Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON
MANA 6318-001Seminar in Organization Theory
Fall 2011
Instructor: Ann McFadyen and Abdul Rasheede-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]
Office Hours: By appointment
Class Time: Thursday, 12:00pm – 3pm Room: TBD
Course Description and Objectives
1. To provide students with a broad overview of classic research in the discipline.2. To become aware of and involved in the major debates that are ongoing in the journals today.3. To become familiar with the multiple and often competing theoretical perspectives in the field.
This is an ambitious agenda and accomplishing the above objectives will require considerable effort on the part of both the instructor and the students. We view this as a joint learning effort where we learn together and learn interactively. Reading all the articles assigned for a session and critically thinking about them is a must.
We will be reviewing a variety of theoretical perspectives. In the end, hopefully, we will have some integrative sense of how these theoretical perspectives contribute to an understanding of some of more important organizational phenomena. The effort you put in now is a major intellectual investment. This investment, hopefully, should produce attractive returns in terms of theoretically better-informed manuscripts that lead to publication streams.
(This syllabus has borrowed liberally from syllabi used at other universities and prior syllabi used at UTA).
Course Requirements
Article summaries and discussion questions: Students are responsible for providing a written summary for one or more readings for each session. “Cut and copying” from the article is only permissible for displaying models. The summaries should include insights as well as constructive critiques of theory and methodology. Article summaries should be from one to three pages (single spaced) in length. Please refer to page 25 of this syllabus for suggested outline for your summaries. In addition, each one is expected to submit at least two discussion questions based on the readings for a session. These questions will form the basis of our class discussions. The discussion questions should be submitted at least one day before the class.
Please bring to class copies of your summary for the other students and the professors. The summaries will become a valuable study and reference aid as you prepare for the final exam and comps.
1
Class Participation: Doctoral seminars are not lecture sessions. The value of the seminar depends on the quality of discussions we have. You are contributing to the quality of the discussion when you demonstrate (a) familiarity with the readings, and (b) you are able to provide new meaningful insights. The process of intellectual debate and the emergence of a synthesis through debate are vital to having a quality doctoral seminar.
Paper Review: Each student is required to perform a review on a research paper. The format and style should follow Academy of Management (AOM) guidelines found on page 23 and 24 of this syllabus. Your goal is to write a constructive and developmental review.
Research Paper: Each student in the seminar is required to write a paper of approximately 20-25 pages. The format and style should follow AMR/AMJ guidelines. The goal is to write a publishable quality paper for the best outlets in the area. The choice of topic should draw upon and extend Organizational Theory and subject to our approval. We encourage you to submit a one-page draft proposal to us early on. You are also welcome to visit us any time and discuss the progress you are making. You will be presenting the paper to the class and also provide everyone else with a copy of your paper.
Final Exam: We will provide a set of questions for each session. The final exam will involve a smaller subset chosen from the set of questions you already have.
Each of the above are weighted as follows:
Participation (including summaries and ideas): 25%Paper & Presentation: 40%Final Exam: 35%
2
Summary Schedule
Session 1 Introduction and Overview Rasheed/McFadyen September 1
Session 2 Organizational StructureRasheed September 8
Session 3 Technology, Size and Structure McFadyen September 15
Session 4 Institutional Theory McFadyen September 22
Session 5 Interorganizational RelationsMcFadyen September 29
Session 6 Population Ecology TheoryRasheed October 6
Session 7 Transaction Cost Theory Rasheed October 13
Session 8 Agency TheoryRasheed October 20
Session 9 Organizational EmbeddednessMcFadyen October 27
Session 10 EnvironmentRasheed November 3
Session 11 Contingency theory and Resource Dependence Theory Priem November 10
Session 12 Social Capital and Network Theory McFadyen November 17
Session 13 Learning, Change & Culture McFadyen December 1
Sessions 14 and 15 PresentationsRasheed / McFadyen TBD
Final Exam TBD
3
List of General Reference Books
Aldrich, H. E. Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979.
