MGT 624(b)
DOCTORAL SEMINAR
ENTREPRENEurship: theoretical perspectives
Dr. Franz LohrkeAlston 149
Phone: 348-8934 Email:
Course Description and Objectives
This course is designed to provide a broad overview of key theories and frameworks employed in entrepreneurship research. It will be conducted in a seminar format, which means that students bear a major responsibility for contributing to each class session.
During the semester, we will discuss several theories and frameworks that can be used to study new venture development, strategy, growth, and performance. The focus will be on examining a theory each week and discussing one or more topics a week that can be studies employing the theory. This seminar, thus, complements the first topic-focused PhD seminar in Entrepreneurship, MGT 624(A). (The seminars can be taken in either order). In addition, given its focus on specific theories, it builds on previous seminars (e.g., MGT 610). Thus, readings from these seminars will be assumed and additional reading may be required if these first-year seminars have not yet been taken.
Students will be evaluated on several criteria:
Evaluation Criteria
First draft of seminar paper (due March 31st)20%
Final draft of seminar paper (due April 28th)40%
Presentation of seminar paper (May 1st)10%
Session Teacher15%
Participation15%
Except in the most extreme emergencies, any student who misses an assignment without notifying the instructor beforehand will receive a zero for the assignment. Incomplete grades will only be given in extraordinary circumstances.
Seminar Paper
Students will have the opportunity to translate their ideas and insights into a scholarly paper, which should be prepared in Academy of Management format and be of publishable quality in a major management entrepreneurship journal. Papers can examine one or more theories covered in the seminar. Theories not directly examined in the seminar, but which may also have applications to entrepreneurship research, may also be explored. All paper ideas should be approved by the professor to avoid duplication.
Papers may be conceptual or empirical, and students are strongly encouraged, after receiving feedback, to submit their first drafts to the Southern Management Association (SMA) by mid-April. Regardless of the whether a student submits a paper to SMA, the first draft submitted to the professor should be a fully developed paper; that is, it should have the 100 percent of the form (e.g., Abstract, Conclusion, complete References) and at least 70 percent of the content of a final paper. Papers turned in with sections missing will not be accepted and will be assessed a letter grade per day penalty until resubmitted in completed form.
If the paper is conceptual, students are encouraged to employ one of three approaches. First, the paper can review extant literature and suggest a future research agenda based on applying new theories, frameworks, or research methods. Second, it can focus on a theory that heretofore has not been widely appliedto entrepreneurship research. Third, it can review on a particular topic (e.g., venture capital) and discuss how new theories might produce fresh insights. Fourth, it can integrate multiple theories to develop a model for an entrepreneurship research stream. These papers should go beyond simple literature reviews to provide a critique, theoretical integration and/or a future research agenda.
If the paper is empirical, students are encouraged to employ one of two approaches, given the focus of the seminar. First, the paper can compare and contrast at least two theories rather than testing a single theory. Second, the paper can employ multiple theories to demonstrate the contribution of each.
Session Teacher
Depending on class size, students will lead discussions during two or more sessions. A seminar leader is responsible for summarizing key issues and promoting discussion of current and future research issues. The leader is, thus, expected to (1) develop and distribute a list of 5-10 discussion questions by the Mondayprior to the class periods for which s/he has responsibility as seminar leader and (2) provide article summaries for all articles at the beginning of class. Session leaders can also assign supplemental reading material to present additional perspectives, if necessary.
Class Preparation
Although the session leader is responsible for leading class discussion, all students are expected to actively participate. The majority of learning in seminar format occurs during these discussions. It is recommended, therefore, that beyond answering the 5-10 discussion questions prepared by the session teacher, students write down at least three major issues from each reading, including main points, controversial issues, or personal thoughts based on insights gained from the previous seminars, work experience, or outside reading.
Some guest speakers may visit during the semester. When this occurs, class may move from Monday to Friday from 9:00-12:00. Class time may also vary slightly based on guest speakers, holidays or other events.
