Pitfalls in Strategic Decision Making

Document Sample
Pitfalls in Strategic Decision Making Powered By Docstoc
					Why management reviewers recommend
that your international paper be rejected
and what you can do about it


     David J. Ketchen, Jr., Professor of Management

            William Gillis, Doctoral Candidate

                 Florida State University

               MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004
Key questions
   What common problems lead
    management reviewers to recommend
    rejection of international papers?
   Does the mix of problems differ from
    management papers in general?
   What can authors do to avoid common
    problems?

               MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004   2
What common problems lead management reviewers to
recommend rejection of international papers?

   Examined reviews of 34 submissions to
    the Journal of Management between
    2000-2002
   Up to three main reasons coded
   Found 250 major problems listed in the
    95 reviews of the 34 papers


                MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004        3
   Results
   Problem                                     N     % of       % of
                                                     Problems   Reviews

1. No theory                                   31    12         33
2. Concepts and measures                       36    14         38
    not in alignment
3. Insufficient definition – theory            41    16         43
4. Insufficient rationale – design             29    12         31
5. Macrostructure – organization and flow      20     8         21
6. Amateur style and tone                      10     4         11
7. Inadequate research design                  32    13         34
8. Not relevant to the field                   13     5         14
9. Overengineering                              5     2          5
10. Conclusions not in alignment               14     6         15
11. Cutting up the data                         3     1          3
12. International misapplication               16     6         17
                           MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004                    4
Does the mix of problems differ from management
papers in general?

   Daft, R.L. 1995. Why I recommend that your paper
    be rejected and what you can do about it. In L.L.
    Cummings and P.J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the
    Organizational Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   258 major problems found in 111 reviews for
    Administrative Science Quarterly and Academy of
    Management Journal




                   MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004          5
Results
   Problem                                   JoM      Daft

1. No theory                                     31    56
2. Concepts and measures                         36    35
    not in alignment
3. Insufficient definition – theory              41    27
4. Insufficient rationale – design               29    27
5. Macrostructure – organization and flow        20    26
6. Amateur style and tone                        10    23
7. Inadequate research design                    32    22
8. Not relevant to the field                     13    20
9. Overengineering                                5    11
10. Conclusions not in alignment                 14     6
11. Cutting up the data                           3     5
12. International misapplication                 16     0

                       MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004               6
Skills needed to earn publication
(“Cutting up the data” cases are excluded)


                                                 JoM       Daft
    Theory Skills
    (define concepts, enact models,
    write stories, integrate variables)           142      149

    Writing skills
    (flow, style, integration of parts,
    rationale, openness,
    A to Z then back to A)                            73    82

    Design skills
    (inadequate method,
    wrong method, validity)                           32     22

                                                  247       253

                            MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004               7
Insights
   Overall mix of skill problems are similar
   Most frequent problems for
    international submissions are
       Insufficient definitions
       Concepts and measures not aligned
       Poor research design
       No theory


                  MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004   8
What can authors do to avoid
common problems?
   Theory tips
       Define concepts and stay consistent
       Avoid ‘argumentation by citation’
       Must be clear on what is the theory that
        makes you think A and B are related
       Box and arrow diagrams are very useful
            Perhaps map predictions onto the diagram



                      MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004           9
What can authors do to avoid the
common problems?
   Method tips
       Provide sufficient detail in this section so
        that others can replicate what you did
       Be forthcoming about empirical flaws;
        Don’t make it seem like you are hiding
        something
       What exactly is your sample size?
       Convenience samples need to be well
        justified

                    MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004            10
Closing thoughts –
Some general tips for Ph.D students

   Find a template
   Seek professional help
   One main idea per paragraph
   Use outlines
   Impression management is free, but
    very valuable


               MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004   11

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:5/30/2012
language:
pages:11