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.
Child, John. Organization. New York NY: Harper & Row, 1987.
Fligstein, N. 2001. The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First-Century Capitalist Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fligstein, N. 1990. The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Galbraith, J. Designing Complex Organizations. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1973.
Goulgner, Alvin W. For Sociology. London: Penguin Books, 1973.
Lawrence, Paul and Jay Lorsch. Organization and Environment. Homewood IL: Irwin, 1968.
March, J.G., and Simon, H.A. Organizations. New York N: Wiley, 1958.
Mintzberg, Henry. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1979.
Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organization. Sage Publications, 1986.
Perrow, Charles. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. 3rd ed. New York NY: Random House, 1968.
Perrow, Charles. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. London: Tavistock, 1970.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pittman, 1982.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Organizations and Organization Theory. Boston: Pittman, 1982.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald Salancik. The External Control of Organization: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1978.
Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Scott, Richard W. Organizations, Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1981.
Silverman, David. The Theory of Organization: A Sociological Framework. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
Thompson, J.D. Organizations in Action. NY: McGraw Hill, 1967.
Weick, Karl. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
Williamson, O. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-trust Implications. New York: Free Press.
4
Session 1 Introduction and OverviewRequired
Perrow, C. 1973. The short and glorious history of organization theory. Organizational Dynamics, Summer: 5-12.
Astley, W.G. & Van de Ven, A. H. 1983. Central perspectives and debates in organizational theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 245-273.
Augier, M., March, J.G., & Sullivan, B.N. 2005. Notes on the evolution of a research community: Organization studies in Anglophone North America, 1945-2000. Organization Science, 16(1): 85-95.
Recommended
Stern, R. N. and Barley, S. R. 1996 Organizations and social systems: Organization theory’s neglected mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 146-162.
Scott, W. R. 1996. The mandate is still being honest: In defense of Weber’s disciples. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 163-171.
Hinings, C.R. & Greenwood, R. Disconnects and consequences in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3): 411-421.
Pfeffer, J. 1985. Organizations and organization theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson(Eds.) The handbook of social psychology, 3rd ed., New York: Random House, 1985.
Blau, J. R. 1996. Organizations as overlapping jurisdictions: Restoring reason in organizational account. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 172-179.
Davis, G. F. & Powell, W. W. 1993. Organization-environment relations. In H.C. Triandis, M.D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough. (Eds.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 3, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organization in action. New York: McGraw Hill, Chapter 1-5.
Scott, R. W. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, Chapter 1,2,3.
Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4): 599-620.
Canella, A.A. & Paetzlold, R.L. 1994. Pfeffer’s barriers to the advance of organization science: A rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19: 331-341.
5
Session 2 Organizational Structure
Required
Galbraith, J. 1973. Designing complex organizations, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, p. 1-66.
Burns, T. 1977. mechanistic and organismic structure. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.) Organization Theory, London: Penquin, p. 43-55.
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. 1958 Organizations, New York: Wiley. P. 34-47.
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 1-47.
Argote, L. & Greve, H.R. 2007. A Behavioral theory of the firm – 40 years and counting: Introduction and impact. Organization Science, 18(3): 337-349.
Recommended
Huber, G.P. 1984. The nature and design of post industrial organizations. Management Science, 30: 928-951.
Ranson, S., Hinings, B. & Greenwood, R. 1980. The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 1-17.
Pugh, D. S. & Hickson, D. J. The comparative study of organizations. In Salaman, G. & Thompson, K. (Eds.) People and Organization, London: Longman, p. 50-66.
Ouchi, W. G. 1977. The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 9-113.
Argyris, C. 1973. Peter Blau. In G. Salaman & K. Thompson, (Eds.) People and Organizations, London: Longman, p. 76-89.
Weber, M. 1964. The theory of economic and social organization. London: Macmillan, p. 324-336.
