MASTER SYLLABUS MGMT 620: INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR COURSE DETAILS

Semester:

Spring 2017

Course Code:

MGMT 620

Course Name:

International Dimensions Organizational Behavior

Course Prerequisites:

MGMT 501

Course Co-requisites:

None

Credits Hours:

One and one-half (1.5) credit hours

Classroom:

Harry J. Schure Hall, Rm. 125, 5:45 -7:00 PM

Class Timing:

(15.25 class hours + 2 hours final exam period)

Final Exam Period:

May 15, 2017

INSTRUCTOR DETAILS

of

Professor:

Dr. Hartman

Office Location: Rm. 312, Wisser Library, OW Office Hours: Tuesday & Thursday 2:00 – 3:00 PM and by appointment Email: [email protected] Course website: Dr. Hartman's NYIT Website Phone (Office): 516-686-7691

CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION This course is an inter-disciplinary examination of the international dimensions of organizational behavior. Course content includes topics such as cross-cultural management, cross-cultural communication, and global aspects of leadership, motivation, team management, and decisionmaking.

COURSE OVERVIEW In an age where organizations straddle and traverse national boundaries with considerable ease, future managers aspiring to work in the international arena need to familiarize themselves with the international dimensions of management disciplines such as organizational behavior, which have traditionally been disproportionately focused on U.S. and European material. This course seeks to

expose students to a broader, global perspective on organizational behavior and business management. The course is composed of the following three modules: a. Organizations and Culture: This module introduces the concept of culture and explores it in an inter-disciplinary fashion, drawing upon the research of experts in communication studies, sociology and anthropology. It seeks to understand the nature of cultural differences between and within nation-states, and begins to provide a framework for effective cross-cultural communication. Students will learn how to value and leverage diversity, and to operate in multicultural work environments. Each student will work on an individual assignment that will seek to understand both the barriers to effective crosscultural communication and the ways in which these barriers might be surmounted. b. Global Leadership: This module deals with some of the central aspects of organizational behavior such as leadership, motivation, and team management, and examines them in the context of international business. Students will learn how to manage a multicultural workforce and to work in culturally diverse teams. They will appraise the standard theories of motivation in order to appreciate how these might be relevant in a global context. The module will also seek to enhance global leadership competencies among the students. Student teams will consider a contemporary business problem and attempt to grapple with the issues concerning global leadership, motivation, and team-management in order to offer a set of recommendations that will be presented in. Student recommendations will be compared with industry practices. c. Students are required to bring in one article weekly including a ½ page written summary on international dimensions of organizational behavior. Sources can include any business magazine or journal, the NY Times, WSJ, or the Internet. Students cannot submit late articles after November 7th. Please stay current with your articles. This assignment is considered a part of your class participation grade.

Although not considered in the context of Assurance of Learning, the class also includes a final examination.

COURSE-LEVEL LEARNING GOALS 1 (A) Invariant Learning Goals (In support of the MBA Programmatic Learning Goal(s)) 2:: Upon the successful completion of this course, the student will be able to: 1. Analyze the theories underlying cross-cultural management and cross-cultural communication, and gauge the implications of this understanding for the effective management of international business enterprises (A1); 2. Evaluate various aspects of leading and motivating globally, appreciate and critique aspects of global leadership and motivation, and appraise the issues around managing global teams (A2); and

Assurance of Learning Validations (Linked to the MBA Programmatic Learning Goal(s)) 3:

1

A note on School of Management Course-Level Learning Goals: Learning goals are partitioned into those that are in support of the programmatic learning goals (Invariant), specific to the localized region of delivery (Contextualized), and specific to the domain expertise of the instructor (Instructor-Specific). The former two categories are required for all courses. Invariant “Assurance of Learning Validations” are specifically linked to the associated programmatic learning goal and objective, with course-level learning goals representing the programmatic goal as it applies to the context of the course. Learning goals that focus on knowledge acquisition (Bloom’s Taxonomy) are not specifically or necessarily included into the course-level learning goals, although it is assumed that knowledge acquisition of all relevant business core fundamentals is addressed within each course. Examinations in class are used to provide feedback concerning knowledge and comprehension for the purpose of ensuring that students who have not mastered these will not advance through the curriculum. Attainment of knowledge within each core area is assessed by way of standalone testing of each student as a required part of the instructional program prior to graduation (e.g. ETS). 2

