Suchergebnisse

Hypercompetition has received much attention, but an important question has not been answered: What organizational forms lead to success in hypercompetitive environments? Hypercompetition forces firms to move more quickly and boldly and to experiment in ways that do not conform to traditional administrative theory. Bureaucratic vertical forms severely hamper the ability to respond to accelerating competition. Flexible forms, in contrast, can respond to a wide variety of changes in the competitive environment in an appropriate and timely way. The author examines several alternative flexible forms for coping with hypercompetitive environments. Flexibility derives from the repertoire of managerial capabilities (management challenge) and the responsiveness of the organization (organization design challenge). On the basis of theories of control, the author argues that organizational flexibility is inherently paradoxical and requires a constructive friction between change and preservation. The paradox of flexibility is portrayed in a conceptual model that relates competitive environments, certain types of flexibility, and organizational conditions. The author develops a rich typology of organizational forms for coping with hypercompetition, each of which reflects a particular way of addressing change and preservation. Furthermore, he explores different trajectories of organizational development over time, especially those relating to revitalization. The implications of the typology for strategy and organization design research in hypercompetitive environments are profound.

We advance arguments for why and how a coevolutionary perspective and framework of analysis can provide a new lens and new directions for research in strategic management and organization studies. We identify the distinguishing properties of coevolution in an attempt to define coevolutionary research from other evolutionary research in social sciences. We also outline and discuss the empirical challenges and requirements for undertaking research within coevolutionary inquiry systems. In particular we stress the relevance of specifying coevolutionary models for reframing the selection adaptation standoff when applied to research on organization change over time, in general, and specifically to the mutation and emergence of new organizational forms. Furthermore, a coevolutionary framework has the potential to bridge and reintegrate strategy and organization theory teaching and research within a holistic framework. In our view such a reintegration is the sine qua non for studying organizational change over time and parallels the world of management practice where organization adaptations and strategy are intertwined and interdependent processes.

The topic of organizational responsiveness – where organizations need to flexibly react to strategic and operational demands simultaneously – has been under-explored in strategic management research. Our study was initiated to shed more light on this topic, primarily by studying an organization specifically designed to handle crises. By definition, crisis response organizations have to be prepared to react to unpredictable events. Moreover, the volatility of the crisis situation itself requires a high degree of flexibility to get or keep the situation under control. The study hypothesizes modular organizing and organizational sensing to be key drivers of organizational responsiveness. Empirically, we examine the effect these two variables have on the responsiveness of the Netherlands armed forces for crisis response deployment. Findings indicate that modular organizing and organizational sensing are drivers of responsiveness. In addition, our study uncovered the importance of an organization's level of system decomposition to responsiveness. A high degree of system granularity can lead to a predominantly inward focus whereas organizational responsiveness calls for a strong external orientation.

The purpose of this perspective paper is to advance understanding of absorptive capacity, its underlying dimensions, its multilevel antecedents, its impact on firm performance, and the contextual factors that affect absorptive capacity. Twenty years after the Cohen and Levinthal 1990 paper, the field is characterized by a wide array of theoretical perspectives and a wealth of empirical evidence. In this paper, we first review these underlying theories and empirical studies of absorptive capacity. Given the size and diversity of the absorptive capacity literature, we subsequently map the existing terrain of research through a bibliometric analysis. The resulting bibliometric cartography shows the major discrepancies in the organization field, namely that (1) most attention so far has been focused on the tangible outcomes of absorptive capacity; (2) organizational design and individual level antecedents have been relatively neglected in the absorptive capacity literature; and (3) the emergence of absorptive capacity from the actions and interactions of individual, organizational, and interorganizational antecedents remains unclear. Building on the bibliometric analysis, we develop an integrative model that identifies the multilevel antecedents, process dimensions, and outcomes of absorptive capacity as well as the contextual factors that affect absorptive capacity. We argue that realizing the potential of the absorptive capacity concept requires more research that shows how "micro-antecedents" and "macro-antecedents" influence future outcomes such as competitive advantage, innovation, and firm performance. In particular, we identify conceptual gaps that may guide future research to fully exploit the absorptive capacity concept in the organization field and to explore future fruitful extensions of the concept.

When faced with increasing disruption, how do you reinvent your business model? Most firms fail to innovate their business model because they continue to do the same things that have made them successful in the past. Managers listen carefully to customers, invest in existing businesses, and build distinctive capabilities, but tend to overlook disruptions in markets and technologies. In Reinventing Business Models business model innovation is taken as a prerequisite for business success when firms face disruption, yet research also shows that one in three fims pays no attention to its business model. This book examines why this should be so - and what dangers it may pose - by focusing on when business model innovation is needed, and how it can be achieved. It provides guidance for managers on how firms can cope with disruption, and can even become disruptors. And it helps them to choose between improving an existing business model and radically renewing it. The quantitative research and case studies presented in this book provide insights into the paths that firms can take to transform their business models, and which levers are most helpful to them in that process. To assist firms in this, an online tool is provided to support them in their efforts to innovate their business model (www.reinventingbusinessmodels.com), and a panel of top managers offer guidance on the do's and don'ts of business model innovation. -- from dust jacket

In this paper, exploration and exploitation are conceptualized in terms of a nonlocal-local search continuum in three-dimensional supply, demand, and geographic space. Using cross-sectional data from a wide range of manufacturing industries, we develop and validate an operational measure of the exploration-exploitation concept. In line with theory-based arguments, our analysis suggests that the value of supply-side, demand-side, and spatial exploration and exploitation is contingent on the environment. While boundary-spanning supply-side search is found to be positively associated with innovation in more-dynamic environments typical of the entrepreneurial regime phase of technology evolution, such exploration appears to hurt innovation in less-dynamic environments. In a reverse fashion, while boundary-spanning demand-side search is found to be favorably associated with innovation in less-dynamic environments, it appears to harm innovation in a more-dynamic context. Interestingly, spatial boundary-spanning search seems to contribute to innovation in more- as well as less-dynamic environments. With the caveat that the substantive findings of this study are based on cross-sectional data, we discuss the implications of our work and future research directions.

Many scholars have described organization form as a management tool in the alignment of organization and environment. As the environment of many companies becomes more chaotic, the exploration of organization forms characterized by flexibility and adaptability has been intensifying. When reviewing existing literature on new organization forms, several gaps become apparent. These gaps can be traced back to the artificial separation between the macrolevel and the firm level of analysis and the prevalence of a static notion of form. To contribute to a more encompassing theory of new organization forms, a coevolutionary perspective is suggested. In this perspective, contextual variation of macrolevel management logics is proposed as a key mediator in the coevolution of organization and environment. At the firm level, the contextual variation of management logics is reflected in shared managerial schemas underlying strategic design actions. The resulting coevolutionary model shows how contextual applications of management logics may be a source of variation in new organization forms. On the basis of a literature review, three management logics, representing ideal types, are described: classical management logic, modern management logic, and postindustrial management logic. These logics are related to three levers of design actions which reflect fundamentally different interventions in form. Linking management logics to design levers results in a set of propositions to be tested in future empirical research.

This paper advances the understanding of absorptive capacity for assimilating new knowledge as a mediating variable of organization adaptation. Many scholars suggest a firm's absorptive capacity plays a key role in the process of coevolution (Lewin et al., this issue). So far, most publications, in following Cohen and Levinthal (1990), have considered the level of prior related knowledge as the determinant of absorptive capacity. We suggest, however, that two specific organizational determinants of absorptive capacity should also be considered: organization forms and combinative capabilities. We will show how these organizational determinants influence the level of absorptive capacity, ceteris paribus the level of prior related knowledge. Subsequently, we will develop a framework in which absorptive capacity is related to both micro- and macrocoevolutionary effects. This framework offers an explanation of how knowledge environments coevolve with the emergence of organization forms and combinative capabilities that are suitable for absorbing knowledge. We will illustrate the framework by discussing two longitudinal case studies of traditional publishing firms moving into the turbulent knowledge environment of an emerging multimedia industrial complex.