creating and implementing dynamic capabilities: an
TRANSCRIPT
CREATING AND IMPLEMENTING DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES: AN EXPLORATION OF
THE SENIOR MANAGER’S ROLE
By
Calvin Joel Martin
A Thesis Submitted To the Graduate Faculty of
University of Maryland University College in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Doctor of Management
Faculty Committee:
Kathleen F. Edwards, Ph.D.
James P. Gelatt, Ph.D.
2
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 8
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 10
Background and Problem Statement ......................................................................................... 10
Purpose of Dissertation and Research Question ....................................................................... 18
Significance of the Problem and Importance to Management .................................................. 20
Propositions ............................................................................................................................... 21
Definitions of Key Terms .......................................................................................................... 22
Organization of Dissertation ..................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 2: Systematic Review of the Literature ........................................................................... 25
Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................... 25
Evolution of the Dynamic Capabilities Concept ....................................................................... 25
Substantive Organizational Capabilities versus Dynamic Capabilities .................................... 29
The Theoretical Underpinnings of DCs as Management Mechanisms ..................................... 30
Absorptive Capacity Theory and DCs ................................................................................... 31
Resource-Based Theory and DCs .......................................................................................... 37
The Constructs of DCs: Bundles of Routines and Organizational Capabilities ........................ 40
Routines: The Building Blocks for Organizational Capabilities ........................................... 40
Organizational Capabilities: Building Blocks for DCs ......................................................... 42
The Advent of Dynamic Capabilities: An Evolution of Definitions ..................................... 53
Criticisms of the DCs Construct ............................................................................................ 56
Three Significant DCs: Senior Manager Mechanisms to Create and Implement DCs ............ 57
Organizational Ambidexterity (OA) ...................................................................................... 58
Organizational Agility (OAg) ................................................................................................ 78
Communication of Senior Management Vision (CoMV) ..................................................... 87
Creating and Implementing Dynamic Capabilities-Summary ................................................ 110
Support for Research Propositions .......................................................................................... 111
4
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 113
Introduction to Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................ 113
The Constructs of DCs ............................................................................................................ 114
The Origin of DCs and Historical Context.............................................................................. 115
DCs as an Organizational Construct ....................................................................................... 116
Three DCs: OA, OAg, and Senior Manager’s Communication of Vision .............................. 116
Organizational Ambidexterity ............................................................................................. 117
Organizational Agility ......................................................................................................... 118
Communication of Senior Management’s Vision ............................................................... 118
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................... 119
Model and Framework ............................................................................................................ 121
Innovative Change and Its Relationship to Kuhn and Popper ................................................ 122
Summary of Model and Framework ....................................................................................... 124
Chapter Four: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 125
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 125
Identification of Evidence ....................................................................................................... 129
Search String Development ................................................................................................. 129
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria ......................................................................................... 131
Examining the Evidence.......................................................................................................... 134
PRISMA Diagram ................................................................................................................... 135
Evaluation of Quality of Research .......................................................................................... 136
Data Extraction .................................................................................................................... 136
Qualifying the Evidence by Research Type ........................................................................ 140
Expert Panel Feedback Discussion ......................................................................................... 142
Chapter 5: Findings ..................................................................................................................... 146
Introduction to Chapter Five ................................................................................................... 146
Scholarly Review Process ....................................................................................................... 147
Identification of Themes ...................................................................................................... 151
Synthesis of Primary Themes .................................................................................................. 151
Environmental Scanning...................................................................................................... 153
Existing Capabilities Assessment ........................................................................................ 159
5
Secondary Themes ............................................................................................................... 160
Links to Systems and Complexity Theories ............................................................................ 162
Weak Links and Alternative Views Found in the Literature .................................................. 163
Support for Propositions.......................................................................................................... 164
Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 165
Chapter 6: Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 167
Introduction to Chapter 6 ........................................................................................................ 167
Overall Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 167
Implications of Management Trends....................................................................................... 168
Implications for Management Practice ................................................................................... 169
Implications for Management Theory ..................................................................................... 170
Thoughts on Kuhnian versus Popperian Innovation and DCs Development .......................... 172
Implications for Future Research ............................................................................................ 174
Limitations of this Dissertation ............................................................................................... 176
Summary of the Dissertation ................................................................................................... 177
Appendix A: Selected Papers for Preliminary Literature Review for Search Strings ................ 178
Appendix B: Search Strings ........................................................................................................ 180
Appendix C: Data Abstraction Template ................................................................................... 181
Appendix D: Data Abstraction Example ................................................................................... 182
References ................................................................................................................................... 184
6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Antecedents to Dynamic Capability Theory (partially adapted from Coh, 2005) ..... 26
Figure 2: How Senior Managers Create and Implement Dynamic Capabilities ...................... 122
Figure 3: Theoretical Model Featuring Kuhnian and Popperian Change ................................ 123
Figure 4: Raw DCs Related Search Terms Harvested from the Scholarly Literature ............. 129
Figure 5: PRISMA Diagram .................................................................................................... 135
Figure 6: Incorporated Studies by Firm Locations by Continent (N=67) ................................ 147
Figure 7: Distribution of Included Studies by Year of Publication (N=67) ............................ 149
Figure 8: Distribution of Sample Sizes in Included Studies (N=67) ....................................... 150
Figure 9: Sample Distribution by Included Study Type (N=67) ............................................. 151
Figure 10: Number of Themes Found in Included Studies ........................................................ 175
7
List of Tables
Table 1: Key Term Definitions .................................................................................................. 22
Table 2: Key Definitions of DCs from Extant Literature .......................................................... 54
Table 3: Synthesized Definitions from Key Systematic Reviews ............................................. 55
Table 4: Senior Leaders’ Perception of the Agility of Their Organizations .............................. 78
Table 5: Organizational Agility Definitions Proposed in Scholarly Literature ......................... 79
Table 6: Doz-Kosonen Model with Evidence (Doz & Kosonen, 2010) .................................... 83
Table 7: Sample for Search Strings Use in Thematic Synthesis .............................................. 130
Table 8: Inclusion Criteria (Adapted from Lock, Silverman, & Spirduso, 2010) ................... 132
Table 9: Data Extraction Tool (Adapted from Newbert, 2007) ............................................... 137
Table 10: Quality of Research Model (adapted from Newbert, 2007) ...................................... 140
Table 11: Evidence Type Weights ............................................................................................. 140
Table 12: Sample of Final Qualification of Evidence Scoring .................................................. 141
Table 13: Key Senior Manager Behavior Discussed in the Literature Reviewed for this
Dissertation ................................................................................................................................. 152
Table 14: Secondary Literature Themes Found that Linked to Primary Themes ...................... 161
Table 15: Illustrative Examples Characterizing the Primary Themes Found in the Literature . 162
8
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my faculty advisors, Dr.
Kathleen F. Edwards and Dr. James P. Gelatt, who both provided tremendous mentorship for me
during the dissertation process. I would also like to thank Dr. Deborah M. Wharff for her
scholarly advice and encouragement throughout this process. I am grateful for you all because
you pushed me when I needed to be pushed. Without your desire to see me succeed, I would not
have completed my dissertation journey.
I would also like to thank my family, friends, and coworkers who all made great sacrifices during
this process that enabled me to be successful in this endeavor. I am extremely blessed to have
people like you in my life.
9
Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation was to identify and assess what senior management actions
(interventions, behaviors) facilitated the creation and implementation of dynamic capabilities
(timely, purposeful change) within organizations. Dynamic capabilities (DCs), for this
dissertation, were defined as the abilities of firms to systematically solve problems, formed by
sensing opportunities and threats in order to make timely and market-oriented decisions, and to
change their resource base (Barreto, 2010). Prior research suggested that organizations that
created DCs were better positioned to adapt to changes in the marketplace and create and sustain
competitive advantages than those firms that did not. While dynamic capabilities were
extensively explored in the scholarly literature, the scholarship was scant on how DCs were
created, from the senior manager point of view. This dissertation aimed to show what
interventions and techniques senior managers had used to help their organizations develop
dynamic capabilities in order to better adapt to change. Using a systematic review of the
literature and applying thematic synthesis, this dissertation identified and analyzed a final set of
67 scholarly studies which revealed that senior managers devoted a significant amount of
management focus on sensing (and sensemaking), repetitively reviewing the firm’s existing
resource base and capabilities, and then optimizing (or balancing) strategic initiatives with
tactical initiatives. In order to provide additional clarity to the specific activities where senior
managers played a role, secondary behaviors, such as firm boundary reframing and alliance
building, were also presented and evaluated.
Key words: Dynamic capabilities, organizational agility, organizational ambidexterity, strategic
management, senior manager
10
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background and Problem Statement
The environments in which organizations function are increasingly changing (Adner,
2002). Much of the environmental dynamism in which organizations operate stems from
relentless competition, new technologies, and globalized economies (Ambosini, Bowman, &
Collier, 2009). Even the most stable industries have entered into extremely aggressive
competitions between established firms and so-called nimble start-ups (e.g., the personal
computing industry) (Judge & Elenkov, 2005). There are even those that believe that what
constitutes stable industries has morphed in recent times (Teece, 2012). The boundaries of
competition have also changed dramatically (Keupp, Palmie, & Gassman, 2012) and firms are
experiencing threats from new competitors from very different, unanticipated sectors (Fulsang &
Mattsson, 2011). A recent, prominent example of this phenomenon included Amazon.com
morphing from an online book sales company to a full service retail supplier of many consumer
products (e.g., clothes, toys, jewelry, etc.).
Changing environments greatly affect an organization’s ability to sustain satisfactory
performance. The resultant routine for organizations, therefore, is one of complexity and
unpredictability (Ford, 2008; Hazy, 2011). The need to adapt to change, while seemingly a
straightforward concept, is troublesome for many organizations simply because they do not
know how to do it and therefore are unsuccessful at it (Wernerfelt, 1984). Some believe that the
firms are not able to adapt because of a poor understanding of how their market(s) are changing
as well as a lack of awareness of the value of their internal resources to meet change (Wernerfelt,
11
1984; Stebbings & Braganza, 2009). An abundance of recent research also suggests that many
organizations simply do not have the proper managerial mechanisms in place to sense (identify a
pending change or potential opportunity), seize (strategically plan for change), or react
(reconfigure resources to match the change) to environmental stimuli such as new market
entrants or significant changes in customer behavior patterns (Augier & Teece, 2009; Gebauer,
2011). Because of this growing importance between an organization’s strategic maneuvers and
its changing operating environment, academics and scholar-practitioners have developed an
increasing interest in understanding the link between the two (Augier & Teece, 2009). The
standing question that has been posed by scholars and practitioners has been, in the face of these
identified challenges to firm survival, ‘how does a firm develop sustained competitive
advantages?’ In recent years, then, it has been seen that scholarly literature has placed much
emphasis on how organizations need to strategize to enable flexibility and sustainability to
address these environmental dynamics (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Helfat, Finkelstein,
Mitchell, Peteraf, Singh, Teece, & Winters, 2007).
Many management theorists believe that senior managers (e.g., decision makers) play a
pivotal role in organizational performance (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Andriopoulos & Lewis,
2010; Augier & Teece, 2011; James & Lahti, 2011) in rapidly change environments. Senior
managers, for the purposes of this dissertation, are defined as managers that operate at the C-
level (i.e., CEO, CTO, CFO, etc.) or have multiple tiers of management under their purview.
Some even suggest that more than ever, senior managers need to act entrepreneurially (Roy &
Khokhle, 2011) and execute change maneuvers at the firm level with very few errors in judgment
(Corbett & Neck, 2010). Given the scholarly research performed around senior managers’ role
in creating and recognizing opportunities, this issue of managing adaptive change produces a
12
research problem suitable for both evidence based management (EBMgt) and evidence based
research (EBR).
Briner, Denyer, and Rousseau (2009) propose that EBMgt is concerned with making
decisions based on a variety of evidence including existing expertise, judgment, local evidence
(previous corporate experience), stakeholder perspectives, and evaluation of available research.
EBR efforts, such as this dissertation, attempt to tie management research to practical
management problems and sometimes are even conducted at the request of management
practitioners. Ideally, this dissertation will inform theory and contribute to the creation of
knowledge. The priority in this dissertation is to answer a specific research question whose
answer is geared to assisting management practitioners to create and implement dynamic
capabilities in their organizations in order to create and sustain competitive advantages.
A significant portion of the scholarly literature reviewed for this dissertation, therefore,
highlighted the important role of managers in creating and implementing DCs associated with
addressing changes in environments. Senior managers, in particular, may play a significant role
in developing strategies to adapt to changes that are threats, as well as changes which pose new
opportunities for organizations (Lin & Huang, 2012). Within the context of directing
organizations to align themselves effectively with environmental change, the literature suggests
that a major way to keep organizations relevant and successful into the future may be senior
managers’ ability to create new capabilities in their firms (Helfat et. al, 2007). The scholarly
literature from multiple disciplines affirms the notion that senior managers can develop new
organizational capabilities that are outside of the core competencies of the firm (Yien, et.al,
2011).
13
Many scholars describe and label these new capabilities that allow firms to integrate,
construct, and restructure competencies that are adaptive to the environment, as dynamic
capabilities (Teece, et. al, 1997; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Dynamic capabilities theory was
initially conceived as a method to better understand continuous strategic change (Teece, et al.,
1997). Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) echo this view that one way that organizations can
respond to dynamic environments, is by developing dynamic capabilities that integrate,
reconfigure and match the market change.
Dynamic capabilities (DCs) have been defined in a plethora of contexts and by many
scholars (Helfat, et. al, 2007). Teece, et al. (1997) suggest, in their foundational work on
dynamic capabilities theory, that an efficient, dynamic balance between exploration
(transformational innovations) and exploitation (incremental innovations and efficiencies) will
improve an organization’s ability to both adapt to change and seize new opportunities. Many
definitions of DCs purport that DCs are change management routines or activities that enable an
organization to change in a timely manner in some desired way. While change management
routines may be considered to be a tactical concept, in this context, the scholars refer to these
activities as ‘meta-routines’ that spawn and catalyze future strategy (Helfat, et al., 2007). Some
researchers have found links between the implementation of DCs through learning and
knowledge management and organizational-level change (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). For
example, Bontis, Grossan and Hulland (2002) suggest that organizational learning is a
sustainable behavior pattern that can affect an organization’s competitive advantage and
Holmqvist (2004) avers that certain types of learning strategies can help organizations adapt to
changing environments. Considering the assertions made by the scholars above, organizational
14
learning has been represented as a critical DC that, in part, enabled firms to sustain competitive
advantages.
This dissertation extensively reviewed and analyzed the literature to determine the nature
of the relationship between senior managers and the development of dynamic capabilities (DCs).
There is an abundance of evidence in the scholarly literature that suggested that certain
management interventions (or behaviors) may explain how dynamic capabilities are created.
Jansen, Vera, and Crossan (2008), for instance, showed a linkage between the leadership-style of
managers and the creation of dynamic capabilities for firms. Augier and Teece (2009) suggested
that managers make strategic, organizational, and human resource decisions that directly impact
an organization’s adaptability to change. The dissertation specifically explored the management
interventions that successfully allowed DCs to both be created and implemented.
Since DCs theory was a relatively new management area of study (Helfat & Peteraf,
2009), this dissertation also reviewed empirical studies from other areas that were relevant in
order to learn what managers had done to develop these capabilities (Helfat & Peteraf, 2009;
Hoang & Rothaermel, 2010). For instance, many scholars believed that the application of the
findings from studies found that strategic management (Crossan, Maurer, & White, 2011),
organizational absorptive capacity (Lichtenthaler, 2009), the resource based view (Grant, 1991;
Barney, 1991), and open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) literature directly contributed
knowledge as to an organization’s ability to sustain competitive advantages. Thus, these areas
were reviewed for evidence relating to the focus of this dissertation.
To date, much scholarly work has been completed to better define what DCs are and what
they actually do. In fact, the study of dynamic capabilities has expanded dramatically in recent
years (Helfat et. al, 2007) and, as noted above, various definitions of dynamic capabilities were
15
developed (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2007; Helfat, 2007) in an attempt to better
understand the context in which DCs have been utilized. Thus, for purposes of clarity and
context, this dissertation considered various definitions and contexts of DCs, and selected one
operational definition for active use in systematically analyzing the literature.
Several scholarly systematic reviews of the literature were developed in recent years
(Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson, 2006; Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Barreto, 2010; Di Stefano,
Peteraf, & Verona, 2010) that also proposed definitions of DCs. Many of the definitions
proposed in these efforts attempted to develop a more comprehensive view of DCs. This
dissertation specifically adopted the DC definition developed by Barreto (2010, p. 271), which
stated that a DC is “the firm’s ability to systematically solve problems, formed by its propensity
to sense opportunities and threats, to make timely and market-oriented decisions, and to change
its resource base.” The vast majority of definitions of DCs have common themes, but the
definition formulated by Barreto (2010) captured the richness of the scholarly work reviewed for
this dissertation, and also, in the view of this dissertation author, was coherent and able to be
operationalized. Thus, this definition was believed to be more comprehensive compared to other
DCs definitions proposed by Teece, et.al (1997), Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), and Helfat, et.al
(2007).
This dissertation explored the ways senior managers create dynamic capabilities (DCs) in
accordance with this definition (directing purposeful change in organizations). For instance,
how do senior managers minimize the impact of threats to their organizations? Under what
conditions do senior managers successfully mitigate threats or seize new opportunities? It was
generally perceived that when an organization is adaptive to change, it is able to sustain or even
16
enhance its performance (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). This dissertation explored several streams
of literature that associated DCs with organizational outcomes.
One significant literature stream analyzed in this dissertation involved the perceived
problem of balancing work activities between tactical and strategic activities. Gibson and
Birkinshaw (2004), for instance, claimed that long-term organizational success required a
successful balance between the exploration (strategic) and exploitation (tactical) of an
organization’s resources and functions (i.e., a behavior balance). The literature called this
dynamic balancing activity as ‘ambidexterity’ (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007). Several theorists
identified organizational ambidexterity (OA) to DCs as a management behavior required to
create long-term organizational success (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; O’Reilly & Tushman,
2011; Smith, 2009).
Effective strategic management as an instrument to produce timely change was also noted
in the literature as a challenge for organizations in changing environments (Nelson & Winter,
1982). Senior management teams struggled to properly plan for both current needs and future
challenges (Mom, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009; Rothaermel & Hess, 2007). The successes
in achieving sustained competitive advantage had been few relative to the many organizations
that competed with each other for market share and new opportunities (Cegarra-Navarro &
Dewhurst, 2007). The literature called the dynamic ability to quickly address these conditions as
‘organizational agility (Holsapple & Li, 2008; Teece, 2012, Taneja, Pryor, Humphreys, &
Singleton, 2013).’
Enabling organizational ambidexterity and agility were the senior management
interventions specifically explored in this dissertation as potential DCs which helped improve an
organization’s posture in its environment. Also, included in this management intervention
17
discussion was a review of the scholarly literature that discussed senior managers’ challenges
with effective integration of resources. Some authors (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004) considered
DCs to be purely an organizational construction issue, meaning that the organization’s functions
(through people and other resources) were not positioned well for close coordination with each
other. Organizations also struggled to integrate management approaches to adapt to dynamic
environments causing many firms to fail to meet their missions (Simsek, 2009).
There was also an emerging base of scholarly research seeking to better understand the
general disconnects between the vision of senior management and the strategy of an organization
(Crossan & Berdrow, 2003). The literature suggested that the lack of a definitive and clear
vision could cause significant degradation implementation of the desired organizational strategy
(Montes, Moreno, & Morales, 2005). There also were other deleterious effects caused by poorly
articulated vision such as inefficiencies in work efforts (both calculated in time and money) and
the loss of the ability to be flexible (Khandelwal & Mohendra, 2010). Shared vision between
senior management and the workforce has also been linked with a firm’s ability to learn and
maneuver quickly, according to several scholars (Jansen, et. al., 2008; Carmeli & Halevi, 2009).
This dissertation reviewed the combinatorial effects of the previously mentioned
management interventions on the creation and implementation of DCs. To better frame and
specify the research purpose, this dissertation’s EBR included studies of organizations at many
stages of the business life cycle, from start-ups to more enduring firms. Several scholars, for
instance, had studied organizations in existence longer than ten years (Ambrosini & Bowman,
2009; Gebauer, 2011; Zheng, Zhang, & Du, 2011) because these organizations in this context
had had time to invest and develop a system of embedded resources that were difficult to modify
when the market conditions changed (Drnevich & Kriacuciunas, 2011). Under these conditions,
18
firms differentiated themselves as to how they could adapt to various environmental dynamics
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). The existing literature explained how firms with embedded
resources and developed capabilities found it challenging to create and implement DCs
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2012) because adaptation through reconfiguration and
modification of resources was required (Teece, et al., 1997; Helfat, et al., 2007). In contrast, this
dissertation also reviewed literature on relatively recently formed organizations that found it
easier to adapt and change in many cases (Teece, 2009). Established organizations would have
limitations as to how they could adapt due to an embedded organizational culture, investment
portfolio, etc. Thus, creating and implementing DCs were found to be more challenging (Nelson
& Winter, 1982) and complex (Wernerfelt, 1984) in more enduring organizations.
Purpose of Dissertation and Research Question
The purpose of this dissertation was to identify and assess from the evidence based
literature how senior managers developed dynamic capabilities to respond to environmental
change in organizations. From the proposed operational definition of DCs used in this
dissertation, special emphasis was placed on how senior managers pushed organizations to make
purposeful changes through systematic problem solving, sensing and seizing, decision making,
and reconfiguring their resources. The existing scholarly literature that directly linked DCs to
senior management intervention was scant. Thus, this research aimed to exploit the very large
body of research from areas related to DCs that showed what interventions and techniques senior
managers had used to help their organizations develop dynamic capabilities in order to better
adapt to change.
19
In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the dissertation’s topic, answers to
the following research question were sought:
What senior management actions (interventions, behaviors) facilitate the creation and
implementation of dynamic capabilities (timely, purposeful change) within organizations?
The literature suggested that dynamic capabilities used by senior managers typically
relied on organizational learning in some aspect (Crossan & Berdrow, 2003). The literature also
revealed several streams of theoretical and empirical research on how dynamic capabilities were
created within organizations that adapted to environmental change (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007).
Scholars proposed that several types of dynamic capabilities helped organizations adapt to
environmental change. Three in particular, mentioned above, were examined as a part of this
dissertation: organizational agility, organizational ambidexterity, and senior management’s
communication of vision.
Organizational agility was defined as the ability of any organization to be
environmentally aware and able to understand and mobilize the workforce to deal with pending
changes in the environment in a timely manner (Sharifi and Zhang, 1999). Noted as a dynamic
capability here, the organizational agility literature appeared to describe the need for firms to
sense and respond in a manner that matched or preceded changes in the market (Roberts &
Grover, 2012). Failure to do so, placed firms in a more competitive environment where
maintaining any competitive advantage was virtually futile (Helfat, et al., 2007).
Organizational ambidexterity, a second dynamic capability (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008),
was the notion of balancing exploitation (tactical, incremental improvements or efficiencies in
20
work) and exploration activities (potentially radical changes to work processes or products) in
the firm.
Senior management’s communication of vision (including creation of a shared vision), in
this dissertation, spoke to how managers invoked learning and situational awareness of
organizations in order to facilitate innovation and flexibility (James and Lahti, 2011).
Significance of the Problem and Importance to Management
The lack of clear dynamic capability frameworks (such as strategies and behaviors) to
adapt to change was seen as a significant problem for senior managers. All organizations faced
dynamic environments from various sources (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010). Most organizations
were ill prepared for these environmental changes and failed to adapt to them (Hoang &
Rothaermel, 2010). The context of the environmental change might dictate ranges of dynamic
capabilities to be developed by organizations which would use these capabilities to respond to
varying types of environmental turbulence.
The literature showed that significant environmental challenges existed within a variety
of industries including government, logistics, high-tech, and pharmaceutical organizations.
Government organizations that suffered from a lack of balance between improving existing
services and anticipating new ones could not adapt to the needs of their customers (Berman &
Chan-Gon, 2010). Suzuki and Methi (2011) stated that pharmaceutical manufacturing
companies struggled to moderate both short-term and long-term product development to
optimize their long-term sustainability. Large tech companies, such as IBM, had historically
wrestled with the problem of maintaining competitive strategies (Teece, 2007). Logistics
21
organizations, such as the United Parcel Service (UPS) (Ellis, 2013) and the United States Postal
Service (USPS) were challenged by dynamic environmental change (Cusumano, 2012).
The literature also suggested that environmental challenges were experienced not only in
different industries, but also in organizations of various sizes (Simzek, 2009). Burgers, Jansen,
Van den Bosch, and Volberda (2009), for instance, stated that organizations of various sizes
many times failed due to the failure to accommodate change. Executives in some large
technology companies (Teece, 2007) readily admitted that staying competitive in the current
environments required a complex strategy. Chang, Hughes, and Hotho (2011) researched a
variety of companies of different sizes and determined that long term successes were highly
correlated with complex business strategies. O’Reilly and Tushman (2007) also studied a variety
of company sizes and concluded that organizational adaptability to change remained a concern
spanning a wide range of organizational sizes.
The breadth and scope of the changes faced by senior managers coping with internal and
external change was significant. There was a clear and important gap between theory and
practice in terms of links between senior management behavior and DCs development. This
dissertation provided insights and proposed a more cogent framework for bridging the gap
between the role of senior managers and dynamic capabilities’ creation in rapid change contexts.
Propositions
The following propositions were developed early in the research for this dissertation (P1
through P4):
P1. There is a positive relationship between certain senior management behaviors
(interventions) and the outcomes of the dynamic capabilities examined in this
dissertation.
22
P2. There is a positive relationship between a well communicated and shared
vision from senior managers and the development of dynamic capabilities.
P3. Senior managers who are able to create and implement dynamic capabilities are
more likely to position organizations to successfully create or adapt to market
changes.
P4. The type of changes that are needed by organizations in modern markets
more resemble the change of theory Karl Popper (i.e., Popperian Innovation
and revolutionary science) (Popper, 1965) rather than of the more commonly
accepted change theory of Thomas Kuhn (Kuhnian Innovation and normal
science) (Kuhn, 1996; Shareef, 1997).
Definitions of Key Terms
Below are several key terms and their adapted definitions used for the purpose of this
dissertation.
Table 1: Key Term Definitions
Environmental
Context
The circumstances in which an organization operates, to include change
dynamics and competition (hyper-competitive, constant incremental change,
stable). The context for this definition also refers to the readiness or
‘fitness’ of an organization to encounter the external environment. The
combination of external and internal conditions described above constitutes
a ‘context’ (Jiao, et.al, 2011).
Exploitation This term refers to an organization’s ability to create and introduce
efficiencies (higher productivity or more cost effective) into their current set
of organizational routines or capabilities (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).
Exploration This term refers to an organization’s ability to create and introduce
innovative (dramatic, paradigm changing) substantive capabilities into its
resource base (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).
Innovation Intentional changes (application of ideas, processes, and products) in a
firm’s resource base that produce ‘significant’ improvements or complete
change of ‘know how’ for an organization (Lin & McDonough, 2011).
Kuhnian Change Referring to the general theories of Thomas Kuhn. These changes are
cumulative process modifications that result in incremental improvements
and capabilities (Kuhn, 1996).
Organizational
Ambidexterity
(OA)
The ability of an organization to master both adaptability and alignment
simultaneously through various environmental contexts (Gibson &
Birkinshaw, 2004).
Organizational
Agility (OAg)
The ability of an organization to recognize changes and opportunities
(internal and external), then subsequently to use existing resources to
respond (proactively or reactively) to such changes in a timely, flexible,
23
cost-effective, relevant manner (Holsapple & Li, 2008).
Organizational
Capability (OC)
These are substantive organizational practices or routines that demonstrate
an organization’s ‘know how’. This term will also be used to refer to a
particular type of resource (e.g., applied knowledge grouping) (Barney,
1991).
Organizational
Resources
An organization’s knowledge base including personnel experience, patents,
trade secrets, and other processes that are difficult for other organizations to
duplicate (Barney, 1991).
Organizational
Vision
An ideal that represents or reflects the shared values to which the
organization should aspire (House & Shamir, 1993, p. 44).
Popperian
Change
(Innovation)
Based on the theories of Karl Popper (1965), these are innovations that are
dramatic (not merely incremental) and that perhaps through the process of
trial and error produce new organizational capabilities or core competencies
(Popper, 1965).
Resource
Matching or
Alignment
The ability of an organization to rearrange or reconfigure its resources to
satisfactorily take advantage of an opportunity or to minimize an impact of
environmental volatility (Holsapple & Li, 2008).
Resource
Orchestration
Refers to the ability of a manager to coordinate the events of a process. It
involves directing and managing multiple services to create a composite
application (Bodwell & Chermack, 2010).
Seizing This is the ability of an organization to plan for change. Seizing, in this
dissertation, refers to an organization’s ability to use incremental
(exploitative) and revolutionary (exploration) change to match the
environment (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
Senior Manager Refers to managers in firms that are at the C-level (i.e., CEO, COO, CFO),
Vice President, or Director with significant influence over resources and
workforce personnel.
Sensing The ability for an organization to assess its capabilities and alignments
against the dynamics of the external environment (e.g., market demands,
changes in customer needs) (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
Organization of Dissertation
This dissertation was sub-divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 defined the purpose and
provided the significance of the problem, for management and for society in general. It also
identified propositions, as well the dissertation’s purpose and research question.
Chapter 2 critically reviewed the scholarly research on the topics that related to the
dissertation’s research question, key among them were dynamic capabilities (including
24
organizational agility, and organizational ambidexterity). Chapter 2 also explicated the
theoretical underpinnings of this research.
Chapter 3 (Conceptual Framework) integrated the various areas of scholarship in
dynamic capability creation and the methods by which DCs (such as OA and OAg) were created.
This chapter also presented a graphical model of the dissertation.
Chapter 4 (Methodology) described Evidence Based Research (EBR) as it was used in
this dissertation. Chapter 4 also discussed the literature search methodology that supported this
dissertation, as well as the use of an expert panel.
Chapter 5 (Analysis and Discussion) provided the detailed findings from the systematic
review of the literature and other determinations from the evidenced based research. The
research questions were tied to the findings, and conclusions were drawn. This chapter also
identified and discussed other potential points of view. Finally, a summary of the dissertation’s
conclusions was offered.
Chapter 6 (Conclusions, Implications, Trends) discussed the overall significance of the
findings and conclusions. A detailed explanation of the implications of the research was
provided and key trends were proposed, based on the conclusions. Chapter 6 also provided the
salient implications this research had for evidence based management for scholars and
practitioners. Finally, this chapter presented the limitations of this dissertation and suggested
areas for future investigation.
25
Chapter 2: Systematic Review of the Literature
Chapter Overview
The purpose of this dissertation was to identify and assess what senior management
actions (interventions, behaviors) facilitated the creation and implementation of dynamic
capabilities (timely, purposeful change) within organizations. The dynamic capabilities literature
clearly attempted to address why certain firms were better positioned for success than others
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). This assertion was derived from the preponderance of literature
which suggested that the value of dynamic capabilities theory generally contributed, at least in
part, to generating successful outcomes or competitive advantages for organizations (Helfat, et
al., 2007).
Evolution of the Dynamic Capabilities Concept
Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) wrote the seminal theoretical paper on dynamic capabilities
(DCs). Cited in over 4200 scholarly articles (as of March, 2014, according to Web of Science)
this research observed that certain companies within the same industry seemed to survive under
dynamic conditions (such as change in the marketplace) while others failed. The authors
theorized that organizations needed to create new resources or alter the current resource base
(current mix of resources) to match the changing environment (Teece, et al., 1997). Others
(Eisenhardt & Winter, 2000) developed the foundational theory on DCs from several
disconnected research movements. Because DCs theory was a relatively new management
theory and integrated several existing theories, a brief discussion of how DCs theory evolved is
merited (see Figure 1). This discussion also serves to show the research areas that are closely
26
related to DCs from which the forthcoming systematic review of the literature drew studies as
evidence to answer this dissertation’s research question.
Figure 1: Antecedents to Dynamic Capability Theory (partially adapted from Coh, 2005)
The rudiments of DCs stemmed from organizational benefits created from innovations.
Schumpeter (1934) was the first credited scholar to formally document the incremental financial
profits that an organization could obtain from creating new (or innovatively adapt) products.
This increased financial benefit was only maintained until other firms adapted and developed
competitive new products, at which point the profits to the original organization began to erode.
The resources used to generate these product innovations described by Schumpeter were of
particular interest to subsequent management theorists, including those who supported DCs
theory. The DCs literature tied itself heavily to innovative activities and their benefits (financial
or otherwise) to the organization (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Teece, 2012).
27
Evolutionary economics theory built directly on Schumpeter’s theory on profits through
innovation; however, it also addressed how firms might maintain competitive advantages
through continual innovation by modifying the resources of firms. Nelson and Winter (1982),
for instance, in their early research in this area attempted to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ firms
changed over time. Nelson and Winter (1982) actually highlighted the roles of organizational
routines and ‘path dependence,’ a firm’s historical operating behavior, and how it affected a
firm’s ability to address market changes. Present-day research in DCs was clearly influenced by
Evolutionary Economic theory and, as stated previously, DCs literature also was closely tied to
change management (and purposeful change) (Helfat, et al., 2007).
Wernerfelt (1984), and later Barney (1991), amongst others, combined Schumpeter’s
theory with evolutionary economics, strategic management, and organizational learning (Argyris
& Schon, 1978) theories to develop the resource based view of the firm. The research based
view (RBV) of organizations considered that firms had bundles of resources (‘know how’)
embedded in personnel, and in intellectual property. RBV theory argued that managers should
evaluate these resources for general value, rarity, un-inimitability, and non-substitutability
(Wernerfelt, 1984). For those resources (capabilities, people, patents, etc.) that met these criteria,
organizations should exercise extreme care to protect them because they were directly linked to
the long-term success of the firm (from a performance perspective) (Porter, 1980). RBV theorists
essentially attempted to explain how firms could sustain competitive advantages based on these
resource bundles and how well these resource bundles were used (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993).
This dissertation made a clear distinction between resources and capabilities since the creation
and implementation of dynamic capabilities were fundamental to answering the dissertation’s
research question.
28
Dynamic Capabilities theory was considered by many researchers to be a derivational
concept from the RBV of organizations (Teece,et. al, 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Some
(Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009) suggested that DCs essentially provided a dynamic RBV
construct (where mere RBV is a static construct). DCs have been studied from several research
lenses. The most common research lens used was Strategic Management (Ansoff, 1965), the
activity of developing organizational vision and subsequent tactics to realize that vision.
Integrating the organizational vision with senior managerial strategies was another senior
manager activity key to this dissertation, since the research question posed was associated with
how senior managers created and implemented DCs.
This chapter reviews the pertinent literature on DCs through two key theoretical lenses.
Absorptive Capacity Theory, which examined how organizations acquired, accumulated, and
disseminated knowledge, was critical to the research into a firm’s resources and capabilities for
adapting in a changing environment (Grant, 1996). The second key theoretical lens, Resource-
Based Theory (based on RBV), was also a primary theoretical underpinning of dynamic
capabilities (Barney, 1991). Resource-based theory was comprised of a static viewpoint on
competitive advantage that asserted that firms compete based on their rare and inimitable
resources. Maintaining these superior resource bundles helped a firm sustain its competitive
advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984).
As a part of this systematic review of the literature, the research question will be
answered. The research question posed in Chapter 1 was as follows:
What senior management actions (interventions, behaviors) facilitate the creation and
implementation of DCs within organizations?
29
The dissertation also further examined the research propositions from Chapter 1 in light
of the research presented in Chapter 2. In essence, DCs were explored in this dissertation as
systematic change strategies that could create and sustain competitive advantages for
organizations. The mechanisms by which managers enacted these DCs were extensively
examined from the extant research as well.
Substantive Organizational Capabilities versus Dynamic Capabilities
At the nexus of this literature review of DCs was the concept of organizational
capabilities (OCs) that keep the firm relevant and competitive in changing environments. The
scholarly research reviewed for this dissertation found numerous references on OCs and how
these might affect the competitive advantages of firms. Thus, OCs were organization-specific
competencies that provided competitive advantage through their uniqueness. The creation of
OCs ensured that employee activities and management efforts were directed toward achieving
the firm’s overarching organizational goals and strategies (Winter, 2003).
The concept of positive outcomes (e.g., competitive advantage, purposeful change, profit)
is addressed throughout Chapter 2. In the case of the most commonly studied positive outcome,
competitive advantage, the scholarly literature seemed to group competitive advantages into
three categories: economic, strategic, and technological. Economic advantages referred to the
ability of a firm to produce a good or service at lower cost than competitors (Ulrick & Lake,
1991). Strategic or marketing advantages (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000) referred to a firm’s ability
to develop/improve products or goods that differentiated a firm from its competitors, typically by
“adding-value” or via “product-portfolio mix.” Finally, a technological competitive advantage
suggested that a firm’s products or services that customers received were innovative, high-
30
quality, or state-of-the art, usually in how they were built or perceived (Wu, Meynyk, & Flynn,
2010).
Dynamic capabilities (DCs), in contrast to OCs, were thought to be higher-level, ‘meta-
OCs’ that were capable of being integrated, transferred, or reconfigured at a rate that allowed
firms to address, or even shape, quickly morphing market environments (Teece, 2012). This
potential construct, according to many (Teece, et al., 2007; Helfat, et al., 2007), made DCs more
suitable for enabling firms to create purposeful, positive outcomes.
The following sections of Chapter 2 elaborate on the linkage between OCs and DCs.
First, the theoretical underpinnings proposed in this dissertation (Resource Based Theory,
Absorptive Capacity Theory) are characterized. Next, the theoretical constructs are woven into
the relevant literature associated with OCs and DCs, and the link between the two is reviewed. A
discussion is then developed on the specific types of DCs found in the literature including
communication of senior management’s vision, organizational ambidexterity, and organizational
agility. The discussion then details how managers used these DCs to create or maintain
competitive advantages in rapidly changing environments.
The Theoretical Underpinnings of DCs as Management Mechanisms
The theory behind DCs has been developed from many research lenses. The main lenses
in this dissertation, however, stemmed from two main theoretical constructs: Absorptive
Capacity Theory and Resource-Based Theory.
31
Absorptive Capacity Theory and DCs
Routines and capabilities are the building blocks of DCs. Orchestration of these entities,
by definition (Baretto, 2010), required a fluid use of knowledge (usable information). Absorptive
Capacity Theory (ACT) argued that organizations were social institutions that utilized and
stockpiled knowledge, competencies, and other capabilities that were critical to the firm’s
survival and success (Nelson & Winter, 1982). Nelson and Winter (1982) developed a theoretical
framework based on the how and why firms change based on observations from biology and
sociology. For the business context of technology innovation and the dynamics of competition
among companies, they argued that earlier neo-classical economics did not apply (i.e., concepts
of profit maximization and market equilibrium). They asserted that a sociological process of
‘natural selection’ occurred based on the behavior of the firm where more profitable companies
pushed less profitable ones out of business. There was no automatic equilibrium status in the
market. Organizations must actively learn and disseminate information to inform what changes
in behavior were necessary to maintain success. Firms must continuously innovate to sustain
competitive advantages (Nelson & Winter, 1982). In later years, several scholars proposed that
ACT emphasized the need for the firm to possess superior coordination (Kogut & Zander, 1992)
and integration of learning by the workforce within the organization (Grant 1996b) in order to
achieve sustained competitive advantages.
Routines and OCs are heavily linked to knowledge transformation at the firm level.
Research rooted in the ACT pushed further into firm dynamics and suggested that firm success
was dependent upon the management and storage of knowledge. Some scholars argued, for
instance, that organizations that discovered, absorbed, and then exploited knowledge from their
environments (external and internal), would perform better than those organizations that were
32
unable to protect or properly manage knowledge (Martin-de-Castro, López-Sáez, & Delgado-
Verde, 2011).
According to some scholars (Hakanson, 2010), the coordination and integration of
knowledge elements were key to the development of OCs and DCs. Hakanson (2010) proposed
this theory from a qualitative, theoretical (non-empirical) discussion. As previously mentioned,
OCs are unique and difficult to imitate by outside competing firms.
This ‘knowledge transformation’ process is directly related to Absorptive Capacity
Theory. Some theorists (Murovec & Prodan, 2009) suggested that ACT also drew upon the
knowledge transformation and organizational learning literature. Organizational learning
capabilities involved the development of the capacity to assimilate extant knowledge, while
problem-solving skills represented a capacity to create new knowledge. The two activities were
not treated differently in the literature (Lichtenthaler, 2009). Therefore creative capacity and
absorptive capacity are similar. This was a key realization because it connected creative and
absorptive capacities with ACT.
ACT examined how organizations recognize and evaluate the value of new external
information, integrating it, and applying it toward the objectives of the organization (Cohen &
Levinthal, 1990). Cohen and Levinthal (1990) came to this realization from their empirical
research on ACT where they randomly surveyed individuals from 1719 businesses from 318
firms and 151 lines of business in U.S. manufacturing. The authors attempted to determine how
effectively organizations recognized valuable information, and then subsequently assimilated
that knowledge into their business model. The authors focused exclusively on R&D business
units and used a 7-point Likert scale survey to evaluate the relevance of external sources of
33
knowledge to the technological progress in a business line. The key inferential statistics used to
draw conclusions were correlation and linear regression. The authors found that firms that have
the ability to absorb information from external sources would have a competitive advantage over
others that did not. Specifically, the authors determined that the organizational internal
environment (organizational structure, culture) directly affected a firm’s ‘decision calculus’.
Furthermore, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) found evidence that supported that the absorption
capacity is moderated by the amount and various types of knowledge existing within a firm.
The central assumption around ACT is that absorbing new knowledge can help a firm
become more innovative in its activities. ACT is a fundamental building block theory for
subsequent research involving DCs. Supportive evidence of this position included research
from Murovec and Prodan (2009), where the authors conducted a primary research effort using
data from 2422 Spanish companies and 641 Czech companies. The empirical analysis from
these firms was based on the responses to Spanish and the Czech Republic's third Community
Innovation Survey (CIS3). The choice of the countries was dictated by the authors’ access to
data. The initial survey generated a total of 8024 responses from Spanish manufacturing firms
and from a total of 3300 manufacturing firms that responded to the Czech Republic's survey. The
net number of surveys used was based on reviewing the completeness of responses from
companies that were actively engaged in innovation practices that were either successful or
unsuccessful. The final data set was determined to be valid and reliable based on statistical
testing (exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha). To draw conclusions, the authors
used a series of inferential statistics including regression modeling (exploratory and confirmatory
models), and the authors determined that ACT was characterized by two main activities: science
push and demand pull. Science push referred to using external knowledge to take advantage of a
34
new market, while demand pull activities referred to environmental demands that required the
organization to adapt its practices. Furthermore, the authors concluded that ACT was
fundamentally tied to how organizations took in information from their environment to address
new opportunities and adapt to market turbulence. The DCs literature referred to this activity
often (Teece, et al., 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2012) as a means of sensing the
environment to inform the assessment of a firm’s resource base.
The ACT literature suggested that knowledge from the environment could be obtained
from at least four sources. The firm could create and absorb knowledge from its own research
and development efforts. The firm could also derive knowledge from its own operational (or
manufacturing based) activities. The firm could procure knowledge (e.g., patents, technology)
from outside sources or other firms. Finally, knowledge could be obtained from sensing the
market (customers or other outside sources). Notably, in order for a firm to even recognize,
integrate, and use knowledge derived from any of the four sources, organizations much have had
an existing base of knowledge that was similar to the new knowledge being assimilated (Zahra &
George, 2002). In addition, Zahra and George extended the ACT originally proposed by Cohen
and Levinthal (1990), mentioned above, in several ways. In their literature review on ACT,
Zahra and George developed several cogent conclusions from the extant ACT research circa
2002. They analyzed eleven empirical studies for antecedents, moderators and outcomes of
absorptive capacity. The authors provided no explicit criteria for the selected articles used;
however, the authors stated that they pursued scholarly theoretical and empirical studies that
focused on ACT and studies that examined the effects of ACT at different levels (e.g.,
individual, group, organizational). They concluded that ACT had four salient dimensions for data
dissemination: acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and exploitation (Zahra & George,
35
2002). Zahra and George were also one of the first sets of researchers to draw a connection
between ACT and DCs.
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) also argued similarly that most innovations result from
borrowing and absorbing information. Prior knowledge actually gives firms the ability to acquire
new information. Zahra and George purported that they extended the ACT proposed by Cohen
and Levinthal with the introduction of the concept of potential absorptive capacity (the process
of acquiring and assimilating knowledge) in addition to ‘realized’ absorptive capacity
(transforming and exploiting), which was supported earlier by Cohen and Levinthal. Zahra and
George (2002) actually distinguished between the two concepts and asserted that both were
needed for long-term organizational success based on their evaluation and synthesis of the
scholarly literature.
Some theorists argued that senior managers helped transfer information across the
boundaries within organizations. Multiple senior managers with a shared vision were found to be
needed in turbulent environments to facilitate the increased organizational receptivity of new
ideas (Murovec & Prodan, 2009). And, as mentioned earlier, Murovec and Prodan (2009)
developed a theory that there were actually two kinds of absorptive capacity: market demand
(pull) and technology change (push).
Market demand referred to the knowledge acquired from customers, competition, and
supply chains (Zahra & George, 2002). The firm was therefore ‘pulled’ into this understanding
of this type of knowledge because it was market driven. Technology change was the knowledge
acquired by research and development efforts. Technology acquired through this activity could
be used to ‘push’ the market in a direction advantageous to a particular firm. Both kinds of
36
absorptive capacities could be used in a coordinated way to create a sustained competitive
advantage (Murovec & Prodan, 2009). These components of research all built upon the DCs
research which later prescribed specific behaviors as to how firms could utilize ACT.
In more recent research, DCs and ACT have indeed been closely tied. Roberts, Galluch,
Dinger, and Grover (2012), for instance, expanded the definition of absorptive capacity to denote
a substantive capability that encompassed routines and processes that enabled firms to identify,
assimilate, and even apply external knowledge. This operational definition suggested that
absorptive capacity was not merely an organizational asset, but also a potential organizational
capability. There were several authors who supported this contention (Lane, Koka, & Pathak,
2006; Lichtenthaler, 2009). Lane, et al. (2006) conducted a detailed analysis of 289 scholarly
articles on absorptive capacity in order to evaluate how the construct was being operationalized
in the literature. With the purpose of reviewing how previous research papers had defined
absorptive capacity and operationalized it, these authors systematically sampled a significant
number and wide range of studies and coded the constructs, citation patterns and themes. Their
specific inclusion criteria were not formally stated, however, Lane, et al. (2006) did state that
they examined the selected studies by coding how ACT was used as a construct and
systematically analyzed the themes that related to the constructs.
As a result, Lane, et al (2006) tried to reify the concept of ACT by proposing an
expanded definition for absorptive capacity as the organizational ability to utilize outside
knowledge through successive processes of exploratory, transformative, and exploitative
learning. This definition of ACT gained some popularity amongst scholars (Teece, 2007;
Todorova & Durisin, 2007) and later, Lichtenthaler (2009) developed an empirically proven
37
model for absorptive capacity which suggested that all three learning methods were required for
a firm to sustain competitive advantages. This conclusion seemed to tie the absorptive capacity
discussion directly in support of the scholarly discussion on DCs theory (Teece, 2012; Peng, et
al., 2008).
ACT, in summary, argued that organizations are unable to be truly effective if they did
not have mechanisms to effectively acquire and use knowledge (organizational learning) to
create advantages. Organizational learning was a prominent strategy for DCs theorists (Peng, et
al., 2008) and was a significant theoretical underpinning for DCs theory.
Resource-Based Theory and DCs
Resource –Based Theory (RBT) was another foundational theory directly related to
research on DCs, and to this dissertation. RBT examined the performance difference between
firms, based primarily on their resources (Wernerfelt, 1984). At the core of RBT were resources
which were defined in the literature as anything that could be viewed as a firm strength or
advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984). The goal of the theory was to effectively compete against other
firms on the basis of their resources (Wernerfelt, 1984). Wernerfelt developed this thesis as a
build-on theoretical analysis of the work of Oliver Williamson (transaction cost theory)
(Williamson, 2010) and Richard Caves (corporate strategy and structure) (Caves, 1980). RBT
focused on the macro-scale of the firm (enterprise or business level) and attempted to describe
the performance differences between firms in the same industry with different resources. In
terms of financial analysis, the RBT theorists claimed that effective, efficient firms had lower
costs and could create greater value and net benefits compared to inefficient firms (Barney,
1991). Barney (1991) proposed that RBT had two central assumptions: (1) firms within a
38
particular industry might differ in resources, and (2) these resources were not easily duplicated
by other firms (so differences between organizations lasted a long time).
RBT scholars sought to explain how organizations sustained unique positions in
competitive environments (Hoopes, Madsen, & Walker, 2003). Organizations essentially
competed in their subject markets based on their resources and capabilities (Wernerfelt, 1984).
Arguably, competitors in similar markets had similar products and capabilities (Barney, 1991) to
offer the customers. The crux of RBT hinged on the assumption that decisions to manage these
resources and capabilities were made based on rational economics, certain biases or prejudices,
and limited information or view of the future market state (uncertainty) (Williamson, 2010). This
uncertainty meant that it was not precisely known if a particular resource would produce
significant value or performance for a firm. Therefore, managers had to deeply consider which
resources they chose to create or bring into their firm (Williamson, 2010).
Scholars described resources as both tangible and intangible; however, both types of
resources were semi-permanently tied to the firm (Barney, 1991). Barney (1991) is credited with
developing an early theory on the resource based view of the firm. In his analysis of the extant
literature, Barney proposed that there were four empirically proven indicators of how resources
are viewed: rareness of the resource, imitability of the resource, substitutability of the resource,
and value of the resource. Examples of these types of resources would include brand name
(value), specialized employee skill or knowledge (imitability), efficient procedures
(substitutability), and unique technology (rareness, imitability). Notably, resources and
capabilities were initially linked in RBT research; however, in recent literature (Peteraf &
Barney, 2003) the two were treated separately. The separation of the two concepts (resources
39
and capabilities) can be directly tied to the research by Peng, Schroeder, and Shah (2008). Over
time, the distinction between the two concepts became clearer.
In earlier theoretical discussions, resources had been grouped and integrated into
capabilities but capabilities have been viewed in a broader sense in modern literature (Peng, et
al., 2008). Peng, et al. (2008) assembled data for their empirical analysis from an existing
project on high performance manufacturing firms that examined administrative practices/routines
and their performance impact. This project collected data in 2005 from 189 manufacturing plants
from six countries: the United States, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan, and Korea. These
countries were targeted to represent a broad spectrum within the industrialized world. These
plants were randomly chosen, from ReferenceUSA, an online business database. All plants had
250 or more people in order to ensure that a sufficient number of managers could be surveyed. A
65% response rate was observed and confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the model fit,
reliability, and validity. Peng, et al. (2008) contended that the primary contribution of their
research revealed that capabilities were bundles of active resources (or routines). Furthermore,
the results of this research also suggested that resource routine bundles were related to
operational performance and that senior managers should develop consistent patterns of
decision-making which assembled routines into new capabilities over time, which subsequently
created competitive advantage. Peng, et al. (2008) appeared to emphasize the value of firms
scanning and understanding the changes in the market so that the firm’s capabilities could be
modified in a timely manner to address these changes. The authors denoted that sensing, pattern
recognition, and shared vision enabled a firm to reconfigure its resource base.
40
In summary, resources were viewed as valuable, difficult to substitute, and rare. Firms
must be able to absorb, integrate, and leverage resources to sustain competitive advantages
(Barney & Clark, 2007). RBT, therefore, was a lens through which senior managers could view
their own organizations and their competitors. Senior managers were in a position to leverage
their resources and relationships to create superior benefits to the firm. The literature cited above
suggests that resources were building blocks for organizational capabilities where capabilities
were naturally the building blocks for DCs. RBT was therefore one important lens through
which subsequent DCs research might be developed.
The Constructs of DCs: Bundles of Routines and Organizational Capabilities
Routines: The Building Blocks for Organizational Capabilities
In reviewing the literature for this dissertation, it was found that the majority of the
theories studied stemmed from the analysis of a firm’s routines (Teece, 1997) or patterns of
activities (e.g., the way things are done). Much of the scholarly literature pertaining to strategic
management and operations management was devoted to examining, through various contexts,
how integrating routines could develop OCs that, in turn, created competitive advantages. The
literature also presented several, more detailed definitions for organizational routines; for
instance, strategic management theorists proposed that routines were standard, predictable
activities performed by individuals in the firm (Teece, 1997). Operations management scholars
suggested a definition of patterned behavior that was moderated by either internally initiated
change or external market stimuli (Zott, 2003).
41
Operational routines were described as activities that supported the current business
model (e.g., an organization’s revenue, profit requirements). These routines were considered to
be utilized to gain static competencies (Collis, 1994), and by nature did not vary greatly over
time. The exploratory routines referred to workforce (managers and employees) behavior
patterns that sought to change the current set of operating routines (Zollo & Winter, 2002) or
create new ones (Collis, 1994 ). Collis (1994) and Zollo and Winter (2002) both provided
theoretical platforms that contributed to DCs Theory, discussed later in this chapter.
The scholarly literature also discussed how collections of specific operational or
exploratory routines became organizational capabilities (Zott, 2003). A series of resources and
routines provided a source of capabilities for firms to create a value strategy and thus were
critical to organizational capability development (Grant, 1991). Grant’s work on routines within
the context of resource based theory was one of the early theories on how to effectively bundle
routines for successful organizational outcomes. Grant (1991) developed a concept paper
comprised of many illustrative examples from existing firms of how important it was for senior
managers to assess the value of their resources and capabilities. Essentially, Grant proffered that
senior managers should attempt to match an organization’s internal resources and skills with the
opportunities and risks created by its external environment. The selection of routines combined
with each other to create valuable capabilities, was seen as the primary role in a firm’s strategy.
The scholars listed in the above paragraphs made significant contributions to the subject
of routines development within firms. More recent theorists empirically explored the construct
of organizational routines through various theoretical lenses and extended the understanding of
how groupings of routines led to organizational capabilities.
42
Organizational Capabilities: Building Blocks for DCs
Originally used by Ansoff (1977), as a means of describing an organization’s ability to
competitively perform a task, the term ‘organizational capability’ has been expanded in the
modern scholarly literature to have a variety of definitions. Three major streams of literature
existed as of the writing of this dissertation. One set of scholars viewed OCs from a human
resource point of view (Ulrick & Lake, 1991; Winter, 2000; Stebbings & Braganza, 2009).
Another set of broad definitions was derived from an operations management perspective (Wu &
Melnyk & Fynn, 2010; Swink & Hegarty, 1998). A third viewpoint of OCs was developed by
scholars in strategic management (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011;
Taneja, Pryor, Humphreys, & Singleton, 2013).
OCs and Human Resources
The success of the OC depended critically on the connection between the workforce and
the customer; therefore, the workforce and the management must influence the organization to
create specific capabilities which would create sustainable competitiveness. Some human
resource scholarship defined an OC as a manager’s proficiency in cultivating the desirable
behaviors from the workforce that enabled a stable customer advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984).
Ulrick and Lake (1991), determined from a two company (>10,000 employees) case
study which examined firm performance versus human resource management practices, that
senior manager activities have a significant impact on OCs. Accumulating data from annual
reports and business databases, the authors reviewed the longitudinal histories of two large firms:
Marriott Corporation and Borg-Warner. These firms were not selected randomly, but used as
example case studies of how senior managers navigated through human resource issues and
43
organizational capabilities. It was deemed by the authors that these two firms were good
examples for the study of OCs development. The researchers determined that when senior
managers were able to shape the mindset of the workforce, OCs were better sustained and even
new OCs were created in change environments. Therefore, Ulrick and Lake (1991) argued that
an OC focused on achieving goals through employee commitment and competence. According to
the scholars who subscribed to this viewpoint, the establishment or sustainment of an OC
required that the workforce create competencies both through its understanding of customers’
needs and through testing the market with new products or services.
The human resource scholars also suggested that OCs were almost cultural in nature and
required carefully coordinated management and workforce behaviors (Barney, 1986). For
instance, Wu, Melynk, and Flynn (2010) performed a quantitative analysis using the survey
methodology with a national U.S. residential home manufacturer and an operations management
consultant firm. A randomized sample of 2850 mangers was surveyed using a questionnaire.
The usable response sample was 222 (7% response rate). A confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)
was used to verify construct and unidimensional validity. Reliability was verified through
Cronbach’s alpha. A chi-squared analysis was used to develop a model between OCs and
performance outcomes. The results were interesting because senior managers found it difficult
to detect OCs within their respective organizations because they were embedded in them. The
authors therefore determined that it also was challenging for senior managers to determine what
operational practices might yield the most valuable OCs. Many OCs were found to be closely
tied to the firm’s culture (a firm’s system of problem solving) and were hard to change. This
study highlighted the human element side of OCs creation and development, and opened the
discussion potentially as to why DCs creation is so important for firm survival. The authors
44
determined that a shared vision from senior management enabled firms to better orchestrate the
workforce to adapt to market change.
To establish a sustained competitive advantage through the creation of OCs, the human
resource scholars suggested that OCs should either (1) add perceived value for the customers, or
(2) offer a distinction or uniqueness that was difficult to imitate by others (Winter, 2003). Winter
arrived at this conclusion based on a theoretical analysis of the extant literature. In the same
analysis, Winter (2003) posited that OCs could enhance or even create perceived customer value
by offering responsiveness (reacting more quickly), creating relational value, and enduring
connections (between customers and employees) or quality of service (exceeding the customer’s
expectations).
OCs, as suggested above, can enhance or create uniqueness for firms by establishing
behaviors that are hard to imitate. Imitation requires that the workforce change the way it thinks,
actualizes, and interacts (Peng, et.al, 2008; Wu, et al., 2010). Thus, the development of social
constructs through culture, leadership practices, and teamwork was in many cases not easily
replicated (or even well understood).
As cited in the literature, social behaviors that are hard to imitate include the following
(Vickery, et al., 1993): shared mindset, innovative management practices, capacity to change
through situational awareness, and leadership (at all levels of the organizations). A common
mindset required an organization-wide understanding of the firm’s goals for the means
(processes, activities) and the ends (strategy). The literature also implied that there needed to be
some commonality and congruence between customer expectations and workforce functions
(Kong, 2010). Kong (2010) developed his theory from random interviews of senior managers
45
from 60 different firms, around 2007. The firms were divided 60/40 between profit and non-
profit and the results of the interview data through qualitative analysis revealed that human
resource management practices strongly moderated OCs and firm performance success. Vickery
et al. (1993) derived their conclusions through an empirical study of 65 firms in the U.S.
furniture retail industry in 1990. Using a questionnaire for senior managers and a subsequent chi-
square statistical analysis, the authors were able to develop positive linkages between workforce
mindset and firm performance. Kong contended that shared vision enabled firms to review and
optimize their capabilities.
OCs and the Operations Management View
The literature that subscribed to the operational view of OCs described it as
organizational bundles of ‘routines’ or patterns of operationalized behavior. Some authors
suggested that organizational routines were not merely stable patterns of behaviors in response to
internal or external stimuli, but instead were part of the experienced based understanding of the
organization. For instance, Peng, et al. (2008) and Wu, et al. (2010) (mentioned above)
empirically discovered that OCs were closely correlated to both firm improvement and
innovation through the process of learning from experience.
The operational view of OCs also recognized their important role as carriers of
knowledge accumulation and residuals of problem solving processes. Mithas, Ramasubbu, and
Sambamurthy (2011) studied 77 IT firms (worldwide) in 2010 using archival data from a well-
known database that used Baldridge data. The Baldridge criteria measured organizational
performance in four areas: customer, financial, human resources, and organizational
effectiveness. The authors generated several regression models to determine the relationship
46
between information management capability and organizational outcomes. The authors
concluded that information management organizational routines properly used could develop
valuable OCs in customer management, process management, and product development. The
management implication made by Mithas, et al. was that management of this capability was a
critical element for firm success because it positively linked the firm to customer behavior,
market trends, and customer satisfaction. Mithas, et al.’s results suggested that firms might
positively react to environmental changes if the sensing efforts could inform senior managers on
what innovations to pursue given their existing capabilities’ base.
Several of the management operations researchers have further theorized that OCs were
indeed reservoirs of organizational memory (Argote & Ingram, 2000), or actionable wisdom that
was derived from an organization’s experience (Nelson and Winter, 1982). To the operations
management scholar, OCs were often learned from experience and maintained longevity because
they were regularly put into practice (Marcus and Naveh, 2005). Marcus and Naveh performed a
study in 2004 also using archival data from the Baldridge database for 50 companies in the U.S.
(various industries) that linked experiential learning and sustained OCs. The firms were selected
at random and the basis of the data was how each firm implemented ISO 9000. Through the data
collection effort, the authors made observations “about rules and learning and about rule
integration, absorption, and renewal (p.106).” Several regression models were developed and the
authors concluded that the role capabilities, such as learning mechanisms (e.g., ISO 9000),
significantly improved product quality. They also found that senior managers could implement
rule based, structured mechanisms that helped OCs be created and modified.
The discussion up to this juncture showed OCs to be typically rule based and static from
one iteration to another (Feldman, 2000). OCs were described as what firms could achieve as
47
groupings of resources working together (Teece, et al., 2007). Thus, it was the repertoire of OCs
that provided the organization the means to implement value creation that was critically linked to
capability building (Grant, 1991).
Different from the human resource scholarship, the operations management literature
focused on the linkage between operational performance and organizational strategy (Vickery et
al., 1993). Vickery et al. (1993) were able to show this linkage in their empirical analysis of IT
firms, mentioned above, where a positive correlation was shown between business strategy and
firm outcomes.
Another aspect of the operations management literature was related to competitive
capabilities which were characterized as realized competitive aptitudes or strengths relative to
the competition (Rosenzweig & Roth, 2004). The dimensional focus with competitive
capabilities is thought to be in conformance with product/service quality, cost, delivery
accuracy/reliability, and volume flexibility. Rosenzweig and Roth (2004) performed an empirical
study of 81 manufacturing firms with a multi-national presence and linked OCs to manufacturing
flexibility and consistency for sustaining competitive advantage. Using the survey method (with
senior managers), the authors endeavored to better understand the relationship between
organizational capabilities and outcomes. The authors used both descriptive and inferential
statistics (correlation, regression, Chi-square analysis) to draw conclusions which included a
positive and causal relationship between effective, iterative bundling of capabilities to facilitate
successful organizational outcomes. For instance, these authors posited that companies such as
FedEx and McDonalds derived their competitive advantage from utilizing OCs that sustained
flexibility and consistency. Customers relied on FedEx to deliver packages on-schedule, damage
48
free, at an affordable cost. McDonalds, similarly, provided a level of consistency in its food
products and could adjust easily to different customer volumes almost instantaneously. The
implications of this research suggested that senior managers should devote time to pursuing
tactical and strategic ventures that might benefit the competitive advantage of the firm. Also,
this research implied that senior managers should consider the existing base of firm capabilities
and determine if changes needed to be made to compete in the future.
Studying another industry, Ferdows and DeMeyer (1990) demonstrated in their case
study research on high volume manufacturers that cumulative capabilities are those bundled
organizational routines that improve multiple dimensions of manufacturing performance
simultaneously. Using data from a pre-existing 1988 European Manufacturing Futures Survey,
the authors randomly selected 167 respondents to test and illustrate their proposed model which
contended that the nature of modifying manufacturing capabilities was more complex than had
been assumed. They argued that integrating new routines on the manufacturing flow did not have
to have a trade-off effect. The effects of combining the knowledge of the existing practice and
the new practice might become cumulative (i.e., bundled). These authors developed a model by
which routines could be bundled to have a more prominent, long lasting effect on the firm. These
integrations of routines enabled competitive advantages for the firms studied.
Other scholars examined both the improvement and extended high performance of
multiple manufacturing dimensions. Flynn and Flynn (2004), in their empirical research on
manufacturing companies in the U.S., discovered the following cumulative capabilities: speed of
new product introduction, product mix flexibility, and low unit manufacturing cost. Flynn and
Flynn used multiple regression analysis to test hypotheses using an existing data set of corporate
data found in public records from 165 manufacturing facilities in five different countries and
49
three industries. Their findings indicated that there were substantial differences in developing
cumulative organizational capabilities and that some were path dependent (on what previous
decisions the firms had made on resources) and highly contextual. In general, cumulative
capabilities were found to be related to organizational performance, with no difference in this
relationship by industry. Support for sequential progression of cumulative capabilities was not
evident, leading to the notion that the development of cumulative capabilities was a complex
endeavor, affected by many interrelated contingencies, not limited to the sequence of
development. A practical example given of this phenomenon was Dell Computers which
leveraged this type of capability to launch its company into competition with the then extant
computer manufacturers (such as IBM, HP, and Compaq). Dell mastered its supply chain
integration using a myriad of techniques (not just one) to rapidly produce customized computers
tailored to a variety of customer types.
Production competence is another operational capability that is a measure of a firm’s
ability to produce products or services. The operations management literature viewed this
capability as a measure of the combined effects of the strengths and weaknesses of its ability to
produce goods and services. It included an umbrella of typical manufacturing capabilities
including flexible supply chain, product reliability, delivery dependability, product lead time, etc.
(Vickery, et al., 1994). Some scholars suggested that production competence was the degree to
which manufacturing performance met the strategic priorities of the organization (Vickery, et al.,
1993).
In summary, the operations view of OCs was that OCs were bundles of routines that
could be leveraged by firms to create or sustain competitive advantages. Operational capabilities
50
could range from strategic to tactical. Experiential learning was a consistent theme from the
operational theorists in explaining how organizations could be successful.
OCs and the Strategic Management View
Some of the literature reviewed for this dissertation linked OCs to strategic management
in terms of a firm’s long term resource allocation plan (Teece, et al., 1997). Within this context,
OCs were considered anything a firm did well that also drove positive business outcomes (Swink
& Hegarty, 1998; Kuo, 2011). The strategic management scholars appeared to group OCs into
two broad categories: (1) abilities to perform the essential functional activities of the
organization (Teece, et al., 1997; Newbert, 2007) and (2) abilities that guide improvement or
renewal of the existing activities (Peng, et. al, 2008; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). The literature
reviewed in this dissertation suggested that OCs were representations of multiple resources that
enabled a firm to sustain a competitive advantage (Nelson & Winter, 1982). OCs had been
studied from the strategic management and operational management perspectives. This dual lens
perspective offered a concept of OCs that was both exploitative (tactical) and exploratory
(strategic) (March, 1991) and is important because organizations faced increased competition
within their environments. The ability to incrementally improve existing products and processes
was seen as extremely important. Apple, Inc., for instance emerged as a dominant player in the
computer and mobile communication arenas because it continually made incremental
improvements to its products. These activities outpaced the competition and kept Apple as the
market leader (Tariq, Ishrat, & Khan, 2011).
Based on the theoretical works cited above, Rosenzwig, Roth, and Dean (2003)
performed a study on manufacturing based capabilities and their effect on the supply chain of
51
firms that served the consumer products sector. The authors examined how supply chain
integration and various competitive capabilities (product quality, cost leadership, delivery
reliability, etc.) moderated firm performance. Using the Vision in Manufacturing Project
database, an industry-academic project venture conducted twice per year by Deloitte Consulting
and the University of North Carolina, these authors developed a sample of public companies
from 35 countries (on the continents of North America, Europe, and Asia). After the companies
were selected, the names of the manufacturing directors and Vice Presidents were obtained from
the Gallup Organization, a well-known U.S. based survey research organization. The overall
randomized sample size was 238 with a broad spectrum of firms that varied from ‘made to stock’
products (40%), to ‘assembled to order’ products (14%). Company sizes in the sample in terms
of number of employees ranged from 100 to over 10,000 people. Gross revenues for the sample
firms spanned from $50M to over $20B. The authors avoided single-respondent bias by
prescreening candidates to ensure they were versed on the manufacturing aspects of their firms.
Using multiple, hierarchical regression models, the authors were able to conclude that supply
chain integration choices were important to the firm’s performance. More specifically, close
cross-functional coordination was required between the firm and its suppliers to effectively
determine what investments were needed to build integrative competences that enabled sustained
competitive advantages. Without the strategic view, the firm’s partners would experience
significant differences in objectives and metrics. This research was significant to this dissertation
because it clearly delineated what senior manager behaviors are required in order to foster
sustained competitive advantages. It also foreshadowed the connection between OCs and the
potential need for DCs to modify the strategy when the market changes.
52
There are studies that showed that the strategies employed by firms could be systematic
and repeatable in nature (e.g., not ad-hoc). For instance, Paiolaa, Saccanib, Peronab, and
Gebauer (2013) produced a mixed method qualitative study from 20 exploratory interviews and
four (4) in-depth case studies. The sample was non-randomly selected and was conducted
between 2006 and 2010. The authors triangulated data from interviews, annual reports, and
company documentation to ensure their data were credible. Dependability was addressed by
accounting in detail for the choices made and methods used in the research process. Firms with
similar attributes such as size and types of goods sold were selected. The exploratory study of
the 20 sample firms was executed first and then was followed by the main study, which was
comprised of four in-depth case studies. The number of in-depth cases was selected based on the
patterns observed in the initial exploratory study. Prior to the battery of interviews, a general set
of information about each firm was collected from company literature (including websites, press
articles, annual reports). The semi-structured interviews were then conducted with selected
senior managers in marketing, sales, and after-sales business units. In aggregate, 23 senior
managers were interviewed with a range of 3 to 9 interviews for each firm. The authors asked
which triggers and motivating factors were the most important when deciding on the internal
and/or external development of capabilities. Conclusions were assembled by reviewing the
interview transcripts along with organizational charts, and other secondary data (press releases,
etc.). The findings revealed that companies adopted a multi-method approach to capability
development. Senior management chose strategies to develop the various types of OCs. What
was significant from these results was that OCs’ development was actually performed through
exploiting both internal and external resources (such as alliances and partners). Furthermore,
53
there was actually a semi-structured process sponsored by senior managers by which the OCs
were configured.
To summarize the findings of the strategic management view of OCs, the extant research
proposed that OCs had the following attributes: (1) they were mostly static in nature, (2) they
were organization specific, (3) they were influenced by a firm’s history and management
decision philosophy, (4) and, they were validated by their application to dynamic changes in the
environment.
To this point in the dissertation, the definition of OCs has been reviewed through three
major streams of scholarly literature. The human resource theorists suggested that OCs were
primarily people driven routines that enabled an organization’s objectives (Ulrick & Lake, 1991).
The operations management scholars proposed that OCs were realized competitive proficiencies
that provided advantages over a given firm (Peng, et al., 2008). The third stream of literature
arose from the strategic management scholars and asserted that OCs were aggregates of routines
that were firm specific which enabled enhanced problem solving in changing environments.
The Advent of Dynamic Capabilities: An Evolution of Definitions
As the competitive landscape changed for firms, OCs had to be modified to mitigate
competitive threats from other firms. Intense competition was forcing companies to introduce
exploratory routines. Drawing on the organizational routine literature discussed earlier,
exploratory routines were defined as behaviors or procedures that brought about desired changes
to the existing operational routines or that developed new ones (Collis, 1994). Scholars, such as
Teece, et al. (1997), suggested that integrated exploratory routines were indeed the rudiments of
dynamic capabilities (DCs). Some scholars also theorized that DCs were unique integrations of
54
certain OCs (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Similar to OCs, DCs were considered to be firm
specific and therefore difficult to imitate by competitors. Research suggested that these
competitive advantages were tied to how well managers executed the interaction between a
firm’s DCs and its operational routines (Helfat & Peteraf, 2009).
However, as with OCs, the context of the environment dictated the magnitude of the
competitive advantage. DCs, similarly to OCs, have been defined in several ways through these
multiple contexts. The definition originally proposed by Teece, et al. (1997, p. 516) referred to
DCs as the ability of an organization “to integrate, build, and reconfigure both internal and
external competencies” to address rapidly changing environments. Through the lens of resource
management, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) proposed that DCs were operational routines by
which managers could change their resource base. Other scholars suggested that DCs were a
firm’s abilities to integrate, create, and reconfigure assets to address rapidly changing
environments (Zott, 2003). Table 2 shows several of the key definitions that have been
developed for DCs since Teece, et al.’s (1997) early proposal.
Table 2: Key Definitions of DCs from Extant Literature
Scholarly Study and Year of
Publication
Author(s) Proposed Definition
Teece, et.al (1997) Firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and
external competences to address rapidly changing
environments (p.516).
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) The firm’s processes that integrate, reconfigure, gain and
release resources to match or even create market change (p.
1107)
Teece (2000) The ability to sense and seize opportunities quickly and
proficiently
Zollo and Winter (2002) A learned and stable pattern of collective activity through
which an organization systematically creates and modifies its
operating routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness
Winter (2003) DCs are meta-capabilities that operate to extend, modify, or
create ordinary capabilities
55
Adner and Helfat (2003) The capabilities with which managers build, integrate, and
reconfigure organizational resources and competences (p.
1012).
Helfat et. al (2007) The capacity of an organization to purposefully create, extend,
or modify its resource base.
Teece (2007) The capacity to (a) sense and shape opportunities and threats;
(b) seize opportunities; and (c) maintain competitiveness
through combining, protecting, and reconfiguring the firm’s
assets
Martin, 2014
As of the writing of this dissertation, there have been five major systematic literature
reviews (Zahra, et al., 2006; Wang & et al., 2007; Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Di Stefano, et
al., 2010; and Barreto, 2010) which have attempted to synthesize consolidated definitions of
DCs. Four of these research efforts (see Table 3) produced synthesized definitions from extant
research. In the view of this dissertation author, these synthesized definitions are important to
this dissertation because they provide a richer, comprehensive (and operational) explanation of
the concept of DCs.
Table 3: Synthesized Definitions from Key Systematic Reviews
Scholarly Study Proposed Definition
Zahra, et.al (2006) The abilities to reconfigure a firm’s resources
and routines in the manner envisioned and
deemed appropriate by its principal decision-
maker(s) (p. 918)
Wang, et al. (2007) A firm’s behavioral orientation to constantly
integrate, reconfigure, renew and recreate its
resources and capabilities, and most
importantly, upgrade and reconstruct its core
capabilities in response to the changing
environment to attain and sustain competitive
advantage (p. 36)
Ambrosini and Bowman (2009) Adopted Helfat, et al.’s (2007) definition as
most appropriate, which is: The capacity of an
organization to purposefully create, extend, or
modify its resource base.
56
Baretto, 2010 The firm’s potential to systematically solve
problems, formed by its propensity to sense
opportunities and threats, to make timely and
market-oriented decisions, and to change its
resource base (p. 271)
Adapted from Cardeal, Abecassis-Moedas; & António, 2014
Criticisms of the DCs Construct
Even though all of these definitions of DCs share some common themes, some scholars
argue that DC theory is not clearly enough defined to derive conclusive assessments. Lack of
reliable measurement is one of the primary arguments against DCs (Di Stefano, et al., 2010).
Using a co-citation bibliographic method, Di Stefano, et al. performed a meta-analysis on 40
published research efforts of DCs and concluded that these research efforts were fragmented and
clearly demonstrated a low-level common understanding of DCs among researchers. The major
segments in the research were comprised of those studies which focused on the foundations and
applications of DCs (roughly 50%). The major thematic area of research was DCs’ relationships
to other theories. Only a minority portion of the research studies examined governance issues of
structure or DCs as transformational processes. The authors performed a bibliographic factor
analysis to statistically present their case.
Another criticism of DC Theory involved the semantics of the name of the concept itself,
‘dynamic capabilities.’ Ambrosini and Bowman (2009) argued in their systematic review of
DCs that researchers had struggled with the term ‘capabilities’ within the concept. According to
the literature, a DC was not a capability in the RBV context (Barney, 1991). Researchers had
described it more as a process that impacted resources and routines for future success (Ambrosini
& Bowman, 2009). Capabilities in this dissertation reflected a present day orientation (short
57
term value to the firm). This potential for confusion, as pointed out by Ambrosini and Bowman
(2009), caused some fragmentation in the DCs literature.
The term ‘dynamic’ also has posed some problems in concept interpretation. Some
researchers asked, ‘what exactly is dynamic?’ Dynamic could have referred to the type of
environment or it may have referred to interaction with the static (substantive) capabilities. A
third interpretation might be that static capabilities just happened to change over time. All of
these interpretations have caused even more confusion in understanding DCs. These varied
interpretations also raised the issue of the validity of the DC concept. This dissertation argues,
based on the literature reviewed, that ‘dynamic’ referred to the change in the resource base and to
the renewal of resources and capabilities, supporting the conclusions about DCs drawn by
Ambrosini and Bowman (2009) and Barreto (2010).
It is suggested that DCs, according to the evidence above, can be attributed to very
specific routines or processes within organizations. With that understanding, this systematic
review of the literature moved to focus on examples of specific DCs that have been found in the
literature.
Three Significant DCs: Senior Manager Mechanisms to Create and Implement DCs
There is a copious amount of scholarly research which explored various aspects of DCs,
including their characteristics, organizational antecedents and outcomes, and their impact on
organizational performance. Within the context of this stream of research, there had been a
significant amount of scholarship dedicated to answering how DCs were created and
implemented. The results from these studies were rich in details on the various roles managers
had performed to achieve purposeful outcomes, such as firm performance, improved innovation,
58
and adaptability. The three main topic areas that dominated the DCs literature from this
standpoint were: Organizational Ambidexterity, Organizational Agility, and Communication of
Senior Management Vision (CoMV). All three capabilities, to a great extent, were both
empirically and theoretically tied to DCs and how they were created and implemented (Wang &
Ahmed, 2007; Teece, 2012). The following discussion identified a number of empirical research
efforts associated with these capabilities and detailed their relevance to the research question in
this dissertation.
Organizational Ambidexterity (OA)
Empirical research on organizational ambidexterity (OA) was substantial and
voluminous. Duncan (1976) was the first scholar to use the term ‘organizational ambidexterity’
as a management metaphor relating to the ability of humans to use both hands with equal
dexterity (Simsek, 2009). Within the context of an organization, OA was the capacity to engage
in two activities which typically had mismatched intents (March, 1991). The extant literature
discussed many of these organizational dualities; however, the most common conflictive activity
considered was that of exploration and exploitation. March (1991) presented one of the most
often cited early conceptual efforts in this arena and proposed that exploitation and exploration
were two firm behaviors which actually divided resources and attention. March (1991, p. 85)
defined exploration as, “experimentation with new alternatives having returns that are uncertain,
distant, and often negative” and exploitation as, “the refinement and extension of existing
competencies, technologies, and paradigms exhibiting returns that are positive, proximate, and
predictable.” Levinthal and March (1993, p. 105) later refined and expanded the definition of
exploration as “the pursuit of knowledge, of things that might come to be known,” and
exploitation as “the use and development of things already known.” The term OA received a
59
broadened context and thus as of the writing of this dissertation referred to the ability of an
organization to ‘balance’ both exploitative and exploratory behaviors to produce positive
outcomes. How this ‘balance’ was achieved was the subject of much of the extant research in
this area (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013).
A significant portion of the OA literature seemed to point out the need for organizations
to exploit existing assets and positions in a profit focused manner while also simultaneously to
reorganize resources to capture new opportunities (Teece, 2007). Early in the development of
OA theory, Duncan (1976) examined organizational designs and discovered that different
structures were required for different stages of the innovation process (i.e., initiation through
implementation). He concluded that there were four senior management activities that
contributed to successful OA creation and implementation: managing conflict, creating intra-
organizational relationships, implementation of switching rules, and firm wide buy-in for dual
structures for innovation. Since the time of Duncan’s theoretical work in 1976, a rich production
of literature has been developed for these conceptual areas.
OA and Managing Conflicts in Resources
As previously discussed, extant research in OA involves understanding how successfully
organizations learn and adapt when they are exploiting current knowledge and capabilities versus
exploring new knowledge and capabilities (March, 1991). An extensive stream of research
suggested that for three reasons these are competing strategies. First, organizational learning
researchers have proposed that exploitation focused strategies tended to stymy the amount of
firm exploration and that exploration focused strategies limited the amount of firm exploitation
(March, 1991). Additionally, the literature showed that exploitation and exploration strategies
60
often competed for limited firm resources and had radically different organizational structures
and cultural underpinnings (Kyriakopoulos & Moorman, 2004).
The scholarly literature offered several empirical studies that confirmed the approach for
dynamic balance between exploitation and exploration. Kyriakopoulos and Moorman (2004),
for instance, performed an empirical study using 78 senior managers having the title Vice
President of Marketing (or equivalent) from Dutch business units from the food packaging
industry. The firms in this study were randomly selected from an initial 340 firm sample from
the Quick BV Business directory, a Dutch based database of businesses. The authors argued that
organizations needed to have a strong market orientation to allow them to better coordinate the
marketing exploitation and exploration strategies needed to fully focus on customer needs. Using
data collected from mail surveys, the authors analyzed data via correlation and linear regression
models, concluding that a market focus promoted complementary activity between exploration
and exploitation. Because the data was collected by single informants (responding for the
activities of an entire company), the authors statistically assessed both internal and external
validity by examining selected correlations for anomalies and adequately determined that the
proposed data set was not significantly biased. The authors concluded that firms that possessed a
strong market orientation, “a unifying belief (and process capability) that emphasizes serving and
creating value for customers (p. 221),” were able to develop a dynamic linking capability that
allowed them to simultaneously pursue exploration and exploitation marketing strategies. This
DC linking capability allowed firms to successfully combine customer goals, firm-wide
processes, and a rapid information flow in order to integrate the two activities. Most importantly
to this dissertation, the authors noted in their conclusions that senior marketing managers were
the source of bringing about these linkages. These senior managers utilized activities such as
61
environmental scanning and sensemaking to assess and reconfigure the base of capabilities of the
firm.
In a separate research effort, Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) interviewed 41 business
units of 10 multinational companies (4,915 survey results from senior managers) to investigate
the background conditions and consequences of contextual ambidexterity. The research question
posed was, “how does a business unit become ambidextrous? (p. 210)” In contrast with
Kyriakopoulos and Moorman (2004), these authors surveyed multiple informants from various
levels to obtain a more diverse data set from which conclusions could be drawn. Using a
stratified random sampling, this research took precautions to avoid ‘same source’ bias by
capturing results from several sources within a business unit. Using correlations and regression
models, the authors found that multiple strategies used simultaneously created higher OA and
better performance in organizations. Most importantly, the authors found a statistically
significant link between market orientation (ability to understand visible and invisible needs of
the customer element) and OA. Thus, a corporate mindset for market orientation was one
characteristic that senior managers could use to foster OA creation and implementation.
There was also a stream of empirical work that began to suggest which contexts were
suitable for OA as a means of managing conflicting resource activities. For instance, He and
Wong (2004) performed a longitudinal study of 206 manufacturing firms in Singapore, China
and Penang, Malaysia, in order to see if joint exploitive and exploratory behavior had an effect
on performance. Firms were selected at random and this study tested how ambidexterity was
achieved within the context of technological innovation by firms. Specifically, He and Wong
(2004) analyzed the exploration versus exploitation approach to determine how firms prioritized
their investment strategy in technological innovation when both explorative and exploitative
62
objectives were present, and where the output variables measured were the sales growth
performance of these firms. He and Wong surveyed senior managers at these facilities and using
both regression modeling and hypothesis testing, the authors concluded that the interaction of
exploration and exploitation positively affected sales growth. They also concluded that senior
managers needed to be aware of the need to continuously balance exploitative activities with
exploratory activities. The authors also suggested that in extreme contexts (such as when one or
both types of activities were pushed to extreme limits), OA might not be effective. For the
purpose of this dissertation, He and Wong (2004) appeared to suggest that managers needed
metrics or qualitative assessment processes to avoid a detrimental imbalance between
exploitation and exploration. This suggested that these authors advocated for senior managers to
use a sensemaking type of process to inform how the firm should expend its resources in terms
of short-term and strategic opportunities.
Franken, Edwards, and Lambert (2009) echoed the work of He and Wong (2004), but
performed a qualitative study on ambidextrous strategy execution using a structured
questionnaire, consisting of 50 questions. The questionnaire received a response from 93
randomly sampled senior managers within several industries including manufacturing,
telecommunications, and retail products in Malaysia (specifically in Singapore and Penang).
Only a subset of the 40 surveys was completed in their entirety. Subsequently, these 40 senior
managers (of the original 93) were organized into focus groups to supply supporting insights.
The authors used a relative influence index (based on a 1 to 100 weighted score) to determine the
influence of managerial behaviors and activities on OA. Franken, et al. found linkages for
several relationships between senior manager interventions and OA creation and implementation
including positive causational linkages with OA and organizational agility (OAg) and between
63
environmental sensing and fluidity in organizing (ease of orchestration of resources). The study
results also suggested that managers could engender a culture of change (and accountability) that
can have positive impacts on creating and implementing OA (and OAg).
Some researchers argued that this balance of competing resources extended to the public
sector as well. Pablo, et al. (2007), for instance, examined how a public sector organization
developed a new strategic approach by the use of OA. The authors developed a qualitative,
mixed-method study comprised of extant data from various research settings, such as annual
reports, website data, detailed government and project reports, evaluator summaries and reports,
and other associated documents regarding project (and product) innovations introduced by the
subject sample population. The authors also assembled and analyzed data from 75 semi-
structured interviews and 45 observed meetings in the context of the Calgary Heath Region
(health care network) in Canada. The authors discovered that the creation of a DC generically
required leaders to search for ‘recognized and culturally appropriate ways (to improve
performance) (p.695).” Implementing DCs required a supportive style of leadership based on
encouragement of and trust in employees. Notably, the authors also considered which
management behaviors supported managing DCs over time and determined that leaders had to
balance individually initiated activities with organizational controls.
A significant portion of the extant research on OA and resource conflict actually explored
specific managerial roles and their impact on performance. For instance, Protogerou,
Caloghirou, and Lioukas (2011) endeavored to assess the impact of DCs on performance. Using
compatible definitions of DCs and OA, the authors randomly surveyed 271 CEOs from Greek
firms with revenues over $4M per year. The study data was obtained from a Greek business
database of firms. Using correlations and the chi-squared statistic, the authors concluded that OA
64
had an indirect impact on organizational performance, but directly contributed to the output of
the firm. One key additional conclusion was that senior managers should alter their OA strategy
based on environmental dynamism (e.g., increased environmental dynamism was determined to
positively affect OA). Scanning the environment (sensing for change) was a key variable in OA
creation and implementation.
OA and Intra-Organizational/Inter-Organizational Relationships
Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004a, 2004b) were early scholars to suggest that interpersonal
interactions were important for organizations in order to create higher levels of OA.
Subsequently, scholarly literature has devoted some focus on the value and merits of
organizations fortifying their internal and external relationships as a strategy to create and
implement OA. For instance, Guttel and Konlechner (2007) developed a theoretical research
paper that highlighted the human elements necessary for ambidextrous organizations. They
purported that organizations must possess a dynamic capability (structure, cultural, and norms)
that shaped the routines for balancing the two activities. Others, such as Atuahene-Gima and
Murray (2007) and Jansen, Simsek and Cao (2012), have also considered OA as a multi-
dimensional concept requiring levels of alliances internal and external to the firm.
Studying OA from the lenses of shared vision and team cohesion, Garcia-Morales,
Jiménez-Barrionuevo, and Mihi-Ramírez (2011) performed empirical research which highlighted
teamwork cohesion and shared vision as two key characteristics associated with creating and
implementing OA. Using data from structured surveys of 408 CEOs from randomly selected
Spanish firms, the authors attempted to test hypotheses on how OA (characterized as a DC) was
influenced by these two characteristics. Interferential statistics such as correlations and chi-
squared based analysis were used to test the study’s conclusions and showed significant links
65
between shared vision and OA (positive correlation and causality). The authors concluded that
senior managers that developed and effectively communicated a shared vision increased the
success rate of creating and implementing OA. Team cohesion and teamwork were moderated
by how well the vision was understood by the team. Shared vision also positively influenced
how well alliances worked between teams. Perhaps most importantly for the purposes of this
dissertation, the authors deduced from their evidence that senior managers garnered
commitment and team enthusiasm to enable OA by providing sensemaking and sensegiving
conversations with the workforce.
Researchers also have provided evidence on the importance of the human element to
developing OA through collaboration (intra-organizational and inter-organizational) by using a
variety of tools and approaches. Jansen, Simzek, and Cao (2012) used multi-sourced data from
285 managers at various levels in 88 branches of a Dutch financial company to examine the
relationship between senior manager teams and OA. Each branch could make autonomous
decisions and had a distinct board of directors. Data was collected from company records and
surveys of senior managers in these firms. Surveys used a 6-point Likert scale, and a
confirmatory factor analysis was performed to provide evidence of data convergence and to
examine discriminant validity. Descriptive statistics and correlations were provided for the
resultant data set. In order to simultaneously analyze unit and organizational level variance
outcomes, a hierarchical linear model was used to test hypotheses for the cross-level analyses.
The outcomes from this mathematical model suggested that certain contextual characteristics
(structural and resource attributes) of the organization significantly shaped the relationship
between sub-unit ambidexterity and performance. The results from hierarchical linear modeling
also showed that the relationship between cohesive behavior in teams and OA was strengthened
66
when the organization was decentralized, had more generous resources, or was less resource
interdependent. Interestingly, the authors also determined that organizational structural
differences did not moderate the unit ambidexterity-performance relationship. Jansen, et al.
(2012) implied in this paper that senior managers should consider decentralized firm structures to
allow for greater OA creation.
Atuahene-Gima and Murray (2007) developed a theoretical framework, using the lens of
social capital theory, that examined the independent effects of the structural, relational, and
cognitive dimensions of social capital on exploratory and exploitative learning in new product
development processes. The authors examined the differential impacts of structural, relational
and cognitive aspects of social capital on exploratory and exploitative types of learning within
the context of new product development. The interaction between exploratory and exploitative
learning was also examined. Using 179 randomly selected technology firms involved with new
ventures in China, the authors developed seven hypotheses relating these two types of learning to
both social capital and new product development. A pilot-tested survey was used to generate the
data set and three hierarchical regression models were developed to test those hypotheses. The
authors’ findings suggested that different dimensions of social capital were indeed significantly
related to the level of exploratory and exploitative learning. Their results also supported the
argument that new technology ventures needed a balance of exploratory and exploitative learning
to enhance performance. Atuahene-Gima and Murray deduced from their findings that an
investment could be made for both internal and external social capital to enhance new product
performance. Even though the authors did not explicitly state what the investment should
comprise, the transparent flow of the methodology in this paper suggested that senior managers
(characterized as CEOs or direct reports to the CEO) could positively differentiate their firm
67
from others by inserting mechanisms which improved idea socialization and sensemaking across
the organization.
The empirical studies on OA with a focus on organizational relationships have also been
explored via case study methods. Andriopoulos and Lewis (2010) studied seven large U.S.
based companies that had consistently demonstrated successful creative prowess in product
development. The authors used the Business Week magazine’s annual design rankings, which
ranked firms on design creativity and profitability from products, in selecting their final sample.
The authors also selected companies from diverse market sectors, sizes, and customer bases.
They implemented a structured interview process using the snowballing effect to generate 110
interviews of senior level managers within the seven selected firms. The research question
pursued was, “how do highly innovative companies nurture ambidexterity throughout the
organization (p. 697)?” The results were determined by using a thematic synthesis approach to
capture similarities and differences in the data set. Andriopoulos and Lewis (2010) found several
themes on OA and product development. First, OA was found to potentially both foster or
stymie the innovation process. The cases revealed several OA constructs including long-term
adaptability against short-term survival, possibilities-constraints, and diversity-cohesiveness.
Thus, innovation paradoxes such as radical versus incremental new product development
required paradoxical management approaches. The sample companies used integration
techniques such as management stressing how both practices were needed and to thereby foster
synergy. Several of the companies actually used splitting techniques which separated resources
in order to reduce potential conflicts (smaller project based sub-units). Finally, the authors
averred that managing paradoxes might require a common managerial approach, but needed to
be adaptable to contextual variations. Implied in this research was the role of the manager and
68
how managers fostered better outcomes from managing paradoxes. Shared vision, closely
managed activities with clients and partners, and routine discussion sessions were all activities
suggested in this multi-case study.
In summary, these research efforts elucidated some activities that senior managers have
used to generate effective OA activities in firms. For instance, Atuahene-Gima and Murray
(2007) and Jansen, et al. (2012) implied the need for managers to use social processes to
encourage relationship building. Garcia-Morales et al. (2011) and Atuahene-Gima and Murray
advocated that management should offer some type of vision that provided workers a clear
framework to share. Additionally, managers that strove to cultivate relationships with
individuals both inside and outside their own industries could increase their current knowledge
and acquire new information outside of their existing domains (Jansen, et al, 2012; Garcia-
Morales, et al., 2011). Finally, managers should promote the importance of trust and solidarity
among team members by providing opportunities for social interactions and sharing the firm’s
vision (Jansen, et al, 2012; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010).
OA and Implementation of Switching Rules
This dissertation defined switching rules as a set of formal or informal managerial
decisions that enabled an organization to quickly change its orientation from an exploitative
focus to an exploration type focus (Duncan, 1976). A significant amount of empirical research
had attempted to enumerate the types and kinds of management switching rules that might be
appropriate for successful creation and implementation of OA. Katila and Ahuja (2002), for
instance, performed an empirical study with 124 randomly sampled robotics firms in Europe,
Japan, and North America, and examined the relationship between a firm’s exploratory behaviors
and its level of product innovation. They used the survey method, where the authors gathered
69
data from senior managers at these robotics firms. Using correlations between variables,
regression modeling, and hypothesis testing, the authors’ findings showed that the way a firm
solved problems in exploitation and exploration could be a competitive advantage. The authors
also established that a constant interaction of exploitation learning (knowledge reuse) and
exploration learning (new knowledge creation) created a more positive correlation with OA
creation and implementation. The authors suggested that more frequent the scans of the
environment would produce higher success rates of OA. For the purposes of this dissertation,
this research implied that managers should establish mechanisms that enabled continuous
environmental sensing and sensemaking to inform the activities of innovation or knowledge
creation. Some research suggested that switching rules and OA could be applied to a variety of
industries. Bierly and Daly (2007) surveyed 98 randomly chosen small manufacturing firms
(sized from 500 to 1800 employees), which were identified through the Virginia Small Business
Development Centers, to examine the relationship between knowledge strategy (exploration or
exploitation) and performance. Also, the possible moderating role of external environment
variables was considered. Results from this sample of small manufacturing firms indicated that
exploration and exploitation were distinct and complementary constructs. Using correlations and
three regression models, the relationship between exploration and performance was found to be
linear and positive, while the relationship between exploitation and performance was concave,
indicating that there was a point at which focusing on exploitation led to reduced returns.
Additionally, the authors found that the competitive environment moderated the relationship
between exploitation and performance, such that exploitation had a stronger impact on
performance in stable and high-tech environments than in dynamic and low-tech environments.
70
Exploration also was found to have a stronger impact on performance in high-tech environments
than in low-tech environments.
Asset orchestration was another major theme for switching rules in OA development.
Fernhaber and Patel (2012) interviewed 215 CEOs randomly selected from high-tech firms via
questionnaire to assess the relationship between portfolio management and OA. Using the F-
statistic, chi-squared statistic, and several regression model analyses, the authors concluded that
complex portfolios of products and services were advantageous for firm competition. It was
found that managing a complex portfolio required OA within the organization and that
absorptive capacity (information flow rate) was a key moderating variable in successful OA
creation and implementation.
According to some research, asset orchestration and switching rules can be applied to
various organizational sizes. Boumgarden, Nickerson, and Zenger (2012) performed a
longitudinal case study on Hewlett Packard (HP) and the newspaper, USA Today, to assess how
OA is created and implemented to produce sustained performance. The authors argued that they
took a more comprehensive approach to a longitudinal case study in that they leveraged a variety
of sources to develop a truly rich portrayal of the firm activities being examined. In the case of
Hewelett Packard (HP), the authors reviewed a 25 year work period (early 1980s to 2005). The
case evidence was comprised of news articles from Lexis-Nexis (a recognized U.S. based firm
database), previous scholarly case studies, HP annual reports, and 25 years of securities analyst
reports from firms such as Bears Stearns, Credit Suisse, Deutche Bank, Paine-Webber,
Prudential, and Smith Barney. For their analysis of USA Today (USAT), the authors assembled
and synthesized 15 years of information from previous scholarly case studies, company reports
from Gannett (USAT’s parent company), and an interview with one USAT executive.
71
Examining the longitudinal histories of both companies, the authors proposed that ‘vacillation’
might be a key theme that would bring organizations success in OA creation. Aggregating the
evidence from both studies in a meta-ethnographic-like fashion, the authors concluded that the
competitive landscape changed over time (and was cyclical) and that successful organizations
should be prepared to invoke a set of repetitive strategies that they could use to address the
vacillating market. Much of this vacillation to meet the needs of the market included dramatic
organizational structure changes ranging from centralized management to decentralized
management forms. Other themes included dynamic environmental sensing (and sensemaking)
that informed the firm’s decision on how to alter its business model. Given that ‘vacillation’
between a set of organizational business models or structures was the major theme in this study,
the authors inferred that the manager’s role should be to develop means by which to recognize
vacillation as a concept, sense the need for change and apply the proper mechanisms to enact that
change.
The research presented in this section suggested that switching rules played a major role
in OA creation and implementation. The research was performed through an array of techniques
including case study, systematic review of the literature, classic empirical studies (using
surveys), and meta-analytic data review. The key extracted themes for senior managers appeared
to be sensing and environmental scanning and the establishment of a change methodology.
Firm-wide Buy-in for Dual Structures for Innovation
Entrepreneurism was an often used term found in the literature to characterize managerial
behavior to drive organizational commitment in OA creation and implementation. One of the
studies that linked the characteristics of entrepreneurism with long term competitive advantage
72
was by Corbett and Neck (2010). These authors performed a qualitative study on management
behaviors that fostered DCs, such as OA and OAg. The authors proposed that DCs could also be
embedded in managerial behaviors themselves (e.g., dynamic managerial capabilities). Corbeck
and Neck (2010) conducted 246 structured initial interviews of senior managers or their aides in
11 distinct organizations. For detailed studying, the final interview sample was comprised of 54
employees who were selected by the authors for a three year longitudinal study by interviewing
the same people in the sample at least four times within the three year period. This subset was
selected because of the interviewees’ willingness to be studied over time. Each interview was
conducted according to an established protocol and each interviewee was surveyed every six
months. The authors found that organizational fluidity, defined as the ability of workers and
assets to be moved easily for various firm endeavors, was a major antecedent for OA creation
and implementation. Culture and ‘willingness’ (commitment) were two other key areas that
managers found very valuable for creating OA. In terms of implementing OA, the authors
concluded that strategic decision making and sensing were the two key managerial attributes
required. The most relevant conclusion from this study was that the authors implied that senior
managers were socializing their visionary concepts and managing the ‘conversations’ between
personnel to ensure that key knowledge elements were being shared and understood. OA was
felt to be enabled by this action.
Wu (2006) focused his study on assessing the linkage between a firm’s resources and
performance in dynamic markets. The lens used in this study was DCs. Wu targeted Taiwanese
CEOs from the IT sector and developed his initial data set of 1030 firms from Taiwan's Hsinchu
High Technology Industrial Park Council's Science Industry Association Registry and the
Taiwan Manufacturers Registry (published by the China Credit Information Service). Wu
73
developed a pretested survey and received a net of 244 fully completed responses suitable for
further analysis (a response rate of 23.7%). The IT industry diversity of the final sample of
firms was fairly heterogeneous with 35 firm responses from the integrated circuit sector, 83
responses from the computer/periphery sector, 31 responses from the optoelectronics area, and
several other smaller sub-markets in IT. Wu’s results interestingly showed that DCs such as OA
were the key factors for firms to be successful in the context of environmental turbulence.
Merely managing the existing resource base did not yield desirable results. Wu noted in his
results that DCs were indeed related to firm resources and that dynamically leveraging the
resources from a firm’s partners and firm-wide cooperation between business units helped
produce DCs. Wu’s (2006) conclusion was salient to this dissertation because it suggested that
senior managers could influence this process of internal and external cooperation actions and
ultimately differentiate the firm from its competitors.
Seemingly building upon the work of Wu (2006), Sirmon and Hitt (2009) sought to
explore how dynamic managerial capabilities impacted the firm-wide resource orchestration
process. While Wu (2006) focused on cooperation between social groups or units within the
firm, Sirmon and Hitt (2009) focused on the managerial aspects needed to force those activities.
Their purpose was to examine how resource investments and deployment decisions worked in
concert to improve organizational performance. Using contingency theory as the lens, their
essential argument was that greater investment deviations might lead to performance decline
unless the investments were properly supported with equivalent implementation (or deployment)
decisions. The authors carried out an empirical comparative analysis of regional financial
institutions in the U.S. Using data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the
authors randomly reviewed data from 284 U.S. firms for the years 1998-2002. They selected a
74
diverse sample of institutions with a segmented asset base from banks with $100-300M to those
with $5B or more. The authors used two-stage least squares cross-sectional analysis because of
the numerous variables being considered. Data bias was ruled out using standard ordinary least
squares analysis. Descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix were provided and the three,
two-stage least squares models were developed to answer their hypotheses. The major findings
in the study confirmed that investing in either human or technology capital to obtain ideal levels
of resources could reduce the benefits to the firm if those elite levels were not deployed in a way
to justify the investment. Also, managers might consider resource substitutes in cases where
actual resources were constrained (e.g., substitute technology in exchange of human resources).
What was most interesting for this dissertation was that Sirmon and Hitt (2009) implied that
managers needed to be adept at resource orchestration defined here as the selection (acquire,
develop) and deployment (bundle, leverage) of assets. Senior managers, in particular, appeared
to have a role in specifying the level of investment into new resources and determining how to
integrate or even divest from others.
Most recently, Lin, McDonough, Lin and Lin (2013) empirically studied how learning
capability impacted the development of ambidexterity. Learning capability was defined as “the
combination of practices that promote intra-organizational learning among employees,
partnerships with other organizations that enable the spread of learning, and an open culture
within the organization that promotes and maintains sharing of knowledge (p.262).” The authors
selected a sample of 500 Taiwanese companies listed by the General Chamber of Commerce of
Taiwan in the sectors of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, financial management, mechanical
engineering and electrical engineering. Lin et al. (2013) garnered a response rate of 214 usable
surveys from senior managers through a random selection process. The data set was comprised
75
of firms with an average size of 1037 people and an average age of 17 years. The responses
came from a diverse set of sectors including consumer products (36%), industrial products
(36%), consumer services (22%), and industrial services (8%). The authors provided a standard
set of descriptive statistics for their data set and then pursued pairwise correlations for each
variable considered. Multicollinearity and bias issues were ruled out statistically and seven
linear regression models were developed to assess against hypotheses. The main conclusion
drawn from the data was that the combinatory effect of organizational learning significantly
increased innovation ambidexterity. Thus, managers that multiplied the number of ways that the
organizations learned, could actually boost both exploration and exploitation simultaneously.
This implied that both may not need to be balanced as some of the previous literature also
suggested. The role of the manager to obtain buy-in from the organization could be crafted
through organizational learning.
Criticisms of OA
Critics of OA have promoted the idea that OA was a concept which could not be
measured and thus had little utility for management practice. Indeed, much of the research
reviewed for this dissertation focused on indirect assessment or measurement of indirect
parameters relating to OA (Arend & Bromiley, 2009). Arend and Bromiley (2009) developed a
theoretical paper that was based on a survey of the extant literature and concluded that no clear
OA measurement technique was prominent and that other researchers had measured non-direct
parameters (relating to OA) in order to draw conclusions.
