Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-20T21:54:44.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Strategy-Making and Organizational Evolution

A Managerial Agency Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2023

Robert Alexander Burgelman
Affiliation:
Stanford Graduate School of Business, California
Yuliya Snihur
Affiliation:
Toulouse Business School Education
Llewellyn Douglas William Thomas
Affiliation:
University of Navarra IESE Business School

Summary

This Element presents several frameworks of strategy-making that serve to analyze organizational evolution processes within and beyond the firm. These frameworks form an integrated evolutionary ecological lens to examine the dynamics of strategy-making in organizational evolution. They highlight the role of the internal selection environment for analyzing processes and practices at various managerial levels (top, middle, and operational) within the organization. The Element also explains the role of the CEO in maintaining and updating the internal selection environment and contributing to organizational evolution, as well as making. fundamental decisions about organizational splits of the firm's business models as an ecosystem evolves.
Get access
Type
Element
Information
Online ISBN: 9781108987684
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 23 March 2023

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

Adner, R. 2017. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1): 3958.Google Scholar
Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. 2003. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 10111025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3): 306333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adner, R., & Lieberman, M. 2021. Disruption through complements. Strategy Science, 6(1): 91109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, H. E. 1979. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Aldrich, H. E. 1999. Organizations evolving. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. 1999. Essence of decision: Explaining the cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson PTE.Google Scholar
Amit, R., & Zott, C. 2001. Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 493520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. 1990. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4): 604633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2016. The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9): 18291853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansoff, H. I. 1965. Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. B. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394): 116131.Google Scholar
Aversa, P., Haefliger, S., Hueller, F., & Reza, D. G. 2021. Customer complementarity in the digital space: Exploring Amazon’s business model diversification. Long Range Planning, 54(5): 101985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, W. P., Greve, H. R., & Park, D. Y. 1994. An evolutionary model of organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99120.Google Scholar
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. 1992. Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 1536.Google Scholar
Basole, R. C., Huhtamäki, J., Still, K., & Russell, M. G. 2016. Visual decision support for business ecosystem analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 65: 271282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, H. 2010. Why do firms divest? Organization Science, 21(2): 380396.Google Scholar
Beunza, D., & Garud, R. 2007. Calculators, lemmings or frame-makers? The intermediary role of securities analysts. The Sociological Review, 55(2_suppl): 1339.Google Scholar
Bigley, G. A., & Wiersema, M. F. (2002). New CEOs and corporate strategic refocusing: How experience as heir apparent influences the use of power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 707727.Google Scholar
Bocken, N., & Snihur, Y. 2020. Lean startup and the business model: Experimenting for novelty and impact. Long Range Planning, 53(4): 101953.Google Scholar
Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. 2018. Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. California Management Review, 60(2): 516.Google Scholar
Bower, J. L. 1970. Managing the resource allocation process: A study of corporate planning and investment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. 1985. Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1969. Optimale grootte in bedrijfseconomisch perspectief. Licenciate Thesis, Faculty of Applied Economics, Antwerp University (UFSIA), Antwerp.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1980. Managing innovating systems: A study of the process of internal corporate venturing. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1983a. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29(12): 13491364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1983b. A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8(1): 6170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1983c. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2): 223244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1984. Managing the internal corporate venturing process. MIT Sloan Management Review, 25(2): 3348.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1985. Managing the new venture division: Research findings and implications for strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 6(1): 3954.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1988. Strategy making as a social learning process: The case of internal corporate venturing. Journal on Applied Analytics, 18(3): 7485.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1990. Strategy-making and organizational ecology: A conceptual integration. In Singh, J. V. (Ed.), Organizational evolution: New directions: 164181. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3): 239262.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1994. Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1): 2456.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1996. A process model of strategic business exit: Implications for an evolutionary perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1): 193214.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 2002a. Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2): 325357.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 2002b. Strategy is destiny: How strategy-making shapes a company’s future. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 2011. Bridging history and reductionism: A key role for longitudinal qualitative research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 591601.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 2016. Built to become: HP’s history of becoming 1939–2016: An integral process overview. Stanford Research Paper Series 3273, Stanford Business School.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., Snihur, Y., & Thomas, L. D. (2022). Why multibusiness corporations split: CEO strategizing as the ecosystem evolves. Journal of Management, 48(7): 21082151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., Cogan, G. W., & Graham, B. K. 1997. Strategic business exit and corporate transformation: Evolving links of technology strategy and substantive and generic corporate strategies. In Chesbrough, H., & Burgelman, R. A. (Eds.), Research on technological innovation, management and policy, Vol. 6: 89153. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., Floyd, S. W., Laamanen, T. et al. 2018. Strategy processes and practices: Dialogues and intersections. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3): 531558.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., & Grove, A. S. 1996. Strategic dissonance. California Management Review, 38(2): 828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., & Grove, A. S. 2007. Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos-repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10): 965979.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., McKinney, W., & Meza, P. E. 2017. Becoming Hewlett Packard: Why strategic leadership matters. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., & Mittman, B. S. 1994. An intraorganizational ecological perspective on managerial risk behavior. In Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations: 5375. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., & Singh, J. V. 1987. Strategy and organization: An evolutionary approach. Academy of Management Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., Snihur, Y., & Thomas, L. D. W. 2022a. Adapting to an evolving ecosystem: How ecosystem awareness and resource allocation drive CEO strategizing. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., Snihur, Y., & Thomas, L. D. W. 2022b. Why multibusiness corporations split: CEO strategizing as the ecosystem evolves. Journal of Management, 48(7): 21082151.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., & Sridharan, A. 2021. A process model of corporate venture capital as external innovation capability: The case of JetBlue Technology Ventures. Stanford Research Paper Series 3962, Stanford Business School.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F. 1991. Does strategy research need game theory? Strategic Management Journal, 12: 137152.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. 1965. Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In Barringer, H. R., Blanksten, G. I., & Mack, R. W. (Eds.), Social change in developing areas: A reinterpretation of evolutionary theory: 1949. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.Google Scholar
Cao, Q., Maruping, L. M., & Takeuchi, R. 2006. Disentangling the effects of CEO turnover and succession on organizational capabilities: A social network perspective. Organization Science, 17(5): 563576.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. 2004. Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6): 749778.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2007. It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3): 351386.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2011. Executive personality, capability cues, and risk taking: How narcissistic CEOs react to their successes and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2): 202237.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. 2007. Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1): 5776.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W., & Rosenbloom, R. S. 2002. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3): 529555.Google Scholar
Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. C. 2006. Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization Science, 17(4): 453469.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. 2015. What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12): 4453.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. 1995. Explaining the attacker’s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24(2): 233257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, K. B., & Wheelwright, S. C. 1993. Managing new product and process development: Text and cases. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. E., & Machalek, R. 1988. A general theory of expropriative crime: An evolutionary ecological approach. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3): 465501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzolino, A., & Verona, G. in press. Responding to complementary-asset discontinuities: A multilevel adaptation framework of resources, demand, and ecosystems. Organization Science.Google Scholar
Crossland, C., Zyung, J., Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. 2013. CEO career variety: Effects on firm-level strategic and social novelty. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3): 652674.Google Scholar
Das, T. K. 2004. Strategy and time: Really recognizing the future. In Tsoukas, H., & Shepherd, J. (Eds.), Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy: 5874. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dattée, B., Alexy, O., & Autio, E. 2018. Maneuvering in poor visibility: How firms play the ecosystem game when uncertainty is high. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2): 466498.Google Scholar
David, P. A. 1985. Clio and the economics of qwerty. The American Economic Review, 75(2): 332337.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1986. The blind watchmaker. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. 2004. Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science, 50: 159173.Google Scholar
