ENT5693 Instructor: Dr.

Sunny Li Sun
Spring 2011 205 Bloch School
Wednesday 1:30pm-4:15pm Bloch Cookinghan 816-235-6070
Office hours: After class or by appointment email: sunsli@umkc.edu

Doctoral Seminar in Technology, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship

This seminar will explore academic literature of technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
Specific topics include emerging technologies, evolutionary theory, building capabilities based on
networks, organizational learning, technological innovation, institutional economics, network
externalities, knowledge transfer, technological trajectories and path dependencies.

Prerequisite: Doctoral standing

Course Objectives

This is the third of the three-part series of Ph.D. seminars in technology, innovation, and
entrepreneurship. The purpose of these three seminars are (1) to expose students to various theories
and topics in entrepreneurship research, and (2) to train students to become informed researchers who
will be able to contribute to this literature. The current seminar focuses on different research topics
informed by the different theories introduced in our previous seminar.

Overview

Readings for every week are organized around an important question which we will try to address.
Because of the nature of this seminar, we tend to focus on theoretical/conceptual papers, which serve
as foundations for the field. However, merely mastering the papers we discuss will not be enough.
There is a lot of good theory in many empirical papers, many of which may not be on our course
reading list.

When working on any topic, it is recommended that students start with the oldest papers and then work
forward in time—this is also how I arrange the sequence of readings for each weekly module. This will
give you a feel for how the research on a particular topic has developed over time. Always be on the
lookout for gaps or deficiencies in the literature and for evidence of inadequate theory.

If you have not done so already, it is recommended that you become a student member of the
Academy of Management, Strategic Management Society, and United States Association for Small
Business and Entrepreneurship as soon as possible. While you can access their publications through
our library without becoming a member, I have found that periodical appearances of hard copy
publications from these professional associations in your mail box that you have paid for with
membership dues are the best way to motivate you to keep up your reading of the most recent research.

1
Grading

Grades will be based on your performance of the following components:

Weekly Reading Summaries (weekly) 15%

In-Class Discussion and Summaries 15%
In-Class Quiz (5) 10%
Peer Review 10%
Research Paper 50%
100%

Grading Scale: 94%+ = A; 90-93.9% = A-; 87%-89.9% = B+; B = 84%-86.7%;

80%-83.9% = B-; 70%-79.9% = C; 60%-69.9% = D; < 60% = F.

Textbook:
Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. 2005. Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory
Development: Oxford University Press.
ISBN-13: 978-0199276820

Weekly Readings Summaries (15% of the final grade)

You are responsible for preparing power-point summaries of each article assigned each week. To
maintain consistency, each summary should have the following format:

Complete citation: in bold, at the top of the page

Summarized by: Your name
Research Question
Theory Mind-Map(s): this section should summarize the theoretical argument of the reading,
its basic assumptions, and major propositions—include any revisions to the theory
based on empirical work described in the paper and speculation regarding future
research ideas. Use:
 Solid lines to indicate which portions of your theory-map are based on existing
theory;
 Dashed lines to indicate the insights resulting from any data analysis, and
 Dotted lines to indicate insights/speculations that are topics for future research.
Methodology Mind-Map: this section should summarize the research design and methodology
(if appropriate).

Note also that you are asked to copy your summary to instructor and classmate before the class begins.
These summaries will be very helpful study and reference tools as you prepare for your preliminary
exams.

Note that these summaries will not be formally evaluated. Each of you will start with full credit here
(15% of the course grade) and have one-fifth of this component of your grade subtracted every time a
summary is not handed in on time. If more you submit more than five late assignments, each

2
additional late assignment will reduce your class participation grade will be reduced by one fifth. Late
work must still be turned in so that every participant has a full set of readings summaries.

Class Participation (15% of the final grade)

Class participation is a very important part of this course and all seminar enrollees are expected to play
an active role in regularly discussing the assigned readings. The evaluation of class participation will
be based on your level of preparation and the strength of your contributions to our discussion. Please
feel free to discuss your class participation with me at any time during the quarter. As noted above,
class participation is composed of several components.

The single most important part of preparing for our weekly seminars is to reserve some time prior to
class for thinking about how the assigned readings complement one another. While we will spend
some time discussing the strengths and weaknesses of individual articles, our major focus will be on
the relationships and linkages among articles. Students are encouraged to complete all assigned
readings two days before our class so as to have some time the day before for integrative thinking.
During this time you might to consider the following:

(1) How do the articles relate to and build on one another?

