best ph.d. programs for org theory
Fabio
While we all marvel at Kieran’s excellent post on MacKenzie, I invite readers to respond to the following question: which PhD programs (soc, b-school, & otherwise) are good places for getting training in organization theory? Let’s start: Arizona sociology has produced orgtheory mavens Brayden, Omar and my colleague Tim Bartley. Northwestern’s combined program in soc and organizations/management produced Michael Lounsbury and Ryon Lancaster. I went to the University of Chicago, which has been a stronghold of organization theory in the soc, politics and business school. Which other programs are good places to study organizations and related topics? Any programs should have at least one or two senior faculty who are active in the field and a good recent record placing students.
I think about this question occasionally, if I had an outstanding student who wanted to study org. theory, where would I try to place him/her? When I made my grad school choice, I thought about the pros and cons of particular departments. But I now think that a budding young organizational scholar should consider the overall mix of people at a school, regardless of department affiliation. Org. theory is multidisciplinary, and so the best universities for organizational training should have people working in a variety of disciplines. If you’re going to study organizations, you want to make sure that there are people at your university who have expertise in various subfields too. It helps to know something about culture, networks, social movements, economics, etc. And so my advice is, pick the university, not the department.
Based on that criterion, three universities stick out. On the east coast you have Harvard, which has a nice mix both in the b-school and sociology departments. MIT is just down the road (giving you access to people like Zuckerman and Fernandez) and I know that many students take courses at both places. In the Midwest, Northwestern appears dominant. As Fabio mentioned, they have a history of producing solid candidates. I think that much of that is a result of the good working relationship between the soc. department and the Kellogg people. Northwestern is also nice because their sociology department has people who study organizations in unconventional ways.
But the king, in my opinion, still seems to be Stanford. Although the sociology department no longer has as many org. theorists as they once did, university-wide Stanford probably has more prominent org. scholars per capita than any other university. But, luckily for students, org. scholars at Stanford are not randomly distributed. There are a couple of main places to look: education (Powell, Bryk), management science and engineering (Barley, Eisenhardt, Sutton, etc.), GSB (Hannan et al.), and of course, sociology (Granovetter, Grusky, England). You also have those retired geniuses who still hang around (e.g. Scott, March, Arrow).
The problem you’ll have with going to any of these places is figuring out how to piece together a committee of people who will actually work together. It’s the great minds/big egos problem. But students have managed to do it over the years and have fared well in the market (James Evans and Greta Hsu come to mind).
brayden
December 13, 2006 at 2:00 pm
I agree with you that these are all strong places. I know that Stanford has done some good placements recently. How have MIT & Harvard fared in placing grad students? At MIT, is there an orgs track other than the B-school? Maybe the politics program?
[PS. Other readers are invited to add their perspectives on their grad school education.]
Fabio Rojas
December 13, 2006 at 6:36 pm
MIT is actually experimenting with a new economic sociology emphasis for their business PhD students. They don’t have a real sociology department, but they have enough sociology PhDs on campus to make the program work. I guess they also have an agreement with Harvard that would allow students to take classes on both campuses.
Harvard does very well in placing their students. I can think of a few Harvard grads who were recently placed in top PhD granting programs (e.g. Jerry Kim at Columbia). They also hire some of their own, like Rakesh Khurana.
One problem with ranking programs is that distinctions between the top schools are often a matter of taste or familiarity. For example, Michigan, Columbia, Penn, and Chicago are all strong programs with multidisciplinary overlap. I’d be esctatic if a student of mine were to be accepted at any of those schools.
brayden
December 13, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Fabio: Very briefly – without getting into details (who’s graduated from there, who are the sr. org theory folks there etc.) – I think the following programs are all great:
Berkeley, Columbia, Michigan, Toronto, Stanford, Texas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Duke – these schools (among others) all seem to produce great org theory scholars year after year, or, at least they have the potential to.
And then to make a different point: Case Western – Huggy Rao.
I have to, obviously (as I did not get my education from any of the above schools), defend the fact that I think a good student can make things happen anywhere, so there could be some self-selection-related confounds here. And, there might be some idiosyncratic interest-related matters/preferences/constraints that may also play a role for some students. But, all that said, in terms of general advice to promising undergrad or masters students – go to the “best school” (based on who’s publishing in which outlets) that you can (along with trying to align interests, though this is hard as students early on may not have a clue etc.).
teppof
December 13, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Teppo said:”I have to, obviously (as I did not get my education from any of the above schools), defend the fact that I think a good student can make things happen anywhere, so there could be some self-selection-related confounds here.”
You are absolutely right. A lot of graduate education is about selection effects. Talented & hard working folks usually rise to the top. But academia is a lot about networks. Being in the right network can expose you to cutting edge ideas as they are developed, push you harder and get you more connected in the job market.
But let’s not forget the treatment effect either. Now that I am working in a program that values graduate education, I see how important training is. And the more I see job candidates, the more I see how most successful folks are closely mentored. Yes, you need raw talent, but it’s a lot easier to build the right skills if you have a patient senior scholar who lets you co-author and work on projects.
My hypothesis on treatment effects of graduate education: at least 75% of hires in any decent PhD program have co-authored at least one article/book chapter with an advisor or other senior faculty member before going on the job market.
Fabio Rojas
December 13, 2006 at 7:15 pm
It would be interesting to get some feedback on some European [and other int'l] schools as well. (Many of the scholars that have of late been cited here at orgtheory hail from Europe – MacKenzie, Giddens, etc.)
Off the top of my head – LBS and INSEAD seem like excellent programs (I have had friends go through both, and do very well). And, for a broad social science background I am guessing LSE would be excellent. Schools like IE and IESE appear to be ramping up. PhDs in many of these schools get excellent training from visiting faculty as well – I know there is at least one business school in Asia where for every topic they appear to be bringing in whoever is the top scholar in the world to teach that particular PhD course in question – not a bad model, though I am not sure how things work out in terms of subsequent mentoring.
What about sociology (i.e. int’l programs)?
Teppo
December 13, 2006 at 8:46 pm
One interesting question that occurs to me as a result of this discussion is: are there any “under the radar” or “up and coming” org theory places out there (maybe centered around a few younger scholars). If our hypothetical student doesn’t get accepted at Stanford, Northwestern or Harvard/MIT, is there a place where she would get a bang for her buck without the big name?
Omar
December 13, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Since I was recently outed as a regular (addicted) lurker, and Brayden was kind enough to mention my name in his comment, I’ll give my two cents on PhD programs in Org Theory/Soc.
In general, I view most schools falling on a continuum between the discipline oriented schools (e.g. Stanford, Harvard, MIT) and the “inter-disciplinary” schools (e.g. Wharton, Berkeley, Maryland). Running the risk of over-simplification, I would characterize the difference as a taste in research–the former holds AJS/ASR as the gold standard, while SMJ/AMJ/MS are the valued journals for the latter group. So the first thing the aspiring org theory scholar must figure out is whether the sociological aspects of organization theory are more interesting to them, or whether it’s the management angle that grabs his/her attention.
As for under the radar schools, in addition to Toronto, which was mentioned by Teppo, I would add Carnegie Mellon (great tradition) and Emory (up-and-coming) to the list. Cornell also has about five different Org related programs (B-school, ILR, Soc), which are all fabulous. The real sleeper is Yale. With Podolny snatching Jim Baron away from Stanford and having him run the OB program, I would not to be shocked to see that program becoming one of the top places for Org/Soc training in the next few years.
One comment on “big name” schools. While it’s hard to argue with the halo-effect of these schools, I must say that there are some downsides. Most of them adopt a “sink-or-swim” style, where no one will really try to incorporate you into a research program or hold your hand through the difficult periods. Individual students are expected to knock on doors and convince the big-shots that they are worth their precious time. While that’s true to a certain degree for all doctoral programs, the big name school doctoral students often compete for a piece of the action with full-time research associates/statisticians available to the big name profs at b-schools–and unless the prof is dedicated to the spirit of doctoral training, often times they choose the easier path by going with the trained staff. This difficulty of getting the faculty’s attention is truly frustrating for some, and perhaps one reason why the placement records of big name schools seem to be so schizophrenic–you either get a fantastic job or end up with a degree, but no job offers.
And finally, as Teppo notes, the real growth will be in the International schools. The LBS and INSEAD doctoral programs are already in the elite status, and I can see others joining sooner rather than later.
Jerry
December 14, 2006 at 12:23 am
That’s a good question, Omar. Here are some thoughts:
Arizona soc – a very well regarded soc program, though not normally associated with org studies. That changed when they had Woody Powell, Lis Clemens and Sarah Soule. Then they got Joe Galskiewicz and our own orgtheorist Kieran Healey. Not a bad crowd. Some folks have moved on to other places, but I would hope that Arizona has chosen to maintain an interest in this area.
Illinois b-school – They got Matt Kraatz and some assistant profs in the org behavior dept. I met some PhD students a few years ago and they seemed good. Any reports on how well students are being placed these days?
Carnegie-Mellon Decision Sciences PhD program – They have Kathleen Carley and they recently graduated Carter Butts of Irvine, uber-mathematical sociologist & orgs scholar. Seems like a good place for the very technically oriented student. Small and competitive program, but it looks like the right place for the right person.
Missouri applied social sciences has our competitor, Peter Klein of the Orgs and Markets blogs, and I hope that will translate into strength in org studies.
Here at IU soc, we have three(!) folks who do some version of orgs and movements and a few folks who do organization studies in specific areas like health care or education. We also have a pretty darned good placement record.
