high level management theory 陳茂盛--1031113

高等管理理論研討

授課老師：李元德教授

學生：陳茂盛

http://www.cjcu.edu.tw/zh_tw/index.php


Agenda

In the Spirit of Scholarship

When Knowledge Wins: Transcending

The Sense & Nonsense of Academic

Rankings

What Constitutes a Theoretical

Contribution?

Building theory about theory building:

what constitutes a theoretical

contribution?

2




Mike W. Peng (PhD, University

of Washington) is the Provost’s

Distinguished Professor of

Global Strategy at the

University of Texas at Dallas.

His research interests are

strategic management,

international business, global

strategy, and emerging

economies, with a focus on the

institution-based view.3

Gregory G. Dess (PhD,

University of Washington) is the

Andrew Cecil Chair of Applied

Ethics at the University of Texas

at Dallas. His research interests

are strategic management,

knowledge management, and

entrepreneurship.




1.criticism

(1)lack of relevance and lack of impact on practice

(2)scholarly competition

2.defense

(1)the criticism is flawed

(2)scholarship competition resembles Olympic Games:discipline, dedication

4




we must go beyond such notions as

“what is popular in the popular press.”

as scholars our role is to develop and

test sound theory and not to compete

with The One Minute Manager.

three techniques of an effective manager:

one-minute goals,

one-minute praisings

one-minute reprimands.

5




CONCLUSION

we all share the sacred responsibility to

“continuously enhance the value and visibility of

scholarship”

But perhaps most of us would agree that such an

approach, driven by the spirit of scholarship, is

better than managers prescribing, by analogy,

phlebotomy as Dr. Rush did, to every challenge

they face.

6





Rankings

Nancy J. Adler (PhD, UCLA) is

theS. Bronfman Chair in

Management at McGill University,

Montreal, Canada. She conducts

research and consults on global

leadership and arts and

leadership. Dr. Adler is a Fellow

of the Academy of Management,

the Academy of International

Business, and the Royal Society

of Canada. Nancy is also a visual

artist. 7

Anne-Wil Harzing (PhD, University of

Bradford) is professor at the

University of Melbourne, Australia.

Her research interests include

international HRM, HQ-subsidiary

relationships, cross-cultural

management, and the role of

language in international business.

Since 1999 she maintains an

extensive website (www.harzing.com)

with resources for international

management and academic

publishing.





Rankings Jeffrey Garten (2006), in supporting Asia’s 21st

century revival of Nalanda, raised a fundamental

question: Do societies understand that real power

comes from great ideas and from the people who

generate them?

Do today’s universities, operating more than

sixteen centuries after the founding of Nalanda,

remember that their primary role is to support

scholarship that addresses the complex questions

that matter most to society?

8





Rankings The worldwide community of scholars.

the Academy of Management (AOM)

The Association to Advance Collegiate

Schools of Business (AACSB)

Thomson Reuters Scientific

9





Rankings The Financial Times,

recently asked “why

business ignores business

schools” and concluded

that business views

business school research

as irrelevant, pointedly

highlighting the fact that

“chief executives pay little

attention to what business

schools do or say”.

10





Rankings academic ranking systems usually

include

(a) “fairness” in universities’ hiring,

promotion, and tenure decisions, and

(b) accountability and value-for-

research-dollars in the grant-awarding

processes of governments and other

providers of research funds (Murphy,

1996).

11





Rankings RANKING SYSTEMS: THE ARBITRARY NATURE

OF DECISION CRITERIA

Which Publications to Include: The Need to

Become More Global and Comprehensive

Should be ranked according to productivity, impact,

and/or some surrogate for quality?

Why Only Journal Articles?

Why English Only?

