Võimekus tundub olevad midagi sellist, mille olulisuses kahtlevad vähesed. Samal ajal jäävad mõttearendused võimekusest sageli üsna üldisele tasandile, kuigi näiteks strateegilise juhtimise erialakirjanduses on võimekusele keskendunud tekstide hulk märkimisväärne. Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst leidis oma koha põhjusel, et pakub naudingut nii teoreetilise perspektiivi arenduse, metoodika kirjeldamise ja selgituse kui empiirilise analüüsi tähenduses. Tekst võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele organisatsioonihuvilistele, kuid ka n-ö tavalugejale, sest avab võimekuse tähendusruumi ning seetõttu on kasulik igal juhul.
This article analyzes how dynamic capabilities change ordinary capabilities. While the discussion about the antecedents and consequences of dynamic capabilities is vast, our understanding of how a firm’s dynamic capabilities modify its ordinary capabilities is less extensive.
Routines are hierarchically structured: higher-level routines are the dynamic capabilities that enable an organization to systematically alter its lower-level routines, or ordinary capabilities (Helfat & Winter, 2011; Winter, 2003; Zollo & Winter, 2002).
To explore how dynamic capabilities change ordinary capabilities, we leverage the attention-based view (ABV) of the firm (Ocasio, 1997). We know that individuals (e.g., Laureiro-Martinez, 2014) and organizations alike (e.g., Ocasio, 1997, 2011) struggle to keep their attention focused for long periods. Yet, change requires focus, particularly when it is gradual and continuous, lest inertia prevail.
Tähelepanu on kontrolli osa:
Specifically, “Control can be defined as any process by which managers direct attention, motivate, and encourage organizational members to act in desired ways to meet the firm’s objectives” (Cardinal, 2001, p. 22, emphasis added). […] In his landmark 1997 study, Ocasio noted that attention is both a structural and a cognitive process that “encompass[es] the noticing, encoding, interpreting, and focusing of time and effort by organizational decision-makers” (p. 189). Attention processes are at the core of any organizational choice about which “issues” (p. 189)—for example, problems—to focus on, and also which “answers” (p. 189)—for example, routines, procedures—to select in order to solve them.
We adopted a qualitative research design (Burgelman, 1983; Miles & Huberman, 1994) and conducted a longitudinal single case study aimed at collecting detailed evidence related to our research question (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2009). We build upon Burawoy’s extended case method (Burawoy, 1998) as well as Langley’s (1999) approach to time bracketing and Gurses and Ozcan’s (2015) approach to analyzing evidence along a timeline.
In sum, we have developed a process model that offers insights into two core elements of a dynamic capability (i.e., problem-solving and attention control), and the mechanisms through which these elements recurrently interact to modify ordinary capabilities through resource reconfiguration. Our core mechanism builds on the distinction between executive attention and attentional vigilance on the one side, and problem-framing and -solving on the other. […] More generally, our study might help to reconnect ongoing strategy work on dynamic and ordinary capabilities to the original intuition of Nelson and Winter (1982): that organizations exist both to solve problems and to align conflicting interests and purposes.
Schulze, A., & Brusoni, S. (2022) How dynamic capabilities change ordinary capabilities: Reconnecting control and problem‐solving. Strategic Management Journal.