@@2014.Dyanmic Managerial Capabilities by Helfat

8/18/2019 @@2014.Dyanmic Managerial Capabilities by Helfat

1/32

Journal of Management

Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1 –32

DOI: 10.1177/0149206314561301

© The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1

Dynamic Managerial Capabilities: Review and

Assessment of Managerial Impact on Strategic

Change

Constance E. Helfat Dartmouth College

Jeffrey A. MartinUniversity of Alabama–Tuscaloosa

The dynamic managerial capabilities literature has developed over the past decade to the point

where a review and synthesis of relevant literature can move the scholarly conversation forward.

The concept of dynamic managerial capabilities—the capabilities with which managers create,extend, and modify the ways in which firms make a living—helps to explain the relationship

between the quality of managerial decisions, strategic change, and organizational performance.

We clarify theoretical constructs and their relationships, review and synthesize empirical

research on the role and impact of managerial capabilities directed toward strategic change, and

suggest avenues for future research. Our review begins with an overview of theoretical concep-

tions of dynamic managerial capabilities. Then we organize the remainder of the review around

the three core underpinnings of dynamic managerial capabilities: managerial cognition, mana-

gerial social capital, and managerial human capital. In our review, we examine evidence from

studies of dynamic managerial capabilities and reinterpret evidence prior to the introduction of

the dynamic managerial capabilities concept through that lens. Consistent with the dynamic

managerial capabilities concept, empirical research shows that managers differ in their impacton strategic change and firm performance and that differences in managerial cognition, social

capital, and human capital lead to different outcomes.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to Cathy Maritan and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments related

to this paper. Research for this paper was generously supported by the Culverhouse School of Business at the Uni-

versity of Alabama and the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.

Supplemental material for this article is available at http://jom.sagepub.com/supplemental

Corresponding author: Jeffrey A. Martin, Culverhouse School of Business, University of Alabama, 361 Stadium Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

561301 JOMXXX10.1177/0149206314561301Journal of ManagementHelfat, Martin / DynamicManagerial Capabilitiesresearch-article2014

at ROCHESTER INST OF TECHNOLOGY on December 18, 2014 jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jom.sagepub.com/supplementalmailto:[email protected]://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/mailto:[email protected]://jom.sagepub.com/supplemental


2/32

2 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Keywords: dynamic capabilities; resource-based theory; entrepreneurship; cognitive per-

spectives; strategic human capital; managerial human capital; managerial social

capital; managerial cognition; strategic renewal; resource allocation/manage-

ment; top management teams/upper echelon

The dynamic managerial capabilities literature has developed over the past decade to the

point where a review and synthesis of relevant literatures can move the scholarly conversa-

tion forward. Adner and Helfat (2003) introduced the concept of dynamic managerial capa-

bilities—the capabilities with which managers create, extend, and modify the ways in which

firms make a living—to help explain the relationship between managerial decisions and

actions, strategic change, and corporate performance under conditions of change. The

dynamic managerial capabilities concept extends the dynamic capabilities perspective

(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) by directing attention to the roleof managers, individually and in teams (Augier & Teece, 2009; Harris & Helfat, 2013; Helfat

& Martin, in press; Kor & Mesko, 2013; Martin, 2011a; Teece, 2012). Much as the dynamic

capabilities perspective provides a singular focus on strategic change, rather than organiza-

tional change more broadly, the dynamic managerial capabilities concept provides a singular

focus on managerial impact on strategic change. In addition, the concept of dynamic mana-

gerial capabilities augments the resource-based literature on managerial resources (Castanias

& Helfat, 1991, 2001) by incorporating the impact of managers on strategic change.

Moreover, with respect to the wide variety of literature on top and middle managers in both

established and entrepreneurial firms, as well as literature on specific types and modes of

strategic change, the concept of dynamic managerial capabilities provides a parsimonious yet broad lens for understanding managerial impact on strategic change across a wide range of

settings. Finally, the concept explicitly links heterogeneity in managerial capabilities to het-

erogeneity in firm performance under conditions of change.

As identified by Adner and Helfat (2003), three core underpinnings of dynamic mana-

gerial capabilities provide the capacity to direct strategic change: managerial cognition

(Huff, 1990), managerial social capital (Burt, 1992), and managerial human capital

(Becker, 1964). To locate research relevant to dynamic managerial capabilities, including

the three core underpinnings, we searched all articles published from 1980 through 2013

in well-regarded management journals ( Administrative Science Quarterly, The Academy

of Management Annals, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management

Review, British Journal of Management, Industrial and Corporate Change, Journal of

International Business Studies, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Management,

Journal of Management Studies, Management Science, Organization Science, Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal, and Strategic Management Journal ) and other selective

sources. We sought theoretical articles on dynamic managerial capabilities, as well as

empirical articles that contained evidence linking managers directly to strategic change or

performance under conditions of change. For this reason, we excluded a large number of

studies that address the relationship between managers and firm performance but do not

provide evidence of managerial impact on strategic change or firm performance underconditions of change.


http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/


3/32

Helfat, Martin / Dynamic Managerial Capabilities 3

We found 34 theoretical and empirical works in which dynamic managerial capabilities

play a central or supporting role (see Table 1). We also found 70 additional relevant empirical

studies from the literatures on entrepreneurship, upper echelons, the resource-based view,

strategic renewal, ambidexterity, diversification, international business, innovation, competi-

tive dynamics, managerial cognition, managerial social capital, and managerial human capi-

tal. These studies substantially enhance our understanding of dynamic managerial capabilities

even though not originally framed in this way.

