The role of coercive forces in organization design adoption

[para.1]: "Roberts and Greenwood (1997) combine transaction cost economics (TCE) and institutional theory to explain how firms make organizational design adoption choices, based on decision makers' preconscious, insti tutionally determined set of candidate organization designs and postcon scious assessments of their efficiency. The constrained-efficiency frame work adopts the TCE assumption that competition leads organizations to seek greater efficiency. It also adopts institutional theory assumptions that mimetic and normative forces contribute models of organizational design by recognizing that social forces create the candidate models of organization designs considered by decision makers. This synthesis is an important first step in marrying the explanatory power of each per spective and in overcoming the limitations of each. The constrained efficiency framework makes an important contribution toward creating a synthesis of the two perspectives that is neither under- nor oversocialized (Granovetter, 1985)."</p

Innovation History and Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View Analysis of Manufacturing Technology Innovations

The resource-based view of the firm provides the logic for hypothesizing that firms will have different longitudinal patterns of manufacturing innovation adoption in plants. Early innovators were hypothesized to have higher levels of competitive performance. Results provided support for the hypotheses. Discussion centered on the capacity to innovate.</p

Substitution or symbolic effects? A reexamination of corporate governance and firm performance

In this paper, we use a sample of large Canadian corporations to test the substitution hypothesis and the symbolic hypothesis. We find that the positive effect of board independence on firm performance declines as managerial ownership increases. This effect becomes non-positive when highly concentrated managerial ownership makes independent board more symbolic than effective.  </p

Extending the reach and impact of management research: a question of legitimacy

Purpose The issues associated with the production and dissemination of management research have been widely debated amongst administrators, scholars and policymakers for decades. However, few studies to date have examined this issue at the level of the individual scholar. The purpose of this paper is to view a management scholar’s choice of knowledge dissemination (KD) outlets as a legitimacy judgment embedded in their social structure and community norms. Design/methodology/approach To explore this, the authors conduct a sequential mixed-methods study. The study uses qualitative methods, including one-on-one interviews (n=29) and five workshops (n=79) with administrators, management scholars, students and external community members (practitioners and policymakers). In addition, the authors analyzed the KD outcomes of 524 management scholars at seven Canadian universities drawn from a stratified sample of business schools. Findings The results of the research demonstrate the complex interaction between individual scholar-level factors, including socialization (degree type and practitioner experience) and tenure, and the institutional-level factors, such as strategic orientation and accreditation, and how these influence KD judgments. Specifically, the authors find that institutional factors (such as tenure and promotion) are a central predictor of scholarly KD; in contrast, the authors find that individual-level factors including degree, professional experience and career stage influence non-scholarly KD. Originality/value The results suggest that as management scholars face increasing pressure to demonstrate impact beyond academia, it may be more difficult than simply adapting the reward system. Specifically, the authors suggest that administrators and policymakers will have to consider individual factors, including their academic training (including interdisciplinary training), previous practitioner experience and career stage.</p

The business school scorecard: Examining the systematic sources of business school value

Stakeholder relationships are a critical resource that contribute to or inhibit value creation. Building on this assertion, we explore the value of the business school at a stakeholder level. We draw on research by the Canadian multistakeholder working group, the Business School Research Network (BSRN), which was established to facilitate collaborative interinstitutional research on the management and practice of business schools. We provide a conceptual model of the value chain and associated scorecard that take into account the sources of value judgments that pertain to a business school at the stakeholder-level.</p