Strategic Organization 

About: Strategic Organization is an academic journal published by SAGE Publishing. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Computer science & Politics. It has an ISSN identifier of 1476-1270. Over the lifetime, 510 publications have been published receiving 27993 citations. The journal is also known as: So! & SO.

Correcting for Endogeneity in Strategic Management Research

Abstract: The field of strategic management is predicated fundamentally on the idea that managements' decisions are endogenous to their expected performance implications. Yet, based on a review of more than a decade of empirical research in the Strategic Management Journal, we find that few papers econometrically correct for such endogeneity. In response, we now describe the endogeneity problem for cross-sectional and panel data, referring specifically to management's choice among discrete strategies with continuous performance outcomes. We then present readily implementable econometric methods to correct for endogeneity and, when feasible, provide STATA code to ease implementation. We also discuss extensions and nuances of these models that are sometimes difficult to decipher in more standard treatments. These extensions are not typically discussed in the strategy literature, but they are, in fact, highly pertinent to empirical strategic management research.

Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research

Abstract: This article offers a framework to understand how endogeneity arises and how to control for it with instrumental variables to estimate causal relations with observational data. It builds on the state-of-the-art research in applied and theoretical econometrics to highlight the importance of endogeneity and review the methods that can be used to address it with instrumental variables.The article also discusses when the Heckman two-step procedure can be used, as well as the tests, methods and assumptions that researchers should check when using instrumental variables.To ease implementation of the instrumental variables techniques, the author offers the STATA commands of the exposed tests and methods. Further, an empirical example is provided along with the utilized STATA codes. In the end, this article serves as a`toolkit' allowing scholars not only to understand whether endogeneity is present in their empirical setting, but also to assess the empirical validity of their work when using instrumental variables.

Understanding dynamic capabilities: progress along a developmental path

Abstract: The aim of dynamic capabilities research is ambitious: to understand how firmscan sustain a competitive advantage by responding to and creating environmen-tal change (Teece, 2007). As one of the most central and difficult questionswithin the strategy domain, this might well be characterized as the Holy Grailof strategic management. The topical domain of dynamic capabilities, in conse-quence, is as broad and as complex as any in the field. It spans the domains ofstrategy process and content, and involves multiple levels of analysis, from man-agerial decision-processes, to organizational routines, to competitive inter-actions and environmental change. The complexity of the topic is matched,fittingly, by the complexity of the theoretical underpinnings. Undoubtedly, thishas generated some confusion. It is therefore not surprising that the critique ofArend and Bromiley (A&B) in the preceding essay reflects some of this confu-sion. Here, we address this by clarifying the dynamic capabilities concept, inrelation to its development and the challenges faced.We first survey the development path of dynamic capabilities research, anddiscuss the different theoretical bases of this emerging area of scholarship. Thenwe clarify issues regarding the definition of dynamic capabilities and discuss thelink between dynamic capabilities and firm performance. As part of our analy-sis, we address the two main conclusions of A&B regarding dynamic capabil-ities research. The first is that we should abandon the dynamic capabilitiesapproach if it does not ‘quickly develop a theoretical foundation’. The second isthat regardless of the pace of theory development, we should replace theseefforts with ‘work on strategic change tied to fuller theories of strategic organ-ization’. In what follows, we explain why these conclusions are premature andunwarranted. We also address other issues raised by A&B, focusing on the mainissues raised in the body of their commentary.

Strategic organization: a field in search of micro-foundations:

Abstract: Organizations are made up of individuals, and there is no organization without individuals. There is nothing quite as elementary; yet this elementary truth seems to have been lost in the increasing focus on structure, routines, capabilities, culture, institutions and various other collective conceptualizations in much of recent strategic organization research. It is not overstating the matter too much to say that ‘organization’ has generally entered the field of strategy in the form of various aggregate concepts. This editorial essay is born out of a frustration on our part for the present lack of focus on individuals in much of strategic organization and the taken-forgranted status of ‘organization’. Specifically, the underlying argument of this essay is that individuals matter and that micro-foundations are needed for explanation in strategic organization. In fact, to fully explicate organizational anything – whether identity, learning, knowledge or capabilities – one must fundamentally begin with and understand the individuals that compose the whole, specifically their underlying nature, choices, abilities, propensities, heterogeneity, purposes, expectations and motivations. While using the term ‘organizational’ may serve as helpful shorthand for discussion purposes and for reduced-form empirical analysis, truly explaining (beyond correlations) the organization (e.g. existence, decline, capability or performance), or any collective for that matter, requires starting with the individual as the central actor. Our particular focus in this essay is on the organizational capabilities-based literature in strategic management. This focus serves as a specific example of a more general problem of lack of attention to individuals in strategic organization. (Wider implications could be explicated given more space.) As brief support for the fact that our discussion does have wider ramifications, we note that Selznick has also quite poignantly raised the need for micro-foundations on the part of institutional scholars (1996: 274). Whetten (2004) also highlights the fact that scholars are rarely explicit about what they mean by ‘organizational’. STRATEGIC ORGANIZATION Vol 3(4): 441–455 DOI: 10.1177/1476127005055796 Copyright ©2005 Sage Publications (London,Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) http://soq.sagepub.com

The Work of Strategizing and Organizing: For a Practice Perspective

Abstract: It takes a lot of work to make a strategy or design an organization. Consider just the formal side. Data are gathered and analysed, documents are written and presentations made. There are project meetings, board meetings, conferences, workshops and awaydays. Midnight oil is burnt and weekends lost. The work is expensive. It calls on senior managers, middle managers, strategic planners, organization development experts, management consultants, communications specialists and sometimes lawyers and investment bankers. And there is even more work in getting these strategies or organization designs actually implemented. The work of strategizing and organizing is a serious business. My argument here is for the importance of this work to the remit of Strategic Organization. Seeing strategy and organization as achieved by the labour of highly skilled workers brings to the new journal at least six sets of research questions: briefly, where and how is the work of strategizing and organizing actually done; who does this strategizing and organizing work; what are the skills required for this work and how are they acquired; what are the common tools and techniques of strategizing and organizing; how is the work of strategizing and organizing organized itself; and finally how are the products of strategizing and organizing communicated and consumed? These questions are practically important. They are also in tune with the ‘practice turn’ in contemporary organization and social theory (Brown and Duguid, 2001; Orlikowski, 2002; Schatzki et al., 2000). The next section introduces the practice perspective on strategizing and organizing, distinguishing it from the process tradition and making the case for starting with the formal side. I shall then return to the six questions around the who, where, how and what of strategic and organizational work. Besides offering rich opportunities in terms of research, I shall argue that these kinds of questions are particularly pressing for those of us who are workers in business schools ourselves. My closing remarks start with a personal confession; they go on to consider the implications of the practice perspective both for testing theory and for the relationship between strategy and organization. STRATEGIC ORGANIZATION Vol 1(1): 117–125 1476-1270[200302];1:1;117–125;031221 Copyright ©2003 Sage Publications (London,Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)