Adler, P. S. & Borys, B. 1996. Two type of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 61-89.
Blau, P. M. 1970. A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35(2): 201-218.
Perrow, C. Complex organizations, New York: Random House.
Ch. 1. Why Bureacracy?
Ch. 4. The Neo-Weberian model: Decision making, conflict, and technology.
6
Session 3 Technology, Size and Structure
Required
a. Technology
Woodward, J. 1977. Management and technology. In D. Pugh (Ed.) Organization Theory, London: Penguin. P. 56-71.
Perrow, C. 1977. Organizational analysis. In D. Pugh (Ed.) Organizational Theory, London: Penguin, p. 50-91.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organization in action. New York: McGraw Hill, p. 14-24 and 51-65.
Miller, C.C., Glick, W. H., Wang, Y., & Huber, G.P. 1991. Understanding technology-structure relationships: Theory development and meta-analytic theory testing. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2): 370-399.
Roberts, K.H. & Grabowski, M. 1996. Organizations, Technology, and Structuring. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W.R. (Eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies. Sage.
b. Size
Beyer, J. & Trice, H. 1979. A re-examination of the relations between size and various components of organizational complexity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 48-64.
Recommended
Fry, L. W. 1982. Technology-structure research: Three critical issues. Academy of Management Journal. 25: 532-552.
Rousseau, D. M. 1979. Assessment of technology in organizations: Closed versus open systems approaches. Academy of Management Review, 4: 531-542.
Jones, G. R. 1984. Task visibility, free riding, and shrinking: Explaining the effect of structure and technology on employee behavior. Academy of Management Review, 9: 684-696.
Pugh, D. S. 1981. The Aston program of research: Retrospect and prospect. In A. Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds.) Perspectives on Organizational Design and Behavior, New York: John Wiley, p. 135-166.
Starbuck, W. 1981. A trip to view the elephant and rattlesnake in the garden of Aston. In A. Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds.) Perspectives on Organizational Design and Behavior, New York: John Wiley, p. 167-198.
Pugh, D. S. 1981. Rejoinder to Starbuck. In a Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds.) Perspectives on Organizational Design and Behavior, New York: John Wiley, p.199-203.
Child, J. 1973. Predicting and understanding organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18: 168-185.
Harvey, E. 1968. Technology and structure of organizations. American Sociological Review, 33: 247-259.
Gooding, R. Z. & Wager, J. A. 1985. A meta-analytic review of the relationship between size and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 462-481.
7
Session 4 Institutional Theory
Required
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: 147-160.
Scott, W.R. 1987. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32:493-511.
Zucker, L. G. 1987. Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 443-464.
Mizruchi, M. S., S and Fein, L. C. 1999. The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 653-683.
Zajac, E.J. & Westphal, J.D. 2004. Should sociological theories venture into “economic territory?” Yes! American Sociological Review, 69: 466-466-471.
Recommended
Haveman, H. A. 1993. Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 593-627.
Powell, W. W. 1991. Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 183-203.
Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, Chapters 1,2,3.
Rao, H., Davis, G. F., & Ward, A. 2000. Embeddedness, social identity an mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New York Stock Exchange, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 268-292.
Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. 2000. What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on Corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 523-556.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell W. W. 1991. Introduction. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1-38.
Covaleski, M. A. & Dirsmith, M. W. 1988. An Institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 562-588.
Tolbert, P. S. & Zucker, L. 1996. The Institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. Nord (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Studies, 175-190, London, Sage.
DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker, L. (Ed.) Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Cambridge: Ballinger, 3-21.
Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. 1997. Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 472-500.
Scott, W. R. The adolescence of Institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 493-511.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16:145-179.
8
Session 5 Interorganizational Relations
Required
Astley, G. & Fombrun, C. 1983. Collective strategy: Social ecology of organizational environments. Academy of Management Review, 8: 576-587.
