A Hegelian Dialogue on the Micro‐Foundations of Organizational Routines and Capabilities

Nicolai J. Foss · Koen H. Heimeriks · Sidney G. Winter · Maurizio Zollo

70 citations0/0 files storedEuropean Management Review

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Innovation and Knowledge Management Economic Theory and Institutions Management and Organizational Studies

Abstract

This paper aims to further the alignment among different theoretical approaches and future scholarship on the complex themes related to the micro‐foundational processes characterizing the emergence and development of organizational routines and capabilities. It has been constructed with a typical Hegelian structure represented by a thesis, an antithesis and an attempt of a synthesis, each presented by different scholars, primed by a common set of questions related to the role of individual actors in shaping organizational change processes. The dialogue is introduced by Koen Heimeriks, followed by Sidney Winter proposing the ‘thesis’ for an evolutionary perspective on the problem, and an ‘antithesis’ is offered by Nicolai Foss with a number of critical points made from different economics and social science perspectives. Finally, Maurizio Zollo offers an attempt of a synthesis between the two positions with some proposals for conceptual and empirical advancement. The dialogue points to a convergence on the usefulness of evolutionary theory as a theoretical lens, but also on the need to add to the central notion of routinized behavior, other stable organizational traits of evolutionary relevance, such as the cognitive, motivational and identity‐based antecedents to behavior, as well as key dimensions of intentionality and consciousness of change, which have been so far given either implicit or axiomatic roles. An overarching model of firm evolution that includes these micro‐level factors in the context of more collective‐level dynamics might help forging collaborative work across different schools of thought, as well as bridging the two levels of analysis in a way that is both theoretically well‐grounded and empirically testable.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 70 citations exist upstream.

References

1997Dynamic capabilities and strategic management 1991Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning 1983An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.2007Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance 1990Foundations of social theory 1983An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change 1988The Constitution of Society.1991Foundations of Social Theory

Cited by

2020Paving the way for sustainable educational change: Reconceptualizing what it means to make educational changes that last 2023Microfoundations of dynamic capabilities: a systematic review and a multilevel framework 2014Tangible resources and the development of organizational capabilities 2013A Research Agenda for Global Stakeholder Strategy 2018Managing asset orchestration: A processual approach to adapting to dynamic environments 2020Dynamic capabilities of emerging market multinational enterprises and the Uppsala model

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.