Introduction to Organization Theory

This version: 27.07.2017 (First draft; dates still potentially subject to change)

Credits This syllabus draws heavily on fantastic PhD course syllabi by Joel Baum and Amy Hillman. Moreover, I am including materials from courses I took part in myself, such as by Royston Greenwood. Course instructors Name: Prof. Dr. Oliver Alexy Room: 2011 (Entrepreneurship Center in Garching, Lichtenbergstr. 6) Tel.: +49 89 289 52 803 e-mail: [email protected]

Application procedure Please submit to me a cover letter and up-to-date academic resume. In your cover letter, please specify the topic and state of your PhD thesis (if you have no topic yet, say that), and why and how you think that taking this specific course will help you become a better scholar, and what scholar you would like to become. Course aims

What this course is In this course, we want to familiarize students early in their PhD with organization theory—this should be the first course you take on this topic. We will first scrutinize what theory is and how you enter an academic conversation, before we move on to jointly discuss eight “brands” of theory that are currently influential in management research. Of course, this list is not exclusive, and we strongly encourage you to (at least!) use this course as a launch pad to endeavor on more in-depth explorations of those branches of management theory that are most relevant to you. Finally, we will look at how contributions to theory can be made today.

While we welcome students from all disciplines of business administration, we will focus largely on those subfields that are represented by Academy of Management division that conduct research at the firm-level.

What this course is not - A paper writing class – while we will include interactive elements and homework to guide you toward exploiting what you will learn in this course, we will not discuss your working papers or R&Rs. - A listening-only class – as laid out below, most materials will be presented by you. There are lots of studies that show that this is a far better way of learning than us trying to kill you by PowerPoint.

Course objectives

Knowledge Objectives In this course, we strive to educate you about what theory is, and what makes a good contribution to theory. From this basis, we will look at several mainstream management theories that found the cornerstone of much

1

of today’s debate of management theory at the level of the firm. Understanding what theory is and being able to navigate different theoretical contexts easily is a must for everyone trying to embark on a PhD endeavor.

Skills Objectives • Improve diagnostic and analytical skills • Enhance verbal skills via class and group discussions • Build up critical thinking and interpretation skills

Learning Objectives At the end of this course, students will be able to demonstrate understanding, critical assessment and application of the following: • Academic scholarship as different parallel conversations, and identification of your own position • The definition of management and organization theory, and a theoretical contribution in this space • Fundamentals of mainstream organization theories so as to understand related conversations and participate in more advanced courses on theories of specific subfields of management

Preliminary schedule Please see “Course Outline” for details on each session’s content and required preparations. All courses take place at the Entrepreneurship Research Institute (Building 5433) at Garching (Room 2001), from 9am-12pm.

Note: Dates potentially still subject to change.

Session Date Topic 1 20.10. What is good theory? 2 27.10. Building good theory 3 3.11. Where do current theories come from? 4 10.11. (Structural) contingency theory 5 17.11. Behavioral theory of the firm 6 24.11. Resource-based view 7 8.12. Resource-dependence theory 8 15.12. Network theory 9 12.1. Institutional theory 10 19.1. Population ecology 11 26.1. Theorizing on empirical data 12 2.2. Contributing to the theoretical debate 13 9.2. Where can new theories come from? 14 16.2. Presentations (see “Assessment”)

Core readings There is no magic book that will teach you how to become a great organization theorist. All that we can provide

2

you with are the essential ingredients – knowledge about what theory and theorizing are, as well as information about which theories exist, what they say, and how you can interact with them. The best way to do so is through a selection and combination of suitable academic articles, which are listed separately.

In case you wish to do additional, voluntary reading beyond this course, we recommend the following books: • Aldrich, H.E. and Ruef, M. (newest edition). Organizations Evolving. Sage • Ott, J.S., Shafritz, J.M., and Jang, Y.S. (newest edition). Classic Readings in Organization Theory. Wadsworth. • Scott, W.R. and Davis, G.F. (newest edition). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives. Pearson International Edition. • In German: Kieser, A., Ebers, M. (newest edition). Organisationstheorien. Kohlhammer.

