Auburn University
Three Credits
Instructors: William R. Boulton
Objectives of the Course:
This is the second of two doctoral seminar courses in the field of strategic management (SM). While the Seminar provided a history of SM thought, emphasis in this seminar course will be on current literature relating to research methodology in SM, and detailed discussions of strategy, organization, change, leadership, the future of the field. This course is concerned with theory development and methodology in strategic management research.
The objectives of the two seminars are as follows:
Requirements:
As in any seminar course, the students must take the responsibility for the success of the class. Students are expected to carefully read each article in the course and think about the theoretical constructs and/or research design. Students will have the responsibility of leading the discussion on their assigned readings.
Students will critique the papers assigned for each session. The critique could cover some of the following: (a) a concise summary of the major arguments of the paper. (b) a discussion of the paper's relevance or significance to the topic discussed. (c) the paper’s strengths and weaknesses in terms of quality of argument, novelty of perspective, insight, relevance to real life problems, style of exposition etc. (d) any new perspective, hypothesis or concepts that is suggested by the reading of the paper. (e) an evaluation of the contribution of the paper to the knowledge in the field. (f) any suggestions for improving the paper, in terms of (but not limited to) conceptualization, methodology and presentation.
Either a conceptual paper or a research proposal drawing on an issue covered in or related to the course will also be required of the student. The conceptual paper must demonstrate a broad knowledge of the literature, an ability to integrate the literature, and propose a novel research idea or conceptual insight. The research proposal would require connecting a question derived from theory or prior literature, with an empirical setting where the question might be studied and a well argued empirical approach by which the question can be studied.
Grading:
Grading will be based on class participation: (30%), Section paper critiques: (30%), Paper based on one of the sections: (40%).
Sessions:
There will a total of 9 sessions in the course, each of three hours duration from 1:00 to 4:00 pm on the days specified. We will meet on Friday, June 21. Please read the assignments on the following page. Write a short summary of the article to hand out to other class members. Sessions will be held in Lowder 128. Sessions are currently planned for June 21, 25 and 28, July 2, 9, 12, 19, and 26, and August 2. Additional days may be required. We will discuss any conflicts.
Topics
Session 1: Nothing stays the same.
1. Beinhocker, Strategy at the edge of chaos. McKinsey Quarterly, 1997, No. 1. (The edge of innovation and revolution)
2. Hilmer and Donaldson, The trivialization of management, McKinsey Quarterly, 1996, No. 4. (Fads are not good management)
3. Mir and Watson, Strategic Management and the Philosophy of Science, Strategic Management Journal, 2000, No. 21. (Constructionist approach)
4. Hamel, Strategy as revolution, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1996. (From incrementalism, to revolution)
How do we track change?
1. Pauker and Whitiker, Strategic Intelligence, August 2000. (How to do strategy research)
2. Carson et al, Clearing a path through the management fashion jungle, Academy of Management Journal, 2000 v.43, n. 6. (Management fads)
3. Scandura and Williams, Research Methods in Management, Academy of Management Journal, 2000 v.43, n. 6. (Summary of management research)
4. Lovus and Ghoshal, Strategy as Guided Evolution, Strategic Management Journal, 2000, No. 21. (Case research publication)
5. Drucker, Five Important Developments, Japan ECHO Vol. 27, No. 2, April 2000. (Drucker’s lecture on trends)
Session 2: What do we know about strategy?
1. Liedtka, In defense of strategy as design. California Management Review. Spring 2000. (A metaphor of strategy as design)
2. Mosakowski and Earley, A selective view of time assumptions in strategy research. Academy of Management Review, 2000 v. 25, n. 4. (Time must be explicit in strategy)
3. Campbell-Hunt, What have we learned about generic competitive strategy, Strategic Management Journal, 2000, No. 21. (Let’s move on)
4. Sheridan and Bullinger, Building a solutions-based organization, Journal of Business Strategy, January-February 2001. (From products to solutions)
5. Coyne and Subramaniam, Bringing discipline to strategy, McKinsey Quarterly, 1996, No. 4. (Expands strategy classification systems)
6. Campbell and Alexander, What’s wrong with strategy? Harvard Business Review November-December 1997. (The need for purpose and vision)
7. Miller and Whitney, Beyond strategy: Configuration as a pillar of competitive advantage, Business Horizon, May-June 1999.
How does the Internet impact strategy?