Feldman, E. R. 2014. Legacy divestitures: Motives and implications. Organization Science, 25(3): 815832.Google Scholar
Firestein, S. 2016. Failure: Why science is so successful. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 1983. The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48(5): 692710.Google Scholar
Gaddis, J. L. 2002. The landscape of history: How historians map the past. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J. K. 1967. The new industrial state. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Galunic, D. C., & Weeks, J. R. 2017. Intraorganizational ecology. In Baum, J. A. C. (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations, 7597. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Garnsey, E., Lorenzoni, G., & Ferriani, S. 2008. Speciation through entrepreneurial spin-off: The Acorn-ARM story. Research Policy, 37(2): 210224.Google Scholar
Garud, R., & Karnoe, P. 2001. Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. In Garud, R., & Karnoe, P. (Eds.), Path dependence and creation: 138. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Karnøe, P. 2010. Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies, 47(4): 760774.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Roberts, A., & Xu, L. 2022. Liminal movement by digital platform‐based sharing economy ventures: The case of Uber Technologies. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3): 447475.Google Scholar
Gawer, A. 2014. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7): 12391249.Google Scholar
Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 1036.Google Scholar
Gerstner, W.-C., König, A., Enders, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2013. CEO narcissism, audience engagement, and organizational adoption of technological discontinuities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2): 257291.Google Scholar
Ghemawat, P. 1991. Commitment: The dynamic of strategy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C. G. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 741763.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C. G. 2006. Change in the presence of residual fit: Can competing frames coexist? Organization Science, 17(1): 150167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gray, B., Purdy, J. M., & Ansari, S. 2015. From interactions to institutions: Microprocesses of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 40(1): 115143.Google Scholar
Grinyer, P., & McKiernan, P. 1990. Generating major change in stagnating companies. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 131146.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 334343.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193206.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 929964.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2): 149164.Google Scholar
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. 2017. Toward a theory of using history authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4): 657697.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. 2015. Dynamic managerial capabilities. Journal of Management, 41(5): 12811312.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. 2015. Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6): 831850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. 2018. Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8): 13911399.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. D., Miller, D., & Hambrick, D. C. 2006. How quickly do CEOs become obsolete? Industry dynamism, CEO tenure, and company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(5): 447460.Google Scholar
Hou, H., Cui, Z., & Shi, Y. 2020. Learning club, home court, and magnetic field: Facilitating business model portfolio extension with a multi-faceted corporate ecosystem. Long Range Planning, 53(4): 101970.Google Scholar
Hutt, M. D., Reingen, P. H., & Ronchetto, J. R. 1988. Tracing emergent processes in marketing strategy formation. Journal of Marketing, 52(1): 419.Google Scholar
Isaacson, W. 2011. Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Iyer, B. R., & Basole, R. C. 2016. Visualization to understand ecosystems. Communications of the ACM, 59(11): 2730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobides, M. G., Brusoni, S., & Candelon, F. 2021. The evolutionary dynamics of the artificial intelligence ecosystem. Strategy Science, 6(4): 412435.Google Scholar
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8): 22552276.Google Scholar
Joshi, A., Hambrick, D. C., & Kang, J. 2021. The generativity mindsets of chief executive officers: a new perspective on succession outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 46(2): 385405.Google Scholar
Kagono, T., Nonaka, I., Sakakibara, K., & Okumura, A. 1985. Strategic vs evolutionary management: A US–Japan comparison of strategy and organization. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. 2021. Noise: A flaw in human judgment. New York: Little, Brown Spark.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. 2008. Cognition, capabilities, and incentives: Assessing firm response to the fiber-optic revolution. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 672695.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2013. Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 24(4): 965995.Google Scholar
Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. 2013. Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3): 274296.Google Scholar
Karim, S., & Capron, L. 2016. Reconfiguration: Adding, redeploying, recombining and divesting resources and business units. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13): E54E62.Google Scholar
Keil, T., McGrath, R. G., & Tukiainen, T. 2009. Gems from the ashes: Capability creation and transformation in internal corporate venturing. Organization Science, 20(3): 601620.Google Scholar
Kesner, I. F., & Sebora, T. C. 1994. Executive succession: Past, present & future. Journal of Management, 20(2), 327372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. 2014. Business model renewal and ambidexterity: Structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a cloud business model. R&D Management, 44(3): 322340.Google Scholar
