or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Seriously considering going back for a PhD... (Update: and now it's in motion)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seriously considering going back for a PhD... (Update: and now it's in motion) - Page 4

post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flambeur View Post
Ehhh this is going to be a fun application process.. I'm considering applying to 10 schools right now, should i do more? less?
I'd think 10 is lots. Make sure you apply to different levels though. Seem's pretty straight forward, but don't apply to a bunch of similar "quality schools". Apply to 1-2 you think you'll most likely get rejected from, 4-5 you think you could be competitive, and 1-2 you know forsure you'll get in. The more schools you apply to in that "you think you'll be competitive" area the better. But make sure you aim high with one and low with another. If you only get into the "you know forsure you'll get in school" you can decide if you actually want to go there after the fact.

Also .. a bit of an odd time to be thinking about grad school?
post #47 of 78
Bumping this one up to see if there's any good advice from a new crop of SF'ers.

I just got an offer to join a business PhD cohort in the fall in the field of Management Information Systems. My program would be ranked around USN Top 10 and faculty research productivity rankings would be around top 5.

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.
post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerdykarim View Post

Bumping this one up to see if there's any good advice from a new crop of SF'ers.
I just got an offer to join a business PhD cohort in the fall in the field of Management Information Systems. My program would be ranked around USN Top 10 and faculty research productivity rankings would be around top 5.
Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Congrats on the offer. A few thing for you to consider: Does the offer include tuition plus a generous stipend for at least 4 years? What is the average time to degree? Do faculty publish with their students in good journals? Where have recent grads been employed?
post #49 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerdykarim View Post

Bumping this one up to see if there's any good advice from a new crop of SF'ers.
I just got an offer to join a business PhD cohort in the fall in the field of Management Information Systems. My program would be ranked around USN Top 10 and faculty research productivity rankings would be around top 5.
Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

I thought you were a lawyer somehow. Its hard to assess the ins and outs of different disciplines and offer useful suggestions w/o actually being in that field. Generally, I think there is a shortage in academia of people w/ business Ph.D's, so I guess that top 10 is good enough to get a good academic placement (I also think that in my field, US N & WR, is the best first ranking that I advise young people to look at, not sure about ISMT, but I guess its not terrible). As JayJay advised, get information about placement, also about how long it takes for people to complete the Ph.D. Most business schools have money, so I suppose funding shouldn't be a problem if you are admitted.

I think this study does a good job of tracking faculty salaries by discipline. http://www.tamu.edu/customers/oisp/faculty-reports/faculty-salary-fall-2010.pdf Says ISMT is about 130K to start, up to about 200K at full professor. This should be a 9 month salary so you will have opportunity to make more cash in summer.

I think business Ph.D's are an underexplored option for young Americans with an intellectual bent. Getting a Ph.D. in a field that you aren't interested in is never a good idea and for most people salaries will top out at lower levels than people successful in Big Law or I-banks. But there are jobs, the professor lifestyle is great and at B-schools it s not uncommon for the money to approach SF fallback levels.
post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayJay View Post

Congrats on the offer. A few thing for you to consider: Does the offer include tuition plus a generous stipend for at least 4 years? What is the average time to degree? Do faculty publish with their students in good journals? Where have recent grads been employed?

Thanks. It's tuition plus $20-30k for 4-5 years, depending on whether or not I get one of the fellowships I've been nominated for. The expectation is that I finish in four years. I know there's a strong ethos of mentorship in the department, but I need to find out about the extent to which copublication happens in the first couple years. Recent grads are split evenly between regional schools, nationally-ranked private schools, and international business schools in Asia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AldenPyle View Post

I thought you were a lawyer somehow. Its hard to assess the ins and outs of different disciplines and offer useful suggestions w/o actually being in that field. Generally, I think there is a shortage in academia of people w/ business Ph.D's, so I guess that top 10 is good enough to get a good academic placement (I also think that in my field, US N & WR, is the best first ranking that I advise young people to look at, not sure about ISMT, but I guess its not terrible). As JayJay advised, get information about placement, also about how long it takes for people to complete the Ph.D. Most business schools have money, so I suppose funding shouldn't be a problem if you are admitted.
I think this study does a good job of tracking faculty salaries by discipline. http://www.tamu.edu/customers/oisp/faculty-reports/faculty-salary-fall-2010.pdf Says ISMT is about 130K to start, up to about 200K at full professor. This should be a 9 month salary so you will have opportunity to make more cash in summer.
I think business Ph.D's are an underexplored option for young Americans with an intellectual bent. Getting a Ph.D. in a field that you aren't interested in is never a good idea and for most people salaries will top out at lower levels than people successful in Big Law or I-banks. But there are jobs, the professor lifestyle is great and at B-schools it s not uncommon for the money to approach SF fallback levels.

I suppose this is probably relevant. I'm finishing a JD/MBA, so my research will be on the application of information systems to the legal services industry (e-discovery/virtual data rooms, cybersecurity legislation, etc.). The "pro" is that it's a pretty well-defined niche and there aren't many people who will do what I do with the skills that I have. The "con" is that it took me way too long to realize that I wanted to be an academic and I'm substantially overeducated relative to my work experience (and there is probably some stigma associated with that).

Thanks for the advice. I think I'm going to accept the offer later this evening.
post #51 of 78
Flambeur,

I read most, but not all, of the responses. Here's my take as a econ PhD.

Do not enter a doctoral program because you like school. At this point, it's a job. It is also 24/7. Your advisor will care less about your vacation plans than your current boss does. Especially if s/he's giving you grant money.

Do not go unless they pay for you to go. Do not put yourself into debt for a PhD. The increase in earnings from a master's degree to a PhD is far smaller than the BA/BS to MA/MS jump.

I didn't notice if you ever indicated what specific specialty you wish to pursue. That should be what drives your choice of programs to apply for and which to choose. Top X is great for a department over all; but make sure you look at the faculty, the research they do, and who you think you will fit best with. Visiting campus could be good for this.

But you also need to consider quality of life. An example: don't pick a program because it's the best when it's in the middle of nowhere and you need the city life to be happy, or vice-versa. You will be unhappy.

Bus and Econ are only going to cover the same things to the degree you tailor your coursework (and to what degree that is possible). You might actually consider Business Econ. Or Econ and focus on finance (for instance). Or Bus but focus on X, Y, or Z that takes you to the econ dept. Etc.

Academic positions are highly sought after. They are hard to get; and unless you do graduate from one of those top departments, you will have little say in your research/teaching split. You will simply end up applying for open positions. Especially the split you mentioned. I think it was 20 teaching/ 40 research/ 40 consulting? Keep in mind, your dept and dean will probably have to okay you spending any of your time on private consulting for which you get paid.

I don't know you, so I don't say this to be rude: Honestly evaluate whether you can get into one of those top programs that you are talking. I'm sure you were a great student. I had at-best mediocre students who thought they'd go to grad school (at all, not to a top program) and I just shook my head wondering where they got this idea.

Feel free to PM me if you want. I can share my grad school experience, my experience in academia (different from what you're looking for), and my post-academia life. Mine isn't a real happy story. Some of that was my making; some of that was just the nature of the place.

b
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerdykarim View Post

Thanks. It's tuition plus $20-30k for 4-5 years, depending on whether or not I get one of the fellowships I've been nominated for. The expectation is that I finish in four years. I know there's a strong ethos of mentorship in the department, but I need to find out about the extent to which copublication happens in the first couple years. Recent grads are split evenly between regional schools, nationally-ranked private schools, and international business schools in Asia.
I suppose this is probably relevant. I'm finishing a JD/MBA, so my research will be on the application of information systems to the legal services industry (e-discovery/virtual data rooms, cybersecurity legislation, etc.). The "pro" is that it's a pretty well-defined niche and there aren't many people who will do what I do with the skills that I have. The "con" is that it took me way too long to realize that I wanted to be an academic and I'm substantially overeducated relative to my work experience (and there is probably some stigma associated with that).
Thanks for the advice. I think I'm going to accept the offer later this evening.

Congratulations. Seems like you are doing well . My guess is copublication isn't really that big a deal in fields in which students aren't dependent on their advisors to raise funds for their research. Copublication is not really the norm.

Your research topic sounds very interesting. In the MBA world there may be a bit of stigma related to a high education to work ratio, but in the PhD world there is no stigma. If you can use your previous background to build a research agenda, more the better. My guess is law school has the most spillover to a PhD in accounting (not that that is relevant to you).
post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawson808 View Post

Flambeur,
I read most, but not all, of the responses. Here's my take as a econ PhD.
Do not enter a doctoral program because you like school. At this point, it's a job. It is also 24/7. Your advisor will care less about your vacation plans than your current boss does. Especially if s/he's giving you grant money.
Do not go unless they pay for you to go. Do not put yourself into debt for a PhD. The increase in earnings from a master's degree to a PhD is far smaller than the BA/BS to MA/MS jump.
I didn't notice if you ever indicated what specific specialty you wish to pursue. That should be what drives your choice of programs to apply for and which to choose. Top X is great for a department over all; but make sure you look at the faculty, the research they do, and who you think you will fit best with. Visiting campus could be good for this.
But you also need to consider quality of life. An example: don't pick a program because it's the best when it's in the middle of nowhere and you need the city life to be happy, or vice-versa. You will be unhappy.
Bus and Econ are only going to cover the same things to the degree you tailor your coursework (and to what degree that is possible). You might actually consider Business Econ. Or Econ and focus on finance (for instance). Or Bus but focus on X, Y, or Z that takes you to the econ dept. Etc.
Academic positions are highly sought after. They are hard to get; and unless you do graduate from one of those top departments, you will have little say in your research/teaching split. You will simply end up applying for open positions. Especially the split you mentioned. I think it was 20 teaching/ 40 research/ 40 consulting? Keep in mind, your dept and dean will probably have to okay you spending any of your time on private consulting for which you get paid.
I don't know you, so I don't say this to be rude: Honestly evaluate whether you can get into one of those top programs that you are talking. I'm sure you were a great student. I had at-best mediocre students who thought they'd go to grad school (at all, not to a top program) and I just shook my head wondering where they got this idea.
Feel free to PM me if you want. I can share my grad school experience, my experience in academia (different from what you're looking for), and my post-academia life. Mine isn't a real happy story. Some of that was my making; some of that was just the nature of the place.
b
I dont think I would fully agree with almost any of this. Anyway, I guess the OP has moved on with his life, but anyone interested in a PhD in economics should go to and read the featured articles near the bottom, especially the one by John Cawley.
post #54 of 78

Hello all.  Bumping this thread to ask a quick question.  I completed my MBA a few years ago and am thinking about applying for a phd in organizational management.  I talked to a few friends in doctoral programs now and they've suggested to reach out to professors in the field that you are interested in.  My question is:  do I send a "cover letter" style email to them and ask to speak with them in person?  Or is that a turnoff to professors?

post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calnell View Post

Hello all.  Bumping this thread to ask a quick question.  I completed my MBA a few years ago and am thinking about applying for a phd in organizational management.  I talked to a few friends in doctoral programs now and they've suggested to reach out to professors in the field that you are interested in.  My question is:  do I send a "cover letter" style email to them and ask to speak with them in person?  Or is that a turnoff to professors?


Just send a regular email but name drop. Also, I'd mention reading and enjoying something the recipient has worked on.
post #56 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calnell View Post

Hello all.  Bumping this thread to ask a quick question.  I completed my MBA a few years ago and am thinking about applying for a phd in organizational management.  I talked to a few friends in doctoral programs now and they've suggested to reach out to professors in the field that you are interested in.  My question is:  do I send a "cover letter" style email to them and ask to speak with them in person?  Or is that a turnoff to professors?

I would first talk to the professors at your former MBA program since you probably have some goodwill there. I wouldn't recommend talking to the "real" professors outside of your school until you at least know what you're talking about. There are TONS of resources on the internet by the way, there are a couple of active forums out there and it would help you to basically go and read up on the old threads.. The knowledge you seek is out there already, and someone has probably asked all of the same questions many, many times. The forums and old threads should keep you busy for a couple of weeks (or months) and you'll be much better informed and ready to proceed to the next steps.

Also, your test scores + GPA matter. Getting into a top 30 PhD program is definitely harder than even getting into an M7 MBA.
post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calnell View Post

Hello all.  Bumping this thread to ask a quick question.  I completed my MBA a few years ago and am thinking about applying for a phd in organizational management.  I talked to a few friends in doctoral programs now and they've suggested to reach out to professors in the field that you are interested in.  My question is:  do I send a "cover letter" style email to them and ask to speak with them in person?  Or is that a turnoff to professors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGrotius View Post

Just send a regular email but name drop. Also, I'd mention reading and enjoying something the recipient has worked on.

I don't think it's a turnoff to ask for an in-person meeting. If you have lots of questions, it's probably more convenient than asking them to type out a long email response.

I think it might also help if you were able to demonstrate a bit of background knowledge. I'm definitely not an expert in Management but my understanding is that the field is sort of split between organizational theory and behavioral strategy; I would try to target your questions appropriately. I'm taking a doctoral Mgmt class this semester, though; if you want to take a look at the reading list to see what kind of work is being done (on the strategy side), let me know and I'll post the syllabus.
post #58 of 78

Thanks for the feedback fellas.  I'll start searching for some phd forums now. 

post #59 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerdykarim View Post


I don't think it's a turnoff to ask for an in-person meeting. If you have lots of questions, it's probably more convenient than asking them to type out a long email response.
I think it might also help if you were able to demonstrate a bit of background knowledge. I'm definitely not an expert in Management but my understanding is that the field is sort of split between organizational theory and behavioral strategy; I would try to target your questions appropriately. I'm taking a doctoral Mgmt class this semester, though; if you want to take a look at the reading list to see what kind of work is being done (on the strategy side), let me know and I'll post the syllabus.

I'm definitely interested at seeing the reading list.  Thanks!
 

 

post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calnell View Post

I'm definitely interested at seeing the reading list.  Thanks!

COURSE DESCRIPTION

MGMT 9400 is a doctoral seminar that reviews the research in the field of strategic management, particularly in the areas of organizational theory (OT) and behavioral strategy.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this seminar is to introduce doctoral-level students to this field. There are three goals in this course:
1) Introduce the students to the relevant research literature in strategic management, including exposure to traditional, classic, and current texts.
2) Help students learn to better understand, evaluate, and interpret the conceptual and methodological aspects of research in strategic management, especially in the areas of OT and behavioral strategy.
3) Further develop the student’s skills necessary to publish in and review for top-tier journals.

reading list (Click to show)
Week 1: Understanding the Field’s Expectations*

1. Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490-495.

2. Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384.

3. Weick, K. E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385-390.

4. Colquitt, J. A. & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1281-1303.

5. Corley, K. & Gioia, D. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36: 12-32.

6. Schwab, A., Abrahamson, E., Starbuck, W. H., & Fidler, F. 2011. PERSPECTIVE—Researchers should make thoughtful assessments instead of null-hypothesis significance tests. Organization Science, 22(4): 1105-1120.

7. Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., & Dunn, M. B. 2011. From blue sky research to problem solving: a philosophy of science theory of new knowledge production. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 297-317.

Methods (These will not be discussed but are essential for strategy/OT research)*

1. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. 2010. On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 1086-1120.
2. Bascle, G. 2008. Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6(3): 285-327.
3. Berk, R. 1983. An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological review, 48(3): 386-398.
4. Halaby, C. 2004. Panel models in sociological research: Theory into practice. Annual Review of Sociology, 30: 507-544.
5. Hamilton, B., & Nickerson, J. 2003. Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1(1): 51-78.
6. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 1997. Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 626-657.
7. Murray, M. P. 2006. Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4): 111-132.
8. Petersen, T. 1993. Recent advances in longitudinal methodology. Annual review of Sociology, 19(1): 425-454.


Week 2: Foundations in Organization Theory and BTOF

1. Selznick, P. 1948. Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13(1): 25-35.

2. March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. 1958. Organizations: Chapters 5-7. (Posted on eLC)

3. Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory: Chapters 1-4. (Posted on eLC)

4. Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm: Chapter 7. (Posted on eLC)

5. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33: 1404-1418.

6. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. 1992. Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99(1): 172-183.

7. Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. 2011. Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 1369-1386.


Week 3: Institutional Theory

1. *Heugens, P. M. A. R. & Lander, M. W. 2009. Structure! Agency! (And other quarrels): A Meta-analysis of institutional theories of organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1): 61-85.

2. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology: 340-363.

3. DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.

4. Deephouse, D. L. 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate? The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 1024-1039.

5. Mizruchi, M., & Fein, L. 1999. The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 653-683.

6. Lounsbury, M. 2007 A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds, Academy of Management Journal, 50: 289-307.

7. Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27-48.


Week 4: Resource Dependence + Paper Outline Due

1. Emerson, R.M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27: 31-41.

2. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. 1978. The external control of organizations: Chapters 1, 3, & 6. New York: Harper & Row. (Posted on eLC)

3. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145-179.

4. Boyd, B. 1990. Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 419-430.

5. Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24: 191-205.

6. Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M.J. 2005. Power imbalance, mutual dependence and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 167-199.


Week 5: Networks and Social Capital

1. *Burt, R. S. 2005. Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital: Chapter 1. (Posted on eLC)

2. Granovetter, M.S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510.

3. Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: s95-s121.

4. Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61: 674-698.

