Ramkhamhaeng University
Institute of International Studies
Ph.D. Course
Mgmt. Theories, Concepts, and Current Issues
<<Previous page
Course Overview
We will begin with the fundamentals of managerial theory building and gain practice in some of the concrete processes required to build and extend new management theory. We will then consider the difficulties managers face in dealing with factors external to the firm. Following this, we will consider theories of the firm itself and how these theories impact managerial decision-making and strategies that align these external forces with internal resources. Finally, we will move to the intra-firm level to consider relationships between managers and employees in terms of motivation and employee commitment.
Professor
Dr. Scott Droege
Western Kentucky University—USA
scott.droege@wku.edu
www.scott-droege.com
Required Text and Articles
Smith, Ken G. & Hitt, Michael A. 2007. Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-927682-0.
In addition to the required text, a number of research articles are required. These are listed in the course outline attached to this syllabus. The articles are available as PDF files at www.scott-droege.com.
Grading
Contribution to class discussions 30%
Research participation 15%
Written research proposal 25%
Research presentation 10%
Final exam 20%
The following sections provide details for each of these areas.
Contribution to Class Discussions
A (Exceptional class contribution)
Contributions demonstrate exceptional preparation. Comments are consistently substantive, insightful, exhibit class leadership, and nearly always help the class gain a high level of understanding of course concepts. Arguments are nearly always highly substantiated and persuasively presented. Students with exceptional class contribution ratings tend to exhibit a high amount of class leadership without dominating the discussion to the point of excluding others. If this student were not a member of the class, the quality of class discussions would be considerably diminished.
B (Very good class contribution)
Contributions demonstrate thorough preparation. Comments are usually substantive and insightful and frequently help the class gain a high level of understanding of course concepts. Arguments are usually highly substantiated and persuasively presented. If this student were not a member of the class, the quality of class discussions would be diminished.
One key difference between an exceptional class contribution and a very good class contribution is the relative contribution students make to the class. Because contributions are relative, only the most outstanding contributions receive an A. Students who make class contributions that are about the same as most other students in the class receive a very good rating as long as those contributions meet the criteria noted above. However, if nearly all students demonstrate extremely high contribution levels as implied by the criteria in the exceptional class contribution section above, it is possible that these students may receive an exceptional rating even though the relative class contribution is fairly equal.
C (Adequate class contribution)
Contributions demonstrate adequate preparation although such preparation may not be as complete as needed for exceptional or very good ratings. Comments are sometimes substantive and insightful and occasionally help the class gain an improved level of course content understanding. Arguments are usually sometimes substantiated and persuasively presented. If this student were not a member of the class, the quality of class discussions would be diminished somewhat but not to the extent as that of exceptional and very good class contributions.
D (Unsatisfactory class contribution)
Contributions demonstrate inadequate preparation. Ideas are only infrequently substantive and do not usually assist others in gaining greater understanding of course concepts. Contributions make points that lack integration with previous course concepts, are confusing, and/or are so obvious that they do not move the discussion forward. If this student were not a member of the class, valuable time would be saved for more substantial discussion.
F (Lack of substantial class contribution)
Students receiving this rating have little to say or what they say is irrelevant to course concepts. This rating is also applied to students who are not in class thus providing no basis for evaluation.
Session Syntheses
Each day’s session will conclude with a small group synthesis of the literature discussed that day. The goal is to develop skills at integrating existing literature while recognizing gaps in the literature in which you might wish to conduct future research. Syntheses should include:
-The main research question and proposed answer given by each article.
