Thomas Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Hi all. I'm an undergrad student at a top 30 b-school interested in doing a phd in management. I'm interested in organizational-level issues. However, it seems like that there are two tracks (strategy and macro-ob) in the field. I'm reading some phd-level books and papers of strategy, but what about macro-ob? What are the key differences between the two? And how could I find relevant phd-level books and papers to see if that interests me? Thx for reading and consideration! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilianPhD Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 The division I usually see is macro and micro, and not strategy and macro. In short, macro is focused on the organization and how it interacts with the external environment, and micro is focused on the individuals and how they interact with the organization. If you want to read PhD-level stuff, check the top journals in management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Posted September 10, 2020 Author Share Posted September 10, 2020 Thx Sir for the reply! I was wondering, did you mean that actually that there's not a big difference between strategy and OT (i.e., macro-ob)? Like, if I'm interested in both issues in strategic management (e.g., acquisitions) and organizational theories such as social embedness and so on, would it be ok for me to read both literature on acquistions and organizational theories? In other words, is there a big intersection between the two sub-fields? Thx anyway for reading sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilianPhD Posted September 11, 2020 Share Posted September 11, 2020 Sorry, but I don't know if I understand what you're asking. Strategy is such a broad term that it's hard to know what you're referring to. But, for example, acquisitions can have implications for both micro and macro. So, acquisitions by itself are not micro, or macro, or strategy, etc. You can read about anything, of course. But you should know what you want to research. A PhD is very focused on something, you can't research everything like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrategicMGMT Posted September 14, 2020 Share Posted September 14, 2020 I recommend you check out some reading lists for PhD level OT courses (what I assume you mean by macro OB). For example: OT http://timothypollock.com/pdfs/ot%20phd%20syllabus%20spring%20%2710.pdf http://davidrclough.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PhD-Syllabus-Organization-Theory-David-Clough-24-Aug-2018.pdf https://web-app.usc.edu/ws/soc_archive/soc/syllabus/20121/16793.pdf https://www.michelanteby.net/files/manteby/files/macro_ot_ds911_syllabus_spr_2018.pdf In those syllabi you will see some references to books / extended readings. I've always enjoyed this book as well: Stanford's Organization Theory Renaissance, 1970–2000: Vol. 28 | Emerald Insight -- as when we talk about OT, inevitably they lead to Stanford in some way or form (even the Carnegie School, taken from the work done by Simon, March, and Cyert ... well Jim March had a very long career at Stanford and if you read this book you will see all the connections to him.) You will see overlap in these. For example, the behavioral theory of the firm/the Carnegie School which features in all three is a central topic in mainstream strategy research. Some work however is much more sociological, like professions and occupations (and only features in the 4th link I provided). These are survey type courses, if you are a strategy or OT scholar you likely won't be deeply knowledgable about all (meaning, able to write a paper and contribute to it), but you will understand it and know where it fits in the conversation. Most people find a "home" (or two) and that is what they work from. And just like the literature, scholars also are on a spectrum. Some sit firmly in strategy, others in OT, and some crossover (leaning more towards one side or the other). It also depends on training. Some strategy scholars that come from a classical economics training will be less likely to engage in OT for example. You see some departments that are divided (economists and sociologists), such as Ross (UM) and Rotman (UT). IMO there is also a methodological divide, although I am sure this could easily be debated. Strategy scholars are more often quantitative, and OT is more often qualitative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Posted September 15, 2020 Author Share Posted September 15, 2020 Thx very very much StrategicMGMT!! I will surely take my time to read the materials in the files! Thx!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.