Kissinger, H., Schmidt, E., & Huttenlocher, D. 2021. The age of AI. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Klingebiel, R., & Rammer, C. 2014. Resource allocation strategy for innovation portfolio management. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2): 246268.Google Scholar
Kouamé, S., & Langley, A. 2018. Relating microprocesses to macro-outcomes in qualitative strategy process and practice research. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3): 559581.Google Scholar
Kraatz, M. S., & Moore, J. H. 2002. Executive migration and institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 120143.Google Scholar
Lanzolla, G., & Markides, C. 2021. A business model view of strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 540553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, E. J. 2021. The myth of artificial intelligence: Why computers can’t think the way we do. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leonard-Barton, D. 1990. A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(3): 248266.Google Scholar
Leppänen, P., George, G., & Alexy, O. in press. When do novel business models lead to high firm performance? A configurational approach to value drivers, competitive strategy, and firm environment. Academy of Management Journal.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. 1991. Organizational adaptation and environmental selection-interrelated processes of change. Organization Science, 2(1): 140145.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. 2017. Resource allocation and firm boundaries. Journal of Management, 43(8): 25802587.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. 2021. Evolutionary processes and organizational adaptation: A mendelian perspective on strategic management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Special Issue): 95112.Google Scholar
Lovas, B., & Ghoshal, S. 2000. Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9): 875896.Google Scholar
Lumsden, C. J., & Singh, J. V. 1990. The dynamics of organizational speciation. In Jitendra, V. Singh (Ed.), Organizational evolution: New directions: 145163. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Mantere, S. 2008. Role expectations and middle manager strategic agency. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2): 294316.Google Scholar
Mantovani, A., & Ruiz-Aliseda, F. 2016. Equilibrium innovation ecosystems: The dark side of collaborating with complementors. Management Science, 62(2): 534549.Google Scholar
Marston, S., Li, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Zhang, J., & Ghalsasi, A. 2011. Cloud computing—The business perspective. Decision Support Systems, 51(1): 176189.Google Scholar
Maritan, C. A., & Lee, G. K. 2017. Bringing a resource and capability lens to resource allocation. Journal of Management, 43(8): 26092619.Google Scholar
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. 2015. Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1): 99117.Google Scholar
Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. 2017. A critical assessment of business model research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1): 73104.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2020. Parallel play: Startups, nascent markets, and effective business-model design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(2): 483523.Google Scholar
Menz, M., & Scheef, C. 2014. Chief strategy officers: Contingency analysis of their presence in top management teams. Strategic Management Journal, 35(3): 461471.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1957. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1978. Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9): 934948.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. 1998. Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257272.Google Scholar
Mirabeau, L., & Maguire, S. 2014. From autonomous strategic behavior to emergent strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8): 12021229.Google Scholar
Mizruchi, M. S., & Marshall, L. J. 2016. Corporate CEOs, 1890–2015: Titans, bureaucrats, and saviors. Annual Review of Sociology, 42(1): 143163.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. 2014. Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 18101833.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. 2011. Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4): 522.Google Scholar
Ojanperä, T., & Vuori, T. O. 2021. Platform strategy: Transform your business with AI, platforms and human intelligence. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Paret, P. 1986. Makers of modern strategy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Penrose, E. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3): 267292.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. 2003. Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 631642.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Pratap, S., & Saha, B. 2018. Evolving efficacy of managerial capital, contesting managerial practices, and the process of strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3): 759793.Google Scholar
Prigogine, I. 1980. From being to becoming: Time and complexity in the physical sciences. New York: WH Freeman.Google Scholar
Quinn, J.B. 1980. Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewoood, Ill.: IrwinGoogle Scholar
Quinn, J. B. 1989. Strategic change: “Logical incrementalism.MIT Sloan Management Review, 30(4): 4560.Google Scholar
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3): 375409.Google Scholar
Rao, H. 1994. The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1): 2944.Google Scholar
Ravasi, D., Rindova, V. P., & Stigliani, I. 2019. The stuff of legend: History, memory and the temporality of organizational identity construction. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5): 15231555.Google Scholar
Ries, E. 2011. The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. 1994. Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical-test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5): 11411166.Google Scholar
Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. J. 1994. Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, V., Mangematin, V., & Rousselle, T. 2010. From recipe to dinner: Business model portfolios in the European biopharmaceutical industry. Long Range Planning, 43(2): 431447.Google Scholar
Sahal, D. 1979. A unified theory of self-organization. Journal of Cybernetics, 9(2): 127142.Google Scholar
