Archive for June, 2010
| Peter Klein |
Hold your accountant jokes, everybody, because the journal Accounting, Organizations, and Society, along with IESE Business School and Sda Bocconi School of Management, is sponsoring a workshop on creativity and it looks really interesting. The workshop, “Debating the Link Between Creativity and Control,” takes place 4–5 April 2011 in Barcelona. Here’s the blurb:
Creativity is more important today than ever before. In fact, in current hypercompetitive environments, where the comparative advantage is easily eroded by technological evolution and by imitative or innovative action of competitors, firms can only react by means of creative processes aimed at renewing market strategies and product lines. Different streams of research on creativity have been developed over time, evolving from different sources, focusing on somewhat different aspects and suggesting a rich set of managerial results.
The aim of the workshop is to start an interdisciplinary debate on creativity, calling together contributors from psychology, sociology, management, and accounting domains. The discussion will explore the link between creativity and control, seen as a promising stream of research not only because of its infancy but most important because of its relevance to the world of management. The event will contribute to unveiling how the dialog between different disciplinary perspectives may lead to a deeper understanding on how to control creativity processes, thanks to the potential synergies deriving from the study of this phenomenon from different theoretical angles.
Further details and submission info below the fold. (more…)
| Peter Klein |
The Amsterdam Center for Entrepreneurship (ACE) is sponsoring a two-day workshop starting tomorrow, 28 June, on “The Development of Entrepreneurial Capabilities.” Participants include Benson Honig, Gary Dushnitsky, Zoltan Acs, David Audretsch, Thomas Astebro, ACE Director Mirjam van Praag, and former O&M guest blogger Chihmao Hsieh. For more information see the conference program. Good stuff!
| Nicolai Foss |
Karl Weick may not really qualify as a bona fide pomo. He writes well and clearly and much of his work is quite in the mainstream of management research. Still, he has written about the favorite pomo notion of reflexivity (e.g., here), his authority is often invoked in prominent pomo tracts in management (e.g., here), and his notion of sensemaking has a distinct pomo connotation.
Weick’s work has recently been subject to close examination by my CBS colleague, Thomas Basbøll. In a recently published paper, “Softly Constrained Imagination: Plagiarism and Misprision in the Theory of Organizational Sensemaking,” Basbøll argues that Weick’s work suffers from “significant instances of plagiarism and misreading” (p. 164). Wow! Here is the abstract:
While Karl Weick’s writings have been very influential in contemporary work on organizations, his scholarship is rarely subjected to critical scrutiny. Indeed, despite its open ‘breaching’ of the conventions of much academic writing, Weick’s work has been widely celebrated as ‘first-rate scholarship.’ As it turns out, however, his ‘softly constrained’ textual practices are rendered doubtful by both misreading and plagiarism, which makes his work resemble ‘poetry’ in a much stronger sense than perhaps originally intended. This paper draws inspiration from literary theory to analyze three cases of questionable scholarship in Weick’s 1995 book Sensemaking in organizations, framing them in the context of standard formulations of the methodology of sensemaking drawn from the literature. It concludes that we need to rethink our tolerance of the sensemaking style and re-affirm a commitment to more traditional academic constraints.
| Dick Langlois |
The Schumpeter Society conference in Aalborg has just ended, and I’m on the train to Copenhagen before heading home tomorrow. Like Peter, I was also at the ISNIE conference in Stirling. Of the three conferences I attended on this trip, ISNIE gets the award for best substance, something I judge by whether I learned something interesting that I hadn’t known. Great plenaries with Ostrom and Williamson, as well as Bruno Frey on the economics of happiness and Pablo Spiller on regulation. I hadn’t been familiar with Spiller’s concept of third-party opportunism in government contracting. Some of the parallel sessions were also good, including sessions involving always-reliable people like Lee Alston and Gary Libecap. But perhaps the most interesting papers I heard were by Henry Smith of Harvard Law School, whom I had never met before.
property sets up modular structures that manage the complexity of the interactions of actors with respect to resources. A starting point for property is to use an exclusion strategy to define the “thing” and then to delineate rights wholesale as a first cut through the interface between the bubble defined by the exclusion strategy and the rest of the world. Thus, . . . the interface between the basic package of rights to a car and the rest of the world is a simple one behind which much information is hidden. In this way, the structure of rights is modular. As a method of managing complexity modularity relies on a system’s being nearly decomposable, that is, one in which there are clusters of elements that interact relatively intensely with each other but which interact more sparsely with elements of other clusters.
