Focus in Searching Core–Periphery Structures

Abstract

Organizations are often conceptualized as systems of interdependent choices that exhibit a core-periphery structure. Research is inconclusive, however, regarding whether organizations should focus their search efforts on their core or peripheral choices. In this paper, we seek to reconcile contradictory arguments and suggest that the efficacy of a search focus depends on the time horizon, environmental change, and how the core and periphery interact. In so doing, we demonstrate that the directionality of interdependence and whether interdependencies occur mostly within the core or between the core and periphery are key determinants of the implications of focus. We discuss the implications of our findings for various streams of research, including research on structural inertia and business model innovation.

Training with AI: Evidence from chess computers

“…Decision‐makers can also explore alternative actions, gaining an understanding of the actions' relative effectiveness and extending their own repertoire of actions (Smith et al, 2005). Experiential learning also allows them to learn about non‐codified (and typically less common) scenarios (Martignoni et al, 2020). Taken together, experiential learning, with decision‐makers receiving responses to their actions, allows them to improve in strategic interactions.…”

Thriving on contradiction: Toward a dialectical alternative to fit‐based models in strategy (and beyond)

“…The notion of internal fit has been covered extensively in strategy and related fields (e.g., Drazin & van de Ven, 1985;Ennen & Richter, 2010;Martignoni et al, 2020;Meyer, Tsui, & Hinings, 1993;Miller, 1992;Siggelkow, 2001;van de Ven, Ganco, & Hinings, 2013). Since this literature is largely mute on the nature of social reality examined, we briefly introduce a few useful ontological distinctions before discussing related models and ideas.…”

“…Whereas some of its key claims have been challenged, internal fit has proved impressively resilient, extending beyond strategic positioning theory to domains such as search (Martignoni et al, 2020), strategic decisions (Leiblein, Reuer, & Zenger, 2018), and business models (e.g., Massa et al, 2017). However, an important conceptual challenge to the classic notion of fit comes from ambidexterity models.…”

“…Central to fit-based models in strategy, such as strategic positioning theory (Porter, 1996;Siggelkow, 2001), theories of configuration (Miller, 2018), complementarities (Milgrom & Roberts, 1995), and business models (Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017), the notion of fit deeply informs strategy teaching and practice (e.g., Spender & Strong, 2014), and continues to attract scholarly attention (e.g., Bettis & Blettner, 2020;Miller, 2018). Fit is commonly referred to as a pattern of reinforcing relationships between organizational elements-for instance activities, policies, organizational structures, capabilities, and resources-such that one element enhances the impact of another element on performance (Gulati & Puranam, 2009;Martignoni, Keil, & Lang, 2020;Siggelkow, 2001). 1 As illustrated by traditional strategic positioning theory-a key exemplar of fit-based models in strategy-the significance of internal fit extends beyond a holistic representation of a firm's interconnected choices and activities to theorize strategy, competitive advantage, strategic change, and organizational design.…”