X is significant, thus supporting our H1.”

– Good idea to have a summary table for results


The end• Discussion

– State your contributions explicitly• “Three contributions emerge. First … Second … Third …”

– Don’t say “weaknesses;” say “limitations and future research directions”

• Conclusion– So what? How does the world look different now?– No more than one paragraph: Tie everything together

• “Learning does lead to higher performance—albeit not necessarily in a linear fashion” (Luo & Peng 99 JIBS)


The reviewer’s perspective (I)• I have served on the editorial boards of AMJ, AMR, JIBS,

and SMJ, and guest edited a JMS Special Issue• Editor-in-Chief of Asia Pacific Journal of Management• Is the story interesting?

– Avoid “dead end” topics

• Is the theory sound?– Topic- or data-driven versus theory-driven research

– Building on previous theory?

– Overlooking major aspects of previous work (such as my work)?

– Citing authors (such as the reviewer!) correctly?


The reviewer’s perspective (II)• Is the method reasonable?

– Does it match your research objectives?– Does operationalization reasonably reflect the

conceptual essence of your constructs?– Are you trying to hide something?

• Is the writing good?– Logical flow of macro-structure– Consistent words throughout the paper (e.g., don’t

mix up “org. culture” and “climate”)


The author’s tactics• Anticipate the reviewers’ concerns

• Anticipate who your reviewers might be – Very hard; can never be proven– Your references provide a clue (for editors)

• Meet journal styles (asset-specificity investment)

• Tight editing (Have you tried research notes?)

• Avoid amateur styles: Be professional and cool – “Our results are incredible (shocking) ...”

• Offer to review for the journal


Surviving the review process• Thick skin is required: Everybody gets rejections

– @ 90% rejection rates, my 40+ articles would have been submitted 400 times (baptism by fire?)

– I’m now 3 times better than average, which means my submissions are still being killed 70% of the times!

• Realize reviewers and editors are rational – At least in most cases: Everybody can have a bad day– Our intellectual market for ideas is not perfect, but is

rational, reasonable, and the best in the world– Case study of Tong, Reuer, & Peng @ AMJ (2007)


Dealing with reviewers

• Thoroughly address every point raised– Including disagreements, don’t hide them!

• What reviewers hate:– #1: Done! #2: Done! #3: Yes – they won’t remember

• What reviewers appreciate: Point-by-point[Review #1] >>>> (completely retype or cut and paste)

[Our response #1] >>>

[Review #2] >>>

[Our response #2] >>>


What I have found (I)...• The university is a subsidized writers’ club …• Or multiple, never-ending Olympic games.• Have to care about major games• Leverage your core competencies• Ours is a socially constructed, virtual community

around the world • So what? Send your work to relevant people

ASAP– My global network is a source of my energy,

replenishment, and inspiration (and citations!)


What I have found (II) ...• Writing is just like cooking! We are all cooks.• We cannot cook up data, but we can cook up presentable

dishes in paper format• Be creative: Don’t be a slave to a certain style of cooking• Avoid too many or too few ingredients (theories)• Certain foods are no longer fresh or appealing if they are

not cooked right away• When is the best time to write? – Right (write) now! • The art of theoretical stir fry• For more, see H. Becker, Writing for Social Scientists

//ChallengeSMOT0706//6/17/2007//


Useful references• The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition. Strunk, White,

and Angell, 2000. Longman • The Craft of Research. Booth, Colomb, and Williams,

1995. University of Chicago Press, Chicago• Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life.

Anne Lamott, 1995. First Anchor Books• Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish

Your Thesis, Book, or Article. Howard S. Becker, 1986. University Of Chicago Press.

• The Chicago Manual of Style. By University of Chicago Press Staff, 2003.

• Publishing in the Organizational Sciences. Cummings and Frost, 1995. Sage Publications.


No need to go over

what the top journals are

Do think of

MANAGEMENT &

ORGANIZATION REVIEW

and

ASIA PACIFIC

JOURNAL OF

MANAGEMENTOfficial Journal of

the Asia Academy of Management

Documents

Strategy/OT research © Mike W. Peng 1 Challenges in Strategy and Organization Theory Research Mike W. Peng Provost’s Distinguished Professor of Global