Saloner, G. 1991. Modeling, game theory, and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 119136.Google Scholar
Sayles, L. R. 1965. Managerial behavior; administration in complex organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. 1963. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., & Krcmar, H. 2021. Capabilities for value co-creation and value capture in emergent platform ecosystems: A longitudinal case study of SAP’s cloud platform. Journal of Information Technology, 36(4): 365390.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Shipilov, A., & Gawer, A. 2020. Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1): 92121.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of American Philosophy Society, 106(6): 467482.Google Scholar
Simsek, Z. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4): 597624.Google Scholar
Singh, J. V., & Lumsden, C. J. 1990. Theory and research in organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1): 161195.Google Scholar
Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. 1986. Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2): 171193.Google Scholar
Snihur, Y., & Bocken, N. 2022. A call for action: The impact of business model innovation on business ecosystems, society and planet. Long Range Planning: 102182.Google Scholar
Snihur, Y., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2022. Looking forward, looking back: Strategic organization and the business model concept. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 757770.Google Scholar
Snihur, Y., & Tarzijan, J. 2018. Managing complexity in a multi-business-model organization. Long Range Planning, 51(1): 5063.Google Scholar
Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D. W., & Burgelman, R. A. 2018. An ecosystem-level process model of business model disruption: The disruptor’s gambit. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7): 12781316.Google Scholar
Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D., & Burgelman, R. A. 2022. Strategically Managing the Business Model Portfolio Trajectory. California Management Review, 00081256221140930.Google Scholar
Snihur, Y., & Zott, C. 2020. The genesis and metamorphosis of novelty imprints: How business model innovation emerges in young ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2): 554583.Google Scholar
Snihur, Y., Zott, C., & Amit, R. 2021. Managing the value appropriation dilemma in business model innovation. Strategy Science, 6(1): 2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spender, J., & Kraaijenbrink, J. 2011. Why competitive strategy succeeds-and with whom. In Huggins, R., & Izushi, H. (Eds.), Competition, competitive advantage, and clusters: The ideas of Michael Porter: 3355. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steffensen, D. S., Ellen, B. P., Wang, G., & Ferris, G. R. 2019. Putting the “management” back in human resource management: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 45(6): 23872418.Google Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Social structure and organizations. In March, J. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations: 142193. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Strogatz, S. H. 1994. Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: With applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13): 13191350.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J. 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3): 172194.Google Scholar
Thiétart, R. A., & Forgues, B. 1995. Chaos theory and organization. Organization Science, 6(1): 1931.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. D. W., & Autio, E. 2020. Innovation Ecosystems in Management: An Organizing Typology. In Hitt, Michael A. (Ed.): Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.203.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. D. W., Autio, E., & Gann, D. M. 2022. Processes of ecosystem emergence. Technovation, 115, 102441.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. D. W., & Ritala, P. 2022. Ecosystem legitimacy emergence: A collective action view. Journal of Management, 48(3): 515541.Google Scholar
Tolstoy, L. 1978. War and peace. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5): 567582.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1997. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 171222. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Vaara, E., & Lamberg, J.-A. 2016. Taking historical embeddedness seriously: Three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research. Academy of Management Review, 41(4): 633657.Google Scholar
Virany, B., Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1992. Executive succession and organization outcomes in turbulent environments: An organization learning approach. Organization Science, 3(1): 7291.Google Scholar
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. 2014. Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4): 11951215.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. 1999. Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1): 361386.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In Teece, D. J. (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal: 159184. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. 2008. The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management, 34(6): 11901221.Google Scholar
Yadav, M. S., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. 2007. Managing the future: CEO attention and innovation outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 71(4): 84101.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. 2018. Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. 2011. The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4): 10191042.Google Scholar
Zuzul, T., & Tripsas, M. 2020. Start-up inertia versus flexibility: The role of founder identity in a nascent industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(2): 395433.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Strategy-Making and Organizational Evolution
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Strategy-Making and Organizational Evolution
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Strategy-Making and Organizational Evolution
Available formats
×