Building Methodological Bridges

BUILDING METHODOLOGICAL BRIDGES RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT Series Editors: David J. Ketchen, Jr...

Author: Donald D. Bergh and David J. Ketchen (editors)

148 downloads 886 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

BUILDING METHODOLOGICAL BRIDGES

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT Series Editors: David J. Ketchen, Jr. and Donald D. Bergh Previous Volumes: Volumes 1–5: Research Methodology in Strategy and Management – Edited by David J. Ketchen, Jr. and Donald D. Bergh

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT VOLUME 6

BUILDING METHODOLOGICAL BRIDGES EDITED BY

DONALD D. BERGH University of Denver, USA

DAVID J. KETCHEN, Jr. Auburn University, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2011 Copyright r 2011 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the text, illustrations or advertisements. The opinions expressed in these chapters are not necessarily those of the Editor or the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78052-026-1 ISSN: 1479-8387 (Series)

Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Howard House, Environmental Management System has been certified by ISOQAR to ISO 14001:2004 standards Awarded in recognition of Emerald’s production department’s adherence to quality systems and processes when preparing scholarly journals for print

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

vii

INTRODUCTION: BUILDING METHODOLOGICAL BRIDGES

ix

PART I: BRIDGES BETWEEN MACRO AND MICRO RESEARCH REDISCOVERING THE INDIVIDUAL IN STRATEGY: METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES, STRATEGIES, AND PROSPECTS Steven W. Floyd and Rebekka Sputtek INTO THE GREAT WIDE OPEN: BRIDGING THE MICRO–MACRO DIVIDE IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCES M. Ronald Buckley, Maria Riaz Hamdani, Anthony C. Klotz and Sorin Valcea

3

31

STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE STAFFING AND ORGANIZATION RESEARCH: ARE THEY ONE-SIZEFITS-ALL ENDEAVORS? Philip Bobko and Denise Potosky

69

LEADER–MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) MEASUREMENT: EVIDENCE FOR CONSENSUS, CONSTRUCT BREADTH, AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY Dana L. Joseph, Daniel A. Newman and Hock-Peng Sin

89

ENTREPRENEURIAL MOBILITY Mike Wright v

137

vi

CONTENTS

PART II: BRIDGES TO STRONGER DESIGNS AND ANALYSIS MULTI-STUDY PACKAGES IN ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCE RESEARCH Wayne A. Hochwarter, Gerald R. Ferris and T. Johnston Hanes

163

TEMPLATES AND TURNS IN QUALITATIVE STUDIES OF STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT Ann Langley and Chahrazad Abdallah

201

THE REVOLUTION WITH A SOLUTION: ALL IS NOT QUIET ON THE STATISTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL MYTHS AND URBAN LEGENDS FRONT Robert J. Vandenberg

237

QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: CURRENT STATE AND FUTURE PROSPECTS Thomas Greckhamer and Kevin W. Mossholder

259

WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS: PHOTOGRAPHS AS A NOVEL METHODOLOGICAL TOOL IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Joshua L. Ray and Anne D. Smith

289

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Chahrazad Abdallah

Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK

Philip Bobko

Departments of Management and Psychology, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA, USA

M. Ronald Buckley

Division of Management and Entrepreneurship, Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Gerald R. Ferris

Department of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Steven W. Floyd

McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Thomas Greckhamer

Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Maria Riaz Hamdani

Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA

T. Johnston Hanes

School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Wayne A. Hochwarter

Department of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Dana L. Joseph

Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

vii

viii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Anthony C. Klotz

Division of Management and Entrepreneurship, Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Ann Langley

HEC Montreál, Montreál, Canada

Kevin W. Mossholder

College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

Daniel A. Newman

Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Denise Potosky

Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies, Management Division, Pennsylvania State University Malvern, PA, USA

Joshua L. Ray

Department of Management, College of Business, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

Hock-Peng Sin

Department of Management, The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Anne D. Smith

Department of Management, College of Business, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

Rebekka Sputtek

Institute of Management, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

Sorin Valcea

Department of Management, School of Business, Washburn University, Topeka, KS, USA

Robert J. Vandenberg

Department of Management, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Mike Wright

Center for Management Buyout Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

INTRODUCTION: BUILDING METHODOLOGICAL BRIDGES Welcome to volume 6 of Research Methodology in Strategy and Management! In creating this series about eight years ago, our belief was that the organizational sciences needed a forum wherein leading scholars could openly express their views about important and emerging issues within research methods. In particular, we wanted the book series to serve as a metaphorical bridge between areas of inquiry that could benefit from increased interaction with each other. This sixth volume of the series recalls these roots by being built around the theme of ‘‘Building methodological bridges.’’ Within this overarching theme, this volume includes two subthemes. The first is ‘‘Bridges between Macro and Micro Research.’’ We were fortunate to be able to attract five excellent chapters that contribute to this theme. Steven W. Floyd and Rebekka Sputtek outline key challenges in capturing the role of individuals within strategy making, as well as providing useful responses to these challenges. M. Ronald Buckley, Maria Riaz Hamdani, Anthony C. Klotz, and Sorin Valcea strike a complementary chord in describing ways that scholars can bridge the micro–macro divide that characterizes much of the organizational sciences. Philip Bobko and Denise Potosky tackle key issues within one of the areas where the micro–macro divide has been bridged most frequently within past inquiry: strategic human resource management. Leadership is another domain within which micro and macro ideas often come together. Dana L. Joseph, Daniel A. Newman, and HockPeng Sin contribute to understanding how to capture one of the leading perspectives on leadership: Leader–Member Exchange. In a final piece, Mike Wright examines entrepreneurial mobility, a topic that inherently requires integration of macro and micro ideas. A study’s conclusions can only be as robust as the design and analysis that led to its conclusions. With this in mind, the second subtheme of this volume is ‘‘Bridges to Stronger Designs and Analysis.’’ Five outstanding contributions contribute to this theme. First, Wayne A. Hochwarter, Gerald R. Ferris and T. Johnston Hanes draw on their own vast successes to explain ix

x

INTRODUCTION

how using multi-study designs can enhance the research enterprise. Ann Langley and Chahrazad Abdallah provide insights on conducting qualitative research. Robert J. Vandenberg builds on his own experience as a renowned methodologist and former editor of Organizational Research Methods to debunk a series of myths about methods. Thomas Greckhamer and Kevin W. Mossholder outline how qualitative comparative analysis has contributed, and can continue to contribute, to strategy research. In the final and perhaps most path-breaking chapter of this volume, Joshua L. Ray and Anne D. Smith build upon the folk wisdom that a picture is worth a thousand words. In particular, they demonstrate how photographic images can be an incredibly valuable means of building knowledge. We think this chapter will inspire scholars to add a new data source to their array of research tools. Not only do images offer an untapped dimension for understanding organizations, taking pictures is a heck of lot more fun than downloading data or coding text! As you can see, this volume builds important methodological bridges. This is evident not only through the topics covered, but also in the backgrounds of the scholars who have contributed chapters. The roster includes thought leaders not only from strategic management but also from organizational behavior, human resource management, and entrepreneurship. Looking to future volumes, we have decided to expand upon our general theme of bridging by reaching out to and enlisting volume editors who can bring new insights to Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. We are looking to attract volume editors who vary along important dimensions, including scholarly background, geographic location, years of experience, and personal demographics. Please email us if you have an idea for a theme that could provide the basis for a volume. In the meantime, we are confident that the chapters offered in the current volume will build bridges for the organizational sciences toward greater methodological rigor and creativity. Donald D. Bergh David J. Ketchen Jr. Editors

PART I BRIDGES BETWEEN MACRO AND MICRO RESEARCH

REDISCOVERING THE INDIVIDUAL IN STRATEGY: METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES, STRATEGIES, AND PROSPECTS Steven W. Floyd and Rebekka Sputtek ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to advance research that relies on information from or about individuals and their role in strategic outcomes. Methodology/approach – We start by identifying three streams of strategy research that call for individual-level data (upper echelons, micro-foundations, and strategy-as-practice) and proceed by examining the methods employed across 43 recent empirical studies. Findings – Our analysis addresses three key challenges faced by researchers in these domains and catalogues the strategies used to surmount them. Social implications – By helping to improve methods for research on individuals and strategy, this chapter advances understanding of how people throughout the organization may contribute to strategic outcomes. Originality/value of paper – Our chapter is one of the first to analyze methods across three research domains that have heretofore been Building Methodological Bridges Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Volume 6, 3–30 Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-8387/doi:10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006004

3

4

STEVEN W. FLOYD AND REBEKKA SPUTTEK

considered separate. In addition to describing what has been done, we suggest opportunities for improvement, frequently by finding ways to cross-fertilize methods from one stream into another. Keywords: individual; strategy; upper echelons theory; microfoundations; strategy-as-practice The individual has always been at the center of strategic management thought. Although early writers did not necessarily think of individuals as a level of analysis in a scientific sense, they wrote mostly about the problems and concerns of chief executives and general managers (e.g., Andrews, 1971; Barnard, 1938; Penrose, 1959). As the domain matured in the direction of scientific enterprise, however, many researchers shifted attention away from individuals and management, per se. This shift was a natural outgrowth of the role of industrial organization economics in the development of theory. With the emergence of resource-based theory (Barney, 1991), however, particularly that branch concerned with dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), economics refocused the field’s agenda on organizations and those who manage them. Behavioral constructs are now widely considered a basis for understanding economic outcomes, including competitive advantage and profitability. Indeed definitions of key constructs identify the sources of success in managerial terminology. For example, Zahra, Sapienza, and Davidsson (2006) define dynamic capabilities ‘‘as the abilities to reconfigure a firm’s resources and routines in the manner envisioned and deemed appropriate by its principal decision-maker(s)’’ (p. 918). More broadly but with a similar managerial focus, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) describe dynamic capabilities as the ‘‘y specific and identifiable processes such as product development, strategic decision making, and alliancing’’ (abstract). Given this orientation, it is not surprising that significant research interest has turned to the ‘‘micro-foundations’’ of capability and competitive advantage (Felin & Foss, 2009; Teece, 2007). Independently and with considerable impact in its own right, strategy researchers with a more sociological or psychological bent have sought to explain economic performance in terms of managerial phenomena, including strategic decision-making (Frederickson, 1984), corporate renewal (Burgelman, 1983), top management team (TMT) consensus (Bourgeois III, 1980), among other variables. Indeed, Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) influential paper launched a substantial body of work that takes managers’ psychological percepts as central variables.

Rediscovering the Individual in Strategy

5

Parallel to the micro-foundations (MF) and upper echelons (UE) streams of research, which emanate largely from North America, scholars in Europe have opened a conversation on the micro-process and practices associated with managing strategy (Jarzabkowski, 2003; Johnson, Melin, & Whittington, 2003; Whittington, 2006). As researchers in this stream of work are prone to say, the focus is on ‘‘what people actually do.’’ In particular, strategyas-practice (SAP) research spotlights the activities and practices of strategists (Whittington, 2006). Doubtless there are other strands of strategy research that take managers and individuals as central, but we have identified the UE, MF, and practice streams as especially relevant and impactful to the broader field. Our purpose in this chapter is to advance research in these three domains, first by describing what has been done to meet the methodological challenges presented by each line of research, and second by identifying ways that one stream can learn from another. We use opportunities for cross-pollination as the basis of suggestions for future research.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND APPROACH We begin with a brief discussion of the assumptions and theoretical propositions that undergird research in the three domains. Apologizing in advance for oversimplifying, we seek here to trace the broad outlines. The purpose is to lay a backdrop for defining the central challenges of research design and methodology for research seeking to connect individuals to strategy. We begin with UE. UE theory assumes that executives behave in strategic decision-making situations according to their personalized interpretation of these situations. This personalized interpretation springs from executives’ experiences, values, and personality (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick & Mason, 1984). UE theory defines a given situation as a set of cues perceived by an executive; individuals’ perceptions, in turn, are influenced by their unique cognitive make-up, including especially their values that focus attention and color interpretation. As Hambrick and Mason put it: ‘‘y The decision maker brings a cognitive base and set of values to a decision, which create a screen between the situation and his/her eventual perception’’ (Hambrick & Mason, 1984, p. 195). Thus, researchers should look for the antecedents of strategic choice in cognitive representations, including perceptions that are heavily

6


influenced by an individual’s values. Objective demographic variables may correlate highly with executive perceptions, but the principal message of UE theory is that top managers’ perceptions, values, and experiences should play a central role in explanations of outcomes like strategy and performance. While the UE perspective is well established, research that springs explicitly from the idea that organizational (capabilities) have their source in MF, including individuals, is relatively recent. Many studies have been precipitated by Teece’s (2007) focus on: ‘‘The micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities – the distinct skills, processes, procedures, organizational structures, decision rules, and disciplines – which undergird enterprise-level sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring of capacities [that] are difficult to develop and deploy’’ (abstract). According to this view, the sources of competitive advantage are located at the level of individual action and interaction (Felin & Foss, 2009). Still in its early stages, MF research has the potential to influence a wide range of topics in strategic management. To date, initial empirical interest seems to have been generated mostly around relationships between individuals and organizational capability (e.g., Holcomb, Holmes, & Connelly, 2009). Finally, published SAP research is often traced to a journal’s special issue in 2003 wherein the coeditors observed that the strategic management field should focus more on the activities and interactions of people who ‘‘do strategy’’ (Johnson et al., 2003). A flurry of papers followed this special issue and led to the development of a substantial community focused on the role of the ‘‘everyday activities of organizational life y relating to strategic outcomes’’ (SAP, 2010). Whittington (2006) articulated a conceptual foundation for this body of work in his depiction of the dynamic influences across institutionalized strategy practices, practitioners of strategy, and specific instances of strategy praxis. Thus, while this perspective incorporates the macrostructural context, the strategists’ activities and their interactions figure prominently in theory development and empirical studies (e.g., Mantere, 2005). We organize our effort to examine the methods employed in these three streams of research around a set of three descriptive and three evaluative questions. (The latter are shown below in parentheses.) The origin of these questions is the recognition that at a fundamental level research on UE, MF, and SAP seeks to address a similar set of issues. Central among these are Who are the individuals that affect strategy-related outcomes? How do these individuals do it? These questions, in turn, point to three methodological challenges faced across the three domains.


7

(1) Who does the method identify as relevant individuals? (Are they the right people?); (2) How does the method connect these individuals to organizational outcomes? (How does it account for multilevel influences?); and (3) What does the method actually measure? (Is it the right phenomenon?) We see these questions as representing key challenges for research on the role of individuals in strategy outcomes and therefore as a useful basis for describing it. For each set of questions, we attempt to describe how the challenges have been met. This provides a basis for our synthesis, critique, and suggestions for future research. Since we seek to describe and critique, rather than test hypotheses or build new theory, our method is to examine in some depth a significant body of recently published research in the three domains. The decision to examine studies across these three particular research streams has the advantage of tapping into a diverse set of methodologies. This work emanates from different disciplinary orientations – psychology, economics, and sociology. As a result, one finds a rich set of methods, ranging from large scale, survey designs to single case studies, and participant observation. Our choice of which specific articles to include was constrained to papers published in leading journals and driven by the desire to represent recent work across the three streams. Initially, we set our sights on a 5-year time horizon, but in order to incorporate studies that illustrated a unique approach to one of the challenges, we extended our scope selectively back to the mid-1990s for UE research and to 2003 for SAP. The MF work is new enough that a 5-year time frame is adequate. The result is a judgmental sample of 43 papers that are representative of the state-of-the-art. In that sense, they provide a reasonable basis for our study of methods in these domains.

STRATEGIES FOR MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF METHOD Table 1 summarizes our observations of the strategies used in the studies we reviewed to overcome the challenges of ‘‘who, how, and what’’ for each of the three research streams. The first column identifies the challenge, and the second column describes the methodological strategies employed by the studies we reviewed to meet the challenge. We proceed by describing the challenges and strategies within each of the three domains.