The degree of attainment for each course level learning goal is validated through the composite set of scores for the referenced Assurance of Learning Validations for that goal. For example, if a learning goal is followed by (A1), it implies that the average of the set of scores for Assurance of Learning Validation A1 forms the basis of assessment/attainment of the learning goal. Alternatively, if a learning goal is followed by (A3; A4; A6), this indicates that the composite set of scores for Assurance of Learning Validations A3, A4 and A6 are to be used to assess the degree to which this learning goal has been attained with equal weights applied to each set of scores. That is, the average of the scores for A3 is utilized and weighted equally (1/3) with the average for the scores of A4, and also A6. Unless specified otherwise, the weights are equal. In the latter case the weight for each Assurance of Learning Validation would be 1/3. 3

A note on School of Management Assurance of Learning Scoring: Scores form the metric for the degree to which the validation (e.g. learning outcome) satisfies the associated learning goal or objective. Assurance of learning validation descriptions identify the criteria for each score that is to be given. All scores are scaled from 1-5 (1-poor, 2-fair, 3-good, 4-very good, 5-excellent). It must be noted that scores are to be differentiated from grades. Scores form a criterion from which an instructor will ascertain an overall grade for any

A1: Cross-Cultural Communication – Individual Assignment: Write a 2,500-word paper addressing the following. What are the barriers to effective cross-cultural communication? How might these be surmounted? Identify at least 2 theories of cross-cultural communication that can shed light on your own experiences of communicating across cultures. What do these theories explain? What do they fail to explain? What are the implications of your insights for cross-cultural communication in international business organizations? For the purpose of assurance of learning, the Cross-Cultural Communication assignment will receive 2 scores, based on the following: Score 1: The ability to identify the business issues involved in cross-cultural communication, and to present a set of persuasive recommendations (MBA-3M); Score 2: The ability to draw upon the work of other disciplines, especially from communication studies, in order to substantiate the theoretical basis of the assignment (MBA-COMMUNICATION).; and Score 3: Demonstrate the utility of cross-cultural communication for effective management practices (MBA-MGMT). Project due March 6, 2017. A2: Global Leadership – Team Project: Students will have to work in teams in order to complete this project on global leadership. Each student will be assigned to a team, and each team will be given a case drawn from a contemporary issue (for example, a team may be asked to examine the aspects of global leadership demonstrated by Toyota in January 2010 after a series of problems were discovered in its major car brands). The team will be required to research the issue, identify the dimensions of global leadership in the case, and offer a set of recommendations, which must be derived from both data and theory. Teams must include aspects of global motivation and global team-management in their work. Each team will need to make a 30-minute formal presentation on the issue using presentation software. The slides used for the presentation must be submitted to the instructor. For the purpose of assurance of learning, the Global Leadership project will receive 4 scores, based on the following: Score 1: The ability to work collaboratively in groups in order to offer a coherent and persuasive argument (MBA-1G); Score 2: The appropriateness of the research, industry analysis, and data that is deployed in order to make connections between theory and practice (MBA-2M); Score 3: The integration of macro-economic theories into the team's recommendations and discussion on global management (MBA-ECON); and instrument of assessment, and the overall assessment the student receives for an instrument is a “grade.” A score is an extraction that specifically measures the degree of attainment of a learning goal and/or objective.

Score 4: The demonstration of an understanding of what it takes to be an effective leader, especially in an uncertain global environment (MBA-3G). Project Due April 24, 2017.

(B) Contextualized (Globalized) Learning Goal(s): Upon the successful completion of this course, the student will be able to: 1. See Invariant Learning Goal 1 above; 2. See Invariant Learning Goal 2 above; and 3. See Invariant Learning Goal 3 above. Assurance of Learning Validation (In support of the Contextualized (Globalized) Learning Goal(s)): B1. See Assurance of Learning Validation 1(Score 1 and Score 2) above; B2. See Assurance of Learning Validation 2(Scores 1-4) above; and B3. See Assurance of Learning Validation 3 (Scores 1-3) above. (C) Instructor Specific Learning Goal(s) (Optional): None Assurance of Learning Validation (In support of the Instructor Specific Learning Goal(s)): None

TEACHING AND LEARNING METHODOLOGY The School of Management’s teaching and learning strategy is informed by contemporary indicators/sources that derive from its target market, specifically the millennial generation. In particular, behavioral traits for this generation are identified and form the basis of emphasis for the schools’ teaching and learning methodologies. These methodologies are reflected in the school’s mission statement by way of its TEMPOS campaign4. In addition, teaching and learning strategies are informed by institutional indirect assessment results, periodically collected and reviewed by the Office of Planning and Assessment 4

Teaching and Learning Strategies: ”TEMPOS and the Millennials,” revised September 2008.

and the school’s faculty5. Teaching and learning strategies are also externally referenced systematically (e.g., the Annual Stakeholder’s Conference) through continuing consultations with non-board key stakeholder groups, including employers, business and community leaders, accreditation and ministerial agencies, alumni, students, peer institutions, and business and governmental agency representatives.

A component of all courses, as a part of the teaching and learning strategies, is to maintain academic rigor and to be intellectually challenging. This is validated in institutional survey results. However, School of Management faculty members utilize an overall collective portfolio of strategies/initiatives that obtain from the aforementioned sources in delineating those that are most appropriate or emphasized in the courses they lead.

In this course (MGMT620), four (4) prioritized teaching and learning strategies focus on:

1. 2. 3. 4.

integrating international/global perspectives; innovative and creative thinking; faculty-student interaction; and integrating principles of ethics/social responsibility.

All faculty members that instruct this course should consider how to execute the course to emphasize these key components of the strategies considered. Following a review of learning outcomes, faculty members consider how re-orientation of teaching and learning strategies might result in strengthening these outcomes, and adjustments are made, accordingly. Faculty members also consider how the School of Management Triple Platforms of Excellence (Professional Enrichment, Experiential Education, and Student Advancement) might be leveraged as a part of this strategy, and provide recommendations to the Directors of those platforms. The school also reviews the distribution of identified teaching and learning strategies periodically to ensure comprehension and the integration of each (from the designated list of

5

E.g., Student Survey on Teaching Quality – Quantitative Data: School of Management.

approximately 20-25 strategies) within the curriculum. Finally, results from student teaching evaluations also provide indications of how various teaching and learning strategies are integrated into the course delivery. The following issues (indicator number is provided) are among those in the evaluations that bear on this review and analysis:

7.

The amount of work in this course was appropriate.

15. The instructor was available for course related consultation and advice. 17. The instructor assigned challenging course work. 18. The instructor graded and returned student work and exams promptly. 19. The instructor provided helpful, constructive feedback on assignments and course work. 20. The instructor respected cultural differences and diversity among students. 21. The instructor incorporated information technology (e.g. computer or the Internet) in the course. 25. The instructor challenged me to think.

Along with teaching and learning strategies, the notion of student effort/time on task is also considered, although it is not necessarily driven by metrics. It is noted that the notion of student effort, specifically metric driven, is not a universally adopted approach6. However, if an instance occurs where student learning outcomes do not meet targeted academic standards, the School of Management utilizes indirect inputs in this area to explore the interdependencies between factors including the amount of work

6

See the Victorian TAFE Association Response – Strengthening the AQF: Proposal, June 2009. East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, retrieved from http://www.vta.vic.edu.au/docs/PositionDiscussion%20Papers/VTA_Response_Strengthening_the_AQF.pdf on February 22, 2010.

required in the course, the degree of challenge in the coursework, and level of critical analysis, among others7.

