Identifying and Using Nonlinear and Interactive Control Variables

The initial public offering (IPO) is one of the most critical events in the lifetime of a young firm. Prior research has shown that firms tend to have successful IPOs if they go public with the endorsement of a prestigious lead underwriter. This paper examines the antecedents to receiving endorsement by a prestigious underwriter and links this to the experience base of a firm's upper echelon. We theorize that the amount and type of upper echelon experience serve as important symbols of a young firm's legitimacy to critical outsiders. We introduce a typology of upper echelon experience that distinguishes between upper echelon upstream, horizontal, and downstream employment-based affiliations and suggest that these different types of upper echelon affiliations allay different types of endorser concerns regarding firm legitimacy, affecting the endorsement process. Further, we theorize that the relationships between upper echelon experience and investment bank prestige will be moderated by technological uncertainty. We test our assertions on a comprehensive sample of public and private biotechnology firms that were founded between 1961 and 1994 and that went public between 1979 and 1996. Analyses of the five-year career histories of the over 3,200 executives and directors that make up the upper echelons of these firms show that firms with upper echelons with affiliations with prominent downstream organizations (i.e., pharmaceutical and/or healthcare companies) and with prominent horizontal organizations (i.e., biotechnology companies) are more likely to attract the endorsement of a prestigious investment bank. We also find that the greater the range of upper echelon affiliations across the categories of upstream, horizontal, and downstream affiliations, the more prestigious the firm's lead underwriter. We also find that these latter results are moderated by technological uncertainty. The present research has implications for the study of organizational legitimacy, interorganizational endorsements, and entrepreneurship.

Editor's Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization

Our study develops and uses a new methodology for analyzing journal citations to recent publications to determine which management journals now have the greatest influence on the field of management. It analyzes the 23637 academic journal references cited in the 1275 articles published in 17 key management journals during 1993 and 1994, focusing on citations to references published up to the modal vintage of 4 years earlier. Most cited as a percentage of all these references was Strategic Management Journal (11%), followed by Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, and Journal of Management—accounting in total for 51 percent of all citations. Strategic Management Journal, whose subfield of strategic management has become a major concern of management in general, has developed as the predominant academic journal influencing the field of management. Our measures of journal influence provide information which can aid management scholars, practitioners, department heads, and university libraries to decide on efficient choices of journals for research and for manuscript submissions, for evaluation, and for subscriptions. Just seven management and social science journals, led by Strategic Management Journal, contain more than half of the cited articles published recently. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Our study develops and uses a new methodology for analyzing journal citations to recent publications to determine which management journals now have the greatest influence on the field of management. It analyzes the 23637 academic journal references cited in the 1275 articles published in 17 key management journals during 1993 and 1994, focusing on citations to references published up to the modal vintage of 4 years earlier. Most cited as a percentage of all these references was Strategic Management Journal (11%), followed by Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, and Journal of Management—accounting in total for 51 percent of all citations. Strategic Management Journal, whose subfield of strategic management has become a major concern of management in general, has developed as the predominant academic journal influencing the field of management. Our measures of journal influence provide information which can aid management scholars, practitioners, department heads, and university libraries to decide on efficient choices of journals for research and for manuscript submissions, for evaluation, and for subscriptions. Just seven management and social science journals, led by Strategic Management Journal, contain more than half of the cited articles published recently. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

From the Editors

Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters' suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.

“Most reviewers’ checklists of leading management journals list the criterion, “relevance for practice.” Authors comply with this criterion by pointing out what implications their results might have for practice. Evidence in the form of successful implementations of the results in practice is not required. Essentially, the authors are only supposed to point out what implications practitioners, as they socially construct them, can possibly draw from their results. If the reviewers’ construction of relevance is in accordance with the author’s, the criterion of relevance has been met . . .” (Kieser & Leiner, 2009: 522–523; italics in original).

Purpose– The purpose of the current study is to examine the empirical research conducted on the Arab region as reported in the top 46 business journals over the past 23 years (1990-2013). After identifying patterns over time (focal country and methodologies), the identified methodological challenges that scholars have reported in their published research are presented.Design/methodology/approach– The Arab region in this study comprised all 22 member-countries in the Arab League. We also added three other countries that are very much tied to the Arab region and are usually included in the Middle East: Turkey, Israel and Iran. Following the recommendations of previous authors (DuBois and Reeb, 2000; Nicholls-Nixonet al., 2011; Martinez and Kalliny, 2012), published articles are reviewed, but not book chapters, book reviews and dissertation abstracts from our sample, as they do not meet the sample selection criteria (Inkpen and Beamish, 1994; Samiee and Athanassiou, 1998).Findings– As Table I indicates, the Arab region has not received much attention in the top business journals as evidenced by the number of articles published from 1990 to 2013. No papers were published in many of the top management journals such as theAcademy of Management Review and Strategic Management Journal. Few found publication in other top management outlets such as theAcademy of Management Journal, theAdministrative Science Quarterly, theJournal of Managementand theJournal of Management Studies. Our sample also revealed a similar result in the field of marketing where there are also no papers published in some of the top marketing journals such as theJournal of Marketing Research,Journal of Consumer Psychology and Marketing Science. There was one paper published in theJournal of Marketingand one in theJournal of Retailing. Bearing in mind that this literature review covered a span of 23 years, these results indicate an under-representation of the Arab region as an empirical context. This trend has started to change after the eruption of the Arab Spring. Academic business research on the Arab region has increased significantly since then. Another significant finding is the lack of investigation of the firm and country factors in studying the region.Originality/value– As the world becomes increasingly connected and the fates of countries and regions become more intertwined, it is imperative that scholars and practitioners acquire a deeper understanding of individual countries and regions, particularly those that have been relatively understudied in the extant academic research (i.e. the Arab region). While there is a substantial body of Asian management research, as well as several comprehensive literature reviews of other regions (Bruton and Lau, 2008), a systematic review of Arab and Middle Eastern business research has not been undertaken. Despite much regional attention in political science research due to the Arab – Israel conflict, management research has lagged behind.

2012 Presidential Address—On Compassion In Scholarship: Why Should We Care?

Academy of Management JournalVol. 53, No. 1 From the EditorsBig Samples and Small Effects: Let's Not Trade Relevance and Rigor for PowerJames G. CombsJames G. CombsFlorida State UniversityPublished Online:30 Nov 2017https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036305AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleREFERENCES Boyd B. K. , Gove S. , Hitt M. A. 2005. Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal, 26: 239–258. Google Scholar Bromiley P. , Johnson S. 2005. Mechanisms and empirical research. In Ketchen D. J.Bergh D. D. (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management: 15–30. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier. Google Scholar Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Eden D. 2002. Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ's publication policy. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 834–846. Google Scholar Gomez-Mejia L. R. , Balkin D. B. 1992. Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 921–955. Google Scholar Hambrick D. C. 1994. Presidential address: What if the Academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19: 11–16.Abstract , Google Scholar Hunter J. E. , Schmidt F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar Huselid M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635–672.Link , Google Scholar Ketchen D. J. , Boyd B. K. , Bergh D. D. 2008. Research methodology in strategic management: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 11: 643–358. Google Scholar Miller D. J. , Fern M. J. , Cardinal L. B. 2007. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 308–326. Google Scholar Schmidt F. L. , Hunter J. E. , Urry V. E. 1976. Statistical power in criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 473–485. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByAssessing the Impact of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework on the Relationship between University Scholarly Output and Education and Regional Economic GrowthDavid B. Audretsch, Maksim Belitski, Maribel Guerrero and Donald S. Siegel21 September 2022 | Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 21, No. 3Manifestations of Higher-Order Routines: The Underlying Mechanisms of Deliberate Learning in the Context of Postacquisition IntegrationKoen H. Heimeriks, Mario Schijven and Stephen Gates8 September 2012 | Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, No. 3The Elusiveness of Applied Management Knowledge: A Critical Challenge for Management EducatorsTimothy T. Baldwin, Jason R. Pierce, Richard C. Joines and Shameem Farouk10 February 2012 | Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 10, No. 4 Vol. 53, No. 1 Permissions Metrics Downloaded 42 times in the past 12 months History Published online 30 November 2017 Published in print 1 February 2010 Information© Academy of Management JournalKeywordsSAMPLING (Statistics)EFFECT sizes (Statistics)RESEARCH -- MethodologyCORRELATION (Statistics)QUANTITATIVE researchMANAGEMENT researchI offer my thanks to Ryan Bowen and Sean Normand for their help collecting data. I also benefited greatly from the insights of Peter Bamberger, Russell Crook, Duane Ireland, Micki Kacmar, Dave Ketchen, Elizabeth Morrison, and Jeremy Short.PDF download