12





Rankings Assessing Quality: Journals Fail as Proxies for

Article Quality

Assessing Influence: Being Prolific Doesn’t

Guarantee Impact

Weighting Single Versus Multiauthored Articles: No,

It Is Not All the Same

Weighting the First Author: Recognizing Leadership

13





Rankings DISCUSSION

“ . . . when we, as academics, plead powerlessness

in choosing what we research . . .because of

incentive and reward systems. . . , we dehumanize

our careers and our lives.”—Sara L. Rynes, Editor-

in-Chief

Professor of Management & Organizations,

University of Iowa

14





Rankings we recommend that academia

(a) institute a temporary moratorium on institutional

rankings;

(b) attempt to better understand and subsequently

address the macrolevel dynamics that implicitly

collude in keeping such dysfunctional ranking

systems in place;

(c) redesign individual rankings to render them

more globally inclusive, accurate, and equitable;

and

(d)create environments that foster and appreciate

excellent scholarship on the questions that matter

most to business and society.15





Rankings Peter Rathjen—proclaimed that the main goal of

university research is to tackle society’s problems

(Buckridge, 2008). Rather than emphasizing the

university’s need to achieve top rankings,

he underscored its research mission: to contribute

to “both the store of human knowledge and the

innovation that will underpin economic advance[s].”

He went on to implicitly expose the dysfunctional

institutional pressures on the university, including

the “challenging research environment made more

demanding by the threat of the now defunct

Research Quality Framework (RQF).”

16





Rankings The Future of Scholarship:Reclaiming the

Patrimony of Nalanda

The 21st century needs more international,

integrative, interesting, and important

research.

the question always remains: “Has the

scholar asked an important question and

investigated it in such a way that it has the

potential to advance societal understanding

and well-being?”

17





Rankings

18

Rankin

g

count

Fair

popula

r competition

communit

y

sense

or

nonsens

e



What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?

David A. Whetten

1989 Illinois University

David A. Whetten

Brigham Young University

AOM 55th President (2000)

BS, MS, Brigham Young University

PhD, Cornell University

19




This article is organized around three key

questions:

(a) What are the building blocks of theory

development?

(b) What is a legitimate value-added

contribution to theory development?

(c) What factors are considered in judging

conceptual papers?

20




The first section describes the

constituent elements of a theory.

The second section uses this

framework to establish standards for

the theory-development process.

The third section summarizes the

expectations of reviewers regarding

the substantive contribution and

appropriateness of AMR papers.

21




(a) What are the building blocks of theory

development?

Dubin (1978) a complete theory must contain four

essential elements: “what, how, why, and who,

where, when”

What

Which factors (variables, constructs, concepts)

logically should be considered as part of the

explanation of the social or individual phenomena

of interest two criteria exist for judging the extent to

which we have included the “right” factors

comprehensiveness (i.e,, are all relevant factors

included?) and parsimony (i.e., should some

factors be deleted because they add little additional

value to our understanding?)

22




How

How are they related? Operationally this involves using

"arrows" to connect the "boxes."

What and How elements constitute the domain or

subject of the theory.

In particular, formal models aid theory developers and

users to assess the balance between parsimony and

completeness.

23

Means versus Ends in Opaque Institutional Fields:

Trading off Compliance and Achievement in Sustainability

Standard Adoption.




Why

What are the underlying psychological, economic,

or social dynamics that justify the selection of

factors and the proposed causal relationships?

This rationale constitutes the theory‘s

assumptions—the theoretical glue that welds the

model together.

During the theory-development process, logic

replaces data as the basis for evaluation.

The mission of a theory-development journal is to

challenge and extend existing knowledge, not

simply to rewrite it.

24




Why

Combining the Hows and the Whats produces the

typical model, from which testable propositions can

be derived.

The primary difference between propositions and

hypotheses is that propositions involve concepts,

whereas hypotheses require measures.

What and How describe; only Why explains.

25




Who, Where, When

Scholars who study the effects of time and context

on people and events keep asking nagging

questions like.

In their efforts to understand a social phenomenon

they tend to consider it only in familiar

surroundings and at one point in time.

26




(b) What is a legitimate value-added contribution to

theory development?

Most organizational scholars are not going to

generate a new theory from scratch. Instead, they

generally work on improving what already exists.

