Posts filed under ‘– Foss –’
Governing Firm-Specific Knowledge Assets
| Nicolai Foss |
In spite of book titles such as Competitive Advantage Through People, a whole subfield dedicated to linking human resources and firm-level performance outcomes (i.e., strategic HRM), and a general recognition that many knowledge-based competitive advantages are ultimately rooted in a web of complementary and firm-specific human capital, surprisingly little serious quantitative research exists that links firm-specific knowledge, employee governance mechanisms, and firm-level performance. In fact, there are few theoretical contributions that accomplish this. Work by Russ Coff as well as Gottschalg and Zollo come to mind (as well as this paper).
In “Firm-Specific Knowledge Resources and Competitive Advantage: The Roles of Economic- and Relationship-based Employee Governance Mechanisms,” in the December issue of the Strategic Management Journal (I received my copy October 28!), Heli Wang, Jinuy He, and former O&M guest blogger Joe Mahoney explore the economic- and relationship-based governance mechanisms that mitigate the latent underinvestment problem of employees making firm-specific human-capital investments. Overall, their results suggest that firms with more firm-specific knowledge resources are more likely to adopt those governance mechanisms that can reduce key employees’ concerns about potential hold-up.
The paper is very neat and clear, and my personal candidate for the best research paper in SMJ in 2009. Here is the abstract:
The resource-based view of the firm emphasizes the role of firm-specific resources, especially firm-specific knowledge resources, in helping a firm to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. However, the deployment of firm-specific knowledge often requires key employees to make specialized human capital investments that are not easily redeployable to other settings. Thus, in the absence of effective safeguards and trust building devices, employees with foresight may be reluctant to make such specialized investments. This study explores both economic- and relationship-based governance mechanisms that might mitigate this underinvestment problem. Effective use of these governance mechanisms enables a firm to obtain greater performance from its efforts to deploy firm-specific knowledge resources. Empirical results further support these key arguments.
Economic Methodology in Erkenntnis
| Nicolai Foss |
Economic methodology, or, meta-theoretical discussion of (and in) economics, has gone significantly beyond with theme that many practicing economists associate with the field, namely the realism-of-assumptions theme prompted by Friedman’s famous 1953 essay, “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” Of course that theme is by no means unimportant, and it has, of course, resurfaced under the impact of the financial crisis.
However, the main themes of the current economic methodology discussion have shifted from the role of assumptions to economic models in their entirety. Two main perspectives are sometimes distinguished, namely the “isolationists” who literally see economic models as simplified redescriptions of the mechanisms and causal factors of the real world, and the “fictionalists” who, as the name indicate, ascribe much less realism to models and think of them as purely mental laboratories that may still, however, allow for certain inferences to the real world.
The January 2009 issue of Erkenntnis: An International Journal of Analytical Philosophy is a special issue, edited by Till Grüne-Yanoff, dedicated to exploring these two positions, and entitled “Economic Models as Credible Worlds or as Isolating Tools?” Among the heavyweight contributors are Robert Sugden, Uskali Mäki, and Nancy Cartwright. I particularly liked Mäki’s argument that the two positions are in actually very close rather than opposed. Highly recommended for those who want to acquaint themselves with frontier issues in economic methodology.
Tweets of the Great Economists
| Peter Klein |
Cliff sent me Andrew Pessin’s “Twitter Tour of Western Philosophy.” Samples: “Socrates: Drinking hemlock; toes tingling; legs getting numb. Maybe unexamined life worth living? Guard!” “Plato: Symposium 2nite 7pm, @ The Cave. Open mike, open bar. Under 21 admitted free.” “Schopenhauer: All is empty, pointless. Deep, dark despair. Could use snack.” So, what would the great economists and management scholars have said in 140 characters or less?
Hayek: @maynard: Demand 4 commodities not demand 4 labor. Come on, dude!
Porter: Got 4 forces now; need ideas for 5th.
Williamson: Anybody out there want to transact? No hazards pls.
Help me out here.