Galaskeiwicz, J. 1985. Interorganizational relations. Annual Review of Sociology, 11: 281-304.
Powell, W. W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B.M.Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 12:295-336, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Oliver, C. 1990. Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15: 241-265.
Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145.
Recommended
Gulati, R. & Gargiulo, M. 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1439 - 1493.
Whetten, D. A. 1981. Interorganizational relations: A review of the field. Journal of Higher Education, 52: 1-28.
Benson, J. 1975. The interorganizational network as a political economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20: 229-249.
Auster, E. 1994. Macro and strategic perspectives on interorganizational linkages: A comparative analysis and review with the suggestions for reorientation. In P. Shrivastava, A. S. Huff & J. E. Dutton (Eds.) Advances in Strategic Management, 10B:3-40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Baum, J. A. C. & Oliver, C. 1991. Institutional linkages and organizational mortality.Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 187-218.
Zeitz, G. 1980. Interorganizatonal dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 72- 88.
Provan, K. G. & Milward, H. B. 1995. A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparison study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 1-33.
Jones, G. R. & Pustay, M. 1988. Interorganizational coordination in the airline industry, 1925-1938: A transaction cost approach. Journal of Management, 14: 529-546.
Miner, A. S., Amburgey, T. L. & Stearns, T. M. 1990. Interorganizational linkages and population dynamics: Buffering and transformation shields. Administrative Science Quarterly,35:689-713.
9
Session 6 Population Ecology Theory
Required
Hannan, M.& Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology model of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929-964.
Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49: 149-164.
Carroll, G. 1984. Organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology, 10: 71-93.
Carroll, G. R. 1985. Concentration and specialization: Dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 90 (6): 1262-1283.
Young, R. C. 1988. Is population ecology a useful paradigm for the study of organizations? American Journal of Sociology, 94(1): 1-24.
Carroll, G. R. & Hannan, M. T. 1989. Density dependence in the evolution of populations of newspaper organizations. American Sociological Review, 54: 524-541.
Zucker, L. G. 1989. Combining institutional theory and population ecology: No legitimacy, no history. American Sociological Review, 54: 542-545.
Carroll, G. R. & Hannan, M. T. 1989. On using institutional theory in studying organizational populations. American Sociological Review, 54: 545-548.
Recommended
Amburgey, T. L. & Rao, H. 1996. Organizational ecology: Past, present, and future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5): 1265-1286.
Astley, W. G. 1985. The two ecologies: population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 224-241.
Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. 1989. Organizational Ecology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Ch. 1-6., p. 3-144.
Carroll, G. R. 1984. The specialist strategy. California Management Review, 3: 126-137.
Baum, J. 1996. Organizational ecology. In S. R. Clegg, C., Hardy & W. Nord (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Studies, London, Sage.
Singh, J. V. 1990. Review of organizational ecology by Hannan and Freeman, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (2): 416-420.
Singh, J. V. & Lumsden, C. J. 1990. Organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology. 161-195.
Another debate:
Hannan, M.T., Carroll, G. R., Dundon, E. A. & Torres, J. C. 1995. Organizational evolution in a multinational context: Entries of automobile manufactures in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. American Sociological Review, 60: 509-528.
Baum, J. A. C. & Powell, W. W. 1995. Cultivating an institutional ecology of organizations: Comment on Hannan, Carroll, Dundon, & Torres. American Sociological Review, 60, 1995: 529-538.
Hannan, M. T. & Carroll, G. R. 1995. Theory building and cheap talk about legitimation: Reply to Baum and Powell. American Sociological Review, 60, 1995: 539-544.
10
Session 7 Transaction Cost Theory
RequiredCoase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economics, 4: 386-405.Williamson, O. E. 1979. Transaction cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal
of Law and Economics, 22: 233-261.Williamson, O. E. 1994. Transaction cost economics and organization theory. In N. Smelser & R.
