Posts filed under ‘– Foss –’
Relations Between Micro and Macro Levels
| Nicolai Foss |
Levels issues, micro-foundations, methodological individualism and collectivism, etc. have long been O&M favorites (e.g., here, here, here, and here). While the O&M bloggers are card-carrying methodological individualists, we also (like all other economists and management scholars) acknowledge that macro matters, in the sense that it may be meaningful to think of variables placed at macro levels exerting an influence on decisions made at micro variables (as in the Coleman diagram; see here). The question is, what is the nature of this “relation”? (more…)
Signs of Getting Older
| Nicolai Foss |
My hair is thinning, I can still run those 4 kms in 18 mins or less, but no so easily anymore, I find myself reading obituarities — and here are my selected papers, fresh from the press, on Knowledge, Economic Organization, and Property Rights. I take solace in the fact that these are only selected rather than collected papers. (more…)
Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road: Strategic Management Edition
| Peter Klein |
Joe Mahoney and Christos Pitelis have produced their most original, and possibly most enduring, piece of scholarly work, reprinted here by permission:
Why did the chicken cross the road?
“We must first study the chickens in aggregate; once we understand the chicken industry, then we can explain the individual chicken’s conduct.” — Joe Bain
“We must study the potential mobility barriers of a meaningful strategic group of chickens to understand the individual chicken’s conduct.” — Richard Caves
“The reason for the chicken’s behavior is causally ambiguous.” — Richard Rumelt
“The behavior of the chicken is socially embedded.” — Mark Granovetter
“The chicken is merely following its standard operating procedures.” — Richard Cyert and James March
“Walking across the street is a core competence of the chicken.” — Gary Hamel
“Walking across the street is the chicken’s strategic intent.” — C. K. Prahalad
“It is the chicken’s dominant logic.” — Richard Bettis
“It is simply a routine of the chicken.” — Sidney Winter (more…)
New Foss Thought Piece
| Nicolai Foss |
I blatantly confess that I enjoy writing what are known in academic putdown-ese as “essays” or “thought pieces,” that is, “conceptual” papers that do not construct a theoretical model, and/or engage in empirical analysis. My most recent product in this genre is inelegantly titled, “Alternative Research Strategies in the Knowledge Movement: From Macro Bias to Micro-Foundations and Multi-level Explanation.” It is an invited paper for European Management Review (the other invited contributors are David Teece, Bronwyn Hall and Will Mitchell). Mail me at njf.smg@cbs.dk if you want a copy. Here is the abstract:
The emergence over the last two decades or so of “knowledge” as an important part of the explanatory structure of management research is an intellectual breakthrough that is comparable in terms of its transforming impact to the behavioral revolution of the 1960s. A veritable “knowledge movement” has emerged that spans several fields in management. I take stock on alternative research strategies with that movement, distinguishing between “capabilities first,” “networks first,” and “individuals first” strategies. Reasons are given why more research attention need to be allocated to the latter strategy if the knowledge movement is to continue making progress, but that the aim should ultimately be to reach towards multi-level research that combines aggregate constructs with top-down processes and bottom-up processes.
Professorship in Strategy and International Management
| Nicolai Foss |
The Center for Strategic Management and Globalization at the Copenhagen Business School invites applications for this professorship.
Contact me at njf.smg@cbs.dk if you want more info. The deadline is February 1.
New Book on Knowledge Governance
| Nicolai Foss |
I and various other people, notably Prof. Anna Grandori (U. Bocconi), who came up with the term, have been pushing the notion of “knowledge governance” over the last five years or so.
The organizing knowledge governance idea is that processes of knowledge use, creation, retention, integration, and sharing can be influenced towards desired levels through the deployment of administrative apparatus. “Knowledge governance” signifies that this field is taken up with the interplay between knowledge processes and organizational processes. It represents the coalescing of a number of parallel developments, such as the convergence of organizational economics (i.e., transaction cost economics, property rights theory and agency theory) and the knowledge-based view in strategic management, and the emerging interface between knowledge management and perspectives from organization theory and organizational behavior. Here is a Primer on knowledge governance.
With Professor Snejina Michailova of the University of Auckland, I have edited Knowledge Governance: Processes and Perspectives, which was published this week by Oxford University Press. It features a number key contributors to the emerging knowledge governance field, including Anna Grandori, Jackson Nickerson, Todd Zenger, Linda Argote, and Teppo Felin. (more…)
Wernerfelt (1984)
| Nicolai Foss |
Birger Wernerfelt’s 1984 paper in the Strategic Management Journal, “A Resource-based Theory of the Firm,” is conventionally considered one of the founding contributions to the RBV, on par with Jay Barney’s 1986 and 1991 papers. The paper has more than 6,000 hits on Google Scholar (which probably translates into more than a thousand on Web of Science), while Barney’s 1991 paper has more than 10,000. Although the underlying conceptualization of the firm is similar, the papers address different dependent variables, namely diversification and growth (Wernerfelt) and sustained competitive advantage (Barney) (a point missed by those who indiscriminately cite both papers, usually in the context of competitive advantage).