8


Table 1.

Strategies Observed for Meeting the Challenges of Method Across Three Domains.

Challenges Who does the method study?

Methodsa Upper echelons (UE) Sampling CEOs from SME populations companies (Boone, de Brabander, & van Witteloostuijn, 1996; Delgado-Garcia & De La Fuente-Sabate´, 2010; Khan & Manopichetwattana, 1989; Marginson & McAulay, 2008; Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010; Peterson, Martorana, Smith, & Owens, 2003; Roth, 1995; Simsek, Heavey, & Veiga, 2010; Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005; Wally & Baum, 1994) Sampling CEOs from a specific industry (i.e., Spanish banking) (Delgado-Garcia & De La Fuente-Sabate´, 2010) Ask CEOs to identify TMT members (cannot take this for granted) (Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, & Veiga, 2008; Smith et al., 1994) Micro-foundations (MF) Executive directors and management teams of branches of a Dutch financial services firm in a study of team attributes, transformation leadership, and organizational ambidexterity (Jansen, George, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2008) Head coaches of NFL teams as surrogates for managers in firms in a study of managerial ability and firm performance (Holcomb et al., 2009) Automotive engineers to assess individual knowledge transfer (teaching strategies) and individual absorptive capacity effects on individual knowledge compared to collective (managerial) coordination (Zheng & Anand, 2009) Strategy-as-practice (SAP) TMT as key actors who employ practices in the work of strategy (Jarzabkowski, 2003) Strategic managers at the periphery as well as the center (Regne´r, 2003) Interview TMT to identify population of middle managers (Currie & Procter, 2005; Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007)

How does the method bridge multiple levels of analysis?

UE ‘‘Inside-out approaches’’ CEO W Organizational outcomes/performance (Billett & Qian, 2008; Delgado-Garcia & De La Fuente-Sabate´, 2010)

9


Table 1. (Continued ) Challenges

Methodsa CEO core self-evaluation, narcissism W leadership behaviors W organizational outcomes including performance (Li & Tang, 2010; Resick, Weingarden, Whitman, & Hiller, 2009; Simsek et al., 2010) CEO tenure W top management team behavior W firm performance (Simsek, 2007) CEO þ team level þ firm level W TMT behavioral integration (Simsek et al., 2005) CEO tenure W TMT risk-taking þ entrepreneurial initiative W firm performance (Lubatkin, Simsek, Yan, & Veiga, 2006) UE ‘‘Outside-in approaches’’ Organizational environment W individual short termism W individual outcome (Marginson & McAulay, 2008) Organizational environment W CEO identification with the corporate elite W strategic help provided (McDonald & Westphal, 2010) UE ‘‘Inside-In approaches’’ CEO behavior W CEO self-perceptionW CEO behavior (Billett & Qian, 2008) Entrepreneur characteristic W entrepreneur expectations of performance (Cassar, 2010) MF Transformational leadership behavior of executive director as moderator of relationship between team attributes (shared vision, social integration, contingency rewards) and organizational ambidexterity (Jansen et al., 2008) Individual-level ability W team performance statistics/payroll (resource productivity) W organizational performance (% wins) (Holcomb et al., 2009) Individual and collective levels of teaching and absorptive capacity as influences on capability transfer of receiving organization (Zheng & Anand, 2009) SAP Inferring antecedents of cohort behaviors and organizational outcomes based on interviews of individuals (Currie & Procter, 2005)

10



Methodsa Practices of TMTs, meetings, activities, and practices (direction setting, resource allocation, monitoring/ control) within organizations (Jarzabkowski, 2003) Middle managers relative centrality in intraorganizational social network as a basis of new ideas and influence that foster divergent strategic activity (Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007) Deductive managerial activities at the center respond to issue and create strategy; inductive managerial activities at the periphery respond to issue and create strategy (Regne´r, 2003) Specific strategy talk (practices) of managers within firms creates strategy (Vaara, Kleymann, & Seristo¨, 2004)

(What) does the method measure? UE Self-report questionnaire scales of CEO psychological data (Delgado-Garcia & De La Fuente-Sabate´, 2010; Marginson & McAulay, 2008; Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010; Simsek et al., 2010, 2005), and historiometrics (Resick et al., 2009) Self-report demographic data (Forbes, 2005; Marginson & McAulay, 2008; McDonald & Westphal, 2010; Simsek et al., 2005) Archival demographic data (Billett & Qian, 2008; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Hayward & Hambrick, 1997) CEO report, survey measures of TMT risk-taking, initiative, and firm performance (Lubatkin et al., 2006) Participant observation as method to access ‘‘intimate details’’ of TM- and board-level behaviors (Parker, 2007). MF Observe transformational leadership in executive director by surveying other members of the management team (Jansen et al., 2008) Organizational performance measured by % of wins, ratio of team statistics (e.g., rushing yards gained) to payroll as measures of resource productivity, coach’s career win %, total years as head coach, # of awards, etc., as measure of managerial ability (Holcomb et al., 2009) Individual-level knowledge and absorptive capacity of engineers measured by surveying engineering managers (Zheng & Anand, 2009)

11



Methodsa SAP Analysis of 3 cases to assess organizational contingencies influences middle managers strategic behavior (Currie & Procter, 2005) Differentiating social structures (e.g., role expectations) from agency and enabling conditions of actor-driven behavior (Mantere & Sillince, 2007) Measuring different types of centrality and peerreported divergent strategic activity (Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007) Case-based, triangulated data to observe strategic activities at the center (e.g., HQ) and periphery (e.g., developmental unit and subsidiary) that create strategy in response to specific issues (Regne´r, 2003) Ethnographic examination of micro-practices (e.g., episodic routines and conversations that ‘‘discipline the client’’) versus ‘‘discrete and conscious activity of managers’’ (Rouleau, 2005) Observation of press, PR, online forums plus interviews of top-, middle- and low-level managers in examination of discursive elements of strategy related to strategic alliance; strategy defined as discourse activity (Vaara et al., 2004)

a

Studies are categorized as upper echelons (UE), micro-foundations (MF), and strategy-aspractice (SAP).

Who Does the Method Identify as Relevant Individuals? (Are These the Right People?) Identifying the right individuals to study in UE research is less difficult from a theoretical perspective than from the view of a methodologist. Theoretically, the focal persons are a rather small number of people – chief executives, board members, and top managers – at the very top of the organization. The problem for the researcher is that many of these individuals, particularly those in large public companies, are reluctant subjects, for the most part declining to be interviewed, complete surveys, or otherwise participate in research. Hambrick and Mason (1984) anticipated this problem and advocated the use

12


of demographic characteristics as reasonable surrogates for certain psychological variables. The validity of this approach has been questioned, however, and scholars have suggested a focus on more direct measures of UE personalities (Hambrick, 2007; Markoćzy, 1997). To overcome the difficulties of accessing top managers of large companies, many of the studies in our review use subjective self-report data obtained from managers below senior levels (Marginson & McAulay, 2008; Peterson et al., 2003) or from senior managers in smaller companies (Boone et al., 1996; Delgado-Garcia & De La Fuente-Sabate´, 2010; Khan & Manopichetwattana, 1989; Marginson & McAulay, 2008; Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010; Peterson et al., 2003; Roth, 1995; Simsek et al., 2010, 2005; Wally & Baum, 1994). This latter strategy relies on the assumption that CEOs of large companies differ little from CEOs of small companies. While they may be similar in some respects, CEOs of small companies are more often also founders and owners. Governance research conducted within small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (e.g., Zahra, Neubaum, & Naldi, 2007) suggests this may create profound differences in both perspectives, and possibly, also in priorities. Depending on the theoretical and empirical scope within which one is trying to generalize, using a sample of SMEs represents an approximation of the population that includes large companies. Sampling managers lower in the hierarchy as substitutes for top managers overcomes this problem but raises others. In particular, lower level managers have nowhere near the influence of top managers, and this difference alone is likely to change their perceptions relevant to strategy. Based on the studies we examined, it appears that direct access to psychological measures for members of the UE of large companies is lacking in current research. While this confirms Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) original intuition, it suggests a limitation on the empirical boundaries of accumulated knowledge in the UE domain. In short, if the goal is to generalize to TMTs within large corporations, this strand of UE research often appears to target the wrong people. The architects of the UE perspective anticipated the problems associated with researcher access. Another approach is the use of data about top managers in the form of demographics as surrogates for top managers’ perceptions and mindset (Forbes, 2005), either as a basis for assessing explanatory variables or as controls (Marginson & McAulay, 2008; McDonald & Westphal, 2010; Simsek et al., 2005). A related set of studies draws on archival access for demographic data (Billett & Qian, 2008; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). One study collects subjective (by the researcher) psychological data using historiometric analyses (Resick et al., 2009); another


13

relies on coding of a qualitative data set by researchers to measure executives’ psychological profile (Simon & Houghton, 2003). In one respect, research seeking to establish the MF of organizational capability or dynamic capability (Felin & Foss, 2009) has the opposite problem compared to UE. With the last, it is easy to identify the right individuals; the challenge is to get access. With MF, the real challenge is identifying the ‘‘right’’ individuals; access is a secondary concern. Indeed, there seems to be little consensus with respect to where to look within organizations to find a theoretically relevant set of individuals, and few studies have reported problems of access. Research in this domain has used data from bank branch managers (Jansen et al., 2008), automotive engineers (Zheng & Anand, 2009), and head coaches of NFL football teams (Holcomb et al., 2009) as a source or center of the organization’s capability and predictor of performance. Research in the SAP domain shares the identification problem. That is, the need for a theoretical justification for sampling from a particular population of individuals. Put differently: Who practices strategy? Early studies focused on top managers as strategy practitioners (Jarzabkowski, 2003). More recent research has expanded the definition of strategy practitioners to include those at the ‘‘periphery’’ of the organizations, arguing that strategic activities at the periphery differ sharply from activities at the center (Regne´r, 2003). Several studies in this domain have focused on the roles, activities, and practices of middle-level managers (Mantere, 2005). Definitions of who counts as a middle manager differ significantly from one study to another. In the absence of a clear theoretical answer on the issue of whom to observe, one approach has been to interview members of top management, asking them to identify strategic actors in the middle ranks (Currie & Procter, 2005; Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007).

How Does the Method Connect Individuals to Organizational Outcomes? (How Does It Account for Multilevel Influences?) From the outset, Hambrick and Mason (1984) recognized a sequence of causal links required to justify the impact of top manager psychological characteristics on organization outcomes. Perceptions and decision-making processes are key bridging mechanisms that explain how executive characteristics such as personality and experience relate to the strategic choices of the organization’s most powerful individuals, and hence, the performance outcomes that follow from these choices.

14


UE researchers seem to follow three directions in tracing such relationships across multiple levels of analysis: inside-out, outside-in, and inside-in. Inside-out approaches make inferences about variables at the individual level in order to explain organizational outcomes. In some cases, more than one level is identified to bridge the distance between individual and organizational variables. Outside-in approaches use organizational or environmental factors as explanatory variables at the individual level. Inside-in approaches avoid the problem altogether by focusing on independent and dependent variables that are all on an individual level of analysis. Inside-out approach appears to be the most common logic. Typical are studies investigating CEO locus of control and small firm performance (Boone et al., 1996), CEO affective traits, strategic conformity and performance conformity (Delgado-Garcia & De La Fuente-Sabate´, 2010), CEO hubris and premiums paid in acquisitions (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997), TMT experience and decision-making speed (Forbes, 2005), managerial locus of control and organizational innovation (Khan & Manopichetwattana, 1989), and CEO overconfidence and the extent of pioneering/risky product introductions (Simon & Houghton, 2003). A second set of studies in this category takes a more complex approach. They consider the influence of a mediator or moderator in relationships between CEO characteristics and organizational outcomes. Studies focus, for example, on strategic flexibility as a full mediator of CEO personality– firm performance relationships (Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010). Other authors investigate the mediating role of transformational and transactional leadership (Resick et al., 2009) on relationships between narcissism and core self-evaluation on CEO influence at the organizational level. Seeing the problem more in terms of contextualizing inferences than transcending levels of analysis, Simsek et al. (2010) set up environmental dynamism as a moderator in the relationships between CEO core selfevaluation and (organizational level) entrepreneurial orientation. Similarly, Li and Tang (2010) seek to contextualize the relationship between CEO hubris and firm risk-taking by considering the mediating role of managerial discretion. In one of the few studies where the design explicitly reasons up the micro-, meso-, macro- ladder, Simsek et al. (2005) analyze links between TMT behavior integration, CEO collectivistic orientation, team level goal preference diversity, and firm level performance. Outside-in approaches examine how factors in the organization’s external environment (e.g., stock markets) influence managers’ attitudes (e.g., shorttermism) (Marginson & McAulay, 2008) or how the extent of a firm’s international interdependence relates to CEO characteristics that are closer


15

to the theoretical ideal (Roth, 1995). Another outside-in study incorporates CEO identification with the corporate elite as a mediator in the relationship between board control and the degree of strategic help provided by the CEO (McDonald & Westphal, 2010). Finally, two studies we reviewed took what one might call an inside-in approach – studying all variables on one level of analysis. One of these investigated CEO acquisition behavior and its influence on CEO overconfidence and subsequent CEO acquisition behavior (Billett & Qian, 2008). Another examined overoptimism as an antecedent of an executive’s positive expectations for firm performance (Cassar, 2010). While the theory and measures in these studies consistently focused on a single level of analysis, it may be worth noting that the individual-level outcome examined in both studies has an obvious organizational-level referent, that is, acquisition strategy and firm performance, respectively. Empirical work in the MF area is still relatively scarce, but recent studies seem to have recognized the challenge of bridging multiple levels of analysis from the outset. Jansen et al. (2008), for example, examine transformational leadership at the individual level of analysis, not as an independent variable, but as a moderator. The argument is that transformational leadership on the part of the managing director strengthens relationships between certain team attributes (e.g., shared vision) and organizational-level ambidexterity. The method in this case draws questionnaire data from multiple respondents and develops measures of independent and dependent variables from different individuals. In a totally different context, but with a similar sensitivity toward the multilevel challenge, Holcomb and Holmes (2009) use empirical measures that trace relationships between an individual coach’s ability, team performance, and then to organizational performance. SAP researchers have been creative in meeting the multilevel challenge. One qualitative study addresses the problem by using interview data to infer relationships between middle manager cohort behavior and organizational outcomes (Currie & Procter, 2005). Another study introduces strategy meetings as a unit of analysis and suggests such episodes are likely contexts for investigating strategy practices, such as direction-setting or monitoring and control (Jarzabkowski, 2003). In a similar shift away from traditional micro–macro distinctions, Regne´r (2003) analyzes interview data from managers in the center (e.g., in the headquarters unit) and periphery (e.g., in a project group), asserting that one defines the context for the other. Vaara et al. (2004) shift the unit of analysis again; this time focusing on particular strategic issues or themes as a basis for describing the discourse or ‘‘talk’’ associated with strategy creation. What can be said about all these studies is

16


that the methods are largely qualitative and therefore tend to substitute interpretation for methods in meeting the challenge created by multiple levels of analysis.

What Does the Method Actually Measure? (Is It the Right Phenomenon?) In our earlier discussion of how UE researchers address the problem of accessing top managers of large companies, we noted the solutions included sampling from archival or self-report demographic data. The inferential leaps that must be made to accept demographic indicators as measures of top manager psychological or cognitive states may be criticized. One alternative is drawing samples of individuals from related but different populations (e.g., managers lower in the management hierarchy, CEOs from American SMEs, or executives from the Spanish banking sector). This approach has the advantage of yielding more direct measures of individual psychological variables like core self-evaluation (Simsek et al., 2010) and CEO affect (Delgado-Garcia & De La Fuente-Sabate´, 2010). Moreover, since variables like personality appear to be set at a relatively early stage of life and endure, student samples represent another potential way for UE research to meet the challenge of access and employ direct measures of the variables of interest (Hambrick, 2007). Many of the researchers associated with MF research are aiming to relate an individual-level measure to organizational capabilities. As a result, scholars in this emerging domain tend to assess either managerial ability directly based on indicators like the number of performance awards (Holcomb et al., 2009) or variables that are easily connected to capabilities or dynamic capabilities (change), such as transformational leadership behavior (Jansen et al., 2008) and engineering knowledge (Zheng & Anand, 2009). The need for considerable theory development remains in this research stream, and until such theory is in place, it is possible to imagine a host of individual-level variables as MF for capability at the unit or organizational level of analysis. SAP scholars are less interested in attributes of individuals per se and more interested in what the individuals do. In the studies we examined, ‘‘what they do’’ is interpreted variously as strategic behavior, activities, practices, and talk. Three studies assessed some sort of middle manager strategic behavior, conceptualized in the form of strategic roles (Currie & Procter, 2005; Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007) or individual agency beyond the strategic roles (Mantere & Sillince, 2007). Studies of practices focus on a


17

range of activities, including those micro-processes (cf. interactions) associated with episodic routines, conversations, and discourse (Rouleau, 2005; Vaara et al., 2004). What one observes in this work is a wide range of conceptual and empirical distance between focal individuals and the specific measure. One study employs the detailed, up-close observation of ethnography (Rouleau, 2005); another infers strategy ‘‘talk’’ from news accounts and internal, archival sources (Vaara et al., 2004). In between these extremes, interviews and surveys of managers are often deployed to measure individual behavior. A strength in this work is its disciplined approach to incorporating context and boundary conditions in the examination of practices. Again, however, context means different things in each study – social networks, industry, meetings, episodes, and even roles themselves. While a continuation of such method diversity has benefits, in the long run, one might hope for a more cumulative approach.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Table 2 summarizes suggestions for future research. Many of these are inspired by the studies we observed; some are of our own making; and several suggest transfers of method from one domain to another. Unlike Table 1, the suggested strategies in Table 2 are not identified with particular domains. This is because our goal in making each of these suggestions is to trigger useful reflections on method across all three domains. In that sense, we seek to cross-pollinate method strategies from one domain to another. Who – Studying the Right Individuals An overarching question facing anyone concerned with individual-level methods in strategy research is whether the theoretical lens they are using provides an unambiguous basis for identifying relevant individuals. It would seem to go without saying that unless a study taps the appropriate individual or individuals in the analytical process, the potential for valid conclusions arising from the research is substantially diminished. Yet, studies differ widely in terms of who they study, and perhaps more importantly, studies vary widely in the degree of specificity and rigor they use to resolve the question of who. As the more mature research stream, UE research is rather definitive in identifying top managers and board members as the primary focus of study,

18


Table 2. Challenge

Suggestions for Future Research. Suggestions for Future Research

Who does the method study?

Need for theory to better guide the ‘‘who’’ question, for example, is top management the place to look for microfoundations of capability – is the NFL coach metaphor more apt for CEOs or middle managers? (Holcomb et al., 2009) Accessibility of SMEs (Ling et al., 2008; Lubatkin et al., 2006), nonprofit organizations (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2003; Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007), and public sector (Currie & Procter, 2005) may offer opportunities but may impose bounds on external validity. Identifying the right managers requires methods to account for differential levels of influence and power of individual managers on strategy (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2003; Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007, cf. strategic champions). For large cohorts, a random sample may be an alternative (Mantere, 2005). Look for managers in what they do or produce as well as who they are, for example, coordination systems for collective teaching and learning (Zheng & Anand, 2009), transformational leadership (Ling et al., 2008), politics and discourse (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2003), manager exploration/exploitation activities (Mom, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2007) divergent strategic activity (Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007), strategy creation (Regne´r, 2003), sensemaking and sensegiving practices (Rouleau, 2005), and strategy discourse (Vaara et al., 2004)

How does the method bridge multiple levels of analysis?

UE studies lose credibility when they ‘‘stretch the causal thread’’ from individual cognition (even the CEO’s) to organizational outcomes; more mediators are needed at the group (operating team, department, initiative) and organizational level, for example, use of resources and discretion as mediators of managerial ability (Holcomb et al., 2009) Case studies may rely too much on respondent accounts in the attribution of multilevel effects (e.g., Currie & Procter, 2005) but multiple data sources and rigorous analysis can tease out new multilevel effects and identify causal mechanisms, for example, TMT actors W strategy practices W organizational outcomes (Jarzabkowski, 2003) There is too little research that looks at social interactions across managerial levels – vertical interactions are especially crucial for strategy making (Mom et al., 2007)

19


Table 2. (Continued ) Challenge

Suggestions for Future Research Need for research that focuses on dynamics and consequences of strategic action; ‘‘decision story’’ development and analysis as a tool (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2003). Strategy-making episodes (e.g., meetings) and entrepreneurial strategic initiatives (Lubatkin et al., 2006) offer units of analysis for contextualizing individual strategic actions and outcomes over time (Hendry & Seidl, 2003)

What does the method measure?

Need validity studies to quantify the validity of background and demographic variables as surrogates for psychological states (Markoćzy, 1997) Strategic significance of everyday activities may only be seen retrospectively, for example, R&D efforts of engineers; researchers should focus on activities related to ‘‘crucial events’’ in realizing a strategy. Managers may not be aware of the relevance of their activity to strategy, capability, etc. (Rouleau, 2005); strategizing is bound by various types of discourse that the people involved are not always aware of (Vaara et al., 2004)

for example. The scope of research on MF and SAP, on the other hand, would seem to include managers and professionals at many levels of the hierarchy and in many different subunits. Although some lack of consistency can be expected early in the development of a research stream, scholars working on MF and SAP may also want to consider the benefits of a unifying conceptual model or ‘‘umbrella construct’’ (Floyd, Cornelissen, Wright, & Delios, 2011). Hambrick and Mason (1984) launched UE research within a specific conceptual framework, and the adoption of and reference to this framework in subsequent research has been a significant factor in producing a uniquely coherent research stream. Thus, if MF is a search for the source of capability in organizations, then research may benefit from a shared framework that limits differences in who (what individuals) are studied across researchers and potentially increases the cumulative quality of future work. Lacking such a framework, researchers are likely to rely on sampling designs based on different logics, study different individuals, and produce

20


findings that are at least difficult to compare and at worst wholly inconsistent. In an interesting study of NFL football organizations, Holcomb and Holmes (2009) define managerial capability as the knowledge, skill, and experience of managers, and identify coaches as the subject. While the study is useful in demonstrating effects of managerial capability, the analysis leaves open questions about where the coach-equivalent might reside in a large complex firm. Is the coach a top manager, middle manager, or simply a team leader? Managers in each of these and other locations may be associated with managerial capabilities, as well as other operating capabilities. What would be helpful to future researchers is an organizing framework, perhaps one that began with a definition of capabilities, and proceeded to articulate a set of categories or types of individuals and their relationship to organizationallevel capabilities. Existing work may provide clues about the dimensions of such a framework. In particular, part of what it means to be associated with managerial capabilities has to do with power and influence. In addition to formal authority, this may mean tracking individuals’ level of informal influence as a way to differentiate the relevant subject cohort, for example, study managers who are central actors (Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007). In large cohorts, random selection may play a role (Mantere, 2005), but it seems likely that a more theory-driven approach would lead to a more coherent set of findings, for example, concerning middle-level managers relationship to capability. SAP research may also benefit from a common framework. In this case, the need is for a framework that defines practices. If strategists are individuals who practice strategies, then the burden for researches shifts from identifying subjects (‘‘the right individuals’’) as a starting point to identifying what individuals do that comprises strategy practice. This shift from who to what can be extrapolated into the other domains. UE research can be accused of being preoccupied with who top managers are, that is, their demographic characteristics. By assuming that elites are the locus of strategic activity, this research stream has neglected the activity itself as an antecedent of firm performance. Studies we reviewed both within and outside UE suggest a number of possibilities for studying activities in the UE, including transformational leadership (Ling et al., 2008) politics and discourse (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2003), manager exploration/exploitation activities (Mom et al., 2007) divergent strategic activity (Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007), strategy creation (Regne´r, 2003), sensemaking and sensegiving (Rouleau, 2005), and strategy ‘‘talk’’ (Vaara et al., 2004). Again, since the CEOs and TMTs of large firms may not be open to studies that probe into their activities, researchers may


21

have to find data in SMEs (Ling et al., 2008; Lubatkin et al., 2006), nonprofits (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2003; Pappas & Wooldridge, 2007), and organizations in the public sector (Currie & Procter, 2005). Doing so will increase opportunities for access, but as noted above, may also impose bounds on external validity. In sum, even though this is a chapter about method, our first methodological suggestion is for conceptual frameworks that would encourage greater harmony of methods in MF and SAP research. A more consistent set of methods for identifying and accessing relevant individuals will, in turn, increase the cumulative nature of findings in these domains. Second, research in all three domains could benefit from methods, such as social network analysis, that differentiate individuals in terms of their relative connection to strategy. Third, another way to identify the right individuals, suggested by SAP but relevant to all three, is first to identify a set of activities that impact strategy and then focus research on the individuals that perform these activities.

How – Accounting for Multilevel Influences Despite the clarity with which Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) original framework identified the causal mechanisms that explain the links between individual or TMT characteristics and organizational outcomes, the methods in many UE studies rely on variables at only two levels of analysis. While recent examples suggest an increasing awareness among UE researchers of the need to take account of both internal and external variables as mediators and moderators of relationships between individuals and organizational-level outcomes (e.g., Simsek, Veiga, & Lubatkin, 2007), more mediators at the group level (operating team, department, and initiative) and moderators at the organizational/network level should be identified, for example, use of resources and managerial discretion (Holcomb et al., 2009). Perhaps because SAP lacks the conceptual foundations for deducing factors that explain multilevel relationships, case data and induction have become a rich source for better understanding the mechanisms between variables at the individual and organizational levels of analysis (cf. Parker, 2007). Qualitative researchers should be cautious about relying too much on respondent accounts in the attribution of multilevel effects (Currie & Procter, 2005), but multiple data sources and rigorous analysis can tease out new multilevel effects and identify causal mechanisms (Jarzabkowski, 2003). One rather obvious multilevel relationship relevant to individualorganizational bridging are the interactions across levels of the management

22


hierarchy. Theory suggests such vertical interactions are crucial in the formation of strategy (Floyd & Lane, 2000), and their relevance is apparent in all three research streams: UE – top managers implement decisions through middle and lower levels; MF – middle managers propose capability-building initiatives to top managers; SAP – strategy practices engage top and middle managers in interaction episodes. Yet, only one study in our review examined them (Mom et al., 2007). We would encourage the development of methods that facilitate observation and analysis across multiple levels of the management hierarchy. The strategy episode is a unit of analysis suggested in SAP (Hendry & Seidl, 2003) that has relevance to MF and UE. Such episodes (e.g., strategic planning meetings) are the locus of the managerial activity and interactions that are intended by the participants to have significant consequences for the organization. In that sense, such episodes have a degree of face validity as a bridge in the multilevel chain. Entrepreneurial strategic initiatives (Lechner, Frankenberger, & Floyd, 2010; Lubatkin et al., 2006) and other developmental groups (McGrath, 2001) are another unit of analysis with high face validity for connecting individual strategic actions to organizational outcomes (Hendry & Seidl, 2003) in all three research domains. Both episodes and initiatives have the added advantage of incorporating time into the analysis. Episodes are defined by temporal and geographic space (Hendry & Seidl, 2003), and initiatives evolve through stages of variation, selection, and retention (Burgelman, 1983). This suggests the use of longitudinal designs that connect individual activity to strategy outcomes over time. Maitlis and Lawrence (2003) employ a ‘‘decision story’’ methodology, for example, that focuses on the dynamics and consequences of strategic action. Much more could be done to develop methods for observing strategic activities episodically and/or within strategic initiatives. In sum, research in all three domains has employed methods that bridge multiple levels of analysis, and the availability of mediators and moderators is likely to make reviewers less tolerant of methods that make gross inferential leaps. Despite recent developments, all three domains would benefit from qualitative research that suggests new accounts of multiplelevel effects. Strategy episodes and strategic initiatives offer ways to span the temporal bridge between individual activity and strategy outcomes.

What – Measuring Right Phenomenon The criticism of UE research for using background or demographic variables as surrogates for psychological variables is well known (Hambrick, 2007;


23

Markoćzy, 1997), and even its strongest advocates have acknowledged that more direct measures of executives’ values, personality, perceptions, and other mental states would be preferable (Hambrick, 2007). From the start, Hambrick and Mason (1984) acknowledged that, for all their objectivity and accessibility, demographic variables ‘‘contain more noise than purer psychological measures’’ (p. 196). If such purer data is not accessible, however, indirect measures may be considered an acceptable, even necessary, alternative. In this context, it is striking that our review identified several studies that were successful in overcoming the access problem, surveying CEOs, and other executives to collect data for their studies (Delgado-Garcia & De La Fuente-Sabate´, 2010; Forbes, 2005; Simsek et al., 2005). Although none of these drew samples from large US companies, each was able to get top managers to respond to relatively detailed items, some of which appear to present threats to personal privacy and corporate confidentiality equal to or greater than questions about personality or other mental states. DelgadoGarcia and De La Fuente-Sabate´ (2010) were successful in getting bankers to report on their affective traits. Forbes (2005) successfully asked managers to report when they first began considering an important strategic decision and when a commitment to a specific choice was made – items that respondents could easily interpret as a measure of their decision-making performance. Using an equally complex, nine-item scale, Simsek et al. (2005) successfully measured behavioral integration; these items asked about collaboration and information exchange within the TMT – factors that reflect sensitive social issues within the team. Given the success of these studies in gaining access to executives’ inner thoughts and self-perceptions, one may wonder why in every case they maintained the use of demographic surrogates. Delgado-Garcia and De La Fuente-Sabate´ (2010) measured education as a surrogate for risk-taking. Forbes (2005) used age as a surrogate for an individual’s time perceptions and willingness to take risks. Simsek et al. (2005) employed tenure, functional and educational diversity of the TMT as a means of measuring a team’s homogeneity of perspectives. While it is doubtful that any of these researchers saw their use of demographics as surrogates, the arguments in the papers suggest as much. One can ask: Since access difficulties had been overcome, wouldn’t more direct measures of the phenomena have been preferable? Although we uncovered no explanation in the articles themselves, it is very likely that the research teams have answers to this question. It may also be the case, however, that the use of demographic surrogates has become self-perpetuating in UE research. Thus, in order to be consistent with earlier

24


studies, newer studies – even when they have access to more direct measures – continue to use surrogates. Rather than recommending that researchers abandon using demographic variables altogether, we would suggest that scholars follow Markoćzy’s (1997) effort to quantify the validity of these surrogates. In her study, Markoćzy (1997) found that background characteristics explained only 17.5 percent of variance in managers’ beliefs. She rightly interpreted this as an unacceptably low level of validity, leading to her call that research ‘‘accepts no substitutes.’’ Future research should follow in Markoćzy’s (1997) footsteps. Indeed a whole program of research could be organized around validity studies of background variables as indicators of executives’ mental states. In many cases, established scales exist for phenomena that have historically been measured with surrogates (e.g., personality, risk-taking propensity, and belief structures), and these suggest themselves as a starting point for such research. Work of this kind is important not only to compute measurement validities. Use of an invalid measure also threatens statistical conclusion validity. Put simply, if the measure is not measuring what it is intended to measure, then covariance with other variables provides no evidence for hypothesized relationships. What is perhaps most noteworthy about the MF and SAP studies we reviewed is the wide range of variables employed to track individuals’ and their role in strategy outcomes, including transformational leadership behavior, teaching activity, exploration/exploitation activities, and network centrality among many others. The range of data collection methodologies is equally diverse, ranging from archival data, self-report surveys, social network analysis, interviews, observation, and ethnography. Since an equally wide range of theories underlie these studies, it is not surprising that they draw on different variables and data collection strategies. The question one can ask, however, is: How well does the measurement strategy fit the theoretical framework? On the whole, it appears that both MF and SAP have employed observation and measurement approaches that are very proximate to the phenomena of interest. In some cases, this has involved the development or adoption of survey-based measurement scales; in others, qualitative analysis of observations, interviews, and archival data has been the measurement strategy. For the most part, these two research streams cannot be accused of using surrogates or creating a gap between measurement and theory. In some respects, however, the closeness of the measures to phenomena may be a function of the theoretical diversity found in these domains. Without a consensus, researchers are free to develop theory that fits the