Fabio Rojas
December 14, 2006 at 12:50 am
Jerry – you are right in terms of placement (and its worth noting for any prospective readers interested in PhDs [I have a lot of students coming by my office asking these types of questions...]) – though I think all schools appear to end up with roughly 50% research placement (of varying levels), and 50% teaching or industry – this appears to hold for top programs and ‘lesser’ ones (no data, just my biased observations). I don’t know that its really the ‘fault’ of schools/training (though there quite obviously are more mentor-friendly places); rather, just inevitable choice, self-selection, or simply a weeding out-type process (perhaps “sink-or-swim’). Also, in org theory-related disciplines some folks get enticed by consulting-type arrangements (I don’t know if sociology PhDs go after these types of jobs or not).
teppo
December 14, 2006 at 4:48 am
Who at Arizona studies organizations? Chaves and Galaskiewicz? It’s a great sociology department, but certainly isn’t best known for studyng organizations.
I get confused by the use of the term “org theory” on this blog. It doesn’t seem that all the bloggers study organizations, at least not primarily.
Thorsetin Veblen, Esq
December 17, 2006 at 8:06 pm
In my mind – and my co-bloggers may disagree – organizational theory broadly deals with social structures that are intentionally created in the pursuit of some collective goal. However, when organizational scholars refer to the study of organizations they usually have some sort of organizational form or type in mind. Sometimes organizations are meant to define only a narrow subset of social structures (e.g. as when we study only populations of business organizations). To me organizational theory should seek to understand the variation across these different types, rather than to narrow our focus on one specific organizational form. Org theory is inherently comparative.
Also organizational scholarship should address the effects of organizations/organizing (e.g. the influence of voluntary associations on voter turnout). Societal effects of organizations are one of our most important/interesting topics of inquiry.
I think within this definition of organizational theory there is enough room for the varied research projects of our bloggers, but I can understand the confusion given the current state of our field. By the way, I’ve written about this last thought before.
brayden
December 18, 2006 at 6:30 am
Veblen: Hmm, much of Galaskiewicz’s work is quite central to organization theory(though, granted some of his research is just a level above…”inter-,” “networks” or “community”)- but Brayden can tackle this better given that Galaskiewicz was his chair.
As for “org theory” – we have a broad approach/interests here – so whether its networks, communities, institutions, societies, culture, markets etc. – (orgs broadly) – we’ll touch on it.
teppo
December 18, 2006 at 6:32 am
Speaking of Joe, he (and co-authors) has the lead article in this year’s Sep. issue of ASQ. Here’s the abstract (sounds pretty interesting!):
The paper examined the effects of nonprofit organizations’ network ties over time on growth. Donative nonprofits, which relied heavily on contributions and volunteers, grew at a faster rate if they had high status, more ties to urban elites, and greater interorganizational network centrality. In contrast, commercial nonprofits, which depended on fees and/or sales and employees, grew at faster rates if they had fewer ties to other nonprofits and local elites. Also, as nonprofits became more dependent on fees and/or sales, they moved to the periphery of the interorganizational resource exchange network. The findings contribute to the social capital literature by suggesting that networks are more beneficial to organizations that depend on donations and gifts than on earned income.
Omar
December 18, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Brayden and Teppo, seems to me this place should be called soc theory since orgs, as broadly understood in sociology, are only critical to about half the disucssion here. The rest of the time you all talk about the various stuff Teppo lists…and it doesn’t do much good to start sayng institutions and cultures are organizations.
Thorsetin Veblen, Esq
December 18, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Veblen: You do bring up an interesting point about org studies more broadly that we actually plan on talking about in future posts…i.e. in looking at the ‘organizational’ literature – quite a bit of it is at lower and higher levels, rather than about orgs proper (Dave Whetten has written an interesting article to this effect, and there is also a great JOB piece on the matter by Heath and Sitkin).
teppof
December 18, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Respected Sir,
I am pursuing a 12 month executive course in general management course from India Institute of Management, Indore. I am presently working for Infosys Technologies Limited and have a total work experience of 54+ months. I would like to pursue a doctoral course in Organizational Behaviour.
Please advice about the required preparation.
Regards
Tarun
Nallu Tarun Kishore
April 2, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hello, Tarun. I think that most American doctoral business programs have the same requirements: demonstrated ability in math so you can do regression analysis and micro economics; demonstrated interest in research – remember the doctoral degree is academic, not practice oriented; and a high writing level. It’s also nice to show ability to independently produce research. Best of luck to you! Fabio
Fabio Rojas
April 2, 2007 at 5:51 pm
[...] been a while since Fabio raised the question, “Which PhD programs are good places for getting training in organization theory?” [...]
northeast to northwestern « orgtheory.net
February 21, 2008 at 5:53 am
Hi
let me suggests about the study material for UGC-NET/JRF in HRM subject
regards
kailash
Kailash Chafale
July 24, 2008 at 4:23 am
Dear bloggers,
Thank you for this thread. As a non-US MPhil student interested in the top O.T. programs in the US, the information you share in this blog thread is very useful.
It is a pity that the information in the thread is a couple of years old already. Thus, I would be very interested in hearing your opinions about possible changes in this group of top universities.
I am assuming that unis such as Stanford, Wharton, Harvard, Northwestern or Chicago still top the list. However, what about Yale? I noticed that they are still not offering PhDs in O.T. Has anyone heard anything about it?
Additionally, I would be very interested in further elaboration on the comment by Jerry on the 14 Dec 06 at 12:23 am in which he makes a distinction between “discipline oriented schools (e.g. Stanford, Harvard, MIT) and the “inter-disciplinary” schools (e.g. Wharton, Berkeley, Maryland).” In selecting the unis I am targeting I have assumed that a multidisciplinary approach is good per se, so I am confused by this comment. What exactly is the difference between discipline oriented and interdisciplinary schools and what kind of student should aim for one type versus the other? From my point of view the “sociological aspects of organization theory” that Jerry mentions are not exclusive from “the management angle”, but maybe it is me being a blue-eyed prospective student?
Thank you for all your comments and guidance.
Warm regards and happy new year,
Pablo
Pablo
January 14, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Hi there
I was looking for some opportunity to work on typically organization theory. I guess you guys have left the Aston School at Uk which has done very good work in this area. You have left Australia. Stwart Clegg in the Univ of Technolgy at Sydney and lex Donaldson at Univ of New South Wales and Sydney are equally famous names on the area who are doing excellent works.Besides, I could remember,Hugh Willmott at Judge Institute of Management at cambrdge university.Richard Nielson at Caroll school of management at Boston College is also doing great work in Organization studies.
Benu, jaipur, Rajasthan , India
21st january 2009
Benugopal Mukhopadhyay
January 20, 2009 at 5:07 pm
[...] a comment » We did this one a while back. Let’s update: I still think Stanford and Northwestern are the places to beat. NWU has Wendy [...]
soc phd programs #3: organization studies « orgtheory.net
January 28, 2009 at 5:05 am
Dear Scholars,
I am pursuing MS(Management Sc) program and writing my dissertation now-a-days. With my 20 yrs experience of working in high velocity environment, and practical behavioural insights, I want to pursue PhD program in org theory to develop an academic orientation.
Will some scholar, advise me about doctoral programs in org theory. Thank u.
Maz
October 14, 2009 at 7:14 am
Hi
I have graduated in M Sc. Accounting and Finance at The London School of Economics (LSE). Previously I completed Bachelors in Commerce Honors from Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), University of Delhi.
I would like to request some basic information of the PhD programme on Organizational Behavior. While my undergraduate and post graduate have been fairly quantitative, I want to make a shift towards behavioral sciences, but I am not aware of whether the subject has to be studied as a mandatory requirement at masters level before joining a PhD program for the same. Kindly inform me of whether it is a mandatory requirement.
Moreover, with regards to conducting statistical research, how in depth is the quantitative part of the research?
Sam
March 29, 2011 at 8:03 am
Sam – Programs differ in their requirements for admission but I think most programs are open to admitting students who have no behavioral science background. That said, a prospective student should be able to clearly articulate why he or she wants to study organizations from a behavioral/sociological perspective.
With regards to your second question, most programs require a fair number of statistics classes. However, because most organization theory/management departments are small, they often outsource those classes to the sociology or economics departments.
brayden king
March 29, 2011 at 12:35 pm
I must say this has been a very educational and interesting page to read. I would like to pose a question. If my MBA in Management was from 2004 and I have worked since in banking, with the exception of a graduate level certificate in International Business I finished out of boredom back in 2008, and I am now considering pursuing a PhD in OB – how do I meet the required “2-3 recommendations from professors in the area of study”? I think I might be able to get one of them, a professor who has remained a friend, thanks to modern day technology such as Facebook and e-mail, but the rest have met and been impressed by thousands of new eager students…who am I to dare even ask for a letter from them… Your thoughts? Thank you,
Ellie
August 25, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Ellie: It is the responsibility of professors to evaluate students, whether it be grades or graduate school admissions. We are used to requests for letters, even from students who we haven’t seen in a while. If you performed well in class and give your professors an update, many will be happy to help out.
fabiorojas
August 25, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Hi I intend to pursue multilevel research in computational and mathematical organisation theory, to that extent I have been going through a few university sites over the past couple of weeks. I would like to have your suggestions on some of the middle range strong departments in the US and the specific scholars that I can reach out to in my subject – thanks for your time and help on this.
Chandler
September 21, 2011 at 6:03 am