Organizational fields undergo upheavals. Shifting industry boundaries, new network forms, emerging sectors, and volatile ecosystems have become the stuff of everyday organizational life. Curiously, profound changes of this sort receive scant attention in organization theory and research. Researchers acknowledge fieldwide flux, emergence, convergence, and collapse, but sidestep direct investigations of the causes and dynamic processes, leaving these efforts to political scientists and institutional economists. We attribute this neglect to our field’s philosophical, theoretical, and methodological fealty to the precepts of equilibrium and linearity. We argue that ingrained assumptions and habituated methodologies dissuade organizational scientists from grappling with problems to which these ideas and tools do not apply. Nevertheless, equilibrium and linearity are assumptions of social theory, not facts of social life. Drawing on four empirical studies of organizational fields in flux, we suggest new intellectual perspectives and methodological heuristics that may facilitate investigation of fields that are far from equilibrium. We urge our colleagues to transcend the general linear model, and embrace ideas like field configuration, complex adaptive systems, self-organizing networks, and autocatalytic feedback. We recommend conducting natural histories of organizational fields, and paying especially close attention to turning points when fields are away from equilibrium and discontinuous changes are afoot.

I n this study, we examine how business units of multidivisional (M-form) firms adapt their activities in response to poor performance at the corporate and business unit levels. By linking performance feedback theory with theories of attention and M-form organizations, we show that corporate structure influences the relationship between performance below aspirations and business unit adaptation. Because corporate structure vertically differentiates performance goals and problemistic search, solutions to performance problems vary across corporate and business unit levels, with divergent implications for business unit adaptation. We examine business unit adaptation empirically through new product introductions in the global mobile device industry, finding that poor performance at the business unit level leads to greater new product introductions. In contrast, corporate-level responses to performance problems have a negative cross-level effect on new product introductions. We also find that these negative effects are attenuated for strategically significant business units, which have more input into corporate responses. By linking structural and behavioral drivers of action, this paper contributes to the knowledge and understanding of adaptive behavior in multidivisional firms.

This study examines firms' responses to performance assessments relative to multiple aspiration levels. We argue that comparisons of performance to multiple aspiration levels over time affects the interpretative clarity of feedback and, consequently, shapes a firm's responsiveness. We further conceptualize the relationship between performance relative to social and historical aspirations as ambiguous, inconsistent, and consistent performance feedback. Empirically, we examine the effects—on firms' responsiveness—of weak, negative, and positive correlations between performance relative to social and historical aspirations, where responsiveness is measured in terms of new product introductions. We find that both inconsistent and consistent feedback increase a firm's responsiveness, whereas ambiguous feedback dampens responsiveness. Our focus on this type of feedback ambiguity is novel, and it establishes the functional form of the relationship between feedback clarity/ambiguity and responsiveness. This paper augments the behavioral theory of the firm and research on performance feedback; it also extends previous work on ambiguity in strategic decision making. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract