Offer from U of Kansas - ChaseDream

Just share an early offer. OB PhD program from U of Kansas.

Good Luck for everyone!

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 4:21:25)

Cong!!

Close to my place~ We may schedule kinda get-together party later~

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 5:47:07)

WELCOME TO KANSAS

-- by 会员 benxu (2011/1/22 4:32:22)

Cong!!

Close to my place~ We may schedule kinda get-together party later~

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 5:47:07)

恭喜楼主。KU的面试是什么时候？

Just share an early offer. OB PhD program from U of Kansas.

Good Luck for everyone!

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 4:21:25)

-- by 会员 luob (2011/1/22 4:41:35)

Cong!!

Close to my place~ We may schedule kinda get-together party later~

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 5:47:07)

一定的，我今年是主打中西部。。。想听听你对这个program看法。我是因为Dr. James Guthrie才申请的，也明确表示希望能跟他做研究。谢谢KEVIN~~~
MMM...你们学校今年都不招人~~~~

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 8:17:43)

Cong!!

Close to my place~ We may schedule kinda get-together party later~

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 5:47:07)

一定的，我今年是主打中西部。。。想听听你对这个program看法。我是因为Dr. James Guthrie才申请的，也明确表示希望能跟他做研究。谢谢KEVIN~~~
MMM...你们学校今年都不招人~~~~

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 8:17:43)

Kansas还是不错的，big 12的学校，我们学校从big 12跳big 10后，kansas有点尴尬，据说正在搞funding campaign。big 12之间跟big 10之间是一个道理，互相招学生做AP，所以placement相对会有些保障，PSU和Purdue的placement不错，不少我认识的老美教授（各个学校的，不是一家之言）都说跟这个有很大关系。

Kansas的OBHR项目，最有名的我觉得是Ash，OBHR里的老牛了，当之无愧的big name之一。Guthrie也很强，不过，坦率地说，名气没有Ash那么大，算不上big name这个level的。你要是有跟着Ash合作的机会，可别放过，他才是解决placement的王道。

anyway, BIG CONG!!!

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 9:36:38)

名字很重要！

-- by 会员 rogerquick (2011/1/22 9:25:34)

Big Cong!

-- by 会员猪之哥 (2011/1/22 9:02:47)

Cong!!

Close to my place~ We may schedule kinda get-together party later~

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 5:47:07)

一定的，我今年是主打中西部。。。想听听你对这个program看法。我是因为Dr. James Guthrie才申请的，也明确表示希望能跟他做研究。谢谢KEVIN~~~
MMM...你们学校今年都不招人~~~~

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 8:17:43)

Kansas还是不错的，big 12的学校，我们学校从big 12跳big 10后，kansas有点尴尬，据说正在搞funding campaign。big 12之间跟big 10之间是一个道理，互相招学生做AP，所以placement相对会有些保障，PSU和Purdue的placement不错，不少我认识的老美教授（各个学校的，不是一家之言）都说跟这个有很大关系。

Kansas的OBHR项目，最有名的我觉得是Ash，OBHR里的老牛了，当之无愧的big name之一。Guthrie也很强，不过，坦率地说，名气没有Ash那么大，算不上big name这个level的。你要是有跟着Ash合作的机会，可别放过，他才是解决placement的王道。

anyway, BIG CONG!!!

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 9:36:38)

谢谢Kevin! 对Ash的研究不是很了解。Guthrie是因为感兴趣他的研究related to organizational effectiveness. 他算是少壮派吧~~~

可能再等等其他消息比较看看~~~

BTW，我对leadership也有一定的兴趣，侧重在transformational leadership 和LMX这一块。但看啦你分享的那个video很受启发！

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 9:55:45)

Cong!!

Close to my place~ We may schedule kinda get-together party later~

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 5:47:07)

一定的，我今年是主打中西部。。。想听听你对这个program看法。我是因为Dr. James Guthrie才申请的，也明确表示希望能跟他做研究。谢谢KEVIN~~~
MMM...你们学校今年都不招人~~~~

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 8:17:43)

Kansas还是不错的，big 12的学校，我们学校从big 12跳big 10后，kansas有点尴尬，据说正在搞funding campaign。big 12之间跟big 10之间是一个道理，互相招学生做AP，所以placement相对会有些保障，PSU和Purdue的placement不错，不少我认识的老美教授（各个学校的，不是一家之言）都说跟这个有很大关系。

Kansas的OBHR项目，最有名的我觉得是Ash，OBHR里的老牛了，当之无愧的big name之一。Guthrie也很强，不过，坦率地说，名气没有Ash那么大，算不上big name这个level的。你要是有跟着Ash合作的机会，可别放过，他才是解决placement的王道。

anyway, BIG CONG!!!

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 9:36:38)

谢谢Kevin! 对Ash的研究不是很了解。Guthrie是因为感兴趣他的研究related to organizational effectiveness. 他算是少壮派吧~~~

可能再等等其他消息比较看看~~~

BTW，我对leadership也有一定的兴趣，侧重在transformational leadership 和LMX这一块。但看啦你分享的那个video很受启发！

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 9:55:45)

TFL 已经过时了，LMX争议比较大，要是对leadership感兴趣，不妨关注关注 shared, servant, complexity, followership， complexity比较特殊，主要是qualitative research，发文章难度很大，early career的我们能躲尽量躲，除非导师拉着你做，要不很难有成果

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 10:02:14)

btw, 我们整个商院都在革命。。。。战略方向基本全部抹掉了重新招faculty，我们leadership没受影响，经费充足，只不过学校强行规定不给招人。。。。因为我们的phd学生数量已经超多了，师生比严重超过了big ten的平均水平，受这个影响，学校的压力不小，所以今年临时决定停招。战略方向现有的十几个phd，大部分是韩国人，前任管理系系主任招的，估计不是全部terminate也至少是砍掉大部分，给个master让他们走人。

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/1/22 9:38:50)

名字很重要！

-- by 会员 rogerquick (2011/1/22 9:25:34)

嘿嘿，跟那个里皮完全没关系~~~

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 9:56:31)

WELCOME TO KANSAS

-- by 会员 benxu (2011/1/22 4:32:22)

benxu也在U of KANSAS吗，可以介绍下city 和campus的情况吗

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 8:13:40)

我不在KU, 不过去过那里2,30次. 以前周末就会去那里找同学聚会, 唱卡拉OK (设备比较寒酸, 你来了就知道了).总的来说, Lawrence是一个非常friendly, 非常有大学城气息的学校. KU的校园建设很棒, 环境在中西部的学校算第一流.

KU商院的研究水平我不熟悉,对你的专业更不了解.我就不发表评论了. 但据我所知, KU对博士生非常nice, 选择很多,压力不大. 最近placement也有几个挺不错的. 奖学金相对来说非常丰厚. 在lawrence, 房租一般在200-400刀每月, 生活费十分低. 你的奖学金在这里可以过得相当小康.

KU的中国学生素质也比周边学校高很多. 不同专业聚会不少, 比如烧烤啊 (但是活动类型不多, 毕竟是中西部嘛). 如果你喜欢热闹, KU是不错的. lawrence downtown也是麻雀虽小,五脏俱全. 在球赛期间, 整个lawrence都会非常的喧闹. KU 最近的城市是KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, 开车40分钟. 这里是保守的大平原中比较开放的地方. 据说有300多家酒吧和2000多家餐馆 (greater kansas city area). 如果你喜欢安静的话, 那么晚上在KU内也很容易找到一个连灯都没有的完全静寂的世界.

很多人(非商学院专业)把KU作为跳板, 跳到了哈佛和斯坦佛这样的学校. 留下来的人多是喜欢平静生活, 过日子为主的. 不知道楼主的兴趣怎么样. 如果喜欢小镇生活, 那么在KU生活个4年不会太痛苦的. 我个人认为, KU生活比附近的高校, 比如U Oklahoma, Nebraska-Lincoln, U Missou, Kenn State, 都要丰富很多. 是中西部高校生活的最佳选择.

WELCOME TO KANSAS

-- by 会员 benxu (2011/1/22 4:32:22)

benxu也在U of KANSAS吗，可以介绍下city 和campus的情况吗

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 8:13:40)

-- by 会员 benxu (2011/1/22 11:12:41)

名字很重要！

-- by 会员 rogerquick (2011/1/22 9:25:34)

嘿嘿，跟那个里皮完全没关系~~~

-- by 会员 leepee (2011/1/22 9:56:31)

其实是pee by lee...

-- by 会员 westhorizon (2011/1/22 10:46:16)

哇，好早好早，真是非常恭喜

-- by 会员 judydongxueni (2011/1/22 20:54:40)

喔，真开心这里有人讨论leadership 的话题!! 我现在的方向是LMX differentiation，正在学习SNA. Shared leadership 我读的不多，感觉这个定义有些模糊。大部分读到的还是leadership in teams (hierarchical teams with a designated leader) 的东西，我很期待用shared leadership和social network analysis的作品呀

-- by 会员 yujia1122 (2011/3/9 7:31:17)

喔，真开心这里有人讨论leadership 的话题!! 我现在的方向是LMX differentiation，正在学习SNA. Shared leadership 我读的不多，感觉这个定义有些模糊。大部分读到的还是leadership in teams (hierarchical teams with a designated leader) 的东西，我很期待用shared leadership和social network analysis的作品呀

-- by 会员 yujia1122 (2011/3/9 7:31:17)

glad we have a collection of people doing LMX differentiation and shared leadership

craig pearce @ our program is currently reshaping the whole idea of measuring shared leadership. actually there are paper out there measuring shared leadership through SNA. but those paper had made it explicitly that the measures employed were context-based, which generates virtually nothing across settings. there will be one JAP and one AMJ paper coming out with more advanced technique measuring shared leadership. we will soon see it ~

as you mentioned, the current definition on shared leadership is kinda vague.... pearce has been trying so hard to redefine it. the problem, though, is that reviewers and editors all have quite strong arguments on the dimensions to be included in the core construct. pearce has an AMR paper with charles manz @ UMass, who is the founder of self-leadership, that is intended to address the theoretical puzzle out there. that manuscript is currently under 2nd R&R. it would come out eventually for sure 'cause the editor has already tossed the greenlight out.

good to know people are doing shared leadership stuff. we may have a talk on this @ AoM this year~ best luck w/ ur research

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/3/9 8:19:46)

喔，真开心这里有人讨论leadership 的话题!! 我现在的方向是LMX differentiation，正在学习SNA. Shared leadership 我读的不多，感觉这个定义有些模糊。大部分读到的还是leadership in teams (hierarchical teams with a designated leader) 的东西，我很期待用shared leadership和social network analysis的作品呀

-- by 会员 yujia1122 (2011/3/9 7:31:17)

glad we have a collection of people doing LMX differentiation and shared leadership

craig pearce @ our program is currently reshaping the whole idea of measuring shared leadership. actually there are paper out there measuring shared leadership through SNA. but those paper had made it explicitly that the measures employed were context-based, which generates virtually nothing across settings. there will be one JAP and one AMJ paper coming out with more advanced technique measuring shared leadership. we will soon see it ~

as you mentioned, the current definition on shared leadership is kinda vague.... pearce has been trying so hard to redefine it. the problem, though, is that reviewers and editors all have quite strong arguments on the dimensions to be included in the core construct. pearce has an AMR paper with charles manz @ UMass, who is the founder of self-leadership, that is intended to address the theoretical puzzle out there. that manuscript is currently under 2nd R&R. it would come out eventually for sure 'cause the editor has already tossed the greenlight out.

good to know people are doing shared leadership stuff. we may have a talk on this @ AoM this year~ best luck w/ ur research

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/3/9 8:19:46)

Yes, it's a limitation that conclusions drawn from SNA are not generalizable. However, I've seen a quite smart approach from several articles which transfer the network data into variables of a regression. I'm curious about the more advanced technique you mentioned. Can you reveal a bit here?

Did they use simulation methods?

Also there is something interesting going on in the qualitative field. I don't refer to leadership or OB in particular, but to the qualitative research method as a whole. They are working on the technique called textmining. It's actually a big surprise to me that qualitative methods are increasingly systematic and scientific.

I'm working on LMX dif but not shared leadership because the latter is too advanced to me at my current level. I may approach it in the future if there is a chance.

-- by 会员 yujia1122 (2011/3/9 19:48:58)

喔，真开心这里有人讨论leadership 的话题!! 我现在的方向是LMX differentiation，正在学习SNA. Shared leadership 我读的不多，感觉这个定义有些模糊。大部分读到的还是leadership in teams (hierarchical teams with a designated leader) 的东西，我很期待用shared leadership和social network analysis的作品呀

-- by 会员 yujia1122 (2011/3/9 7:31:17)

glad we have a collection of people doing LMX differentiation and shared leadership

craig pearce @ our program is currently reshaping the whole idea of measuring shared leadership. actually there are paper out there measuring shared leadership through SNA. but those paper had made it explicitly that the measures employed were context-based, which generates virtually nothing across settings. there will be one JAP and one AMJ paper coming out with more advanced technique measuring shared leadership. we will soon see it ~

as you mentioned, the current definition on shared leadership is kinda vague.... pearce has been trying so hard to redefine it. the problem, though, is that reviewers and editors all have quite strong arguments on the dimensions to be included in the core construct. pearce has an AMR paper with charles manz @ UMass, who is the founder of self-leadership, that is intended to address the theoretical puzzle out there. that manuscript is currently under 2nd R&R. it would come out eventually for sure 'cause the editor has already tossed the greenlight out.

good to know people are doing shared leadership stuff. we may have a talk on this @ AoM this year~ best luck w/ ur research

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/3/9 8:19:46)

Yes, it's a limitation that conclusions drawn from SNA are not generalizable. However, I've seen a quite smart approach from several articles which transfer the network data into variables of a regression. I'm curious about the more advanced technique you mentioned. Can you reveal a bit here?

Did they use simulation methods?

Also there is something interesting going on in the qualitative field. I don't refer to leadership or OB in particular, but to the qualitative research method as a whole. They are working on the technique called textmining. It's actually a big surprise to me that qualitative methods are increasingly systematic and scientific.

I'm working on LMX dif but not shared leadership because the latter is too advanced to me at my current level. I may approach it in the future if there is a chance.

-- by 会员 yujia1122 (2011/3/9 19:48:58)

the method integrating SNA data into regression is for sure problematic since those researchers did not even check how to do dyadic analysis. yet their idea was novel for those specific contexts, which definitely added in credibility to their paper.

as for the qualitative approach, it is an amazing area that most OB scholars don't know anything about. and you can see the debates over inductive vs. deductive methods. if you feel like doing it, check AMJ and AMR paper from eisenhardt. she is the top of the top among qualitative researchers in OB/Strategy. here at our program, we have an affiliated faculty named creswell who is actually among the top 3 guys in qualitative methods, like judge in meta. yet very few doctoral students would take the qualitative method seminar from him since it takes years of training. u can learn to use fancy HLM techniques probably in 3 months, but u may hardly find yourself ending up w/ sth in learning qualitative methods. so, it's kinda trade-off between being novel using mixed methods and eating up 2-3 yrs learning the basic qualitative stuff. anyway, it's totally up to u.

as for the advancement in measuring shared leadership, i am sorry that i could not tell u any more detail on that. but, pls keep in mind that OB people, reviewers specifically, are always critical on whatever method u r using. so, the measurement for shared leadership is, from my own standpoint, open to development. yet the vital issue of a more punctual nature is the theoretical building and construct ramification. it's a battle that never ends though .....

good luck w/ ur research~

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/3/11 7:22:40)

喔，真开心这里有人讨论leadership 的话题!! 我现在的方向是LMX differentiation，正在学习SNA. Shared leadership 我读的不多，感觉这个定义有些模糊。大部分读到的还是leadership in teams (hierarchical teams with a designated leader) 的东西，我很期待用shared leadership和social network analysis的作品呀

