Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:57:59.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to support sensing capabilities in highly volatile situations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Erik J de Waard ,
Henk W Volberda  and
Joseph Soeters
Erik J de Waard
Affiliation:
Netherlands Defense Academy, Breda, The Netherlands
Henk W Volberda
Affiliation:
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Joseph Soeters
Affiliation:
Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the scholarly debate on how to deal with hypercompetition, a dominant logic has become that investing in ‘sensing’, ‘seizing’, and ‘transforming’ dynamic capabilities offers organization’s the potential to repetitively initiate business innovations. Actual research into the micro-foundations of these dynamic capabilities has been limited. This study explores whether modular organizing and lateral coordination are typical processes that support an organization’s sensing function. Empirically the study investigates how these two variables help The Netherlands armed forces to deal with its volatile crisis response environment. The findings show that both predictors stimulate the development of a broad knowledge base from which the organization can operationally benefit. Yet, the study has also uncovered that, when modularity's demand of organizational autonomy is not sufficiently satisfied, the organization becomes preoccupied with its own internal functioning at the expense of its external lateral sensing capacity.

Keywords

armed forcesdynamic capabilitieslateral coordinationmodular organizingsensing function
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , November 2012 , pp. 774 - 794
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberts, D. S., Garstka, J. J., & Stein, F. P. (2000). Network centric warfare: Developing and leveraging information superiority. Washington, DC: CCRP Publication Series.Google Scholar
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.Google Scholar
Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., & Kerr, S. (1995). The bound-aryless organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (1997, 09–October). Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 84–93.Google Scholar
Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance. Organization Science, 16(2), 165–179.Google Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1985). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.Google Scholar
Bordin, J. (2011). A crisis of trust and cultural incompatibility: A red team study of mutual perceptions of Afghan national security force personnel and U.S. soldiers in understanding and mitigating the phenomena of ANSF-committed fratricide-murders. Washington, DC: N2KL Red Team Political and Military Behavioral Study.Google Scholar
Brusoni, S. (2005). The limits to specialization: Problem solving and coordination in ‘modular networks’. Organization Studies, 26(12), 1885–1907.Google Scholar
Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. (2006). Making design rules: A multidomain perspective. Organization Science, 17(2), 179–189.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (1992). The social structure of competition. In Nohria, N. & Eccles, R. G. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352–364.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.Google Scholar
Day, G. S., Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Snyder, S. A. (2009). Extended intelligence networks: Minding and mining the periphery. In Kleindorfer, P. R., Wind, Y. J., & Gunther, R. E. (Eds.), The network challenge; strategy, profit, and risk in an interlinked world. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.Google Scholar
Denning, P. J. (2006). Hastily formed networks. Communication of the ACM, 49(4), 15–20.Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538.Google Scholar
De Waard, E. J. (2010). Engaging environmental turbulence. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus Research Institute of Management.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.Google Scholar
Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R. A., & Wirdenius, H. (1992). Conceptions and renewal in Swedish construction companies. European Management Journal, 10(2), 202–209.Google Scholar
Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. A. (2004). Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science, 50(2), 159–173.Google Scholar
Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21(3), 625–642.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Pérez, V., Del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M., & Bojica, A. M. (2012). Strategic flexibility and change: The impact of social networks. Journal of Management and Organization, 18(1), 2–15.Google Scholar
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2000). Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: The construction of complex, products and systems. Research Policy, 29, 955–972.Google Scholar
Genus, A. (1997). Managing large-scale technology and inter-organizational relations: The case of the channel tunnel. Research Policy, 26(2), 169–189.Google Scholar
Gerdeman, D. (2012). Kodak: A parable of American competitiveness. Retrieved from Harvard Business School Working Knowledge: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6921.html?wknews=02082012Google Scholar
Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 741–763.Google Scholar
Grandori, A. (1997). An organizational assessment of interfirm coordination modes. Organization Studies, 18(6), 897–925.Google Scholar
Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: Antecedents, mechanisms and forms. Organization Studies, 16(2), 183–214.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.Google Scholar
Hanssen-Bauer, J., & Snow, C. C. (1996). Responding to hypercompetition: The structure and processes of a regional learning network organization. Organization Science, 7(4), 413–427.Google Scholar
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.Google Scholar
Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In Nystrom, N. & Starbuck, W. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 3–27). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 339–360.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities: Progress along a developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 91–102.Google Scholar
Hellström, M., & Wikström, K. (2005). Project business concepts based on modularity — Improved manoeuvrability through unstable structures. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 392–397.Google Scholar
Hirsch, P. M. (1972). Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural industry systems. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 639–659.Google Scholar
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70–81.Google Scholar
Ilinitch, A. Y., D'Aveni, R. A., & Lewin, A. Y. (1996). New organizational forms and strategies for managing in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(3), 211–220.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.Google Scholar
John, O. P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339–369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karim, S. (2006). Modularity in organizational structure: The reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 799–823.Google Scholar
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1982). Managerial response to changing environments: Perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 548–570.Google Scholar
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.Google Scholar
Kramer, F. J. (2007). Organizing doubt; grounded theory, army units and dealing with dynamic complexity. Copenhagen, Denmark: Liber/Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461–477.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N. (2002). Modularity in technology and organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49, 19–37.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N., & Robertson, P. L. (1992). Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy, 21, 297–313.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Makadok, R. (2001). Towards a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387–401.Google Scholar
Meirovich, G. (2010). The impact of cultural similarities and differences on performance in strategic partnerships: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management and Organization, 16(1), 127–139.Google Scholar
Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 63–73.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms of knowledge work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Oliver, C., & Holzinger, I. (2008). The effectiveness of strategic political management: A dynamic capabilities framework. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 496–520.Google Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.Google Scholar
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.Google Scholar
Pil, F. K., & Cohen, S. K. (2006). Modularity: Implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 995–1011.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommendations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(2), 531–544.Google Scholar
Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2003). Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49(3), 290–311.Google Scholar
Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2009). Organizational design: Balancing search and stability in strategic decision making. In Kleindorfer, P. R., Wind, Y. J., & Gunther, R. E. (Eds.), The network challenge; strategy, profit, and risk in an interlinked world. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.Google Scholar
Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 135–159.Google Scholar
Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996, Winter). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 77–91.Google Scholar
Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312–334.Google Scholar
Schilling, M. A., & Steensma, H. K. (2001). The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1149–1168.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467–482.Google Scholar
Sinha, K. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2005). Designing work within and between organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 389–408.Google Scholar
Smith, R. (2007). The utility of force: The art of war in the modern age. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 72–101.Google Scholar
Staber, U., & Sydow, S. (2002). Organizational adaptive capacity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 408–424.Google Scholar
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501–524.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.Google Scholar
Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774–786.Google Scholar
Tripsas, M. (1997). Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capability: Evidence from the typesetter industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(2), 341–377.Google Scholar
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of ‘coopetition’ within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L. (1977, 12). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587–605.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & De Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551–568.Google Scholar
Vissa, B., Greve, H. R., & Chen, W. R. (2010). Business group affiliation and firm search behavior in India: Responsiveness and focus of attention. Organization Science, 21(3), 696–712.Google Scholar
Volberda, H. W. (1996). Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359–374.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 991–995.Google Scholar
Worren, N., Moore, K., & Cardona, P. (2002). Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1123–1140.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.Google Scholar