I theorize the coevolution of technology and design by integrating research on the evolution of technology with ideas from sociology, marketing, and psychology that explain the effects of design. Specifically, I apply work arguing that visible design attributes, such as color, shape, or texture, allow producers to explain what their products do and how best to use them, to excite users in a way that generates sales, and to extend the basic functionalities of their products by highlighting their symbolic meanings. I then theorize that the relevance of these three uses varies in the context of technological evolution such that affecting products' design-related attributes is a more central organizational process as product technologies emerge and when they are very mature, suggesting a U-shaped relationship between technological evolution and design. I also elaborate the moderators of this relationship: the frequency of successive product introductions, the social dynamics affecting consumption, the users' level of technological knowledge, and the volume of discourse attending to design. Thus, the article offers a holistic theory for understanding the strategic use of design in the context of technological production and, as such, advances recent work positioning design as a primary strategic challenge. I acknowledge the extremely useful comments and constructive feedback of editor Roy Suddaby and three anonymous reviewers, as well as numerous generous colleagues:

In this theory development case study, we focus on the relations across recurrent waves in the amount and kind of language promoting and diffusing, and then demoting and rejecting, management techniques—techniques for transforming the input of organizational labor into organizational outputs. We suggest that rather than manifesting themselves as independent, transitory, and un-cumulative fads, the language of repeated waves cumulates into what we call management fashion trends. These trends are protracted and major transformations in what managers read, think, express, and enact that result from the accumulation of the language of these consecutive waves. For the language of five waves in employee-management techniques—management by objectives, job enrichment, quality circles, total quality management, and business process reengineering—we measure rational and normative language suggesting, respectively, that managers can induce labor financially or psychologically. The results reveal a gradual intensification in the ratio of rational to normative language over repeated waves, suggesting the existence of a management fashion trend across these techniques. Lexical shifts over time, however, serve to differentiate a fashion from its predecessor, creating a sense of novelty and progress from the earlier to the later fashions.

We live in a knowledge economy. This statement has many implications, but three matter particularly for this article. First, knowledge is a commodityit can be bought and sold in a knowledge market. In the case of the management knowledge market, varied producers on its supply side -consultants or journalists, for example -produce and market this knowledge to diverse individuals and organizations on its demand side that consume it. Second, as management scholars, we also belong to this market's supply side. We produce and disseminate knowledge that is consumed by varied customersstudents, executives, managers, state bureaucrats, as well as a diversity of professionals, such as human resource management specialists or quality control experts. We generally agree that this management knowledge should be relevant to our consumers and have a salubrious impact on them, though we frequently disagree on what 'relevance' might mean and what this 'salubrious impact' should be. Our position in a knowledge economy has a third, vital implication -that, at certain crucial historical junctures, it is imperative for scholars to consider how their position, impact, and relevance in the management knowledge market might be evolving. The millennium presents such an opportunity, and this article takes it up.Neils Bore once remarked, 'Prediction is difficult, particularly about the future'. Despite such warnings, we are so bold as to propose in this article that, as we enter this new millennium, we are also entering a period during which the business knowledge market will evolve in ways that are vital for scholars to reflect upon because their very role in this market is at stake. More specifically, we believe that we will see the continuation of a 6 7

Taking a cue from a recently evolving stream that calls for exploring the microfoundations of capabilities, we focus on inventor networks to examine how the activities underlying firms' R&D change in the aftermath of a merger. We view mergers as events that cause anxiety and impede inventors' abilities to process research knowledge. Employing the notion of an intra-firm inventor collaboration network, we hypothesize that in the aftermath of a merger, the impact of knowledge that is prominent and widely available in the intra-firm network will increase but that the impact of knowledge that, albeit richer, is less easily accessible, will decrease. Our empirical study of the merger of Bristol-Myers and Squibb supports our hypotheses. The findings enhance our understanding not only of mergers and acquisitions, but also of the microfoundations of a firm's R&D activities.

In this study, we seek to understand the key differences between the entrepreneurial experience for Mexican immigrant and US-born Mexican entrepreneurs. We focus on differences in motivation for start-up, reliance on ethnic enclaves and business management practices. Using data from the 2005 National Minority Business Owner Survey, our sample consisted of 156 Mexican American entrepreneurs (55 immigrants and 101 US-born). Results suggest that even within a particular minority group, there are key distinctions between immigrant and US-born entrepreneurs. For example, US-born Mexican entrepreneurs are more motivated by the individualistic financial benefits of being an entrepreneur, while Mexican immigrant entrepreneurs are more motivated by serving society and their co-ethnic community. Implications are discussed.