In a recent paper in Organization Studies, “The Development of the Resource-based View: Reflections from Birger Wernerfelt,” Andy Lockett, Rory P. O’Shea, and Mike Wright draw on conversations with Wernerfelt to tell the story of the 1984 paper. (more…)
Micro-Foundations at the Rotterdam School of Management
| Nicolai Foss |
We have blogged extensively on “micro-foundations” here on O&M (particularly in those Golden Days of O&M when the present blogger was more active). The micro-foundations theme seems to be gaining a lot of ground in management recently. About two years ago I had a paper on the subject rejected from a leading management journal because the reviewers and the editor argued that the micro-foundations theme was essentially non-controversial and scholars handled it in a pragmatic manner — i.e., there was no need to raise it as an issue. That same editor, I hear, is now actively talking about the pressing need for micro-foundations in management ;-) This reflects an increasingly widespread discourse on the subject. At the recent Strategic Management Society Conference in Köln micro-foundations were explicitly discussed in several of the PDWs, in David Teece’s keynote speech, in the keynote panel that I participated in, and in lots of paper sessions.
The work of Teppo Felin and I on the micro-foundations issue (e.g., here) has been particularly taken up with the lack of clear micro-foundations in the dominant capabilities view of the firm and strategy. Back in 2005 Teppo and I organized a two-days conference in Copenhagen on the subject. Koen Heimeriks, then an Assistant Professor at Copenhagen Business School, is organizing something like a follow-up conference at the Rotterdam School of Management where he is now an Assistant Professor. Keynote speakers are Sid Winter, Maurizio Zollo, and yours truly. Here is the homepage for Koen’s conference. Koen is a very good and meticulous conference organizer, the subject is inherently interesting, so please submit a paper!
ESNIE School on NIE Archives
| Nicolai Foss |
The European Society for New Institutional Economics, the semi-formal Euro branch of ISNIE, runs a yearly School on New Institutional Economics, usually taking place on Corsica. Organized by Eric Brousseau, the School has now run for seven consecutive years. The line-up is impressive, including Oliver Williamson, Sid Winter, Avinash Dixit, Doug North, Giovanni Dosi, Dick Langlois, Joanne Oxley, Jackson Nickerson, Lee Alston and many other luminaries. The great thing is that the PPTs of their talks are online (here)! Enjoy.
Protesting Against and Sanctioning Bad Reviewers
| Nicolai Foss |
Keynes famously complained (whined) that Hayek, in his review of A Treatise of Money, hadn’t treated the book with the measure of relative goodwill that an author is entitled to expect from a reviewer. He also equally famously informed Hayek that he (Keynes) had changed his mind, so that Hayek’s two-part, article-length review was irrelevant anyway. Hayek later explained that this was the main reason why he had chosen not to review Keynes’ General Theory (the story is a bit more complex, see this paper).
While Keynes was no doubt whining — those who care can check Hayek’s very careful and balanced review — he does have a point: Aren’t authors entitled to a certain measure of goodwill in the sense that they can reasonably expect that the reviewer has tried to understand what the author is talking about, doesn’t misinterpret and misrepresent him too badly, doesn’t kill a paper because of very minor problems, etc. etc.? While I trust that most people would agree with this, we also know that we may occasionally get reviewers (whether anonymous or, in the case, of published reviews, usually non-anonymous) who are not at all inclined to show such goodwill. (more…)
Call for Papers: Org Economics and Org Capabilities
| Nicolai Foss |
The relation between organizational economics (agency theory, TCE, property rights theory, team theory) and the organizational capabilities view has often been debated on O&M. Perhaps not surprising, as at least three out of the four current O&M bloggers have frequently covered this theme in their research, Dick Langlois writing about the relation between these ideas at least as early as 1984 (here), my first publication on the subject appearing in 1993 (here), and Peter’s first paper on it appearing in 1996 (here). I think we hold different views on the nature of the relation between organizational economics and capabilities ideas. I increasingly think of ideas on transaction costs, property rights etc. as primary to, and more fundamental than, notions of capabilities (e.g., see this paper, forthcoming in Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal). Dick, on the other hand, seems to hold the opposite view.
Such differences are even more pronounced in the strategy and organization fields. Some scholars reject organizational economic altogether (Sid Winter seems close to that position). Others argue that organizational economics and the organizational economics view are complementary in an additive sense: They deal with different, yet complementary issues, so that, for example, the organizational capabilities view tells us which assets/resources we need, organizational economics providing insight in the actual organization of those assets/resources (this seems to be the current mainstream view). Some scholars go further, and argue that there is a real scope for integrating, for example, ideas on localized knowledge and learning from the capabilities view with transaction cost economics (e.g., this paper). In fact, overall there seems to have been some movement from the i initial polarized positions of 10-15 years to today’s more integrative stance.