This course will use a wide array of teaching techniques including lectures, class discussions, debates, independent and group research, and student presentations. Since this is a graduate course, students will be expected to participate actively in the class discussions. Readings will be assigned weekly, and it will be assumed that students have read the material before coming to class. The professor will not merely repeat what is in the readings but will use those as a launching pad for class discussions. Students will also have to pay attention to the business environment and keep themselves updated about innovations in the field of international organizational behavior. The timing of the Assurance of Learning Validations is provided in Section 17.

REQUIRED RESOURCE(S) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR BY MCFARLIN AND SWEENEY (NY: ROUTLEDGE TAYLOR & FRANCIS GROUP, 2013). ISBN 978-0-415-89256-8. REFERENCE RESOURCE(S) Special Issue on “Organizational behavior in multinational organizations” in Journal of Organizational Behavior, Volume 28 Issue 3, April 2007. Current business periodicals, especially Business Week, The Economist, and the business page of the New York Times.

7

Sample data regularly collected through the New York Institute of Technology Student Rating of Courses/Teaching Form.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND GRADING GUIDELINES

GRADING 90-100 = A 86-89 = B+ 80-85 = B 76-79 = C+ 70-75 = C 0-69 = F

GRADING GUIDELINES: THE FINAL GRADE FOR THE COURSE WILL BE CALCULATED USING THE RELEVANT GRADING SCALE:

Instrument

Points (i.e. weights)

Final Test

30 points

Cross-cultural Communication Assignment (see A1)

30 points

Global Leadership Group Project A2)

(see

30 points

Class Participation

10 points

TOTAL

100 points

ATTENDANCE POLICY: STUDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND EVERY CLASS SESSION. INSTRUCTORS WILL INFORM STUDENTS OF THE EXACT NUMBER OF ABSENCES AND LATEARRIVALS PERMITTED DURING THE SEMESTER. STUDENTS WHO EXCEED THESE LIMITS MAY BE SUBJECT TO FAILURE. IF A STUDENT MISSES ANY CLASS OR TEST, THE INSTRUCTOR HAS THE RIGHT TO EITHER GRANT OR DENY AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE UP THE WORK THAT WAS MISSED. IN SUCH CASES, THE INSTRUCTOR SHALL BE THE SOLE JUDGE OF THE VALIDITY OF A STUDENT'S EXPLANATION FOR HAVING MISSED THE CLASS OR TEST. DEDUCTIONS FOR LATE ARRIVAL, EARLY DEPARTURE, AND UNEXCUSED ABSENCES: STUDENTS ARE ASKED TO ARRIVE ON TIME SO AS NOT TO DISTURB THE CLASS AFTER IT GETS UNDER WAY. ADDITIONALLY, IF A STUDENT MUST LEAVE THE CLASSROOM BEFORE THE CLASS IS OVER, YOU ARE ASKED TO NOTIFY ME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CLASS, AND SIT CLOSE TO THE DOOR SO THAT THE DEPARTURE WILL BE ONLY MINIMALLY DISTURBING TO THE CLASS.