GENERAL COURSE OUTLINE
January 13: Course Introduction
January 23: Theory in Entrepreneurship
January 30: Environmental Uncertainty
February 6: Information Asymmetry
February 13: Institutional Theory
February 20:Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness
February 27:Cognitive Theories in Entrepreneurship
March 6:Individual-level Decision Making: Strategic Reference Points, Prospect Theory, and
the Behavioral Theory of the Firm
March 13:Group-level Decision Making: New Venture Teams
March 20: Spring Break
March 27:Agency Theory
March 31: First draft due
April 3:Transaction Cost Economics
April 10:Dynamic Capabilities and the Resource-based View of the Firm
SMA Deadline (TBA)
April 17:Learning and Innovation
April 24:Networking and Trust
April 28: Final Draft Due
May 1:Final Presentations
DETAILED COURSE OUTLINE
January 13 (Friday)Course Introduction
Brush, C., Duhaime, I., Gartner, W., Stewart, A., Katz, J., Hitt, M., Alvarez, S., Meyer, G., & Venkataraman, S. 2003. Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship,Journal of Management, 29:309-331.
Davidsson, P., Low, M., & Wright, M. 2001. Low and MacMillan ten years on: Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 5-15.
Fried, V. 2003. Defining a forum for entrepreneurship scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 1-11.
Ireland, D., Reutzel, C., & Webb, J. 2005. Entrepreneurship research in the AMJ.Academy of Management Journal, 48: 556-564.
Shane, S., & Venkatraman, N. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25: 217-226.
Dialogue. 2001. Academy of Management Review, 26: 8-16.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. 2001.The focus of entrepreneurial research: Contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 57-80.
Venkataraman, S. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. In J. Katz and R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, vol. 3: 119-138. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
January 16Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday
January 23Theory in Entrepreneurship
Theory:
Amit, R., Gloston, L., & Mueller, E. 1993. Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management Studies, 30: 815-834.
Bacharach, S. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14: 496-515.
Gartner, W. 2001. Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 27-39.
Writing:
Bem, D. 2002. Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley, J., Zanna, M., & Roediger III, H. (Eds). The compleat academic: A career guide. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ketchen, D. 2002. Some candid thoughts on the publication processes.Journal of Management.28: 585-590.
Staw, B. Repairs on the road to relevance and rigor. In Cummings, L., & Frost, P. (Eds), Publishing in the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
An example:
Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology, Journal of Management, 29: 991-1013
January 30Environmental Uncertainty
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 543-576.
Milliken, F. 1987. Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12, 133-143.
Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. 2005. How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty?Journal of Management. 31: 776-793.
Arend, R. 1999. Emergence of entrepreneurs following exogenous technological change. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 31-47.
Brouwer, M. 2000. Entrepreneurship and uncertainty: Innovation and competition among the many. Small Business Economics, 15: 149-160.
Dickson, P. & Weaver, K. 1997. Environmental determinants and individual-level moderators of alliance use.Academy of Management Journal, 40: 404-425.
McMullen, J., & Shepherd. D. 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review. 31: 132-152.
Sutcliffe, K., & Zaheer, A. 1998. Uncertainty in the transaction environment: An empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 1-23.
February 6Information Asymmetry
Akerlof, G. 1970. The market for “lemons”: Quality, uncertainty and the market bechanism.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84: 488-500.
Barney, J., & Ouchi, W. 1986. Chapter One, Basic Concepts: Information, Opportunism, and Economic Exchange. In: Barney, J., & Ouchi, W. (Eds.).Organizational Economics.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Chi, T. 1994. Trading in strategic resources: Necessary conditions, transaction cost problems, and choice of exchange structure. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 271-290.
Fiet, J. 1996. The informational basis of entrepreneurial discovery. Small Business Economics, 8: 419–430
Klein, B., Crawford, R., & Alchian, A. 1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process.Journal of Law and Economics. 21: 297-326.
Cohen, B., & Dean. T. 2005.Information asymmetry and investor valuation of IPOs: Top management team legitimacy as a capital market signal.Strategic Management Journal, 26: 683-690.
Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11: 448-469.
February 13Institutional Theory
Baum, J., & Oliver, C. 1991. Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 187-218.
DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. American Sociology Review, 48: 147-160.
Zucker, L. 1986. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8: 53-111.
Bruton, G., & Ahlstrom, D. 2003. An institutional view of China’s venture capital industry explaining the differences between China and the West. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 233-259.
Greve, H. 1998. Managerial cognition and the mimetic adoption of market positions: What you see is what you do. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 967-988.
Honig, B., & Karlsson, T. 2004.Institutional forces and the written business plan. Journal of Management, 30: 29-48.
Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. 2002. Mimicry and the market: Adoption of a new organizational form. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 144-162.
Yiu, D., & Makino, S. 2002. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective.Organization Science, 13: 667-683.
February 20Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness
Aldrich, H., & Auster, E. 1986. Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications, in B. Staw and L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 8:165–198. New York: JAI Press.
Singh, J., & Tucker, D., & House, R. 1986. Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 171-193.
Stinchcombe A. Social structures of organizations. In: J. March (Ed). Handbook of Organizations. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1965, pp. 153-193.
Choi, Y., & Shepherd, D. 2005. Stakeholder perceptions of age and other dimensions of newness, Journal of Management, 31: 573.
Deephouse, D.L., & Carter, S.M. 2005. An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 329-360.
Delmar, F., & Shane, S., 2004. Legitimating first: organizing activities and the survival of new ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 385-410.
Shepherd, D., Douglas, E., & Shanley. M. 2000. New venture survival: Ignorance, external shocks, and risk reduction strategies, Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 393-410.
Zaheer, S., & Mosakowski, E. 1998. The dynamics of the liability of foreignness: A global study of survival in financial services. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 439-463.
Zimmerman, M., & Zeitz, G. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27: 414-431.
February 27Cognitive Theories in Entrepreneurship
Shaver, K., & Scott, L. 1991. Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (2), 23-45.
Baron, R. 1998. Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 275-294.
Barron, R. 2002. OB and entrepreneurship: The reciprocal benefits of closer conceptual links. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24: 225-269.
Mitchell, R., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P., Morse, E., Smith, J. 2004. The distinctive and inclusive domain of entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28: 505-518.
Shane, S., Locke, E., & Collins, E. 2003. Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13: 257-279.
Stewart, Jr., W. & Roth, P. 2001. Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 145-153.
Westhead, P., & Wright, M. 1998. Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: Are they different? Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 173-204.
Zacharakis, A., Meyer, G., & DeCastro, J. 1999. Differing perceptions of new venture failure: A matched exploratory study of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs.Journal of Small Business Management, 37(3): 1-14.
March 6Individual-level Decision Making: Strategic Reference Points, Prospect Theory, and
the Behavioral Theory of the Firm
Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S., & Schendel, D. 1996. Strategic reference point theory. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 219-235.
Kahneman D, & Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica; 47: 263-291.
March, J., & Sharpira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33:1404-1418.
Milliken F., & Lant, T. 1991. The effect of an organization's recent performance history on strategic persistence and change: the role of managerial interpretations. In J. Dutton (Ed.), Advances in Strategic Management, vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W., & Huber, G. 2001.Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities.Academy of Management Journal, 44: 937-957.
Greve, H. 1998. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change.Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 58-86.
Ketchen, Jr., D., & Palmer, T. 1999. Strategic responses to poor organizational performance: A test of competing perspectives.Journal of Management, 25: 683-706.
Lee, J.-H., & Venkataraman, S. 2006. Aspirations, market offerings, and the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities.Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 107-123.
Markovitch, D, Steckel, J., & Yeung, B.. 2005. Using capital markets as market intelligence: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Management Science, 51: 1467-1460.
March 13Group-level Decision Making: New Venture Teams
Amason, A., Shrader, R., & Tompson, G. 2006. Newness and novelty: Relating top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 125-148.
Boeker, W., & Wiltbank, R.. 2005. New venture evolution and managerial capabilities. Organization Science, 16: 123-135.
Chandler, G., Honig, B., & Wiklund, J. 2005. Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams.Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 705-725.