In order to report advances in research on the relation between organizational economics and the organizational capabilities view, Nick Argyres, Teppo Felin, Todd Zenger and I will edit a special issue of Organization Science on “Organizational Economics and Organizational Capabilities: From Opposition and Complementarity to Real Integration.” Papers which can be both theoretical (or, for the US audience, “conceptual”) and empirical, must be submitted between Oct. 1 and Oct. 30 2009. The Call for Papers is here (scroll down a bit). The Call contains a long list of possible themes for papers, but feel free to mail me at njf.smg@cbs.dk (or any of the other editors) if you are in doubt whether your paper may make a fit with the SI.
More on Facebook
| Nicolai Foss |
We bloggers face strong competition from Facebook, as recognized in earlier O&M posts. FB integrates numerous functionalities, including blogging features, and allows narcissism to run amok in a more interactive fashion than blogging allows for. Irresistible. Therefore, smart bloggers embrace FB. As of today, O&M also has a category called “Facebook.”
Facebook is, of course, also an attractive hunting ground for all those ICT-obsesssed network sociologists or computer scientists-turned-sociologists (e.g., here and here) out there, as well as for personality psychologists. Concerning the latter, in the latest issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Laura Buffardi and W. Keith Campbell report on “Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites.” The authors conclude, among other things, that narcissists have more friends (rather, acquaintances), more personal info and more glamorous pics of themselves on FB than non-narcissists. (Now, check this profile).
Perhaps not a surprising finding, but still good to now (particularly for job applicants, given that employers now routinely check FB profiles). And surely it won’t take long before we see the first applications in network studies of the “narcissism index” as an antecedent of this or that (“Narcissism as an Antecedent of Knowledge Sharing in Networks”). Heck, they come up with a new measure every morning anyway. (more…)
The Coleman Bathtub
| Nicolai Foss |
The so-called “Coleman Bathtub” (or “boat”) is one of the most useful expository vehicles for thinking about multi-level issues in social science research. The diagram portrays macro-micro-macro relations as a sort of rhombic figure with causal relations going down from macro (e.g., institutions) to the conditions of individual actions which then give rise to individual actions that in turn aggregate up to macro outcomes. (Check the 1st chapter in James Coleman’s tome, Foundations of Social Theory).
Although the diagram is exceedingly simple, there are substantial potential issues with it, e.g., are the relations depicted in the diagram really causal relations (can macro-entities cause individual actions? Also, I am tempted to adopt the position that ontologically there really aren’t levels, just interacting social actors). Nevertheless, different levels of analysis abound in social science science research, and the Coleman bathtub is often a great eye opener, particularly for students. And I have frequently used it myself in recent research.
I just had my paper with Peter Abell (Professor of Mathematical Sociology, LSE) and Teppo Felin (you know, the orgtheory.net founder), “Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links,” published in Managerial and Decision Economics. Another plug: with Dana Minbaeva, a HRM specialist in “my” research center, I have written “Governing Knowledge: The Strategic Human Resource Management Dimension.” You can find it here.
Klein Blue
| Nicolai Foss |
Behold, below, Klein Blue — Yves Klein’s famous 1959 painting.
Here is how the Tate Collection describes it:
In 1947, Klein began making monochrome paintings, which he associated with freedom from ideas of representation or personal expression. A decade later, he developed his trademark, patented colour, International Klein Blue (IKB). This colour, he believed, had a quality close to pure space, and he associated it with immaterial values beyond what can be seen or touched. He described it as ‘a Blue in itself, disengaged from all functional justification’.
In contrast to the Klein Bottle, it is two-dimensional. I will leave it to the reader to draw the parallels to Peter (but offer “disengaged from all functional justification” as a clue).
Motivation in Knowledge-Sharing Networks
| Nicolai Foss |
Knowledge-sharing networks have become a huge research subject in various fields in management. Much of this work builds from applications of the work of Mark Granovetter or Ronald Burt. It probably represent the most potent sociological impact on management research over the last decade. Even strategic management — which has traditionally been strongly influenced, even dominated, by economics — has been influenced by this research. Prominent work has been done by Hansen (e.g., here and here), Tsai (e.g., here), and Reagans and McEvily (here) (and here is an excellent related paper by Obstfeld).
Most of this work treats motivation in a somewhat indirect manner, if at all. Implicitly, individuals that are placed in similar network positions are taken to give or receive knowledge to the same extent. This need not be the case, however, as individuals need to be motivated to seize opportunities, and motivation can differ across networks and employees. However, most studies of knowledge sharing in networks abstract from the role played by motivation. This may be partly justified to the extent that a network position translates directly into motivation. However, this should be treated as an empirical issue rather than as a starting point for analysis. (more…)
Should We Regulate Branding Gurus?
| Nicolai Foss |
Ronald Coase famously argued that if one buys into utilitarian arguments for regulating “the market for goods,” it is hard to present a strong case against regulating the “market for ideas” (here).