Swedberg (Eds.) Handbook of Economic Sociology, 77-107, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Robins, J.A. 1987. Organizational economics: Notes on the use of transaction cost theory in the study of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32:68-86.
Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21: 13-47.
Williamson, O. E. 1996. Economic organization: The case for candor. Academy of Management Review, 21: 48-57.
Moran, P., & Ghoshal, S., 1996. Theories of economic organization: The case for realism and balance. Academy of Management Review, 21: 58-72.
Read these book reviews…..you may never need to read the book.Alchian, A.A. & Woodward, S. 1988. The firm is dead; long live the firm: A review of Oliver E.
Williamson’s. The economic institutions of capitalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 26 :165-179.
Eccles, R. 1987. Review of the economic institutions of capitalism. Administrative Science Quarterly,4:602-605.
RecommendedAlchian, A. A. & Demsetz, H. 1972. Production, information costs, and economic organization.
American Economic Review, 62(5): 777-795.Hennart, J. 1993. Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of ‘market’ and
‘hierarchy’. Organization Science, 4: 529-547.Spence, A. M. 1975. The economics of internal organization: An introduction. Bell Journal of
Economics, 6(1): 163-172. Williamson, O. E. & Ouchi, W. G. 1981. The markets and hierarchies program of research: origins,
implications, prospect. In A. Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds.) Perspectives on Organizational Design and Behavior. New York: John Wiley, p. 347-406.
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The FreePress, Chapters 1-4, p. 15-102.
Williamson, O. E. 1982. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87 (3): 548-577.
Jones, G. R. 1998. Don’t throw the baby away with the bathwater: A positive interpretation of transaction cost theory. Working paper.
Klein, P. G. & Shelanski, H. A. 1994. Empirical research in transaction cost economics: A survey and assessment. Business and Public Policy Working Paper 60, Hass School of Business, University of California, Berkeley.
Tsang, E.W.K. 2006. Behavioral assumptions and theory development: The case of transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11): 999-1012.
11
Session 8 Agency Theory
Required
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-360.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency Theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57-74.
Davis, G. F. 1991. Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 583-613.
Jensen, M.C. & Warner, J. B. 1988. The distribution of power among corporate managers, shareholders, and directors. Journal of Financial Economics. 20:
Fligstein, N. & Freeland, R. 1995. Theoretical and comparative perspectives on corporate organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 21: 21-43.
Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R.I. 2005. Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 8-24.
V.K. Garg, A. Rasheed, & R.L. Priem. Explaining franchisors’ choices of organization forms within franchise systems. Strategic Organization. 2005. 3(2): 185-217.
Recommended
Levinthal, D. 1988. A survey of agency models of organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 9: 153-185.
Fama, E. F. & Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics. 26: 301-325.
Hendry, J. 2002. The principal’s other problems: Honest incompetence and the specification of objectives. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 98-113.
12
Session 9 Organizational Embeddedness
Required
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 3: 481-510.
Oliver, C. 1996. The Institutional embeddedness of economic activity. Advances in Strategic Management, Joel Baum & Jane Dutton (Eds.), Volume 13.
Baum, J. A. C. & Oliver, C. 1992. Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations. American Sociological Review, 57: 540-559.
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35-68.
Rowley, T. D. & Krackhardt, D. 2000. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries, Strategic Management Journal, 21:369-386.
Gnyawali, D. R. & Madhavan, R. 2001. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 431-445.
Recommended
Zukin, S. & DiMaggio, P. 1990. Structures of capital: The social organization of the economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1 and 2.
Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61: 674-698.
Amburgey, T. A., Dacin, T. & Singh, J. V. 1996. Learning races, patent races, and capital races: Strategic interactions and embeddedness within organizational fields. Advances in Strategic Management, Joel Baum & Jane Dutton (Eds.) 13: 303-322.
Reddy, N. M., & Rao, M. V. H. 1990. The industrial market as an interfirm organization. Journal of Management Studies, 1990, 27: 43-59.
