Posted Content•
Manifestations of Higher-Order Routines: The Underlying Mechanisms of Deliberate Learning in the Context of Postacquisition Integration
TL;DR: It is argued that experience codification gives rise to inertial forces that hamper the customization of routines to any given acquisition, and that successful acquirers develop higher-order routines that prevent the generalization of inapplicable ('zero-order') codified routines.
Abstract: Building on the codification and dynamic capabilities literatures, we pursue deeper insight into the underlying mechanisms of deliberate learning in the context of postacquisition integration. We argue that experience codification gives rise to inertial forces that hamper the customization of routines to any given acquisition. We theorize, therefore, that successful acquirers develop higher-order routines-as manifested in two complementary sets of concrete organizational practices-that prevent the generalization of inapplicable ('zero-order') codified routines. After drawing on in-depth qualitative data to help build our theoretical argument, we test it formally with unique survey data on 85 active acquirers.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.
2,134 citations
TL;DR: In this article, an investigation of singel factory seen in the light of Max Weber's theory of bureacracy is described, and a partial report, to be followed by another, is given.
Abstract: This is a study in industrial sociology; it a partial report, to be followed by another, of an investigation of singel factory seen in the light of Max Weber's theory of bureacracy.
1,656 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identify three primary components underlying routines and capabilities: individuals, social processes, and structure, and discuss how these components, and their interactions, may affect routine and capability.
Abstract: This article introduces the Special Issue and discusses the microfoundations of routines and capabilities, including why a microfoundations view is needed and how it may inform work on organizational and competitive heterogeneity. Building on extant research, we identify three primary categories of micro-level components underlying routines and capabilities: individuals, social processes, and structure. We discuss how these components, and their interactions, may affect routines and capabilities. In doing so, we outline a research agenda for advancing the field's understanding of the microfoundations of routines and capabilities.
773 citations
Cites background from "Manifestations of Higher-Order Rout..."
...…Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies empirical studies devote explicit attention to the micro-level origins of routines and capabilities (Becker, 2004; Gavetti, 2005; Heimeriks et al., 2012; Helfat and Peteraf, 2010; Rerup and Feldman, 2011; Salvato, 2009; Teece, 2007)....
[...]
...For instance, studying the way in which serial acquirers customize routines in a specific acquisition, Heimeriks et al. (2012) find that successful acquirers adjust their (zero-order) codified routines using higher-order routines in the form of risk management and tacit knowledge transfer practices....
[...]
TL;DR: This article develops a meta-framework that specifies antecedents, dimensions, mechanisms, moderators, and outcomes of dynamic capabilities identified in the literature to date and proposes a forward-looking research agenda that outlines directions for future research.
Abstract: Although the dynamic capabilities perspective has become one of the most frequently used theoretical lenses in management research, critics have repeatedly voiced their frustration with this literature, particularly bemoaning the lack of empirical knowledge and the underspecification of the construct of dynamic capabilities. But research on dynamic capabilities has advanced considerably since its early years, in which most contributions to this literature were purely conceptual. A plethora of empirical studies as well as further theoretical elaborations have shed substantial light on a variety of specific, measurable factors connected to dynamic capabilities. Our article starts out by analyzing these studies to develop a meta-framework that specifies antecedents, dimensions, mechanisms, moderators, and outcomes of dynamic capabilities identified in the literature to date. This framework provides a comprehensive and systematic synthesis of the dynamic capabilities perspective that reflects the richness of the research while at the same time unifying it into a cohesive, overarching model. Such an analysis has not yet been undertaken; no comprehensive framework with this level of detail has previously been presented for dynamic capabilities. Our analysis shows where research has made the most progress and where gaps and unresolved tensions remain. Based on this analysis, we propose a forward-looking research agenda that outlines directions for future research.
524 citations
Cites background from "Manifestations of Higher-Order Rout..."
...(Heimeriks et al., 2012: 721) [Issues with causality] 71 (23.8...
[...]
...…is nestedwithin a higher-order capability; e.g., firstorder dynamic capabilities reconfigure the organizational resource base, second-order dynamic capabilities reconfigure first-order dynamic capabilities, and so on Heimeriks et al. (2012), Robertson, Casali, and Jacobson (2012) 38 (12.8...
[...]
...(1997), Eisenhardt andMartin (2000), andHelfat et al. (2007) are complementary and build on one another....
[...]
...…additional empirical insight into higher-order dynamic capabilities and their relationship with “regular” dynamic capabilities is in our view another important opportunity for deepening dynamic capabilities research, following the lead of the studies by Heimeriks et al. (2012) and Schilke (2014b)....
[...]
...(Heimeriks et al., 2012: 721) Dimensionalizationfunctional domain “Additional studies could expand the focus of our analysis to include interfirm integration (. . .).”...
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors conceptualized codification in the alliance learning process in a similar manner, which involves creating and using knowledge objects or resources such as alliance guidelines, checklists, or manuals to assist action or decision making in future alliance situations.