In what follows, we first clarify theoretical constructs and definitions with respect to the

general concept of dynamic managerial capabilities, extending the work of Adner and Helfat

(2003) and incorporating more recent literature. Then we highlight theoretical attributes of

the three underpinnings of dynamic managerial capabilities—managerial cognition, manage-

rial social capital, and managerial human capital—that are especially relevant to strategic

change. Using this framework, we review and synthesize empirical research on the impact of

managerial capabilities directed toward strategic change and suggest avenues for future

research. As part of the review, we examine evidence from studies of dynamic managerial

capabilities and reinterpret evidence prior and subsequent to the introduction of the dynamic

managerial capabilities concept through that lens in order to more fully understand thesecapabilities.

Table 1

Dynamic Managerial Capabilities Studies

Contributions With a Central Role for DynamicManagerial Capabilities Contributions With a Supporting Role for Dynamic ManagerialCapabilities

Adner & Helfat (2003) Empirical & Conceptual Eisenhardt & Martin (2000) Conceptual

Helfat et al. (2007) Empirical & Conceptual Rosenbloom (2000) Empirical

Peteraf & Reed (2007) Empirical Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson (2006) Conceptual

O’Reilly & Tushman (2008) Conceptual Teece (2007) Conceptual

Augier & Teece (2009) Conceptual Agarwal & Helfat (2009) Conceptual

Eggers & Kaplan (2009) Empirical Ambrosini, Bowman, & Collier (2009) Conceptual

Salvato (2009) Empirical Helfat & Peteraf (2009) Conceptual

Sirmon & Hitt (2009) Empirical Laamanen & Wallin (2009) Empirical

Martin (2011a) Empirical & Conceptual Barreto (2010) Conceptual

Martin (2011b) Conceptual Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona (2010) Conceptual

Teece (2012) Conceptual Pitelis & Teece (2010) ConceptualBeck & Wiersema (2013) Conceptual Tushman, Smith, Wood, Westerman, & O’Reilly (2010) Empirical

Harris & Helfat (2013) Conceptual Hodgkinson & Healey (2011) Conceptual

Kor & Mesko (2013) Conceptual Eggers (2012) Empirical

Ringov (2013) Empirical Eggers & Kaplan (2013) Conceptual

Zott & Huy (in press) Empirical & Conceptual Trahms, Ndofor, & Sirmon (2013) Conceptual

Helfat & Martin (in press) Conceptual

Helfat & Peteraf (in press) Conceptual

Note: The contributions in this table use a variety of terms to refer to dynamic managerial capabilities, including not only dynamic

managerial capabilities but also the entrepreneurial capabilities of managers, entrepreneurial managers, and asset orchestration—the

latter is subsumed in the conceptualization of dynamic managerial capabilities. Contributions are categorized as having a central role

for dynamic managerial capabilities if these capabilities are central to either the body of the paper or the conclusions of the analysis.

In other contributions shown on the right-hand side of the table, dynamic managerial capabilities are discussed but are less centraland play a supporting role.




4/32


The Concept of Dynamic Managerial Capabilities

General Concept

Following the seminal article on dynamic capabilities by Teece et al. (1997), Rosenbloom(2000) argued that some CEOs may have dynamic capabilities that can aid strategic change.

Building on this insight, Adner and Helfat originally defined “dynamic managerial capabili-

ties” as “the capabilities with which managers build, integrate, and reconfigure organiza-

tional resources and competences” (2003: 1012). Helfat et al. then used the term to refer to

“the capacity of managers to create, extend, or modify the resource base of the organization”

(2007: 3). Recently, Harris and Helfat (2013) expanded the term to indicate that dynamic

managerial capabilities may affect not only the internal attributes of an organization but also

its external environment, in line with scholarship on dynamic capabilities more generally (for

comprehensive reviews, see Ambrosini, Bowman, & Collier, 2009; Barreto, 2010; Di

Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona, 2010). Table S1 in the online supplement provides representative

definitions of the term “dynamic managerial capabilities” and related concepts.

The functions of dynamic managerial capabilities include what Helfat et al. term “asset

orchestration” (2007: 24), involving the search for resources and capabilities; their selection,

investment, and deployment (Maritan, 2001); and their reconfiguration. Asset orchestration

can create value through the development and bundling of assets that affects “firms’ abilities

to adapt to changing conditions in their industry environments” (Sirmon & Hitt, 2009: 1376).