Portes, A. & Sensenbrenner, J. 1993. “Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action.” American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1320-1350.
Moran, P. 2005. Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 1129-1151.
Gimeno, J. 2004. Competition within and between networks: The contingent effect of competitive embeddedness on alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6):820-842.
13
Session 10 Environment
Required
Child, J. 1972. Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6: 1-22.
Milliken, F. J. 1987. Three types of uncertainty about environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12: 133-143.
Smircich, L. & Stubbart, C. 1985. Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of Management Review, 10: 724-736.
Castrogiovanni, G. 1991. Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review, 16: 542-565.
Boyd, B. K., Dess, G. G., Rasheed, M.A. 1993. Divergence between archival and perceptual measures of environment: Causes and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 18: 204-226.
Recommended
Bourgeois, L. J. 3, McAllister, D. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 1978. The effects of different organizational environments upon decisions about organizational structure. Academy of Management Journal, 21: 508-514.
Pfeffer, J. 1988. A resource dependence on intercorporate relations. In M. Mizruchi and M. Schwatz (Eds.) Intercorporate Relations, 25-55, Cambridge.
Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29:7.
Lawrence, P. & Lorsch, J. 1968. Organization and environment. Homewood IL: Irwin. P. 8-17, 23-53, 84-108, 133-140, and 151-158.
Bluedorn, A. C. 1993. Pilgrim’s progress: Trends and convergence in research on organization size and environments. Journal of Management, 9: 163-191.
14
Session 11 Contingency Theory and Resource Dependence Theory
Required:
Contingency Theory
Schoonhoven, C. B. 1981. Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency “theory”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3): 349-377.
Pennings, J. M. 1992. Structural contingency theory: A reappraisal. In B. M. Staw & L.L. Cummings, Research in Organizational Behavior, 14: 267-309. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Donaldson, L. 2001. Controversies in contingency theory. Ch 5: 125-157. In the Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage Press.
Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H. & Kirsch, D. A. 2006. Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 121-132.
Sherer, P. D. & Lee, K. 2003. Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 102-119.
Resource Dependency Theory
Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organization and Organization Theory. Boston: Pitman. Pp. 192-204.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. 2005. Power Imbalance, Mutual Dependence, and Constraint Absorption: A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2): 167-199.
Recommended:
For a more detailed explanation of resource dependence theory, see:
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row, p. 43-54, 62-78, 113-115,123-128, 131-139, 143-154, 161-165, 167, 175-181, and 258-262.
Jarley, P. et al. 1997. A structural contingency approach to bureaucracy and democracy in US national unions. Academy of Management Journal, 40:831-861.
Donaldson, Lex, 1999. The normal science of structural contingency theory. In Clegg, S. and Hardy, C. (eds.) Studying Organization, Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 51-70.
Donaldson, Lex. 1987. Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defence of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 1-24.
Donaldson, Lex. 1995. Structural contingency theory of organizational adaptation, Chapter 2 in American anti-management theories of organization: a critique of paradigm proliferation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organizations and organizational theory. Boston: Pitman. P. 147-162.
Mintzberg, H. 1981. Organization design: Fashion or fit? Harvard Business Review, 103-116.
Tosi, H. L., & Slocum, J. M. 1984. Contingency theory: Some suggested directions. Journal of Management, 10: 9-26.
Amburgey, T. L. & Dacin, M. T. 1994. As the left foot follows the right: The dynamics of strategic and structural change. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1427-1452.
Donaldson, Lex 1996. For positivist organization theory: Proving the hard core. SagePublications, Inc.
15
Scott, W.R. 1998. Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems. (Chapters 8 and 9 address some of the issues that Donaldson refers to in his work).
Van de Ven, A.H. and Drazin, R. 1985. The concept of fit in contingency theory. In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 333-365.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Drazin, R. 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 514-539.