Course procedures Have Fun Contributing new theoretical insights to the academic debate is the very core of our profession. In turn, our goal is to equip you with the core set of skills that are necessary to do so. Applying principles of academic inquiry, rigorously and in the right context, is what any scholar wants to do! Put differently (and bluntly), if you do not enjoy the subject matter of this class, you might want to reconsider some of your career decisions.

Prepare and Participate Actively To make this class a success for everyone, we need you to prepare for class and participate in class every single week. There is a lot of material that we want to cover, and this material is (1) ordered consecutively (so you need the early sessions to really understand what we are doing in the later ones) and (2) the very foundation of anything else you will do in your PhD, such as other classes offered by us. Thus, in order to get the most out of this course, we ask you to prepare for each class, so that you will be capable of discussing the assigned readings. Note that for each session, we have provided assignment questions to guide your preparation. From the second week onward, each reading will be assigned to several “primary” reviewers, one of which will be chosen to critically review the reading and comment on it. A second primary reviewer will be asked to provide additional commentary, either agreeing or disagreeing with the first reviewer. The discussion will then be open to the class. In particular for sessions 5-11, note that the focus of the reviews and the discussion should not be whether you think an article is “good” or “bad” but on what it proposes – according to this article, what is theory (sessions 1-3, 11, 13), what is an organization (sessions 4-10, 13) and what does it do, how does it do it, and why? In addition, try to formulate a coherent story around all articles: jointly, what do they say? How does it link to what you know, what you have learnt in other PhD classes, and to earlier session in this very course?

We highly recommended that you prepare notes in sufficient detail to enable your regular participation in the discussion. You are encouraged to prepare for class with your colleagues, however, each member of the class should be fully conversant in the material — expect to be cold-called in class. You should be able to outline the topic that each reading addresses, describe the core points of the reading and most importantly, offer your analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the reading’s central argument. For exemplar articles, you should be able to critically assess their effectiveness. If for some reason you are not prepared please let me know before the start of class to save us both the embarrassment of my calling on you.

3

Give feedback Your feedback – in class or in private – on any aspect of this course is welcome at any time. It can help make this course an excellent experience for you and for us. We encourage you to contact us via email and we will respond as soon as possible (usually within the same day the email is received). If you wish to see one of us in person, please let us know so that we can prepare. Come prepared.

Assessment Attendance and participation are mandatory, and regular unexcused absence or poor preparation will lead to your being banned from the course. In particular, I will tolerate you missing two sessions at most, and I expect written summaries of the contents of those sessions prior to class (or after class, in case of illness or other mitigating circumstances): 3-5 pages, single-spaced, 12pt, Times New Roman.

In addition, all the assignments below are mandatory, irrespective of whether you need a specific grade from this course: in case you need a grade for this course, please let me know by the second session of class at the latest, otherwise, I will grade you pass/fail; in either case, your grade is constructed as specified below.

Participation (20% of the course grade)

