Articles Adaptive Organization
1
,Inhoudsopgave
Week 1: Foundations of adaptation................................................................................................................................................3
1.Morgan, G. 2006. Images of Organization...............................................................................................................................4
2.Abatecola, G. (2014). Research in organizational evolution. What comes next?....................................................................7
3.Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. 9
4.Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field
Research....................................................................................................................................................................................12
Week 2: Drivers of adaptation.......................................................................................................................................................16
5.Argote, L. and Epple, D. 1990. Learning Curves in Manufacturing, Science, 247: 920-93.....................................................16
6.Greve, H. R. 2003. A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(6): 685–702......................................................................................................................................17
7.Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development.
Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111–125...........................................................................................................................18
8.Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95–112......................20
Week 3: Capabilities for adaptation..............................................................................................................................................23
9.Agarwal, R., & Helfat, C. E. 2009. Strategic Renewal of Organizations. Organization Science, 20(2): 281–293.The section
Avenues for Strategic Renewal is not part of the exam material..............................................................................................23
10.Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility. California Management
Review, 58(4), 13-35..................................................................................................................................................................25
11.Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal,
21(10/11): 1105–1121...............................................................................................................................................................28
12.Zahra, S. A., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of
Management Review, 27(2): 185–203......................................................................................................................................30
Week 4: Organizing adaptation.....................................................................................................................................................33
13.Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 12(1): 1–47...............................................................................................................................................................33
14.Stan, M., & Puranam, P. (2017). Organizational adaptation to interdependence shifts: The role of integrator
structures. Strategic Management Journal, 38(5), 1041-1061.................................................................................................35
15.Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2009. Structural Differentiation and
Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4): 797–811................................37
16.Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational
ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226..........................................................................................40
Week 5: Managing adaptation I....................................................................................................................................................42
17.Zahra, S. A., Nielsen, A. P., & Bogner, W. C. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence
development. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 23(3): 169-189......................................................................................42
18.Wolcott, R. C., & Lippitz, M. J. 2007. The Four Models of Corporate Entrepreneurship. MIT Sloan Management Review,
49(1): 75–82...............................................................................................................................................................................44
19.Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J., & Keil, T. 2005. Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29(4): 493 – 515............................................................................................................46
20.Shankar, R. K., & Shepherd, D. A. 2019. Accelerating strategic fit or venture emergence: Different paths adopted by
corporate accelerators. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(5): 105886....................................................................................48
Week 6: Managing adaptation II...................................................................................................................................................49
21.Kotter, J. P. 2001. What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11): 85–96........................................................49
22.Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. 2008. Transformational Leadership’s Role in Promoting Corporate
Entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT Interface. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 557–576....................50
23.Ren, C. R., & Guo, C. 2011. Middle Managers’ Strategic Role in the Corporate Entrepreneurial Process: Attention-Based
Effects. Journal of Management, 37(6): 1586–1610.................................................................................................................51
24.Nadkarni, S., Chen, T., & Chen, J. 2016. The clock is ticking! Executive temporal depth, industry velocity, and
competitive aggressiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1132–1153.........................................................................52
2
, Week 1: Foundations of adaptation
Recap from ToS (Stoelhorst & Bridoux, 2015)
There are 2 theories in RBV that explain competitive advantage:
1. Ricardian (static): competitive advantage is dependent on economic profit grounded by the equilibrium logic
of price theory.
a. Positional competitive advantage: CA relies on the difference between economic value and costs,
hence the operational efficiency that depends on productive knowledge. This theory is equilibrium-
based and assumes a closed system in which there is a given set of external conditions. When there
are exogenous shocks, these conditions change and firms need to reposition in order to get a new
equilibrium.
2. Evolutionary (dynamic): competitive advantage is dependent on growth grounded by the knowledge- based
& dynamic capability theories.
a. Dynamic competitive advantage: CA relies on differences in growth and the ability to
maintain/increase economic value in an open system, hence the adaptive efficiency that depends on
learning to gain productive knowledge. As a result, learning asymmetries are the main sources of CA
in which knowledge is endogenous, since it is not given but based on disequilibria.
The fundamental difference between the theories is rather that an equilibrium-based theory needs to assume a closed
system that adjusts to conditions that are externally determined, while an evolutionary theory applies to open systems
that change themselves from within. This makes an equilibrium-based theory uniquely suited to explain economic
profit but unfit to explain growth, and vice versa.
3
, 1.Morgan, G. 2006. Images of Organization.
Assumes the environment is deterministic.
evolutionary theory;
We look at organizations like they’re living organisms, and see that some are better adapted to their environment than
others. With this metaphor, scholars have studied:
- organizations as open systems
- the process of adapting organizations to environments
- organizational lifecycles
- factors influencing organizational health and development - different species of organizations
- the relations between species and their ecology
Discovering organizational needs
Before the organism metaphor, there was a machine metaphor, that viewed organization design as a technical
problem. From the 1920s on, limitations got attention and social needs in organizations where recognized: the
informal organization could exist next to the documented formal organization. The new idea: individuals and groups
work better when their needs are satisfied (levels of Needs, Maslow’s hierarchy). Job enrichment came up hand in
hand with a more employee-centered leadership-style. Since the 1960s, human resources management received a
major focus. Dual focus: sociotechnical systems (integrating human and technical aspects of work).