16
Session 12 Social Capital and Network TheoryRequiredColeman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital, Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-
S120.Granovetter, M. S. 1982. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden &
N. Lin (Eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis: 105-130. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 339-
365.Adler, P.S. & Kwon, S.W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of
Management Review, 27(1): 17-40.Salancik, G.R. 1995. Wanted: A good network theory of organization. Adminstrative Science
Quarterly, 40: 345-349.Daniel Brass, Joseph Galaskiewicz, Henrich Greve, and Wenpin Tsai. 2004. Taking Stock of
Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 795-817.
RecommendedPowell, W. W. & Smith-Doerr, L. 1994. Networks and economic life. In N. Smelser & R. Swedberg
(Eds.) Handbook of Economic Sociology, 365-02, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University press.Burt, R.S. 1991. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:Harvard
University Press.Burt, R. S. 2005. Brokerage and Closure. Read the first and last chapters.Stuart, T. E. 1998. Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic
alliance formation in a high-technology industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43:668-698.
Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 425-455.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W. & smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Network of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145.
Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. 1997. Social capital, structural holes, and the formation of an industry network, Organizational Studies, 8: 109-125.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an inter-organizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15: 603-625.
Podolny, J. M., Stuart, T. E., & Hannan, M. T. 1996. Networks, knowledge, and niches: Competition in the worldwide semiconductor industry, 1984-1991. American Journal of Sociology, 102: 659-689.
Shan, W. G., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. 1994. Interfrim cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry, Strategic Management Journal, 15: 387-394.
Gargiulo, M., M. Benassi. 2000. Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organ. Sci. 11(2) 183 - 196.
Gulati, R. & Singh, H. 1998. The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 781-814.
17
Davis, G.F. & Greve, H.R. 1997. Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 103: 1-37.
18
Session 13 Learning, Culture and Change
Required
Greve, H. R. 1998. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 58-86.
Brüderl, J., & Schüsler, R. 1990. Organizational mortality: The liabilities of newness and adolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 530-547.
Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature. Organization Science, 2(1): 88 - 115.
Kim, J-Y. & Miner, A.S. 2007. Vicarious Learning from the Failures and Near-Failures of Others: Evidence from the U.S. Commercial Banking Industry. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 687-714.
Weick, K.E. 1993. The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 628-652.
Recommended
Greiner, L. E. 1972. Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, July-August: 37-46.
March, James G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, pp. 71-87.
Sørensen, J.B. 2002. The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 70-91.
Haveman, H. 1992. Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 48-75.
Hirsch, Paul M. 1986. From ambushes to golden parachutes: Corporate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and institutional integration. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 800-837.
Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51: 273-286.
Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. 1986. Organizational legitimacy and liability of newness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 171-193.
Singh, J. V., House, R. J., & Tucker, D. J. 1986. Organizational change and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 587-611.
Whetten, D. A. 1987. Organizational growth and decline processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 335-358.
Miller, D. 1982. Evolution and revolution: A quantum view of structural change in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 19: 131-151.
Mone, M. A., McKinley, W., & Barker, V. L. 3 1998. Organizational decline and innovation: A Contingency Framework. Academy of Management Review, 23: 115-132.
Levinthal, D. A. 1991. Organizational adaptation and environmental selection interrelated processes of change. Organization Science, 2(1): 140-145.
Miller, D. 1993. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 116-138.
19
Sutton, R. I. & D’Aunno, T. 1989. Decreasing organizational size: Untangling the effects of money and people. Academy of Management Review, 14(2): 194-212.
McKinley, W. 1992. Decreasing organizational size: To untangle or not to untangle? Academy of Management Review, 17: 112-123.
Sutton, R. I. & D’Aunno T. 1992. Building a model of work force reduction that is grounded in pertinent theory and data: Reply to McKinley, Academy of Management Review, 17:124-137.
Haveman, H. 1993. Organizational size and change: Diversification in the savings and loan industry after deregulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 20-50.
