AMJ Bset paper presentation

Slide1: 

MB SAR KAR The 2005 AMJ Best Paper Award LEARNINGS ALONG THE WAY

Slide2: 

What can I tell you that you don’t already know ?

Slide3: 

Paper Knowledge Transfer Through Inheritance: Spin-out Generation, Development and Survival MB Sarkar (with R. Agarwal, A. Franco, and R. Echambadi) Winner of the AMJ 2005 Best Paper Award

Slide4: 

Agenda: What did I learn from the process? Getting an R&R Creating a compelling theoretical contribution Translating phenomena into research questions Mapping research questions into theoretical domains Making the space for theoretical contributions: Finding a ‘hot spot’ Data and premise The counterintuitive! The review process Practical pointers

Slide5: 

History Management Science chapter Feb 2001: written in 14 days, sent to Management Science Special Issue. Rejected. AMJ chapter Re-written & submitted to AMJ in Aug 2001. First revision submitted in Aug 2002 Second revision submitted April 25 2003 Conditionally accepted Aug 21, 2003 Final acceptance Dec 7, 2003 Published Aug 2004 Winner Best Paper Award Aug 2005

Slide6: 

Over 100 drafts 24 months Many sleepless hours 30 pages of reviewer/editor comments 75 pages of comments to reviewers ALL WORTH IT!

The Facts: 

AMJ gets over 600 submissions a year (excluding SRFs) R&R: 20-30% Acceptance rate: 10% So how can we Increase our chances of the first R&R Important! Chances go UP exponentially after you get the first R&R The Facts

Slide8: 

Let me introduce our Friends… Straw Man Insights Treasure Chest Logic Tree

Slide9: 

THE FIRST R&R

Positioning your Research:  Beyond an interesting “Core Idea”: 

Positioning your Research: Beyond an interesting “Core Idea” Phenomenon – research question – theory – framing How do we take a phenomenon and turn it into an interesting research question? How do we theoretically frame the research question? How do we create our own space: the research gap? How do we then communicate our contribution? “All articles published in the Journal must make a strong theoretical contribution.” Previous Research is NOT Theory! CLARITY IS VERY IMPORTANT!

Issue relevance: 

Issue relevance

Slide12: 

Basic questions: Are some companies more prone to spinouts? Why? What do employee entrepreneurs get from their employers? Does it really matter where new ventures come from? Phenomenon: Employees tend to leave some companies and start their own businesses Common-sense questions: Are smart firms more likely to have off-springs? Do smart parents create smarter children? Does smartness (knowledge) matter?

Slide13: 

Common-sense questions: Are smart firms more likely to have off-springs? Do smart parents create smarter children? Does smartness matter? Theoretical questions: Origin Are there knowledge based reasons behind “entrepreneurial hotbeds?” Development Does genealogy influence knowledge-based capability? Performance Does venture origin impact survival? Map Common Sense to Theory

Slide14: 

Theoretical questions: Origination Are there knowledge-based reasons behind “entrepreneurial hotbeds?” Development Does genealogy matter in knowledge-based capability accumulation? Performance Does venture origin impact survival? Finding the Literature: Your Theory Treasure Chest Literatures: Birth Orgs as org’l products Knowledge spillovers IO, OT, KBT, Sociology Inheritance Transfer of org’l blueprints and memes Org learning, absorptive capacity, strategy Survival Heterogeneity of capabilities as function of priors IO, strategy

Slide15: 

RESEARCH GAPS AND YOUR CONTRIBUTION Theoretical questions: Origination Is there a knowledge based reason behind “entrepreneurial hotbeds?” Development Does genealogy matter in knowledge-based capability accumulation? Performance Does venture origin impact organizational outcomes? Contributions: Does abundant knowledge per se make incumbents more prone to spin-outs? Can an organization be knowledge rich and still prevent spin-outs? Is knowledge REALLY inherited? (empirical) Is there an imprinting effect? (theoretical) How does an employee-founder agent affect sticky knowledge transfer? Does origin heterogeneity impact survival?

Slide16: 

Knowledge Spillovers Economic and sociological perspectives Missing strategic management perspective on knowledge spillovers and new venture creation Resource Based Theory Beyond capabilities to “organization of capabilities” Co-specialization and value creation De alio hubris Genetic links of spinout de novos and the questioning of de alios “dominance by birthright” Theoretical Contributions to Strategic Entrepreneurship, and Org. Learning

Slide17: 

WHERE DO CAPABILITIES COME FROM? And of course, the Million $$$ Issue in Strategy Research

To recap the mapping process:: 

To recap the mapping process: Phenomenon – basic research question-common sense question-theoretical question-linking to literature-contributions. Taking phenomenon and turning it into an interesting research question Taking the research question and creating a theoretical contribution from this