Course Assignments (80% of the course grade) 1. Progress Report 1: Problem Definition (1-2 pages, typed, double-spaced). Sketch a research problem at the level of the firm that interests you. Describe why, in your view an understanding of this problem is relevant to organization theory scholars and practitioners. Due Session 2. 5% of course grade 2. Progress Report 2: Literature Search. What do you consider the 5-10 core articles that define the recent conversation around your research question? Format your reading list as a list of references following the format used in the Academy of Management Journal. Due Session 3. 2.5% of course grade 3. Progress Report 3: Location of the debate and presentation of related questions or hypotheses (5-7 pages, typed, double-spaced). Discuss possible theoretical perspectives that address your research problem. To do so, formally state your research question and no fewer than three ways in which answering it will help advance organization theory in this area. Revise your research problem if you find that it has already been addressed in previous research. In doing so, clearly elaborate what sort of paper you intend to write (theory, empirical, mathematical). This report should incorporate Reports 1 and 2. Due Session 13. 15% of course grade 4. Presentations and Critical Commentary: Present Progress Report 3 (10-15 minutes) in class and prepare (2-3 pages, typed, double-spaced) for one other students’ Progress Report 3s. Be prepared to summarize your commentary for the course. Both your presentation grade and your commentary grade will largely be determined by your peers. Session 14 will be entirely dedicated to these presentations and discussions. Due Session 14. Presentation: 10% of course grade; Commentary: 7.5% of course grade 5. Final Report (15-20 pages, typed, double-spaced). Based on theory and hypotheses developed in Progress Report 3, develop a research proposal for submission to your PhD advisor, to a conference, or to a funding agency such as the DFG. Revise your ideas based on comments you receive from reviewers. Your proposal should include a detailed description of your research design, the data required to test your hypotheses, and methods used to collect (and analyse) the data. What implications does your proposed research have for the future? Do you have a program of research in mind? If so, describe it. Due two

4

weeks after Session 14. 40% of the course grade

It is important to appreciate that every member of the class is a co-producer of the class discussion, listen carefully to one another and attempt to build on or constructively critique prior comments. An effective participant: • Is a good listener • Makes points relevant to the ongoing discussion • Makes comments that add to our understanding of the reading or article • Is willing to challenge ideas that are being expressed • Integrates material from past classes, other courses If you need to receive a grade for this course, I will ask each of the other students to submit a one-page evaluation and grade out of 20, based on these five criteria, for you. These scores will be averaged with one assigned by me to determine your 20% participation grade.

Course outline Part I – Understanding theory

Session 1. What is good theory? • Davis, M. 1971. That’s interesting! Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 309-344. • Whetten, D. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 4: 490-495. • Bacharach, S. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14: 496-515. • Sutton, R. & Staw, B. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384. • Weick, K. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385-390. • DiMaggio, P. 1995. Comments on “what theory is not.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 391-397. • Bartunek, J., Rynes, S. & Ireland, D. 2006. What makes management research interesting and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49: 9-15. • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Rindova, V. 2008. Publishing theory when you are new to the game. Academy of Management Review, 33: 300-303. o Corley, K. & Gioia, D. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36: 12-32. • Be prepared to answer the following questions: o What is theory? o What is good theory? o What is good theory good for? Session 2. Building good theory • Huff, A.S., 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. Sage. Chapters 1-5 (pp. ix-63) • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Smith, K. & Hitt, M. 2005. Introduction: The process of developing management theory, Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-8.

5

o Smith, K. & Hitt, M. 2005. Epilogue: Learning to develop theory from the masters, Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, Oxford University Press, pp. 572-589. • Be prepared to answer the following questions: o How does theory advance? o What do you need to do if you want to be the one advancing theory? Session 3. Where do current theories come from? • Weick, K. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14: 516-531. • Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532-550. • Poole, M. & Van de Ven, A. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562-578. • Lewis, M. & Grimes, A. 1999. Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24: 672-690. • Whetten, D., Felin, T. & King, B. 2009. The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35: 537-563. • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Two chapters out of Great Minds in Management (choose from organization-level theories).

Part II – Understanding organization theory Please begin by reading: Scott, W. R. 2004. Reflections on a half-century of organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 30: xii-21. For each session, be prepared to answer the following questions: • Where does this theory come from – note how ‘where’ includes the geographic origin, the key people involved, and the context in which the theory emerged? • What are the core tenets of this theory: key assumptions, key constructs, key predictions? • What is the role of and reason of existence for the firm and for managers in this theory? • If you had to express this theory as a metaphor, what would it be? After Part II, be prepared to state which theories you personally like better, and why.