Abstract: ion of experience associated with a specific activity or task. We conceptualize codification in the alliance learning process in a similar manner. Codification involves creating and using knowledge objects or resources such as alliance guidelines, checklists, or manuals to assist action or decision making in future alliance situations. We also see it as being distinct from the aspect of articulation described earlier. Articulation primarily emphasizes externalizing the content residing within individuals. Codification, on the other hand, focuses on providing the content (know-what), the methodology (knowhow ), and even the rationale (know-why) for executing and managing various alliance-related tasks. Its ‘people-to-documents’ approach emphasizes ‘reuse economics,’ by which a firm reuses the alliance management knowledge that exists within the firm itself, or that resides with firms or people outside the firm (Hansen et al., 1999), to manage future alliances. Although the principal benefits of codification arise from the use of the codified alliance management manuals or tools, it also potentially provides more subtle benefits to managers in a firm. By involving themselves in the effort to codify alliance management knowledge, managers emerge with a crisper understanding of what works, or what does not work and why, in the context of managing certain tasks in alliances. Hence codification not only helps firms replicate and transfer alliance best practices, but also identify or select what those best practices are. In our fieldwork, we observed firms adopt several practices of codifying alliance management know-how. One company has created ‘35 rules of thumb’ for managing alliances. Another company has developed an in-house ‘power of partnerships’ program that provides its managers with detailed guidelines and frameworks for managing alliances. HewlettPackard has developed ‘40 decision-making templates’ to help managers understand and manage key activities at every stage of the life cycle of any alliances (Harbison and Pekar, 1998; Dyer et al., 2001). Eli Lilly, which is considered a ‘premier partner’ in the pharmaceutical industry, also has developed several such codified tools and templates to improve its managers’ partnering skills (Draulans et al., 2003). Overall, such codification is expected to enhance a firm’s decision making and actions in its alliances, and consequently lead to greater alliance success over time. Sharing of alliance know-how According to the knowledge-based view of the firm, the development of organizational skills to manage any particular task also rests upon a firm’s ability to share knowledge associated with managing or executing that task with all relevant parts within the organization (Grant, 1996). This is not only true for knowledge that is articulated and codified, but also for ‘tacit’ knowledge that is less amenable to easy articulation or codification (Winter, 1987). Knowledge sharing plays an important role in this regard. In the context of the alliance learning process, knowledge sharing involves exchanging and disseminating individually and organizationally held alliance management knowledge, which is both tacit and/or codified, through interpersonal interaction within the organization. ‘Communities of personal interaction’ are a central element of such knowledge sharing within firms (Seely Brown and Duguid, 1991; March, Sproull, and Tamuz, 1991). They provide a means for regularly and systematically sharing alliance management knowledge that has already been articulated or codified by the firm. More important, however, they provide a forum to share individually held tacit knowledge through direct person-to-person interaction between managers since tacit knowledge is more easily shared through dialogue between individuals than through knowledge objects (Hansen et al., 1999). Third, they also play a role in helping managers better conceptualize the alliance knowledge that is being shared or disseminated throughout the firm. Dialogue in the form of face-toface communication between managers provides them an opportunity to test their hypotheses and assumptions regarding best practices to carry out Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 28: 981–1000 (2007)
438 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: This article seeks to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ, and delineates the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena.
Abstract: In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.
80,095 citations
"Manifestations of Higher-Order Rout..." refers background in this paper
...…a given acquirer is likely to encounter considerable 6 Indeed, “mediators represent properties . . . that transform the input variables in some way” (Baron & Kenny, 1986: 1178), which closely corresponds to our conceptualization of higher-order routines. variation in the degree to which…...
[...]
...Table 3 reports the tests of our hypotheses.11 Whereas model 1 includes only controls, models 2 through 4 test Hypothesis 1, which predicts that risk management practices mediate the effect of routine codification on integration performance (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Muller et al., 2005)....
[...]
....25, p $ .05), and (3) the explanatory power of model 4 is considerably higher than that of model 2 (Baron & Kenny, 1986)....
[...]
TL;DR: The extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results is examined, potential sources of method biases are identified, the cognitive processes through which method bias influence responses to measures are discussed, the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases is evaluated, and recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and Statistical remedies are provided.
Abstract: Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.
52,531 citations
"Manifestations of Higher-Order Rout..." refers methods in this paper
...…the dependent and the independent variables were completed under different conditions based on two forms of “proximal” or “methodological separation” (Podsakoff et al., 2003): (1) we relied on different types of scales for the dependent and independent variables, and (2) we measured them in…...
[...]
...Second, following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we used a partial correlation procedure to partial out a general factor score and found qualitatively identical results regarding the hypotheses....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.
32,981 citations
TL;DR: The dynamic capabilities framework as mentioned in this paper analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change, and suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technology change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm.
Abstract: The dynamic capabilities framework analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change. The competitive advantage of firms is seen as resting on distinctive processes (ways of coordinating and combining), shaped by the firm's (specific) asset positions (such as the firm's portfolio of difftcult-to- trade knowledge assets and complementary assets), and the evolution path(s) it has aflopted or inherited. The importance of path dependencies is amplified where conditions of increasing retums exist. Whether and how a firm's competitive advantage is eroded depends on the stability of market demand, and the ease of replicability (expanding intemally) and imitatability (replication by competitors). If correct, the framework suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technological change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm. In short, identifying new opportunities and organizing effectively and efficiently to embrace them are generally more fundamental to private wealth creation than is strategizing, if by strategizing one means engaging in business conduct that keeps competitors off balance, raises rival's costs, and excludes new entrants. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
27,902 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1991TL;DR: In this article, the effects of predictor scaling on the coefficients of regression equations are investigated. But, they focus mainly on the effect of predictors scaling on coefficients of regressions.
Abstract: Introduction Interactions between Continuous Predictors in Multiple Regression The Effects of Predictor Scaling on Coefficients of Regression Equations Testing and Probing Three-Way Interactions Structuring Regression Equations to Reflect Higher Order Relationships Model and Effect Testing with Higher Order Terms Interactions between Categorical and Continuous Variables Reliability and Statistical Power Conclusion Some Contrasts Between ANOVA and MR in Practice
27,897 citations