5. Adler, P.S., & Kwon, S. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27: 17-40.

6. Mizruchi, M. 1996. What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 271-298.

7. Rao, H., Davis, G., & Ward, A. 2000. Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New York stock exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 268-292.


Week 6: Stakeholder Theory

1. *Pfarrer, M.D. 2010. What is the purpose of the firm? Shareholder and stakeholder theories. In J. O’Toole & D. Mayer (Eds.), Good Business: Exercising Effective and Ethical Leadership. New York: Routledge. (Posted on eLC)

2. Agle, B.R. et al. 2008. Dialogue: toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18: 153-190.

3. Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.

4. Mitchell, R., Agle, B. & Wood. D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22: 853-886.

5. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. 1997. Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 20-47.

6. Godfrey, P. C., Merill, C.B., & Hansen, J.M. 2009. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 425-445.

7. King, B. G. 2008. A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3): 395-421.


Week 7: Sociocognitive Foundations of Strategy I

1. *Walsh, James P. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6: 3: 280-321.

2. *Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4): 409-421.
3. Kelley, H. 1973. The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2): 107-128.

4. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263-291.

5. Skowronski, J., & Carlston, D. 1989. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1): 131-142.

6. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2): 311-322.

7. Porac, J., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. 1989. Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26: 4: 397-416.

8. Gioia, D.A & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 433-448.



Week 8: Sociocognitive Foundations of Strategy II + Paper Introduction Due

1. *Rindova, V., Reger, R. K., Dalpiaz, E. The mind of the strategist and the eye of the beholder: The socio-cognitive perspective in strategy research. (Posted on eLC)

2. Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 187-206.

3. Rao, H., Greve, H. & Davis, G. 2001. Fool’s gold: Social proof in the initiation and abandonment of coverage by Wall Street analysts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 502-526.

4. Hargadon, A. & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476-503.

5. Hoffman, A. J. & Ocasio, W. 2001. Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention of external events. Organization Science, 12 (4): 414-434.

6. Abolafia, M.Y., & Kilduff, M. 1988. Enacting market crisis: The social construction of a speculative bubble. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 33: 177-193.

7. Mishina, Y., Block, E., & Mannor, M. 2012. The path dependence of organizational reputation: How social judgment influences assessments of capability and character. Strategic Management Journal. (Posted on eLC)


Week 9: Discourse and Rhetoric

1. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. 2000. Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2): 136.

2. Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7): 545-564.

3. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 35-67.

4. Green, S. E. 2004. A rhetorical theory of diffusion. The Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 653-669.

5. Green, S. E., Li, Y., & Nohria, N. 2009. Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A rhetorical model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(1): 11-36.

6. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and institutions. The Academy of Management Review, 29: 635-652.


(Spring Break)
These will not be discussed but are essential for strategy research

1. Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 171-180.
2. Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage, Management Science, 35: 1504-1511.
3. Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 99-120.
4. Peteraf, M.A., 1993. "The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 179-191.
5. Weigelt, K. & Camerer, C. 1988. Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 443-454.
6. Fombrun, C.J. & Shanley, M. 1990. What's in a name? Reputation-building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233-258.
7. Clark, B. & Montgomery, D. 1998. Deterrence, reputation, and competitive cognition. Management Science, 44: 62-82.
8. Hambrick, D. & Mason, P., 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 193-206.
9. Hambrick, D. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32: 334-343.


Week 10: Reputation and Legitimacy

1. *Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. 2011. Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1): 153-184.

2. *Bitektine, A. 2011. Towards a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36: 151-179.

3. Rao, H. 1994. The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 29-44.

4. Suchman, Mark 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571-610.

5. Rindova, V., Williamson, I., Petkova, A., & Sever, J. 2005. Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1033–1049.

6. Deephouse, D., & Carter, S. 2005. An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2): 329-360.

7. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. 2008. Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 49–77. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Posted on eLC)

8. Zuckerman, E. W. 1999. The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1398-1438.


Week 11: Status and Celebrity

1. *Merton, R.K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159: 56-63.

2. Podolny, J.M. 1994. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 458-483.

3. Washington, M., & Zajac, E.J. 2005. Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 281-296.

4. Wade, J., Porac, J., Pollock, T., & Graffin, S. 2006. The burden of celebrity: The impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 643-660.

5. Rindova, V., Pollock, T., & Hayward, M. 2006. Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 50-71.

6. Pfarrer, M.D., Pollock, T.G., & Rindova, V.P. 2010. A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors’ reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1131-1152.