Session 4: (Structural) Contingency Theory • Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock. Chapter 6. • Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W. 1967. Organization and Environment. Harvard. Chapter 6. • Donaldson, L. (ed.). 1967. Contingency Theory. Dartmouth. Introduction • Child, J. 1972. Organization structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1-22. • Sine, W.D., Mitsuhashi, H., Kirsch, D.A. 2006. Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal Structure and New Venture Performance in Emerging Economic Sectors, Academy of Management Review, 49(1): 121- 132. • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Adler, P.L., Goldoftas, B., Levine, D.I. 1999. Flexibility versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System, Organization Science, 10(1)43-68.

6

o Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., Ridderstråle, J. 2001. Knowledge as a contingency variable: Do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure? Organization Science, 13(3): 274-289. o Ambos, T. C. & Birkinshaw, J. 2010. How do new ventures evolve? An inductive study of archetype changes in science-based ventures. Organization Science, 21(6): 1125-1140.

Session 5: Behavioral Theory of the Firm • Argote, L. & Greve, H. R. (2007). A behavioral theory of the firm—40 years and counting: Introduction and impact. Organization Science, 18(3): 337-349. • Cyert, R. M. & March, J.G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chapters 7 and 9 • Cyert, R.M., March, J.G. (1964). The behavioral theory of the firm: A behavioral science-economics amalgam, in: Cooper, W.W., Leavitt, H.J., Shelly, M.W. (eds.). New perspectives in organization research. John Wiley & Sons: Chapter 16. • March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71- 87. • Sproull, L. (2010). Organzational Learning. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 28, 59-69. • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Greve, H. R. (2003). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6): 685-702. o Beckmann, C.M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 741-758. o Baum, J. A. C. & Dahlin, K. B. (2007). Aspiration performance and railroads’ patterns of learning from train wrecks and crashes. Organization Science, 18(3): 368-385.

Session 6: Resource-based view (and a little knowledge-based view and capabilities) • Rumelt, R. P. 1984. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. B. Lamb (Ed.), Competitive strategic management: 556-570. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. • Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99- 120. • Kogut, B. & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397. • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533. • Helfat, C. E. & Peteraf, M. A. 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 997-1010. • Priem, R., Butler, J., & Li, S. 2013. Toward reimagining strategy research: Retrospection and prospection on the 2011 AMR decade award article. Academy of Management Review, forthcoming. • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Barney, J. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32: 1231-1241. o Winter, S. G. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal: 159-184. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

7

o Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12): 1504-1511. o The paper and debate: 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.Priem, R. L. & Butler, J. E. 2001. Tautology in the resource-based view and the implications of externally determined resource value: Further comments. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 57-66.

Session 7: Resource-dependence theory • Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective (2003 classic ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. pp. 43-54, 106-112, and Chapter 10 • Casciaro, T. & Piskorski, M. J. 2005. Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2): 167-199. • Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. 2009. Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6): 1404-1427. • Wry, T., Cobb, J. A., & Aldrich, H. E. (2013). More than a Metaphor: Assessing the Historical Legacy of Resource Dependence and its Contemporary Promise as a Theory of Environmental Complexity. The Academy of Management Annals, 1-70. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2013.781862 • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1): 31- 41. o Jacobs, D. (1974). Dependency and vulnerability: An exchange approach to the control of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(1): 45-59. o Cook, K. S. (1977). Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations. The Sociological Quarterly, 18(1): 62-82. o Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15(2): 241-265. o Davis, F. D., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Resource Dependence Theory: Past and Future. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 28, 21-42.

Session 8: Network theory • Granovetter, M. S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481-510. • Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(s1): S95. • Gulati, R. & Gargiulo, M. 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1439-1493. • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1): 116-145. • Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35-67.

8

• Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. 2010. It's the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1): 62-77. • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360- 1380. o Gargiulo, M. 1993. Two-step leverage: Managing constraint in organizational politics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1): 1-19. o Gulati, R. 1995. Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4): 619-652. o Dyer, J. H. & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660-679. o Burt, R. S. 2007. Secondhand brokerage: Evidence on the importance of local structure for managers, bankers, and analysts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 119-148.