-- by 会员 yujia1122 (2011/3/9 7:31:17)

glad we have a collection of people doing LMX differentiation and shared leadership

craig pearce @ our program is currently reshaping the whole idea of measuring shared leadership. actually there are paper out there measuring shared leadership through SNA. but those paper had made it explicitly that the measures employed were context-based, which generates virtually nothing across settings. there will be one JAP and one AMJ paper coming out with more advanced technique measuring shared leadership. we will soon see it ~

as you mentioned, the current definition on shared leadership is kinda vague.... pearce has been trying so hard to redefine it. the problem, though, is that reviewers and editors all have quite strong arguments on the dimensions to be included in the core construct. pearce has an AMR paper with charles manz @ UMass, who is the founder of self-leadership, that is intended to address the theoretical puzzle out there. that manuscript is currently under 2nd R&R. it would come out eventually for sure 'cause the editor has already tossed the greenlight out.

good to know people are doing shared leadership stuff. we may have a talk on this @ AoM this year~ best luck w/ ur research

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/3/9 8:19:46)

Yes, it's a limitation that conclusions drawn from SNA are not generalizable. However, I've seen a quite smart approach from several articles which transfer the network data into variables of a regression. I'm curious about the more advanced technique you mentioned. Can you reveal a bit here?

Did they use simulation methods?

Also there is something interesting going on in the qualitative field. I don't refer to leadership or OB in particular, but to the qualitative research method as a whole. They are working on the technique called textmining. It's actually a big surprise to me that qualitative methods are increasingly systematic and scientific.

I'm working on LMX dif but not shared leadership because the latter is too advanced to me at my current level. I may approach it in the future if there is a chance.

-- by 会员 yujia1122 (2011/3/9 19:48:58)

the method integrating SNA data into regression is for sure problematic since those researchers did not even check how to do dyadic analysis. yet their idea was novel for those specific contexts, which definitely added in credibility to their paper.

as for the qualitative approach, it is an amazing area that most OB scholars don't know anything about. and you can see the debates over inductive vs. deductive methods. if you feel like doing it, check AMJ and AMR paper from eisenhardt. she is the top of the top among qualitative researchers in OB/Strategy. here at our program, we have an affiliated faculty named creswell who is actually among the top 3 guys in qualitative methods, like judge in meta. yet very few doctoral students would take the qualitative method seminar from him since it takes years of training. u can learn to use fancy HLM techniques probably in 3 months, but u may hardly find yourself ending up w/ sth in learning qualitative methods. so, it's kinda trade-off between being novel using mixed methods and eating up 2-3 yrs learning the basic qualitative stuff. anyway, it's totally up to u.

as for the advancement in measuring shared leadership, i am sorry that i could not tell u any more detail on that. but, pls keep in mind that OB people, reviewers specifically, are always critical on whatever method u r using. so, the measurement for shared leadership is, from my own standpoint, open to development. yet the vital issue of a more punctual nature is the theoretical building and construct ramification. it's a battle that never ends though .....

good luck w/ ur research~

-- by 会员 galluplinc (2011/3/11 7:22:40)

Thank you for sharing your valuable insights. I don’t knowif I have interpreted your comments correctly. Do you mean dyadic analysiscould have been used to replace SNA in answering those research questions? Iagree dyadic analysis is a good way to address paired relationships. However,when we are interested in some network properties, isn’t network analysis abetter option. To be honest, I have problem to distinguish the complex form ofdyadic analysis (the so-called SRM) with SNA.

I also agree that this approach is somehow problematic. Andthe problem, I assume, is concerned with the validity issue. I do have problemof framing the question to depict the type of relationship compatible with thetheory. Please let me know if you have another story.

Recently I had a discussion of one professor of myqualitative methodology course. He talked about the possibility to bridge thegap between the big N and small N, i.e. bridge the qualitative thematicanalysis with quantitative formal concept analysis. Although this idea has onlybeen applied in political science, I can see it’s potential in organizationalstudies. I understand that qualitative approach is challenge because theresearcher needs a really high level of theoretical sensitivity in order togenerate meaningful codes. As you said, it’s a trade off.

From your comments, I can tell you are quite knowledgeablein this area. So I did some background research on you (mainly through yourpast posts if you don’t mind). Your other posts are definitely valuableresources to me since I’m also thinking about applying for some PhD programmesof OB in the states. Finally, can you tell me how to change the username for myCD account? I saw you did it quite successfully.

-- by 会员 yujia1122 (2011/3/13 10:17:51)