25

observations they have available. While this generates a rich set of empirical results, it limits the potential for cumulative work and undermines the impact of individual studies. After all, subsequent research will build on – and cite – prior research to the extent it investigates similar questions using similar measures. Thus, our recommendation for MF and SAP is to be inspired by UE, not in the use of surrogates, but in the development of measures and methods of observation that are more coherent. Understandably, progress on this front is connected to the development of conceptual frameworks for research in these domains, but a shared understanding of what the central variables are and how they can be measured will facilitate such progress. The work we reviewed suggests several key variables where more robust measures could be developed, including managerial capability and strategy practice. These are key variables, but their measurement to date has been idiosyncratic. In addition to the need for more agreement about what is important and how to measure it, MF and SAP face two other more specific issues. The first of these revolves around the question of measuring strategy practices and/or activities. The problem is knowing what is really ‘‘strategic’’ in the sense that said practices or activities impact strategy. An activity may look strategic, for example, a strategic planning episode, but have little or no relevance to realized strategy; alternatively, a practice may look nonstrategic, for example, playing a round of golf with the chief executive, but have significant influence on strategic decisions (Mintzberg, Ahistrand, & Lampel, 1998). In many cases, one can only discern what is strategic retrospectively, for example, once it has become clear that the conversation on the golf course was a key turning point in a decision process. Similar observations may be made about research that seeks to observe the sources of capability. While it may seem obvious that a football coach’s ability is relevant to the managerial capability within the organization, what about the decision to fire the previous coach? That, too, is related to management of the organization but its relevance to organizational-level managerial capability may only become apparent retrospectively. A related problem is that individuals may not be aware of the relationships between their activity and strategy outcomes. This is perhaps especially true of individuals outside the UE, but even senior executives may not recognize their behavior as strategic. Contemporaneously or retrospectively, for example, the chief executive may never come to appreciate the strategic significance of the aforementioned round of golf. And if the individuals who are involved cannot identify their behavior as strategic or as related to critical organizational capability, where does that leave the researcher? More definitive theory would

26


help, but that begs the question: What theory? We take as the focus of our final recommendation the problem of identifying individual activities, practices, or behaviors as ‘‘strategic.’’ If the goal is to connect activity to outcome, then a longitudinal design is inevitable. In particular, one needs a biographical account of individuals’ histories that provides data to objectively derive linkages from activity to outcome and do so with a sufficient number of individuals to detect a pattern. For individuals of high social status (chief executives of large public companies), biographical information is often collected in the business media and in internal documents (e.g., minutes of meetings and official calendars). For others, diaries may be a method for developing autobiographical data (Mintzberg, 1973). Such data could be subjected to qualitative analysis in order to develop theory around potential patterns. Moreover, given sufficient detail and multiple sources, such data can be transformed into objective measures using historiometric analysis (Resick et al., 2009). This method uses trained raters and measurement scales with established psychometric properties. Thus, although the challenges of collecting such data are nontrivial, systematic analysis of managerial biographies may provide the means for both theory-building and theory-testing research. In sum, in this final section of the chapter, we argued that UE research would benefit from a systematic program of validity studies wherein demographic surrogates were examined as measures of psychological variables. In addition, we suggested that MF and SAP research should work toward the development of a small set of key variables and measurement approaches that could be the basis of more programmatic and cumulative work. Finally, we suggested biographical data and analyses such as historiometrics as a first step toward the problem of recognizing truly ‘‘strategic’’ managerial practices and/ or activities.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we have tried to catalogue the methods employed by researchers seeking to examine the individual’s relationship to strategy. In the process, we hope to have illuminated the state-of-the-art and crosspollinate ideas from three research streams that, we believe, have much in common. Each of the domains has already developed a great number of interesting and important findings. We hope this chapter will help to consolidate this effort and support the development of even better methods in future research.


27

REFERENCES Andrews, K. R. (1971). New horizons in corporate strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, 7(3), 34–43. Barnard, C. (1938). Functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99. Billett, M. T., & Qian, Y. (2008). Are overconfident CEOs born or made? Evidence of selfattribution bias from frequent acquirers. Management Science, 54(6), 1037–1051. Boone, C., de Brabander, B., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (1996). CEO locus of control and small firm performance: An integrative framework and empirical test. Journal of Management Studies, 33(5), 667–699. Bourgeois, L. J., III. (1980). Performance and consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 1(3), 227–248. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244. Cassar, G. (2010). Are individuals entering self-employment overly optimistic? An empirical test of plans and projections on nascent entrepreneur expectations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 822–840. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351–386. Currie, G., & Procter, S. J. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers’ strategic contribution: The case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1325–1356. Delgado-Garcia, J. B., & De La Fuente-Sabate´, J. M. (2010). How do CEO emotions matter? Impact of CEO affective traits on strategic and performance conformity in the Spanish banking industry. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 562–574. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105. Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2009). Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 157–167. Floyd, S. W., Cornelissen, J., Wright, M., & Delios, A. (2011). Process and practices of strategising and organising: Review, development, and the role of bridging and umbrella constructs. Journal of Management Studies (Forthcoming). Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177. Forbes, D. P. (2005). Managerial determinants of decision speed in new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 355–366. Frederickson, J. W. (1984). The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extension, observations, future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 445–466. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 103–127.

28


Hendry, J., & Seidl, D. (2003). The structure and significance of strategic episodes: Social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 175–196. Holcomb, T. R., Holmes, R. M., Jr., & Connelly, B. L. (2009). Making the most of what you have: Managerial ability as a source of resource value creation. Strategic Management Journal, 30(5), 457–485. Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007. Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic practices: An activity theory perspective on continuity and change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 23–55. Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Micro strategy and strategizing: Towards an activity-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 3–22. Khan, A. M., & Manopichetwattana, V. (1989). Innovative and noninnovative small firms: Types and characteristics. Management Science, 35(5), 597–606. Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. (2010). Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 865–889. Li, J., & Tang, Y. I. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 45–68. Ling, Y. A. N., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). Transformational leadership’s role in promoting entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT Interface. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 557–576. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Yan, L., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672. Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Orchestral maneuvers in the dark: Understanding failure in organizational strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 109–139. Mantere, S. (2005). Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity. Strategic Organization, 3(2), 157–184. Mantere, S., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). Strategic intent as a rhetorical device. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23(4), 406–423. Marginson, D., & McAulay, L. (2008). Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 273–292. Markoćzy, L. (1997). Measuring beliefs: Accept no substitutes. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1228–1242. McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2010). A little help here? Board control, CEO identification with the corporate elite, and strategic help provided to CEOs and other firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 343–370. McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131. Mintzberg, H. (1973). A new look at the chief executive’s job. Organizational Dynamics, 1(3), 20–30. Mintzberg, H., Ahistrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. New York: The Free Press. Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down,


29

bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931. Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. O. L. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050–1073. Pappas, J. M., & Wooldridge, B. (2007). Middle managers’ divergent strategic activity: An investigation of multiple measures of network centrality. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 323–341. Parker, L. D. (2007). Boardroom strategizing in professional associations: Processual and institutional perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1454–1480. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley. Peterson, R. S., Martorana, P. V., Smith, D. B., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 795. Regne´r, P. (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive strategy making. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 57–82. Resick, C. J., Weingarden, S. M., Whitman, D. S., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365–1381. Roth, K. (1995). Managing international interdependence: CEO characteristics in resourcebased framework. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 200–231. Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–1441. SAP. (2010). Available at http://www.s-as-p.org/about Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. (2003). The relationship between overconfidence and the introduction of risky products: Evidence from a field study. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 139–149. Simsek, Z. (2007). CEO tenure and organizational performance: An intervening model. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 653–662. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Veiga, J. F. (2010). The impact of CEO core self-evaluation on the firm’s entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 110–119. Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., & Lubatkin, M. H. (2007). The impact of managerial environmental perceptions on corporate entrepreneurship: Towards understanding discretionary slack’s pivotal role. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1398–1424. Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69–84. Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Sims, H. P., Jr., O’Bannon, D. P., Scully, J. A., & Olian, J. D. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 412–438. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

30


Vaara, E., Kleymann, B., & Seristo¨, H. (2004). Strategies as discursive constructions: The case of airline alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 1–35. Wally, S., & Baum, J. R. (1994). Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 932. Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634. Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Naldi, L. (2007). The effects of ownership and governance on SMEs’ international knowledge-based resources. Small Business Economics, 29(3), 309–327. Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955. Zheng, J. Z., & Anand, J. (2009). A multilevel perspective on knowledge transfer: Evidence from the Chinese automotive industry. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9), 959–983.

INTO THE GREAT WIDE OPEN: BRIDGING THE MICRO–MACRO DIVIDE IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCES M. Ronald Buckley, Maria Riaz Hamdani, Anthony C. Klotz and Sorin Valcea ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to establish some of the reasons why there exists a chasm between micro and macro disciplines of organizational sciences. We aim to suggest some fecund areas for bridging the gap between the micro and macro side of our science. Methodology/Approach – In this chapter, we have polled our colleagues to ascertain the areas that they believe have the most potential to bridge the micro–macro divide. In addition, we have reviewed extant literature to identify some of the areas where bridging work has already started. Findings – Through our survey and literature review, we have identified a number of areas which can help in narrowing the micro–macro divide. Social Implications – By suggesting some ways to bridge the micro– macro divide, this chapter helps in setting future research agenda that will help in viewing organizational problems from multiple lenses. Our work Building Methodological Bridges Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Volume 6, 31–68 Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-8387/doi:10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006006

31

32

M. RONALD BUCKLEY ET AL.

also encourages the scholars from various disciplines to explore ways that can integrate the broad disciplines of organizational sciences. Originality/Value of Paper – We have attempted to take the pulse of researchers in management disciplines concerning the chasm between micro and macro disciplines, and we have tried to integrate this information with the bridging research that has already been reported. Moreover, we have suggested a number of reasons why this gap is so difficult to remediate. We discuss how bridging the gap is connected to the way in which we train, develop, and reward nascent scholars in our field. Keywords: cross-disciplinary research; organizational studies; micro– macro research Many of us talk frequently about the ‘‘organizational sciences.’’ So much so that it is intuitive to visualize the organizational sciences as a monolithic research area. However, this is certainly not the case. Organizational sciences encompass many different disciplines making it a polytheistic field. As Mahoney (1985, p. 15) stated, ‘‘The so-called organization sciences encompass scholarship in the more traditional social sciences of economics, sociology, psychology, political science, and related disciplines.’’ As a multidisciplinary field (cf. Zammuto & Connolly, 1984), typified by different methodologies (e.g., qualitative and quantitative), different levels of analysis (e.g., individual, group, and organization), and different levels of paradigm development (e.g., sociology vs. economics), we must inevitably recognize the fragmentation among these disciplines and resign ourselves to the difficulties of achieving consensus. As the volume of information generated from these disparate areas grows, the integration of these disciplines be comes more and more difficult to manage effectively. Owing to the plethora of information that is available in the organizational sciences, it has become impossible (and would be terribly inefficient) to treat each piece of information individually. Thus, most have chosen to focus their work in an area based on their interests, abilities, market demands, or necessity. We in the organizational sciences have, for the sake of parsimony, developed a number of general groupings that we utilize to facilitate the communication, interpretation, dissemination, and understanding of that information generated in the research process. Two such groupings that are extensively used in the organizational sciences are the ‘‘micro approach to management’’ and the ‘‘macro approach to management.’’ In our persistent attempts to advance knowledge in the organizational sciences, these two

Bridging the Micro–Macro Divide in the Organizational Sciences

33

constructs have ostensibly developed sacrosanct status. When this is conflated with the fact that most research scholars generally conduct research efforts within a single level of analysis, a false opposition between researchers who study similar organizational phenomena from different levels of analysis (micro vs. macro) becomes evident. With respect to the macro and micro approaches to management, we have evolved into what is commonly known as the bifurcation fallacy. That is, many researchers now assume that the micro and macro approaches to management are two mutually exclusive possibilities when, in fact, spanning them is, in fact, feasible (see Hackman, 2003), and such integration would likely result in the creation of new knowledge. Our circumstances may also be emblematic of what is commonly known as a false dichotomy, creating an either micro or macro approach to issues in the organizational sciences. Of course, it is comfortable for us to think in terms of either-or’s. Unfortunately, with respect to the micro–macro divide in the organizational sciences, the world is much more complicated than the approach that many of us have taken in our attempts to develop knowledge in management. And therein lays the crux of one of our most intractable problems in the organizational sciences. This quandary was succinctly illustrated in this anecdote told by Steve Kerr in his keynote address for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in 2009: I first ran into these dichotomies while teaching at Ohio State. We had an open faculty slot, and the department chair wanted to know who was micro and who was macro. It was apparently easy for everybody else to classify themselves, but I was studying reward systems then and had joined the flourishing Ohio State leadership program, and I didn’t see how you could get very far in either rewards or leadership if you only read the micro or only read the macro literature. It just seemed kind of odd. If I had been better read I would have used Russ Ackoff’s response. When confronted with a similar question, Russ observed that ‘‘nature is not organized in the same manner as universities.’’

WITH OR WITHOUT YOU: A BIT OF HISTORY ON THE MICRO–MACRO DIVIDE A short reprise of the historical roots of organizational science reveals that it wasn’t always like this. Early researchers in management, unconstrained by the methodological requirements of organization science research today, appear to have rather effortlessly and seamlessly merged the micro and macro aspects of investigating organizational phenomena (see Hatch, 1997 for a review). Frederick Taylor’s introduction of Scientific Management set the stage for management control systems by focusing on the efficiency of each

34


worker. Henri Fayol’s contributions spanned from the specific responsibilities of managers to the importance of organizational culture, especially among the rank and file workers in organizations. Max Weber’s concept of the bureaucracy is still used today to refer to certain organizational structures, but he also delved into human resources topics such as managerial training and filing systems. Chester Barnard wrote primarily about the executive level of management, yet his contribution is pivotal for the development of the field of organizational behavior in that he emphasized communication and motivation from the top-down. The study of organizations has progressed extensively since the seminal work of these early pioneers. Now, the Academy of Management boasts nearly 20,000 members across 25 divisions and interest groups. The four largest divisions are organizational behavior (OB) and human resources (HR) (i.e., the micro side), and business policy and strategy (BPS) and organization and management theory (OT) (i.e., the macro side). It is not surprising then that, when the micro–macro dichotomy in management is discussed, the ‘‘micro’’ often refers to OB and HR while the ‘‘macro’’ refers to BPS and OT (e.g., Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007; Short, Palmer, & Ketchen, 2003). Somewhere in the recent history of management thought, scholars began to feel that they can live with or without other critical disciplines of the organization sciences. A brief look at the history of these four major disciplines sheds some understanding on the development of this perspective. Organizational behavior was born from the mother disciplines of primarily psychology, but also sociology, and anthropology (Mahoney, 1985). Owing to this heritage, methodological rigor is a sacrosanct founding principle of the area, albeit sometimes at the expense of dependent variables that are both meaningful and relevant to practitioners. The study of HR emerged from industrial/organizational psychology, which itself was developed to study the most practical of business challenges, most notably that of mental testing for personnel selection purposes for both the United States Military Forces and business organizations (Landy & Shankster, 1994). Much of OT’s history has been written by sociologists, philosophers, political scientists, and economists, as well as practitioner/theorists such as the aforementioned Fayol (Hatch, 1997). Finally, the formal study of business strategy emerged from three very practical forces – the need by organizations for more sophisticated tools to cope with the instable business environment, the birth of strategic consulting groups, and the evolution and prevalence of the diversified firm (Rumelt, Schendel, & Teece, 1991). Given the diverse origins of these four disciplines, it is not surprising that many silos exist in their methodologies, constructs, and principles. In our


35

opinion, that should not give pause; given the different formative exercises experienced by each discipline, there should be silos. Clearly, there are areas in micro, such as cognition and training, and areas in macro, such as population ecology and strategic groups, that will primarily inform research and practice on their ‘‘side of the house.’’ However, given the shared ancestry of certain elements of these disciplines, such as HR and strategy’s focus on practical application and OB and OT’s sociological concerns, there are many areas where ‘‘bridge building’’ might be a worthwhile endeavor. Exemplars of this type of scholarship abound, from top management team research to the strategic human resources literature. The purpose of this chapter is to look at the process through which some of these bridges have been successfully built, and then extend this successful bridge building to constructs that are currently happily residing in silos in one discipline. To do this, we first share the barriers and opportunities to bridge-building research identified by a sample survey of the membership of the Academy of Management. Next, we develop a model of crossing the divide based on some constructs that have successfully climbed up and down the ladder between micro and macro domains of research. We then identify constructs from OB/HR and from strategy/OT that are ripe for making the multilevel move and apply our model to illustrate how both sides can continue to push the frontiers of knowledge in the other. It is our hope that in venturing into the great wide open between the micro and macro disciplines of management research, we will provide a blueprint for future bridges to be built, thereby increasing the relevance and insightfulness of our work to one another and to our partners in industry.

MORE THAN A FEELING: A SURVEY OF OUR COLLEAGUES The micro–macro divide continues to be a salient topic of interest for management scholars. Indeed, Roberts, Hulin, and Rousseau (1978) recognized that boundaries such as these ‘‘hamper integration of information from different disciplines; thus, a signal considered of paramount importance in one discipline is often ignored as noise in the other’’ (pp. 27–28). This quote cuts to the core of this issue; we have a tendency to treat as noise that which falls outside of our areas of interest. In the three decades since, much insightful work has been done to understand and address this schism created by paradigm adoption and paradigm exclusion (e.g., Hitt et al., 2007;

36


Rousseau, 1985; Pfeffer, 1993). Despite this progress, there is debate concerning the existence of the divide, its causes, and the amount of attention it should receive. To assess the pulse of our colleagues in the management disciplines concerning the micro–macro divide and find evidence that this problem is actually more than a feeling, we collected data from the three largest divisions of the Academy of Management – (OB) organizational behavior, (HR) human resources management, and (BPS) strategy. Their responses to a number of questions about both their side of the divide and the other side of the divide provided a framework for our analysis of the current state of the schism within the disciplines of organizational science. The survey link was sent to all members of the OB, HR, and BPS divisions through list server email. These divisions have 2,601, 1,201, and 2,255 members who subscribe to their listservs, respectively. We received 292 responses for a very conservative overall response rate of 4.8% (given there is likely significant overlap between these groups, especially OB and HR). Of these, 192 respondents clearly identified themselves as either OB or HRM, 95 identified themselves as BPS, and 5 saw themselves as either both OB and BPS or neither. Our initial question concerned respondent perception of the importance of cross-disciplinary research between the micro and macro disciplines for the future of management research. An overwhelming majority (91%) of respondents felt that this type of research was either important or very important for the future of our field. So we can confidently conclude that the micro–macro divide is more than a feeling; it is an important matter to our colleagues and should be looked at in more detail.

I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND: OPPORTUNITIES FOR CROSS-DISCIPLINE BRIDGE BUILDING We also asked researchers to highlight the most interesting theories in management as well as the most important constructs and theories on their side of the divide and on the other side of the divide. In doing this, our goal was to identify the theories and constructs that have been most successful in bringing micro and macro researchers together and the areas that may be most conducive to making the step up or leap down the organizational science ladder. Table 1 summarizes the responses to this series of questions. It is clear that most respondents from both sides have a broad set of ideas from their own discipline that they feel can contribute to the other side of

Resource-bBased view Decision making Social exchange Theory Identity theories Cultural issues Motivation theories Goal setting theory Teams/groups Institutional theory Behavioral theory of firm Agency theory Leadership HR management

Most interesting theory or idea in management

All Respondents

Leadership Teams/groups Decision making Human resources Identity Motivation Emotion Learning Culture Ethics Justice Trust Climate Turnover/retention

OB/HR ideas that can contribute to strategy Resource-based view Agency theory

Most influential strategy theory on OB/HR Resource-based view Entrepreneurship Opportunity Agency theory Governance Network theory Governance Competitive advantage Learning Real options

Leadership Decision making TMT/upper echelons

Most influential OB/HR theory on strategy

Strategy Respondents Only Strategy ideas that can contribute to OB/HR

Micro–Macro Survey Results.

OB/HR Respondents Only

Table 1.

Bridging the Micro–Macro Divide in the Organizational Sciences 37

38


the divide. However, respondents cited far fewer concepts from the other side of the divide that have contributed to their own discipline. This is not surprising, as our field encourages and rewards specialization, but it is worth noting that 41% of the BPS respondents and 52% of the OB/HR respondents did not even answer the questions requesting an acknowledgement of the contributions of the other side of the divide to their own area of expertise. However, there is some agreement on certain theories and ideas that are likely to bridge the cross-discipline divide, including the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Barney, 1986), decision making, agency theory, leadership studies, and teams research. In these areas, both OB/HR and BPS researchers seem to agree on the benefit of work in these areas to both sides of the schism. Taken together, however, these areas account for only 34% of the responses, and many other bridging opportunities are identified. In sum, these responses point out some notable bridge-crossing successes but also suggest that many possible niches of cross-disciplinary research have yet to be explored and exploited.

ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL: BARRIERS TO BRIDGE BUILDING We also asked survey participants to describe the most pressing factors that impede cross-disciplinary research in OB/HR and BPS. The most common responses, ranked in order, were publishing risks, methodological challenges, theory base differences, and doctoral education. Each of these challenges has been discussed in previous literature. Here, we briefly incorporate the specific concerns of our respondents with this previous work. The risks associated with trying to successfully publish cross-discipline research in premier outlets were the most commonly cited bricks in the wall between micro and macro scholarship. This type of work is seen as being considerably more time-intensive and energy-intensive, yet there exists considerable uncertainty as to how it will be received by journal reviewers. One respondent put it simply by saying that it ‘‘takes time to develop an understanding of how issues are framed and regarded in related subdisciplines, so the payoff is not there.’’ For example, a strategy researcher integrating motivational theories may be unsure how the reviewers at a strategy-oriented journal will receive and evaluate this type of work. Will


39

they agree that this type of work is a significant contribution? Or will it be evaluated as something that is misplaced? Furthermore, does it clearly fit within the guidelines of the journal’s mission? Indeed, almost a third of the rejections at our major scholarly journals are desk rejections and perhaps those who have attempted this type of research may have inflated these numbers. Furthermore, an author may also be uneasy about the type of reviewer that will evaluate such an article. If the article is assigned to a motivational researcher, that person may balk at the extension of this work to such a high level. If the article is assigned to a strategy reviewer, he or she may question the contribution to the macro-level literature. In sum, ‘‘This work looks to be difficult – therefore not a very promising investment for a researcher’s time. This is likely especially the case for younger researchers who are still trying to build a reputation and earn tenure.’’ As Rynes (2006) describes, journal boards must take deliberate action to encourage openness to new ideas, otherwise the review process gravitates toward ‘‘conservatism and incrementalism.’’ On the basis of the responses we received, it would appear that many authors feel that journals are already wallowing in this rut as it pertains to maintaining a welcoming attitude with respect to crossdiscipline research. Second, methodological challenges discourage some researchers from engaging in macro-micro spanning research. OB/HR researchers are challenged enough with ever-increasing requirements such as multisource data, longitudinal designs, and large sample sizes at the individual level and agreement concerns at the team level. In the same way, strategy researchers struggle with sample sizes, levels of analysis, and statistical anomalies with large scale data. For many, expanding the scope and rigor of the study to include variables more than one level away has become a significant challenge. One respondent commented, ‘‘May require a mixed methods methodology which is far more time consuming.’’ Overall, a consensus reports that this type of research is more time consuming and is accompanied with a smaller probability of a publication payoff. Third, as shown in Table 1, OB/HR researchers only identified two influential strategy theories, while respondents from strategy merely highlighted a handful of influential theories from the micro side, two of which – leadership and top management teams – are clearly very similar. These findings could demonstrate that there simply is consensus among researchers as to what the most influential theories from the other discipline have most impacted their side of the divide. While this may partially be the case, many of the qualitative responses alluded to the fact that perhaps this seemingly narrow perception of cross-discipline influence indicates a lack of

40


understanding of the other side’s work and contribution. This drives a situation where, according to one respondent, ‘‘It is difficult to find micro people who know enough macro ‘language’ and research gaps and to find macro people who know enough micro ‘language’ and research gaps to converse well enough to find areas of fruitful collaboration and overlap.’’ As this respondent has so ably pointed out, the solution to the dearth of knowledge of the other side of the divide is not going to come from researchers simply spending more time learning the theories and advances in the other domain. After all, it is challenging enough to stay on top of the most recent developments in our own research streams. Part of the solution likely lies in collaborations between macro and micro researchers. There are signs that mechanisms are being built to facilitate this type of collaborative work; a new interest group, Strategizing Activities and Practice, formed before the 2010 Academy of Management meeting in Montreal. Part of the mission of this group is to study ‘‘How do such things as knowledge, identity, and emotions affect the strategic work of individuals?’’ Clearly, this is an encouraging signal for the future of micro–macro spanning research in the organizational sciences. Related to this, the structure of doctoral training often does not foster a sufficient understanding of the corresponding side of the micro–macro divide. This was apparent in some of the open-ended responses that alluded to the fact that many programs do not require micro or macro students to even take a doctoral seminar in a BPS or OB/HR seminar (in a ‘‘competing’’ discipline), respectively. Indeed, this under-identified model of doctoral training will, necessarily, in most cases result in a lifetime of specialized work. As one respondent put it, ‘‘The entire career process for researchers is geared to slicing knowledge into ever thinner slices for publication, firstly as a doctoral thesis and then as articles in journals that are themselves highly specialized.’’ While this statement is true, there is no simple way to remediate this issue. First, Ph.D. students are under growing pressure to specify their interests and develop research streams earlier and earlier in their doctoral education. Whereas, for many of us who received their degrees some time ago, the first few years of doctoral training was a time for exploration and experimentation in the entire field of management, students now feel obligated to choose an area of specialization as soon as possible so they can begin developing a pipeline of research as soon as possible. Applicants for assistant professor jobs invariably have a slide denoting their ‘‘research stream’’ when all they possess is a tightly defined research trickle. As a well-known senior management scholar (Professor Pamela Perrewe of Florida State University) recently commented in a


41

presentation to doctoral students and faculty ‘‘Research streams used to be something you worry about when you go up for tenure, now it is something that you have to worry about as a doctoral student.’’ It has taken a number of years for our field to trend in this direction, and we believe it is unlikely that this trend will reverse anytime soon. The incentives that used to exist for a doctoral student to spend time developing a broad understanding of all the areas of management seem to no longer be potent. Fifth, and finally, a frequently cited reason for the gap in scholarship between OB/HR and strategy can best be described as ‘‘political reasons.’’ Indeed, responses such as ‘‘many are committed to protect the ‘unique’ knowledge of their discipline from ‘intruders’’’ and ‘‘fields develop vested interests, cultures and boundaries (institutional characteristics) that often impede cross-disciplinary research’’ capture the value of staying on your own turf, especially for nascent scholars. It is politically unwise and exceedingly difficult to attempt to make contributions to the other side when many buy into the notion of the purity of their side of the divide and will protect their side from outsiders who try to make contributions. This barrier is not especially surprising, as both nascent and longtime contributors to organizational sciences are trained to be critical of new ideas, lest we succumb to construct proliferation and the weak theoretical grounding that accompanies such expansion. Furthermore, one of the strengths of the organizational sciences is the large number of outstanding scholars that are extremely passionate about their area of research. When this passion and critical mindset are combined, the barriers to entry encountered when one attempts to contribute to an established research area become daunting. The benefits this brings to academic rigor have a large downside – it serves to significantly reduce the odds of success for authors attempting to bridge the micro–macro divide.

IT’S ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE: SUCCESS STORIES IN BRIDGING THE DIVIDE There have been a number of insightful, well-designed, and thought-out studies that have bridged the micro and macro chasm. In this section, our aim is to highlight some of the topics that have helped in bridging the micro–macro research gap. To review the research we examined articles published in a subset of the leading scholarly journals such as Academy of Management

42


Journal, Academy of Management Review, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, and Management Science. We did not limit our search to any particular timeframe. Our search indicates that articles guiding on various theoretical and methodological issues in conducting multilevel and cross-level research are available since the 1980s (e.g., Mossholder & Bedeian, 1983; Rousseau, 1985). However, articles actually incorporating a cross-disciplinary framework have primarily started appearing in the research literature since late 1990s and onward.

Micro–Macro Articles Defined We want to clarify at the onset the definition of micro–macro articles that we have used for article selection in this review. We define micro–macro articles as those articles that combine theoretical concepts from various management disciplines to examine an organizational phenomenon. We consider micro–macro articles to be cross-disciplinary in nature. Thus, for our discussion, an article with multiple levels of analysis is not necessarily a micro–macro article. As explained by Molloy, Ployhart, and Wright (2011), two major types of divides exist in the management literature – a system-level divide and a disciplinary divide. A system-level divide concerns the hierarchical nature of entities involved in a theory. That is, it relates to whether the primary focus of the theory is individuals, groups, organizations, industries, or the larger economic or social sphere. On the contrary, a disciplinary divide concerns the fundamental organized principles of knowledge that are used as a primary source for theory building. In the management literature, these disciplines can be seen as consisting of various specializations such as strategy, organizational theory, organizational behavior, human resources management, entrepreneurship, and international business. All these disciplines trace their roots back to one of the three foundational areas of economics, sociology, and psychology. A multilevel article that spans various system-level divides does not necessarily bridge various disciplines. Thus, for our discussion a singlediscipline, multilevel article will not be classified as a micro–macro article. Some example of single-discipline, multilevel articles include multilevel articles in group work (e.g., Barry & Stewart, 1997; Tasa, Seijts, & Taggar, 2007; Zyphur, Narayanan, Koh, & Koh, 2009), multilevel models in


43

organization climate (e.g., Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006; Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, & Goldstein, 2007; Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2010), and various organizational theory and strategy articles (e.g., Holm, 1995; Hough, 2006; Mani, Antia, & Rindfleisch, 2007; Misangyi, Elms, Greckhamer, & Lepine, 2006). These articles explore the effects of a phenomenon at multiple levels by primarily employing the theoretical framework of their own disciplines. Similarly, a study design to investigate the effects of micro-level variable on some macro-level indicator such as profits or sales characterizes a multilevel approach and seldom employs cross-disciplinary frameworks. For example, McKay, Avery, and Morris (2009) demonstrated that subordinate and supervisor perceptions of a pro-diversity environment impact retail store sales. Using a multilevel model of organizational climate (e.g., Zohar, 2000), they reported that that greatest sales growth was found when both the subordinate and the supervisor perceived a pro-diversity environment (McKay et al., 2009). In a similar fashion, employees’ customer service attitudes and behaviors have been linked to unit-level performance when there is a customer service climate (Grizzle, Zablah, Brown, Mowen, & Lee, 2009). These articles utilize variables at multiple levels but essentially remain within one primary conceptual domain to explain an organizational phenomenon; so while they are multilevel, they are not cross-disciplinary. On the basis of this conceptualization of micro–macro articles, we searched for areas where cross-disciplinary work has already started (Table 2). As we have suggested, various disciplines in management have a distinct system-level focus (e.g., organizational behavior researchers are interested in individuals and groups and strategy scholars are interested in organizations and industries). Therefore, in general, micro–macro articles (i.e., cross-disciplinary articles) are multilevel in nature as well. This accounts for the complexity of theoretical and methodological challenges involved in crafting micro–macro articles. Despite these challenges, our review indicates that many promising areas of cross-disciplinary work in the organizational sciences have emerged over the past many years. Top management team research, strategic human resources management, social networks, international management, and organizational learning are some of the areas where theoretical lenses from various management disciplines are being used to cross the micro–macro schism. In the section below, we briefly discuss some of these areas to draw a picture of the bridge that has already started to be built by a number of insightful management scholars.

Macro Literature

Agency theory and structuralist view of board power and control

Corporate diversification and theory of macro or corporate control

Authors

Westphal (1998)

Rowe & Wright (1997)

Theory of micro controls exerted by human resources management function

Interpersonal influence behaviors (e.g., ingratiation and persuasion)

Future Areas of Research

Can board members learn to avoid CEO ingratiation and persuasion behavior toward board members biases in their monitoring behavior are associated with changes in resulting from managerial influence board structure that increase the tactics? How upward managerial influence board’s independence from management. Moreover, CEO’s tactics may vary across cultures? What type of behavioral process influence behaviors moderate the effect of increased structural board and structural context can enhance independence on corporate strategy board effectiveness? and CEO compensation policy How related and unrelated firms The type of corporate (macro) may benefit differently from the use controls used by related or of various practices (e.g., unrelated diversified firms results in innovative HRM practices) over a relative emphasis on either the long run? flexibility or fit among HRM practices. The firms diversified in related areas emphasize flexibility and those diversified in unrelated areas emphasize fit. This emphasis on flexibility or fit, in turn, has implications for the use of HRM (micro) controls such as clan, behavior, and outcome controls. The related firms exhibit the use of all three types of micro controls, while unrelated firms exhibit a relative emphasis on the use of outcome controls

Key Cross-Disciplinary Assertions

Summary of Exemplary Cross-Disciplinary Studies.

Micro Literature

Table 2.

44 M. RONALD BUCKLEY ET AL.

Corporate governance and varieties of capitalism

Population ecology

Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, and Ganapathi (2007)

Eckhardt and Ciuchta (2008)

Organizations are pressured to engage Is there a linkage between in CSR by many different actors employee perceptions of CSR and (e.g., employees, government, employee behaviors, commitment NGOs, consumers, and and job satisfaction? How actors’ motives at different shareholders) each driven by instrumental, relational, and moral levels may interact to predict motives increased CSR and, consequently, positive social change? What factors limit or enhance an The population-level outcomes of individual selection models in entrepreneur’s ability to modify entrepreneurship foster a multistage selection criteria, as well as how selection process that evolves modifications to selection criteria through time. More specifically, might differentially influence the fitness of the population of entrepreneurship can be viewed as a opportunities being pursued at a funneling process that starts with a specific point in time? pool of opportunities at a specific What is the relationship between point in time. This pool of the specific characteristics of opportunities is winnowed through opportunities or selection settings staged selection events, yielding a subset of successfully exploited and specific organizing strategies opportunities. Those opportunities such as business models? that are successfully exploited become inputs into established evolutionary theories that start with the existence of an organization. Those opportunities that are not successfully exploited at a given point in time may be available for exploitation in a following period

Organizational justice

Theories of differences in individual attributes, prior knowledge, and cognition Individual opportunity nexus literature in entrepreneurship

Bridging the Micro–Macro Divide in the Organizational Sciences 45

Macro Literature

Competitive strategy and firm performance

Authors

Acquaah (2007)

Theories of an individuals’ social capital and networking.

Micro Literature The social capital developed from managerial networking and social relationships with various stakeholders (i.e., top executives in other firms, government officials, and community leaders) enhance organizational performance. However, the impact of social capital on organizational performance differs between firms that pursue the different competitive strategies (low-cost, differentiation, and combination of low-cost and differentiation) and those who do not pursue those strategies

Key Cross-Disciplinary Assertions

Table 2. (Continued )

Do various sources of social capital differ in influencing long-term performance of organizations and other non-economic outcomes (e.g., social change)?

Future Areas of Research

46 M. RONALD BUCKLEY ET AL.


47

Top Management Teams One promising area for a cross-disciplinary management research is top management team research in strategy. Many strategy scholars have utilized theories of individual behavior to explain variance in firm-level outputs due to top executives’ decisions. The seminal work of Hambrick and Mason (1984) encouraged many strategy researchers to explore the impact of individual differences in top management teams. This focus has primarily resulted in the use of demographic characteristics as proxies for deep-level individual differences that shape team processes (e.g., Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001; Sanders & Carpenter, 1998; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). Some researchers have also focused on team processes such as communication (O’Reilly, Snyder, & Boothe, 1993) and social integration (Smith et al., 1994). However, the focus is shifting toward developing a more in-depth understanding of individual behavior in top management teams. For example, Hambrick (1994) proposed the concept of behavioral integration to capture how team collaboration, information exchange, and focus toward joint decision-making impact various strategic-level outcomes. Extending this work, Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, and Dino (2005) proposed various individual-level (e.g., CEO’s collectivist orientation), team-level (e.g., team diversity, size, and tenure), and firm-level (e.g., firm size, performance, and age) antecedents of behavioral integration in executive teams. Using predictors at all three levels explained maximum variance in the behavioral integration variable. Clearly, top management team research is an area that has been developing stronger and stronger ties between the macro and micro domains for nearly three decades.

Executive Compensation Executive compensation is another example where, when it comes to crossdiscipline research, it’s all been done before. Researchers have used concepts from economics, psychology, and sociology to study the antecedents and consequences of compensation in various management disciplines. Within the area of top management teams, micro–macro theories have been combined to investigate executive compensation (e.g., Carpenter & Wade, 2002; Fredrickson, Davis-Blake, & Sanders, 2010; Westphal, 1998; Zajac & Westphal, 1995). Westphal (1998) integrated micro–macro work by proposing that the influence tactics (e.g., ingratiation and persuasion) used by chief executive officers shape the relationship between board structure and

48


organizational outcomes (e.g., corporate diversification and CEO’s compensation). He argued that considering the role of interpersonal influence tactics may help explain previous inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between board independence and diversification. He proposed that increases in the board’s independence from management will be associated with higher levels of CEO ingratiation and persuasion behavior toward board members and that such influence behaviors, in turn, offset the effect of increased structural board independence on corporate strategy and CEO compensation policy. Similarly, Carpenter and Wade (2002) used complementary perspectives from theories of power, resources dependence, and upper echelons to propose how pay of non-CEO executives is influenced by a number of multilevel factors such as the firm’s strategy and related resource allocation decisions, the functional background of the firm’s CEO, and an incumbent’s managerial experience, functional expertise, and tenure.

Strategic Human Resources Management Another well-established micro–macro area of investigation extends out of the function of human resources management. The concept of strategic human resources management has provided a rich framework to explain how organizational practices generate higher-level influences. As explained by Wright, Dunford, and Snell (2001), the development of strategic human resources management has not only helped both strategy and human resources scholars in their own disciplines but also aided in bridging the micro–macro gulf. The application of the RBV of the firm (Barney, 1991) from the strategy literature has provided theoretical guidance to the assertion that people can be a source of competitive advantage. Likewise, human resources management research has in turn advanced strategy research by providing solid empirical support for the RBV. The merger of the RBV and human resources management has been tremendously popular and has resulted in numerous articles explaining how human resource practices at the individual level impact firm-level outcomes (e.g., Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Birdi et al., 2008; Gong, Law, & Chang, 2009; Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997), social networks of top executives (Collins & Clark, 2003), micro control systems (Snell, 1992), international human resources management practices (e.g., Milliman, Von Glinow, & Nathan, 1991; Taylor, Beechler, & Napier, 1996), organizational context (Soo Min, Morgeson, & Campion, 2008), and multiple stakeholder climate (Chuang & Liao, 2010).


49

However, RBV is not the only theory that has spanned the human resources management and strategy literatures. For example, Rowe and Wright (1997) proposed that business diversification is related to micro controls (e.g., clan, behavior, and outcome) exerted by human resources management function at a divisional level. They argued that related and unrelated diversification requires either flexibility or fit. As related firms require flexibility, these firms use all three types of human resources controls. However, unrelated firms only require fit and thus, solely focus on outcome controls.

Corporate Social Responsibility The recent developments in the business sector have heightened interest in the area of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Not surprisingly, scholars have applied multiple paradigms to understand the concept of CSR. Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, and Ganapathi (2007) provided a multilevel theoretical model to understand why business organizations are increasingly engaging in CSR. The authors examined CSR at individual, organizational, country, and transnational levels. In doing so, authors combined theories from ethics, international business, organizational behavior, sociology, and legal studies. More specifically, drawing from the organizational justice, corporate governance, and varieties of capitalism literatures, the authors proposed that various stakeholders (e.g., government agencies, NGOs, shareholders, and employees) have multiple motives (e.g., instrumental, moral, and relational) to facilitate organizational engagement in the acts of social responsibility. Similarly, a multidisciplinary work by De Luque, Washburn, Waldman, and House (2008) examined relationships between CEO values (economic values or broader social values), followers’ perceptions of CEOs, followers’ in-role and extra-role behaviors (individual-level outcomes), and firm performance. They found that CEO’s possessing a broader definition of firm’s value (i.e., values emphasizing stakeholders and social performance) were perceived to be visionary by the followers, and consequently these followers engaged more in extra-role behaviors. These extra-role behaviors were found to be positively related to firm performance.

Social Networks Social capital and social networks have also sparked the interest of researchers from various disciplines. Traditionally, social capital has been

50


an area of investigation in organizational behavior (e.g., Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002; Dess & Shaw, 2001; Leana & Van Buren, 1999; Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001; Oh, Chung, & Labiance, 2004; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001) and organizational theory (e.g., Brass, 1984; Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004; Brass, 1985; Burt, 1997; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Zeitz, 1980). Recently however, researchers have begun to use these concepts to integrate various disciplines. For example, Acquaah (2007) applied social capital theory in the strategy literature to examine how a manager’s social capital (e.g., relationships with politicians and higher-level executives at other firms) increases organizational performance. These effects were moderated by an organization’s strategy. Inkpen and Tsang (2005) combined social network and knowledge transfer literature to show how various types of social networks (e.g., intracorporate networks, strategic alliances, and industrial districts) impact the nature of social capital embedded in a network and how social capital in turn shapes various conditions influencing knowledge transfer and learning. In addition to knowledge transfer, network and social capital theories have also been used to explain diverse topics such as firms’ competitive behavior (Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001), strategic change (Haynes & Hillman, 2010), managerial performance (Moran, 2005), inter-unit linkages in newly formed business units in a company (Wenspin, 2000), business unit performance (Carmeli & Azeroual, 2009), and executive compensation (Geletkanycz, Boyd, & Finkelstein, 2001). Some researchers have also found negative effects of social capital at the organizational level of analysis (e.g., Blyler & Coff, 2003; McDonald & Westphal, 2003; Molina-Morales & Martı´ nez-Fernańdez, 2009). International business is another broad scholarly domain where social capital research has been successfully applied. Kostova (1999) linked theories of social capital with theories of multinational corporations (MNCs) in a model spanning individual, organizational, and country levels. She used a cross-disciplinary perspective to explicate the factors determining the success of transfer of strategic organizational practices. In her model, success of transfer primarily depends on an individual employee and is embedded in social, organizational, and relational contexts. She used institutional and resource dependence perspectives to explain how knowledge transfer can influence an employee’s commitment, job satisfaction, and psychological attachment through implementation of the practice in the recipient unit. In a subsequent article, Kostova and Roth (2003) developed a theory of the creation of social capital in foreign subunits of MNCs. They argue that the required levels and forms of social capital are determined by


51

the nature of interdependence between headquarters and subunits. In their micro–macro model of social capital formation, the motivations and personal characteristics of boundary spanners help translate their individual social capital to a sub-unit’s social capital.

Organizational Learning Considering the increased focus on learning and emergence of the knowledge economy, it is not surprising that much needed bridging of theories has started in the area of organizational learning in strategy and individual and team-based learning in organizational behavior. For instance, Zhao and Anand (2009) used a multilevel, cross-disciplinary framework to explain knowledge transfer in multinational firms. They provided support for their hypothesis that in organizations, the processes of teaching and absorptive capacity exist both at an individual level and at a collective level, and that collective mechanisms are more effective in transferring individual knowledge. Huy (1999) built a model to explain how individuals’ behaviors in organizations impacts macro-level factors in the organization. He used theories of emotional intelligence to explain how employees’ capabilities to deal with emotions facilitate their personal adaptation to change. Similarly, at the macro level, an organization’s capability to respond to human emotions is related to its capability to successfully go through a radical change. Both organizations and individuals transform though the isomorphic processes of emotional dynamics and change dynamics.

Decision Making Decision making has traditionally combined theories from economics and psychology. In a recent article, Guler (2007) added theoretical concepts from organizational theory to examine the investment decisions made in organizations. Guler (2007) asserts that political and institutional influences also play a critical part in leading executives to avoid terminating unsuccessful investments. She used qualitative and quantities methodologies to examine multilevel influences on sequential investment decisions in the US venture capital industry. The results indicate that pressures to continue investments despite evidence that expected returns are declining stem from multiple sources. She found that with increasing rounds of investments,

52


individual reluctance to terminate investments stems from intraorganizational politics and coercive and normative pressures from co-investors and limited partners, in addition to various emotional, cognitive, and group biases.

Entrepreneurship In entrepreneurship, many scholars have combined theories from various disciplines to explain organizational phenomenon. Eckhardt and Ciuchta (2008) examined how micro-level theories influence macro-level outcomes. More specifically, it is proposed that entrepreneurs’ personal traits and decisions regarding which opportunities to pursue interact with the nature of available opportunities to give rise to a multistage selection process that has implications for the for populations of available opportunities and technologies. Similarly, Simons and Roberts (2008) examined how an entrepreneur’s previous work experiences influences an entrepreneur’s likelihood to pursue a new market and the organizational form of the entrepreneur would use to exploit the market. In fact, the study of entrepreneurship is, almost by necessity, a cross-disciplinary endeavor. As an example, the recent explosion of research on entrepreneurial opportunities has pulled from theories at every level of analysis (see Busenitz et al., 2003).

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?: ACADEMIC BACKGROUND AND THE DECISION TO BRIDGE THE DIVIDE At this point, we would also like to say a few words on the background of researchers engaged in cross-disciplinary research. Our purpose is to investigate whether academic background hinders or aids in bridging the gap. That is, when researchers have a research idea that spans multiple disciplines, how does their primary domain influence their decision whether to stay or go? When we reviewed the disciplinary background of those involved in micro–macro research papers, we noticed an encouraging trend toward research collaboration. For instance, the study of top management teams has inspired researchers from various disciplines to collaborate. Consider the article by Simsek et al. (2005); it is a result of collaboration between group of researchers belonging to various disciplines of strategy,


53

organizational behavior, and entrepreneurship. Strategic human resources management is another area where scholars from various disciplines have collaborated. For example, Rowe and Right’s (1997) work is a result of the joint efforts of strategy and human resources management scholars, yet again reinforcing the trend of cross-disciplinary partnership. However, collaboration is not a necessary condition for cross-disciplinary work. Indeed, many micro–macro papers have been authored by scholars who have a single disciplinary focus. In the top management team research, scholars from both micro (e.g., O’Reilly et al., 1993; Barrick, Bradley, KristofBrown, & Colbert, 2007) and macro domains (e.g., Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001; Sanders & Carpenter, 1998) have made contributions to this area by bringing forward aspects from their own specific domains. Similarly, in the area of international business, there is a trend toward extending beyond one’s domain and exploring theories from other management disciplines (e.g., Huy, 1999; Kostova, 1999). Some of these researchers have published with colleagues in other disciplines that probably has exposed these individuals to cross-management disciplines. In other cases, industry and consulting experience may have forced researchers to face the pervasiveness of crossdisciplinary phenomena in the practitioner world. It is a paradox worth noting that many articles calling for bridging of macro–micro gap and providing guidance on multilevel theory building and analysis are primarily published by organizational behavior scholars (e.g., Chan, 1998; House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein, Tosi, & Cannella, 1999; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). However, our review indicates that except for the area of strategic human resources management, the majority of articles employing a cross-disciplinary approach is related to macro topics (strategy or organizational theory) and has primarily been authored by macro researchers. These micro–macro articles are either featured in broad-management journals (e.g., Academy of Management Review) or specialized strategy or entrepreneurship journals (e.g., Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Business Venturing). Perhaps one reason for the dearth of cross-disciplinary articles in the organizational behavior domain is the lack of focus toward the context in which micro phenomenon are investigated. The need to emphasize context in the organizational behavior research has been mentioned in the past by other researchers (e.g., Cappelli & Sherer, 1991; Mowday & Sutton, 1993; O’Reilly, 1991; Staw, 1991). Mowday and Sutton (1993) reviewed past research in organizational behavior and found that over the years the contributions were primarily incremental and methodological in nature. Cappelli and Sherer (1991) shared similar views by concluding that over the course of a number of

54


years, organizational behavior research has been systematically abandoning contextual arguments – the very focus that distinguishes it from the field of psychology – and has been focusing more on cognitive processes. Indeed, it appears that strategy researchers may be less likely to be comfortable assuming away people than OB researchers are assuming away organizations. As argued by many scholars (e.g., Mowday & Sutton, 1993; Pfeffer, 1991), borrowing theories from other disciplines (such as sociology, political science, and strategy) would help bring the focus back to the context in organizational behavior research.

BREAK ON THROUGH (TO THE OTHER SIDE): POTENTIAL BRIDGING OPPORTUNITIES On the basis of our reading of the literatures and our survey, we would like to suggest a number of areas that may be amenable to bridging the micro–macro chasm. The first suggestion concerns agent–principal relationships. One of the particularities of existing micro–macro work that becomes immediately apparent is that it tends to happen at the intersection of the two worlds – the CEO or the top management team. This is not surprising, especially when considering that, as revealed by our review, the majority of bridging work is conducted by strategy scholars, who usually operate with datasets that consist of a sole observation for each organization. This makes the study of CEOs intuitively appealing, since there is only one CEO for each organization and no multilevel analysis needs to be performed. Considering this preference, perhaps the best place to start stimulating more multidisciplinary research is in areas that involve the CEO and the Top Management Team (TMT). One such area of study is the issues of agent–principal relationships. Agent–Principal Relationships Agency Theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976) suggests that top managers’ interests may diverge from those of the shareholders who appointed them and that control or governance structures need to be imposed on the former (referred to as the agent) such that the latter (referred to as principals) not incur losses. This view has been criticized by proponents of Stewardship Theory (e.g., Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997), who suggest that there may be individual differences in top managers that play an important role in determining whether they pursue their own interests at the expense of


55

the shareholders’ interests. Nevertheless, this point of view has received little attention. In fact, while there are some studies that take a stewardship perspective on the agent–principal relationship (e.g., Lee & O’Neill, 2003), we are not aware of any article that has actually tested the propositions advanced by Davis et al. (1997). Davis and colleagues (1997) proposed that the tendency of CEOs to be stewards – that is, to represent the interests of shareholders as well as they can – may depend to some extent on aspects other than governance structures, including individual differences such as higher order needs, sources of motivation, organizational commitment, or cultural values. There are obvious difficulties in exploring these relationships. On one hand, previous work on governance has relied to a great extent on sources of secondary data available in large databases. A study involving individual differences would necessitate an actual survey with the consequential risk of low response rates or range restriction within the dataset. On the other hand, because strong situations tend to wash out the effects of individual-level variables, the data would need to contain sufficient variance in both the strength of governance mechanisms and the individual characteristics that influence stewardship behavior, if any interactions are to be observed between these two predictors. Nevertheless, such studies would greatly improve our understanding of agent–principal relationships. For example, Lee and O’Neill (2003) found that stewardship behaviors were more likely in Japanese firms than in US firms, but could not account for these differences. They suggested differences in factors such as culture, risk of employment, and markets for corporate control as possible explanations. However, there may also be individual differences in the type of CEOs that Japanese firms attract and groom. A study comparing the values and needs of CEOs in various cultures may reveal differences in the prototypical top manager that might account for a preference for agentic versus stewardship behavior. In other words, is the fact that agency theory better depicts US firms, while stewardship theory better depicts Japanese firms simply a consequence of the different type of people that are promoted to the CEO position in the two different cultures? Looking at this problem from both micro and macro perspectives will likely provide us with some insight that is currently lacking.

Citizenship The second area that holds promise as a fecund area for researchers to explore from both the micro and macro perspective is the study of

56


organizational citizens and corporate citizens. This presents an interesting opportunity for bridging the micro–macro crevasse. Interestingly, constructs that have similar meaning have evolved separately in the micro and macro literature. Much research has been done at the individual level looking at behaviors that go above and beyond the prescribed role requirements of employees (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). These behaviors are referred to as organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ, 1988) and have been generally associated either with the altruistic nature of employees or, more often, with the reciprocating of good treatment of employees by their employing organizations. Alternatively, Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) proposed a conceptualization rooted in the political philosophy notion of civic citizenship. When looking at the macro conceptualization of citizenship, we find both similarities and differences with the micro conceptualizations of citizenship. While both the micro and the macro constructs imply that the respective entity (i.e., employee in the micro literature and organization in the macro literature) engages in some form of discretionary behavior not prescribed in its role. The employee or the ‘‘good soldier’’ engages in extrarole behaviors so as to benefit the organization and its members (Williams & Anderson, 1991), while the corporate citizen does so to protect the citizenship right of individuals in the society (Matten & Crane, 2005). Thus, the conceptualization of the employee citizen in micro literature more closely resembles President John F. Kennedy’s view on citizens who should be concerned with what they can do for their country and less with the rights that they themselves have, while the conceptualization of the corporate citizen in macro literature ascribes to corporations a role similar to national governments in providing, enabling, or channeling the rights of individual citizens within or outside the organization (Matten & Crane, 2005). While there are obvious differences in these two conceptualizations, there are also striking similarities in research findings that suggest phenomena at the micro level may have parallels at the macro level, and vice versa. For example, some micro researchers have argued that employees may engage in citizenship behaviors for instrumental or for impression management purposes (e.g., Bolino, 1999). At the macro level, researchers have found that some organizations engage in CSR practices – an aspect of corporate citizenship – for window dressing purposes, while others integrate these practices with their core strategy (Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran, 1999). It is perhaps worthwhile to explore whether the consequences of having such different motivations will also exhibit parallel findings at the micro and


57

macro level. For example, at the micro level, supervisors have been observed to reward citizenship behaviors less if they attribute a selfish motivation to the behavior (Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009). It is possible that stakeholders also respond less positively to CSR activities that are perceived to be superficial. Parallels are also apparent when it comes to the pressures to behave as better citizens. Micro researchers have noted that in some organizations behaviors that are generally understood as discretionary citizenship behaviors are actually perceived to be in-role behaviors by employees (Morrison, 1994). Similarly, at the macro level some organizations have proactively begun to manage CSR expectations by use of a triple bottom line that includes environmental sustainability and social performance as performance indicators alongside the more traditional indicator of economic profitability (Hart & Milstein, 2003). Moreover, pressures to be a better citizen exists for both employees within an organization and for the organization itself. Van Dyne and Ellis (2004) identified the phenomenon of job creep, where extra-role behaviors that once were discretionary are subsequently taken for granted and eventually expected by employers. Similarly, at the macro level, institutional pressures push organizations to engage in CSR practices (Aguilera et al., 2007; Campbell, 2007). Van Dyne and Ellis (2004) suggested that employees who feel such pressures may respond by pressuring other employees to pick up their fair share of responsibilities. Similarly, we may expect corporations to lobby governments to share in the load of providing and enabling citizenship rights. For example, corporations may request government aid in order to protect employee’s property rights over their pension fund, which may otherwise be infringed should the company go bankrupt. A central question in the citizenship research in both the micro and the macro literature is whether citizenship behavior interferes in a positive or negative way with the actual performance of the citizen, be it job performance for the individual or economic performance of the organization. Research findings at the micro level are equivocal; in some studies OCB is positively related to objectively measured performance (e.g., Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), while in others the relationship is negative (e.g., Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). Moreover, some researchers argue that citizenship behaviors may come at the expense of in-role behavior, with the potential to lower in-role performance and thus the career success of the ‘‘good soldier’’ (Bergeron, 2007). This line of thought has its correspondence in the macro literature by scholars who argue for the focus of firms on economic outcomes and on shareholders’

58


interests above all else. There is also research suggesting that CSR may actually increase the market value of the firm (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). In a recent article, Mackey, Mackey, and Barney (2007) proposed that corporate citizenship behaviors can increase or decrease the market value of firms depending on the demand and supply for socially responsible corporate behaviors. This interesting take on citizenship may inform studies of citizenship behaviors at the micro level. Some evidence for this already exists; Bommer, Dierdorff, and Rubin (2007) found that when citizenship behaviors were common (i.e., in high supply) they were no longer rewarded by supervisors. It is probable that the supply and demand of citizenship behaviors may influence whether such behaviors have a positive or a negative effect on both employee outcomes and organizational outcomes. For example, helping other employees may be in more demand when new hires are brought on board, but may hinder performance when there is no demand for helping and when time could be better spent on in-role task performance. Similarly, working extra hours when needed may provide a company with an edge in tough times, but when employees begin to see extra work primarily as a means to differentiate one another in the eyes of the boss, potentially dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., conflict among employees) may soon follow (Bolino, Valcea, & Harvey, 2010; Van Dyne & Ellis, 2004). An interpretation of our survey results indicates that there exists great potential for cross-disciplinary research. What we have suggested here are only a few areas in which bridging studies might be probative. It is our intention that this may encourage micro and macro researchers to develop cross-disciplinary research teams and explore other avenues of research that might be efficacious in bridging the aforementioned chasm.

DON’T STOP BELIEVIN’: THE FUTURE OF MICRO–MACRO RESEARCH We do not pretend to be the first to have grappled with this issue. In fact, Molloy et al. (2011) have detailed the specific intellectual steps that they believe are required to successfully craft theories that might be effective in bridging disciplinary and system-level divides. We believe our work is a supplement to these efforts in that we have attempted to take the pulse of researchers in management disciplines concerning these issues and to integrate this information with the bridging research that has already been reported.


59

Overall, initiatives taken through academic platforms such as Academy of Management (AOM) meetings, design of Ph.D. programs, and incentives would encourage scholars from various disciplines to interact more often. It is only through mutual exploration of common questions and common problems that we can foresee bridging of theoretical gaps. As Molloy et al. (2011) make explicit through their analysis, ‘‘organization’’ is the common construct binding together all management disciplines. The reality is complex; for some researchers, organization is a micro entity (e.g., strategy or entrepreneurship), while for others it is a macro entity (e.g., organizational behavior or human resources management), and for still others it can either be micro or macro (e.g., organizational theory, international business). Actually, an organization is BOTH a micro and macro entity. Looking from only one side under identifies myriad possible explanations and possibilities. Continuing to ignore what lays on the other side of the chasm fails to recognize the possibilities held by those constructs for enriching knowledge on our own side of the chasm and disregards the potential of corresponding areas to add to the explanatory power of our organizational endeavors. Recognizing the gulf between the diverse management disciplines is not enough – it has preceded us and it still exists. There are a number of broader initiatives, some quite simple, many less so, that our field would need to take. Fundamentally, we need to reappraise the ways in which we socialize and train researchers to interact with other researchers in our academic community. We need to ensure that our doctoral trainees are exposed to the dominant theoretical approaches in both the micro and the macro areas. To those colleagues who toil in doctoral programs not requiring your students to digest a doctoral seminar in both the micro and the macro areas we have a simple message: You are not preparing your doctoral students as well as you intend nor are you capitalizing on their inquisitiveness and potential. We understand that students only have a finite amount of time available for doctoral seminars. That point made, we ask our fellow Ph.D. level educators this question: Is it of more educational value to have a student take a third or fourth micro (macro) seminar than to have them set aside at least one of those seminars for an education-broadening seminar in macro (micro)? Ensuring the availability of these types of seminars will help our future prote´geés develop a broader based repertoire of theoretical approaches and enable them to possess the tool kit for developing research that bridges the micro–macro gap. However, the solution to this issue lies deeper than merely providing our students with a more diverse course background but this would be a step in the right direction.

60


There are a number of both intellectual and economic incentives that are facilitating the development of narrow specialized skills among members of our field. We seem to have forgotten Kerr’s (1995) admonitions in his ‘‘Folly of rewarding A while hoping for B.’’ We have naively rewarded a generation of researchers with both intellectual and economic rewards for developing narrow specialized skills while bemoaning the lack of new grand theory. We are too optimistic in hoping that a continuation of similar inputs will result in different outputs. A recent article by Certo, Sirmon, and Brymer (2010) reports that since 1988–2008, the average time to publish five top-tier articles has increased from 5 years to 10 years. These are the realities associated with the publish or perish paradigm that motivate our research endeavors. If it has become significantly more difficult to publish in one’s primary area of focus, would scholars be willing to explore crossdisciplinary work that requires increased time and resources investment and is accompanied by significantly higher publication risks? In the face of such realities, can we develop some institutional incentives that can be associated with cross-disciplinary work? For example, would programs be willing to weigh more favorably a scholarly work that is cross-disciplinary in nature and might, more realistically, model organizational truth? As many of us teach our students about organizational change, hoping for a result other than the status quo in the absence of a mechanism for pushing employees out of their comfort zones is simply futile. Importantly, though, we in no way intend to discourage developing specialized knowledge, as one can only be master of one trade and this is how we generate knowledge in the organizational sciences. We do, however, suggest that we broaden what we mean by specialized knowledge to encompass contributions that span various levels of organizational analysis. Furthermore, there is a need to develop mechanisms that encourage masters of different trades to interact and share knowledge. We must dispel the notion that you are a radical in your field if you utilize constructs and concepts from a different management area to both develop and increase explanatory power. On this point we might make a few suggestions for the academic journals as well: (1) there has been a trend in journals toward the development of special issues. We recommend that journals might encourage more special issues that are centered on ‘‘bridging’’ themes; and (2) journal mission statements might need to be further developed in a direction to where they might be encouraging of ‘‘bridging’’ work or, at minimum, accepting of such work. There are a number of more practical actions that young scholars in the organizational sciences can take to engage them in cross-disciplinary


61

research in their careers. First, take a portfolio approach to your research, instead of the typical pipeline approach. That is, diversify your research projects in low-, medium-, and high-risk clusters as you would with your financial portfolio. This way, your focused research stream can be developed alongside higher risk cross-disciplinary projects. Second, take every opportunity to interact with practitioners in the field. Take advantage of your college’s advisory board, the local chamber of commerce or rotary club, or even your spouse’s office party! The ‘‘real world’’ is suffused with micro–macro spanning challenges, and your research will be enriched by immersing yourself in it. Third, spend some time diving deeply into knowledge in areas completely unrelated to your discipline. Weick’s (1993) colorful and captivating theory of what happens when sensemaking fails would not have been as impactful had it not been for his deep understanding of the Mann Gulch disaster, which on the surface has nothing to do with organizations. Furthermore, management giant Peter Drucker was dedicated to immersing himself in a completely new subject unrelated to management every year or so throughout his entire life (Drucker & Wartzman, 2010). Finally, look for the opportunities for synergistic research collaborations at your front door. We have seen many new faculty members become so focused on their tenure clock that they don’t take the time to socialize with the other scholars in their own department. This is inexcusable. We implore junior faculty to explicitly schedule time into every week or month to build relationships with the other members of their department, college, and university. At worst, you’ll end up strengthening your community of scholars, and at best, you’ll help build the bridge across in the great wide open of the organizational sciences. Much work has been done over the past 30 years to provide researchers with the methodological and theoretical tools to bridge the micro–macro divide in the organizational sciences. As we have highlighted, these efforts have paid off, as a number of constructs now stretch across the chasm between the two poles. However, as these problems have been surmounted, other barriers such as risks in the publishing process, the current academic reward system, and ever-narrowing knowledge silos have arisen. These challenges are certainly not insoluble, and it is our hope that by calling attention to them and providing some suggestions for overcoming them, the future of the organizational sciences will look a bit brighter. In other words, after peering into the great wide open, we see many opportunities for future researchers to use the micro and macro perspectives together in concert to make large advances on the frontiers of knowledge in the organizational sciences.

62


REFERENCES Acquaah, M. (2007). Managerial social capital, strategic orientation, and organizational performance in an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1235–1255. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836–863. Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11, 656–665. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Colbert, A. E. (2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 544–557. Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78. Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 779–801. Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32, 1078–1095. Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C. B., & Wall, T. D. (2008). The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 61, 467–501. Blyler, M., & Coff, R. W. (2003). Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 677–686. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82–98. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522. Bolino, M., Valcea, S., & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative implications of expecting employees to behave proactively. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 325–345. Bommer, W. H., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2007). Does prevalence mitigate relevance? The moderating effect of group-level OCB on employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1481–1494. Brass, D. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518–539. Brass, D. J. (1985). Mens and womens networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327–343. Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795–817. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339–365. Busenitz, L., West, G., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 29, 285–308.


63

Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946–967. Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a mesolevel approach. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 55–110). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Carmeli, A., & Azeroual, B. (2009). How relational capital and knowledge combination capability enhance the performance of work units in a high technology industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 85–103. Carpenter, M., & Fredrickson, J. (2001). Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 533–545. Carpenter, M., & Wade, J. (2002). Microlevel opportunity structures as determinants of nonCEO executive pay. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1085–1103. Certo, S. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Brymer, R. (2010). Competition and scholarly productivity in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2008. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(4), 591–606. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. Chuang, C. H., & Liao, H. (2010). Strategic human resource management in service context: Taking care of business by taking care of employees and customers. Personnel Psychology, 63, 153–196. Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 740–751. Davis, J., Schoorman, F., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20–47. de Luque, M., Washburn, N., Waldman, D., & House, R. (2008). Unrequited profit: how stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 626–654. Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26, 446–456. Drucker, P. F., & Wartzman, R. (2010). The Drucker lectures: Essential lessons on management, society, and economy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Eckhardt, J., & Ciuchta, M. (2008). Selected variation: the population-level implications of multistage selection in entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 209–224. Fedor, D., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59, 1–29. Fredrickson, J. W., Davis-Blake, A., & Sanders, W. M. G. (2010). Sharing the wealth: Social comparisons and pay dispersion in the CEO’s top team. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1031–1053. Geletkanycz, M. A., Boyd, B. K., & Finkelstein, S. (2001). The strategic value of CEO external directorate networks: Implications for CEO compensation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 889–898. Gnyawali, D., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 431–445.

64


Gong, Y., Law, K. S., & Chang, S. (2009). Human resources management and firm performance: The differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 263–275. Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62, 31–55. Grizzle, J., Zablah, A., Brown, T., Mowen, J., & Lee, J. (2009). Employee customer orientation in context: How the environment moderates the influence of customer orientation on performance outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1227–1242. Guler, I. (2007). Throwing good money after bad? Political and institutional influences on sequential decision making in the venture capital industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 248–285. Hackman, J. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 905–922. Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the ‘‘team’’ label. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 171–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206. Hart, S., & Milstein, M. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 56–69. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organizational theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1145–1163. Hitt, M., Beamish, P., Jackson, S., & Mathieu, J. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399. Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 398–422. Hough, J. R. (2006). Business segment performance redux: A multilevel approach. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 45–61. House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 71–114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resource management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 171–188. Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24, 325–345. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30, 146–165. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 7–16.


65

Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A. (1999). Multilevel theory building: Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review, 24, 243–248. Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 308–324. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2003). Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 28, 297–317. Landy, F. J., & Shankster, L. J. (1994). Personnel selection and placement. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 261–296. Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538–555. Lee, P. M., & O’Neill, H. M. (2003). Ownership structures and R&D investments of US and Japanese firms: Agency and stewardship perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 212–225. Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32, 817–835. Mahoney, T. A. (1985). Journal publishing and the organizations sciences: An analysis of exchanges. In: L. L. Cummings & P. J. Frost (Eds), Publishing in the organizational sciences (pp. 14–34). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Mani, S., Antia, K. D., & Rindfleisch, A. (2007). Entry mode and equity level: A multilevel examination of foreign direct investment ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 857–866. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30, 166–179. Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929–963. McDonald, M., & Westphal, J. (2003). Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs’ advice networks and firms’ strategic responses to poor performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 1–35. McKay, P., Avery, D., & Morris, M. (2009). A tale of two climates: Diversity climate from subordinates’and managers’perspectives and their role in store unit sales performance. Personnel Psychology, 62, 767–791. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121–146. Milliman, J., Von Glinow, M. A., & Nathan, M. (1991). Organizational life cycles and strategic international human resource management in multinational companies: Implications for congruence theory. Academy of Management Review, 16, 318–339. Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., Greckhamer, T., & Lepine, J. A. (2006). A new perspective on a fundamental debate: A multilevel approach to industry, corporate, and business unit effects. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 571–590. Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martı´ nez-Fernańdez, M. T. (2009). Too much love in the neighborhood can hurt: How an excess of intensity and trust in relationships may produce negative effects on firms. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1013–1023.

66


Molloy, J. C., Ployhart, R. E., & Wright, P. M. (2011). The myth of ‘‘the’’ micro–macro divide: Bridging system-level and disciplinary divides. Journal of Management, 37(2), 581–609. Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1129–1151. Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249–265. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567. Mossholder, K. W., & Bedeian, A. G. (1983). Cross-level inference and organizational research: Perspectives on interpretation and application. Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 547–558. Mowday, R., & Sutton, R. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195–229. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266. O’Reilly, C. (1991). Organizational behavior: Where we’ve been, where we’re going. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 427–458. O’Reilly, C., Snyder, R., & Boothe, J. (1993). Effects of executive team demography on organizational change. In: G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds), Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance (pp. 147–175). New York: Oxford University Press. Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labiance, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 860–875. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Pfeffer, J. (1991). Organization theory and structural perspectives on management. Journal of Management, 17, 789–803. Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270. Podsakoff, E. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563. Roberts, K., Hulin, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rowe, W., & Wright, P. (1997). Related and unrelated diversification and their effect on human resource management controls. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 329–338. Rumelt, R., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. (1991). Strategic management and economics. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 5–29.


67

Rynes, S. L. (2006). ‘‘Getting on board’’ with AMJ: Balancing quality and innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1097–1102. Sanders, W., & Carpenter, M. (1998). Internationalization and firm governance: The roles of CEO compensation, top team composition, and board structure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 158–178. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237. Short, J., Palmer, T., & Ketchen, D. (2003). Multi-level influences on firm performance: Insights from the resource-based view and strategic groups research. In: F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 2, pp. 155–187). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Simons, T., & Roberts, P. (2008). Local and non-local pre-founding experience and new organizational form penetration: The case of the Israeli wine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 235–265. Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 69–84. Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Sims, H. P., O’Bannon, D. P., Scully, J. A., & Olian, J. D. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438. Snell, S. A. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating effect of administrative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 292–327. Soo Min, T., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2008). Human resource configurations: Investigating fit with the organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 864–882. Staw, B. (1991). Dressing up like an organization: When psychological theories can explain organizational action. Journal of Management, 17, 805–819. Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. (2010). Negative practice–value correlations in the GLOBE data: Unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1330–1338. Tasa, K., Seijts, G. H., & Taggar, S. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 17–27. Taylor, S., Beechler, S., & Napier, N. (1996). Toward an integrative model of strategic international human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 21, 959–985. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464–476. Van Dyne, L., & Ellis, J. B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on organizational citizenship behavior as overfulfillment of obligations. In: J. A. M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor & L. E. Tetrick (Eds), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 181–205). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802. Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Review, 42, 539–552.

68


Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652. Wenspin, T. (2000). Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 925–939. Westphal, J. (1998). Board games: How CEOs adapt to increases in structural board independence from management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 511–513. Wiersema, M., & Bantel, K. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91–121. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. Wright, P., Dunford, B., & Snell, S. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27, 701–721. Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1995). Accounting for the explanations of CEO compensation: Substance and symbolism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 283–308. Zammuto, R. F., & Connolly, T. (1984). Coping with disciplinary fragmentation. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9, 30–32. Zeitz, G. (1980). Interorganizational dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 72–80. Zhao, Z., & Anand, J. (2009). A multilevel perspective on knowledge transfer: Evidence from the Chinese automotive industry. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 959–983. Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 587–596. Zyphur, M. J., Narayanan, J., Koh, G., & Koh, D. (2009). Testosterone–status mismatch lowers collective efficacy in groups: Evidence from a slope-as-predictor multilevel structural equation model. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 110, 70–79.

STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE STAFFING AND ORGANIZATION RESEARCH: ARE THEY ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL ENDEAVORS? Philip Bobko and Denise Potosky ABSTRACT Purpose – We show that, although most private employer establishments are small, much reported research (and subsequent suggestions for practice) in management comes from large firms. In turn, we wanted to explore if organizational knowledge gained from studying one or more large firms is necessarily applicable to numerous smaller firms. Design/methodology/approach – We computed firm size in the United States using existing databases, and we then considered published literature in human resources and strategy to see if the large sample results logically applied to smaller firms. Findings – At the job-analytic level, it is suggested that jobs might be defined differently and more broadly in smaller establishments than in large organizations. Also, the feasibility of best corporate strategies may be moderated by the size of the firm. In addition, we noted that the underlying model of selection utility in human resource management

Building Methodological Bridges Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Volume 6, 69–87 Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-8387/doi:10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006011

69

70

PHILIP BOBKO AND DENISE POTOSKY

(HRM), and several factors in its numerical estimation, might need to be modified as a function of firm size. Originality/value – We hope that this chapter inspires HRM and strategy researchers by helping to focus future evidence-based efforts, creating new initiatives, and providing results that are useful (or scalable) to the large number of small, private-sector U.S. firms. Keywords: Best practices; firm size; job analysis; selection utility; strategy

INTRODUCTION Most of the data generated, reported on, and analyzed in the organizational sciences are based on samples from (or across) large firms and corporations. This focus on large firms is somewhat understandable, as relatively large sample sizes enable within-study quantitative analyses. For example, large sample sizes provide statistical power to detect significant results and allow researchers to engage in sophisticated multivariate techniques (e.g., factor analysis or structural equation modeling). In other words, the pursuit of quantitative information from/about large organizations (to the omission of data about small firms) might seem to be a reasonable strategy for organizational researchers. Unfortunately, such a research strategy may have resulted in a gap in our knowledge about typical organizations. There is an underlying, counterpoint theme that motivates this chapter – that is, most private employer establishments are small. Indeed, most people work in settings with fewer than 100 other employees. Large firms are exceptions to this norm, and knowledge gained from studying one or more large firms may not be automatically applicable to numerous smaller firms. This potential mismatch seems particularly noteworthy in light of the field’s recent embracement of the concept of evidence-based management (EBM), which advocates that practicing managers make decisions that are informed by the ‘‘best available scientific evidence’’ (Rousseau, 2006, p. 256). We do note that several authors have called attention to the lack of research focused on smaller establishments, particularly research within academic journals (e.g., Barber, Wesson, Roberson, & Taylor, 1999; Duberly & Walley, 1995; Gatewood, Feild, & Barrick, 2008; Hendry, Arthur, & Jones, 1995; Heneman, Tansky, & Camp, 2000b; McElwee & Warren, 2000;

Firm Size and Strategic Human Resources

71

Vickerstaff, 1993; Williamson, 2001). For example, Williamson reviewed the 207 articles focused on recruitment, selection, and other hiring issues published in three top-tier journals between 1988 and 1998 and found only seven that either focused on small businesses or used small firms in their samples (see also Barber et al., 1999). Similarly, Heneman, Tansky, and Camp reviewed both the academic and practitioner research literature between 1984 and 1999 and found only 17 empirical articles focused on small- and mediumsized enterprises. After illustrating how many U.S. firms fall into the overlooked/understudied ‘‘small’’ categorization, we briefly discuss the potential lack of fit (between firm size and research-generated organizational knowledge) with regard to (a) strategic human resource management (HRM) with a focus on selection and (b) strategic management in general. We offer some potential areas where current organizational knowledge might not match the needs of most U.S. firms, and we identify methodological concerns and considerations to provide some direction for future research to address this gap.

SOME STATISTICS ON FIRM SIZE (THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?) The Data for ‘‘Establishments’’ As defined by the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), an ‘‘establishment’’ is akin to a ‘‘workplace’’ (or an economic unit focused on a specific activity), whereas a ‘‘firm’’ refers to a corporate parent organization that can consist of several establishments. Similarly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines an establishment as an economic unit that produces goods or provides services (usually at a single physical location) and engages in predominantly one activity, whereas a firm is defined as an aggregation of establishments that are under common ownership by a corporate parent.1 Figure 1 graphically depicts the total number of U.S. establishments according to the number of individuals employed in each establishment. Note that of the 8,737,209 establishments listed by the QCEW2 in March 2008, the most recent data year available, more than half (5,347,059 establishments) listed fewer than 5 workers (including establishments with no employees but with payroll at some time during the year), and 2,996,241 establishments employed between 5 and 50 workers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008). In contrast, 221,242 establishments employed between 50 and 99 workers, and

72

PHILIP BOBKO AND DENISE POTOSKY

Number of Employees in Private-Sector U.S. Establishments 3% 2% 0.2%

Building Methodological Bridges

Crossing Boundaries, Building Bridges

Building bridges: Between mathematics and computer science

Bridges

Building bridges between mathematics and computer science

Bridges

Methodological Individualism

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

Integral Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

Burning Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

Building Bridges: Connecting Faculty, Students, and the College Library

London Bridges

Burning Bridges

London Bridges

Lundyn Bridges

London Bridges

Bridges Rusting

London Bridges

Bridges Rusting

Trade And Migration: Building Bridges For Global Labour Mobility

Building Methodological Bridges

Crossing Boundaries, Building Bridges

Building bridges: Between mathematics and computer science

Bridges

Building bridges between mathematics and computer science

Bridges

Methodological Individualism

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

Integral Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

Burning Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

London Bridges

Building Bridges: Connecting Faculty, Students, and the College Library

London Bridges

Burning Bridges

London Bridges

Lundyn Bridges

London Bridges

Bridges Rusting

London Bridges

Bridges Rusting

Trade And Migration: Building Bridges For Global Labour Mobility

Recommend Documents