Comments on: Big Think in Management Research http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/03/13/big-think-in-management-research/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:12:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: David Hoopes http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/03/13/big-think-in-management-research/#comment-69908 David Hoopes Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:52:57 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/?p=1426#comment-69908 Well, it is kind of crazy to pursue anything but straight-forward data analysis if you want to get tenure anywhere. Even then, it's a bit of a crap shoot. It's much safer to get into a stream of work that relies on easy-to-get second source data. And, as a counter-example to my complaining about too many "big" ideas, one need only look at the big streams of empirical work to find the absence of any ideas at all (much less too many big ones). Well, it is kind of crazy to pursue anything but straight-forward data analysis if you want to get tenure anywhere. Even then, it’s a bit of a crap shoot. It’s much safer to get into a stream of work that relies on easy-to-get second source data. And, as a counter-example to my complaining about too many “big” ideas, one need only look at the big streams of empirical work to find the absence of any ideas at all (much less too many big ones).

]]> By: stevphel http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/03/13/big-think-in-management-research/#comment-69870 stevphel Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:34:23 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/?p=1426#comment-69870 I agree, David. My idea of a big question is one that is intimately related to practice. Of course, there is very little incentive in the system to undertake field research - tenure clocks ticking and all that. Interesting presidential address by Ken Smith in the latest AMR about being pragmatic in the face of orthodoxy. I agree, David. My idea of a big question is one that is intimately related to practice. Of course, there is very little incentive in the system to undertake field research - tenure clocks ticking and all that. Interesting presidential address by Ken Smith in the latest AMR about being pragmatic in the face of orthodoxy.

]]> By: David Hoopes http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/03/13/big-think-in-management-research/#comment-69866 David Hoopes Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:03:36 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/?p=1426#comment-69866 I've tended to think that strategy and org sci scholars are way ahead of themselves in attempting big think. To wit: most areas where there is real big think have done quite a bit of mapping out of basics: physics, biology. Think of all the taxonomic work that preceded Darwin. Did not Darwin himself do a lot of field work. I chaired a symposium at AoM in 2003 and Rumelt said he thought their was too much work going on at 60,000 feet. The problem is that scholars just have no clue about what goes on in firms that maps tightly on to their stories. If I had a dollar for every talk I've heard or paper I've read where it seemed clear to me the author/presenter could no more describe particular behavior than they could jump over the moon. The RBV is a perfect example where people get so tied up by describing "resources" and "tacit" knowledge by not being grounded. I am not!!!! suggesting we do "grounded" work. For example, most people who talk about entrepreneurship have no idea what it takes to make an entrepreneurial venture successful. I'm repeating an earlier commeny, but at a Harvard Entrepreneurship conference almost every single paper was about where ideas come from. At the end I said, you know there are good ideas everywhere. What separates the successful entrepreneur from everyone else is execution. It just is. But, all we hear about are all these fancy ideas about the philosophy of ideas: is an idea there if no one has thought it? Who cares? Does an idea matter if no one can do it? So, I think strategy and org science are far too hung up on big ideas that lack substance. Big ideas are fine. But, for the most part we aren't willing to get our hands dirty enough to find out what's happening. We only need one or two arm chair geniuses. I’ve tended to think that strategy and org sci scholars are way ahead of themselves in attempting big think. To wit: most areas where there is real big think have done quite a bit of mapping out of basics: physics, biology. Think of all the taxonomic work that preceded Darwin. Did not Darwin himself do a lot of field work. I chaired a symposium at AoM in 2003 and Rumelt said he thought their was too much work going on at 60,000 feet. The problem is that scholars just have no clue about what goes on in firms that maps tightly on to their stories. If I had a dollar for every talk I’ve heard or paper I’ve read where it seemed clear to me the author/presenter could no more describe particular behavior than they could jump over the moon. The RBV is a perfect example where people get so tied up by describing “resources” and “tacit” knowledge by not being grounded. I am not!!!! suggesting we do “grounded” work. For example, most people who talk about entrepreneurship have no idea what it takes to make an entrepreneurial venture successful. I’m repeating an earlier commeny, but at a Harvard Entrepreneurship conference almost every single paper was about where ideas come from. At the end I said, you know there are good ideas everywhere. What separates the successful entrepreneur from everyone else is execution. It just is. But, all we hear about are all these fancy ideas about the philosophy of ideas: is an idea there if no one has thought it? Who cares? Does an idea matter if no one can do it?

So, I think strategy and org science are far too hung up on big ideas that lack substance. Big ideas are fine. But, for the most part we aren’t willing to get our hands dirty enough to find out what’s happening. We only need one or two arm chair geniuses.

]]> By: stevphel http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/03/13/big-think-in-management-research/#comment-69831 stevphel Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:05:52 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/?p=1426#comment-69831 Can we even come up with a list of the "big questions" in strategy research in 2008? Can we even come up with a list of the “big questions” in strategy research in 2008?

]]>