Recognizing the importance of environment: organizations as open systems
The systems approach views organizations as open systems, like organisms: open to their environment and must
achieve an appropriate relation with it to survive. The open systems approach focuses on three key issues:
1. Emphasis on the environment in which the organizations exist - understanding the immediate ‘task’ or
‘business environment’ defined by the organizations direct interactions with customers, competitors,
suppliers, labor unions and government agents, as well as the broader ‘contextual’ or ‘generalenvironment’.
2. Defines an organization as interrelated subsystems - organizations contain individuals who belong to groups
or departments that belong to larger organization devisions. Everything depends on each other.
3. Attempt to establish congruencies or ‘alignments’ between different systems and to identify and eliminate
potential disfunction.
These ideas allow us to break free of bureaucratic thinking, and are placed under the ‘contingency theory’.
Contingency theory: adapting organization and environment
The main ideas in a nutshell:
- Organizations are open systems that need careful management to satisfy and balance internal needs
and to adapt to environmental circumstances.
- There is no one best way of organizing. The appropriate form depends on the kind of task or environment
with which one is dealing.
- Management must be concerned above all else with achieving alignments and ‘good fits’.
- Different approaches to management may be necessary to perform different tasks within the same
organization.
- Different types or ‘species’ of organizations are needed in different types of environments.
The variety of the species
- Machine bureaucracy & Divisionalized form: ineffective except when tasks and environment are simple and
stable. Highly centralized, inappropriate for market driven or environment driven firms.
- Professional bureaucracy: allows greater autonomy of staff, appropriate for dealing with relatively stable
conditions where tasks are relatively complicated. Since the 1980’s it’s not as effective anymore due to the
changing environment.
- Simple structure: informal and flexible organization with a chief executive (often entrepreneur), ideal for
achieving quick changes. Successful in unstable environments, especially for young and innovative
companies.
- Adhocracy: project teams that just come together for tasks, sometimes called a virtual or network
organization. Temporary organization design, successful in turbulent environments with complex tasks.
New species that arise because of the turbulent environment:
- Matrix organization: systematically attempt to combine functional structure of bureaucracy with project-team
structure. This and other team-based organizations provides means of breaking down barriers between
4
1
,Inhoudsopgave
Week 1: Foundations of adaptation................................................................................................................................................3
1.Morgan, G. 2006. Images of Organization...............................................................................................................................4
2.Abatecola, G. (2014). Research in organizational evolution. What comes next?....................................................................7
3.Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. 9
4.Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field
Research....................................................................................................................................................................................12
Week 2: Drivers of adaptation.......................................................................................................................................................16
5.Argote, L. and Epple, D. 1990. Learning Curves in Manufacturing, Science, 247: 920-93.....................................................16
6.Greve, H. R. 2003. A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(6): 685–702......................................................................................................................................17
7.Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development.
Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111–125...........................................................................................................................18
8.Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95–112......................20
Week 3: Capabilities for adaptation..............................................................................................................................................23
9.Agarwal, R., & Helfat, C. E. 2009. Strategic Renewal of Organizations. Organization Science, 20(2): 281–293.The section
Avenues for Strategic Renewal is not part of the exam material..............................................................................................23
10.Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility. California Management
Review, 58(4), 13-35..................................................................................................................................................................25
11.Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal,
21(10/11): 1105–1121...............................................................................................................................................................28
12.Zahra, S. A., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of
Management Review, 27(2): 185–203......................................................................................................................................30
Week 4: Organizing adaptation.....................................................................................................................................................33
13.Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 12(1): 1–47...............................................................................................................................................................33
14.Stan, M., & Puranam, P. (2017). Organizational adaptation to interdependence shifts: The role of integrator
structures. Strategic Management Journal, 38(5), 1041-1061.................................................................................................35
15.Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2009. Structural Differentiation and
Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4): 797–811................................37
16.Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational
ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226..........................................................................................40
Week 5: Managing adaptation I....................................................................................................................................................42
17.Zahra, S. A., Nielsen, A. P., & Bogner, W. C. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence
development. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 23(3): 169-189......................................................................................42
18.Wolcott, R. C., & Lippitz, M. J. 2007. The Four Models of Corporate Entrepreneurship. MIT Sloan Management Review,
49(1): 75–82...............................................................................................................................................................................44
19.Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J., & Keil, T. 2005. Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29(4): 493 – 515............................................................................................................46
20.Shankar, R. K., & Shepherd, D. A. 2019. Accelerating strategic fit or venture emergence: Different paths adopted by
corporate accelerators. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(5): 105886....................................................................................48
Week 6: Managing adaptation II...................................................................................................................................................49
21.Kotter, J. P. 2001. What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11): 85–96........................................................49
22.Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. 2008. Transformational Leadership’s Role in Promoting Corporate
Entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT Interface. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 557–576....................50
23.Ren, C. R., & Guo, C. 2011. Middle Managers’ Strategic Role in the Corporate Entrepreneurial Process: Attention-Based
Effects. Journal of Management, 37(6): 1586–1610.................................................................................................................51
24.Nadkarni, S., Chen, T., & Chen, J. 2016. The clock is ticking! Executive temporal depth, industry velocity, and
competitive aggressiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1132–1153.........................................................................52
2
, Week 1: Foundations of adaptation
Recap from ToS (Stoelhorst & Bridoux, 2015)
There are 2 theories in RBV that explain competitive advantage:
1. Ricardian (static): competitive advantage is dependent on economic profit grounded by the equilibrium logic
of price theory.
