Search

How does previous entrepreneurial failure influence future entrepreneurship? More specifically, under what conditions do entrepreneurs who rebound from failure do better in the next round? Drawing on the cognitive literature [...]

Focusing on a firm's signaling of social capital through their alliances, we explore how socially constructed signals convey legitimacy and enable greater initial public offering (IPO) proceeds. We examine the [...]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00849.x Byline: Livia Markoczy (1), David L. Deeds (2) Abstract: abstract Zahra and Newey (2009) argue for the importance of creative theory building in management research and suggest that this is best to be done via interdisciplinary research. We argue that the more management research goes down the road of pursuing interdisciplinary research for generating novel theories, the more likely it will compromise another worthwhile goal, which is to establish the discipline of management as a legitimate academic discipline that is distinguishable from other academic disciplines in its subject matter and its theoretical and methodological approach. We also argue against the implicit premise that the focus of management discipline should be on developing new theories. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Texas at Dallas; (2)University of St Thomas, Minneapolis Article note: Livia Markoczy, School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, PO Box 830688, SM 43, Richardson, TX 75083-0688, USA (livia.markoczy@utdallas.edu).

The internationalization of new ventures from emerging economies to developed economies remains an unfilled gap at the intersection of the literature between international entrepreneurship and strategy in emerging economies. What [...]

This paper is concerned with exploring the degree to which industry structure determines firm performance. Most of the business policy literature follows Porter in arguing that industry structure has an important influence on firm level profit rates. The arguments contained in this paper take a counter position. It is argued that a plausible alternative to the hypothesis that industry structure matters is the hypothesis that (holding demand constant) individual firm differences are the most important determinant of firm profitability. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Purpose – This study aims to explore the objectivity in third-party ratings. Third-party ratings are often based on some form of aggregation of various experts' opinions with the assumption that the potential judgment biases of the experts cancel each other out. While psychology research has suggested that experts can be unintentionally biased, management literature has not considered the effect of expert bias on the objectivity of third-party ratings. Thus, this study seeks to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach – Ranking data from the US News and World Report between 1993 and 2008, institution-related variables and, to represent sports prominence, NCAA football and basketball performance variables are leveraged in testing our hypotheses. A mediating-model is tested using regression with panel-corrected standard errors. Findings – This study finds that the judgments of academicians and recruiters, concerning the quality of universities, have been biased by the prominence of a university's sports teams and that the bias introduced to these experts mediates the aggregated bias in the resultant rankings of MBA programs. Moreover, it finds that experts may inflate rankings by up to two positions. Practical implications – This study is particularly relevant for university officials as it uncovers how universities can tangibly manipulate the relative perception of quality through sports team prominence. For third-party rating systems, the reliability of ratings based on aggregated expert judgments is called into question. Originality/value – This study addresses a significant gap in the literature by examining how a rating system may be unintentionally biased through the aggregation of experts' judgments. Given the heavy reliance on third-party rating systems by both academics and the general population, addressing the objectivity of such ratings is crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]