-Identification of the 3-5 most interesting findings or patterns among the readings
-Identification of the 2-3 most promising avenues for new research
At the close of the session, each group will briefly present its synthesis. Evaluation is based on the extent to which the synthesis:
-Avoids superficiality
-Integrates the session’s literature
-Identifies feasible future research
Research Proposal
Each student will write a fully developed research proposal related to the course concepts. The proposal must include the following sections:
-Introduction including the gap in the literature and your specific research question
-Literature review, theory development, and hypotheses
-Research methods
Evaluation is based on:
-Conceptual innovativeness (the uniqueness of the idea)
-Theoretical rigor (incorporation of relevant literature and the logic leading to your hypotheses)
-Adequacy of proposed research methods
-Writing style, clarity, and coherence
Alternatively, students may choose to write a conceptual research paper using the format of research in the Academy of Management Review. Conceptual papers tend to be longer than empirical proposals but do not require a methods section. Conceptual papers must include:
-Introduction including debates or inconsistencies in the literature and your specific resolution
-Literature review, theory development, and propositions
-Discussion and conclusions
Students choosing this option are evaluated based on:
-Conceptual innovativeness (the uniqueness of the idea)
-Theoretical rigor (incorporation of relevant literature and the logic leading to your propositions)
-Writing style, clarity, and coherence
Students will present their research proposal to the class in a format similar to a research conference. Evaluation is based on
-The extent to which the presentation holds the audience’s interest
-The student’s overall presentation style
Final Exam
The final exam addresses a wide selection of topics from the course sessions. The session syntheses will be helpful in preparing for the final exam.
Course Outline
Saturday, July 12
Theory Building in Management
9:00-10:30
Student introductions
Professor introduction
Introduction to Management Theories, Concepts, and Current Issues
Syllabus Overview and Course Requirements
10:30-10:45
Break
10:45-12:00
Mintzberg, H. 2007. Developing theory about the development of theory. Smith and Hitt text, 355-372.
Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:371-384.
Weick, K.E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385-390.
12:00-1:00
Lunch
1:00-2:30
Weick, K.E. 2007. The experience of theorizing: Sensemaking as topic and resource. Smith and Hitt text, 394-416.
Locke, E.A. 2007. The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6): 867-890.
Eisenhardt, K.M 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4) 532-550.
2:30-2:45
Break
2:45-4:00
Winter, S.G. 2007. Developing evolutionary theory for economics and management. Smith and Hitt text, 509-546.
Zucker, L.G. & Darby, M.R. 2007. An evolutionary approach to institutions and social construction: Processes and structure. Smith and Hitt text, 547-571.
Session synthesis
Sunday, July 13
Practice in Management Theory Building
9:00-10:30
NOTE: Pay particular attention to the scales used in the following articles. We will revisit these in the afternoon session.
Covin, J.G., Green, K.M. & Slevin, D.P. 2006. Strategic process effects of the entrepreneurial orientation-sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, January: 57-81.
May, Ruth C., Stewart Jr., Wayne H. & Sweo, Robert. 2000. Environmental scanning behavior in a transitional economy: Evidence from Russia. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 403-427.
Marvel, Matthew R. & Lumpkin, G. Tom. 2007. Technology entrepreneurs’ human capital and its effects on innovation radicalness. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, November: 807-828.
10:30-10:45
Break
10:45-12:00
NOTE: Notice how the Manalova et. al. article tests the Busenitz et. al. scale in a different context. The Droege and Marvel paper is a working paper that builds on the this work while extending the variables by combining scales from the morning session.
Busenitz, L.W., Gomez, C. & Spencer, J.W. 2000. Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 994-1003.
Manalova, T.S., Eunni, R.V. & Gyoshev, B.S. 2008. Institutional environments for entrepreneurship: Evidence from emerging economies in Easter Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, January: 203-218.
Droege, S.D. & Marvel, M. Working paper. Institutional change and entrepreneurial strategy in emerging markets.
12:00-1:00
Lunch
1:00-2:30
Zucker, L.G. 1987. Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 443-464.
Scott, W.R. 2007. Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. Smitth & Hitt Text: 460-484.
2:30-2:45
Break
2:45-4:00
Droege, S.D. & Johnson, N.B. 2007. Broken rules and constrained confusion: Toward a theory of meso-institutions. Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 81-104.
Discuss and schedule data collection exercise
Session synthesis
Assignment for next week: Prepare five survey questions for each of the three variables discussed in the Droege and Johnson article.
Saturday, July 19
Managing the External Environment of the Firm:
Stakeholders, Agency, Resources and Transaction Costs
9:00-10:30
Freeman, R.E. 2007. The development of stakeholder theory: An idiosyncratic approach. Smith and Hitt text, 417-435.
Gibson, K. 2000. The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(3): 245-257.
Phillips, R.A., Freeman, R.E. & Wicks, A, 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4): 479-502.
10:30-10:45
Break
10:45-12:00
Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C. & Parmar, B. 2004. Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3): 364-369.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1988. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.
Shankman, N.A. 1999. Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4): 319-334.
12:00-1:00
Lunch
1:00-2:30
Worsham, J., Eisner, M.A. & Ringquist, E.J. 1997. Assessing the assumptions: A critical analysis of agency theory. Administration & Society, 28(4): 419-440.
Lado, A.A., Dant, R.R. & Tekleab, A.G. 2008. Trust-opportunism paradox, relationalism, and performance in interfirm relationships: Evidence from the retail industry. Strategic Management Journal, 29(4): 401-423.
Johnson, N.B. & Droege, S.D. 2004. Reflections on the generalization of agency theory: Cross-cultural considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 14(3): 325-335.
2:30-2:45
Break
2:45-4:00
Survey building exercise (continued from previous week)
Session synthesis
Sunday, July 20
Resource Dependence, Transaction Costs, TMT Cognition and Learning
9:00-10:30
NOTE: Consider how both the Finklestein and Dunning papers were able to expand resource dependence theory to additional levels of analyses.
Pfeffer, J. 2007. Developing resource dependence theory: How theory is affected by its environment. Smith and Hitt text, 436-459.
Finklestein, S. 1997. Interindustry merger patterns and resource dependence: A replication and extension of Pfeffer (1972). Strategic Management Journal, 18(10): 787-810.
NOTE: SKIP THIS ARTICLE
Dunning, T. 2005. Resource dependence, economic performance, and political stability. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(4): 451-482.
10:30-10:45
Break
10:45-12:00
Williamson, O.E. 1981. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3): 548-577.
Williamson, O.E. 2007. Transaction cost economics: The process of theory development. Smith and Hitt text, 485-508.
12:00-1:00
Lunch
1:00-2:30
Hambrick, D.C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: Origins, twists, turns, and lessons learned. Smith and Hitt text, 109-127.
Huff, A.S. 2007. Managerial and organizational cognition: Islands of coherence. Smith & Hitt Text: 331-354.
Hambrick, D.C., Finkelstein, S. & Mooney, A.C. 2005. Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 472-491.
2:30-2:45
Break
2:45-4:00
Nonaka, I. 2007. Managing organizational knowledge: Theoretical and methodological foundations. Smith & Hitt Text: 373-393.
Argyris, C. 2007. Double-loop learning in organizations: A theory of action perspective. Smith and Hitt text, 261-279.
Session synthesis
Assignment for next week: Pilot test survey instrument
Saturday, July 26
Managing Competition and the Resource-Based View of the Firm
9:00-10:30
Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
Conner, K.R. 1991. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17(1): 121-154.
Peteraf, M.A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179-191.
10:30-10:45
Break
10:45-12:00
Barney, J.B., Wright, M. & Ketchen Jr., D.J. 2001. The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6): 625-641.
Priem, R.L. & Butler, J.E. 2001. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 22-40.
Barney, J.B. 2001. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 41-56.
12:00-1:00
Lunch
1:00-2:30
Helfat, C.E. & Peteraf, M.A. 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycle. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 997-1010.