1. Evans, The end of strategy, Journal of Business Strategy, November-December 2000. (The fall in information and transactions costs change everything)
2. Evans and Worster, Strategy and the new economics of information. Harvard Business Review September-October 1997. (Consider reach and richness)
3. Mahadevan, Business models for Internet-based E-commerce. California Management Review Summer 2000. (Emerging market structure)
4. Applegate and Collura, Overview of ebusiness models. HBR case 9801172, August 2000. (Classification system for ebusiness models)
5. Martinez, Models made “e ”:What business are you in? Centers for IBM eBusiness Innovations, 2000. (Making business models “e”)
6. Oliver, The seven laws of e-commerce strategy. Journal of Business Strategy September-October 2000. (The consequences of going “e”)
7. Shaffer and Hillman, The development of business-government strategies by diversified firms, Strategic Management Journal, 2000, No. 21. (Business and politics are integral activities)
8. Jobber and Lucas, Modified Tichy TCP framework for pattern matching and hypothesis development in historical case study research, Strategic Management Journal, 2000, No. 21. (Technology-politics-culture have organizational impacts)
9. Glucksman and Morecroft, Managing metamorphosis, McKinsey Quarterly No. 2, 1998. (The resourced needed for success constantly changes)
10. Luftman and Brier, Achieving and sustaining business-IT alignment. California Management Review Fall 1999. (What does it take for strategic alignment?)
11. Christensen, Making strategy. Harvard Business Review November-December 1997. (Strategic thinking is the missing link)
Session 3: What causes organizational performance?
1. Cockburn et al, Untangling the origins of competitive advantage, Strategic Management Journal 2000, no. 21. (Adopt performance enhancers fast)
2. Fuchs et al, Strategic Integration: Competing in the age of capabilities. California Management Review. Spring 2000. (Positioning & execution are central)
3. Gittell, Paradox of coordination and control. California Management Review, Spring 2000. (There are alternative systems)
4. Carroll and Hannan, Why Corporate Demography Matters: Policyimplications of organizational diversity, California Management Review Vo.. 42, No. 3, Spring 2000.
5. Kim and Mauborgne, Value Innovation: The strategic logic of high growth. Harvard Business Review, January-February 1997. (Make competitors irrelevant)
6. Rosenkopf and Nerkar, Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 2001, No. 22. (Look outside for innovations)
7. Day and Wendler, The new economics of organization. McKinsey Quarterly, 1998, No. 1. (Motivation and coordination are key)
8. Eisenstat et al, Beyond the business unit. McKinsey Quarterly, 2001, No. 1. (Stay agile and focused)
9. _____, Criteria for performance excellence, Baldrige National Quality Program 2001. (Key criteria)
10. Armstrong et al, What is wrong with the consumer goods organization. McKinsey Quarterly, 1996, No. 1. (Need effective organization)
How will we organize for the future?
1. Simon and Davila, How high is your return on management? Harvard Business Review January-February1998. (Management energy/time consumed)
2. Bekier et al, The future for bricks and mortar. McKinsey Quarterly, 2000, No. 3. (The Internet adds value)
3. Boehm and Philips, Flatness. McKinsey Quarterly, 1996, No. 3. (Processes, functions or hybrid structures?)
4. Reuer, From hybrids to hierarchies: Shareholder wealth effecs from JV buyouts. Strategic Management Journal, 2001, No. 22. (Integration is better)
5.
Presentor 5 Huigang Liang 6 Huigang Liang 7 Brad Prince 8 Bret Becton 9 Brad Prince 1 Bret Becton 2 Nikhil Mehta 3 Kimberly Johnson 4 Nikhil Mehta 5 Huigang Liang 6 Huigang Liang 1 Kimberly Johnson 2 Bret Becton 3 4
Parsons et al, Organizing
for digital marketing. McKinsey
Quarterly, 1996, No. 4. (What is
your focus or goal?)
6. Doman et al. The talent-growth dynamic. McKinsey Quarterly, 2000, No. 1. (Manage your talent resource base)
7. Hagel and Singer, Unbundling the corporation. McKinsey Quarterly, 2000, No. 3. (Decreasing transaction costs change your economies)
8. Neilson et al. Up the e-organization: a seven-dimension model for the centerless enterprise. Managing, 1998. (E-orgs are now common)
9. Bennett et al, The organization vs the strategy. Idea Exchange 2000. (Every organization must be customized)
Session 4: How do
people change?
