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