General Requirements:
The response for each part should conform to the following:
1. Follow APA 7th edition conventions throughout the paper, including a title page, abstract, and reference page.
2. Paper length for each part should be 10 – 12 pages (excluding title page, abstract, references, or anything else but content).
3. Support each response with 15 – 20 peer-reviewed, scholarly articles, at least 7 of which are published within the last seven years.
Required Format for each Response:
Each response should conform to the following:
1. Title Page
2. Abstract
3. Introduction Paragraph
4. Body of paper
• Note: Do not use “Body of Paper” as a heading. Rather, using the content requirements for Parts I (MGMT 6021), II (MGMT 6022, and III (MGMT 6023, respectively, develop this section with the use of appropriate topical headings to organize your discussion per the content requirements. (This section will be similar to a Literature Review section).
• Headings example: If the question asks you to discuss particular theories or to compare and contrast, etc., you should develop a heading for each theory, etc.
• This discussion should be supported with the required literature.
5. Conclusion Paragraph
6. Reference List
______________________________________________________________________
Part I – Organization Behavior/Organization Theory/Strategic Management
(MGMT 6021)
Throughout your coursework you have studied many organizational theories including contingency theory, institutional theory, and resource-dependency theory. You have also studied corporate diversification strategies.
• Please discuss each of these theories (i.e., contingency theory, institutional theory, and resource-dependency theory) in detail. It is important that your content is comprehensive and synthesized.
o Contingency Theory – In addition to the premise of this theory, discuss the relationship between the environment, structure, and strategy.
o Institutional Theory –In addition to the premise of this theory, discuss the key concepts of the theory and how this theory affects social behavior and external pressures.
o Resource Dependency Theory – In addition to the premise of this theory, discuss the role of resources in creating a competitive advantage, the make vs. buy argument, and the heterogeneity of resources.
• Discuss diversification strategies in terms of diversification type, implementation and performance.
• Apply each of the above theories (i.e., contingency theory, institutional theory, resource-dependency theory) to the literature on diversification strategies.
Compare and contrast how each theory is related to corporate diversification in terms of
o diversification choice,
o implementation and
o performance.
• Your response should be grounded in the literature and theory. Many articles have been provided to you in the classes. Review the assigned articles and text from Strategic Management, Organization Theory, and Theoretical Foundations of Management (article list provided below). You will need to add articles as well.
• You may not find specific articles synthesizing these specific theories with corporate diversification, but you will have to synthesize these concepts given the knowledge gained from Theoretical Foundations of Management, Organization Theory, and Strategic Management.
References
Awaysheh, A., Heron, R.A., Perry, T., & Wilson, J. I. (2020). On the relation between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Strat. Mgmt. J., 41, 965– 987.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
Belenzon, S., Hashai, N., & Patacconi, A. The architecture of attention: Group structure and subsidiary autonomy. Strat Mgmt J. 2019; 40: 1610– 1643.
Briscoe, F., Chin, M. K., & Hambrick, D. C. (2014). CEO ideology as an element of the corporate opportunity structure for social activists. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1786–1809.
Bruns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical research Reference in Entrepreneurship. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496187
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Trevino, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–232.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392145
Gamache, D.L, Neville, F., Bundy, J., & Short, C. E. (2020). Serving differently: CEO regulatory focus and firm stakeholder strategy. Strat. Mgmt. J., 41, 1305– 1335.
Joseph, J., Klingebiel, R., & Wilson, A. (2016). Organizational structure and performance feedback: Centralization, aspirations, and termination decisions. Organization Science, 27, 1065–13
Karim, S., & Kaul, A. (2015). Structural recombination and innovation: Unlocking Intraorganizational knowledge synergy through structural change. Organization Science, 26(2), 439–455.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch. J. W. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1-47.
Newbert, Scott. 2008. Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A conceptual-Level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 745-768.
Peng, M., Sun, S., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The institutional based view as a third leg for strategic tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3), 63-81.
Piazza, A, Perretti, F. (2020). Firm behavior and the evolution of activism: Strategic decisions and the emergence of protest in US communities. Strat. Mgmt. J., 41, 681– 707.
Sine, W., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal Structure and New Venture Performance in Emerging Economic Sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49.
Wowak, A. J., Mannor, M. J., & Wowak, K. D. (2015). Throwing caution to the wind: The effect of CEO stock option pay on the incidence of product safety problems. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), 1082–1092.
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Hubbard, T. D. (2016). Reputation as a benefit and a burden? How stakeholders’ organizational identification affects the role of reputation following a negative event. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 253–276.