1. Strebel, Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review May-June 1996. (Personal compact must be changed)
2. Day and Jung, Corporate transformation without a crisis. McKinsey Quarterly, 2000, No. 4. (How to convince employees to change without a crisis?)
3. Marshall and Connor, Another reason why companies resist change. Idea Exchange 2000. (It requires sincere selling).
4. Glucksman
and Morecroft, Managing
metamorphosis. McKinsey
Quarterly, 1998, No. 2. (Resources
must change with the times)
5. Detert et al, A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2000 v. 25, n. 4. (Gaps between espoused and actual culture will determine the difficulty in making change)
6. Dickhout
et al, Designing
change programs that won’t cost you your job. McKinsey Quarterly, 1995, No. 4. (Create a detailed strategy and action plan)
What kind of leadership is needed?
1. Traveno et al, Moral person and moral manager. California Management Review, Summer 2000. (Perceptions are key to reputations)
2. Katzenback, Real Change. McKinsey Quarterly, 1996, No. 1. (Real change leaders are seldom in executive suits)
3. Marmol and Murray, Leading from the front. McKinsey Quarterly, 1995, No. 3. (Real leaders must be demanding and drive organizations hard)
4. Bower, Developing leaders in a business. McKinsey Quarterly, 1997, No. 4. (Good leaders are more than fair)
5. Herb et al, Teamwork at the top. McKinsey Quarterly, 2001, No. 2. (Requires direction, renewal, and interaction)
6. Handling conflict in teams. HBR letter. (A short summary)
7. Benson-Armer and Hsieh, Teamwork across time and space. McKinsey Quarterly, 1997, No. 4. (Agree on your purpose)
Session 5: What
determines successful performance?
1. Criteria
for performance excellence, Baldridge National Quality Program, 2001. (The
framework for evaluation)
2. Rosenkopf
and Nerkar, Beyond
local search: Boundary-spanning exploration, and impact in the optical disk
industry, Strategic Management Journal, N. 22, 2001. (Look around)
3. Gulati and Garino, Get the right mix of bricks and clicks. Harvard Business Review, May-June 2000. (An analytic framework)
4. Wong and Radcliffe, The Tacit nature of Design Knowledge, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2000. (What knowledge is critical?)
5. Fisher, Product or service? Strategy + Business 2000. (You need an e-business model)
6. Hargadon and Sutton, Building and innovation factory. Harvard Business Review, May-June 2000. (How do you broker knowledge?)
7. Malhotra, Knowledge assets in the global environment. Journal of Global Information Management, July-September 2000. (Components of knowledge)
8. Petrash, Measurement, Perspectives, Issue 1, 2000. (A short article about how to measure the impact of knowledge.)
9. Rayport, The truth about Internet business models. McKinsey Brief 2001 (There are no silver bullets)
10. Rayport and Sviokla, Exploiting the virtual value chain. McKinsey Quarterly, 1996, No. 1. (Recognize it and separate it)
11. Malhotra, Knowledge management and new organization forms. Resource Information Management Journal, Jan-Mar 2000. (Convergent-tight-efficiency vs Divergent-loose-creativity)
How do we prepare for the future?
1. Malhotra, Knowledge management for ebusiness performance. Information Strategy Summer 2000. (Managing paradigm shifts)
2. Pfeffer and Sutton, Knowing what to do is not enough. California Management Review, Fall 1999. (Manage the knowing-doing gap)
3. Budde et al, The chemistry of knowledge, McKinsey Quarterly, 2000, No. 4. (The value of knowledge is growing)
4. Hauschild et al, Creating a knowledge culture. McKinsey Quarterly, 2001, No. 1. (Knowledge must be managed)
5. Harvey and Denton, To come of age: the antecedents of organizational learning, The Journal of Management Studies 36:7, December 1999. (Org learning vs learning orgs)
6. Steensma and Lyles, Explaining IJV survival in a transitional economy through social exchange and knowledge-based perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 2000 n. 21.
7. Kogut, The network as knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 2000 n. 21. (Networks leverage knowledge)
8. Winter, The satisficing principle in capability learning, Strategic Management Journal, 2000 n. 21. (Satisficing may limit learning)
9. Berthon, To serve or create? Strategic orientations toward customers and innovation. California Management Review, Fall 1999. (Customer vs Innovation tradeoffs)