I was reminded of Coase’s paper when I received an invitation to an “executive event” from the executive education branch of my School. The event is a presentation by “one of the world’s leading authorities on brand strategy and marketing,” Dr. Erich Joachimsthaler (here he is on Google Scholar), who will present the main messages in a new book co-authored with famous branding guru, David Aaker, Brand Leadership (I cannot locate it on Amazon, so it must be very fresh from the press). Here are some of the things that you can apparently learn from this book:
- Find new growth opportunities in plain sight that are ripe for the picking
- Optimize your existing portfolio to generate sustainable growth without relying on new products
- Innovate beyond product by creating new business models or consumer experiences
- Increase marketing spend effectiveness by directing your dollars to the most relevant aspects of consumers’ daily lives.
The first bullet is particularly lovely. Do you have to be a Chicago finance scholar to deny that there are “new growth opportunities” that are “in plain sight” and “ripe for the picking”? I doubt it. The general question is, how much over the top can you go in terms of advertising your products on the markets for ideas — and should regulators care? While I don’t think there is a general case for regulating these markets, there may exist a Pigovian case for subsidizing books such as this one.
Spawning: The Small-Firm Effect
| Nicolai Foss |
Entrepreneurs are usually dissatisfied employees from large companies who find their ideas crushed under the weight of the corporate hierarchy, right? No so, say Dan Elfenbein, Barton Hamilton and Todd Zenger in a recent (well, March 2008) paper, “The Entrepreneurial Spawning of Scientists and Engineers: Stars, Slugs, and the Small Firm Effect.” In fact, they point out, “roughly two-thirds of all entrepreneurial ventures started between 1995 and 2001 by scientists and engineers in the US, were founded by individuals employed immediately prior in firms of less than 100 employees” (p. 1). Interestingly, they also find that new ventures founded by employees coming from small firms perform better than ventures founded by employees from large firms. These small firms effects, the authors argue, are not just driven by sorting effects, but also because employees in small firms tend to acquire more entrepreneurial skills. An excellent contribution to the generally interesting spawning literature. Highly recommended. (more…)
CBS Microfoundations Conference: Knowledge and HRM
| Nicolai Foss |
As O&M readers may know I am the Director of Copenhagen Business School’s Center for Strategic Management and Globalization. As the name indicates we do SIM (strategic and international management), but with a twist: We are specifically interested in the governance dimensions of knowledge processes (knowledge sharing, integration, creation, etc.), and we are specifically interested in micro-foundations for the firm-level concepts that we routinely apply in strategic management and IB (see here for a more detailed characterization). These two themes come together in a conference organized next week (18-19 September) by Dr. Dana Minbaeva, “HRM, Knowledge Processes, and Organizational Performance: In Search of Micro-Foundations.” The papers are online, and many of them should be of potential interest to readers of O&M. I particularly recommend the paper by Joshua Tomsik, Todd Zenger and Teppo Felin (of orgtheory.net fame), “The Knowledge Economy: Emerging Organizational Forms, Micro-Foundations, and Key Human Resource Heuristics.”
| Nicolai Foss |
As you may have noticed — and as Peter points out in daily emails — my blogging activity has been rather light of late. Part of this is caused by being a department head, a task that has a notorious (and entirely correct) reputation for letting your brain rot. And part of it has been caused by the completion of some major projects.
I have , however, done the Facebook thing. FB seems to be overcoming its teenage bias, attracting more mature and normal people, such as academics. (Check the group Unlike 99.99% of the Facebook population, I was born in the 1960s). Indeed, I have noticed a very strong FB herd behavior among academics this last month, no doubt prompted by the summer vacation. Quite a number of people of interest to readers of O&M are now on FB (e.g., professors Jackson Nickerson, Nicholas Argyres, Russ Coff, and many others, including O&M’s own Peter Klein), and there are fan groups devoted to Herbert Simon, Michael Porter, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Mises, etc. started by students and academics on FB.
I have also noted that fewer of academic friends and acquaintances are using Skype. I conjecture that overall blogging activity — not to mention research and writing activity — has also diminished. Possible conclusion? Blogging is becoming passé and the immediate future belongs to Facebook. Who wants article-like treatments of esoteric subjects, when they can have one-liners about going to the gym, reading, etc.?
More seriously, there are in fact blogging features on FB for those who have more to say to the world than “NN has gone kite surfing.” Indeed, FB combines the features of the homepage with the blog — and introduces even greater possibilities of ego massage than these two (e.g., it is terribly easy to upload pics).
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments