Mark De Rond

On the Dialectics of Strategic Alliances

Using Van de Ven and Pooles (1995) extensive assessment of process theories as an intellectual scaffold, we review theoretical contributions to our understanding of alliance dynamics and process. It appears that of four generic theoretical engines, only three-life cycle, teleology, and evolution-are reasonably well covered in this literature. Process studies informed by a dialectical theory, however, appear to be markedly absent. We explore the characteristics and contributions of a dialectical lens in understanding interorganizational collaborations by invoking a longitudinal case study of a biotechnology-based alliance. The case illustrates the coevolutionary interchange of design and emergence, cooperation and competition, trust and vigilance, expansion and contraction, and control and autonomy. It also emphasizes the importance of treating alliances as heterogeneous phenomena, of alliance performance as subject to social construction, and of unintended consequences as a change agent. The emerging ontological, epistemological, and methodological implications of a dialectical perspective comprise a novel extension to the existing literature.

Publish or Perish Bane or Boon of Academic Life

There are few more familiar aphorisms in the academic community than “publish or perish.” Venerated by many and dreaded by more, this phenomenon is the subject of the authors’ essay. Here they consider the publish or perish principle that has come to characterize life at many business schools. They explain when and why it began and suggest reasons for its persistence. This exercise elicits questions that appear as relatively neglected but are integral to our profession, namely, the effect of publish or perish on the creativity, intellectual lives, morale, and psychological and emotional states of faculty.

Context and action in the transformation of strategy scholarship

We revisit Andrew Pettigrews seminal ‘Context and action in the transformation of the firm’, first published in this journal in November 1987. In doing so, we not only review Pettigrews contributions, but contextualize these with respect to adjoining strategy scholarship. Our discussion concludes with some novel, and fairly speculative, ways forward, designed to advance strategy scholarship. Working with the ideas contained in Pettigrews article and drawing on insights from institutional entrepreneurship, we make a case for the processualization of strategy content research. This allows us to add the issue of effectiveness of strategy practices to current strategy‐as‐practice research while arguing for a further humanization of strategic management.

The 'not invented here' myth

Why does in-licensing remain a popular strategic option for many pharmaceutical companies if, as is repeatedly claimed, inlicensed drug candidates are more likely to fail than succeed? Much of the available research emphasizes their comparatively high failure rates. Pavlou and Belsey1, for example, recently surveyed pharmaceutical industry executives who observed failure rates of 21–50% for licensing deals. PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Europe estimated2 that 59% of product development alliances for large pharmaceutical companies failed to meet expectations. Similarly, more broadly defined studies by consultancy companies or academics have usually concluded that 40–60% of alliances disappoint3. These and a plethora of similar studies give pharmaceutical companies good reason to be concerned about their ability to successfully manage joint discovery projects. The question we ask here is whether these deal breakdown rates and the inability of many alliances to live up to expectations should be reason for specific concern when drug development is generally harassed by unavoidable attrition.

The structure of serendipity

Serendipity is routinely but mistakenly used as synonymous with chance events, luck or providence. It is thus not surprising that serendipity remains comparatively under-researched. After all, how is one to unlock the ‘black box’ of chance? Rather than being synonymous with chance, serendipity results from identifying ‘matching pairs’ of events that are put to practical or strategic use. With this etymologically accurate definition in mind, serendipity thus describes a capability, not an event. It follows that human agency, and not probability, is properly the focus of attention. Drawing on its sixteenth century etymological origins, I ‘unpack’ four serendipitous innovations in science to illustrate the nature of serendipity. In developing this argument, I propose a novel typology, and conclude by exploring implications of this typology for research and practice.Serendipity is routinely but mistakenly used as synonymous with chance events, luck or providence. It is thus not surprising that serendipity remains comparatively under-researched. After all, how is one to unlock the ‘black box’ of chance? Rather than being synonymous with chance, serendipity results from identifying ‘matching pairs’ of events that are put to practical or strategic use. With this etymologically accurate definition in mind, serendipity thus describes a capability, not an event. It follows that human agency, and not probability, is properly the focus of attention. Drawing on its sixteenth century etymological origins, I ‘unpack’ four serendipitous innovations in science to illustrate the nature of serendipity. In developing this argument, I propose a novel typology, and conclude by exploring implications of this typology for research and practice.

Evaluating Causal Explanations of Specific Events

Organizational life and research regularly involve having to explain specific events. This paper considers how such explanations might be evaluated. We outline a theory of causal explanations as answers to why-questions and introduce criteria to assess such explanations. The criteria are illustrated via an analysis of different explanations proposed for the remarkable success of Honda’s entry into the US motorcycle market.

From the ethnographic turn to new forms of organizational ethnography

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to outline the context and the content of the six papers that follow in this special issue on “New Forms of Organizational Ethnography”. Design/methodology/approach – This editorial explains the burgeoning interest in organizational ethnography over the last decade in terms of several favourable conditions that have supported this resurgence. It also offers a general view of the nature and diversity of new forms of organizational ethnography in studies of management and organization. Findings – New forms of organizational ethnography have emerged in response to rapidly changing organizational environments and technological advances as well as the paradigmatic transformation of ethnography and ascendency of discursive and practice-based studies. Originality/value – The editorial highlights an “ethnographic turn” in management and organization studies that is characterized by a renewal of the discipline through the proliferation of new forms of organizational ethnograp...

Soldier, surgeon, photographer, fly: Fieldwork beyond the comfort zone

Few conflicts have created as broad a media canvas as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. The combination of iPhones, iPads, Facebook and YouTube has generated a magnificent, even if occasionally grisly, assortment of snapshots and documentaries, blogs and autobiographies. Some have been controversial – think of Abu Ghraib – but mostly they have been flattering in espousing the heroism of ISAF forces. This is particularly true of images of human anguish beamed to our television screens by camera-equipped soldiers and embedded photojournalists, a handful of whom, like Tim Heatherington and Remi Ochlik, paid the ultimate price. Despite unprecedented access, the ensuing reportage tends to overlook the surreality of war by not being explicit about the sharply conflicting experiences it generates for those involved first-hand. War is surreal for the paradoxes it mobilizes. Prominent among these (and quite aside from the often bizarre physical setting) are the want of community and camaraderie and yet the experience of competition and rivalry; the conflicting emotions of pleasure and guilt; sharp contrasts between a sense of meaning and futility. While petty by comparison, similar paradoxes may be found in the organizations that dominate much of our working lives. It may just be the case that they are easier to identify in contexts that are exceptionally austere, and where getting the wrong end of the stick kills. These conflicting experiences cannot easily be reconciled. Rather, those affected often have little choice but to reconcile themselves to these paradoxes as best they can. In this essay we move from the grotesque to the trivial by examining the experience of war from four vantage points: that of the soldier, combat surgeon, photojournalist and ethnographer. I was encouraged to write from experience. When the opportunity arose to embed with a team of combat surgeons in mid-2011 in Afghanistan, I chucked in my lot lock, stock and barrel. I was given permission to take photographs – a privilege not even extended to those in charge – and returned with 1500 useable images. Preparations for my stint began in mid2009 and involved 18 months of interaction and negotiation followed by six weeks of predeployment training and six weeks in Afghanistan. (A standard tour of duty for UK surgeons is six weeks.) The ensuing rumination is raw. I have not been back long enough to provide the depth of reflection that makes for good theorizing, and there will be plenty of exceptions to my inferences. So be it. 452819 SOQ10310.1177/1476127012452819de RondStrategic Organization 2012Few conflicts have created as broad a media canvas as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. The combination of iPhones, iPads, Facebook and YouTube has generated a magnificent, even if occasionally grisly, assortment of snapshots and documentaries, blogs and autobiographies. Some have been controversial – think of Abu Ghraib – but mostly they have been flattering in espousing the heroism of ISAF forces. This is particularly true of images of human anguish beamed to our television screens by camera-equipped soldiers and embedded photojournalists, a handful of whom, like Tim Heatherington and Rémi Ochlik, paid the ultimate price. Despite unprecedented access, the ensuing reportage tends to overlook the surreality of war by not being explicit about the sharply conflicting experiences it generates for those involved first-hand. War is surreal for the paradoxes it mobilizes. Prominent among these (and quite aside from the often bizarre physical setting) are the want of community and camaraderie and yet the experience of competition and rivalry; the conflicting emotions of pleasure and guilt; sharp contrasts between a sense of meaning and futility. While petty by comparison, similar paradoxes may be found in the organizations that dominate much of our working lives. It may just be the case that they are easier to identify in contexts that are exceptionally austere, and where getting the wrong end of the stick kills. These conflicting experiences cannot easily be reconciled. Rather, those affected often have little choice but to reconcile themselves to these paradoxes as best they can. In this essay we move from the grotesque to the trivial by examining the experience of war from four vantage points: that of the soldier, combat surgeon, photojournalist and ethnographer. I was encouraged to write from experience. When the opportunity arose to embed with a team of combat surgeons in mid-2011 in Afghanistan, I chucked in my lot lock, stock and barrel. I was given permission to take photographs – a privilege not even extended to those in charge – and returned with 1500 useable images. Preparations for my stint began in mid2009 and involved 18 months of interaction and negotiation followed by six weeks of predeployment training and six weeks in Afghanistan. (A standard tour of duty for UK surgeons is six weeks.) The ensuing rumination is raw. I have not been back long enough to provide the depth of reflection that makes for good theorizing, and there will be plenty of exceptions to my inferences. So be it. 452819 SOQ10310.1177/1476127012452819de RondStrategic Organization 2012

Good Night, and Good Luck: Perspectives on Luck in Management Scholarship

It is not insignificant that seminal contributions to management scholarship have highlighted luck as an alternative explanation for performance differences between individuals and organizations. Yet it has rarely taken center-stage in scholarship. The principal purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic review of the application of luck in the management literature and in such foundation disciplines as economics, sociology, and psychology. Our analysis finds five common perspectives on luck: (a) luck as Attribution; (b) luck as Randomness; (c) luck as Counterfactual; (d) luck as Undeserved; and (e) luck as Serendipity. We outline various ways in which research on luck may be advanced along each of these perspectives, and develop an underexplored, sixth, perspective on (f) luck as Leveler to provide a possible solution to such issues as social inequality and (unwarranted) executive compensation.

Reviewer 198, the Hedgehog, and the Fox Next Generation Theories in Strategy

Troubled by what appears to be a tendency in strategy research toward prescription, informed by a monist and inevitably reductionist but rarely questioned dogma-the belief that there is a single harmony of truths into which everything, if genuine, must fit-the author proposes that future research is best served not by the extant theoretical heterogeneity or by a dominant paradigm but by being grounded in theories of heterogeneity. Using a typical peer review as a point of departure, the author proceeds to articulate this trend, disentangle its deep-seated assumptions, and consider its consequences for progress in our discipline.