a. Positional competitive advantage: CA relies on the difference between economic value and costs,
hence the operational efficiency that depends on productive knowledge. This theory is equilibrium-
based and assumes a closed system in which there is a given set of external conditions. When there
are exogenous shocks, these conditions change and firms need to reposition in order to get a new
equilibrium.
2. Evolutionary (dynamic): competitive advantage is dependent on growth grounded by the knowledge- based
& dynamic capability theories.
a. Dynamic competitive advantage: CA relies on differences in growth and the ability to
maintain/increase economic value in an open system, hence the adaptive efficiency that depends on
learning to gain productive knowledge. As a result, learning asymmetries are the main sources of CA
in which knowledge is endogenous, since it is not given but based on disequilibria.
The fundamental difference between the theories is rather that an equilibrium-based theory needs to assume a closed
system that adjusts to conditions that are externally determined, while an evolutionary theory applies to open systems
that change themselves from within. This makes an equilibrium-based theory uniquely suited to explain economic
profit but unfit to explain growth, and vice versa.
3
, 1.Morgan, G. 2006. Images of Organization.
Assumes the environment is deterministic.
evolutionary theory;
We look at organizations like they’re living organisms, and see that some are better adapted to their environment than
others. With this metaphor, scholars have studied:
- organizations as open systems
- the process of adapting organizations to environments
- organizational lifecycles
- factors influencing organizational health and development - different species of organizations
- the relations between species and their ecology
Discovering organizational needs
Before the organism metaphor, there was a machine metaphor, that viewed organization design as a technical
problem. From the 1920s on, limitations got attention and social needs in organizations where recognized: the
informal organization could exist next to the documented formal organization. The new idea: individuals and groups
work better when their needs are satisfied (levels of Needs, Maslow’s hierarchy). Job enrichment came up hand in
hand with a more employee-centered leadership-style. Since the 1960s, human resources management received a
major focus. Dual focus: sociotechnical systems (integrating human and technical aspects of work).
Recognizing the importance of environment: organizations as open systems
The systems approach views organizations as open systems, like organisms: open to their environment and must
achieve an appropriate relation with it to survive. The open systems approach focuses on three key issues:
1. Emphasis on the environment in which the organizations exist - understanding the immediate ‘task’ or
‘business environment’ defined by the organizations direct interactions with customers, competitors,
suppliers, labor unions and government agents, as well as the broader ‘contextual’ or ‘generalenvironment’.
2. Defines an organization as interrelated subsystems - organizations contain individuals who belong to groups
or departments that belong to larger organization devisions. Everything depends on each other.
3. Attempt to establish congruencies or ‘alignments’ between different systems and to identify and eliminate
potential disfunction.
These ideas allow us to break free of bureaucratic thinking, and are placed under the ‘contingency theory’.
Contingency theory: adapting organization and environment
The main ideas in a nutshell:
- Organizations are open systems that need careful management to satisfy and balance internal needs
and to adapt to environmental circumstances.
- There is no one best way of organizing. The appropriate form depends on the kind of task or environment
with which one is dealing.
- Management must be concerned above all else with achieving alignments and ‘good fits’.
- Different approaches to management may be necessary to perform different tasks within the same
organization.
- Different types or ‘species’ of organizations are needed in different types of environments.
The variety of the species
- Machine bureaucracy & Divisionalized form: ineffective except when tasks and environment are simple and
stable. Highly centralized, inappropriate for market driven or environment driven firms.
- Professional bureaucracy: allows greater autonomy of staff, appropriate for dealing with relatively stable
conditions where tasks are relatively complicated. Since the 1980’s it’s not as effective anymore due to the
changing environment.
- Simple structure: informal and flexible organization with a chief executive (often entrepreneur), ideal for
achieving quick changes. Successful in unstable environments, especially for young and innovative
companies.
- Adhocracy: project teams that just come together for tasks, sometimes called a virtual or network
organization. Temporary organization design, successful in turbulent environments with complex tasks.
New species that arise because of the turbulent environment:
- Matrix organization: systematically attempt to combine functional structure of bureaucracy with project-team
structure. This and other team-based organizations provides means of breaking down barriers between
4