Poincare (1903) aptly noted, "Science is facts, just

as houses are made of stone. . . . But a pile of

stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is

not necessarily science.“

Therefore, theoretical insights come from

demonstrating how the addition of a new variable

significantly alters our understanding of the

phenomena by reorganizing our causal maps.

27




Three broad themes underlie this section:

First, proposed improvements addressing only a

single element of an existing theory are seldom

judged to be sufficient.

Second, theoretical critiques should marshal

compelling evidence. This evidence can be logical,

empirical, or epistemological.

Third, in general, theoretical critiques should

propose remedies or alternatives. critics should

share responsibility for crafting improved

conceptualizations.

28




(c) What factors are considered in judging

conceptual papers?

reviewers consider other factors, including clarity of

expression, impact on research, timeliness, and

relevance.

The following list of seven key questions, roughly in

the order of frequency in which they are invoked,

summarizes the concerns raised most frequently

by our reviewers.

“What's new? So what? Why so? Well done? Done

well? Why now? Who cares?”

29




What's new?

Does the paper make a significant, value-added

contribution to current thinking? (modifications or

extensions of current theories)

So what?

Will the theory likely change the practice of

organizational science in this area?

the purpose of the standard theoretical paper

should be to alter research practice, not simply to

tweak a conceptual model in ways that are of little

consequence.

30



What Constitutes a Theoretical

Contribution?

Why so?

Are the underlying logic and supporting evidence

compelling? Are the author's assumptions explicit?

Are the author's views believable?

Theory development papers should be built on a

foundation of convincing argumentation and

grounded in reasonable, explicit views of human

nature and organizational practice.

31




Well done?

Does the paper reflect seasoned thinking,

conveying completeness and thoroughness?

Are multiple theoretical elements (What, How, Why,

When-Where-Who) covered, giving the paper a

conceptually well-rounded, rather than a

superficial, quality?

Do the arguments reflect a broad, current

understanding of the subject?

If propositions are included, are they used

properly? Does the argument have any glaring

logical flaws?

32



Done well?

well written? flow logically? central ideas easily

accessed? Is it enjoyable to read? long enough to

cover the subject but short enough to be

interesting? format and content consistent with the

specifications in the Notice to Contributors?

Why now?

Is this topic of contemporary interest to scholars in

this area?

Will it likely advance current discussions, stimulate

new discussions, or revitalize old discussions?

33




Who cares?

What percentage of academic readers are

interested in this topic? A paper may be technically

adequate but inherently uninteresting to most of

our broad audience.

In conclusion

the theory-development process and criteria for

judging theoretical contributions need to be broadly

understood and accepted so that editors and

contributors can communicate effectively.

34




Kevin G. Corley

([email protected]) is an

associate professor of management in

the W. P. Carey School of Business at

Arizona State University and an

associate editor of the Academy of

Management Journal. He received his

Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State

University. His research interests

focus on sensemaking and organizing

processes, especially in relation to

organizational change and identity,

image, identification, and knowledge.35



contribution?

Dennis A. Gioia ([email protected]) is the Klein Professor of Management in the Smeal College of Business at The Pennsylvania State University. His doctoral degree is from Florida State. Previously he worked as an engineer for Boeing Aerospace at Cape Kennedy during the Apollo program and for Ford as corporate recall coordinator. Current theory/research focuses on the ways in which identity and image relate to sensemaking, sensegiving, and organizational change.



SYNTHESIZING CURRENT VIEWS ON “WHAT CONSTITUTES A THEORETICAL

CONTRIBUTION”

36



contribution?



Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: what

constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of Management Review,36(1),

12-32.37



References Peng, M. W., & Dess, G. G. (2010). In the spirit of

scholarship. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 9(2), 282-298.

Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A. W. (2009). When knowledge wins:

Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic

rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1),

72-95.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical

contribution?. Academy of management review, 14(4), 490-495.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory

building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy

of Management Review,36(1), 12-32.

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Minute_Manager

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rush 38



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Minute_Manager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rush

high level management theory 陳茂盛--1031113

Documents