Other scholars suggested that there was no measureable model at all in the literature that
could validate OA theory (Pavlou & El Sawy, 2011). Focusing on new product development
76
(NPD) managers, the authors obtained their study sample from both the Product Development
and Management Association conference (www.pdma.org) and from the participants of the
roundtable management conference (www.CoDev.org). Data from a final sample of 180
participants from a variety of industries were analyzed. Social desirability bias was determined
not to be a significant issue based on evaluation of the data Nonresponse bias was evaluated by
verifying that both the early and late respondents did not differ in their responses via T-tests of
sample means. The final data set was comprised of respondents from the high-tech (14%),
manufacturing (12%), medical products (11%), consumer goods (8%), and communication
systems (7%) industries. Ninety percent of the respondents were NPD senior managers or
business unit executives. Discriminant validity, convergent validity, and unidimensionality were
assessed via an exploratory factor analysis. Data reliability was also assessed through using both
of the composite factor reliability scores. The authors applied their data to a structural model and
found a statistically significant fit. They therefore claimed to have a novel approach to
measuring the impact of OA (and DCs) which had not been done in exactly this way prior.
Galunic and Eisenhardt (2001) also performed an 18 month case study of one U.S. based
Fortune 100 high-technology company. This in-depth, inductive study looked at the OA
behavior between 11 divisions within the firm. The authors performed 81 interviews (multiple
people per divisional unit) from randomly selected workers (front line employees and managers
at various levels in the firm) and determined that the existence of OA was merely assumed and,
furthermore, not tied to any particular activity. The divisions organically discovered
mechanisms which allowed them to combine capabilities to offer new products. The authors
observed that the firm’s culture was grounded in widely shared values about how the individual
should operate and support competition within the firm from product initiatives that were
77
competitive for firm resources. There was also a fundamental belief that the firm should
encourage internal competition with clear rules of engagement to approach new market
opportunities. In many ways, Galunic and Eisenhardt (2001) found an empirical example of a
firm where the people literally adopted a culture of contextual OA (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).
However, the workforce did not recognize this behavior as OA because there were no specific
activities directed toward the creation of it.
Many other proponents of DCs counter these criticisms with research that developed a
further argument based on identifying very specific routine sets of behaviors and activities as
DCs ( Pavlou & El Sawy, 2011). This specificity, in some cases, enabled researchers to measure
the impact of DCs. In the case of Pavlou and El Sawy, they were able to empirically show that
exploitation and exploration were indeed DCs and could be measured to some extent by
measuring certain outputs, such as sensing, learning, coordinating, seizing, and reconfiguring of
resources. The authors sought to propose a measurable model of dynamic capabilities by
conceptualizing, operationalizing, and measuring dynamic capabilities. In order to test their
hypotheses, Pavlou and El Sawy collected publicized and available corporate data from 180 new
product development (NPD) units, in order to explore metrics that could prove how DCs (such as
optimizing exploration and exploitation efforts) affected firm outcomes. The authors created a
structural model by which DCs influenced performance in NPD units. Research, such as Pavlou
and Sawy’s (2011), has spawned a revised view of DCs which has modified the focus of analysis
to research around the processes that acquired, developed, and reconfigured resources, rather
than merely emphasizing resource selection and management. This relatively new thrust in
research in DCs, in this dissertation author’s view, has added an element of concreteness and
tangibility to DCs. Thus, more recent DC scholarship questioned the use of routines which
78
helped develop, manage, and adapt key resources and instead highlighted proposed frameworks
and theories by which firms could utilize DCs to adapt to pending changes in the environment
(O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007).
Organizational Agility (OAg)
There was a wide range of scholarship in the area of organizational agility. This section
of Chapter 2 examines the research associated with linking agility with DCs, recalling that the
working definition for DCs in this dissertation was the strategic integration (or combination) of
key OCs that enabled firms to effectively respond to changing environments. This dissertation
proposed that organizational agility met this DC definition. The scholarly literature presented in
this section provided evidence to support this proposition. Organizational agility was not well
understood by management practitioners. Furthermore, agility could be difficult to achieve and
could pose a serious problem for management practitioners. In a 2008, cross-industry survey of
400 senior managers from U.S based Fortune 500 firms by the Institute of Corporate
Productivity (2008), the following descriptive statistics were obtained from senior leaders. What
is shown in Table 4 is the relatively low level of understanding of OAg in terms of how it is
formed and how to implement it. The surveyed managers appeared to understand that their
markets were changing rapidly, but had less understanding on how to help their firms match or
even succeed in the context of those new changes.
Table 4: Senior Leaders’ Perception of the Agility of Their Organizations
75% 44% 32% 60% 58% 49%
Respondents Companies Stated their ‘High ‘High’ ‘High’
79
reported their
organizations
competed in a
rapidly changing
environment
reported being
adept at
identifying and
making needed
incremental
changes
organizations
were proactive
in anticipating
and initiating the
changes beyond
their immediate
strategic
challenges
performing
organizations are
adept at
identifying and
making needed
incremental
changes (only
35% from the
‘lower’
performers)
performing
organizations are
adept at
identifying and
making needed
strategic changes
(30% of ‘lower’
performing
companies)
performing
organizations are
proactive in
anticipating and
initiating
changes for
sustained high
performance
(20% of the
‘lower’
performing
companies)
Note: Results reported from the "Organizational and Leadership Agility Survey" conducted by the Institute of Corporate Productivity, 2008
Part of the challenge with understanding organizational agility stemmed from a lack of
consensus on its definition (Nijssen & Paauwe, 2012). There had been numerous definitions for
organizational agility proposed in the literature, most definitions converged and did not
contradict each other. However, there also was a broad set of meanings for organizational agility
supported in the literature. The factors that defined agility were also diverse and widespread.
Table 5 below presents several definitions that were proposed in the selected scholarly research
efforts.
Table 5: Organizational Agility Definitions Proposed in Scholarly Literature
Source Definition
Roberts and Grover (2012) “The degree to which a firm is able to sense and respond quickly
to customer-based opportunities for innovation and competitive
action (p. 580).”
80
Setia, et al. (2008) “An organization's ability to: (1) discover new opportunities for
competitive advantage; (2) harness the existing knowledge, assets,
and relationships to seize these opportunities; and (3) adapt to
sudden changes in business conditions (p.6).”
Overby, et al. (2006) “The ability of firms to sense environmental change and
respond readily (p.121).”
Sambamurthy, et al. (2003) “The ability to detect opportunities for innovation and
seize those competitive market opportunities by
assembling requisite assets, knowledge, and relationships
with speed and surprise (p.245)”
Dove (2001) The ability to manage and apply knowledge effectively,
so that an organization has the potential to thrive in a
continuously changing and unpredictable business
environment
Bessant, et al. (2001) The ability of a firm to respond quickly and flexibly to
its environment and to meet the emerging challenges
with innovative responses
Yusuf, et al. (1999) The ability of a business to grow in a competitive
market of continuous and unanticipated change,
to respond quickly to rapidly changing markets driven
by customer-based valuing of products and services
Sharifi and Zhang (1999) The ability to cope with unexpected changes, to survive
unprecedented threats of the business environment, and
to take advantage of changes as opportunities
Adapted from Roberts & Grover, 2012
Sharifi and Zhang (1999) provided an early definition of organizational agility as the
ability of any organization to be environmentally aware and to be able to understand and
mobilize the workforce to deal with pending changes in the environment. A survey was
distributed to top level managers (manufacturing and operations managers) in1000 United
Kingdom based companies in three major markets: electrical and electronic manufacturing,
aerospace manufacturing, and vehicle parts manufacturing. The aim of the survey was to carry
out a generic study of organizational agility drivers, the strategies developed by manufacturing
companies, the practical actions implemented in responding to environmental dynamism, and to
institute an introductory correlation between these factors. These industries were selected,
according to the authors, because of their sensitivities to environmental change and because
81
organizational agility had been found to be critical in these three sectors (Sharifi and Zhang,
1999). The authors argued that this type of research design might reveal differences between
manufacturers in their approach towards agility, as presumed in the research hypotheses. The
authors received 85 responses of which 60 were valid (a net response rate of 6%). Using
descriptive statistics, the authors were able to demonstrate that companies that made a concerted
effort to implement sensing and sensegiving practices were ‘quicker’ in their ability to respond to
environmental change than those who did not put these practices in place. Thus, the authors
concluded that sensing and sensegiving from management, in tandem, enabled a firm to
maneuver faster than those that did not perform these activities, and in tandem.
Breu, Hemingway, and Strathern (2001) provided an early study on how organizational
agility impacted the workforce. Specifically, these authors attempted to apply known agility
variables from the existing literature and explored relationships between those and the firms’
personnel. Workforce agility was a social phenomenon, according to the author, characterized
by cultural and structural mechanisms enacted by the staff of the firm. A literature review was
developed to create the salient attributes of agility to be studied. Thirteen agility concepts were
discovered. A land mailed survey was provided to 15,000 senior managers from both private and
public firms in the United Kingdom (UK) in the Spring of 2001. The sample of firms was
generated from a UK database of diverse firms. A net of 515 firms responded (a response rate of
3.6%) for subsequent analysis. The workforce was the unit of analysis for this study and the data
set of responders was comprised of senior managers (67%), such as CEOs or board members.
The remaining respondents were at the department head level or equivalent level (program
manager or other specialist). The descriptive statistics of the data set spanned several business
sectors including energy, financial service, IT, manufacturing, and professional services, such as
82
consulting, government, retail, and transportation. Two-thirds of the data set responders came
from large firms and the definition of firm size was not offered in the study. A combination of
principal component analysis (PCA) and pairwise correlation analysis was used to develop the
strength of impacts of organizational agility on the workforce. Interestingly, the combination of
employee intelligence and employee competencies was noted as the strongest determinant of
organizational agility. The authors described intelligence as the responsiveness level to changing
customer needs or market conditions. Competencies were comprised of the speed of developing
new skills or the speed of acquiring the skills to manage change. Even though IT was noted as
an agility enhancement, new work models ranked higher in this model. The authors also
concluded that recruiting competent and qualified candidates that were more adaptable to OAg
(because they were new to the firm) was also a key factor for firm success. For the purposes of
this dissertation, the salient point was that senior managers needed to focus on environmental
scanning and knowledge dissemination to ‘speed up’ firm responses.
Doz and Kosonen (2010) developed a multi-case study to answer the research question,
“How can CEOs and their leadership teams radically accelerate the evolution of their business
models (p. 370)?” The authors leveraged an organizational agility model that they developed in a
prior theoretical paper and applied the cases of Nokia, easyGroup, Hewlett Packard (HP), SAP,
Digital Corporation, Xerox (Xerox-Fuji) and Kone to the tenets of that model. These cases were
all described as well documented, scholarly sources. The original model characterized
organizational agility as a three component phenomenon: strategic sensitivity, leadership
unity and resource fluidity (p.370). Strategic sensitivity was described as the acuteness and
intense awareness of environmental developments (strategic developments). Leadership unity
was the ability of a top management team to make fast decisions without significant political
83
challenges. Resource fluidity considered the firm’s internal ability to reconfigure organizational
capabilities (OCs) and re-deploy those OCs quickly. The authors provided support for each
aspect of the model and concrete activities were identified as being associated with each, as
shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Doz-Kosonen Model with Evidence (Doz & Kosonen, 2010)
Doz/Kosonen Model Evidence from Cases
Strategic Sensitivity Anticipating (scanning and sharpening of foresight)
Experimenting (market testing)
Distancing (gaining perspectives from outsiders)
Abstracting (conceptual business model realization)
Reframing (developing new models for success)
Leadership Unity Dialoging (sharing ideas, sensemaking of situation)
Revealing (personal motives and aspirations openly presented)
Integrating (building value added agenda)
Aligning (providing deeper common meanings to concepts)
Caring (providing interaction level that keeps things ‘playful’)
Resource Fluidity Decoupling (organize by customer based value chains)
Modularizing (develop ‘plug and play’ business processes)
Disassociating (separate resource from resource ownership)
Shifting (use multiple, simultaneous business models)
Grafting (adapt a partner’s or acquired company’s model)
These author’s findings echoed many of the research efforts presented in the OA section and the
OAg studies here. From a senior manager perspective, the activities described here were
managerial mechanisms that would potentially enable firms to navigate the creation of DCs by
being acutely aware of the organization’s ecosystem and internal operational model.
Sensing was a major sub-component of DCs creation in the extant scholarly literature
(Teece, et al., 1997). Sensing was tied to terms such as environmental scanning and market
orientation. It was defined (Teece, et al, 1997; Helfat, et al., 2007) as the methods by which an
organization determines its near term and long term needs.
84
In a study about linking sensing to OAg, Ojha (2009) in his dissertation sought to explore
the antecedents of ‘strategic agility’ and the implications of using strategic agility under different
degrees of environmental turbulence in U.S. manufacturing plants. Using a survey approach
(quantitative data and qualitative synthesis), Ojha concluded that organizational agility relied on
gaining knowledge to anticipate changes in markets through inter-firm collaboration. Ojha used
data from a survey of 256 U.S. firms which were obtained from a Dun and Bradstreet database, a
renowned company analytics database. All firms were associated with the manufacturing sector
and spanned over 21 sub-sectors such as food processing, consumer products, etc. Ojha’s
dissertation used a Competence-Capability-Performance (CCP) framework along with the
theoretical perspectives of dynamic capability. The impact of strategic agility on operational and
financial performance under various levels of environmental contexts (turbulence) was explained
through regression analyses. Three main findings resulted from the analysis. First, market
insight was a critical determinant of strategic agility. Market insight was defined as the ability to
sense changes in the marketplace. Second, OAg did not have any direct impact on financial
performance. The key value of OAg derived from the fact that organizations, which were
strategically agile, had the capability to initiate changes in their manufacturing activities earlier
than those who did not, and, thus gained first mover advantages. Finally, the author concluded
that OAg was useful in moderate levels of environmental turbulence but not when turbulence
was low or extremely high. Ojha explained that in low turbulence markets, changes were
minimal and thus investments in achieving OAg might not pay off and cause financial loss. In
contrast, when change was rapid, investments made in advance of modifying operations’
competitive capabilities might not have the necessary time to payoff and break-even, thus
creating financial losses.
85
Roberts and Grover (2012) performed a study that sought to answer the research
question, “how does a firm's customer agility impact firm performance; specifically, how
does the alignment between a firm's sensing and responding capabilities impact its performance
(p. 580)?” The authors created and administered two surveys to marketing managers in two
industry sectors in U.S. based companies: computer manufacturing and pre-packaged software.
Marketing managers were determined by the authors to be the appropriate reporting entity given
their general responsibility of tying the firm’s business model to the customer need dynamics.
Two sequential surveys were provided to the same sample group four months apart. The first
survey measured customer agility and the firm performance was measured in the second survey.
A random set of 1200 marketing managers from U.S. based high-tech companies was emailed
the survey. Of the 1200, a total of 208 completed the survey with a final count of 188 surveys
being deemed suitable for use (17% response rate). Of the 188 managers, 110 submitted a
second survey, producing a response rate of 60% (110 surveys). The sampled data group had a
mean age of 44 years and 93% of the respondents had some college experience. Fifty-four of the
respondents were female. Respondents had an average tenure of 10.8 years with their firms and
maintained an average of 6.1 years in the marketing manager position. Reliability and validity
were examined and resolved within the data sampled. A five-point Likert scale was used to
respond to the survey questions and the authors used a confirmatory factor analysis technique to
evaluate measurement properties of customer sensing and customer responding constructs. Using
chi squared analyses the authors found good fit for their statistical model as well as support for
convergent validity. Harmon one factor testing was used to rule out common method bias.
Roberts and Grover determined that sensing and responding needed simultaneous development
in order to produce organizational agility. The authors considered two types of agility alignment:
86
matching and mediation. The matching perspective implied that a firm's customer agility was a
“higher order capability” that required matching between two lower order capabilities. The
authors deduced that organizations sensed opportunities and then responded accordingly based
on a process. This process was a social construction and was very firm specific. The results
suggested that managers should not only align their organization's sensing and responding
capabilities but also should develop conversion capabilities that were dynamic in nature, such as
fluid organizing and configurability. This, the authors suggested, required acute abilities to sense
information and organically structure a response. Ambidextrous structures were suggested as an
example that senior managers could use to accomplish this.
Alamahamid, Awwad, and McAdams (2010) investigated the role of organizational
agility and knowledge sharing practices on firm performance in Jordanian manufacturing
companies. The authors collected a convenience sample from 112 senior managers from 112
different manufacturing firms (i.e., one from each firm) in the Middle East. The respondents
completed a tailored, land mailed questionnaire designed to assess each of the research
independent variables called for in the study. The response rate was 42% and the sample
population was comprised of directors and vice presidents (49%) and operation/production
managers (51%). The authors used multiple regression techniques to analyze the data set. The
independent variables were regressed against competitive advantage as perceived by the
respondents, who were self-reporting on their own companies. The questionnaire used a 5-point
Likert scale. Ten items were used to capture knowledge sharing practices and five items were
used to measure the extent to which organizations used approaches to share knowledge internal
and external to organizational boundaries. Furthermore, five items were used to assess the extent
to which firms used informal channels to share knowledge. The authors tested for validity, bias,
87
and collinearity using standard statistics (t-test, variable inflation factor). The authors concluded
that knowledge sharing capabilities had a significant positive effect on organizational agility and
competitive advantage. The main conclusion from this research was that senior managers should
focus on linking knowledge sharing (formal and informal) to their agile capabilities. The
combinatory effects improved performance.
The research presented above began to illustrate common themes in sensing as a dynamic
capability (one of several DCs that made up Organizational Agility). Some of these
commonalities included senior managers spending a significant effort to understand the
environmental changes present in their markets (Doz & Kosonen, 2010). Also, there appeared to
be a theme surrounding how senior managers needed a corporate wide commitment to seize
opportunities or adapt to threats (Ojha, 2009).
Communication of Senior Management Vision (CoMV)
According to several scholars (Easterby-Smith & Prieto, 2008; James & Lahti,
2011), management communication of vision was a critical element as to how DCs were
developed and implemented. In order to better understand the concept of managerial vision, a
brief discussion on organizational vision is required. In general, organization vision was viewed
as an ideological goal that the vast majority of an organization feels satisfied in pursuing (House
& Shamir, 1993). James and Lahti (2011) created a synthesized definition from previous
literature to describe organizational vision as a representation of the idealized future states for the
organization. The literature clearly distinguished organizational vision from strategy. Visions,
according to Zaccaro and Banks (2001), were typically expected to have longer time spans than
strategies. Visions were targeted at innovation and change management (O’Connell, Hickerson
& Pillutla, 2011).
88
Management vision, therefore, was the organizational vision as implemented by the
senior manager (or key decision maker) for the organization. In an early theoretical
developmental effort, Gluck (1981) claimed that managerial vision was a “crucial link between
strategic planning and operational decision making (p. 13).” Essentially, the senior manager
operationalized the organizational vision. Management vision (or managerial vision) was in
many cases viewed as the initiation point for a senior manager’s efforts to transform constituents,
teams, or organizations (Bennis & Nanus, 1985).
In a foundational theoretical article (referenced in modern research over 435 times as of
March, 2014) Conger and Kanugo (1987, p. 640) proposed that managerial vision was an
idealized goal that “the leader wants the organization to achieve in the future.” Subsequent
theory development (and extension) by Kilpatrick and Locke (1996), offered the definition of
managerial vision as “a general transcendent ideal that represents shared values; it is ideological
in nature and has moral overtones (p.37).” Thus, managerial visions appeared to be ambitious,
motivational, and to convey expectations of high performance. Fry (2003) defined managerial
vision (through leadership) as reflecting the views of the visionary and promoting one possible
organizational future (a desired one) over another.
Managerial vision has also been linked to numerous indicators of firm effectiveness and
employee performance. For instance, Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) proposed in their
theoretical work that a compelling managerial vision could motivate personnel to achieve the
goals of the organization. In their 1996 book, Finkelstein and Hambrick, discussed a
considerable number of studies conducted by themselves as well as from reviewing many related
studies by other researchers. Their book also offered case studies of individual CEOs. The
89
aggregation of these studies assessed in a quasi-meta-ethnographic manner provided a significant
piece of evidence that suggested that the senior manager (or leader) played the pivotal role in
managerial vision.
Slack, Orife and Anderson (2010) proposed that leaders could use the organizational
vision to persuade followers to strive with passion toward a future organizational state. In
managerial vision, both individual and organizational performance was supported. The research
of Slack, et al. (2010) was empirical and evaluated organizational commitment to corporate
vision and employee satisfaction using surveys of 900 employees of a robotics high-tech
organization (location unspecified). The authors used correlation inferential statistics with
hypothesis testing to determine that vision communication was positively correlated with not
only employee satisfaction, but also with firm performance outcomes.
This dissertation argued that the communication of management vision could be achieved
in a variety of methods. One key method was through environmental scanning and
interpretation. Sensemaking was a consistent term used by theorists who sought to understand
how people noticed events and the meaning of the events, and also, how these events influenced
the present and future behavior of the firm (Weick, 1979). Sensemaking attempted to bring order
out of a chaotic environment. Weick was generally given credit for applying this organizational
process to the field of management (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).
Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991), through a longitudinal case study of a new university
president (in the U.S.), determined that there were many contexts in which the senior manager
could moderate the performance processes of a firm through cycles of sensegiving and
sensemaking. This study was performed in the late 1980s using an ethnographic approach. The
90
university president under observation by the study authors invoked several change policies for
the administration, the collective group of senior professors and university administrators. Gioia
and Chittipeddi observed the change process over time and determined that the more successful
change implementations were achieved by cycles of environmental sensemaking (interpreting the
change in the environment) by the president followed by careful sensegiving to the
administration. The communication aspect of the sensegiving part of the process was a major
focus of the study. The authors concluded that continuous communication of the corporate vision
was key to successful change management. The senior manager, thus, was typically in a
position that enabled him or her to provide interpretations of environmental conditions to the
workforce, thus shaping the firm’s sensemaking process (Maitlas, 2005). This process was
documented in the literature as ‘sensegiving’ (Schawndt, 2005). All of these methods supported
the notion that senior managers, through effective communication of vision, might catalyze DC
creation and implementation. The link was made between communication of vision and the
development of DCs because this study suggested that when a managerial vision was understood,
desired actions by the workforce could be observed to a greater extent than without the
workforce having an understood vision.
Senior management could therefore moderate the sensemaking process by engaging in
‘sensegiving’ activities (Maitlis, 2005). Sensegiving attempted to influence the sensemaking of
others to a preferred definition of the firm’s reality (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Thus, when
senior management engaged in sensegiving, it could focus the firm’s understanding of a situation
or phenomenon and the need for the workforce to change its existing perceptions.
91
Some argued that senior managers could alter the organization’s view of reality (in a
given situation), for instance, Maitlis and Lawrence (2007) who suggested that senior managers
could engage in sensegiving behaviors when the environment was ambiguous, unpredictable, and
turbulent. They developed this theory from an empirical analysis of three British orchestra
organizations. They conducted 120 interviews with various members and managers in the
organizations and developed hypotheses on the sensegiving process. The study was longitudinal
(repeat interviews pre-change and post-change implementation) performed over a two year
period (2002-2004). The authors concluded that sensegiving was a process which enabled an
organization to adapt more quickly to changing environments. If a senior manager was effective
in being the ‘sensegiver’, then organizational reaction and adaptation could be more readily
performed (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007).
In terms of leadership, scholars had used case studies to suggest that a clear vision was
promoted both within and outside the organization by senior managers .The literature also
implied that successful translation of external conditions into the active vision for organizations
was a key OC that was hard to imitate (Griffin & Parker & Mason, 2010). Furthermore, scholars
believed that moderating the workforce’s actions to attain the management vision was also a
salient OC that impacted organizational outcomes. The following review discovered research
with compatible and synonymous definitions of managerial vision similar to the one proposed in
Chapter 2 of this dissertation.
In an attempt to better understand how corporate vision affects business success,
Phattanacheewapul and Ussahawanitchaket (2009), interviewed 122 randomly selected CEOs of
Thailand companies via questionnaire (circa 2008). Using a regression analysis based on sample
statistics, the authors were able to determine positive correlations between corporate mindset
92
(from leadership vision) to business outcomes (faster product development, increased profit and
revenues). The results from this study highlighted the senior manager role in communicating a
shared vision to enhance environmental scanning and sensemaking to inform the firm as to what
might be the best balance of tactical and strategic initiatives to sustain competitiveness.
There was a significant set of research that suggested that a communicated and
understood managerial vision helped ensure successful creation and implementation of DCs.
Jadesadalug and Ussahawanitchakit (2008) in an empirical study attempted to better understand
the linkage between managerial vision and corporate innovation and new product development
performance. The authors discovered that there were strong correlations between clear corporate
vision and process innovation. Furthermore, the authors determined that clear corporate vision
had a positive effect on new product introductions. In their study, the authors analyzed 98
surveys of senior managers from building materials companies in Thailand and using an ordinary
least squares analysis, developed these conclusions.
Confirming the results of Jadesadalug and Ussahawanitchakit (2008), Story (2010), in her
dissertation, discovered a positive correlation between organizational vision and participatory
management with organizational outcomes. Using the questionnaire method, she surveyed 78
randomly selected senior leaders and 240 direct reports to senior leaders from one Fortune 100
(multinational) firm. Using the Hierachical Linear Modeling technique, Story was able to
determine that organizational vision associated with high interaction between leader and
followers generated positive firm outcomes. As single practices, neither characteristic
moderated firm outcomes. Story’s work linked sensemaking processes with senior manager
shared vision as an effective combination of behaviors that enhanced firm outcomes (such as
product development).
93
Some researchers focused on espoused organizational vision as it pertained to work
efficiencies. Khandelwal and Mohendra (2010), for instance, surveyed a sample of 90
executives in one large Indian automobile company, Maruti Suzuki India Limited. They
discovered through descriptive statistics and chi-squared analysis that visioning and vision
statements had limited value on organizational outcomes; however, vision integrated with
workforce buy-in did correlate positively with firm outcomes. The authors claimed that vision
plus interactive leadership moderated firm outcomes.
Several researchers suggested that participatory management was required to
operationalize corporate visions. Ruvio, et al.,(2010) for instance, studied between 1994 and
1999 158 Israeli entrepreneurs (half from non-profit and half from for-profit organizations),
where all for-profit senior managers were the founders and private owners of their businesses.
Data were collected in 1999 by questionnaires to the non-profit entrepreneurs who were from
academic institutions. The for-profit senior managers were from four main industries of the
service sector: food services, business services, communication services, and personal services.
The researchers found that the educational non-profit entrepreneurs translated their vision into a
wide-ranging strategy which was also found to be positively and significantly associated with
positive firm outcomes. However, with the for-profit entrepreneurs, the same correlation was not
found. Nonprofit entrepreneurs aspired to communicate their vision to as wide a range of
individuals as possible. Success to them was directly connected to the number of people affected
by their vision.
Slack, Orife, and Anderson, mentioned earlier, researched the effect of corporate vision
and commitment on the work force. The authors surveyed 860 randomly selected managers and
94
workers in a single, high-tech company in the United States (in 2009). Using an ANOVA
technique, the authors determined that positive organizational outcomes (innovations,
efficiencies) occurred when the organizational vision was embedded in daily work. An
embedded vision also was positively correlated with workforce commitment. Of interest to this
dissertation, Slack, et al. contended that senior managers who effectively implemented a shared
vision and generated positive outcomes for teams, focused on the assessment of firm resources
and sharing of information by environmental scanning.
Some researchers addressed ‘how’ the managerial vision was communicated. James and
Lahti (2011), for example, developed a model which integrated multiple levels of leadership and
leadership charisma on employee vision inspiration (motivation to help achieve their
organizations’ visions) The authors’ research included a study of data (acquired from
questionnaires) from 1,662 randomly selected employees across 15 organizations. Each
organization possessed a multinational presence and each employee interviewed was
purposefully non-managerial. The results of the empirical study suggested that leader charisma
was significantly related to employee inspiration. Similarly, organizational system factors (how
the vision was implemented) were significantly related to levels of employee inspiration, which
significantly predicted multiple criteria for organizational performance, such as participatory
management and inspirational leadership. James and Lahti linked senior manager vision
communication and sensemaking as a combinatory practice that created competitive outcomes
for the firm.
There are a series of authors who studied leadership behaviors that influenced other firm
members. Hyatt (2011), for instance, discovered in her study on the influences of organizational
vision that there was a significant correlation between inspirational shared visions and human
95
resource outcomes, such as team commitment, higher performance, perceived organizational
support and lower workforce turnover. Hyatt’s study was comprised of surveys of 127 MBA
students of a major private university in south Florida. The subjects were selected at random on
a volunteer basis. The results of Hyatt’s study specifically suggested that perceived
organizational support (quality of the exchange relationship between leadership and
management) positively correlated with employee commitment. The survey results also
suggested that senior manager communication was critical for creating meaning and purpose for
individuals and teams. Effective communication of the shared vision enabled positive outcomes
for the firm.
Some scholarly work in vision communication spoke to the vision content, meaning the
specific details that were contained in the organizational vision. For instance, Sarros, Cooper,
and Santora (2010) investigated the relationships between leadership vision and innovation. The
authors performed an empirical study using 1448 managers and senior managers from the
Australian Institute of Management. Structural equation modeling, regression modeling, and chi
squared analyses were used to evaluate the respondent data to determine the strength of the
relationship between visionary leadership and firm-level innovative behavior. The respondents
were selected at random and from privately held organizations only. The sample was comprised
of mostly males (73.2%), with a mean of 12.71 years of managerial experience. In terms of
position title, 30.8% characterized themselves as top-level managers, 21.1% as executive
managers, and 48.1% as upper-middle managers. It was also notable that the vast majority of the
managers (71.6%) worked in firms with less than 500 employees. The authors determined that
the strength of the relationship between leadership vision and organizational support did not
differ between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations; however, the strength between the two
96
attributes did mediate organizational outcomes. The authors concluded from the findings in this
study that senior manager vision strength positively impacted commitment and efficiencies for
the firm.
Yoeli and Berkovich (2009) also suggested in their research findings that successful
senior managers promoted a shared vision with great commitment to it and managed to connect
other team members to that vision. Through analysis of 39 senior manager interviews from
various Israeli industry sectors, the authors discovered that senior managers had a certain ethos
(fundamental ideology of a particular person) that was the source of the organizational vision.
The authors interviewed elementary school principals, high school and special education school
principals, senior hospital administrators, supervisors, directors of educational training programs
for teachers and principals, and leading personnel in the Israeli Ministry of Education. The
authors found that if there was a disconnect between the ethos and vision, the positive outcomes
for the organization were lower. The authors suggested from their study that the organizational
vision must be a ‘way of life’ for the firm. The shared vision from this perspective revealed that
the beliefs and actions of the senior manager dictated, to some degree, the performance and
behavior of the organization. This was significant to this dissertation because this study distinctly
tied the need for a well communicated shared vision by senior managers to positively influence
organizational outcomes.
The literature reviewed in this section suggested that the behavior of senior managers did
play a significant role in organizational outcomes. Participatory management was found to be a
catalyst for embedding vision into the firm. Furthermore, the research cited above posits that the
effectiveness of senior managers to obtain buy-in and identify with the vision (e.g., shared
vision) could also improve the firm’s performance. Summarizing, management communication
97
of organizational vision might be a key antecedent to DC creation and implementation. This
element was essentially the continual, post-mortem situation analysis that enabled organizations
to assess the environment. This was the sensing piece of the adaptation process (Kor & Mesko,
2013). This dissertation offered a series of research evidence that suggested that effective
management communication of organizational vision was directly linked to performance
outcomes.
Creating and Implementing OA through Communication of Managerial Vision
There was a significant stream of literature that tied shared vision and communicated
vision to OA creation and implementation. This notion leaned toward the contextual OA
described by Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004), previously described.
Anderson and Nielsen (2007) surveyed 185 firms in the manufacturing arena to examine
the role of strategy making processes in the creation of OA. Using the Compustat database, the
authors randomly solicited senior managers in 185 (51% response rate) German based firms
using a land mailed survey. Their findings showed that the integration of centralized strategic
planning increased OA to promote efficiency and alignment. Distributed, participative decision
processes promoted adaptation. Chi squared analysis and hypothesis testing were some of the
statistics used. Also, the results of the structural equation analyses suggested that successful
performance in ambidextrous organizations was associated with: (1.) efficiencies derived from
working toward the shared vision, (2.) effectiveness created by good cohesion, (3.) innovation
through participation, and (4.) the autonomous actions of teams.
Customer and market awareness was a consistent theme in OA research that focused on
direction setting and shared vision. For instance, Cegarra-Navarro and Dewhurst (2007)
98
surveyed 269 senior managers of Spanish midsized companies to examine the antecedents and
outcomes of OA. The relationships between customer capital (defined as full understanding of
customers’ present and future needs) and organizational teaming and OA were examined through
an empirical investigation of subject matter experts (SMEs) from two different sectors
(Optometry and Telecommunications), using structural equation modeling validated by factor
analysis. The authors surveyed the SMEs to obtain the data on customer capital and
organizational teaming that was later analyzed. The results indicated that the effects of OA
(exploration and exploitation of knowledge) on customer capital were mediated through an
ambidexterity context. OA was found to be positively related to customer satisfaction using a
chi-squared model to assess the study results. The study results indicated that managers that
created a context for their constituents that encouraged them to decide when to exploit or
explore, created a successful OA program. The implication was that these worker behaviors
were culturally based and could be encouraged by management.
In concert with Cegarra-Navarro and Dewhurst (2007), Montes, et al. (2005) examined
the effects of organizational learning and teamwork on innovation creation. They performed a
quantitative study of 202 (13% response rate) randomly selected CEOs from Spanish firms found
in the Dun and Bradstreet 2000 database, via a mailed questionnaire. Using a chi-squared
analysis, the researchers found support for three main conclusions: (1.) senior managers that
fostered a shared responsibility and fluidity in organizing teams (groups) could foster OA and
OAg, (2.) an understanding of the management vision and strategy by the organization fostered
creation and implementation of OA and OAg, and (3.) the factors in (1.) and (2.) had a positive
impact on organizational success (desired outcomes).
99
Jantunen, Ellonen and Johannson (2012) also found support for the conclusions of the
two previous efforts. They performed a multi-case study in order to examine whether the DCs of
innovative firms actually made a difference. The specific objective of this study was to explore
‘heterogeneity’ of dynamic capabilities in a comparative context. The authors chose four firms
representing a single industry (U.S. based magazine publishing). The selection of these firms was
not random, but targeted. Multiple interviews were made with senior managers at each firm.
Jantunen, et al. claimed that the similarity of the cases provided a solid foundation for comparing
the firm’s dynamic capabilities. Based on the results of the case study, it seemed that the
practices associated with sensing capabilities were likely to be similar across firms within a
single industry, while practices associated with seizing and reconfiguring types of capabilities
might differ more between companies even in the same industry. Thus, dynamic capabilities,
such as OA, were found to have both distinct and common attributes across an industry. These
findings were relevant to this dissertation because the authors concluded that practicing
managers who were competing with companies within the same industry tended to develop
similar types of practices to match the changing requirement of the operating environment of that
industry. Hence, managers should not be falsely comforted by the current situation within their
firms, but proactively develop their unique capabilities to gain advantage over their competitors.
This supported the notion that managerial vision and its effective communication throughout the
organization could have significant positive outcomes for the firm.
Nosella, Cantarello, and Filippini (2012) performed a systematic review of 55 articles
(between the years of 1995 and 2011) on OA focusing on how OA was created and
implemented. Using a thematic synthesis approach, the authors reviewed papers in four
categories: (1.) OA structural solutions research, (2.) OA contextual solutions research, (3.) OA
100
antecedents and consequences, and, (4.) any OA cross boundary perspectives. In terms of what
managerial mechanisms were used to successfully create and implement OA behavior, the
authors concluded that fostering a supportive culture for change, empowering the individual
worker to think in terms of OA, and fluidity of organizing (ad-hoc teaming, etc.) were key.
In an attempt to better understand the role of the CEO in particular, O’Reilly and
Tushman (2011) interviewed, using a semi-structured process, 15 different senior executives
who were all from different multinational firms. These executives were not randomly selected
within these firms. Each senior executive was prescreened by the authors to determine if he or
she was managing both exploitative and explorative operations simultaneously. Twelve of the
fifteen firms were deemed successful at OA and the study showed that managerial behavior and
resource orchestration were key attributes that led to success. This was a qualitative study based
on a uniform set of interview questions about the role of the CEO. The major findings suggested
that senior managers initially separated exploration efforts from the larger organization until the
product or service being developed was mature enough to be integrated back into the firm. The
integration portion of the activity was the most challenging and complex requiring senior
managers to alter cultures, revise current product portfolios, and ultimately reframe the
organization’s identity.
Some authors focused on the relationship between knowledge dissemination within the
firm and managerial vision. In one such study, Zheng, et al. (2011) used a knowledge-based
definition of DCs (including OA) and investigated mechanisms that managers could use to create
and implement DCs, by performing statistical analyses on data from 218 Chinese manufacturing
firms. The authors used survey methodology to obtain the data from senior managers who were
randomly surveyed in these manufacturing firms. As aforementioned, DCs were typically based
101
on a resource based view (RBV) of the firm. As also suggested earlier, Grant (1996) among
others, believed that firms were knowledge carrying entities. The authors used the chi-squared
statistic in an ANOVA analysis to determine that knowledge combining capabilities (KCG)
positively contributed to the success of DC generation and also moderated the effects of
knowledge acquisition (KAC) and generation (KGC). Furthermore, the authors concluded that
KAC was mostly influenced by trust in the sources and collaborative problem solving activities.
KCG was mainly influenced by collaborative problem solving and organizational commitment.
Both were activities that were managerially based.
Another study that focused on senior manager communication of a shared vision was the
work of Schudy and Bruch (2012). They studied linkages between contextual ambidexterity and
performance outcomes using a questionnaire method for 118 German firms from various
industries (services, manufacturing, finance/insurance, etc.). They defined contextual
ambidexterity as that which was demonstrated by an organization that had trained its constituents
to simultaneously provide value for existing customers while simultaneously sensing for new
opportunities (or changes). The term productive operational energy (POE) was introduced as a
management invoked behavior that collectively activated and directed employee behaviors
toward salient organizational goals. The researchers performed a hypothesis test statistic to
evaluate their findings, which included positive support for the linkage between POE and OA.
The authors also found that, in aggregate, POE and OA had a positive effect on organizational
outcomes.
Similar to the study of Schudy and Bruch (2012), Jiao, et al. (2011) performed a
quantitative study with 110 high-tech (large, enduring) companies in China to determine how
environmental dynamics affected innovation strategy and DCs. The authors described this study
102
as retrospective, meaning using hindsight and lessons learned to impact future behavior. The
study focused on questions that involved situations and details about organizational polices.
Firm senior management was exclusively interviewed (i.e., presidents, vice-presidents, directors,
or general managers). Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted and the sample
analyzed was considered to be a convenience sample. T-tests and other bias examinations were
performed to confirm that minimal bias existed in the data. The authors emphasized what
management mechanisms build (create) DCs (such as OA). Using several linear regression and
correlation models, the researchers found that the coefficient for innovation strategy (the
dependent variable in the study) was positive and significant. The study concluded from its
inferential statistics that OA strategies (innovation and efficiency) could have positive outcomes
for the organization in stable or dynamic environments. Furthermore, the authors described how
sensing, seizing, and integrating capabilities were bundled to generate these outcomes. The
impact of this study suggested that senior managers actually instilled a culture or ethos that
encouraged employees to better manage change. Better change management processing by
senior managers could positively affect outcomes.
Repetition in communicating a shared vision was another consistent theme in the
literature reviewed for this dissertation. In one example, Gebauer (2011) studied how
management innovation affected the creation and implementation of OA activities for a firm. He
characterized OA as a change innovation parameter; however, his definition matched the OA and
DC definitions used in this dissertation. Gebauer performed a multi-case study (32 in total)
which included interviews with CEO level management in Swiss companies. Operationalizing
the term management innovation, Gebauer focused on managerial techniques that emphasized
organizational learning and simultaneous innovation and efficiency improvements. From the
103
case research, Gebauer identified 20+ forms of innovation that could be utilized (including OA
and OAg) when innovative management practices were deployed. The key conclusion for this
research was that senior managers had to continuously share the vision and purpose of the
change strategy.
Extending the ideas of Gebauer (2011), Owens and Hekman (2012) performed a
qualitative study based on 55 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of U.S. based firms from
various contexts (industries) in order to better understand what leadership behaviors produced an
adaptive organizational orientation. Synthesizing the content from these interviews, the authors
concluded that several ‘humble leadership’ behaviors enhanced the creation and implementation
of changes in dynamic environments. They further concluded that these behavior mechanisms
could produce OA like performance in employees. These mechanisms included legitimizing the
developmental journey that employees would take to become innovative. Also, fostering a
culture of ‘psychological freedom (p. 803)’ which implied that mistakes would not be punished
was cited as a finding of the study. The authors suggested that employees who were encouraged
to try different ideas (trial and error) to reap the best solutions created a more OA suitable
environment.
Collier and Zhaung (2012) echoed both Gebauer (2011) and Owens and Hekman (2012),
performing a case study on an Australian police force (public sector organization). Qualitative
data were collected in a mixed method fashion including data logged into police reports (248
serious crime investigations), meeting observations, and limited interviews. The authors
referenced Pablo, et al. (2007) extensively and their findings supported the theory that DCs could
be advantageous to the public sector as well as to the private sector. Key findings in this study
included a review of relational capabilities. Close working relationships allowed senior police
104
leaders to work across agencies and with other police jurisdictions. Prioritizing activities
(crimes) and good resource allocation of officers and equipment was also a key finding of the
study. It was also notable that these findings were compatible with several of the theoretical
works proposed earlier in this dissertation (e.g., Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat, et. al, 2007).
As evident from the research proposed in this section of Chapter 2, a well communicated
managerial vision appeared to be a critical element to creating and implementing OA. The
scholarly studies presented suggested that this communication should be continuous and
provided at various levels in the organization (Pablo, et al., 2007). Furthermore, communicating
a vision that stimulated a ‘free thinking’ culture was also a critical theme identified (Collier &
Zhuang, 2012; Gebauer, 2011; Owens & Hekman, 2012).
Creating and Implementing OAg through Communication of Managerial Vision
Firm-wide strategy and commitment was a substantial theme in the literature for OAg
creation and implementation. Many researchers believed that OAg represented a holistic system
not just a few aspects (such as rapid product development or quality). Agility seemed to require
total commitment at various levels of the organization. McCann, Selsky, and Lee (2009, p. 50),
for instance, emphasized the importance of a systemic approach to building organizational agility
in their case study research with 20 U.S. based, high technology companies in 2008. They
determined that agility might be contextual, as well as structural.
McMann, et al. (2009) suggested that agility was the capacity for moving quickly and
decisively to take advantage of opportunities and avoid any negative effects. They developed
their definition of organizational agility from case studies with five manufacturing firms. All of
the firms were in the high-tech industry and were able to take advantage of new market
105
opportunities by leveraging created DCs. If the workforce was prepared to be adaptable and
agile, then the firm would be agile. The authors implied that a well communicated managerial
vision helped generate the organizational commitment to an ethos of OAg.
Extending the notion that effective communication of a managerial vision could
positively impact OAg, management scholars have argued that for firms to become agile,
organizations would need to make fundamental changes in how they operated in terms of their
structure, operating capabilities, and culture (mindset). Doz and Kosonen (2010) examined in
their qualitative study how continual effort enabled agility. They developed a qualitative
evaluation from a series of 12 case studies and concluded that individual, managerial, and
organizational drive were contributing factors for organizational agility. These companies were
a convenience sample of large multinational firms in various industries including electronics,
computers, and software. In essence, agility was created through continual efforts to build
‘velocity’ into the system elements of the firm (Doz & Kosonen, 2008), where velocity was
defined as the rate at which new system elements were utilized to address environmental change.
Barrand (2006), in an empirical study of 52 French manufacturing firms in 2005,
developed seven principles for agility (including anticipation, innovation, culture of change, etc.)
through a three-stage questionnaire method. Barrand (2006, p.11) claimed that this technique
allowed “the firm to ask the key questions about strategy, the organization and behavior before
envisaging change towards more agility.” The author surveyed a random selection of senior
managers and surveyed them for answers on what attributes constituted organizational agility.
Barrand used correlations and regression based analyses to assess survey responses. From the
synthesized survey data, Barrand subsequently used qualitative analysis to glean the principles
106
for agility all of which pertained to obtaining firm-wide commitment, such as value creation and
cooperative culture, configurability of resources, shared goals, and leadership type.
Some researchers argued that OAg required managers to develop a continuous change
strategy. Goldman, et al. (2001), in an attempt to define agility as an ability to thrive and prosper
in a competitive environment of continuous change, used the questionnaire method for their
proposed diagnostic tool for assessing the effectiveness of DCs. They studied 78 companies in
the United States across multiple industries including pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, high tech,
and internet firms to test the diagnostic tool. Using correlation and regression models to draw
conclusions, Goldman, et al. concluded that managers with change methods performed better
than those that did not have change methods.
Many scholars have attempted to prove that agility was clearly a DC that could be
exploited corporately as well as in smaller groupings. For instance, Breu, Hemingway,
Strathern, and Bulger (2001) proposed that agility was an organization-wide capability to
respond rapidly to market changes (p. 21). They used a randomized U.K. IT firm senior manager
test group of 515 and evaluated these managers’ agility from various companies and industries
with a 3-point Likert scale (more quickly to less quickly). They concluded from a chi-squared
analysis, that agility was indeed an organizational type of DC, not just a localized phenomenon.
Breu, et al. concluded and stressed that constant vision communication and obtaining
organizational commitment were critical management behaviors.
Extending the work of Breu, et al. (2001), Kassim and Zain (2004) proposed that agility
was the ability of a firm “to face and adapt proficiently in a continuously changing and
unpredictable business environment (p.174).” They performed an empirical study of 374
107
randomly selected managers from various industries in Malaysia. The measurement tool was a
survey that used a scale of measurement system (with 13 distinct items) that quantitatively
evaluated four factors: (1.) strategy, (2.) technology (IT, etc.), (3.) cooperation to compete, and
(4.) human resource utility. From their inferential statistical analysis (correlations and
regressions), the authors found a positive relationship between these four factors and
organizational agility. Key to the authors’ findings was that senior managers needed to adopt
flexible strategies that included extreme cooperation and an adaptable workforce if they intended
to create an agile organization. Key for this dissertation was that the authors alluded to
sensemaking processes being a large part of how firms assessed their existing resource base.
Long (2000) reviewed agility from the strategic perspective. He evaluated agility within
70 firms in the U.S. in 1999 using a 28 questionnaire tool covering 7 major themes: (1.) clarity of
vision, (2.) knowledge of clients, (3.) understanding core capabilities, (4.) selecting strategic
targets, (5.) shared responsibilities, (6.) understanding the competition, and (7.) taking action.
Using statistical tools such as regression analysis, Long (2000) empirically determined a positive
linkage between these seven parameters and organizational agility. Long’s research, in many
ways, echoed the work of Breu, et al. (2001) and Barrand (2006) in that a communicated
managerial vision could enable the ways in which firms might assess their present capabilities
and make decisions on how to make decisions on future investments of new capabilities.
Some researchers were able to determine that certain characteristic behaviors were
indicative of organizational agility. Sharifi, Barclay, Colquhoun, and Dann (2001), mentioned
previously, performed a case study on three companies where they developed some ‘best
practices’ analysis for agile behaviors. Through this qualitative study, the authors determined
that agility was the “capacity to understand the environment and to be flexible, cost effective and
108
productive, with consistent high quality (p.857).” The authors found four agility capabilities for
organizations: responsiveness, competency, quickness, and flexibility. They also discovered
five agility providers: a fluid organization, adaptive people, utilization of new technology,
information systems, and innovation. Key to the scope of this dissertation were Sharifi, et al.’s
findings on organizational fluidity, adaptive people, and innovation as being senior management
encouraged behaviors of the firm’s workforce.
Techniques in organizational learning were a prominent theme in the literature regarding
OAg. Jimenez-Jimenez and Sanz-Valle (2011) empirically studied the relationship between
innovation, organizational learning, and firm performance. They used the structured equation
modeling technique, along with the chi-squared statistic, with empirical data on 451 randomly
selected Spanish firms from various industries. The authors used a land mailed survey to obtain
their data from senior managers. They concluded that managerial behaviors that supported fast
knowledge acquisition and knowledge distribution supported OAg. Insightful and continual
knowledge interpretation was also a strong contributor to OAg creation and development.
Interestingly, the authors discovered that organizational learning (knowledge acquisition,
interpretation, and distribution) supported innovation (Popperian change) and facilitated positive
performance.
Learning techniques were also studied by Drnevich and Kriacuiunas (2011) who
conducted an empirical study with 48 Chilean firms using correlation statistics and subsequent
hypothesis testing. The authors surveyed senior managers at these Chilean firms in order to
better understand the relationship between organizational capabilities (OCs) and change
capabilities in firms. The study supported several hypotheses, including the proposition that OCs
and DCs supported innovation and change at the process level. Notably, the authors also
109
concluded that capability selection and creation should be carefully considered. For example, it
was found that it might be more prudent to purchase technological OCs (products, etc.) off the
shelf and develop DCs in-house. This study raised the recurring theme of good asset
orchestration as a managerial skill to produce OAg (and other DCs, such as OA).
Organizational mindset (commitment) was also discussed in the literature with regard to
OAg. Griffith, Noble, and Chen (2006) developed an empirical study on retail stores in the
United States. They focused on the characteristics of an entrepreneur as the lens for the study.
Using the questionnaire method, the authors surveyed 269 retailers, and determined that
management orientation toward the market and entrepreneurial proclivity were two key
managerial behaviors that precipitated the creation and implementation of DCs (OA and OAg
types). Statistically, the authors used correlations and hypothesis testing to determine if their
findings were significant. Entrepreneurial proclivity (EP) was defined by the researchers as a
willingness to accept entrepreneurial processes and practices (including decision making). The
authors asserted that if a senior manager used EP, then market responsiveness increased (e.g.,
OAg).
As previously mentioned, sensing was another major activity cited in the literature
needed to create and implement DCs. In terms of OAg, Roberts and Grover (2012) performed an
empirical study of organizational agility on 188 senior marketing managers at U.S. high-tech
firms. The authors used a survey methodology in an attempt to better understand how the
alignment of sensing and responding capabilities related to performance. The study concluded
that firm performance was improved when customer sensing and responding capabilities were
aligned (as opposed to misaligned). The statistical tools used included hypothesis testing,
correlation, and regression modeling. Interestingly, the authors were able to better understand
110
the relationship between sensing and responding, and discovered that if a firm was not high
sensing and high performing, the next best option was for the firm to develop its responding
capabilities (while keeping medium to low sensing capabilities). In terms of management
behavior, the authors suggested that sensing and responding alone did not effectively create
OAg. In addition, the manager must have organized the alignment of the organization (i.e.,
change the physical construct) to facilitate a positive organizational response to the environment.
Creating and Implementing Dynamic Capabilities-Summary
This section of the chapter attempted to address how organizations create DCs. How do
organizations sense, cognate and respond to change? Organizational design and strategy
scholarship was found on this topic. The literature clearly distinguished the development of DCs
from core competencies and OCs (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2002). Core competencies and OCs
were discrete organizational level practices which were key to running the firm on a temporal
basis. As discussed in the chapter, they tended to be static in nature.
OCs were not intended to be easily changed (Teece, 1997). DCs, such as OA, OAg and
communication of managerial vision, were challenging to create and implement. O’Reilly and
Tushman (2007) provided the example of Southwest Airlines, a company which developed core
competencies and OCs in the area of resource utilization. The firm focused on the fast
turnaround of planes and low cost operations (hard to imitate) to dominate its competition in a
certain context (e.g., a core competency). To the contrary, Apple Inc., used multiple practices
simultaneously to maintain advantages over its competitors. Apple’s senior leaders deployed
resources to sell a variety of computer hardware products (laptops and desk tops) for existing
markets; however, it also provided the emerging marketplace with portable music devices which
111
tied to an online service, allowing a customer to buy music one song at a time. These were
examples of a firm’s dynamic capabilities.
The literature suggested that DCs were at the center of becoming ambidextrous (OA) and
timely (OAg), and focused (managerial vision). The senior managers in organizations needed to
be able to navigate through all three to successfully create DCs.
Support for Research Propositions
P1. There is a positive relationship between certain senior management
behaviors (interventions) and the outcomes of the dynamic capabilities
examined in this dissertation.
The evidence reviewed for this dissertation suggested that sensing (environmental scanning)
(Gebauer, 2011; Protogerou, et al., 2011; James & Lahti, 2011; Boumgarden, et al., 2012).
sensemaking (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Sirmon & Hitt, 2009; Kong, 2010), developing
means to pursue exploitative and exploration-based activities (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Wu,
Melynk, & Flynn, 2010; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011), and implementing rapid assessments of
the firm’s capabilities (agility) to inform strategic management activities (Breu, et al., 2001;
Holsapple & Li, 2008; Ojha, 2009; Doz & Kosonen, 2010) were senior manager behaviors that
had a positive relationship to the facilitation of DCs. Thus, proposition 1 (P1) was supported.
P2. There is a positive relationship between a well communicated and shared
vision from senior managers and the development of dynamic capabilities.
Support was found in the evidence for proposition 2 (P2). Shared vision was positively linked to
the facilitation of DCs (Easterby-Smith & Prieto, 2008; James & Lahti, 2011). The senior
manager’s role was also prominent in the evidence as a tool of persuasion (Maitlis & Lawrence,
2007; Slack, et al., 2010), as a moderator for group sensemaking (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007;
112
Griffin, et al., 2010), and as a means to increase firm innovations (Phattanacheewapul &
Ussahawanitchaket, 2009; Story,2010; Hyatt, 2011).
P3. Senior managers who are able to create and implement dynamic capabilities
are more likely to position organizations to successfully create or adapt to
market changes.
Firms that were able to create and implement DCs positioned their firms for higher success to
adapt to market change (Sarros, et al., 2010; Ojha, 2009). Some of the evidence linked senior
management's involvement as a significant moderator for facilitating DCs’ development and firm
outcomes (Katila & Ahuja, 2002; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Boumgarden, et al., 2012).
Thus, proposition 3 (P3) was supported.
P4. The type of changes that are needed by organizations in modern markets
more resemble the change theory of Karl Popper (i.e., Popperian Innovation
and revolutionary science) (Popper, 1965) rather than the more commonly
accepted change theory of Thomas Kuhn (Kuhnian Innovation and normal
science) (Kuhn, 1996; Shareef, 2007).
Several studies reviewed for this dissertation contended that the markets in which firms compete
could be extremely turbulent (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Atuaheme-Gima & Murray, 2007)
and even partially chaotic (Keupp, Palmie, & Gassman, 2012). The evidence found in this
systematic review of the literature suggested that DCs enabled continual exploration-based
innovations (radical, transformational) to meet these market demands (Gibson & Birkinshaw,
2004; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Teece, 2012). This
dissertation, therefore, found support for proposition 4 (P4).
113
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework
Introduction to Chapter 3
This chapter provided the theoretical frameworks that underpinned this dissertation. The
purpose of this dissertation was to identify and assess how senior managers develop dynamic
capabilities to respond to environmental change in organizations. This chapter presented the
specific management theories applied to support the dissertation in order to answer the research
question:
What senior management actions (interventions, behaviors) facilitate the creation and
implementation of dynamic capabilities (timely, purposeful change) within organizations?
This chapter initially summarized and reviewed the layered approach outlined in Chapter
2 on what dynamic capabilities (DCs) comprised: routines and capabilities. Next, the historical
origins of DCs were discussed in terms of two main management theories: Resource Based
Theory (RBT) and Absorptive Capacity Theory (ACT). As noted previously, the working
definition of DCs in this dissertation was “the firm’s potential to systematically solve problems,
formed by its propensity to sense opportunities and threats, to make timely and market-oriented
decisions, and to change its resource base (Barreto, 2010, p. 271).”
This dissertation focused on three DCs which were integrated into a framework which
guided this dissertation. The first DC, Organizational Ambidexterity (OA), was the ability of an
organization to simultaneously master both adaptability and alignment through various
environmental contexts (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). The second DC proposed in this
dissertation was Organizational Agility (OAg), which was defined as the ability of an
114
organization to recognize changes and opportunities (internal and external), then subsequently
use existing resources to respond (proactively or reactively) to such changes in a timely, flexible,
cost-effective, relevant manner (Holsapple & Li, 2008). The final DC proposed in this
dissertation was the communication of senior management’s vision. The effective
communication of senior management’s vision was found to be unique in that the scholarly
literature portrayed it both as a management intervention technique to enhance DC creation and
implementation and an independent DC by itself. Finally, a framework was proposed and
explicated with contextual and definitional support.
The Constructs of DCs
This dissertation used a ‘layered’ approach to develop an understanding of DCs.
According to a several theorists (Peng, et al., 2008; Helfat, et al., 2007), DCs were comprised of
organizational capabilities, substantive organizational practices or bundles of routines
demonstrating an organization’s ‘know how.’. Routines, in turn, were described as activities that
supported the current business model. From a construct standpoint, in a layered sense, a DC was
the systematic ability to modify, extend, or reconfigure organizational capabilities (bundles of
routines) (Teece, 1997).
Illuminating what the literature said about routines, many researchers proposed that they
were collections/integrations of resources collaborating together (Grant, 1991; Teece, 1997).
Routines were also characterized as predictable patterns of activities or sequences of coordinated
events (Grant, 1991). From an asset point of view, resources were frameworks of available
factors owned by a firm (Amil & Shoemaker, 1993) and included knowledge, physical assets,
and human capital (Capron & Hulland, 1999).
115
Organizational capabilities (OCs) represented bundles of connected routines to include
competencies that were firm specific (Teece, 1997). Organizational Capabilities (OCs) could be
viewed as integrations of routines for both static and forward looking (search) routines (Teece,
1997; Zott, 2003). Winter (2003) characterized OCs as high-level routines or groups of
integrated routines, and Amit and Shoemaker (1993) claimed that they were combinations of
processes of deploying resources.
Researchers tended to use the words competency and OC interchangeably (Amit &
Shoemaker, 1993); however, some references showed that OCs were distinguishable from
competencies. Madhok (1997) suggested, for instance, that OCs were actually higher order
competencies. Porter (1996) claimed that OCs were static activities which a firm could do better
than other firms.
This dissertation author believed that some background was required here in order to
define routines and OCs in order to demonstrate how the terms have been viewed through
various theoretical lenses.
The Origin of DCs and Historical Context
Many theorists believed that DCs stemmed from the combination of several management
theories including RBT and ACT. RBT considered that firms had bundles of resources (‘know
how’) embedded in personnel and in other intellectual property. Thus, RBT argued that
managers should evaluate these resources for general value, rarity, un-inimitability, and non-
substitutability (Wernerfelt, 1984). For the resources that met these criteria, organizations
should exercise extreme care to protect these resources because they were directly linked to the
success of the firm (Barney, 1991). ACT, the second theoretical lens used in this dissertation,
116
examined how organizations, acquired, accumulated, and disseminated knowledge (Grant, 1996).
Many theorists believed that ACT underpinned how a firm could succeed for the long term
(O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011).
DCs as an Organizational Construct
Based on the constructs of routines and OCs, described previously, DCs could be
interpreted as a set of change (search) routines that enabled a firm’s abilities to integrate and
build competencies (Teece, 1997). Winter provided a construct of DCs that characterized them
as sets of routines that permitted a firm to evolve its resource configuration (Winter, 2003; Zott,
2003). Some researchers argued that DCs stemmed from changing routines or search routines
(Nelson & Winter, 1982; Teece, 1997), which were practices that changed existing sets of
routines and created new ones (Collis, 1994; Zolo & Winter, 2002).
These constructs should not be confused with the working definition of DCs proposed in
this dissertation. Constructs, in this context, provided clarity on where routines, OCs, and DCs,
fell within a hierarchy of firm resources.
Three DCs: OA, OAg, and Senior Managers’ Communication of Vision
The three key DCs emphasized in this dissertation were: Organizational Ambidexterity,
Organizational Agility, and Senior Managers’ Communication of Vision. This dissertation
identified and assessed how senior managers developed dynamic capabilities to respond to
environmental change in organizations.
117
Organizational Ambidexterity (OA)
OA, as defined in this dissertation, was the ability of an organization to master both
adaptability and alignment simultaneously through various environmental contexts (Gibson &
Birkinshaw, 2004). Many of the scholars producing OA research suggested that this
simultaneous behavior should be balanced. Balancing exploration (innovation) and exploitation
(efficiency improvements) was required because financial and human resources were limited.
Any imbalanced decision making could sub-optimize the organization’s competition posture
(O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007).
Research showed that OA may be more applicable to the competitive and new
opportunity markets (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004; Kang, 2011; He & Wong, 2004). Structural
OA referred to senior managers setting up a separate structure (resources, funding, assets,
people) for a new business venture (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004a). Structural OA also might be
better suited to new markets and opportunity development (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008;
Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004b; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007). Researchers generally held this
view because new organizational structures allowed for focused efforts on the new opportunities,
without a conflict with current operations (Smith, Binns & Tushman, 2010; Raisch &
Birkinshaw, 2008).
In contrast, contextual OA might be more effective in competitive environments,
environments of intense incremental change (Simsek, 2009). Contextual OA considered how the
workforce internalized and made sense of senior management’s vision. Ambidextrous behavior
118
provided the OA for firms in lieu of the structure in this competitive environment (Birkinshaw &
Gibson, 2004).
Organizational Agility (OAg)
OAg, as previously mentioned, was defined as the ability of an organization to recognize
changes and opportunities (internal and external), then subsequently use existing resources to
respond (proactively or reactively) to such changes in a timely, flexible, cost-effective, relevant
manner (Holsapple & Li, 2008). Arguably, OAg could be practically interpreted as how fast
and effectively a DC (such as OA and others) could be implemented. Successful creation and
implementation of OAg required both velocity and effectiveness (in terms of cost, disruption
level of change, etc.).
Many researchers felt that OAg (organizational agility) was key to success in hyper-
competitive markets (McCann, et al., 2009; Teece, 2007; Swink & Hegarty, 1998) which were
markets that experienced revolutionary changes very quickly (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997;
McCann , et al.,2009). OAg was an empirically tested concept that added capacity to identify
and capture opportunities more quickly than did a firm’s rivals (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007).
OAg had been shown to enable firms to sustain competitive advantages in competitive
environments in a variety of industries (Doz & Kosonen, 2010).
Furthermore, Doz and Kosonen (2008) suggested that OAg was created from three key
managerial activities: sensitivity, leadership unity, and fluidity of resources. Researchers had
also claimed that OAg was a very knowledge intensive (Yang & Liu, 2012) activity. DCs
theorists also argued that effectiveness (linkage to positive outcomes) might be contextual and
circumstantial when linked to the appropriate dynamic environment (hyper-competitive,
competitive, and new markets) (Helfat, et al., 2007).
Communication of Senior Management’s Vision
119
The literature suggested that visioning and creating shared visions (Sarros et al., 2010)
were critical activities in creating and implementing DCs. Vera and Crossan (2004) proposed
that vision and vision implementation were key to DC creation and that the extant literature
suggested that DCs were fostered by leaders that developed shared vision and stayed active in
the process of embedding that vision in the organization. O’Reilly and Tushman (2007) claimed
that senior managers had a great influence over the firm’s agility and ambidextrous activities.
Additionally, Teece, et al. (1997) discovered that winners in the marketplace had been associated
with proactive senior leadership’s nurturance of ambidextrous behaviors.
Theoretical Framework
The model and framework presented later in this chapter reflected that DCs research
(Teece, et al., 1997) heavily tied itself to three elements: Sensing, Seizing, and Responding
(reconfiguring, renewing). Sensing and seizing, together, defined the construct of OA (Rasich
and Birkinshaw, 2008). The sensing and responding linkage, together, formed the construct of
OAg (Holsapple & Li, 2004). Integrating sensing, seizing, and responding constituted dynamic
capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009).
The model and framework also reflected that there was significant research regarding the
characteristics of the dynamic environments in which firms operated. Much of the research
considered the relationship of the firm to its environment and markets. Thompson (2003), for
instance, suggested that the successful interplay between a firm and its environment was one that
was symbiotic. The firm would not receive the feedback necessary to survive unless it offered
stimuli desirable to the environment.
120
Several scholars believed that all organizations existed in specific environments to which
they must adapt (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat, et al., 2007; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007).
Thompson (2003) claimed that large, established organizations actually existed as agencies of
their environments. As agents, those firms could actively influence market trends (Raisch &
Birkinshaw, 2008). Contrarily, those firms could be altered by the market effects if they were not
astute in their sensing functions (Teece, 2007). Many believed that the environmental conditions
a firm faced were a major contributor to the turbulence within an organization (Birkinshaw &
Gibson, 2004a; Teece, 2007; Pfeffer, 2010). In some cases in the extant literature, changing
environments were also associated with uncertainty (Teece, 2007), which in this context
described the level of clarity into which a target market would morph. High uncertainty
environments required firms to develop extensive sensing and reasonably accurate predictions to
sustain competitive advantages (Helfat, et al., 2007).
The literature discussed several types of market environments and suggested that
environmental dynamics affected the outcomes of DCs (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Wang, et
al., 2007). Three major environments (external) were developed and researched in the literature:
hyper-competitive markets, competitive markets, and new market (opportunities).
Hyper-competitive markets involved continuous, revolutionary products and services
(e.g., a dramatic change of paradigm/change of technology platform) (Collis, 1994). Hyper-
competitive markets included those markets that produced and sold phones, computers, and
internet content companies. Generally, this change environment followed the ‘big bang’ theory
proposed by Karl Popper (Popper, 1965; Popper, 1972).
121
Competitive environments were comprised of dynamics that involved periodic
incremental change (Di Stefano et al., 2010). Competitive environments included markets such
as automobiles, the beverage industry (e.g., Coca Cola vs. Pepsi Cola) and the travel industry
(e.g., airlines). Generally these environments followed an incremental change profile as
suggested by Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn, 1996).
Finally, there was the environment of new markets or opportunities (Atuahene-Gima &
Murray, 2007) which included the need for well-planned and executed R&D (exploration) and
entrepreneurism. Typically, there were only a few or no competitors postured for these emerging
environments. Similar to the hypercompetitive environment, this change environment showed
trends similar to the ‘big bang’ theory proposed by Karl Popper (Popper, 1965; Popper, 1972).
Model and Framework
In support of this dissertation, the model and framework (Figure 3) showed the
relationship of the two theoretical lenses through which this dissertation was viewed: ACT and
RBT. The scholarly literature presented in Chapter 2 suggested that the ability of an
organization to acquire and disseminate knowledge through the creation and implementation of
DCs was a critical management enabled process for success. Thus, ACT was shown as a
continuous process (top, dotted, red arrow) from the sensing stage to the resource reconfiguring
phase of this model. Similarly, this dissertation focused on resources as the target assets used by
managers to effect these positive changes in the organization. DCs, as previously mentioned,
endeavored to extend, modify, or change the existing resource base of a firm. Therefore, RBT
was shown as a key underpinning theory in both the existing and the new organizational
122
capabilities that supported the movement of the organization as it was being reconfigured as a
consequence of creating and implementing DCs.
Figure 2: How Senior Managers Create and Implement Dynamic Capabilities
Martin (2014)
Innovative Change and Its Relationship to Kuhn and Popper
This dissertation has mentioned the Kuhn-Popper debate in various literature contexts.
The discussion of the need for dynamic capabilities and their development raised an historical
debate between the views of Robert Kuhn (1996) and Karl Popper (1965). Kuhn’s change
model proposed that once a technological paradigm was accepted by the majority of
123
stakeholders, the principles of ‘normal science’ dictated that minor improvements would be
made for a significant period of time (Kuhn, 1996). Revolutionary science (radical innovation)
required much effort and significant benefit to change the existing paradigm (Kuhn, 1996).
Popper, on the other hand, suggested that technological paradigms were in a constant state of
radical change and that the existing paradigms were constantly being challenged by new
technological breakthroughs (Popper 1965, Popper, 1972). In terms of the theoretical model and
framework proposed in this chapter (see figure 3), Popperian and Kuhnian changes were
highlighted as an output of the ‘Resource Assessment’ activity.
Figure 3: Theoretical Model Featuring Kuhnian and Popperian Change
Martin (2014)
124
This dissertation proposed that dynamic capabilities were a means for a firm to make purposeful
changes to sustain competitive advantages (Teece, 2012). Environmental turbulence and market
changes were characterized as being almost unpredictable with changes in competitors and
product platforms (or services) emerging at a rapid place (Eisenhart & Martin, 2000; Helfat, et
al., 1997). The technology used to service the customers, such as mobile phones, might
presently provide a particular set of services; however, in the near future those services might be
greatly expanded. Other scenarios included mobile phone technology being embedded in some
other platform that improved the user experience. All of these scenarios were radical
innovations which might take place rapidly and sequentially with minimal opportunity for firms
to incrementally improve their existing technology platforms (Teece, 2007; O’Reilly &
Tushman, 2011). This rapid succession of radical innovations (innovations that are significantly
different in form or function from the existing technology), seemed to favor the Popperian
change paradigm (1965) over the model proposed by Kuhn (1996).
Summary of Model and Framework
As a construct, DCs were products of OCs bundles. OCs were comprised of bundles of
routines. DCs were viewed as change mechanisms for OCs (and routines). Environmental
dynamism could have an impact on OCs and DCs and their effectiveness. OA and OAg were
key DCs and firm competitive success was dependent upon the context in which they were
invoked.
A theoretical framework for OA, OAg, and the communication of senior management’s
vision included DCs that concomitantly work in union to generate successful, purposeful
outcomes. This dissertation also asserted that senior managers through vision and adaptive
behavior could moderate a firm’s competitive advantages.
125
Chapter Four: Methodology
Introduction
This dissertation, using a diverse body of evidence, answered the research question posed
in Chapter 1, which was:
What senior management actions (interventions, behaviors) facilitate the creation and
implementation of dynamic capabilities (timely, purposeful change) within
organizations?
The methodology used in this dissertation’s research was a systematic review of the
literature based on a thematic analysis of scholarly primary evidence. The systematic review of
the literature, in this context, was meant to provide research-based suggestions for evidence
based management, which has been viewed by some theorists as a group of research methods
that enabled decision making for management practitioners (Denyer & Rousseau, 2009). The
salient components of any systematic review were the methodology (how the evidence was
evaluated and qualified) and the transparency provided to support the conclusions (Tranfield, et
al., 2003; Thomas & Harden, 2008). The purpose of this evidence based research (EBR)
technique was to determine what was known about a particular management topic. Thus, this
dissertation attempted to assemble and synthesize ‘what was known’ about the senior manager’s
role in the creation and implementation of DCs.
To demonstrate the transparency needed to explicitly detail the methodology used in this
dissertation, this chapter began by explaining why the research question posed by this
dissertation was appropriate for evidence based research and useful for evidence based
management. The specific scholarly research methods used in this dissertation were discussed at
length and the inclusion (and exclusion) criteria were identified. Associated with that aspect of
126
the chapter, the rubric by which evidence was evaluated and qualified was given. Finally, the
recommendations of an expert panel on DCs were reviewed as a part of this dissertation’s
evidence based inquiry.
Dissertation Topic’s Relevance to Evidence Based Research and Evidence Based
Management
Scholars and managers in recent times have reviewed the effectiveness of EBR in the
medical profession and concluded that it could inform EBM in the management arena in a
similar, positive way (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). The management movement toward
using EBR to inform EBM gained significant traction in recent years due to the need for
management practitioners to make decisions based on high quality evidence, not just a mere
indiscriminant set of data which may have poorly qualified sources (Denyer & Tranfield, 2006).
Furthermore, much of the grey literature on strategic management and flexible organizations
emphasized the practices used by famous executive officers such as Steve Jobs of Apple, Inc. or
Jack Welch of General Electric. The challenge for practitioners in using the strategies cited in
these types of books and articles is that they could be very context dependent (Denyer &
Tranfield, 2009). In contrast, EBM informed by EBR attempted to address these criticisms by
enabling management practitioners to critically evaluate the validity, generalizability, and
perhaps most importantly, the applicability of the evidence available (Rousseau, Manning, &
Denyer, 2008). Given the increased scholarly research in management practice such as
entrepreneurship, employee motivation, and many other relevant areas, including DCs, managers
could now seek available systematic reviews of the literature, such as in this dissertation, to
better evaluate the potential for application of the results of these reviews to their given situation
(Tranfield, et al., 2003).
127
Management practitioners have expressed the need for ‘better’ data in driving their
decision making and the use of EBR, in the management arena, might be a solution to this
request. EBR could represent a conscious effort to acquire, analyze and present the very best
evidence obtainable for a decision making activity by converting a practical management
problem into an ‘answerable’ question that could be pursued by systematically retrieving and
critically evaluating available evidence (Rousseau, et al., 2008). This included weighing and
combining the value, credibility and applicability of various sources of evidence and applying
this evidence to the senior manager’s decision making process. EBR proponents argued that this
methodology informed EBM in ways that allowed the best information to be applied to the
decision and, hopefully, increased the probability of desirable outcomes (Denyer & Tranfield,
2006; Rousseau, et al., 2008).
The EBR movement, in many cases, has leveraged systematic review methodology to
produce applicable evidence to a particular management problem (Pettigrew & Roberts, 2005).
The systematic review can be a practical tool in trying to understand the meaning of a
compendium of studies on a particular subject (Gough, et al., 2012). This dissertation could
contribute to the discussion of the applicability of EBR to management topics by applying EBR
to a practical question related to dynamic capabilities and the senior manager’s role in creating
and implementing them.
Many researchers have concluded that the research question(s) posed should dictate the
appropriate systematic review method (Gough, et.al, 2012; Petticrew & Roberts, 2009). It was
suggested that a suitable match between the two will deliver a powerful means by which
management practitioners use evidence to drive their decision making process (Tranfield, et al.,
2003). Some believed that the starting point for evidence based management was the forming of
128
decisions on the basis of both critical thinking and the best available evidence or information
(Tranfield, et al., 2003). The evidence based management (EBM) view also claimed that the
sources of evidence could include research, internal intelligence and personal experience
(Denyer & Rousseau, 2009). The methods used in this dissertation followed these steps.
Based on the type of research question posed in this dissertation, the best research
approach, within EBR, was thematic synthesis. Thematic synthesis, according to Boyatzis
(1998), was a research method that identified, analyzed , and then reported themes or patterns
within a data set. The research question posed for this dissertation was open-ended and was very
suitable for conclusions grounded in thematic analysis and synthesis (Thomas & Harden, 2008;
Boyatzis, 1998). Building on its prevalent use in psychology and social fields, this dissertation
used thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998) since it was believed to be applicable across a wide array
of theories and epistemologies (Gough, et. al, 2012; Pettigrew & Roberts, 2005).
Since thematic synthesis (including analysis) methods in research have presented some
historical challenges to external validity (Gough, et.al, 2012; Thomas & Harden, 2008), care
was taken in this dissertation to clearly present the theoretical framework and matching research
methods to support the findings developed in this dissertation. More specifically, the thematic
synthesis approach used in this dissertation was as transparent and descriptive as possible in
order to allow for the exploration of how managers create dynamic capabilities to adapt to a
changing environment.
The outcome from this systematic review of the literature was a useful model by which
management practitioners could effectively orchestrate (here characterized as the managerial
search, selection and configuration of resources and capabilities) firm assets (people, intellectual
129
property, and equipment) as a dynamic capability. The substantial literature base on this subject
provided a rich data set for EBR on this subject (i.e., what works?).
This dissertation focused on the role of the senior manager as a DCs moderator. The
volume of DCs literature was significant (Teece, 2007) and much of this literature suggested that
senior manager behavior was related to how well firms developed dynamic capabilities (Gibson
& Birkenshaw, 2004; Wu, He, Duan, & O’Regan, 2012).
Identification of Evidence
This thematic analysis for this dissertation reviewed both empirical and case study based
literature from 2000 to 2012 that examined or focused on connections between dynamic
capabilities (as defined previously) and various measures of organizational performance.
Selected prior systematic reviews pertaining to DCs that met the criteria explained below were
also included. Using the techniques discussed in Lane, Koka, and Pathak (2006) and Newbert
(2007), the methods described hereafter were used to select and evaluate the quality of research
evidence for this dissertation.
Search String Development
A preliminary review of the literature was performed in order to develop a
comprehensive list of descriptors to denote the various factors discussed. The papers that were
selected for the preliminary review were found in Appendix A. The diagram below shows the
results of the preliminary review and presents the raw terms used to form the official search
strings (Figure 4):
Figure 4: Raw DCs Related Search Terms Harvested from the Scholarly Literature
130
Martin (2014)
As a general condition, all targeted research articles were identified performing searches in the
following scholarly databases: ABI/Inform Complete, Business Source Complete, Emerald Full
Text and Management Reviews, JSTOR, and Science Direct. A complete search string listing
was provided in Appendix B; however, Table 7, below shows an initial (abridged) set of search
strings used to find the initial sample of research papers:
Table 7: Sample for Search Strings Use in Thematic Synthesis
Subject Boolean Connecting Subject
Dynamic capabilit*
Dynamic capabilit* AND Performance
Dynamic capabilit* AND Environment
Dynamic capabilit* AND Manage*
Organization* ambidexterity
Organization* ambidexterity AND Performance
Organization* ambidexterity AND Manage*
Dynamic Capabilities
ProcessEfficiency (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009)
CompetitiveAdvantage (Pitt & Clarke, 1999)Performance
Innovation (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009)
Sensing (Helfat, et.al, 2007)
Learning (Zollo & Winter,2002)
Innovation (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009)
Agility (Sherehiy, et. al, 2007)
Ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkenshaw, 2004)
Rel
atio
nsh
ip
Change Management (Helfat & Winter, 2011)
Efficiency (Pablo, et.al, 2007)
Teamwork(Delarue, et.al, 2008)
131
Organization* ambidexterity AND Environment
Organization* ambidexterity AND Context*
Organization* agility
Organization* agility AND Manage*
Organization* agility AND Environment*
Martin (2014)
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Phase 1 Preliminary Evidence Filtering
After applying the series of search strings developed for this dissertation, the Phase 1
criteria were used to eliminate irrelevant articles which were not pertinent to the research
question posed in this dissertation. The filter for the evidence reviewed during this phase
included the following:
This review only included research from peer reviewed, scholarly journals that addressed
the senior manager’s role in the formulation of DCs using a working definition similar to
the one finally proposed in this dissertation.
This review only focused on research that concluded the actions taken by managers to be
impactful (negatively or positively) in developing DCs.
Inclusion criteria included only those articles that clearly identified the steps (and
activities) that yielded outcomes.
Studies with negative outcomes or failures were also included.
Empirical evidence was considered if it arose from case studies and primary research,
e.g., statistics based surveys.
Literature reviews and systematic reviews were selectively used.
Systematic reviews, in particular, were only considered if the inclusion criteria and
purpose were consistent with the inclusion criteria above.
Phase 2 Evaluation of Evidence
132
Studies were accepted for use in this dissertation only if they provided a clear relationship
to dynamic capabilities and examined at least one measure of performance or organizational
dynamic. The studies accepted must also have met the criterion of directly demonstrating or
implying a relationship between senior managers and DCs development. More formally stated,
each study had to provide the following information for the research question(s) being pursued:
Table 8: Inclusion Criteria (Adapted from Lock, Silverman, & Spirduso, 2010)
Note: ‘Desired’ in this case meant that criteria were not absolutely critical in the initial assessment. A
more detailed assessment followed to determine if the evidence was able to be included.
The definitions for the inclusion criteria used for this dissertation are discussed below:
Study rationale
All research evidence took on the strategic management ‘lens’ OR organizational
dynamics (with a Resource Based View Theory) perspective. Purpose statements had
to clearly state how some manager or leadership behavior was linked to DCs (including
OA, or OAg) .
Study Setting
Units of analysis and sample sizes needed to be randomized although non-random
samples were reviewed (and rated lower in value). If the research was empirical, the
sample set had to be large enough to make inferential statistics valid. If the research
133
was qualitative, an assessment of the research method was considered. Higher value
was given to studies that involved multiple industries (i.e., offering the potential for
more transferability of findings).
Transparent methods
All usable evidence had to clearly demonstrate the research methodologies used to
develop the analyses and conclusions. A high quality study had to step the reviewer
through all of the data collection and analysis methodologies required to produce the
presented results.
Correct Analysis of Results
All studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were scrutinized for proper linkage
of the data analysis to the conclusions. If the data and methods satisfied this
requirement but the conclusions drawn were not suited to the findings, the value of the
study was placed into the “marginal” category, for further review. Sometimes the data
seemed to be valid but different conclusions had to be drawn (e.g., the study might still
have some value for this dissertation).
Validity and Reliability
All research included in this dissertation was subjected to thorough external/internal
validity evaluations. By external validity, this dissertation sought to understand how
generalizable (and transferable) the findings of a study were to a broader application.
By internal validity, this dissertation evaluated if the methods matched the research
questions. Research with significant validity violations was discarded (Locke, et.al,
2010, p. 82). Validity in qualitative research was evaluated on a case by case basis as
to how the authors supported their claims. For example, if the qualitative analysis was
134
case study based, the validity was deemed acceptable, if the authors also strongly
showed the transferability of their findings. Case studies that typically did not have
strong external validity were still considered as evidence if they added contextual
richness (Pettigrew & Roberts, 2005) to the basis for answering this dissertation’s
research question.
For qualitative studies, reliability was defined as how well the research tool used (e.g.,
cases, interviews) correlated to accurate findings. In other words, how robust was the
research instrument in obtaining results that truly represented the intent of the research?
Reliability, for quantitative research, was defined as the extent to which the findings
were consistent and reproducible over time using similar methods (Locke, et.al, 2010).
Age of Research
Based on a preliminary literature review, the bulk of the theoretical research for DCs
was performed in the late 1999s and early 2000s. Empirical findings became prevalent
in the year 2000 and after. Thus, included articles were used if they met the above
criteria and were published after 2000. Given that this is a dynamic phenomenon (DCs
were change management strategies), more recent, valid research might answer the
dissertation’s research question via the latest empirical findings (Ambrosini &
Bowman, 2009).
Examining the Evidence
The specific scholarly studies reviewed for this dissertation were pared down using the
methods described above. Several graphic tools were used to demonstrate transparency on how
the final studies were selected for analysis. The PRISMA diagram was used to visually
135
document the number of studies being managed at various stages in the dissertation research
process. Several tables are then used to show how pre-qualified studies were evaluated.
PRISMA Diagram
In order to graphically show the progression of the how evidence was evaluated for this
dissertation, the PRISMA was offered as a display tool. PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. It was considered by some (Gough, et al.,
2012) as a viable means of displaying and reporting the key decisions in systematic reviews and
meta-analyses. The PRISMA diagram was used in this dissertation to show the critical appraisal
process. The PRISMA diagram below (Figure 5) shows the composite process used to reduce
and qualify the evidence ultimately used in this dissertation.
Figure 5: PRISMA Diagram
136
Martin (2014)
Evaluation of Quality of Research
Data Extraction
Each scholarly article that was included in this dissertation was subjected to a uniform
data extraction process. Table 9 and Appendix C show the template used for the data extraction
process, adapted from the technique developed by Newbert (2007). An example of how this
form was used is found in Appendix D.
137
Table 9: Data Extraction Tool (Adapted from Newbert, 2007)
Hierarchy of Evidence
This dissertation made attempts to ensure that the most trustworthy and applicable studies
were used to develop the conclusions for this systematic review of the literature. In looking for
observable behaviors that senior managers used to implement and create DCs, careful attention
was given as to how the selected studies dealt with bias in their methodologies. Some researchers
believed that the treatment of bias in studies was one of the more serious challenges in
developing systematic reviews that were both effective and appropriate for answering research
questions for secondary research (Pettigrew & Roberts, 2005; Gough, et al., 2012). Internal
Type of Coding
GenericInformation
Review Questions
Reference
Author(s)
Year
Title
Journal
SpecificInformation
Type Conceptual/Empirical
Context
Level of Organization
Individual/Group
Methods
Quantitative/Qualitative
Sample Size
Method of data collection
Method of data analysis
Additional notes
Research Quality Assessment
Central Themes 0-3 value
Literature 0-3 value
Methodology 0-3 value
Empirical Results 0-3 value
Contribution to knowledge
0-3 value
Knowledgetranslated to action
0-3 value
138
validity (i.e., the susceptibility of study data to be biased in some way), therefore, was a major
driver in formulating the hierarchy of evidence model used in this dissertation.
Randomized sample studies were viewed to be of the highest value because this
dissertation was seeking to identify and assess senior managers’ behaviors in the development of
DCs. The research question posed in this dissertation was asking if there were causal links
between senior manager behaviors and DCs development. Random trials, according to some,
ranked very high at determining causality (i.e., whether a behavior will affect an outcome)
(Pettigrew & Roberts, 2005). Internal validity was also considered to be very high for these
types of studies (Gough, et al., 2012).
Multi-case studies were assessed to have the next highest internal validity to randomized
trials in the hierarchical model used for this dissertation (Pettigrew & Roberts, 2005). Even
though the evidence in multi-case studies was qualitative, the evidence found in these types of
studies could provide the results on whether a particular senior manager behavior would have a
desired effect (e.g., whether senior managerial sensemaking facilitated DCs development).
Given that multiple firms were evaluated (sometimes in different industries), these studies
provided external validity (and thus generalizability) (Gough, et al., 2012; Pettigrew & Roberts,
2005).
By the same argument provided for multi-case studies, single case studies were valuable
to this dissertation because of detailed observations of senior managers’ behaviors over periods
of time with a single firm. Although not quite having as high internal validity as randomized
sample studies or multi-case studies, single case studies provided many more details on how
social behaviors might have affected DCs development.
139
Multi-interview studies were viewed as the next most valuable research type. While
viewed as having some level of internal validity because the interviewees were typically self-
reporting on their experiences, multi-interview studies provided deep insights on the thoughts of
selected senior managers and how they experienced events at the firm (Pettigrew & Roberts,
2005).
Finally, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were ranked as the lowest in value because
of the transparency required to evaluate if these studies were truly applicable for this dissertation.
The specific inclusion criteria used for this dissertation might have precluded the use of some
systematic reviews since the research details of the studies in the review may not have been
presented. (Gough, et al., 2012), thus, caution was used when reviewing this type of evidence
and only a small select sample of systematic reviews was included in this dissertation.
Qualifying the Evidence by Its Methodology and Applicability
The weighting of the quality of research was carried out via an adapted model developed
by Newbert (2007). Table 10 characterizes how this rating was performed for each evaluation
element.
140
Table 10: Quality of Research Model (adapted from Newbert, 2007)
Qualifying the Evidence by Research Type
A second method was used in this dissertation to take into consideration the type of
research examined (Gough, et al., 2012). The hierarchy for the evidence used in this systematic
review of the literature was presented earlier in this chapter. From that assessment, each type of
evidence bore different mathematical weights allocated as shown in Table 11:
Table 11: Evidence Type Weights
Research Type Weighted Value
Empirical Survey 35
Multi-Case Study 25
Single Case Study 20
Qualitative Multi-
Interview Studies
20
Systematic Reviews 10
Martin (2014)
141
The calculated outputs from the studies analyzed in the ‘Qualifying the Evidence by
Methodology and Applicability’ section were then mathematically added to values in this section
to produce a composite scoring of the research evidence from most valid and applicable to least
valid and applicable. Given the algorithm used for this dissertation, the highest possible score
for a research study was fifty (50). The lowest possible score was ten (10), assuming each
section of the research model section received a score of zero. This dissertation established a
minimum qualifying score to be twenty (20) with no single acceptable for inclusion ‘Quality of
Research Model’ score of less than two (2). Marginally acceptable evidence included studies
that scored between twenty and thirty (20-30). Generally acceptable evidence accepted evidence
which scored between thirty and forty (30-40), and strong evidence was considered to be based
on those studies which scored between forty and fifty (40-50). Table 12 shows a sample of the
final tabulations of the weighted qualifications of the evidence used in this dissertation.
Table 12: Sample of Final Qualification of Evidence Scoring
Type of
Research
Authors Year of
Publication
Quality of
Method Score
(A)
Type of
Research Score
(B)
Composite
Score
(A+B)
Empirical
Survey
Peng, et al. 2008 12 35 47
Multi-Case
Study
Pavlov & El
Sawy
2011 13 25 38
Single Case
Study
Salazar &
Pelaez
2011 11 20 31
Multi-
Interview
Study
Andriopoulos
& Lewis
2010 15 20 35
Systematic
Review
Bititci, et al. 2011 15 10 25
Martin (2014)
142
Extraction of Themes
As previously mentioned, thematic synthesis was the primary research approach used to
evaluate the evidence generated by this data extraction process. In accordance with the thematic
synthesis process (Gough, et.al, 2012) all included evidence was reviewed for common themes.
A theme, as defined in this dissertation, was a topic that had some level of significant repetition
or commonality within 20% or more of the articles that related to what was perceived to be a
common theme (e.g., found in 10 articles or more). Even though assessing themes based on
inclusion frequency in the articles reviewed might be deemed subjective (i.e., a theme that
occurred in 20 articles versus a theme that occurred in 30 articles), synthetic themes were
presented in this dissertation based on a ‘line-by-line’ assessment of findings determined in each
study and how those findings directly related to answering the research question for this
dissertation. In other words, themes that appeared to provide more direct answers to the posed
research question, were considered for inclusion (even though the theme might occur in only a
small percentage of the articles reviewed).
Expert Panel Feedback Discussion
In order to validate and seek, external to university input, other suggestions for this
dissertation, an expert panel reviewed an early draft of the introductory chapter, an initial version
of the systematic review of the literature and an early version of this dissertation’s theoretical
model. An initial set of potential expert panel candidates was generated through identifying
authors in the scholarly and grey literature related to DCs. Selection of potential candidates was
focused on inviting the academicians and practitioners felt to be most knowledgeable of the
dissertation’s subject matter. This initial set of potential panelists was subsequently vetted
through a screening process with the dissertation committee to determine who would be invited
143
to review the three chapters mentioned above. A total of seven sets of early versions of Chapters
1 through 3 were sent to four academic scholars and three management practitioners, all of
whom had substantial expertise in either managing or theory development in the areas of DCs,
OA, and OAg. Positive responses were received from one academic expert and two management
practitioners. Each respondent provided feedback on this dissertation, discussed in this section.
The summarized background for each respondent was presented in Appendix E.
The respondent from academia (AR1) thought that deeper consideration should be shown
in establishing the working definition for DCs in this dissertation. Offering that a more narrow
definition may be more practical for this research, the respondent stated that a DCs definition
that specifically referenced management application would help to focus the review of evidence
to determine what senior managers actually do in creating DCs. The respondent also suggested
the potential concern that all evidence cannot be considered equal and asked what measures
would be used to qualify the evidence identified in this dissertation. In response to this feedback,
the dissertation author reconsidered the many definitions that had been proposed in the literature
and selected the one proposed by Barreto (2010) that best embodied the practitioner viewpoint.
To address the concern regarding the evaluation of the quality of evidence, this
dissertation provided specific attention to developing a quantitative procedure for segmenting the
quality of the evidence. Additionally, the strength of the themes extracted from the included
literature was calculated to determine its overall generalizability in answering the research
question. For instance, a theme was identified if it was found in 30% or more of the literature
(for N=67, 20 or more studies). Thus, a theme that was found in twenty articles was rated
‘stronger’ than one that was found in only ten articles.
144
Reviewer PR1 expressed interest in answering the question, ‘what dynamisms in the
market place link to specific managerial actions in the firm that lead to creating DCs?’ This
question was distinctly different from the one posed in this dissertation, and was thus viewed as
being beyond the scope of the dissertation. PR1 also suggested that the dissertation should
explore more details on the nature of the senior manager’s role in creating DCs. To address this
particular suggestion, the analysis of the results from Chapter 2 was modified to encompass the
various detailed activities that senior managers have used in order to create DCs. This was an
extension felt to support the overall purpose of this dissertation.
PR2 questioned what were the generalizability of the potential conclusions of the
dissertation, and recommended that a more narrow research question might flesh this out better.
In some aspects, this was felt to be a major direction change for the current dissertation content.
However, as suggested by PR1, the details from each included study could be examined for
secondary and tertiary behaviors that senior managers used to create DCs. Citing these themes
could provide a richer conclusion and thus were considered for and discussed in Chapters 5 and
6.
Summary of Chapter Four
This chapter reviewed the thematic review process used with this dissertation. The
Newbert (2007) model was used to extract data in a systematic and structured manner. Research
evidence was also weighted per the Newbert (2007) model to delineate the research quality of
each article. Sixty-seven (67) final studies were considered for synthesis as a result of this
methodological approach. An expert panel was consulted to assess if the subject matter was of
high interest to both the practitioner community and academia. Several of the suggestions
145
offered by the expert panel were incorporated into the critical review of the literature and the
findings of this dissertation.
146
Chapter 5: Findings
Introduction to Chapter Five
This chapter assessed and thematically synthesized the detailed findings from the
systematic review of the literature and other determinations from the evidenced based research.
The research question was tied to the findings in this chapter, and conclusions were drawn. The
thematic synthesis yielded five significant themes from the literature. These identified themes
were then assessed and critically reviewed.
This chapter also identified and discussed other potential points of view on creating and
implementing DCs. In addition, the systematic review of the literature conducted for this
dissertation revealed several groupings of management interventions which did not meet the
benchmark set for a theme (an intervention found in 20 or more articles in this dissertation), but
were felt to merit discussion in order to provide the most complete analysis of what was
uncovered as a part of the synthesis of the literature reviewed.
Research Question and Propositions
This dissertation sought to answer the following research question, ‘What senior
management actions (interventions, behaviors) facilitate the creation and identification of
dynamic capabilities (timely, purposeful change) within organizations?’
The propositions for this dissertation were:
P1. There is a positive relationship between certain senior management
behaviors (interventions) and the outcomes of the dynamic capabilities examined
in this dissertation.
P2. There is a positive relationship between a well communicated and shared vision
from senior managers and the development of dynamic capabilities.
147
P3. Senior managers who are able to create and implement dynamic capabilities are
more likely to position organizations to successfully create or adapt to market
changes.
P4. The type of changes that are needed by organizations in modern markets
more resemble the change theory of Karl Popper (i.e., Popperian Innovation
and revolutionary science) (Popper, 1965) rather than of the more commonly
accepted change theory of Thomas Kuhn (Kuhnian Innovation and normal
science) (Kuhn, 1996; Shareef, 2007).
Scholarly Review Process
As previously stated, evidence from the scholarly literature was accepted for this
dissertation from a wide range of contexts including studies of firms of any size, industry, and
geographic location. There were sixty-seven studies that were ultimately included in this
systematic review of the literature. In order to evaluate the strength and generalizability of the
findings presented in this chapter, several descriptive statistics were developed to provide clarity
on the characteristics of the aggregate data set used to draw conclusions.
The firms reviewed in the included scholarly studies were from three continents. Figure
6 showed the geographic distribution of the firms explored in the included studies by continent.
Considering that incorporated studies drew from firms in North America (29%, 20 studies),
Europe (32%, 21 studies), and Asia (mostly the Far East, 26 studies, 39%), the common themes
extracted for this dissertation may have cross-cultural applications, such as for firms from
varying locations. It is also notable that there was a reasonably equal distribution of studies
performed in each continent during the literature search period, which was 2000 to 2013 (see
Figure 6).
Figure 6: Incorporated Studies by Firm Locations by Continent (N=67)
148
Martin, 2014
One of the key inclusion criteria for this dissertation was that only studies published after
2000 would be considered. Given the relatively new and rapidly evolving theory development of
DCs, this criterion served as a means for reviewing the most recent literature on the aspects of
DCs related to the research question and propositions posed in this dissertation. Figure 7 shows
the distribution of the published years of the studies included in this systematic review of the
DCs literature. The largest portion of the studies was published between 2009 and 2012.
Outside of these years, the maximum number of studies for any given year was five (5).
149
Figure 7: Distribution of Included Studies by Year of Publication (N=67)
Martin, 2014
The level of analysis of the studies included for this dissertation was the organization.
Thus, the sample sizes were determined by the number of organizations examined in each study.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of the sample sizes found in the 67 included studies for this
dissertation. For each of the sample groupings (i.e., single case, 2-10 cases, etc.), there were
multiple studies. This distribution suggested that the conclusions drawn from the evidence
assessed in this systematic review of the literature might have broad application given the
varying number of firms reviewed in the aggregate data.
Number of Studies By Publication Year
150
Figure 8: Distribution of Sample Sizes in Included Studies (N=67)
Martin, 2014
The hierarchy of evidence for this dissertation was also discussed in Chapter 2. For the 67
studies finally included in this systematic review of the literature, the distribution of the types of
research was shown in Figure 9. The highest weighted evidence, random sample quantitative
studies, constituted 44% of the studies, and multi-case studies represented the next highest
percentage at 27%. It is notable that there also were multiple studies that were non-random
quantitative (8%), single case (11%), multi-interview (4%), and systematic literature reviews
(6%).
151
Figure 9: Sample Distribution by Included Study Type (N=67)
Martin, 2014
This diverse distribution of evidence was useful for this dissertation because the common
themes found were derived from a variety of research methods. The implications that stemmed
from a synthesis of this evidence were that conclusions might lend themselves to broad
applications for managers in various contexts.
Identification of Themes
This section identified the major themes, management activities or interventions, that
were found common in at least 20 (30% or more) of the included literature articles. Each theme
was defined and a discussion on how each theme was addressed by managers was explained.
Synthesis of Primary Themes
There were five major themes found in the synthesis of the literature reviewed for this
dissertation: environmental scanning, sensemaking, optimization of resource mix,
152
communication of managerial vision, and assessment of existing capabilities (resources
assessment). Table 13 shows which themes were discussed in each of the included studies.
Table 13: Key Senior Manager Behavior Discussed in the Literature Reviewed for this
Dissertation
Martin, 2014
Study
NumberAuthors (Year)
Environmental
ScanningSensemaking
Optimization of Resource Mix
(Exploitation/Exploration
Balance)
Communication
of Managerial
Vision (Shared
Vision)
Existing
Capabilities/Resources
Assessment
1 Alamahamid, et al. (2010) X X
2 Anderson & Nielsen (2007) X X
3 Andriopoulos & Lewis (2010) X X X
4 Atuahene-Gima & Murry (2007) X X
5 Barrand (2006) X X
6 Bierly & Daly (2007) X X
7 Boumgarden, et al. (2012) X X X
8 Breu, et al. (2001) X X X X X
9
Cegarra-Navarro & Dewhurst
(2007) X X X
10 Collier & Zheng (2012) X X X
11 Corbett & Neck (2010) X X X
12 Doz & Kosonen (2010) X X X
13 Drnevich & Kriacuiunas (2011) X X X
14 Ferhaber & Patel (2012) X X
15 Franken, et al. (2009) X X X
16 Galunic & Eisenhardt (2001) X X X
17 Garcia-Morales, et al. (2011) X X
18 Gebauer (2011) X X X X X
19 Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) X X X
20 Goldman, et al. (2001) X X X
21 Griffith, et al. (2006) X X X
22 He & Wong (2004) X X
23 Hyatt (2011) X
24 James & Lathi (2011) X X
25 Jansen, et al. (2012) X X
26 Jantunen, et al. (2012) X X X
27 Jiao, et al. (2011) X X
28
Jimenez-Jimenez & Sanz-Valle
(2011) X X X
29 Kassim & Zain (2004) X X
30 Katila & Ahuja (2002) X X X
31 Khandelwal & Mohendra (2010)
32 Kong (2010) X X X
33 Kyriakopoulos & Moorman (2004) X X X X X
34 Lane (2006) X X X X
35 Lin, et al. (2013) X X
36 Long (2000) X X X
37 Maitlis & Lawrence (2007) X X X
38 Marcus & Naveh (2005) X X X
39 McMann, et al. (2009) X X
40 Mithas (2011) X X X
41 Montes, et al. (2005) X X
42 Murovec & Prodan (2009) X X X
43 Nosella, et al. (2012) X X
44 Ojha (2009) X X X
45 O'Reilly & Tushman (2011) X X X
46 Owens & Hekman (2012) X X X X
47 Pablo, et al. (2007) X X X
48 Paiolaa, et al. (2013) X X X
49 Pavlou & El Sawy (2011) X X X
50 Peng, et al. (2008) X X X X X
51
Phattanacheewapul &
Ussahawantichaket (2009) X X X X
52 Protogerou, et al. (2011) X X
53 Roberts & Grover (2012) X X X X
54 Rosenzweig & Roth (2004) X X
55 Rosenzweig, et al. (2003) X X
56 Ruvio, et al. (2010) X X
57 Sarros, et al. (2008) X X
58 Schudy & Bruch (2012) X X
59 Sharifi, et al. (2001) X X
60 Sirmon & Hitt (2009) X X
61 Slack, et al. (2010) X X X
62 Story (2010) X X
63 Wu (2006) X X
64 Wu, Melynk, & Flynn (2010) X X X X
65 Yoeli & Berkovich (2009) X X
66 Zahra & George (2002) X X X
67 Zheng, et al. (2011) X X X
153
Environmental Scanning
The synthesis of the literature in this dissertation revealed that environmental scanning
was a significantly recurring theme. Cited in 32 of the 67 (48%) research papers analyzed in this
dissertation, environmental scanning (ES) was viewed as a senior management led behavior that
enabled firms to create and implement DCs. ES, in this context, referred to how organizations
searched for information outside of the organization as well as within the firm’s boundaries.
Many of the selected research papers cited ES as a component critical to the competitive success
of global enterprises (Breu, et al., 2012; Lane, 2006; Jantunen, et al., 2012). Very few of the
papers clarified how firms scanned the market for information; however, the few that offered
insights on this activity suggested that senior managers acquired new information through a
variety of methods including interaction directly with the customers (Pavlou & El Sawy, 2011;
Slack, et al., 2010), assessing product order data (Griffith, et al., 2006; Franken, et al., 2009),
interacting with suppliers and vendors (Paiolaa, et al., 2013), and even testing the market with
prototypes (Zheng, et al., 2011; Rozenweig & Roth , 2004). There was a general consensus that
the information that was obtained using ES methods should be synthesized systematically and
frequently to enhance competitive success (Boumgarden, et al., 2012; Collier & Zhuang, 2012;
Jimenez-Jimenez & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Murovec & Prodan, 2009).
Obtaining information from a broad group of stakeholders was also a prominent sub-
theme for ES (Phattanacheewapul & Ussahawantichaket, 2009; Pavlou & E Sawy, 2011). Some
of the research papers suggested that senior managers needed to change the ES methods with
changes in the market. In many cases these changes in ES methods needed to vary dramatically
with a market dynamism such as radical changes in product use (e.g., Apple I-Tunes pay by song
154
versus purchasing music from a traditional music store) (Katila & Ahuja, 2002; McMann, et al.
2009; Mithas, et al., 2011).
Sensemaking
Sensemaking was a second major theme found in the selected literature. For the purposes
of this dissertation, sensemaking was an organizational process that described how people
noticed events and the meaning of the events to them (Murovec & Prodan, 2009; Franken, et al.,
2009; Atuahene-Gima & Murray, 2007). Sensemaking also incorporated how these events
influenced present and future behavior of the firm (Weick, et al., 2005). Based on this definition,
sensemaking was cited directly in 43 of the 67 (64%) articles. Senior managers were identified
in the literature as being at the core of the group sensemaking process (Gibson & Birkinshaw,
2004; Pablo, et al., 2007; Sirmon & Hitt, 2009; Story, 2010), a process by which senior managers
extracted information from various subject matter experts (SMEs) in a forum that helped shape
the meaning of the event or activity being analyzed (Maitlis, 2005). The individual SME was
allowed to voice her opinion in a manner that was collaborative with other expert voices to
synthesize the best understanding of the market change (e.g., are customers going to gravitate
toward products that integrate communication functions, such as cell phone and music functions
embedded in a wrist watch). The literature reviewed for this dissertation suggested that the core
of individual sensemaking was the ability of the person to understand that there was a change in
the environment that subsequently led to reframing his or her view of the new operating vision of
the firm (Weick, 1995, Goldman, et al., 2001; Gebauer, 2011). Thus, senior managers were
thought to be catalysts for the group level practice of sensemaking (Ohja, 2009; Kyriakopoulos
& Moorman, 2004; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011). Several of the research papers analyzed in this
dissertation discussed this group sensemaking process as a senior manager led process that
155
enabled the creation and identification of new patterns in the marketplace (i.e., changes in
customer product use patterns) (Protogeru, et al., 2011; Wu, et al., 2010; Story, 2010; Wu, 2006).
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) and Khandelwal and Mohendra (2010), in particular, explained
the manager’s role as leading the reframing of the business model and product mix in order to
sustain competitive advantages.
There were eight studies that attempted to identify specific ways of identifying patterns
using organization-level sensemaking. For instance, Gebauer (2011) suggested that several
group synchronization activities would enable group sensemaking in turbulent environments
including interactive talking and visual integration (a facilitated exchange of initial
understandings of the change). Owens and Hekman (2012) proposed that formal visioning and
sensemaking sessions should be held to gain a common understanding of changes in the market.
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) and Peng, et al. (2008) contended that senior managers could be
successful by providing ‘sensegiving’, instilling the meaning of new information, to the
workforce. The remaining studies in this set of papers emphasized how senior managers used
diverse methods and personnel from various areas in the firm to understand how the changes in
the market could benefit or hinder the firm’s current operational model ( pattern recognition)
(Corbeck & Neck, 2010; Doz & Kosonen, 2010; Ojha, 2009; Paiolaa, et al., 2013).
Optimization of Resource Mix
The optimization of a firm’s operational capabilities through pursuing OA (exploration
and exploitation concurrently) was cited 31 times in the 67 (46%) papers analyzed in this
dissertation. Interestingly, the role of the senior manager was generally viewed as an
orchestrator. Similar to the way a music conductor might influence how instruments are used to
portray a melody or harmony in an orchestra, the senior manager’s role in this context implied
156
that he or she led the transformation of resources and capabilities to match the changes in the
market (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004; Kyriakopoulos & Moorman, 2004; He & Wong, 2004).
One of the other more prevalent senior management behaviors referenced in the scholarly
literature, was the reinforcing of a culture that enabled the expression of new ideas and
experimentation (Atuaheme-Gima & Murray, 2007; Franken, et al., 2009; Protogerou, et al.,
2011). This behavior manifested itself in many different ways, including separating a unit of
people and other resources to allow the group to solely focus on exploration (strategic) based
innovations for the firm (Jansen, et al., 2012; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010), while the main
portion of the firm would focus on exploitation (tactical) innovations for the firm (Jansen, et al.,
2012; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010).
Other studies showed the optimization of a firm’s resource mix being a method by which
senior managers would recombine existing resources to create new resources and capabilities
that were tailored to the new market environment (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Katila &
Ahuja; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Fernaber & Patel, 2012). Viewed in this light, senior
managers were fostering group sessions with diverse resources within the firm to encourage
innovation (Bier & Daly, 2007; Baumgarden, et. al, 2012). These group sessions would be
forums or meetings in which new ideas would be discussed and assessed. Some of the literature
that affirmed this aspect of optimization of resources also drew links between OA and
Complexity Theory (Wu, 2006; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Lin, et al, 2013; Protegerou, et al.,
2011). This association between OA and Complexity Theory might be significant because some
scholars believed that management in complexity was distinctly different than in other contexts
that were more traditional (Stacey, 1996; McDaniel, 2007; Metcalf & Benn, 2013). The
157
implication was that new management theories might need to be created and developed for this
context of management strategy.
Additionally, there were several scholarly articles which stressed that senior managers
had the responsibility of reinforcing effective OA behaviors to create the right resource mix. For
instance, Sirmon and Hitt (2009) contended that senior managers should ensure that selection
and transitioning of firm resources and capabilities during transformation required consistent and
frequent senior-level decision making. Garcia-Morales, et al. (2011), on the other hand, very
asssertively argued for the importance of senior managers promoting and rewarding teamwork
based performance.
The literature on the optimization of the resource mix was diverse and there were no clear
behaviors that were promoted by the consensus of scholars. Given the frequency at which the
optimization of resource mix was cited (31 of 67 times, or 46% ), however, the implication was
that senior managers believed that this was of high importance and further studies were required
to better understand how this would be done.
Communication of Senior Management Vision
Forty-two of the 67 (63%) studies reviewed referred to the importance of senior
managers communicating a vision that could be shared by all of the firm’s stakeholders. Many
of the studies viewed this process as the primary purpose of senior management in the innovation
process (Corbett & Neck, 2010; Fernhaber & Patel, 2012; Boumgarden, et al., 2012). Roberts
and Grover (2012), for instance, contended that senior managers facilitated the workforce in
developing an identity within the context of their markets. The key to some scholars for creating
a shared understanding and purpose of the firm was knowledge sharing and sensemaking
(Alamahamid, et al., 2010; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Communication of senior management
158
vision (CoMV), according to the reviewed articles, was a proactive process which enabled the
workforce to better sense and react to the changes in the market. Through understanding and
sharing the vision from senior management, the workforce was better able to understand how
market changes impacted the firm and empowered it to help shape the firm’s response (i.e.,
modify, enhance capabilities) (Slack, et al., 2010; Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Story, 2010).
Senior managers, in this sense, informed the organization how market changes drove the ways in
which the firm needed to operate to survive or extend its competitive advantages (Story, 2010;
Hyatt, 2011).
A large portion of the literature reviewed for this theme supported the notion that senior
managers could use a communicated managerial vision to actually set the foundation for a firm’s
strategy (Ruvio, et al., 2010; Khandewal & Mohendra, 2010). Senior managers were found to be
able to empower the workforce to create and implement DCs without significant management
oversight (James & Lahti, 2011; Hyatt, 2011; Sarros, et al., 2010). The general sense from these
scholars was that the communication of managerial vision required senior managers to connect
with firm stakeholders at every level in order to maximize effectiveness (Zheng, et al., 2011;
Yoeli & Berkovich, 2009; Anderson & Neilsen, 2007).
CoMV was considered by many authors to be a key method for senior managers to
connect the ways in which customers were behaving and evolving in the market with new,
adaptive firm practices (Zahra & George, 2002; Wu, et al., 2010). The ability to reframe how the
organization viewed new information was seen as fundamental to creating and implementing
DCs (Collier & Zhuang, 2012; Kong, 2010; Schudy & Bruch, 2012; Story, 2010). From the
review of the literature, senior managers with compelling visions were known to generate belief
systems in firms that there were possibilities of new outcomes that were attainable, although not
159
quite visible yet (Anderson & Nielsen, 2007; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011; Nosella, et al., 2012;
Jiao, et al., 2011).
The literature that discussed CoMV was reasonably homogeneous in terms of its
assessment and value for senior managers. One noticeable absence in the extant research was
how CoMV was executed. Some authors, such as Griffith (2006), suggested that senior
managers inspired entrepreneurial mindsets and that this inspiration would enable the firm to
adapt faster and more successfully to the changing marketplace. A few others offered that group
discussions led by senior managers that were comprised of diverse elements (such as members
who were senior ranking, junior ranking, technical, sales/marketing, etc.) within the firm could
facilitate communicating the vision of senior management (James & Lahti, 2011).
Existing Capabilities Assessment
Understanding a firm’s resource base and how the capabilities of that resource base
compared to the degree of competitiveness of the firm in dynamic markets was another major
theme found in the review of the literature. This theme was found in 34 of 67 (51%) of the
selected research articles and was characterized as the method by which senior managers
compared the behavior of the market to the current business operating model of the firm. Some
of the authors reviewed considered this behavior to be a combination of several of the previously
mentioned themes, such as environmental scanning, sensemaking, and optimizing the firm’s
resource mix (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Doz & Kozonen, 2010; Gebauer, 2011; Roberts &
Grover, 2012). A significant portion of the literature averred that senior managers were
successful at creating and implementing DCs when they consistently made this market dynamics
to firm resources comparison (Wu, et al., 2010; Sharifi, et al., 2001).
160
Several authors linked assessing a firm’s existing resources to the decisions that senior
managers made to determine if capabilities should be created internally or integrated from
external partners or vendors (Paiolaa, et al., 2013; Montes, et al., 2005; Marcus & Naveh, 2005).
Successful assessments by senior managers were found to allow the firm to not only adapt
effectively, but also to adapt in a timely manner to actually generate early profits and garner
competitive advantages (Gebauer, 2011; Sirmon & Hitt, 2009; Wu, 2006; Kassim & Zain, 2004).
Senior managers, according to some authors, must, however, carefully assess the value of the
investments made by the firm during this process (Rosenzweig, et al, 2003; Rosenzweig & Roth,
2004). The consequences for over investment or not utilizing the value generated from previous
investments could render the firm ineffective against market dynamism (Jansen, et al., 2012;
Collier & Zhuang, 2012).
The assessment of the firm resources theme seemed to be viewed by the majority of the
authors as a ‘meta-behavior’ (a behavior that drove other behaviors) that integrated other
behaviors captured in the major themes found in this dissertation. What was interesting about
this major theme was that the literature did not reveal ‘when’ these assessments were to be
carried out or ‘what triggered’ the need for these assessments. The characterization simply
stopped at that juncture and in general, did not provide insights to these questions.
Secondary Themes
After discovering the primary themes described previously, the included studies were
examined for secondary behavior activities which senior managers performed that tied to the
primary theme. Table 14 shows the results of this effort.
161
Table 14: Secondary Literature Themes Found that Linked to Primary Themes
Primary Themes Secondary Themes
Environmental Scanning Forming of firm social networks
Formal meetings of firm elements
to review market stimuli
Shared Vision to Interpret New
Information Communication of managerial
vision
Experimenting (testing) with the
market
Sensing/Sensemaking Recognizing Patterns/ Creating
Patterns
Visioning/Reframing
Resource Assessment Meaning creation/Platform
development
Firm boundary reframing
Optimize Resources Mix (Exploration-Exploitation
Balance)
Creation/coordination of
realization strategy
Meaning creation/Platform
development
Alliance building through search
and selection of critical
capabilities Martin, 2014
After the secondary themes were extracted from the selected studies, illustrative examples of
senior manager behaviors were extracted to better characterize what senior managers did within
each theme. Table 15 shows the results from this process.
162
Table 15: Illustrative Examples Characterizing the Primary Themes Found in the Literature
Martin, 2014
Links to Systems and Complexity Theories
The senior manager behaviors characterized above in some ways challenged the
traditional, chain-of-command perceptions of management and leadership (O’Connor, 2008;
Hazy, 2007). The evidence found from the included studies suggested that new senior manager
interventions were needed to account for the complex needs of the firm and the environment.
Some of the authors of the studies viewed the management of DCs to be a complex and dynamic
process itself (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Helfat, et al., 2007; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011;
Gebauer, 2011). Other authors implied that managing the creation and implementation of DCs
163
was a social process that had to consider the systems view of the firm (Sirmon & Hitt, 2009; Wu,
et al., 2010; Owens & Hekman, 2011; Roberts & Grover, 2012). Some theorists in the systems
and complexity areas have characterized managing DCs-like activities as an interactive
management activity between the personnel in the firm and new ideas (O’Connor, 2008). The
implication of this linkage was that the senior manager behaviors described above might
transcend the capabilities of individuals alone and required the firm to buy into the concept of
continual change (in this sense) (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; James & Lahti, 2011). In fact, the
themes formed from the synthesis of the literature in this dissertation suggested that the senior
manager’s role was the product of inducing interaction, moderating tensions between product
activities, and catalyzing the changes in the perceptions and understanding of new information
(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Corbett & Neck, 2010; Jansen, et al., 2012; Gilstrap, 2013).
Weak Links and Alternative Views Found in the Literature
There were several alternative views and weak links found in this systematic review of
the literature. The major themes explicated above appeared not to mention any significant
linkage to organizational structures. Senior manager behaviors are tied to orchestrating human
capital or other organizational capabilities. A few of the studies considered in this dissertation
referred to the need for senior managers to have ‘fluid’ organizations (meaning that human
resources are to a great extent free to move to different areas) (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Wu,
et al., 2010); however, very few other studies broached the subject of structures in terms of
creating and implementing DCs. Organizational structures were only clearly mentioned in the
work of O’Reilly and Tushman (2011) and Atuahene-Gima and Murray (2007). These two sets
of authors argued that the organizational structure was a significant component to the success of
164
DCs creation and implementation. Much of the scholarship in the strategic management arena
supported the contention that the ways in which organizations were structured impacted their
performance (Wernerfelt, 1984; March, 1991). However, the link between organizational
structure and senior manager development of DCs also was missing.
There were a few scholars who empirically concluded that senior management
intervention did not significantly impact DCs development. One study by Protogerou, et al.
(2011), in particular, concluded that senior management’s involvement in DCs creation did not
have a direct impact on firm performance.
This synthesis of the studies included in this systematic review of the literature also
revealed very few links between senior management behavior that facilitated DCs development
and entrepreneur activity. Given that the open innovation literature made extensive reference to
the entrepreneurial mentality (Chesbrough, 2003; Christensen, Olesen, & Kjaer, 2005), there
would seem to be an obvious link between entrepreneurial behavior and DCs creation. However,
this systematic review of the literature found minimal ties to entrepreneurialism. Only Ruvio, et
al. (2010) and Wu (2006) appeared to draw a formal association between the two. This
suggested that the role of the senior manager may not play a significant role in entrepreneurial
activity for the purposes of creating and developing DCs.
Support for Propositions
This systematic review of the literature generally found support for all four propositions
discussed in Chapter 1. In exploring if there was a positive relationship between certain
management behaviors and DCs outcomes (P1), the thematic synthesis found there were at least
five senior manager behaviors that appeared to positively affect DCs development.
165
The analysis in this dissertation also found that there was a positive relationship between
a well communicated, shared vision from senior managers with the development of DCs (P2).
There was significant evidence from the synthesis of the data that suggested that managers
carried out a number of vision sharing techniques such as sensemaking, sensegiving, and
creating social interactions that encouraged experimentation that facilitated DCs creation.
The synthesis in this dissertation also found support for P3, which contended that senior
managers who were able to create and implement dynamic capabilities were more likely to
position organizations to successfully create or adapt to market changes. The vast majority of the
studies did link DCs with increased adaptability to market dynamism.
Finally, support was found for P4, which suggested that the type of changes that are
needed by organizations in modern markets more resemble the type change of theory proposed
by Karl Popper (i.e., continuous radical changes in market behavior or innovations) rather than
that of Thomas Kuhn (i.e., long periods of incremental change follow by occasional radical shifts
in innovation or market behavior). A strong majority of the scholarship reviewed as a part of this
dissertation contended that senior managers needed to prepare their organizations for continuous,
radical change to product technology or drastic changes in customer use of their products or
services.
Summary of Findings
The synthesis of the literature in this dissertation discovered five major senior manager
behaviors that positively impacted the creation and implementation of DCs: environmental
scanning, shared vision to interpret new information, sensemaking, resource assessment, and
optimization of the firm’s resource mix. These primary themes served as direct answers to the
research question posed in this dissertation. These themes were then further characterized and
166
assessed. Secondary behaviors from senior managers that supported these major themes were
also identified. The final step of the analysis provided illustrative examples on how senior
managers carried out these behaviors.
Worthy of note, there were also several weaker themes and alternative views identified
which attempted to provide a broader perspective of the findings in the literature. Finally, the
dissertation found support for all four propositions presented in this dissertation.
167
Chapter 6: Conclusions
Introduction to Chapter 6
This chapter discussed the overall significance of this dissertation’s findings and
provided its conclusions. A detailed explanation of the implications of the research was
provided and key trends found in the literature were identified. This chapter also provided the
salient implications this research had for evidence based management for scholars and
management practitioners. Finally, this chapter reviewed the limitations of this dissertation and
suggested areas for future investigation.
Overall Conclusions
This dissertation found support for the creation and implementation of dynamic
capabilities (DCs) as being a collective, social process that was heavily impacted by senior
managers. The senior manager role in the development of DCs appeared to be definitive and
identifiable. The evidence presented from the thematic synthesis of the literature revealed that
senior managers exhibited at least five behaviors that facilitated the creation and implementation
of DCs which were: environmental scanning, sensemaking, optimization of resource mix,
communication of managerial vision, and assessment of existing capabilities (resources
assessment).
The evidence presented in this dissertation also suggested that senior managers might be
able to create DCs in a systematic manner as opposed to ad hoc methods. In particular, the act of
leading sensemaking for opportunities, conducting firm resource assessments, and optimizing of
the firm resource mix were found to be key senior manager interventions linked to firms
168
sustaining competitive advantages. Within these interventions or themes, the search/selection
process of operational capabilities (OCs) and coordination/reconfiguration of OCs process were
found to be senior manager behaviors that significantly facilitated DCs development.
This dissertation reviewed three DCs in order to identify and assess the senior manager’s
role in those processes. Organizational agility, organizational ambidexterity, and communication
of managerial vision were clearly linked to senior managers successfully creating DCs.
Evidence was also found that supported the conclusion that these three DCs could be enacted in a
coherent manner in order to facilitate DCs.
The orchestration of OCs did not happen readily without the influence of managers as
intermediaries (Ellonen, et al., 2011; Augier & Teece, 2009). Perhaps most importantly, the
senior manager needed to understand the resource base of the firm and the associated capabilities
in order to best implement DCs to positively impact innovation processes (Gebauer, 2011;
Kohlbacher, 2013). Understanding the context and having a constant evaluation of the
innovation process was critical (Helfat, et al., 2007; Teece, 2012). The successful senior
manager routinely evaluated the innovation process to determine the most advantageous method
for the firm (Teece, et al., 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). There were some instances where
the creation of DCs was not successful (Christensen, et al., 2005; Ojha, 2008), thus, the argument
was that only well understood, well timed, and well deployed DCs could greatly minimize these
potentially poor, unexpected outcomes (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010).
Implications of Management Trends
There were several implications of trends in management that could be derived from the
findings in this dissertation. First, there were many authors from the included studies in this
systematic review of the literature who formally stated or implied that senior managers were
169
devoting a significant portion of their time creating networks inside the firm as well as outside of
it (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Cegarra-Navarro & Newhurst, 2007; Garcia-Morales, et al.,
2011; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011).
A second trend found in this dissertation was that senior managers were interacting with
employees from various hierarchies in the firm. The senior managers characterized in the
literature devoted effort to socializing with a broad scope of the organization to ensure that the
management vision was shared and understood (Owens & Hekman, 2012; Phattanacheewapul &
Ussahawanitchaket, 2009; Roberts & Grover, 2012).
A third trend seen was toward firms using increasingly sophisticated environmental
sensing mechanisms (through technology and software) to better capture the changes in the
environment. The sophisticated sensing tools and techniques were coupled with intense social
sessions with broad segments of the workforce to make sense of the new information (Story,
2010; Schudy & Bruch, 2010; Salazar & Pelaez, 2011).
Implications for Management Practice
The results of this dissertation provided senior managers with potential direction as to the
specific mechanisms that promoted the creation and implementation of DCs and their
relationship with firm-level adaptive strategic responses. For instance, the mechanism of group
sensemaking enabled senior managers to develop a robust perspective of an organization’s target
markets (Popper, 1965; Ojha, 2008, O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011). The results supported in this
dissertation also suggested that senior managers, as key decision makers, also should be willing
to constantly question the organization’s dominant strategy (Teece, 2012). This approach
170
synchronized well the more recent scholarship involved with the Absorptive Capacity Theory
(Roberts, Galluch, Dinger, & Grover, 2012).
This dissertation also provided evidence that suggested that the facilitation of
communication, shared organizational vision, and encouragement of competing ideas (and
representations) allowed for the maximum assessment of the environment. For managers in
practice, this implied that true superior group sensemaking stemming from comprehension was
simultaneously realized by numerous stakeholders from multiple hierarchies within the firm
(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010). This total firm comprehension-level enabled the firm to
recognize a continuously changing environment (Teece, 2012; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010).
To the extent that this happened, effective and timely responses could be more readily developed
(Jiao, et al., 2011; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011).
Implications for Management Theory
This dissertation provided evidence to support new linkages between DCs Theory and
other extant management theories such as Systems Theory (Stacy, 1996) and Complexity Theory
(Hazy, 2007). The connections of these theories to DCs opened new avenues for research that
could inform management practice. For instance, how does an organization learn and develop
new absorptive capacity in complex environments (and markets)? Another open question was
‘how do senior managers affect change that facilitates DCs given that both the firm and market
are complex?’
In terms of systems thinking and complexity, the findings in this dissertation supported
the need for managers to embrace a systems thinking level of understanding of the environment
(Ford, 2008; Kohlbacher, 2013). Fostering an environment that was not open to revising its
identity might produce a strategy that was too simple and stratified. Such a view might also make
171
organizations too comfortable with the current state and not perceive change in the environment
(McDaniel, 2007). Thus, organizations that shared this philosophy generally were susceptible to
only being able to produce reactive strategies (Ford, 2008). The evidence found in this
dissertation highlighted a potentially new interdependency between the systems theory (and
complexity theory) literature and the senior manager’s role in creating DCs (Hazy, 2007). The
evidence found from this systematic review of the literature supported the efforts of senior
managers that engaged in continually asking the ‘what if’ questions about the firm and the firm’s
environment (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Gebauer, 2011; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).
The findings of this dissertation also suggested that too narrow a view of a strategy might
cause a firm to fail to match the complexity of the situation. Knowledge at the organizational
level can become fragmented (located with various individual actors in the organization) (Hazy,
2007). Thus, individuals would know more information than the organization itself. The
evidence presented earlier in this dissertation explained that in some cases senior managers
would separate resources and personnel to address an innovative challenge as a means of
creating organizational ambidexterity (OA). An important part of this OA process was how the
findings and innovations of the detached unit would integrate back into the overall firm and how
the firm would understand the value of these efforts (Gibson & Birkinshaw, O’Reilly &
Tushman, 2011). This dissertation argued, in part, that collective sensemaking driven by the
senior manager was a major driver that facilitated DCs development.
Several of the studies cited that the environments in which firms operated were
environments that were very turbulent (Gibson & Birkenshaw, 2004; Murove & Prodan, 2009).
Within the selected studies reviewed, there were also frequent references to the notion of firms
themselves being complex (Montes, et al., 2005; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011; Owen & Hekman,
172
2012). These types of assertions seemed to closely resemble the issues being explored in
Complexity Theory (Hazy, 2007). Thus, it might be insightful for the creation and
implementation of DCs to be studied through the theoretical lens of complexity and complex
adaptive systems theories (Hazy, 2007; Ford, 2008).
There was final thought on how these dissertation findings informed management theory,
especially management theory which attempted to explain the behavior of firms involved with
innovation efforts (incremental efforts and radical efforts). The evidence from this synthesis of
the literature suggested that the environments in which firms operated require organizations to
make radical innovation efforts at a very rapid pace (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Teece, 2007;
Gebauer, 2011; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2011; Teece, 2012). Market boundaries and competitive
landscapes appeared to change quickly as well and DCs were one tool that a senior manager
might use to sustain competitive advantages (Teece, et al., 1997; Helfat, et al., 2007). However,
the evidence posed in this dissertation revealed that the firm changes needed in order to succeed
in these environments did not follow the seminal theory of Thomas Kuhn (1996) which stated
that revolutionary science (or radical innovations ) occurred after relatively long periods of
normal science (stable markets that can only improve with incremental innovations). In fact, the
theory of Karl Popper (1965), another seminal thinker in management, seems to apply more
often than not. Popper was a proponent of continued radical change as an appropriate model for
firm competition (Popper, 1965). The details of this comparison were discussed next.
Thoughts on Kuhnian versus Popperian Innovation and DCs Development
The terms Kuhinan and Popperian innovations were introduced in Chapter 1 as two
separate paradigms by which firms could adapt to change. There were actually both practical
and theoretical tensions between these two perspectives on how a firm might stay competitive.
173
Kuhnian innovation, use in this sense, referred to how organizations changed by normal versus
revolutionary science (Kuhn, 1996). Normal science was characterized as routine verification
of the extant theory and revolutionary science was referred to as an abrupt change in the existing
paradigm that changed slowly over time (Kuhn, 1996). Thus, Kuhnian innovations could be
viewed as organizational capabilities (OCs) that changed according to these characteristics.
In contrast, Popperian innovations were characterized by continual, radical organizational
changes (Popper, 1965; Popper, 1972). The Popper organizational change model contended that
there was constant revolution against the existing paradigms or belief systems. Translating this
model to organizational theory and strategy, Popper proposed that firms should be in the
permanent state of critically analyzing their position in the market. Senior managers should be in
the constant state of challenging the value of the firm’s products in the market and searching for
mechanisms to uncover the next significant revolution for new products, services, or processes.
These two seminal managerial theorists, Kuhn and Popper, proposed two significantly
different theories which modeled how organizations changed. The concept of dynamic
capabilities (DCs) and the need for their use in firms, suggested that the Popperian model might
be more suitable for organizational change in modern day management. The aggregate evidence
proposed in this dissertation informed practicing managers of the need to continually scan the
environment and to construct systematic sensemaking processes in various hierarchies in the firm
in order to best understand the emerging behavior of their customers. These two major themes in
this thematic synthesis alone suggested that the Kuhnian model of gradually breaking down
paradigms through gradual acceptance of new ideas might be outdated.
174
Some theorists (Shareef, 1997) have suggested that today’s markets are characterized by
the continual introduction of radical (i.e., revolutionary) innovation (Chesbrough, 2003). The
creation and implementation of DCs was a managerial mechanism the enabled, at least in part,
the continual development of radical and revolutionary products and processes that potentially
sustained competitive advantages in the market. Thus, from this discussion, the theory of Popper
may be a grounding theory for how firms should integrate DCs into the culture and operational
fabric of the organization.
Implications for Future Research
The findings of this dissertation offered many potential areas for future research. The
systematic review of the 67 articles finally selected for this study revealed five major themes.
However, many of these behavioral themes found in this thematic synthesis of the literature
appeared to relate to each other and interestingly, multiple themes were found in every study
reviewed (see Figure 10). Some of the more prominent patterns found were in dyads
(arrangements of two themes) and triads (arrangements of three themes) of themes in each study.
For instance, the process of sensemaking was coupled with environmental scanning in 24 of the
67 studies reviewed (35%). Another significant dyad was found between communication of
managerial vision (CoMV) and sensemaking with both being present in 25 of the 67 studies
reviewed (37%). Future researchers may need to examine if there are relationships between the
themes discovered in this dissertation. Figure 10 presents the number of themes found in each of
the selected studies analyzed in the thematic synthesis where N=67.
175
Figure 10: Number of Themes Found in Included Studies
Martin, 2014
The ‘strength’ of these themes is not necessarily correlated with the findings shown in Figure 10,
but some measure of connection can be inferred by the frequency by which these thematic
groupings were found. It would very helpful to know the relative strength of these dyads (and
triads) on the creation and implementation on DCs. Researchers could potentially review the
sample sizes or diversity of the samples used in the literature to determine a rationale for
weighting the various managerial behaviors and then develop a model that might attempt to
explain the relative impact of various groupings of the thematic behaviors on DCs outcomes.
The evidence from the included studies also suggested that sensemaking was a common
theme that senior managers used to create and implement DCs. Many of the studies referred to
the sensemaking of the individuals (senior managers and other stakeholders). However, the
evidence presented in earlier chapters of this dissertation clearly described the need for
individuals to somehow connect their understanding of what new information meant to the firm
and how significant the information might be. Very little research has been directed toward how
groups within firms synthesize new information. A few studies have attempted to address this
176
void in group sensemaking in new product development efforts (Akgün, Lynn, & Yılmaz, 2006).
Some believed that the real challenge has been seen with truly making the process practical (e.g.
operationalization of the construct) (Kesar, 2013). The DCs research in this dissertation
suggested that there needed to be an extension of the current sensemaking theory by proposing
that group sensemaking is a system level firm capability. Thus, transformation of individual
sensemaking to group sensemaking may be an important future area for scholars to explore in the
future.
Limitations of this Dissertation
This study acknowledged some limitations. One limitation was mentioned in the
methodology chapter, relating to inclusion criteria. This dissertation accepted studies that
provided evidence from a diverse set of company sizes, firm ages, and locations. While in some
ways this type of data might be viewed as a strength of the systematic literature review, given the
way the evidence was analyzed, the results presented may not necessarily explain the nuances of
how these factors played into the creation and implementation of DCs. For instance, senior
managers involved in the creation of DCs in a large company such as Wal-Mart, Inc., would
potentially use a different set of behaviors than a CEO of a high-technology start-up firm.
Nuances such as the example proposed here, were not captured as a part of this dissertation.
A second limitation associated with the methodology of this dissertation was that the
results only yielded behaviors and interventions that senior managers used to create DCs. The
results did not make any suggestions as to ‘what’ behaviors should be evoked ‘when.’ Thus, the
sequencing of the established behaviors with the context (meaning stage of process or product
development) of the firm was not analyzed. The examination of the timing of when DCs should
be created and implemented may be an important aspect not discussed in this dissertation.
177
Finally, many of the themes cited as key senior manager behaviors in this dissertation
were not explicated in detail in the literature. Sensemaking, for instance, was alluded to many
times in the selected studies; however, very little evidence was provided as to how exactly this
activity was done. The situation or context of a firm may have dictated how a senior
management behavior was successfully implemented. The findings of this dissertation did not
capture this nuance.
Summary of the Dissertation
This dissertation identified and assessed senior management behaviors that facilitated the
creation and implementation of dynamic capabilities. Five major themes were identified and
assessed. Senior managers were determined to play a significant role in the development of
dynamic capabilities. Successful facilitation of DCs was determined to be a social process that
involved communication of vision, sensemaking, and continual assessment and optimization of a
firm’s resources. Support was found for the propositions in this dissertation which all, to some
degree, linked senior management behaviors to DCs and DCs, in turn, helped to facilitate a
firm’s sustained competitive advantage.
178
Appendix A: Selected Papers for Preliminary Literature Review for Search Strings
Year APA Reference
2012 Biedenbach, T., & Soderholm, A. (2008). The challenge of
organizational change in hypercompetitive industries: A literature review.
Journal of Change Management, 8(2), 123-145.
2009 Ambrosini, V. & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and
are they a useful construct in strategic management?International
Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29-49.
2010 Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M.W. (2010). Managing innovation
paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design
companies. Long Range Planning, 43, 104-122
2010 Worley, CH. G., & Lawler, W.E.E. (2010). Agility and organizational
design: A diagnostic framework. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 194-
204.
2008 Hong, J. & Kianto, A., & Kylaheiko, K.(2008). Moving cultures and the
creation of new knowledge and dynamic capabilities in emerging
markets. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(3), 196-212.
2008 Moustaghfir, K. (2008). The dynamics of knowledge assets and their link
with firm performance. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(2), 10-24.
2008 O’Reilly III, C.A., & Tushman, M.L.(2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic
capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research on
Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.
2008 O’Connor, G.C. (2008). Major innovation as a dynamic capability: A
systems approach. Journal of Production Innovation Management, 25(4),
313-330.
2007 Pablo, A.L. ,& Reay, T., & Dewald, J.R., Casebeer, A.L.(2007).
Identifying, enabling, and managing dynamic capabilities in the public
sector. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 687-708.
2007 Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review
and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,
9(1), 31-51.
2006 Nielsen, A.P. (2006). Understanding dynamic capabilities through
knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 59-
71
2006 Zahra,S.A., & Spienza, H.J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Enterpreneurship
and dynamic capabilities: A review, model, and research research
agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 917-955.
2005 Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and social sectors. Boulder, CO: Jim
Collins.
2005 Ferlie, E., & Fitzgerald, L., & Wood, M., & Hawkins, C. (2005). The
non-spread of innovations: the mediating role of professionals. Academy
of Management Journal, 48, 117-134.
179
2002 Zahra, S.A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review,
reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,
27(2), 185-197.
Martin, 2014
180
Appendix B: Search Strings
Subject Boolean Connecting Subject
Dynamic capabilit*
Dynamic capabilit* AND performance
Dynamic capabilit* AND environment
Dynamic capabilit* AND Manage*
Organization* ambidexterity
Organization* ambidexterity AND Performance
Organization* ambidexterity AND Manage*
Organization* ambidexterity AND environment
Organization* ambidexterity AND Context*
Organization* agility
Organization* agility AND Manage*
Organization* agility AND Environment*
Sens* (sensmaking) AND Competitive Advantage
Organizational Vision AND Performance
Shared Vision AND Performance
Dynamic Capabilit* AND Efficiency
Learning AND Innovation
Learning AND Ambidexterity
Learning AND Agility
181
Appendix C: Data Abstraction Template
Adapted from Newbert(2007)
Type of Coding
GenericInformation
Review Questions
Reference
Author(s)
Year
Title
Journal
SpecificInformation
Type Conceptual/Empirical
Context
Level of Organization
Individual/Group
Methods
Quantitative/Qualitative
Sample Size
Method of data collection
Method of data analysis
Additional notes
Research Quality Assessment
Central Themes 0-3 value
Literature 0-3 value
Methodology 0-3 value
Empirical Results 0-3 value
Contribution to knowledge
0-3 value
Knowledgetranslated to action
0-3 value
182
Appendix D: Data Abstraction Example
Adapted from Newbert(2007)
Type of Coding
GenericInformation
Review Questions R1, R2
Reference Pablo, A.L. ,& Reay, T., & Dewald, J.R., Casebeer, A.L.(2007). Identifying, enabling, and managing dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 687-708.
Author(s) Pablo, A.L. ,& Reay, T., & Dewald, J.R., Casebeer, A.L
Year 2007
Title Identifying, enabling, and managing dynamic capabilities in the public sector
Journal Journal of Management Studies
SpecificInformation
Type Case Study
Context Public Sector-Nonprofit Medical
Level of Organization
Organizational Level
Methods
Quantitative/Qualitative Qualitative
Sample Size 75+
Method of data collection Interviews
Method of data analysis Qualitative/thematicsynthesis
Additional notes
Research Quality Assessment
Central Themes 3
Literature 2
Methodology 3
Empirical Results 2
Contribution to knowledge
3
Knowledgetranslated to action
3
183
Appendix E: Expert Panel Respondents
Respondent
Code
Professional Affiliation Summarized Expertise
AR1 Academia; Assistant Professor Well documented theorist in the area of DCs
with over 8 published articles in the area
PR1 Public Firm-IT Sector Vice President of Product Development for a
bona fide Fortune 500 company
headquartered in the U.S. Twenty years of
practical experience in developing methods
for OA and OAg.
PR2 Private Firm- Software
Services
Vice President of Business Development for
a software development company. Twenty-
five years of experience in sales and product
development for high-tech industries.
Expertise included sensing, sensemaking,
and organizational renewal.
184
References
Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities.
Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011-1025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.331
Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Yılmaz, C. (2006). Learning process in new product development
teams and effects on product success: A socio-cognitive perspective. Industrial
Marketing Management, 35(2), 210-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.02.005
Ahmadi, F. (2011). Exploring the causal relationships between organizational citizenship
behavior, organizational agility and performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 3(1), 618-627.
Ali, S., Peters, L.D., & Lettice, F. (2012). An organizational learning perspective on
conceptualizing dynamic and substantive capabilities. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
20(7), 589-607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2012.734845
Almahamid, S., Awwad, A., & McAdams, A. C. (2010). Effects of Organizational Agility and
Knowledge Sharing on Competitive Advantage: An empirical study in Jordan.
International Journal of Management, 27(3), 387-404.
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., & Collier, N. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: An exploration of how
firms renew their resource base. British Journal of Management, 20, 9-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00610.x
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful
construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1),
29-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00251.x
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140105
Andersen, T. J., & Nielsen, B. B. (2007, November). The effective ambidextrous organization: A
model of integrative strategy making processes. In Strategic Management Society; 27th
Annual International Conference.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M.W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational
ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(40), 696-
717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M.W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity
lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43, 104-122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.08.003
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ansoff, H.I. (1977). Strategic management. Boston, MA: Wiley.
185
Arend, R. J., & Bromiley, P. (2009) Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: Spare change,
everyone? Strategic Organization, 7, 75-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127008100132
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in
firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2893
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective
(Vol. 173). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40183951
Aslam, H., Javaid, T., Tanveer, A., Khan, M., & Shabbir, F. (2011). A journey from individual to
organizational learning: Exploring the linking bridge-team learning. International
Journal of Academic Research, 3(3), 738-745.
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. Y. (2007). Exploratory and exploitative learning in new
product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China.
Journal of International Marketing, 15(02), 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.2.1
Augier, M., & Teece, D.J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business
strategy and economic performance. Organizational Science, 20(2), 410-421.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0424
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy.
Management Science, 32(10), 1231-1241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.10.1231
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1), 99-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining
competitive advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barrand, J. (2006). The agile manager, towards a new management to face turbulence. Dunold:
Paris.
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future.
Journal of Management, 36(1), 256-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350776
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
applications. New York: Free Press.
Ben-Menahem, S.M., Kwee, Z., Volberda, H.W., & Van Den Bosch, F.A.J. (2012). Strategic
renewal over time: The enabling role of potential absorptive capacity in aligning internal
and external rates of change. Long Range Planning.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.012.
Bennis, W.G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper
and Row.
186
Berberoğlu, A., & Ünar, E. (2011). Relation between organizational learning and organizational
commitment: Case study of a private bank in North Cyprus. Proceedings of the European
Conference on Intellectual Capital, 87-93.
Berman, E. M., & Kim, C. G. (2010). Creativity Management in Public Organizations. Public
Performance & Management Review, 33(4), 619-652.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576330405
Bessant, J., Francis, D., Meredith, S. & Kalinsky, R. (2001). Developing manufacturing agility in
SMEs. International Journal Technology Management, 22(1):28–54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2001.002953
Bierly, P. E., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment,
and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory
& Practice, 31(4), 493-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00185.x
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004a). Building an ambidextrous organization. AIM Working
Paper Series, 3, 1-18.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004b). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 45(4), 47-55.
Bititci, U.S., Ackermann, F., Ates, A., Davies, J.D., Gibb, S., MacBryde, J., Mackay, D.,
Maguire, C., Van der Meer, R., & Shaft, F. (2011). Managerial processes: An
operational management perspective towards dynamic capabilities. Production Planning
and Control, 20(2), 157-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537281003738860
Bodwell, W., & Chermack, T.J. (2010). Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and
emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
77, 193–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.004
Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system
by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management studies, 39(4), 437-469.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00299
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boumgarten, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T.R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: Exploring the
relationship among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 33, 587-610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.1972
187
Braunscheidel, M.J., & Suresh, N.C. (2009). The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply
chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2),
119-140.
Briner, R. B., Denyer, D. and Rousseau, D. M., 2009. Evidence-based management: Concept
clean-up time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (4), 19-32.
Breu, K., Hemingway, C.J., Strathern, M., & Bulger, D. (2001). Workplace agility: The new
employee strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Informational Technology,
17(1), 21-31.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42(1),1-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393807
Burgers, J. H., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural
differentiation and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal
integration mechanisms. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 206-220.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.01.006
Capron, L., & Hulland, J. (1999). Redeployment of brands, sales forces, and general marketing
management expertise following horizontal acquisitions: A resource-based view. The
Journal of Marketing, 63(2),41-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251944
Cardeal, N.C., Abecassis-Moedas, C., & Antonio, N.S. (2014). Shared cluster resources as a
source of core capabilities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business
(IJESB), 21(1), 55-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2014.057915
Carmeli, A., & Halevi, Y.H. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and
behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of
contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 207-218.
http://doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.011
Carver, C.S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social
Issues, 54(2), 245-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01217.x
Caves, R. E. (1980). Industrial organization, corporate strategy and structure. Journal of
Economic Literature, 58, 64-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7138-8_16
Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Dewhurst, F. (2007). Linking organizational learning and customer
capital through an ambidexterity context: An empirical investigation in SMEs. Journal of
Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1720-1735.
Cepeda, G., & Dusya, V. (2007). Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: A
knowledge management perspective. Journal of Business Research, 60, 426-437.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.013
188
Chakrabarty, S., & Wang, L. (2012). The long-term sustenance of sustainability practices in
MNCs: A dynamic capabilities perspective of the role of R&D and internationalization.
Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 205-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1422-3
Chang, Y.Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small to medium
sized firms. European Management Journal, 30, 1-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003
Chang, Y. Y., Hughes, M., & Hotho, S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs'
innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49(10), 1658-1676.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111183816
Charbonnier-Voinin, A. (2011). The development and partial testing of the psychometric
properties of a measurement scale of organizational agility. Management, 14(2), 119-
156.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from
technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Chen, C., & Jaw, Y. (2009). Building global dynamic capabilities through innovation: A case
study of Taiwan’s cultural organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 26, 247-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2009.10.002
Chen, H., & Lee, P., & Lay, J. (2009). Drivers of dynamic learning and dynamic competitive
capabilities in international strategic alliances. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1289-
1295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.12.003
Christensen, J.F., Olesen M.H., Kjaer, J.S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of open innovation-
evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy, 34(10),
1533-1549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.002
Cleveland, G., & Schroeder, R.G., & Anderson, J.C. (1989). A theory of production competence.
Decision Sciences, 20(4), 655-667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5915.1989.tb01410.x
Cohen, I. (2008). Improving time-critical decision making in life-threatening situations:
Observations and insights. Decision Analysis, 5(20), 100-110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1080.0111
Cohen, W.M, & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50005-8
189
Collier, P.M., & Zhuang, Z.Y. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: A focus for management control in
the public sector, 1-29. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12355644554359236291&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47
Collis, D.J. (1994). Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic
Management Journal, 15(8), 7-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150910
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1987.4306715
Corbett, A., & Neck, H.M. (2010). Corporate entrepreneurship and the micro-foundations of
dynamic capabilities. Frontier in Entrepreneurship Research, 30(17), 1-15.
Corbett, C., & Van Wassenhove, L. (1993). Trade-offs? What trade-offs? Competence and
competitiveness in manufacturing strategy. California Management Review, 35(4), 435-
450. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166757
Corbett, L.M., Claridge, G.S. (2002). Key manufacturing capability elements and business
performance. International Journal of Production Research, 40(1), 109-131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540110073091
Crichton, M.T., Ramsay, C.G., & Kelly, T. (2009). Enhancing organizational resilience through
emergency planning: Learnings from cross-sectoral lessons. Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management, 17(1), 24-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
5973.2009.00556.x
Crossan, M.M., & Berdrow, I. 2003. Organizational learning and strategic renewal.
Strategic Management Journal, 24 (11), 1087-1105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.342
Crossan, M.M., Maurer, C.C., & White, R.E. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR decade
award: Do we have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management
Review, 36(3), 446-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.61031806
Cusumano, M.A. (2012). Can services and platform thinking help the U.S. Postal Service?
(2012). Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 21-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2133806.2133814
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2006). Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable
knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2), 213-227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740610650201
Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., & Verona, G. (2010). Dynamic Capabilities deconstructed: A
bibliographic investigation into origins, development, and future directions of the
research domain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1187-1204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq027
Dove R. (2001). Response ability: the language, structure, and culture of the agile enterprise.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
190
Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for
accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 370-382.
Drnevich, P.L, & Kriauciunas, A.P. (2011). Clarifying the conditions and limits of the
contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 32, 254-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.882
Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In
R. H. Killman, L. R. R. Kilman, L. Pondy, eds. (pp. 167-188). The Management of
Organizational Design. North Holland, New York.
Dunning, J.H., & Lundan, S.M. (2010). The institutional origins of dynamic capabilities in
multinational enterprises. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1225-1246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq029
Easterby‐Smith, M., & Prieto, I. M. (2008). Dynamic Capabilities and Knowledge Management:
an Integrative Role for Learning? British Journal of Management, 19(3), 235-249.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00543.x
Eisenhardt, K.M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21, 1105-1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-
0266(200010/11)21:10/11%3C1105::AID-SMJ133%3E3.0.CO;2-E
Ellis, S. (2013). UPS change in the supply chain. IDC Manufacturing Insights. Retrieved from
http://www.ups.com/media/en/2013-UPS-Change-in-the-Supply-Chain-survey.pdf
Ellonen, H., Wikstro, P., & Jantunen, A. (2009). Linking dynamic-capability portfolios and
innovation outcome. Technovation, 29, 753–762.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.005
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization
Science, 11(6), 611-629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.6.611.12529
Ferdows, K., & De Meyer, A. (1990). Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: in
search of a new theory. Journal of Operations Management, 9(2), 168-184.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(90)90094-T
Fernhaber, S.A., & Patel, P.C. (2012). How do young firms manage product portfolio
complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity. Strategic Management
Journal, 33, 1516-1539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.1994
Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D.C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects
on organizations. New York: West Publishing Company.
Flynn, B.B., & Flynn, E.J. (2004). An exploratory study of the nature of cumulative capabilities.
Journal of Operations Management, 22(5), 439-457.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.03.002
191
Filippini, R., Güttel, W. H., & Nosella, A. (2012). Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge
management initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 317-324.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.04.003
Ford, R. (2008). Complex adaptive systems and improvisation theory: Toward framing a model
to enable continuous change. Journal of Change Management, 8(3), 173-198.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010802567543
Franken, A., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. (2009). Executing strategic change: Understanding the
critical management elements that lead to success. California Management Review,
51(3), 49-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166493
Frishammar, J., Kurkkio, M., Abrahamsson, L., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2012). Antecedents and
consequences of firms’ process innovation capability: A literature review and a
conceptual framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 519-529.
Fry, L.W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-
727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001
Fuglsang, L., & Mattsson, J. (2011). Making sense of innovation: A future perfect
approach. Journal of Management & Organization,17(4), 448-458.
http://doi:10.5172/jmo.2011.17.4.448
Galunic, D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1229-1249. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069398
Garcia-Morales, V.J., Jimenez-Barrionuevo, M.M., & Mihi-Ramirez, A. (2011). The influence of
strategic dynamic capabilities on organizational outcomes through the organizational
learning process. Industry and Innovation, 16(7), 685-708.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2011.604473
García-Morales, V.J, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M.M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012).
Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through
organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1040-1050.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.005
Gebauer, H. (2011). Exploring the contribution of management innovation to the evolution of
dynamic capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 1238-1250.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.10.003
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159573
Gilstrap, D. L. (2013). Leadership and decision-making in team-based organizations: A model of
bounded chaotic cycling in emerging system states. Emergence: Complexity &
Organization, 15(3), 24-54.
192
Gioia, D.A., & Chittipeddi, K.(1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change
initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
Gluck, F. W. (1981). Vision and leadership in corporate strategy. Mckinsey Quarterly, (4), 13-27
Gomez, L.F., & Ballard, D.I. (2013). Communication for the long term: Information allocation
and collective reflexivity as dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Communication,
50(2), 208-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021943612474992
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for
strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7088-3.50004-8
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 109-122.
Griffin, M.A., Parker, S.K., & Mason, C.M. (2010). Leader vision and development of adaptive
and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1),
174-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017263
Griffith, D.A., Noble, S.M., & Chen, Q. (2006). The performance implications of entrepreneurial
proclivity: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 51-62.
Güttel, W. H., & Konlechner, S. W. (2009). Continously hanging by a thread: Managing
contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 61(2),
150-172.
Håkanson, L. (2010). The firm as an epistemic community: the knowledge-based view revisited.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), 1801-1828.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq052
Harter, J. K., & Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-
9010.87.2.268
Hazy, J. K. (2007). Computer models of leadership: Foundations for a new discipline or
meaningless diversion? The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 391-410.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.007
He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity
hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability
accumulation: the case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 339-360.
193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199705)18:5%3C339::AID-
SMJ883%3E3.0.CO;2-7
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S.
G. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The Dynamic Resource-Based View: Capability
Lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24,997-1010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.332
Helfat, C.E., & Peteraf, M.A. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities: Progress along a
developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7, 91-102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127008100133
Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in
pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 63-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150906
Hoang, H., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience:
Exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal,
31(7), 734-758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.834
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and
between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization
Science, 15(1), 70-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0056
Holsapple, C.W., & Li, X. (2008). Understanding organizational agility: A work-design
perspective. Presented at the Proceedings of the International Command and Control
Research and Technology Symposium (pp. 1-45).
Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. (2003). Guest editors' introduction to the special
issue: why is there a resource‐based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity.
Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 889-902.
House, R.J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward an integration of transformationl, charismatic and
visionary theories of leadership. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory
and research: Perspectives and directions, 81-107.
Huang, K., Wu, L., Dyerson, R., & Chen C. (2012). How does a technological firm develop its
competitive advantage? A dynamic capability perspective. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 59(4), 644-653.
Hyatt, K.(2011). The influence of vision on perceived organizational support. Leadership
Review, 11, 157-170.
Jackson, P.R. (2004). Employee commitment to quality. The International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, 21(6/7), 714-726.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710410549073
194
Jadesadalug, V., & Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2008). The impacts of organizational synergy and
autonomy on new product performance: Moderating effects of corporate mindset and
innovation. International Journal of Business Research, 8(3), 118-128.
James, K., & Lahti, K. (2011). Organizational vision and system influences on employee
inspiration and organizational performance. Creativity and Innovation Management,
20(2), 108-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00595.x
Jansen, J.P., Jansen, G.G., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2008). Senior team
attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational
leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x
Jansen, J.P., Simsek, Z., & Cao, Q. (2012). Ambidexterity and performance in multi-unit
contexts: Cross level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic
Management Journal, 33, 1286-1303.
Jantunen, A., Ellonen, H., & Johansson, A. (2012). Beyond appearances – Do dynamic
capabilities of innovative firms actually differ? European Management Journal, 30, 141-
155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.10.005
Jiao, H., Ilan, A., & Cui, Y. (2011). Environmental dynamism, innovation, and dynamic
capabilities; the case of China. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 5(2), 131-144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506201111131550
Jimenez-Jimenez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and
performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408-417.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010
Judge, W.Q, Naoumovab, I., & Douglas, T. (2009). Organizational capacity for change and firm
performance in a transition economy. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20(8), 1737–1752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190903087107
Judge, W.Q., & Elenkov, D.(2005). Organizational capacity for change and environmental
performance: An empirical assessment of Bulgarian firms. Journal of Business Research,
58, 893-901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.01.009
Kang, J. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity and synergistic effects of plural organizational
forms: A search for balance between standardization and innovation. Dissertation
Abstract International, 71, 10-A. (UMI No. AAI341946). Retrieved January 25, 2012,
from Disssertations and Theses database.
Kassim, N. M., & Zain, M. (2004). Assessing the measurement of organizational agility. Journal
of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 4(1/2), 174-177.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search
behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183-
1194. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069433
195
Kezar, A. (2013). Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change processes
from the bottom up. High Education, 65, 745-760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
012-9575-7
Keupp, M.M., Palmie, M., & Gassman, O. (2012). The strategy of innovation: A systematic
review and paths for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14,
367-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00321.x
Khandelwal, K., & Mohendra, N. (2010). Espoused organizational values, vision, and corporate
social responsibility: Does it matter to organizational members? Vikalpa: The Journal for
Decision Makers, 35(3), 19-35.
Khandwalla, P.N. (2004). Competencies for senior manager roles. Vikalpa, 29(4), 11-24.
Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E.A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
36-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.81.1.36
Kindström, D., Kowalkowski, C., & Sandberg, E. (2013). Enabling service innovation: A
dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1063-1073.
http://doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.03.003.
Koch, H. (2010). Developing dynamic capabilities in electronic marketplaces: A cross-case
study. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19, 28-38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2010.02.001
Kong, E. (2010). Developing organizational knowledge and learning capabilities: Synergistic
relationships of human capital, strategic human resource management and human
resource management. International Journal of Learning, 17(5), 63-80.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology. Organization science, 3(3), 383-397.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
Kohlbacher, M. (2013). The impact of dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement on
innovation: The role of business process orientation. Knowledge & Process Management,
20(2), 71-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1405
Kor, Y.Y., & Mahoney,J.T. (2005). How dynamics, management, and governance of resource
deployments influence firm-level performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 489-
496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.459
Kor, Y. Y., & Mesko, A. (2013). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Configuration and
orchestration of top executives' capabilities and the firm's dominant logic. Strategic
Management Journal, 34(2), 233-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2000
Kuhn, T.S.(1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001
196
Kuo, T. (2011). How to improve organizational performance through learning and knowledge?
International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 581-603.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437721111158215
Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration
strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 21(3), 219-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.01.001
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical
review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833-
863. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.22527456
Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the
complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal,
52(4), 46-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670902
Lim, J., Stratopoulos, T.C., & Wirjanto, T.S. (2011). Path dependence of dynamic information
technology capability: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 28(3), 45–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222280302
Lin, H.E., & McDonough, E.F. (2011). Investigating the role of leadership and organizational
culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 58(3), 497-509.
Lin, H.E., McDonough, E.F., Lin, S.J., & Lin, C.Y.Y. (2013). Managing the
exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability and innovation
ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovative Management, 30(2), 262-278.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00998.x
Litchfield, R. C., & Gentry, R. J. (2010). Perspective-taking as an organizational capability.
Strategic Organization, 8(3), 187-205.
Lee, H., & Kelley, D. (2008). Building dynamic capabilities for innovation: an exploratory study
of key management practices. R&D Management, 38(2), 155-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00506.x
Lee, P., Lin, H., Chen, H., & Shyr, Y. (2011). Dynamic capabilities exploitation of market and
hierarchy governance structures: An empirical comparison of Taiwan and South Korea.
Journal of World Business, 46, 359-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.07.013
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management
Journal, 14, 95-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
Locke, L.F., Silverman, S.J. & Spirduso, W.W. (2010). Reading and understanding research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Long, C. (2000). Measuring your strategic agility: a checklist. Consulting to Management, 11(3),
25-28.
197
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in
small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral
Integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
Mallak, L.(1998). Putting organizational resilience to work. Industrial Management, 40(6), 8-13.
Macher, J.T., & Mowery, D.C. (2009). Measuring dynamic capabilities: Practices and
performance in semiconductor manufacturing. British Journal of Management, 20, S41-
S62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00612.x
Madhok, A. (1997). Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 39-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199701)18:1%3C39::AID-SMJ841%3E3.3.CO;2-A
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of
Management Journal, 48, 21-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993111
Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations.
Academy of management Journal, 50(1), 57-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160971
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational
Science, 2, 71-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Marcus, A., & Naveh, E. (2005). How a new rule is adjusted to context: Knowledge creation
following the implementation of the ISO 9000 quality standard. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 13(2), 106-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb029000
Marshak, R. J. (2004). Morphing: The leading edge of organizational change in the twenty-first
century. Organization Development Journal, 22(3), 8-21.
Martín-de Castro, G., López-Sáez, P., & Delgado-Verde, M. (2011). Towards a knowledge-
based view of firm innovation: Theory and empirical research. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 15(6), 871-874.
Martínez-León, I., & Martínez-García, J. A. (2011). The influence of organizational structure on
organizational learning. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 537-566.
Mason, A. J. (2011). Inside the black box: Investigating agility as a dynamic capability for
sustaining a competitive advantage within consulting firms. (Doctoral Dissertation). US:
ProQuest Information & Learning, 2011. PsycINFO, EBSCOhost (accessed March 22,
2012).
McCann, J., Selsky, J., & Lee, J. (2009). Building agility, resilience, and performance in
turbulent environments. People and Strategy, 32(3), 44-51.
198
McDaniel, R.R. (2007). Management strategies for complex adaptive systems: Sensemaking,
learning, and improvisation. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 21-42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2007.tb00438.x
McLean, L.D. (2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A review
of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 7, 226-246.
McManus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J., & Brunsdon, D. (2008). Facilitated process for improving
organizational resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 9(2), 81-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:2(81)
Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2013). Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership
Ability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 369-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
012-1278-6
Miner, A.S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A
field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 304-337.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667089
Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How information management
capability influences firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 237-256.
Mom, T. M., van den Bosch, F. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in
managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural
and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812-828.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0427
Montes, J.L., Moreno, A.R., & Morales, V.G. (2005). Influence of support leadership and
teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, innovation, and performance: an
empirical examination. Technovation, 25, 1159-1172.
Murovec, N. and I. Prodan (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on
innovation output: Cross cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation 29,
859-872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.05.010
Nelson, R.R., & Winter, S.G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80840-0_5
Newbert, S.I. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment
and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121-146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.573
Nijssen, M., & Paauwe, J. (2012). HRM in turbulent times: how to achieve organizational
agility? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(16), 3315-3335.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.689160
199
Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R.(2012). The intellectual structure of organizational
ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic
Organization, 10(4), 450-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127012457979
O'Connell, D., Hickerson, K., & Pillutla, A. (2011). Organizational visioning: an integrative
review. Group & Organization Management, 36(1), 103-125.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390999
O'Connor, G. (2008). Major Innovation as a Dynamic Capability: A Systems Approach. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 313-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5885.2008.00304.x
Ojha, D. (2009). Impact of strategic agility on competitive capabilities and financial
performance. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 70, 1-A, PsycINFO,
EBSCOhost, viewed 24 March 2013.
O’Reilly III, C., & Tushman, M. (2007). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the
innovator’s dilemma. Research Paper No. 1963.Research Paper Series Stanford
Graduate School of Business, 1-61.
O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How
managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5
O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and
future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Sambamurthy, V. V. (2006). Enterprise agility and the enabling
role of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 120-
131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000600
Owens, B.P., & Hekman, D.R.(2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of
humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(4), 787-818. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0441
Pablo, A.L., Reay, T., Dewald, J.R., & Casebeer, A.L. (2007). Identifying, enabling and
managing dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Journal of Management Studies, 44,
687-708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00675.x
Paiola, M., Saccani, N., Perona, M., & Gebauer, H. (2013). Moving from products to solutions:
Strategic approaches for developing capabilities. European Management Journal, 31(4),
390-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.10.002
Parayitam, S., & Guru, K. (2010). Economics of resource based and dynamics capabilities view:
A contemporary framework. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 83-93.
Parent, J.D., & Levitt, K. (2009). Manager vs. employee perceptions of adaptability and work
performance. The Business Renaissance Quarterly, 23-48.
200
Pavlou, P.A., & El Sawy, O.A. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic
capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42, 239-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5915.2010.00287.x
Patel, P. C., Terjesen, S., & Li, D. (2012). Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through
operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. Journal of Operations
Management, 30(3), 201-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2011.10.004.
Peng, D.X., Schroeder, R.G., & Shah, R. (2008). Linking routines to operations capabilities: A
new perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 26, 730-748.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.11.001
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)90295-2
Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unraveling the resource‐based tangle. Managerial and
Decision Economics, 24(4), 309-323.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2005). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical
guide. Maldon, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 34, 35-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2010.50304415
Phattanacheewapul, A., & Ussahawanitchaket, P. (2009). Creating organizational spirituality
mindset of advertising agencies in Thailand: Effects on business success through intrinsic
work satisfaction, openness to changefulness and self-benevolence. International Journal
of Business Research 10(1), 67-89.
Popper, K.(1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York:
Harper Torchbooks.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Popper, K. R., & Notturno, M. A. (1994). Knowledge & the body-mind problem: In defense of
interaction. New York: Routledge.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb054287
Porter, M. E. (1996). Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies, and regional policy.
International Regional Science Review, 19(1-2), 85-90.
Prieto, I.M., Revilla, E, & Rodriguez-Prado, B. (2009). Building dynamic capabilities in product
development: How do contextual antecedents matter? Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 25, 313-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2009.05.005
Prieto, I.M., & Perez-Santana, P.R. (2012). Building ambidexterity: The role of human resource
practices in the performance of firms in Spain. Human Resource Management, 51(2),
189-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21463
201
Protogeru, A., Caloghirou, Y., Lioukas, S. (2011). Dynamic capabilities and their indirect
impact on firm performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(3), 615–647.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and
moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
Ramírez, A., Morales, V., & Rojas, R. (2011). Knowledge creation, organizational learning and
their effects on organizational performance. Engineering Economics, 22(3), 309-318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.3.521
Ramírez, R., Österman, R., & Grönquist, D. (2013). Scenarios and early warnings as dynamic
capabilities to frame managerial attention. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 80(4), 825-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sechfore.2012.10.0929.
Rapert, M.I., Velliquette, A., & Garretson, J.A. (2002). The strategic implementation process
evoking strategic consensus through communication. Journal of Business Research, 55,
301-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00157-0
Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata:
The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577-610.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61968107
Rindova, V.P., & Kotha, S. (2001). “Continuous morphing”: Competing through dynamic
capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1263-1280.
Roberts, N., Galluch, P. S., Dinger, M., & Grover, V. (2012). Absorptive capacity and
information systems research: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research. MIS
Quarterly, 36(2), 625-A6.
Roberts, N. & Grover, V. (2012). Investing firm’s customer agility and firm performance: The
importance of aligning sense and respond capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 65,
579-585.
Romme, A.G.L., Zollo, M., & Berends, P. (2010). Dynamic capabilities, deliberate learning and
environmental dynamism: A simulation model. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19,
1271-1299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq031
Rosenzweig, E.D., Aleda, V.R., & Dean, J.W. (2003) Technical note: The influence of an
integration strategy on competitive capabilities and business performance: An
exploratory study of consumer products manufacturers. Journal of Operations
Management, 21, 437-456.
202
Rosenzweig, E. D., & Roth, A. V. (2004). Towards a theory of Competitive Progression:
Evidence from High‐Tech Manufacturing. Production and Operations Management,
13(4), 354-368.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Hess, A. M. (2007). Building dynamic capabilities: Innovation driven by
individual-, firm-, and network-level effects. Organization Science, 18(6), 898-921.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0291
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and
organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge
through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475-515.
Roy, K., & Khokhle, P.W. (2011). Integrating resource-based and rational contingency views:
Understanding the design of dynamic capabilities of organizations. Vikalpa, 36(4), 67-74.
Ruvio, A., & Rosenblatt, Z., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Entrepreneurial leadership vision
in nonprofit vs. for-profit organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21,144-158.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.011
Salazar, Á. J., & Peláez, E. (2011). The organic growth of dynamic capabilities for innovation
within resource constrained environments. International Journal of Technology
Management & Sustainable Development, 10(3), 231-250.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/tmsd.10.3.231_1
Salunke, S., Weerawardena,J., & McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2013). Competing through service
innovation: The role of bricolage and entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms. Journal
of Business Research, 66(8), 1085-1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.03.005.
Sambamurthy, V. V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital
options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms.
MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237-263.
Santos-Vijande, M.L., Lopez-Sanchez, J.A., & Trespalacios, J.A. (2012). How organizational
learning affects a firm’s flexibility, competitive strategy, and performance. Journal of
Business Research, 65, 1079-1089.
Sarros,J.C., Cooper, B.K., & Santora, J.C. (2010). Leadership vision, organizational culture, and
support for innovation in not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, 32(3), 291-309.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111123933
Schwandt, D.R. (2005). When managers become philosophers: Integrating learning with
sensemaking. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 176-192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268565
Schudy, C., & Bruch, H. (2010, August). Productive organizational energy as a mediator in the
contextual ambidexterity-performance relation. In Academy of Management Proceedings
203
(Vol. 2010, No. 1, pp. 1-6). Academy of Management.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2010.54495413
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). Theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48082-4_3
Setia, P., Sambamurthy, V., & Closs, D. (2008). Realizing business value of agile IT
applications: antecedents in the supply chain networks. Information Technology &
Management, 9(1), 5-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10799-007-0028-4
Shareef, R. (1997). A Popperian view of change in innovative organizations. Human Relations,
50(6), 655-670.
Sharifi, H., Barclay, I., Colqhoun, G., & Dann, Z. (2001). Agile manufacturing: A management
and operational framework. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 215(6), 857-869.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1243/0954405011518647
Sharifi, H., & Zhang, Z. (1999). A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organisations: An introduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1), 7-
22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00217-5
Sherman, W., Hitt, M. A., DeMarie, S. M., & Keats, B. W. (1999). Organizational morphing:
The challenges of leading perpetually changing organizations in the twenty-first century.
In J. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, L. Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the
twenty-first-century army and other top-performing organizations (pp. 43-62). US:
Elsevier Science/JAI Press
Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal
of Management Studies, 46(4), 597-624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2009.00828.x
Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities:
interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1375-1394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.791
Slack, F.J., Orife, J.N., & Anderson, F.P. (2010). Effects of commitment of corporate vision on
employee satisfaction with their organization: An empirical study in the United States.
International Journal of Management, 27(3), 421-435.
Smith, W. K. (2009). A dynamic approach to managing contradictions: Industrial and
organizational psychology. Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(3), 338-343.
Smith, W.K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M.L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing
strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43, 448-461.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.003
204
Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to
ethical issues at work: The sensemaking intuition model. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 1022-1040. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.26585677
Spanos, Y.E., & Prastacos, G.P. (2004). The effects of structure, environment, and dynamic
capabilities on product innovation strategy. International Journal of Entreprenuership
and Innovation Management, 4(6), 620-635.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2004.005852
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers:
San Francisco, CA.
Stebbings, H., & Braganza, A. (2009). Exploring continuous organizational transformation:
Morphing through network interdependence. Journal of Change Management, 9(1), 27-
48. http://dx.doi.org//10.1080/14697010902727161
Story, J. (2010). Testing the impact of global mindset on positive organizational outcomes: A
multi-level analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Nebraska,Lincoln,NE.
Su, Z., Li, J., Yang, Z., & Li, Y. (2011). Exploratory learning and exploitative learning in
different organizational structures. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(4), 697-714.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10490-009-9177-9
Suli, Z., Zhang, W., Wu, X., & Du, J. (2011). Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and
innovation in networked environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6),
1035-1051.
Suzuki, O., & Methe, D. (2011). Optimal ambidexterity and exploration valuableness: Balancing
short-term and long-term trade-off in pharmaceutical products development. Journal of
Business Chemistry, 8(2), 49-63.
Swink, M., & Hegarty, W.H. (1998). Core manufacturing capabilities and their link to product
differentiation. Internal Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(3/4), 374-
396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579810199748
Taneja, S., Pryor, M.G., Humphreys, J.H., & Singleton, L.P. (2013). Strategic management in
an era of paradigmatic chaos: Lessons for managers. International Journal of
Management, 30(1), 112-126.
205
Tariq, M., Ishrat, R., & Khan, H. (2011). A case study of Apple’s success with iconic iPod and
iPhone. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Business Research, 3(1), 158-168.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
Teece, D. J. (2000). Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and
industrial context. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 35-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-
6301(99)00117-X
Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of
sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319-1350.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Teece, D.J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of
Management Studies, 49(8), 1395-1401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2012.01080.x
Thietart, R.A., & Forgues (1995). Chaos theory and organization. Organizational Science, 6(1),
19-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.19
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in
systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8,1-10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization.
Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774-786.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.25275513
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
management, 14(3), 207-222.
Ulrick D., Lake D. (1991): Organizational capability: Creating competitive advantage. Academy
of Management Executive, 5, 77–91.
Venkatraman, N., Lee, C. H., & Iyer, B. (2007). Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A
longitudinal test in the software sector. In Unpublished Manuscript (earlier version
presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, 2005).
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, 29(2), 222-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159030
206
Vickery, S.K., Droge, C., & Markland, R.E. (1993). Production competence and business
strategy: Do they affect business performance? Decision Science, 24, 435-455.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1993.tb00482.x
Vickery, S.K., Droge, C., & Markland, R.E. (1994). Strategic production competence:
Convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Production & Operations
Management 3(4), 435-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.1994.tb00127.x
Wang, C.L., & Ahmed, P.K (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. The
International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2),
171-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
Wilden, R., Gudergan, S.P., Nielsen, B.B., & Lings, I. (2012). Dynamic capabilities and
performance: Strategy, structure and environment. Long Range Planning,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.12.001.
Williamson, O. (2010). Transaction cost economics: The natural progression. Journal of
Retailing: Special Issue of Journal of Retailing, 86(3), 215-226. Retrieved February 13,
2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2182777751).
Winter, S.G. (2000). The satisfying principle in capability learning. Strategic Management
Journal, 21 (10/11), 981-966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-
0266(200010/11)21:10/11%3C981::AID-SMJ125%3E3.0.CO;2-4
Winter, S.G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,
24(10), 991-995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.318
Wu, L. Y. (2006). Resources, dynamic capabilities and performance in a dynamic environment:
perceptions in Taiwanese IT enterprises. Information & Management, 43(4), 447-454.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.11.001
207
Wu, J.W., & Meynyk, S.A., & Flynn, B.B. (2010). Operational capabilities: The secret
ingredient. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 721-753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5915.2010.00294.x
Wu, Q., He, Q., Duan, Y., & O’Regan, N. (2012). Implementing dynamic capabilities for
corporate strategic change toward sustainability. Strategic Change, 21, 231-247.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsc.1906
Yang, C., & Liu, H. M. (2012). Boosting firm performance via enterprise agility and network
structure. Management Decision, 50(6), 1022-1044.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211238319
Yoeli, R., & Berkovich, I. (2009). From personal ethos to organizational vision: Narratives of
visionary educational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(4), 451-467.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231011054716
Yusuf, Y.Y., Sarhadi, M. & Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: the drivers, concepts
and attributes. International Journal of Product Economics, 62(1/2), 33-43.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and
extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4134351
Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities:
A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 917-955.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x
Zheng, S., Zhang, W., & Du, J. (2011). Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and innovation in
networked environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 1035-1051.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111179352
Zhou, K.Z., & Li, C.B. How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability
in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 63, 24-31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.003
Zollo, M., & Winter, S.G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic
capabilities. Organizational Science, 13(3), 339-351.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intra-industry differential firm
performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2),
95-127.
208
209