Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T23:37:05.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can a Darwinian nomenclature help reconcile alternative perspectives of the dynamic capabilities view?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

Peter Galvin ,
John Rice  and
Tung-Shan Liao
Peter Galvin*
Affiliation:
Curtin Graduate School of Business, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
John Rice
Affiliation:
UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia
Tung-Shan Liao
Affiliation:
College of Management, Yuan Ze University, Chungli, Taoyuan, Taiwan
*
Corresponding author: P.Galvin@curtin.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The confusion concerning the theoretical roots of the dynamic capabilities view and the fact that it was often being positioned as an extension to the resource-based view in strategic management, prompted a paper by Galvin, Rice, and Liao (2014) that suggested that the dynamic capabilities view would benefit from adopting a more explicit Darwinian approach. In response to this paper, Arndt and Bach (2015) highlighted that the seminal papers in the field do indeed take an evolutionary perspective and that in operationalizing the variation–selection–retention cycle in an empirical setting it is necessary to move away from firm performance as a dependent variable and instead use survival, which more closely aligns with the concept of natural selection. In this paper, we respond to this recent critique to articulate the benefits of a Darwinian nomenclature and how this will assist in positioning the dynamic capabilities view as an independent, though complementary, theory to the resource-based view. However, we do clearly recognize that until the key terms of variation, selection and retention can be operationalized at the routine, firm and industry level, such an approach may not in itself bring the field towards a common understanding of how dynamic capabilities operate in different environments.

Keywords

dynamic capabilitiesresource based viewevolution
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 21 , Issue 5 , September 2015 , pp. 695 - 700
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2015 

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

Agarwal, R., & Selen, W. (2013). The incremental and cumulative effects of dynamic capability building on service innovation in collaborative service organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 19(5), 521–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arend, R., & Bromiley, P. (2009). Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: Spare change, everyone? Strategic Organization, 7(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, F., & Bach, N. (2015). Evolutionary and Ecological conceptualization of dynamic capabilities: Identifying elements of the Teece and Eisenhardt schools. Journal of Management & Organization. doi:10.1017/jmo.2015.22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859/1958). The origin of species. New York, NY: Mentor Books.Google Scholar
Davies, H., & Ellis, P. D. (2000). Porter’s ‘competitive advantage of nations’: Time for a final judgment? Journal of Management Studies, 37(8), 1189–1213.Google Scholar
Dickson, P. R. (2003). The pigeon breeders’ cup: A selection on selection theory of economic evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(3), 259–280.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. (2012). Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1351–1374.Google Scholar
Galvin, P., Rice, J., & Liao, T. S. (2014). Applying a Darwinian model to the dynamic capabilities view: Insights and issues. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(2), 250–263.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2010). Darwin’s conjecture: The search for general principles of social and economic evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lurie-Luke, E. (2014). Product and technology innovation: What can biomimicry inspire? Biotechnology Advances, 32(8), 1494–1505.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.Google Scholar
Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G., & Verona, G. (2013). The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1389–1410.Google Scholar
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.Google Scholar
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13, 339–351.Google Scholar