Dimov, D., & Shepherd, D. 2005.Human capital theory and venture capital firms: Exploring "home Runs" and "strike outs."Journal of Business Venturing 20: 1-21.
Ensley, M., Pearson, A., & Amason, A. 2002. Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17: 365-386.
Fiet, J., Busenitz, L., Moesel, D., & Barney, J. 1997.Complementary theoretical perspectives on the dismissal of new venture team members. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 347-366.
Kor, Y. 2003. Experience-based top management team competence and sustained growth. Organization Science, 14: 707-719.
Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. 2003. Entrepreneurial founder teams: Factors associated with member entry and exit. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2): 107-127.
Vyakarnam, S., & Handelberg, J. 2005. Four themes of the impact of management teams on organizational performance: Implications for future research of entrepreneurial teams. International Small Business Journal, 23: 236-256.
March 20Spring Break
March 27Agency Theory
March 31: First draft due
Barney, J. and Ouchi. W. 1986. Chapter 4: Agency Theory: How Market Forces Affect the Management of a Firm. In J. Barney and W. Ouchi (Eds.), Organizational Economics.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Demsetz, H. 1983. The structure of ownership and the theory of the firm.Journal of Law and Economics. 26: 375-393.
Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57–74.
Fama, E., & Jensen, M. 1983. Separation of ownership and control.Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301-325.
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure.Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-360.
Schultze, W., Lubatkin, M., & Dino, R. 2003. Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 179-194.
Wiseman, R. & Gomez-Mejia, L. 1998. A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking.Academy of Management Review, 23 (1): 133-153. (P)
Yoshikawa, T., Phan, P., & Linton, J. 2004.The relationship between governance structure and risk management approaches in Japanese venture capital firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 831.
April 3: Transaction Cost Economics
Coase, Ronald H. 1937. The nature of the firm.Economica, 4: 386-405. (P)
Casson, Mark 1982. The entrepreneur: An economic theory.Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble. Chapter 3: The Concept of Coordination and Chapter 17: The Market for Entrepreneurs.
Afuah, A. 2003. Redefining firm boundaries in the face of the Internet: Are firms really shrinking?Academy of Management Review, 28: 34-53.
Brouthers, K. & Nakos, G. 2004.SME entry mode choice and performance: A transaction cost perspective.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,. 28: 229-247.
Leiblein M.J. & Miller, D. J. 2003. An empirical examination of transaction- and firm-level influences on the vertical boundaries of the firm, Strategic Management Journal: 24: 839-859.
Mosakowski, E. 1991. Organizational boundaries and economic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 115-133.
Oviatt, B., & McDougall, P. 1994. Toward a theory of international new ventures.Journal of International Business Studies, 25: 45-64.
April 10Dynamic Capabilities and the RBV
SMA Deadline (TBA)
Conner, K. 1991. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17: 121-154.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533.
Zollo M, Winter SG. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science 13: 339-351.
Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. 2004.Organizing rent generation and appropriation: Toward a theory of the entrepreneurial firm.Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 621-635.
Denrell, J., Fang, C. & Winter, S. 2003. The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal. 24: 977-990.
Kor, Y., & Mahoney, J., 2005. How dynamics, management, and governance of resource deployments influence firm-level performance.Strategic Management Journal, 26: 489-496.
Sirmon, D., & Hitt, M. 2003. Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27: 339-358. Comments by Chrisman, J., Chua, J., & Zahra, S, pp. 359-366.
Zahra, S., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27: 185-203.
April 17Learning and Innovation
March, J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science. 2: 71-87.
Unsworth, K. 2001. Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26:289-297.
Corbett, A. 2005. Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation/ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 473-491.
Cope, J. 2005. Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 373-397.
De Clercq, D., & Sapienza. H. 2005. When do venture capital firms learn from their portfolio companies?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 517-535.
Harrison, R., & Leitch. C. 2005. Entrepreneurial learning: Researching the interface between learning and the entrepreneurial context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 351-371.
Lumpkin, T., & Lichtenstein. B. 2005. The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 451-472.
Politis, D. 2005. The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 399-424.