The Economist Going Austro-Demsetzian?
| Nicolai Foss |
Most observers of industrial organization will readily agree that so-called “predatory pricing” is a rare phenomenon. Nevertheless, it remains one of the most hotly debated topics in industrial organization theory and in practical competition policy, probably because it is a particularly conspicuous example of the “abuse of a dominant position” (to use EU competition policy lingo).
In its most recent issue, The Economist has a nice discussion of predatory pricing, prompted by the recent EU Intel case. The article opens by citing Coase, but in actuality its owes much more to Harold Demsetz (cf. this classic paper) as well as Austrian writers on industrial organization such as Dominick Armentano (cf. this paper). The article is excellent as a basis for discussion in classes on industrial organization.
Idea for Historical Law and Economics Thesis
| Nicolai Foss |
Apropos the always-topical issue of the efficacy of the death penalty, I was recently told by Siegwart Lindenberg that one of Gordon Tullock’s characteristically quirky proposals for reform was to institute the death penalty as the sanction that any crime would meet in the criminal justice system. However, there was a twist, because although any criminal would receive a death penalty, not all criminals would actually be executed. Specifically, all criminals would be strapped to the chair, but there was only a probability that the button would be pressed, the probability depending on the severity of the crime. Because of risk aversion and a tendency to overestimate probabilities (and for the Draconian symbolic value), this scheme would put an effective end to much crime. (I haven’t been able to find a reference for this idea; perhaps it exists only in the oral tradition that surrounds the Tullock figure).
It is easy to dismiss the Tullock scheme as “cruel,” “inhuman,” “far out,” “not practicable,” etc. But perhaps it does have a historical precursor. At its height the criminal law of England (the “Bloody Code”) included more than 220 crimes that were punishable by death, including “being in the company of gypsies for more than one month” (here is the Wiki). Other countries have had similar broad approaches to which crimes were punishable by death, though perhaps few as Draconian as England’s. However, one has to bear in mind that there generally was a pardon system, and that it is quite likely that some of the weirder crimes leading to death sentences were more likely to be pardoned than the really serious ones (e.g., a pardon may have been more likely in the case of the “crime” of being in the company in gypsies than outright murder). Could it be that this pardon system functioned in such a way that the probabilities of actual execution directly reflected the real severity of the crime? It seems likely. The data are definitely there. It is just collecting them and doing the analysis.
Jack of All Trades and Master of . . . Administration?
| Nicolai Foss |
CEOs, leaders, and entrepreneurs are typically seen as generalists (e.g., here). They are confronted with the broadest decision domains and have the responsibility of making sometimes crucial decisions within those domains.
In “Congratulations or Condolences? The Role of Human Capital in the Cultivation of a University Administrator” (here; scroll down), John McDowell, Larry Singell, and Mark Stater argue that this also holds for universities. They develop and test a probit model of the decision between administration (from dept. head all the way to university pres.) and the pure academic career. The model is conditioned by training, career background, and (juicy!) academic performance. The data are drawn from the American Economic Association directories. Among the findings: economists with doctoral degrees from less prestigious universities are more likely to select into admin. Women and foreigners are less likely to become administrators. The experience level also positively influences the probability of getting into admin.
I am not convinced that the authors truly capture the specialized versus general human capital dimension. Some of their measures (e.g., whether the PhD degree was awarded by a top-35 PhD institution or not) are measures of quality rather than of the degree of specialization (in fact, this may be consistent with the view that many “pure” academics hold of admins!). Nevertheless, definitely worth a read and good ammo for harassing your local dean! (more…)
“Unskilled and Unaware of It”
| Nicolai Foss |
In general I enjoy teaching and interacting with students. But some students can be a pain, particularly those who are too intellectually challenged to realize the nature of their predicament. They don’t accept (their low) grades (particularly not the grade of “i” ;-)), and blame the professor/instructor for their own low achievement. Here is why.
The New Issue of JEM
| Nicolai Foss |
No doubt a sure sign of impending senility, I take a huge interest in economic methodology, that is, meta-theory as it applies to economics. I serve on the editorial board of the Journal of Economic Methodology and usually enjoy reading the journal. The latest issue of JEM features at least two papers that should be of direct interest to O&M readers, namely Alain Marciano’s “Buchanan’s catallactic critique of Robbins’ definition of economics” (basically a discussion of Buchanan’s famous 1964 presidential address to the Southern Economic Association), and Oliver Williamson’s “Pragmatic methodology: a sketch with applications to transaction cost economics” (pragmatic methodology meaning “keep it simple,” “get it right,” “make it plausible,” and “engage in predictions and empirical testing”). Ah, and for those who take delight in economic controversy there is a rather thorough smashing by Ken Binmore of a recent Deirdre McCloskey book.
Raising the Bar: The Strategy Research Initiative
| Nicolai Foss |
The Business Policy and Strategy Division is the largest and arguably dominant division of the Academy of Management. Strategy’s leading journal, the Strategic Management Journal, consistently ranks among the top-5 management journals. What is being done in strategy clearly matters to the rest of the Academy.
Strategy has a general reputation for being a relatively rigorous management field (whether this is well deserved or not is another matter), something that is often ascribed to the heavy influence of economics on the development of the field over the last three decades. And yet, strategy also exhibits a plethora of different approaches; there is still no agreement on the nature of the key dependent variables; and the field unabashedly employs key explanatory constructs (e.g., capabilities, dynamic capabilities, absorptive capacity, etc.), the nature, operationalization, and measurement of which are still unclear. It may also be noted that although strategy does rely quite a lot on economic reasoning in comparison to other management fields, the formal way of reasoning of modern economists seldom finds its way into the pages of the leading strategy journals.
Prompted, apparently, by similar observations and frustrations, a group of Young(er) Turks (“mid-career scholars,” to use their own words) has gathered under the banner of the Strategy Research Initiative. (more…)
Strategic Management Theory and the Financial Crisis
| Nicolai Foss |
We (well, in fact, mainly Peter) have blogged extensively on the current financial crisis. Guest blogger Benito Arruñada suggested that macroeconomists may learn something from forest management. In a recent paper Rajshree Agarwal, Jay Barney, Peter, and I suggest that macroeconomists may learn something from strategic management theory. The paper is forthcoming as a SO!apbox Essay in the November issue of Strategic Organization. Hopefully it will stir considerable controversy. Here is the abstract:
Macroeconomic theory assumes that factors of production in the economy are homogeneous and fungible. As a result, it is poorly suited for analyzing and developing policy responses to the recent financial crisis. Theories of strategic management and organization, with their emphasis on heterogeneous resources and capabilities, are better positioned. We provide examples of how macroeconomic theory may lead policies astray, and how theories of strategic management provide insight into the nature and causes of the financial crisis and the appropriate policy response.
Special Issue of HRM on “HRM and Knowledge Processes”
| Nicolai Foss |
With Scott Snell (Darden Graduate School of Business) and my SMG colleague Dana Minbaeva, I have edited this just-published special issue of Human Resource Management on the intersection of knowledge management and HRM. One of this highlights of the special issue is an excellent paper by Teppo Felin, Todd Zenger, and Joshua Tomsik that takes issue with some influential ideas on how “knowledge” prompts the emergence of “communal” forms of organizing.
Patenting Economics (and Other Things)
| Nicolai Foss |
The Google Empire appears to be expanding continually, and it is not easy to keep track of its recent conquests. Actually, I learned only yesterday that Google indexes patents and patent applications from the United States Patent and Trademark Office under www.google.com/patents.
The engine — which comprises 7 million patents — is fun to explore. Surprisingly many patent (applications) relate to economics. Many seem downright cranky, such as the application for a Method for the Determination of Economic Potentials and Temperatures (or perhaps I am just ignorant). Lots of management tools are also patented. For example, here is a patent describing a tool for analyzing “strategic capability networks.”
Ian Stewart claims (here) that two prime numbers have been patented (here is the short one: 7,994,412,097,716,110,548,127,211,733,331,600,522,93757,046,707,3,776, 649,963,673,962,686,200,838,432,950,239,103,981,070,728,369,599,816,314,646, 482,720,706,826,018,360,181,196,843,154,224,748,382,211,019 (now, don’t reproduce this, unless you want to get into trouble ;-)), but I haven’t been able to locate them.
Bounded Rationality or Skilled Performance?
| Nicolai Foss |
In my 2003 contribution to the Festschrift for Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter (here), I argued that Nelson and Winter’s main oeuvre, their 1982 book, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, is much more about tacit knowledge than about bounded rationality. The notion of routines is intended to capture the firm-specific and tacit character of productive knowledge rather than heuristics, satistificing search, and the like (these may not be opposed, though).
I am reading Great Minds in Management at the moment (highly recommended!). In his chapter, “Developing Evolutionary Theory for Economics and Management,” Sidney Winter seems to agree:
Skill provides a compelling model of effective behavior that is different, and deeply different, from what we are told either by theories of rational decision or by behavioral theories featuring ‘bounded rationality.’ As far as I can see, the latter theories do not lead one to expect that the word ‘awesome’ will ever be needed to describe human behavior” (p. 533).
Indeed, as my frequent co-author, Teppo Felin, argues, bounded rationality is almost always about people’s foolishness (notably the heuristics and biases literature), rather than about how and why people actually cope, sometimes quite successfully, with most of the decision situations they confront. It is about decision failure, rather than decision success (possibly premised on the implicit assumption that the standard model of rational decision is the only existing model of decision success). The problem with Winter’s alternative, namely that of behavior as skilled performance, is that it seems unclear what are the available models. Skilled performance seems as arbitrary as bounded rationality.
Inspirational Weekend Reading
| Nicolai Foss |
I am reading Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science in which Dr. Goldacre explodes the ridiculous claims of medical quacks of all stripes (e.g., homeopathy, the idiocies of the media re the interpretation of research results, hostility towards “mainstream medicine,” etc.). The book is much needed and very, very entertaining.
And it makes me think that management research needs its Goldacre. A few quick ideas:
- Perhaps we need something akin to the Cochrane Collaboration. We can all agree that “evidence-based management” is a good idea. Indeed, it is such a good idea that there should be no need for writing books or blogs about it. We should all embrace and internalize the idea. However, in practice, there is probably much too little effort devoted to meta-analysis and other synthetic efforts in management research.
- There are quacks in management. Some of them write books. Some consult. Shrugging the shoulder is the typical reaction on the part of management academics. Should we treat them more harshly? Should management quacks be identified and fought?
- Perhaps the majority of research articles in management end with a variation over “There is a need for more research.” Articles in medicine used to end similarly. However, as Goldacre notes (p. 57), “… it is a little known fact that this very phrase has been banned from the British Medical Journal for many years, on the grounds that it adds nothing: you may say what research is missing, on whom, how, measuring what, and why you want to do it, but the hand-waving, superficially open-minded call for ‘more research’ is meaningless and unhelpful.” Amen!
Management Journal Impact Factors 2008
| Nicolai Foss |
The new ISI impact factors for 2008 have just been released. There are lots of surprises this time. The biggest one is arguably that Organization Science is now out of the top 10 range, a long drop from its #4 status in 2006 (this sucks when you got two recent papers, one forthcoming and one R&R, at this journal :-( ). The second surprise, at least to me, is that the Journal of Management has made it to #5. One possible explanation is its rather influential yearly review issues. Another surprise is that Organization Studies, which was among the top 10 in 2006, has now moved down a lot to close to #30. The Journal of Management Studies, while not among the top 10 this year, has not been harmed as badly, dropping to #14. ASQ, once the undisputed top-management journal, is now #9. Less surprising is Academy of Management Review’s #1 position (it is usually among the top 3), and that the Strategic Management Journal is #4.
The rank order down to LRP at # 36 is: AMR – AMJ – MIS Q – SMJ – JoM – ORM – JIBS – AMLE – ASQ – OBHD – RP – JPIM – Org. Sci. – JMS – RoB – JoM – JOperationsM – IMA – JMIS – Man Sci -DS – IRS – LQ – Omega – R&D Man – GOM – JIT – Techno. – Org. Stud. – Brit. JoM – Adv. Strat Man. – HBR – Int Small Bus. J – Int. J. Oper. Prod. M. – Int. J. Man. Rev. – Int. J of Forec. – LRP
A new feature of the list is the inclusion of a five-year impact factor which, given the rather turbulent movements from year to year, makes a lot of sense (and which produces a rather different rank order from the above!).
If You’re So Smart …
| Nicolai Foss |
… that it makes sense to delegate a lot of decision-making authority to you when you perform as an agent for a principal, you may also be so smart that you can game the incentive plan. In “Ability and Agency Costs: Evidence From Polish Banking,” Douglas Frank and Tomasz Obloj, both INSEAD, argue (rightly, IMO) that the link between cognitive ability and agency costs has not yet been studied in agency theory. (more…)
Mises and Hayek in Progress in Human Geography
| Nicolai Foss |
It is surprising, even bizarre, to see Mises and Hayek, as well as other luminaries of 20th-century classical liberalism, being extensively cited, quoted, and discussed in one of the leading geography journals, Progress in Human Geography (here is the wiki on the field of “human geography”), specifically in the form of the printed version of an invited lecture by Jamie Peck. (more…)
Sid Winter and Alice Rivlin on the Current Crisis
| Nicolai Foss |
Sidney G. Winter is a towering figure in management research, essentially being the current thought leader in the strategic management field as it pertains to issues of capabilities, routines, knowledge assets, etc. Most of his work in strategic management is founded on his earlier work in evolutionary economics (notably this seminal volume). Winter is married to Alice Rivlin, a long-time critic of Reagan-era economic policies and a high-ranking bureaucrat under Johnson and Clinton.
Here is Winter and Rivlin on “fixing the global financial system.” Winter thinks that business schools are partly to blame, but is not very concrete in his critique (at least he doesn’t blame agency theory). And here is Winter answering the question, “Is capitalism dead?” Note his comments about “people on the extreme right.” Neither Winter nor Rivlin leave much doubt about where they stand politically.
UPDATE: There is more Winter on YouTube: “Inflation or Deflation,” “Economic Cassandras,” and “The Price of Oil.” They are all very recent and done under the auspices of the Australian School of Business.
Sociology that We Like
| Nicolai Foss |
Contrary to the conviction perhaps held by the boys over at orgtheory.net, O&M bloggers are not at all hostile to sociology. In fact, we are highly sympathetic to what is sometimes called “analytical sociological theory,” that is, James Coleman, Raymond Boudon, Jon Elster, Peter Abell, Diego Gambetta, Siegwart Lindenberg, Karl-Dieter Opp, and so on. Here is a nice summary of AST, which — we are told — embraces realism and objectivity, is anti-relativist, appreciates formalization and the use of models, is reductionist, eschews bullshit, etc. (Also check out the nice and entirely well taken acerbic treatment of Foucault on p. 7). Now we only need to know: How exactly does AST differ from microeconomics?
New Editorial Team at the EMR
| Nicolai Foss |
Not long ago after the start of O&M I blogged on the change of editor at the European Management Review, paraphrasing Keynes’s examination of Lloyd George’s pledge on unemployment policy. While EMR is not yet ISI listed and has not surpassed the Journal of Management Studies as the leading Euro management journal, Kogut has most certainly “done it” in terms of boosting the general reputation of the journal. This is another demonstration that an editor with a clear mission, a strong network, and well-defined objectives can rather quickly do wonders for a journal (think Arie Lewin with Organization Science or Joel Baum (et al.) with Strategic Organization).
Kogut has now stepped down as editor, and Professors Maurizio Zollo and Alfonso Gambardella, both of Bocconi University in Milan, carry the mantle. While Zollo is a fullblown management scholar, Gambardella is much more an economist. They share a basic evolutionary outlook. Needless to say, both a very well connected to the US research context in management and economics. The new team’s inaugural issue with a handful of invited paper is available here. Everything is downloadable for free.
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments