In this study, we expand our understanding of firm evolution by focusing on how operating and dynamic capabilities interact through endogenously led changes. The focus on endogenous change complements the current emphasis in the literature on how dynamic capabilities help firms cope with the risk of core rigidities following an exogenous shock. Our comparison of two collaborating firms shows that, at the operating capability level, firms build absorptive capacity in value networks during their product development experiences and this learning needs to be captured at the product portfolio planning level. When this learning is captured and transformed, product portfolio planning acts as a dynamic capability reconfiguring operating capabilities based on beliefs about follow-on entrepreneurial opportunities. Under conditions of endogenous change, dynamic capabilities are guided by a proactive entrepreneurial logic, complementing the need for reactive adaptive responses in circumstances of exogenous change. A key implication is that dynamic capabilities have a more expansive and critical role in the adaptation of firms than previously considered. Our theorizing shows how interactions between dynamic and operating capabilities build the adaptive capacity of the organization.
The intersection of academic disciplines and fields provides an important forum for creative theory building. In this article, we identify three modes of theory building at the intersection and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. We position these three modes relative to one another using the 'impact wheel', which visually describes their influence on five domains: theory, field, discipline, researchers, and external stakeholders. Though impact on these domains varies across the three modes, maximum impact is created when theory building at the intersection uncovers new phenomena that revise the boundaries of existing disciplines and fields while giving birth to new ones. Such theorizing is infrequent and demands particular skills on the part of researchers to help organization science to realize more of its potential.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine competing assumptions about the nature of resilience and selects those most appropriate for an entrepreneurial context. Assumptions are integrated into a theoretical framework highlighting how different threats require different resilience responses. Overall organizational resilience results from a portfolio of resilience capabilities. Design/methodology/approach Akin to theoretical sampling, the authors identify various theoretical insights about resilience across three disciplines of psychology, ecology and engineering. The authors use these insights to distill competing assumptions about what resilience is and evaluate those most appropriate for entrepreneurial contexts. Existing resilience literature in organization science is critiqued in terms of underlying assumptions and an alternative theoretical framework proposed based on more robust assumptions. Findings Other disciplines point to resilience being a process that differs for different threats and as either bouncing back, absorbing shocks or bouncing forward. When imported into entrepreneurship these characteristics lead to a conceptualization of resilience as being enacted through a capability portfolio. A routine-based capability response is preferred when threats are familiar, simple, not severe and frequent, following minimal disorganization and where resource slack is available. In contrast, heuristics-based capabilities are preferred when threats are unfamiliar, complex, severe and infrequent, following serious disorganization and where resource slack is unavailable. An absorption threshold point identifies when organizations need to switch from routine-based to heuristics-based resilience capabilities. Practical implications Building resilience across a range of adverse situations requires firms to develop a portfolio of resilience capabilities. Firms must learn to match the capability required for the specific threat profile faced. This includes a mix of routinized responses for returning to stability but also more flexible, heuristics-based responses for strategic reconfiguration. Originality/value The paper undertakes a first of its kind cross-disciplinary conceptual analysis at the level of identifying competing assumptions about the nature of resilience. These assumptions are found to be somewhat unconscious among organization researchers, limiting the conceptual development of resilience in entrepreneurship. The authors contribute a theoretical framework based on explicit and robust assumptions, enabling the field to advance conceptually.
We explore how social entrepreneurship (SE) research extends the field of international entrepreneurship (IE) to affect global sustainable well–being. Well–being is a multidimensional concept that includes financial, social, and environmental wealth creation. Much of IE research thus far has been based primarily on assumptions of economic opportunity recognition, evaluation, and exploitation. We use the SE perspectives of blended value and international governance to revise the definition, assumptions, and boundaries of IE at the firm and international policy levels. We propose a broader vision for the IE field based on an expanded set of assumptions beyond traditional economic thinking.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.