I’m currently in the second last day of the Academy of Management 2010 annual meeting in Montréal http://annualmeeting.aomonline.org/2010/ , with over 8,000 primarily academics. This afternoon I had the opportunity to sit in on four paper presentations, two of which I had the opportunity to review and critique earlier this year as part of the blinded review process. Being able to interact with scholars from other institutions and evaluate their research increasingly shows me that whilst Walden’s quantitative requirements are probably less than most PhD programmes’, that their introduction to research theory and design in their newly-redesigned 8008 Foundations, RSCH 8100, and RSCH 8200 that I have completed so far, really allow us to make sure we’re asking the right questions when we get to the micro level. This afternoon, one of the questions posed to a presenter who is a PhD student and faculty-member at the University of Maryland, was about the epistemological foundations of his definition of “aggressiveness” in terms of competitive signalling (the four papers were themed on competitive signalling in the Business Policy and Strategy division), and he could not answer the question. Walden’s systematic approach to research design necessarily would have addressed the fundamental epistemological and ontological issues as a matter of necessity in refining the right research questions and selecting the right research designs and methodologies and analyses to address them with the most validity as well as remaining cognizant of social relevance–not forgetting why we’re doing any of this in the first place. Walden’s Scholar-Practitioner model tries to keep this issue front and centre, but must therefore caution that much more that academia cannot compromise on theory construction and compromise internal or external validity to encourage practitioners to see the value in theory and expend effort to adapt it rather than eschew theory altogether. I feel that much of the time that practitioners claim that theory has no value in the real world and dismiss it, they do not know the theory in the first place; just as I did not feel right asserting how much I didn’t like LOST until I’d watched the entire series, I don’t feel that rejecting a theory without first demonstrating some mastery of it and a true willingness to adopt it if you later find value in it, is an informed decision. Although I feel that abstracting a general theory from empirical data is already meeting practitioners halfway (and that to claim that they cannot apply theory–which was derived from data from the real world in the first place–and expect academics then to deduce back for them a specific application, when they are the ones getting paid the big bucks too, is to ask to meet us 3/4 of the way), sometimes academics do forget why we are doing any of this in the first place. This experience has also reinforced my belief that Walden should encourage its doctoral students much more strongly to participate and present their research at events such as these, not only for the benefit of the students’ academic careers, but to showcase these strengths Walden has and mitigate the uphill aspect of the battle to legitimize Walden despite the bad reputation of diploma mills that already handicap us ceteris paribus.  I wanted to note also that only Qiang Li’s presentation alluded that different cultures may also differentially reflect and value signalling behaviours.  In spite of the Academy of Management claiming a 43% non-US membership at last night’s New Member Orientation, I still feel that many American researchers tend to portray an ethnocentric approach to research, not by claiming that Western attitudes and values are the best or even that their research only considers that specific case (external validity, in research design terminology), but simply seems naive of any other views or value systems. The listing for this afternoon’s BPS division paper presentations was as follows:

Paper Session Program Session #: 804 | Submission: 18163 | Sponsor(s): (BPS) Scheduled: Monday, Aug 9 2010 11:30AM – 1:00PM at Le Palais Des Congres in 513D Competitive Signaling Competitive Signaling

View Map

Chair: Dorota Piaskowska; U. College Dublin;  BPS: The Role of Competition and Incentives in Rating Markets Author: Paul Seaborn; U. of Toronto; In this paper I examine rating agencies, organizations that assign ratings to products based on an evaluation of product characteristics. I focus on rating markets with inter-agency competition and examine the role that a rating agency’s source of revenue has on their rating activity. I conduct my empirical evaluation in the US credit/bond rating market where some agencies derive their primary revenue from sellers (bond issuers) while others are paid by buyers (institutional investors) via subscription. Using a series of model specifications I quantify the importance of this revenue source as well as competitor actions on agency decisions of “who to rate” and “how to rate”. While I find that revenue source matters, so does market power, resulting in three distinct groups of competitors – issuer-paid market leaders (S&P and Moody’s), issuer-paid challengers and subscriber-paid challengers. I demonstrate how each group responds differently to the rating activities of competitors. The results of my research are relevant to both firm strategy and public policy in a variety of settings where information disclosure between sellers and buyers takes place. Search Terms: Incentives , Rating , Agency Paper is NOT Available: Please contact the author(s). BPS: Threat of Entry, Asymmetric Information and Pricing Author: Robert C. Seamans; New York U.; Empirical research on incumbent pricing response to entry has provided mixed results. Limit pricing theory shows that the use of low price to deter entry is an equilibrium strategy only when there are information asymmetries. Prior empirical studies have neglected the importance of asymmetric information when the incumbent determines its strategic response. I argue that variation in asymmetric information between the potential entrant and incumbent allow for identification of the incumbent’s use of limit pricing; limit pricing should only be used when there exist high levels of asymmetric information, not low levels of asymmetric information. I study a market, the US cable TV industry, in which the incumbent interacts with two types of potential entrants: telecom overbuilders and cable overbuilders. There are information asymmetries between the incumbent and potential telecom entrant, but fewer information asymmetries between the incumbent and potential cable entrant. As predicted by limit pricing theory, I find evidence that the incumbent firm uses low price when telecom overbuilders threaten entry, but not when cable overbuilders entry. Evidence of entry deterrence comes from non-monotonic price changes in response to changes in entry probability. Search Terms: entry , pricing , information Paper is NOT Available: Please contact the author(s). BPS: Do Signals Matter in Competition? The Relationship Between Signals and Reaction Intensity Author: Qiang Li; U. of Maryland – College Park; There have been lots of studies examining the effect of competitive actions on responses. Such studies help predict competitive responses from competitors when a firm initiates competitive actions. Observing the reality, what we find more frequently is competitive signals instead of real competitive actions. Do these signals matter in competition? This is the question this study attempts to answer. This study theorizes the relationship between competitive signals and competitive responses. Due to the time-consuming nature, data collection of this study is still in progress but according to the pace of data collection, we should be able to provide all the results by AOM conference in Montreal, Canada. Search Terms: signal , competition Paper is NOT Available: Please contact the author(s). BPS: Reputation, Altruism, and the Benefits of Seller Charity in an Online Marketplace Author: Daniel Walter Elfenbein; Washington U. in St. Louis;  Author: Raymond Fisman; Columbia U.;  Author: Brian McManus; U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; We analyze “natural experiments” on eBay where sellers offer identical products with and without charity donations. Charity-linked products are more likely to sell and attract higher prices. These benefits accrue primarily to sellers without extensive eBay histories, suggesting that consumers view charity as a signal of seller quality and a substitute for reputation. We do not find evidence that bundling products with charitable contributions is directly profitable. Search Terms: social responsibility , corporate philanthropy , reputation Paper is Available: View/Download