Session 9: Institutional theory • Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363. • DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160. • Aldrich, H. E. & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4): 645-670. • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610. • Greenwood, R. & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27-48. • Rowan, B. (2010). Organizational Institutionalism at Stanford: Reflections on the Foundations of a 30- Year Theoretical Research Program. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 28, 3-19. • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145-179. o Dacin, M. T., Munir, K., & Tracey, P. (2010). Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1393- 1418. o Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 289-307.

Session 10: Population ecology • Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 929-964. • Carroll, G. R. (1984). Organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology, 10: 71-93. • Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49: 149-164.

9

• Oliver, C. (1988). The collective strategy framework: An application to competing predictions of isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4): 543-561. Note: This reading is correct here. • Amburgey, T. L. (2010). Population ecology. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 28, 43-57. • Negro, G., Koçak, Ö., & Hsu, G. (2010). Research on categories in the sociology of organizations. In G. Hsu & G. Negro & Ö. Koçak (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 31: 3-35: Emerald. • Voluntary supplementary reading: o Barnett, W. P. & Hansen, M. T. (1996). The red queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1): 139-157. o Hsu, G. (2006). Jacks of all trades and masters of none: Audiences' reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3): 420-450. o Amburgey, T. L., & Rao, H. (1996). Organizational Ecology: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1265-1286.

Part III – Contributing to organization theory

Session 11. Theorizing on empirical data • First version of what will later be “Alexy, O. & George, G. 2013. Category divergence, straddling, and currency: Open innovation and the legitimation of illegitimate categories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 173-203” – the 2008 AoM conference submission! • Colquitt, J.A. and George, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ Part 1: Topic Choice, Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 3, 432–435. • Bono, J.E. and McNamara, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ —Part 2: Research Design, Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 4, 657–660. • Grant, A.M. and Pollock, T.G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ — Part 3: Setting the Hook, Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 5, 873–879. • Sparrowe, R.T. and Mayer, K.J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ — Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses, Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 6, 1098–1102. • Zhang, Y.A. and Shaw, J.D. (2011). Publishing in AMJ — Part 5: Crafting the Methods and Results, Academy of Management Journal 2012, Vol. 55, No. 1, 8–12. • Geletkanycz, M. and Corley, K. (2011). Publishing in AMJ – Part 6: Discussing the Implications, Academy of Management Journal 2012, Vol. 55, No. 2, 256–260. • Bansal, P.T. and Corley, K. (2011). Publishing in AMJ — Part 7: What’s Different about Qualitative Research?, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, No. 3, 509-513. • George, G. 2012. Publishing in AMJ for non-U.S. Authors. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, No. 5, 1023-1026. • Be prepared to answer this question: how do you write well?

Session 12. Contributing to the theoretical debate – two recent examples • All version of, and all reviewer letters and responses on: Alexy, O. & George, G. 2013. Category divergence, straddling, and currency: Open innovation and the legitimation of illegitimate categories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 173-203. • Be prepared to answer this question: what went wrong?

10

Session 13. Where can new theories come from? • Alvesson, M. & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36: 247-271. • Boxenbaum, E. & Rouleau, L. 2011. New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36: 272-296. • Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 318-337. • Shepherd, D. & Sutcliffe, K. 2011. Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of organization. Academy of Management Review, 36: 361-380. • Suddaby, R., Hardy, C. & Huy, Q. 2011. Where are the new theories of organizations? Academy of Management Review, 36: 236-246. • Puranam, P., Alexy, O. and Reitzig, M.G. 2013. What’s “new” about new forms of organizing? Working Paper. • Be prepared to answer this question: how can I make a contribution to organization theory?

Session 14. Presentations and Commentaries Note: To be submitted two days in advance via Moodle

11