Paradoxical nature of dynamic capabilities research: a content analysis of literature

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the current study is to identify the nature, scope and locus of and to systematize, the conceptual contradictions existing in dynamic capabilities research. Design/methodology/approach This paper employs a content analysis literature review of 86 papers on dynamic capabilities published between 1997 and 2019, using two databases – EBSCO and Web of Science/Knowledge databases. To structure the review, Smith and Lewis's (2011) categorization of organizational tensions is adopted. Findings First, the findings of this study suggest that DCs not only are shaped by a tension between efficiency and flexibility but also are built upon a large number of contradictory aspects, represented by organizing, performing, belonging and learning paradoxes. Second, the analysis identifies defensive and active responses to these tensions, with the former prevailing in the dynamic capabilities view literature. Both kinds of responses may facilitate or hinder organizational change. Third, it was found that while the literature has focused predominantly on organizing and learning paradoxes, the linkage between these categories remains under-researched. Originality/value This study makes three contributions. First, it identifies the scope (i.e. number), locus (analytical level) and nature (paradox categories and sub-categories) of DC-related paradoxes and responses to paradoxical tensions. Second, it shows that the nature and locus of conceptual contradictions are more complex than conceptualized in prior studies, going beyond the contingency and ambidexterity argument of how to deal with DC-related paradoxes. Third, it seeks to extend Di Stefanoet al.'s (2014) proposition of integrating paradoxical views on different DC-related aspects. The idea of “audio console” introduced in this study highlights the interrelation of paradoxes between the categories and across analytical levels.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

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