The popular and professional press is filled with discussions of major changes on the organizational landscape, including organizational design experiments at entrepreneurial firms as well as at major corporations, the slashing of corporate staffs, the downsizing, delayering and revitalization of firms, the emerging electronic organization, mergers and acquisitions, failures of high reliability organizations, and time-based competition. Each of these issues has been associated with the redesign of organizations, yet these redesigns seem far removed from academic research, and they do not typically utilize the academic body of knowledge. Although the field has progressed enormously in new methods and insights during a century of research, it seems to us that organization studies have been a source of recurrent disappointment for practitioners and academics alike (Bedian 1989; Cummings 1983; Luthans 1986; Slocum 1984). For example, Miner (1984) analyzed 32 established organizational science theories and concluded that with the exception of theories of motivation there is no relationship between usefulness and validity. Is the field of organization studies irrelevant? Organizations have become the dominant institution on the social landscape. Yet the body of knowledge published in academic journals has practically no audience in business or government. Unlike a field such as economics, research on organizations has not typically focused on problems relevant to business and government organizations, and the real world of organizations has not drawn on the work undertaken by organizational scientists. From colleagues within our field and in allied disciplines, we hear complaints that manuscripts espousing radical ideas, or topics outside the mainstream, are difficult to publish. Reviewers for established journals seem to value papers whose theses are anchored in established theories or that use "legitimate" methods, thus implicitly creating a publication barrier for research that falls outside mainstream topics or methods. Moreover, we observe that scholars with interests in organizations span many disciplines and fields of inquiry such as anthropology, economics, history, information science, communication theory, artificial intelligence, systems theory, psychology, sociology, political science, policy sciences, as well as organization behavior, strategic management and organization theory. We sense that a new discipline of organization science is evolving and we envision that a new journal can become a forum for a discipline defined more broadly. The purpose of this essay is to discuss these issues and the need for reorienting research away from incremental, footnote-on-footnote research as the norm for the field. Although current research approches have made solid contributions, they do not

: If organization theory finds it useful to draw upon some of the ideas that have emerged in cognitive psychology, it will be advantageous to borrow also the terminology used in discussing these ideas. Without working toward a higher level of consistency in terminology than prevails in organization theory today, it will be difficult or impossible to cumulate and assemble into a coherent structure the knowledge we are gaining from individual case studies and experiments. We will be continually reinventing wheels. That is a luxury we cannot afford. The happy band of researchers on organization theory is sufficiently small to be kept fully occupied discovering and verifying the theory just once. (Author) (kr)

Makino and Yiu (2013) have conducted a systematic literature search of Asian firm strategies published in eight top-tier management journals: Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Academy of Management Review (AMR), Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ), Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), Journal of Management (JoM), Journal of Management Studies (JMS), Organizational Science (OrgSci) and Strategic Management Journal (SMJ). There were 228 articles published between 1980 and 2011, and among the abovementioned eight journals, JIBS and SMJ published 71% of the research on Asian firm strategies with 94 and 69 articles, respectively. In addition, JMS published 19 articles, AMJ and OrgSci each published 18, AMR and ASQ each published 4 and JoM published 2.

Scapegoating in Baseball

Academy of Management ReviewVol. 33, No. 2 Book ReviewsBook Review Symposium: Managing Network Resources, by Ranjay Gulati. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.Ajay MehraAjay MehraBook Review EditorPublished Online:1 Apr 2008https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193585AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleREFERENCES Dyer J. H. , Singh H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 660–679.Abstract , Google Scholar Granovetter M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510. Google Scholar Gulati R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 397–420. Google Scholar Kale P. , Singh H. , Perlmutter H. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 217–237. Google Scholar Kogut B. 2000. The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 405–425. Google Scholar Lavie D. 2006. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resourceBased view. Academy of Management Review, 31: 638–658.Abstract , Google Scholar Lavie D. 2007. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1187–1212. Google Scholar Lee G. K. 2007. The significance of network resources in the race to enter emerging product markets: The convergence of telephony communications and computer networking, 1989–2001. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 17–37. Google Scholar Portes A. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 1–24. Google Scholar Rothaermel F. T. 2001. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 687–699. Google Scholar Saxton T. 1997. The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 443–461.Link , Google Scholar Stuart T. E. 2000. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 719–811. Google Scholar Stuart T. E. , Hoang H. , Hybels R. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 315–349. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 33, No. 2 Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 1 April 2008 Published in print 1 April 2008 Information© Academy of Management ReviewKeywordsBOOKS -- ReviewsINTERORGANIZATIONAL networksNONFICTIONDownload PDF