彭維剛__策略與組織理論研究進(jìn)程ppt課件

1、Challenges in Strategy and Organization Theory ResearchMike W. PengProvosts Distinguished Professor of Global StrategyUniversity of Texas at DallasEditor-in-Chief, Asia Pacific Journal of M/mikepengMacro organizational researchStrategy and OT: Boundaries are blurredThe big quest

2、ion: What determines the success and failure of firms around the world? (Peng, 2004, JIBS)My experience and advice: Be programmatic in your researchOf course, you will learn from and collaborate with your advisor as a PhD studentBut you dont want to do your advisors researchGuidelines on topic selec

3、tion (R. Tung, 2005, Asia Pacific Journal of Management)What are the significant and important trends that have broad implications for theory and practice in the future?Is the topic sustainable over an extended period of time and not just a fad?Will the topic be broad enough to generate interest amo

4、ng a sufficiently large group of researchers?How much research attention has the topic received so far?What is my competitive advantage in this area?Am I truly passionate and excited about the topic?A papers success is substantially determined at the outset (S. Rynes, 2006, IACMR talk)Research Formu

5、lationMinimum standards: “Thats interesting!4 - 6 smart people testMaximum goals:“Ill never think about the issue the same way again!Publication becomes a ritual citation (e.g., Barney, Child, Jensen, Hofstede, Porter, Williamson . . . cite Peng & Heath 96 for China/emerging econ research and Lyles

6、& Salk 96 for IJV learning)A programmatic research strategy Emerging markets strategiesExport strategies (dissertation)Conceptual:Peng & Heath (1996 AMR)Peng & Ilinitch (1998 JIBS)Peng (2003 AMR)Peng, Lee, & Wang (2005 AMR)Trabold (2002 JIBS) A test of Meyer & Peng (2005 JIBS) Peng & IlinitchLee, Pe

7、ng, & Barney (2007 AMR)Peng, Wang, & Jiang (2021 JIBS) Qualitative:Peng (1997 OS)Peng, Hill, & Wang (2000 JMS)Quantitative:Luo & Peng (1999 JIBS)Peng & York (2001 JIBS)Peng & Luo (2000 AMJ)Tan & Peng (2003 SMJ) Peng, Zhou, & York (2006 JWB)Peng (2004 SMJ) - A replication of TraboldTong, Reuer, & Pen

8、g (2007 AMJ)Peng, Zhang, & Li (2007 MOR)Research book:Peng (2000 Sage)Peng (1998 Quorum)Practitioner:Peng (1997 CBR; 2001 AME; 2006 HBR)Special issue:Wright, Filatotchev, Hoskisson,Source M. W. Peng, 2005, & Peng (2005 JMS)From China strategy to global Textbook: 2006: Global Strategy strategy, Asia

9、Pacific Journal of Management, 22(2): 123-141Strategies in emerging economies20-15 Figure 20.6Organiza-tional slack (Tan & Peng 2003 SMJ) Firm growth & social networks(Peng & Luo 2000 AMJ)Organiza-tionallearning (Luo & Peng 1999 JIBS)Strategic groups(Peng, Tan, & Tong 2004JMS)THEORY PAPERS: The grow

10、th of the firm (Peng & Heath 1996 AMR)Institutional transitions and strategic choices (Peng 2003 AMR)An institution-based view of IB strategy (Peng et al. 2021 JIBS) Corporategovernance(Peng 2004SMJ)Geographic & substantive diversification20-15 Figure 20.6Keiretsu networksJapan(Peng et al. 2001 JIM)

11、InterlocksHong Kong(Au et al. 2000 APJM)Interna-tionalizationThailand (Peng et al. 2001 APJM)Chaebol diversificationSouth Korea(Lee et al. 2021 JWB)THEORY PAPERS: Strategy research in emerging economies (Wright et al. 2005 JMS) The scope of the firm over time (Peng, Lee, & Wang 2005 AMR)Research in

12、Central and Eastern Europe (Meyer & Peng 2005 JIBS)Bankruptcy laws and entrepreneurship (Lee, Peng, & Barney 2007 AMR)CorporategovernanceRussia(Peng et al.2003 JWB)FROM CHINA STRATEGY TO GLOBAL STRATEGYM. W. Peng (2005)Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement (vol. 22: 123-141)Frontiers of strategy/OT rese

13、archThe relationship over time and around the worldStay away from simple linear relationshipStrategic choices during institutional transitionsExample of a recent streamWhat determines the scope of the firm over time? (Peng, Lee, & Wang, 2005 AMR)What determines the scope of the firm over time and ar

14、ound the world? An Asia Pacific perspective (Peng & Delios, 2006 APJM)From diversification premium to diversification discount during institutional transitions (Lee, Peng, & Lee, 2021 JWB)China/Asia researchers need more self-confidenceSelf-confidence: Meyer (2006 APJM)Debate in APJM (2007/4, 25th a

15、nniversary)Au, Yang & Terjesen, Puffer & McCarthyRamaswamyMeyer (rejoinder, 2007)ManifestationsTopic selectionMeasurements“A journal designationData issuesQualitative: Peng (1997 OS)Quantitative/survey: Luo & Peng (1999 JIBS); Peng & Luo (2000 AMJ); Peng, Buck, & Filatotchev (2003 JWB); Peng, Tan, &