(2) What major gaps exist in the literature? and
(3) What are high priority directions for future research?

As noted earlier, your success in this seminar requires that you thoroughly prepare for each of our
seminar meetings. Excellent preparation lays the foundation for quality involvement and I hope you
will make preparing for class a high priority. Overall, your class participation grade will be based on
the quality of your comments (see earlier comments) and the consistency with which you make them
throughout the semester.

Discussion Leader: We will assign one student to be a discussion leader for each week. The
discussion leader will present one or more Mind Maps that integrate and synthesize the material we
have discussed. The following questions should guide your preparation:
(1) Integrative Mind-Map: How can the readings be summarized in an integrated framework?
(2) Weaknesses and Opportunities Mind-Map: What major gaps exist in the literature? What
are high priority directions for future research?
(3) At the end of class, you present a “sweet”: tell others how a master scholar in textbook
develops his/her great theory and what is interesting in his/her research odyssey.

The discussion leader will share their analysis at the end of class and answer questions from the class
and instructor.

In-Class Quiz (five, each counts 2% of the final grade)

At the begin of class, I will have five in-class quizzes. Each quiz has 15-20 minutes. To answer the
quiz, you need integrate and synthesize the materials we will discuss in this day’s session.

Research Paper (50% of the final grade)

3
Good professional behavior (such as reading papers ahead of time, attending class, actively
participating in discussion in class and afterwards) is naturally expected. However, as a Ph.D. student
(and a future researcher), your success and failure will be entirely judged by the quality of your paper.

The paper should identify at least one research question—please make sure that (1) it ends with a
question mark (that is: ?) and that (2) it is spelled out within the first 2 pages, preferably in the first
paragraph. Then organize the rest of the paper to address it.

Your presentation should imitate the typical 15-minute presentation at a major conference (such as the
Academy of Management). Please prepare no more than 12 slides (Slide 1 is your title and name),
print them six slides to one page on both sides of the paper, and give the professor and the rest of the
class a one-sheet handout. There will be approximately 5 minutes questions and answers after your
presentation.

I—and the rest of the class—will attempt to give you some feedback during the presentation. Then you
will have up to 72 hours to revise the paper incorporating all comments, written and oral, received. The
final submission should consist of:
• A hardcopy of your final revised paper (double spaced in text, references can be single spaced,
the norm is 20-35 pages—the shorter, the better!)
• A separate response document addressing how your paper responds to my earlier review after
the 10th week and/or to oral comments made during your presentation point-by-point (single
spaced, no more than 10 pages please)

Please discuss with me regarding your possible paper topic as soon as possible. It is better that you
consult 3 smart guys (your supervisor/classmate/co-author) on the question before you begin to write
the term paper. We will discuss the R&R process and show examples of response documents.

For both the first draft and final submission to me, hard copies please. Soft copies and/or late
submissions will not be accepted. (However, for the first draft submitted to all classmates, if they are
OK with soft copies, that will be fine with me).

Discussion of paper ideas with classmates is acceptable and in fact encouraged. In fact, your first draft
will be circulated to all members of the class. However, the term paper has to be your work—that is,
single authored by you. If you prefer to execute a project already under way with a faculty member,
this paper has to be first authored by you. When in doubt, talk to me first.

Your work does not end with the submission of your final revised manuscript. You are being trained to
fight real battles. After the paper is graded and reviewed (by me and your classmates), look for
opportunities for submission to conferences and journals, such as AOM, AIB, SMS, and USASBE.

However, make no mistake: Despite your best efforts, chances are that your first submission(s) to top
journals will be (ruthlessly) killed. But that does not mean you should not try. That also means that it is
so important for us to foster a spirit of collaboration through peer reviews and feedback so that
collectively we help each other improve the quality of our research (see next section).

4
All seminar participants are expected to complete their papers/proposals on time. Late papers will be
penalized based on when the papers are turned in. If the paper is turned in n days late, the maximum
grade on the paper will be 30% - (n*5%). While you will certainly want to further polish and improve
your paper after the semester, this work will not be graded using the incomplete grade.

Peer Review (10%)

A highly unusual (and I am sure value-adding) aspect of this course is that you are required to provide
a written, peer review report on the first draft of a classmate’s work. You need to get out of your
undergraduate and MBA mentality of finishing and submitting a paper on the last day and then
forgetting about it. Publication is a long march—known as a marathon. Multiple drafts, revisions,
reviews (and often rejections) across multiple years are the norm. So get used to it. Always remember:
Hard work, patience, and persistence (eventually) pay!