Likewise, Augier and Teece highlight managerial discretion in “orchestrating necessary

responses to technological and market changes” (2009: 411). Teece continues this line of

reasoning by stressing “the role of individual executives in the dynamic capabilities frame-

work . . . [in] . . . creative managerial and entrepreneurial acts (e.g., creating new markets)

[that] are, by their nature, strategic” (2012: 1395-1397). In related work, Helfat and Martin

(in press) note that creativity and innovation within organizations depends in part on the

capacity of managers to sense and seize opportunities.

In a framework closely related to the concept of “asset orchestration,” Teece (2007) sepa-

rates the “microfoundations” of dynamic capabilities into the capacity to (1) sense opportuni-

ties and threats; (2) seize opportunities by choosing among possible actions, making

investments, and deploying resources; and (3) reconfigure and transform organizations and

their resources and capabilities. Building on this framing in their work on ambidexterity,

O’Reilly and Tushman argue that dynamic managerial capabilities are critical and emphasizethe capacity of “senior managers to ensure learning, integration, and, when required, recon-

figuration and transformation—all aimed at sensing and seizing opportunities as markets

evolve” (2008: 189). Agarwal and Helfat (2009) further note the importance of dynamic

managerial capabilities in strategic renewal (see also Helfat & Peteraf, 2009). In related

work, Trahms, Ndofor, and Sirmon (2013) propose that in turnaround situations, asset orches-

tration by top management may play a key role in the divestment of resources and in the

acquisition, bundling, and reconfiguring of resources.

The concept of dynamic managerial capabilities also relates directly to entrepreneurship.

As Teece (2012) emphasizes, entrepreneurial managers create markets and orchestrate

resources. Thus, in an analysis of dynamic capabilities, Zahra, Sapienza, and Davidsson(2006) highlight the role of the entrepreneur in reconfiguring organizational resources and

routines.




5/32


Dynamic managerial capabilities have important attributes that characterize capabilities

more generally. A capability refers to “the capacity to perform a particular activity in a reli-

able and at least minimally satisfactory manner” (Helfat & Winter, 2011: 1244). Several

features of this definition are worth noting. First, the activity has an objective (Amit &Schoemaker, 1993) with a specific purpose and an intended outcome. Thus, “capabilities fill

the gap between intention and outcome, and they fill it in such a way that the outcome bears

a resemblance to what was intended” (Dosi, Nelson, & Winter, 2000: 2). As Dosi et al. note,

this intentionality with respect to the purpose of a capability may be most evident during the

process of developing the capability; its subsequent use for a specific purpose reflects this

intentionality. Second, a capability enables reliable, repeated activity; otherwise, no real

capacity to perform an activity exists. Finally, to perform the activity in a minimally satisfac-

tory manner means only that the outcome of the activity is recognizable as such (Helfat &

Winter). Not all managers have dynamic managerial capabilities, and possession of a particu-

lar capability does not imply superiority: “Just as there are better and worse ways to hit a golf ball . . . there are more or less effective ways” to perform an activity (Eisenhardt & Martin,

2000: 1108).

The foregoing characteristics apply to dynamic managerial capabilities, in that such capa-

bilities have an intended purpose (e.g., orchestration of assets for a particular purpose) and

have outcomes that are recognizable as such (e.g., reconfigured assets). These capabilities also

support patterned behavior and activity. As Dosi et al. note, such patterning extends to “inten-

tional, deliberate . . . processes involved in skill . . . deployment” by individuals (2000: 3).

Underpinnings: Managerial Cognition, Social Capital, and Human Capital Dynamic managerial capabilities draw on a set of underlying managerial resources,

namely, managerial cognition, managerial social capital, and managerial human capital

(Adner & Helfat, 2003). These resources provide the basis for the patterned aspects of mana-

gerial intentionality, deliberation, decision making, and action (Martin, 2011b). These mana-

gerial resources also underpin managerial capabilities that sustain current operations or what

might be termed “managerial operational capabilities.” However, our interest here concerns

the dynamic aspects of these underpinnings and the ways in which these managerial resources

enable managers to effect strategic change, rather than other aspects of the broad literature on

managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital. Next, we briefly survey the theoreti-

cal literature on each of these underpinnings as they relate to dynamic managerial capabili-

ties and the potential for strategic change, substantially extending and updating the discussion

in Adner and Helfat.

Managerial cognition. Managerial cognition consists of mental models and beliefs (also

termed “knowledge structures”; Eggers & Kaplan, 2013; Walsh, 1995), mental processes

(and managerial cognitive capabilities; Helfat & Peteraf, in press), and emotions (Hodg-

kinson & Healey, 2011). Given the large amount and variety of information that managers

confront, they employ “knowledge structures to represent their information worlds” (Walsh,

1995: 280). These knowledge structures influence managers’ biases and heuristics that comeinto play in anticipating market changes, understanding the implications of different choices,

and ultimately taking action (Garbuio, King, & Lovallo, 2011).




6/32


Evidence indicates that managers have difficulty transferring their knowledge structures

from one context to another. Gavetti (2012), however, argues that some managers have the

capacity to make associations between knowledge structures in different contexts that enable

them to sense cognitively distant yet superior market opportunities. In addition, research sug-gests that when a manager has been exposed to change in a source context, the capacity to

transfer knowledge to different contexts increases in the long run (Gary, