How high should one's H index be in strategic management to be considered good?

[Thomas]

So as we know, H index is actually pretty subject-dependent, which means that we cannot compare the index across different subjects.

 

Then, in the field of strategic management, how high should it be for a scholar to be considered little-known/somewhat recognized/well-known/prestigious?

 

I can point out several scholars in the field who might very well be considered to be prestigious:

 

Michael E. Porter, h-Index: 180

 

David J. Teece, h-Index: 106

 

Jay Barney, h-Index: 87

 

 

But what about those whose h-Index is 70? 56? 40? 30?

 

Might I know from you guys if there's a general understanding regarding the use of h-Index in the field?

 

Thanks for time and attention!