Once you submit your first draft to me and to all other classmates by the 10th week, you will be
assigned to review another classmate’s first draft. Given the small number of students, it is not really
realistic to truly maintain “anonymity”—you will know the authors’ identity from the cover page. As a
reviewer, you will submit to me an evaluation form (see Appendix) for my eyes only and a review
report for the author—your comments for the author will also be circulated to the rest of the class.

In summary, you will write one review for another paper. I will also endeavor to provide a written
review to all first drafts. Therefore, on your own first draft, you will receive two reviews, one from me
and another from a fellow student. (Upon receiving your grade, you will also receive a second-round
review from me.)

Once you receive two written reviews and oral comments and questions during your presentation, it is
your responsibility to address all these comments in your final paper. In addition, you will also need to
prepare a separate response document, outlining how you address these comments. It is not realistic to
expect that you will agree with and be able to address all comments raised. However, I (and your
reviewer) expect you to thoroughly discuss all of them. Even in areas where you disagree, you need to
tell us why.

MISCELANNEOUS

Attendance and Make-Up Policies

Students are expected to attend class. If for some reason (e.g., illness) a student cannot attend class,
the student should notify the instructor by e-mail. For each unexcused absence, the final grade will be
reduced by five percent.

If for some reason (e.g., illness) a student cannot take an exam on the scheduled day and time, the
student should notify the instructor by e-mail. If the absence is unexcused, the exam cannot be made
up. If the absence is excused, the student is responsible for contacting the instructor and arranging a
make-up exam.

Academic Honesty

5
A student enrolling in any UMKC course is expected to exhibit high standards of academic honesty.
In the case of academic misconduct, I will assess the affected work and report the incident to Bloch
School administration according to the guidelines printed in the University catalog. See student
conduct policies at http://www.umkc.edu/umkc/catalog/html/append/policy/0020.html

Cheating and plagiarism will not be tolerated. The tests are to be taken without help or assistance.
Persons observed cheating on tests will receive a grade of zero for the exam. Similarly, plagiarism of
assignments, projects, and papers is unacceptable, and a grade of zero will be assigned on any such
item where plagiarism has been detected. I reserve the right to submit student papers to
www.turnitin.com in order to check for plagiarism.

Weather

If the university cancels classes for weather-related meetings, our class will be cancelled as well. In
this case, the class will not be made up. In addition, if there is snow or ice on the ground, please check
your e-mail before coming to class to make sure that I have not cancelled the class. If the university
does not cancel classes, but I have to do so, we will make the class up on an alternative day.

Disabled Student Services

UMKC endeavors to make all activities, programs and services accessible to students with disabilities.
Scott Laurent (laurentr@umkc.edu, 235-5696) is the Campus Coordinator for Disabled Student
Services and he is available to arrange for reasonable accommodations. If you need accommodations,
it is important that you contact the Coordinator as soon as possible to arrange for providing appropriate
documentation and the prescribing of reasonable accommodations in the classroom and for exams.
Speech and hearing impaired use Relay Missouri, 1-800-735-2966 (TT) or 1-800-735-2466 (Voice).

SCHEDULE

The following schedule is tentative and may be modified as the class progresses. Time and schedule
considerations may prompt modifications of this syllabus (deletion of assignments/topics, modification
of examination dates, etc.). The instructor will inform students of any changes; however, it is the
student’s responsibility to keep up with any modifications that are made throughout the semester.

Session 1 Schumpeter and His Legacy (1/12)

Schumpeter, J. 1966. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy: Chapters VI – VIII. New York: Harper
and Brothers.
Winter, S. G. 2006. Toward a neo-Schumpeterian theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 15(1): 125-141.
Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., Kor, Y. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. 2008. Entrepreneurship, subjectivism, and the
resource-based view: Toward a new synthesis. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1): 73-
94.
Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Tandon, V. 2008. Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research

6
 on the determinants of technological innovation. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 1 - 98.

No “Sweet”.
Optional reading:
Schumpeter, J.A. 1946. Comments on a plan for the study of entrepreneurship” in R. Swedberg (ed.)
Joseph A. Schumpeter: The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism (1991) Princeton
University Press, Princeton NJ
Schumpeter, J. A. 1947. The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History,
7(2): 149-159.
Cantwell, J. 2002. Innovation, profits and growth: Schumpeter and Penrose. In C. Pitelis (Ed.), The
Growth of the Firm: The Legacy of Edith Penrose: 215-248. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Wiggins, R. R., & Ruefli, T. W. 2005. Schumpeter's ghost: Is hypercompetition making the best of
times shorter? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10): 887-911.

Session 2 Effectuation, Bricolage, and Meta-analysis (1/19)

Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R. 2009. Marketing under uncertainty:
The logic of an effectual approach. Journal of Marketing, 73(3): 1-18.
Read, S., Song, M., & Smit, W. 2009. A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture
performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(6): 573-587.
Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., & Halman, J. I. M. 2008. Success factors in new
ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(1): 7-27.
Song, L., Song, M., & Di Benedetto, C. 2009. A staged service innovation model. Decision Sciences,
40(3): 571-599.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329-366.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 18: Nonaka

Optional reading:
Song, M., & Di Benedetto, C. A. 2008. Supplier's involvement and success of radical new product
development in new ventures. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1): 1-22.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in
technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2): 277-300.
Sarasvathy, S. D. 2008. Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar.

Session 3 Economic, Historical, and Sociological Perspectives (1/26)

Baumol, W. J. 1996. Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Business

Venturing, 11(1): 3-22.
North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. 2006. A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded
human history, NBER Working Paper No. 12795.

7
Carlsson, B., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Braunerhjelm, P. 2009. Knowledge creation,
entrepreneurship, and economic growth: A historical review. Industrial and Corporate Change,
18(6): 1193-1229.
Levinthal, D. 1998. The slow pace of rapid technological change: Gradualism and punctuation in
technological change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(2): 217.
Thornton, P. H. 1999. The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology. 25: 19-46.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 24: Winter

Optional reading:
Baumol, W. J. 2010. The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. 2009. Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual
Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Johnson, S. 2010. Where Good Ideas Come From: The Nature History of Innovation New York:
Riverhead.

Session 4 Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship (2/2)

Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the
acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7): 545-564.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five
accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27-48.
Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. J. 2009. Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of
Management Review, 34(3): 477 - 491.
Guler, I., & Guillen, M. F. 2010. Institutions and the internationalization of US venture capital firms.
Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 185-205.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 22: Scott

Optional reading:
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited - Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.

Aldrich, H.E. & Fiol, M. 1995. Fools rush in. Academy of Management Journal 1994.

Session 5 Architecture and Modularization (2/9)

Simon, H., A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, 106(6): 467-482.
Henderson, R., & Clark, K. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product
technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 9-
30.
Schilling, M. 2000. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product

8
 modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2): 312-334.
Aoki, M., & Takizawa, H. 2002. Information, incentives, and option value: The Silicon Valley model.
Journal of Comparative Economics, 30(4): 759-786.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. 2006. The architecture of participation: Does code architecture mitigate
free riding in the open source development model? Management Science, 52(7): 1116-1127.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 21: Pfeffer

Optional reading:
Ulrich, K. 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24(3):
419-440.
Langlois, R. N., & Robertson, P. L. 1992. Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from
the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy, 21(4): 297-313.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. 2000. Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity. Boston, MA:
The MIT Press.

Session 6 Entrepreneurial Finance (2/16)

Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. 1990. Entrepreneurial ability, venture investments, and risk
sharing. Management Science, 36(10): 1232-1245.
Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. 2002. Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical
evidence. Journal of Finance, 57(1): 169-197.
Hsu, D. H. 2004. What do entrepreneurs pay for venture capital affiliation? Journal of Finance, 59(4):
1805-1844.
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(2): 248-
285.
Lindsey, L. 2008. Blurring firm boundaries: The role of venture capital in strategic alliances. Journal
of Finance, 63(3): 1137-1168.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 6: Hambrick

Optional reading:
Srensen, M. 2007. How smart is smart money? A two-sided matching model of venture capital.
Journal of Finance, 62(6): 2725-2762.

Session 7 Networks and Innovation (2/23)

Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus
of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1):
116-145.
Ibarra, H. 1993. Network centrality, Power, and innovation Involvement: Determinants of technical
and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 471-501.
Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study.

9
 Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 425-455.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. 2004. Networking and innovation: A
systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3-4): 137-
168.
Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative
success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3): 443-475.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 25: Zucker & Darby

Optional reading:
Granovetter, M.S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology. 78: 1360-1380.
Podolny, J. M. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology,
107(1): 33-60.
Phelps, C. C. 2010. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and
composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4):
Forthcoming.

Session 8 Networks and Entrepreneurship (3/2)

Hochberg, Y. V., Ljungqvist, A., & Lu, Y. 2007. Whom you know matters: Venture capital networks
and investment performance. Journal of Finance, 62(1): 251-301.
Hallen, B. L. 2008. The causes and consequences of the initial network positions of new organizations:
From whom do entrepreneurs receive investments? Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4):
685-718.
Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. E. 2008. Bringing the context back in: Settings and the search for syndicate
partners in venture capital investment networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2): 266-
294.
Rider, C. I. 2009. Constraints on the control benefits of brokerage: A study of placement agents in U.S.
venture capital fundraising. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(4): 575-601.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 14: Barney

Optional reading:
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35-67.
Uzzi, B. 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks
benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64(4): 481-505.
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. 2003. Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2): 165-187.

10
Session 9 – Corporate Venture Capital (3/9) Guest speaker: Dennis D. Park

Dushnitsky, G. 2006. Corporate venture capital: Past evidence and future directions, in Casson, Yeung,
Basu, and Wadeson (Eds.). Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK.
Hellmann, T. 2002. A theory of strategic venture investing. Journal of Financial Economics, 64(2):
285-314.
Wadhwa, A., & Kotha, S. 2006. Knowledge creation though external venturing: Evidence from the
telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal,
49(4): 819-835.
Katila, R., Rosenberger, J. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2008. Swimming with sharks: Technology
ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,
53(2): 295-332.
Park, H. D., & Steensma, H. K. 2011. When does corporate venture capital add value for new
ventures? Strategic Management Journal. In Press.

“Sweet”: Dennis on publishing journey of his SMJ paper

Optional reading:
Benson, D., & Ziedonis, R. H. 2010. Corporate venture capital and the returns to acquiring portfolio
companies. Journal of Financial Economics, 98: 478-499.
Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. J. 2005. When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures?
Research Policy, 34(5): 615-639.
Dushnitsky, G., & Shaver, J. M. 2009. Limitations to inter-organizational knowledge acquisition: The
paradox of corporate venture capital. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10): 1045-1064.

Session 10 Geography, Global Value Chain, and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (3/16)

Saxenian, A. 1990. Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley. California Management
Review, 33(1): 89-112.
Pouder, R., & Caron, H. S. J. 1996. Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and
innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1192-1225.
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. 2005. The governance of global value chains. Review of
International Political Economy, 12(1): 78-104.
Kogut, B., Urso, P., & Walker, G. 2007. Emergent properties of a new financial market: American
venture capital syndication, 1960-2005. Management Science, 53(7): 1181-1198.
Kerr, W. R. 2010. The agglomeration of U.S. ethnic inventors. In E. Glaeser (Ed.), Agglomeration
Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 5: Frese

Optional reading:
Moore, J. 1993. Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71: 75-
75.
Spencer, J. 2003. Global gatekeeping, representation, and network structure: A longitudinal analysis of
regional and global knowledge-diffusion networks. Journal of International Business Studies,

11
 34(5): 428-443.
Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. 2008. Global value chains and technological capabilities:
A framework to study learning and innovation in developing countries. Oxford Development
Studies, 36(1): 39-58.
Sun, S. L., Chen, H., & Pleggenkuhle-Miles, E. 2011. Moving upward in global value chains: The
innovation of mobile phone developers in China. Chinese Management Studies, 4(4): 305-321.
Isenberg, D. J. 2010. How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6): 40-
50.

Session 11 Profit, Open Innovation and Rent Appropriation (3/23)

Teece, D. J. 2006. Reflections on "profiting from innovation". Research Policy, 35(8): 1131-1146.
Winter, S. G. 2006. The logic of appropriability: From Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece. Research
Policy, 35(8): 1100-1106.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Garman, A. R. 2009. How open innovation can help you cope in lean times.
Harvard Business Review, 87(12): 68-76.
Coff, R. W. 2010. The coevolution of rent appropriation and capability development. Strategic
Management Journal, 31(7): 711–733.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 23: Williamson

Optional reading:
Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration,
licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15: 285-305.
Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. 2007. How to capture value from innovation: Shaping intellectual
property and industry architecture. California Management Review, 50(1): 278-296.

Session 12 Business Model (4/6)

Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. 2008. Reinventing your business model.
Harvard Business Review, 86(12): 50-59.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. 2005. The entrepreneur's business model: Toward a unified
perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6): 726-735.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. 2007. Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms.
Organization Science, 18(2): 181-199.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2009. Constructing markets and organizing boundaries:
Entrepreneurial action in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 643-671.
Christensen, C. M., Alton, R., Rising, C., & Waldeck, A. 2011. The new M&A playbook. Harvard
Business Review, 89(3): 48-57.

“Sweet”: Chen, M.-J. 2009. Competitive dynamics research: An insider’s odyssey. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 26(1): 5-25.

Optional reading:
Bhidé, A. 2008. The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More
Connected World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

12
Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. 2009. What do business models do? Innovation devices in
technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10): 1559-1570.
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. 2010. Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long
Range Planning, 43(2-3): 227-246.

Exchange your first draft with the reviewer before 4/6

Session 13 Corporate Governance, Family Business and IPOs (4/13)

Arthurs, J. D., Hoskisson, R. E., Busenitz, L. W., & Johnson, R. A. 2008. Managerial agents watching
other agents: Multiple agency conflicts regarding underpricing in IPO firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 51(2): 277-294.
Kaplan, S. N., & Stromberg, P. 2001. Venture capitalists as principals: Contracting, screening, and
monitoring. American Economic Review, 91(2): 426-430.
Berry, T. K., Fields, L. P., & Wilkins, M. S. 2006. The interaction among multiple governance
mechanisms in young newly public firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3): 449-466.
Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. 2006. How do family ownership, control and management affect firm
value? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2): 385-417.
Alvarez, S. A., & Parker, S. C. 2009. Emerging firms and the allocation of control rights: A Bayesian
approach. Academy of Management Review, 34(2): 209 - 227.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 17: Mintzberg

Optional reading:
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R. H., & Cannella, A. A. 2007. Are family firms really
superior performers? Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(5): 829-858.
Chemmanur, T. J., He, S., & Nandy, D. 2010. The going public decision and the product market.
Review of Financial Studies, 23(5): 1855-1908.

Session 14 –Real Option, Entrepreneurial Failure and Ethics (4/20)

McGrath, R. G. 1999. Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of
Management Review, 24(1): 13-30.
Lee, S. H., Peng, M. W., & Barney, J. B. 2007. Bankruptcy law and entrepreneurship development: A
real options perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 257-272.
Tong, T. W., Reuer, J., & Peng, M. W. 2008. International joint ventures and the value of growth
options. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5): 1014-1029.
Harris, J. D., Sapienza, H. J., & Bowie, N. E. 2009. Ethics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24(5): 407-418.
Webb, J. W., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R. D., & Sirmon, D. G. 2009. You say illegal, I say legitimate:
Entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 492 - 510.

“Sweet”: Textbook Chapter 20: Freeman

Optional reading:
Lee, S., Yamakawa, Y., Peng, M., & Barney, J. 2010. How do bankruptcy laws affect entrepreneurship

13
 development around the world? Journal of Business Venturing, Forthcoming.
Anokhin, S., & Schulze, W. S. 2009. Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of
Business Venturing, 24(5): 465-476.
Tonoyan, V., Strohmeyer, R., Habib, M., & Perlitz, M. 2010. Corruption and entrepreneurship: How
formal and informal institutions shape small firm behavior in transition and mature market
economies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5): 803-831.

Submit your paper review before 4/20

Session 15: Paper Presentations (4/27)

Submit your paper and R&R before 5/6

14
Appendix 1. AMJ review form, which we will use to provide peer review to classmates’ first drafts
Academy of Management Journal
Manuscript Evaluation Form
Manuscript # and title

REVIEWER # and name DUE DATE:

Instructions: Please rate this manuscript on the following criteria (place X under appropriate
category):

CRITERIA EVALUATION OF CRITERIA

Completely
inadequate Weak Marginal Satisfactory Strong
A. Conceptual adequacy

B. Technical adequacy

C. Appropriateness of the topic for AMJ

D. Clarity of exposition

E. Implications for practical application

F. Potential significance of contribution

Your recommendation:

1. _____ Clear reject

2. _____ Doubtful, needs major revision for me to tell
3. _____ Promising, but needs major revision
4. _____ Accept with minor revision
5. _____ Accept as is

If you recommend revision: Most suitable as: _____ Regular full length article ______ Shorter paper
(“research note”)
Comments to editor: Those that you DO NOT wish the author to see. No more than 1 paragraph please.
Comments to author: No length limitation. I’d suggest no more than 2 pages (single spaced)

NOTE TO PhD STUDENTS: At AMJ, author has no access to this evaluation form. Only “comments to
author” will be sent together with the editorial decision letter. These comments will also be sent to all reviewers
(while maintaining author anonymity). For our exercise, email me this form, which I will not share with
anybody. Note that your “comments to author” will not only be shared with the author, but also with the entire
class.

15