Brouthers, K.D., Brouthers, L.E. & Werner, S. 2008. Resource-based advantages in an international context. Journal of Management, 34(2): 189-217.
Capron, L. & Chatain, O. 2008. Competitors’ resource-oriented strategies: Acting on competitors’ resources through intervention in factor markets and political markets. Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 97-121.
2:30-2:45
Break
2:45-4:00
Wiggins, R.R. & Ruefli, T.W. 2005. Schumpeter’s ghost: Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strategic Management Journal, 887-911.
Wiersema, M.F. & Bowen, H.P. 2008. Corporate diversification: The impact of foreign competition, industry globalization, and product diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 29(2): 115-132.
Session synthesis
Sunday, July 27
Employee Motivation:
Psychological Contracts, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Workplace Deviance, and Abusive Supervision
9:00-10:30
Cameron, K. 2007. Organizational effectiveness: Its demise and re-emergence through positive organizational scholarship. Smith & Hitt Text: 304-330.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M. & Mowday, R.T. 2007. Do employee attitudes toward organizations matter? The study of employee commitment to organizations. Smith & Hitt Text: 171-189.
Vroom, V.H. 2007. On the origins of expectancy theory. Smith and Hitt text, 239-260.
10:30-10:45
Break
10:45-12:00
Rousseau, D.M. 2007. Developing psychological contract theory. Smith and Hitt text, 190-214.
Thompson, J.A. & Bunderson, J. S. 2003. Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28(4): 571-586.
Hui, C., Lee, C. & Rousseau, D.M. 2004. Psychological contract and organizational citizenship behavior in China: Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2): 311-321.
12:00-1:00
Lunch
1:00-2:30
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. & Bachrach, D.G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3): 513-563.
Zellars, K.L., Bennett, B.J. & Duffy, M.K. 2002. Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6): 1068-1076.
Lee, K. & Allen, N.J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 131-142.
2:30-2:45
Break
2:45-4:00
Hoobler, J.M. & Brass, D.J. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5): 1125-1133.
Tepper, B.J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3): 261-289.
Session synthesis
Saturday, August 2
Employee Motivation
9:00-10:30
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. 2007. Goal setting theory: Theory building by induction. Smith & Hitt Text: pp. 128-150.
Bandera, A. 2007. The evolution of social cognitive theory. Smith & Hitt Text: pp. 9-35.
Litzky, B.E., Eddleston, K.A. & Kidder, D.L. 2006. The good, the bad, and the misguided: How managers inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 91-101.
10:30-10:45
Break
10:45-12:00
Folger, R. 2007. The road to fairness and beyond. Smith & Hitt Text: 55-83.
Colquitt, D.A. Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J. Porter, C.O.L.H. & Ng, K.Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 425-445.
Fassina, N.E., Jones, D.A. & Uggerslev, K.L. 2008. Relationship Clean-Up Time: Using Meta-Analysis and Path Analysis to Clarify Relationships Among Job Satisfaction, Perceived Fairness, and Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management, 34: 161-188.
12:00-1:00
Lunch
1:00-2:30
Oldham, G.R. & Hackman, J.R.. 2007. How job characteristics theory happened. Smith & Hitt Text: pp. 151-170.
Freese, M. 2007. Grand theories and mid-range theories: Cultural effects on theorizing and the attempt to understand active approaches to work. Smith and Hitt text, 84-108.
Borgatti. S.P. & Foster, P.C. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6): 991-1013.
2:30-2:45
Break
2:45-4:00
Turn in and discuss pilot testing results from previous survey exercise
Run statistical results from data collection exercise (we will do this in class as a demonstration)
Session synthesis
Sunday, August 3
9:00-10:30
Research papers due at beginning of class
Student presentations, Part 1
10:30-10:45
Break
10:45-12:00
Student presentations, Part 2
12:00-1:00
Lunch
1:00-2:30
Student presentations, Part 3
2:30-2:45
Break
2:45-4:00
Final exam