Slide19: 

2. INSIGHTS: Search for the Counter-Intuitive and Interesting The negative interaction between tech and marketing know-how: the fundamental notion of portfolio Eureka moment ! Only comes through playing around with data Reviewer’s help: Abundant unexploited knowledge begets spinouts

Slide20: 

3. Rejection at MS and R&R at AMJ Who knows? Same hypotheses, weaker theory AND R-GAP in MS: How does congenital knowledge impact evolutionary process of a firm? AMJ: Identification of core themes in literature relating knowledge to founding and performance Executive migration and dynamic capabilities (Sociology and Strategy) Imprinting, organizational learning and competitive advantage MUCH BETTER ARTICULATION OF RESEARCH GAPS Stronger and crisper hypotheses arguments

Slide21: 

4. Linking data to premise Premise Some firms are smarter than others Spinouts knowledge inherit knowledge Spinouts fare better Data Link parent traits to spin-out formation Relative technological know-how Market pioneering know-how Link parental knowledge at the time of spin-out founding and the progeny’s capabilities over time. Link origin to firm mortality

Slide22: 

Linking data-premise-tests Premise Some firms are smarter than others Spinouts knowledge inherit knowledge Spinouts fare better Data Link parent traits to spin-out formation Tech know-how Market pioneering know-how Link parental knowledge to progeny’s capabilities over time. Link origin to firm mortality Tests Hazard rate analysis Negative binomial robustness Seemingly unrelated regression/random effects panel regression Hazard rate analysis

Slide23: 

H1: The likelihood of spin-out generation is enhanced with increases in either technological and market pioneering know-how; however, such likelihood decreases when a firm possesses higher levels of both H2: The levels of a spin-out ‘s technological and market pioneering know-how will be positively related to the level of its parent’s know-how at the time of its inception H3: Spin-outs will have higher levels of technological and market pioneering know-how relative to both non spin-out de novo and diversifying entrants H4: Spin-outs have higher survival probabilities than all other entrants. Hypotheses

Slide24: 

THE REVIEW PROCESS REAP REWARDS: FORTHCOMING IN AMJ FTE

Slide25: 

YOU GOT TO BELIEVE IN THE REVIEWERS

Slide26: 

The Strategy Problem: Identifying the nature of the concerns CRITICAL CONTESTABLE TANGENTIAL Definitional, model testing, theory embellishment Break up paper into 3 parts Incumbent inertia Learning substitution Why firms fail to stop the employee?

Slide27: 

TRYING TOO HARD: The dangers of trying to do too much During the first R&R, we Tried too hard Tried to figure out who the reviewer was and changed emphasis to make them happy Tried to incorporate everything asked in 15 single spaced pages Treated every comment as critical LOST FOCUS LOST CLARITY LOST REVIEWER “patchwork” “longer, less readable” “not relevant” “To thine own idea be true”

Slide28: 

Develop a thick skin Accusation of “fishing expedition” The writing style, “convoluted, less precise, and … too pompous” (ouch!). Nothing that a good dose of humble pie and some salve to one’s self-esteem could not fix! Of course, hiring a copy editor also helped.

Slide29: 

PRACTICAL POINTERS

Slide30: 

1. Don’t forget your friends … Straw Man Insights Treasure Chest Logic Tree BALANCE ABSTRACTION & THEORY WITH PRACTICE & RELEVANCE

Slide31: 

2. Data Sometimes reviewers are willing to forgive if your data is unique! Not capable of addressing the question (cross sectional with a longitudinal theory) Single method, single informant, all perceptual (especially on both the IV and DV side of the equation) Are there European databases that you can combine and creatively use together? Can you partner with someone from the US? DATA IS KING

Slide32: 

3. Crafting Writing is VERY difficult but we become better with it over time (although it does not become easier!) Do not re-create the wheel Find a paper that you like (from a top journal) and study why it is written that way Have your heroes that you copy and learn from Knowledge Is Crafted

Slide33: 

4. Training Theory and methods go hand in hand Critical that you master new empirical techniques, or at least know someone is and be good friends Critical that you are world class in one domain, and understand the other part well NEW IDEAS COME THROUGH INTERACTION BETWEEN THEORY AND METHOD UNDERSTANDING

Slide34: 

5. Understand your Journals Red versus Blue Independent versus Dependent variable focused Research is like a Conversation: Enjoy it!

Slide35: 

6. Give reviewers more than what they ask for If they ask for alternate tests, provide them tables in reviewer comments instead of “results were the same” If they have problems with writing style, hire a copy editor and TELL them that you did that Definitional issues: play with them… remove their confusion Beware of endogeneity issues! Use the limitations section smartly!

Slide36: 

Remember the mantra Take it to the next level Merci !