7. Phillips, D., & Zuckerman, E. 2001. Middle status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2): 379-429.

8. Jensen, M., & Roy, A. 2008. Staging exchange partner choices: when do status and reputation matter? The Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 495-516.


Week 12: The Double-Edged Sword

1. *Adler, P., & Adler, P. 1989. The gloried self: The aggrandizement and the constriction of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(4): 299-310.

2. *Ashforth, B., & Gibbs, B. 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2): 177-194.

3. Devers, C., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. 2009. A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20(1): 154-171.

4. Brooks, M., Highhouse, S., Russell, S., & Mohr, D. 2003. Familiarity, ambivalence, and firm reputation: Is corporate fame a double-edged sword? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 904-913.

5. Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. 2006. The liability of good reputation: A study of product recalls in the U.S. automobile industry. Organization Science, 17(1): 101-117.

6. Barnett, M., & King, A. 2008. Good fences make good neighbors: A longitudinal analysis of an industry self-regulatory institution. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6): 1150-1170.

7. Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. 2010. Why" good" firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 701-722.

8. Kang, E. 2008. Director interlocks and spillover effects of reputational penalties from financial reporting fraud. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 537-555.


Week 13: The Role of the Media + Paper Due

1. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2): 176-187.

2. *Wartick, S. 1992. The relationship between intense media exposure and change in corporate reputation. Business & Society, 31(1): 33-49.

3. Pollock, T., Rindova, V., & Maggitti, P. 2008. Market watch: Information and availability cascades among the media and investors in the US IPO market. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 335-358.

4. Deephouse, D. 2000. Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1091-1112.

5. Desai, V. M. 2011. Mass media and massive failures: Determining organizational efforts to defend the field’s legitimacy following crises. Academy of Management Journal, 54.

6. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. 2006. Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political Economy, 114(2): 280-316.

7. Kennedy, M. 2008. Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review, 73(2): 270-295.


Week 14: Perception Management + Peer Review Due

1. *Elsbach, K. D. 2003. Organizational perception management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 125: 296-332. (Posted on eLC)

2. *Coombs, W. 2007. Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3): 163-176.

3. Elsbach, K.D. 1994. Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 57-88.

4. Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M.D., Reger, R.K., & Shapiro, D.L. 2012. Managing the message: The effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage subsequent to wrongdoing. Academy of Management Journal, forthcoming. (Posted on eLC)

5. Pfarrer, M.D., DeCelles, K.A., Smith, K.G., & Taylor, M.S. 2008. After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization. Academy of Management Review, 33: 730-749.

6. Westphal, J. D., & Deephouse, D. L. 2011. Avoiding bad press: Interpersonal influence in relations between CEOs and journalists and the consequences for press reporting about firms and their leadership. Organization Science, 22: 1061-1086.

7. Rhee, M., & Valdez, M. E. 2009. Contextual factors surrounding reputation damage with potential implications for reputation repair. The Academy of Management Review, 34(1): 146-168.

8. Graffin, S., Carpenter, M., & Boivie, S.. 2011. What's all that (strategic) noise? Anticipatory impression management in CEO successions. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 748-770.


Week 15: Other Cool(?) Stuff*

1. Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. 1999. Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 708-740.

2. Fiol, M., & O'Connor, E. J. 2003. Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. Academy of Management Review, 28: 54-70.

3. Kuhn, T. 2008. A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29: 1197-1224.

4. Koschmann, M.A., Kuhn, T.R., & Pfarrer, M.D. 2012. A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review, forthcoming. (Posted on eLC)

5. Deephouse, D. 1999. To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 147-166.

6. Zhu, D. H., & Westphal, J. D. 2011. Misperceiving the beliefs of others: How pluralistic ignorance contributes to the persistence of positive security analyst reactions to the adoption of stock repurchase plans. Organization Science, 22(4): 869-886.

7. Pfarrer, M.D., Smith, K.G., Bartol, K.M., Khanin, D.M., & Zhang, X. 2008. Coming forward: The effects of social and regulatory forces on the voluntary restatement of earnings subsequent to wrongdoing. Organization Science, 19: 386-403.

8. Bundy, J.N., & Shropshire, C.S. Strategic cognition and issue salience: Explaining firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Working Paper. (Posted on eLC)


Week 16: Exam

edit: my professor studied under Rindova, so the legitimacy/reputation/status/celebrity stuff may be overrepresented in this syllabus.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Business, Careers & Education
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Seriously considering going back for a PhD... (Update: and now it's in motion)