POLICY FOR MAKE-UP ASSIGNMENTS OR QUIZZES: MAKEUP ASSIGNMENTS INCLUDING EXAMS ARE STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. HOWEVER, IN THE EVENT THAT AN UNANTICIPATED EVENT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO EITHER PRESENT THE PAPER ON TIME OR TAKE THE EXAM AS SCHEDULED, THEN PLEASE SEE ME, AND WE WILL TRY AND WORK OUT A POLICY THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO ALL. CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR: BEHAVIOR THAT DISRUPTS, IMPAIRS, INTERFERES WITH, OR OBSTRUCTS THE ORDERLY CONDUCT, PROCESSES, AND FUNCTIONS WITHIN AN ACADEMIC CLASSROOM OR LABORATORY VIOLATES THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT AND MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION. THIS INCLUDES INTERFERING WITH THE ACADEMIC MISSION OF NYIT OR INDIVIDUAL CLASSROOM OR INTERFERING WITH A FACULTY MEMBER’S OR INSTRUCTOR’S ROLE TO CARRY OUT THE NORMAL ACADEMIC OR EDUCATIONAL FUNCTIONS OF THEIR CLASSROOM OR LABORATORY, INCLUDING TEACHING AND RESEARCH. STUDENTS WITH PHYSICAL OR EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGES:  It is the policy of New York Institute of Technology to provide reasonable accommodations for students who are otherwise qualified but have disabilities, including learning disabilities, health impairments,

and other disabling conditions. Possible accommodations include, but are not limited to, test schedule modifications, class relocation, and possible assistance in acquisition of necessary equipment. 

The college has an interest in helping students with disabilities to be competitive in this academic environment. Therefore, reasonable accommodations will be made upon proof both of disability and need for the accommodations. It must be understood that accommodations are meant to facilitate educational opportunities. Admission to NYIT and accommodations do not guarantee success. Therefore, in addition to accommodations, the college encourages utilization of auxiliary services available to all students to maximize opportunities for success. Students whose disabilities may require some type of accommodation must complete a request for accommodations form and an intake interview with their campus services coordinator prior to the academic semester. Accommodations maybe requested at any time during the semester; however, accommodations cannot be applied to past failures, only to future academic endeavors. Appropriate modifications of accommodations will be worked out on a case-by-case basis and will not necessarily incorporate all requested changes.



Students for whom auxiliary services—such as readers, interpreters, note takers, etc.—have been approved should arrange these with their campus services coordinator. In addition to discussing appropriate educational modifications, the campus services coordinator will serve as a liaison with other college faculty and administration on behalf of students with disabilities.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:  Each student enrolled in a course at NYIT agrees that, by taking such course, he or she consents to the submission of all required papers for textual similarity review to any commercial service engaged by NYIT to detect plagiarism. Each student also agrees that all papers submitted to any such service may be included as source documents in the service’s database, solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. 

Plagiarism is the appropriation of all or part of someone else’s works (such as but not limited to writing, coding, programs, images, etc.) and offering it as one’s own. Cheating is using false pretenses, tricks, devices, artifices or deception to obtain credit on an examination or in a college course. If a faculty member determines that a student has committed academic dishonesty by plagiarism, cheating or in any other manner, the faculty has the academic right to 1) fail the student for the paper, assignment, project and/or exam, and/or 2) fail the student for the course and/or 3) bring the student

up on disciplinary charges, pursuant to Article VI, Academic Conduct Proceedings, of the Student Code of Conduct. The complete Academic Integrity Policy may be found on various NYIT Webpages, including: http://www.nyit.edu/images/uploads/academics/AcademicIntegrityPolicy.pdf.

15 WEEK TOPICAL CLASS SCHEDULE

Week

Topic

January 23rd

Int’l Organizational Management

January 30

Cultural Frameworks: Understanding Differences in Employee Attitudes and Behavior Communicating Effectively Across Cultures

February 6th February 13th February 20st February 27th March 6th

March 13th March 20th

Book Section Behavior:

Challenges

for

Managing Conflict and Conducting Effective Negotiations. Monday classes meet on Tuesday this week only. Motivating Employees Across Cultures

Chapter 1 Chapter

2

Chapter

3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5 Effective Leadership in a Multicultural Environment Chapter 6 Managing Diversity and Ethical Dilemmas in an International Context (A2 teams assigned) Project A1 due and Presentations given. Managing Multicultural Teams and International Partnerships Spring recess. No classes scheduled.

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

March 27th

Selecting and Evaluating International Employees

April 3rd

April 24th

Rewarding and Compensating International Employees Global Staffing Alternatives: Expatriates and Beyond Building Global Commitment Through Labor Relations Project A2 Due

May 1st

Group Presentations (A2 oral presentations)

May 8th

Make-up day

May 15th

Final Examination

April 10th April 17th

Chapter 9

Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12

USING THE NYIT LIBRARY All students can access the NYIT virtual library from both on and off campus at www.nyit.edu/library. The same login you use to access NYIT e-mail and NYITConnect will also give you access to the library’s resources from off campus. On the left side of the library’s home page, you will find the “Library Catalog” and the “Find Journals” sections. In the middle of the home page you will find “Research Guides;” select “Video Tutorials” to find information on using the library’s resources and doing research. Should you have any questions, please look under “Library Services” to submit a web-based “AskA-Librarian” form. Bibliography: Babchuk, W. A. 1996. Glaser or Strauss? Grounded theory and adult education. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education , 1-6. Lincoln, NE.

Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review , 14 (4): 496-515. Bansal, P. 2005. Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal , 26 (3): 197-218. Barreto, I. 2010. Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management , 36 (1): 256-280. Bello, D. C., & Kostova, T. 2012. From the editors: Conducting high impact international business research: The role of theory. Journal of International Business Studies , 43 (6): 537-543. Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. 2011. From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies , 42 (5): 573-581. Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. 2014. From HRM practices to the practice of HRM: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance , 1 (2): 122-140. Brannen, M. Y., Piekkari, R., & Tietze, S. 2014. The multifaceted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies , 45 (5): 495-507. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. 2007. The sage handbook of grounded theory . London: Sage. Buckley, P. J. 2002. Is the international business research agenda running out of steam? Journal of International Business Studies , 33 (2): 365-373. Burgelman, R. A. 2011. Bridging history and reductionism: A key role for longitudinal qualitative research. Journal of International Business Studies , 42 (5): 591-601. Cavusgil, S. T., & Cavusgil, E. 2012. Reflections on international marketing: Destructive regeneration and multinational firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 40 (2): 202-217. Chan, C. M., & Makino, S. 2007. Legitimacy and multi-level institutional environments: Implications for foreign subsidiary ownership structure. Journal of International Business Studies , 38 (4): 621638.

Chang, C. W., Tseng, T. H., & Woodside, A. G. 2013. Configural algorithms of patient satisfaction, participation in diagnostics, and treatment decisions' influences on hospital loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing , 27 (2): 91-103. Charmaz, K. 2000. Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. In N. K. Lincoln, & Y. S. Denzin (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research , 2nd edn 509-535. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research . London: Sage. Charmaz, K. 2008. Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber, & P. Leavy (Eds), Handbook of emergent methods: Chapter 7 . New York: The Guilford Press. Charmaz, K. 2014. Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by international researchers. Qualitative Inquiry , 20 (9): 1074-1084. Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of social theory . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: A fivedecade study of the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal , 50 (6): 1281-1303. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . London: Sage. Corley, K. G. 2015. A commentary on "what grounded theory is ... ": Engaging a phenomenon from the perspective of those living it. Organizational Research Methods , 18 (4): 600-605. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review , 36 (1): 12-32. Danis, W. M., & Parkhe, A. 2002. Hungarian - Western partnerships: A grounded theoretical model of integration processes and outcomes. Journal of International Business Studies , 33 (3): 423-455. Davidson, A. R., Jaccard, J. J., Triandis, H. C., Morales, M. L., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. 1976. Crosscultural model testing: Toward a solution of the etic-emic dilemma. International Journal of Psychology , 11 (1): 1-13.

Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. 1988. Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing , 52 (2): 1-20. De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N., & Dimov, D. 2009. When good conflict gets better and bad conflict becomes worse: The role of social capital in the conflict - Innovation relationship. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 37 (3): 283-297. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. 1998. The handbook of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Doz, Y. 2011. Qualitative research in international business. Journal of International Business Studies , 42 (5): 582-590. Dubin, R. 1978. Theory development . New York: Free Press. Dunne, C. 2011. The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 14 (1): 1-14. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal , 50 (1): 25-32. Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. 2008. Qualitative methods in business research . London: Sage. Fendt, J., & Sachs, W. 2008. Grounded theory method in management research: Users' perspectives. Organizational Research Methods , 11 (3): 430-455. Fiss, P. C. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review , 32 (4): 1180-1198. Flint, D. J. 2004. Strategic marketing in global supply chains: Four challenges. Industrial Marketing Management , 33 (1): 45-50. Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. 2002. Exploring the phenomenon of customers' desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of Marketing , 66 (4): 102-117. Foss, N. J. 2011. Invited editorial: Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like. Journal of Management , 37 (5): 1413-1428.

Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, Jr., J. F. 2006. Creating a market orientation: A longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing , 70 (4): 3755. Gephart, R. P. 2004. Qualitative research and the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal , 47 (4): 462-545. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. 2005. The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy , 12 (1): 78-104. Gergin, K. 1982. Toward transformation in social knowledge . New York: Springer-Verlag. Glaser, B. G. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. 1992. Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. 1999. Keynote address for the fourth annual qualitative health research conference . Paper presented at Qualitative Health Research. Vancouver, British Columbia. Glaser, B. G. 2001. The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. 2002. Constructivist grounded theory? Paper presented at Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3(3): Art. 12. Glaser, B. G. 2008. Doing quantitative grounded theory . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of gounded theory . Chicago: Aldine. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 2009. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Gligor, D. M., & Holcomb, M. 2013. The role of personal relationships in supply chains: An exploration of buyers and suppliers of logistics services. International Journal of Logistics Management , 24 (3): 328-355.

Goulding, C. 1998. Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpreivist agenda. Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal , 1 (1): 50-57. Goulding, C. 2002. Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Griffith, D. A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Xu, S. 2008. Emerging themes in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies , 39 (7): 1220-1235. Grosse, R., & Behrman, J. N. 1992. Theory in international business. Transnational Corporations , 1 (1): 93-126. Gupta, R., Banerjee, P., & Gaur, J. 2012. Exploring the role of the spouse in expatriate failure: A grounded theory-based investigation of expatriate'spouse adjustment issues from India. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 23 (17): 3559-3577. Hamel, G. 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal , 12 (S1): 83-103. Heath, H., & Cowley, S. 2004. Developing a grounded theory approach: A comparison of glaser and strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 41 (2): 141-150. Hendrick, C., & Johns, E. E. 1972. Formal aspects of theory and hypothesis testing. In C. Hendrick, & R. A. Jones (Eds), The nature of theory and research in social psychology 3-25. New York: Academic Press. Kim, S. K., Stump, R. L., & Oh, C. 2009. Driving forces of coordination costs in distributor - Supplier relationships: Toward a middle-range theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 37 (4): 384-399. Kotabe, M., Parente, R., & Murray, J. Y. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of modular production in the brazilian automobile industry: A grounded theory approach. Journal of International Business Studies , 38 (1): 84-106. Lanctot, A., & Swan, K. S. 2000. Technology acquisition strategy in an internationally competitive environment. Journal of International Management , 6 (3): 187-215.