This is a version of what lawyers call the in rem view. What I learned that I hadn’t known is that this is the polar opposite of Coase’s theory of property rights. It turns out that Coase is an extreme legal realist. That is, like legal realists, Coase thinks of property as a bundle of rights to do specific things — emit sparks, make noise, etc. The trouble with this view is that it is non-modular (more technically: non-decomposable) and creates a spaghetti-tangle of interactions among rights holders that raises transaction costs. The in rem view is perfectly consistent with Coasean bargaining, of course, since it is just a starting point from which people can slice off specific pieces if they choose. (Side note: I had been wanting to post something about a paper by Tom Hazlett and Vernon Smith that credits Coase with $17 billion in welfare losses foregone because of his influence on how spectrum now gets allocated.)
At the same session, Gillian Hadfield of USC had a paper arguing that the market for legal services has not kept pace with the needs of the new economy. I saw this a paradigmatic dynamic-transaction-costs story. Google is internalizing legal services for the same reason Chandlerian corporations in the nineteenth century internalized complementary production processes the market was not yet well enough developed to provide. As Hadfield pointed out, the inability of market institutions to supply these new kinds of legal services has a lot to do with the tight regulation the government exercises over the supply of such services.
| Peter Klein |
O&M has been consistently anti-bailout, whether recipients are banks, manufacturing firms, or homeowners. Besides encouraging moral hazard, bailouts also stymie the fundamental market process of moving productive assets from lower- to higher-valued uses. A market economy, after all, is a profit-and-loss system. Without losses, what’s the point?
A new edited volume, Bailouts: Public Money, Private Profit (Columbia University Press, 2010), explores bailouts in historical perspective, going back as far as the US financial crisis of 1792. Editor Robert Wright and his contributors try to steer a middle course, with Wright endorsing Hamilton’s Rule (formerly Bagehot’s Rule) of providing public loans to failing firms only if they have good collateral, and at “penalty” interest rates. Still, as Wright notes in his introduction, “There is no statistical evidence, however, that bailouts [of any kind] can speed economic recovery. In fact, bailouts can slow recovery by creating policy uncertainty, distorting market incentives, and in extreme cases fomenting sociopolitical unrest.”
| Peter Klein |
A funny passage from Neal Stephenson’s The Confusion, the second volume of his Baroque Cycle trilogy. In this scene, set in 1690, a motley crew of galley slaves, victims of Barbary Corsair raiding parties, discuss their plan to escape and get rich. Each is giving his backstory:
“The winter before last, I made the acquaintance of Moseh, who was asking many questions about the market in tutsaklar ransom futures. We had several conversations and I began to perceive the general shape of his Plan.”
“He told you about Jeronimo, and the Viceroy?”
“No, I learned of that on the same night as you.”
“Then what do you mean when you say you understood his plan?”
“I understood his basic principle: that a group of slaves who, taken one by one, were assigned a very low value by the market, might yet be worth much when grouped together cleverly. . . .” Vrej rolled up to his feet and grimaced into the sun. “The wording does not come naturally in this bastard language of Sabir, but Moseh’s plan was to synergistically leverage the value-added of diverse core competencies into a virtual entity whose whole was more than the sum of its parts. . . .”
Jack stared at him blankly.
“It sounds brilliant in Armenian.” (more…)
| Nicolai Foss |
Eugene Garfield may not exactly be defunct, but it is entirely true that practical men, such as university presidents, deans, and department heads, are slaves of the Science Citation Index he created. In fact, so are the rest of us who have eagerly been waiting for the publication of the impact factors for 2009. They have just arrived and it is fascinating stuff. Here are a few immediate observations on the management IFs:
- Abstracting from MIS Quarterly, the Strategic Management Journal is #3.
- Journal of Management is, at #5 (and #4 if MIS Q is left out) cementing its position as a top journal.
- Strategic Organization is up on #8! Way to go, Joel and colleagues! But can you sustain that position?
- Journal of International Business Studies has dropped a few positions but is still in the top-10.
- Journal of Management Studies (#14) has emerged as a close competitior in terms of ranking to Organization Science (#12). It is the undisputed #1 Euro management journal (it has also just entered the Financial Times ranking).
- Resarch Policy, which was among the top 10 only two years back, is now #22.
- Management Science is now down to #24. There are management departmetns where this journal is considered A+.
Of course, we all know the many reasons why all this should be taken with more than the proverbial grain of salt. For example, as Ram Mudambi points out (personal conversation), more and more journals play the impact factor game and force authors to cite recent papers in the journals, and reference lists grow longer and longer. Perhaps Article Influence Scores represent the superior alternative.