16、 Tong (2004 JMS)Quantitative/archival: Peng (2004 SMJ assigned); Peng, Zhang, & Li (2007 MOR); Tong, Reuer, & Peng (2007 AMJ)Combining survey and archival sources: Tan & Peng (2003 SMJ assigned)No data are perfect, all can be challenged by reviewersyou need to defend your dataPublishing research is

17、difficult for almost everyone. (S. Rynes, 2006, IACMR talk)Mikes 1-slide checklistShorten your title (its not an abstract!)Do you really need your subtitle?Finish the Introduction section in 2 pagesMake sure to raise questions (using ?) in IntroStart your Methods no later than p 15NO new ideas and c

18、ites in Findings (just your findings)Make sure you use the word CONTRIBUTIONSHave a 1-para Conclusion (Dont end with Limitations)The shorter your paper, the better!Research implementationA well-crafted articleTells a good story: Beginning, middle, and endDraws the reader into the plotShows a picture

19、 (worth 1,000 words?)Standard format, although boring, simplifies our task (and life!)Qualitative studies may appear to be relatively easier to conduct, but are a lot harder to writeThe beginning (I)Shorten your title: Easy to remember (and cite!)Peng and Heath (1996 AMR): The growth of the firm in

20、planned economies in transitions: Organizations, institutions, and strategic choices (15 words)Peng (2003 AMR): Institutional transitions and strategic choices (5 words)Raise questions, preferably in the 1st sentencePeng (2003 AMR): How do organizations make strategic choices during the time of fund

21、amental and comprehensive institutional transitions?Peng (2004 SMJ): Do outside directors on corporate boards make a difference in firm performance?Raise a question in the titlePeng, Lee, & Wang (2005 AMR): What determines the scope of the firm over time? A focus on institutional relatednessThe begi

22、nning (II)Set forth the plot line“This paper is about “This topic is important because Draw the reader to think your way“According to institutional theory Finish the Introduction section in 2 pagesReviewers are impatient: “Please be explicit!Dont waste precious space on “Section 2 is about , section

23、 3 is about nobody reads thatUse the last paragraph in your Intro to say: “This article departs from (or contributes to) the literature in three ways. One two three The middle (I)Literature reviewShort, focused - no need to cite 1,000 articlesYour focus: Puzzles? Contradictions? Gaps?MethodologyBear

24、 in mind of replication needs by othersFull disclosure of imperfect approach is better than no disclosurePlace the most technical (boring) stuff to the appendixThe middle (II)ResultsOnly talk about resultsNo new cites or ideas pleaseBe explicit: Were hypotheses supported or not? Interpret; dont just

25、 repeat the tables“Shown in Table 1, X is significant.“Shown in Table 1, X is significant, thus supporting our H1.Good idea to have a summary table for resultsThe endDiscussionState your contributions explicitly“Three contributions emerge. First Second Third Dont say “weaknesses; say “l(fā)imitations an

26、d future research directionsConclusionSo what? How does the world look different now?No more than one paragraph: Tie everything together“Learning does lead to higher performancealbeit not necessarily in a linear fashion (Luo & Peng 99 JIBS) The reviewers perspective (I)I have served on the editorial

27、 boards of AMJ, AMR, JIBS, and SMJ, and guest edited a JMS Special IssueEditor-in-Chief of Asia Pacific Journal of ManagementIs the story interesting?Avoid “dead end topics Is the theory sound?Topic- or data-driven versus theory-driven researchBuilding on previous theory?Overlooking major aspects of

28、 previous work (such as my work)?Citing authors (such as the reviewer!) correctly? The reviewers perspective (II)Is the method reasonable?Does it match your research objectives?Does operationalization reasonably reflect the conceptual essence of your constructs?Are you trying to hide something? Is t

29、he writing good?Logical flow of macro-structureConsistent words throughout the paper (e.g., dont mix up “org. culture and “climate)The authors tacticsAnticipate the reviewers concernsAnticipate who your reviewers might be Very hard; can never be provenYour references provide a clue (for editors)Meet

30、 journal styles (asset-specificity investment)Tight editing (Have you tried research notes?)Avoid amateur styles: Be professional and cool “Our results are incredible (shocking) .Offer to review for the journalSurviving the review processThick skin is required: Everybody gets rejections 90% rejectio

31、n rates, my 40+ articles would have been submitted 400 times (baptism by fire?)Im now 3 times better than average, which means my submissions are still being killed 70% of the times!Realize reviewers and editors are rational At least in most cases: Everybody can have a bad dayOur intellectual market

32、 for ideas is not perfect, but is rational, reasonable, and the best in the worldCase study of Tong, Reuer, & Peng AMJ (2007)Dealing with reviewersThoroughly address every point raisedIncluding disagreements, dont hide them!What reviewers hate:#1: Done! #2: Done! #3: Yes they wont rememberWhat revie

33、wers appreciate: Point-by-pointReview #1 (completely retype or cut and paste)Our response #1 Review #2 Our response #2 What I have found (I).The university is a subsidized writers club Or multiple, never-ending Olympic games.Have to care about major gamesLeverage your core competenciesOurs is a soci

34、ally constructed, virtual community around the world So what? Send your work to relevant people ASAPMy global network is a source of my energy, replenishment, and inspiration (and citations!)What I have found (II) .Writing is just like cooking! We are all cooks.We cannot cook up data, but we can cook up pres