AOM 2011: Day 1

Greetings again from San An-muggy-o.

Day one is almost in the bag and there is so much to talk about that I have a hard time even knowing where to start. So I’ll just summarize the main highlights (and lessons learned) of the day.

Academics are really smart – to get published, you must satisfy a number of ambiguous, yet rigorous objectives during the review process. The reason for this is that each paper is simply a brick in the narrative of human history and it needs to be able to be built upon by other bricks of the scholars-to-be. The point is to not be “the guy” but rather produce something that can be a strong platform for others to stand on. Your contribution is making a breakthrough for other research to happen, not being the one with the right answer. On that note...

I am a diaper baby – it’s important to note that academics have been speaking at a wavelength I couldn’t hear for the majority of my undergrad career. Even worse, because I thought that my education was about equipping me for getting a job, I made them wrong for not providing me information easily found on Google. While places like Google and Udemy can teach me how to code or apply the accounting equation, my teachers have been trying their best to goad me into thinking about who I am going to be in the next 10 years. I’m not saying that’s always happened, but then again I haven’t been listening very hard for it. Someone left a comment on my previous post about how easy it is to buy a “Dr.” title. I guess that I didn’t effectively communicate my sarcasm for being someone who is in my head all the time. Even so, 8 months ago I would have agreed but after spending a lot of time on a research team, seeing them interact and produce research, the sheer complexity of the space is requires more than just brute intelligence and improvising ability. This coming from a guy who scored high in both of these areas on a personality test used for one of my neuroscience workshops. As such, I am humbled and extremely grateful for the patience many of my professors had when I was making them wrong in the classroom and trying prove to everyone I was the smartest person in the room.

The nature of research is shifting, fast – while academics are incredibly intelligent in their knowledge and use of theory and methods, technology is changing the game. As is evidenced by my observation of their (in)ability to use presentation software and computers in general, a scholar’s ability to wield the power of technology (particularly programming) in addition to staying current in theory, methodologies and taste-making is going to be the defining difference in the next generation of scholars. While that stuff is the future, anyone who can get up to speed now (in the next 3 years), will be a very strong candidate for making massive contributions. For example, I know enough about neuroscience and decision-making to contribute (generatively) to a conversation when everyone tries to settle on the mind’s “black box”.

That’s it for day one. Much to process, much to be thankful for. But it’s a highly stimulative place to be and I’m looking forward to my sessions tomorrow:

*Using Simulation Experiments to Build and Test Entrepreneurship Theories

*Austrian Economics and Entrepreneurship Studies

*Rethinking the Role of Neuroscience in Strategic Management

*Entrepreneurship Social Event

Also, Howard Haines (fellow Foundry F1 OG and newly minted U of Oklahoma PhD student is here) so it Foundry F2 guy Gary Jense. Needless to say, we are getting (some of) the band back together. Thanks for all your individual correspondence and support since I got here, I am a lucky guy. Also, if you've sent me something and I haven't responded in my normal time frame, I apologize. The schedule here is like a Fast and Furious sequel and I'll be doing my best to get back to you in between sessions and social receptions.