Qualitative comparative analysis is increasingly applied in strategy and organization research. The main purpose of our essay is to support this growing community of qualitative comparative analysis scholars by identifying best practices that can help guide researchers through the key stages of a qualitative comparative analysis empirical study (model building, sampling, calibration, data analysis, reporting, and interpretation of findings) and by providing examples of such practices drawn from strategy and organization studies. Coupled with this main purpose, we respond to Miller's essay on configuration research by highlighting our points of agreement regarding his recommendations for configurational research and by addressing some of his concerns regarding qualitative comparative analysis. Our article thus contributes to configurational research by articulating how to leverage qualitative comparative analysis for enriching configurational theories of strategy and organization.

We would like to thank Associate Editor Heather Haveman and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful and developmental comments. We also thank the participants of the O&S Workshop at the University of Southern California and of an OTREG meeting held at the University of Cambridge for their valuable feedback on an earlier version of this paper, especially

Causal complexity has long been recognized as a ubiquitous feature underlying organizational phenomena, yet current theories and methodologies in management are for the most part not well-suited to its direct study. The introduction of the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) configurational approach has led to a reinvigoration of configurational theory that embraces causal complexity explicitly. We argue that the burgeoning research using QCA represents more than a novel methodology; it constitutes the emergence of a neo-configurational perspective to the study of management and organizations that enables a fine-grained conceptualization and empirical investigation of causal complexity through the logic of set theory. In this article, we identify four foundational elements that characterize this emerging neo-configurational perspective: (a) conceptualizing cases as set theoretic configurations, (b) calibrating cases’ memberships into sets, (c) viewing causality in terms of necessity and sufficiency relations between sets, and (d) conducting counterfactual analysis of unobserved configurations. We then present a comprehensive review of the use of QCA in management studies that aims to capture the evolution of the neo-configurational perspective among management scholars. We close with a discussion of a research agenda that can further this neo-configurational approach and thereby shift the attention of management research away from a focus on net effects and towards examining causal complexity.

No abstract

Whereas prior research has investigated cases of partially open strategizing, this article explores the practices and outcomes of radically open strategizing. We draw on a case study of the German Premium Cola collective to explore how it translates its principles of radically open agenda setting, participation, and governance into strategizing practices. Our analysis reveals that this collective performs radically open strategizing practices of distributed agenda setting, substantial participation, and consensual decision-making, but also performs counterbalancing practices of centralized agenda setting, selective participation, and authoritative decision-making in order to cope with practical barriers posed by information and power asymmetries between members as well as information overload. We find that these practices enable the collective to legitimize its strategic decisions, develop a collective identity, and maintain member motivation over time. Based on these findings, we conclude that radically open strategizing is a feasible practice, with limitations arising from participants making selective use of open strategizing opportunities, rather than being excluded from them.