Locke, K. 2015. Pragmatic reflections on a conversation about grounded theory in management and organization studies. Organizational Research Methods , 18 (4): 612-619. MacInnis, D. J. 2011. A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing , 75 (4): 136-154. Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. 2000. Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science , 11 (5): 473-492. Mello, J., & Flint, D. J. 2009. A refined view of grounded theory and its application to logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics , 30 (1): 107-125. Morck, R., & Yeung, B. 2007. History in perspective: Comment on Khanna "bringing history (back) into international business". Journal of International Business Studies , 38 (2): 357-360. Morris, M. W., Williams, K. Y., Leung, K., Larrick, R., Mendoza, M. T., Bhatnagar, D., Li, J., Kondo, M., Luo, J. L., & Hu, J.-C. 1998. Conflict management style: Accounting for cross-national differences. Journal of International Business Studies , 29 (4): 729-747. Morris, S., Hammond, R., & Snell, S. 2014. A microfoundations approach to transnational capabilities: The role of knowledge search in an ever-changing world. Journal of International Business Studies , 45 (4): 405-427. Nachum, L., & Keeble, D. 2001. External networks and geographic clustering as sources of MNE advantages: Foreign and indigenous professional service firms in Central London . Cambridge: ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge. O'Connor, M. K., Netting, F. E., & Thomas, M. L. 2008. Grounded theory managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qualitative Inquiry , 14 (1): 28-45. O'Reilly, K., Paper, D., & Marx, S. 2012. Demystifying grounded theory for business research. Organizational Research Methods , 15 (2): 247-262. Palka, W., Pousttchi, K., & Wiedemann, D. G. 2009. Mobile word-of-mouth - A grounded theory of mobile viral marketing. Journal of Information Technology , 24 (2): 172-185. Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. 2013. Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption. Strategic Management Journal , 34 (8): 935-956.

Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (2): 235-262. Quinn, J. B. 1999. Strategic outsourcing: Leveraging knowledge capabilities. Sloan Management Review , 40 (4): 9-21. Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. 2006. Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (3): 433-458. Robrecht, L. C. 1995. Grounded theory: Evolving methods. Qualitative Health Research , 5 (2): 169177. Roth, K., & Kostova, T. 2003. The use of the multinational corporation as a research context. Journal of Management , 29 (6): 883-902. Shenkar, O. 2004. One more time: International business in a global economy. Journal of International Business Studies , 35 (2): 161-171. Simpson, D., Meredith, J., Boyer, K., Dilts, D., Ellram, L. M., & Leong, G.K. 2015. Professional, research, and publishing trends in operations and supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 51 (3): 87-100. Sousa, C. A., & Hendriks, P. H. 2006. The diving bell and the butterfly the need for grounded theory in developing a knowledge-based view of organizations. Organizational Research Methods , 9 (3): 315-338. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. L. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strong, C. 2015. Humanizing big data: Marketing at the meeting of data, social science and consumer insight . London: Kogan Page Publishers.

Suddaby, R. 2006. What ground theory is not. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (4): 633-642. Teece, D. J. 2014. A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies , 45 (1): 8-37. Thomas, D. C., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Brannen, M. Y. 2011. From the editors: Explaining theoretical relationships in international business research: Focusing on the arrows, not the boxes. Journal of International Business Studies , 42 (9): 1073-1078. Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. 2007. Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science , 18 (5): 832-848. Walsh, I., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W., Levina, N., & Glaser, B. 2015. What grounded theory is ... a critically reflective conversation among scholars. Organizational Research Methods , 18 (4): 581-599. Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. 2006. Crossing language boundaries: Qualitative interviewing in international business. Management International Review , 46 (4): 417-437. Westney, D. E. 1993. Institutionalization theory and the multinational corporation. In S. Ghoshal, & D. E. Westney (Eds), Organization theory and the multinational corporation : 53-76. London: Macmillan Press. Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review , 14 (4): 490-495. Woodruff, R. B. 1997. Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 25 (2): 139-153. Woodside, A. G. 2014. Embrace* perform* model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research , 67 (12): 2495-2503. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies , 42 (1): 1-33. Wu, P. L., Yeh, S. S., & Woodside, A. G. 2014. Applying complexity theory to deepen service dominant logic: Configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of

professional services for personal transformations. Journal of Business Research , 67 (8): 16471670. Yeung, H. W. 1995. Qualitative personal interviews in international business research: Some lessons from a study of Hong Kong transnational corporations. International Business Review , 4 (3): 313339. Zahra, S. A. 2007. Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing , 22 (3): 443-452. Zhang, Y., Farh, J.-L., & Wang, H. 2012. Organizational antecedents of employee perceived organizational support in China: A grounded investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 23 (2): 422-446.