20
REVIEWER GUIDELINES
I. Setting the Tone of the Review
•Please keep your comments constructive. If the problems you identify cannot be fixed, try to provide the authors with constructive ideas for how they might improve upon their submission as they develop their research. It is also important to try and identify the strengths of a manuscript to help the author(s) improve their work.
•One of the greatest services that Division reviewers perform is the development of the research of members who submit their work. Identify areas of weakness in a manuscript, but also provide specific guidance on how the authors might address the limitations you have noted. The more specificity you provide in your review, the more likely it is that the authors will benefit from your efforts.
•Authors deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of your evaluation of their work. Remember, you are representing the particular Division with your review and ultimately the Academy.
•Please try to be open-minded to different authors using different theoretical frameworks. Try to judge manuscripts based on how well they stimulate thinking and discussion. Also, keep in mind that many Academy members come from disciplinary backgrounds and research traditions with diverse theoretical and methodological orientations.
II. Review Format
•Provide a structured review by separating and numbering comments. Also, where appropriate, cite specific page numbers, passages, tables, and figures in your review.
•Do not provide information in your review that reveals your identity and do not seek to discover the identity of the authors. This protects the integrity of the 'double-blind" review process.
•A good review is typically 1 single-spaced page in length.
•In addition to commenting on the theoretical development of a submission and the technical correctness of the methodology, you should also consider the overall value-added contribution the submission offers. Does the submission pass the so what test? Also, consider whether the submission has any practical value, and comment on its implications for the practice community.
III. Specific Areas to Consider
The following points are some suggested criteria that might help you structure your evaluations of the submissions sent to you.
•Introduction ◦Is there a clear research question, with a solid motivation behind it? ◦Is the research question interesting? ◦After reading the introduction, did you find yourself motivated to read further?
•Theory ◦Does the submission contain a well-developed and articulated theoretical framework? ◦Are the core concepts of the submission clearly defined? ◦Is the logic behind the hypotheses persuasive?
21
◦Is extant literature appropriately reflected in the submission, or are critical references missing? ◦Do the hypotheses or propositions logically flow from the theory?
•Method (for empirical papers) ◦Are the sample and variables appropriate for the hypotheses? ◦Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical technique(s) applied? ◦Does the study have internal and external validity? ◦Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the theory and research questions and were they applied appropriately.
•Results (for empirical papers) ◦Are the results reported in an understandable way? ◦Are there alternative explanations for the results, and if so, are these adequately controlled for in the analyses?
•Contribution ◦Does the submission make a value-added contribution to existing research? ◦Does the submission stimulate thought or debate? ◦Do the authors discuss the implications of the work for the scientific and practice community?
*These guidelines were from the OB Division Reviewer Guidelines which were adapted from reviewer guidelines developed by Catherine Daily and Albert A. Cannella Jr. for the BPS Division & for use in a BPS Professional Development Workshop on reviewing sponsored by AMR and AMJ. Don Bergh, Javier Gimeno, Bruce Avolio, and David Ketchen also contributed to the revision of these guidelines. We would like to thank both the BPS and OB Division for their willingness to share these reviewer guidelines for the benefit of everyone.
22
OUTLINE FOR SUMMARIES
I. Title of reading : Please provide a complete title and citation.
II. Summarized by : Your name.
III. Purpose of reading : Please describe how this reading fits in a broader stream of research. Why it was written, what the fundamental objective of the reading is, what is the central argument of the paper?
IV. Theoretical argument : Please summarize the theoretical argument of the reading, its basic assumptions, its major propositions. What is the theoretical contribution? Which theories does the paper drawn upon? What non-obvious/interesting predictions does the paper make? Is the theory useful?
V. Methodology : Please summarize the research methods (if any) used. What are the relevant units of analysis? What methodology is used? Is it appropriate?
VI. Results and conclusions : please summarize any empirical results, any theoretical conclusions, implications of the reading, etc. How does the paper extend our understanding of the theory?
23
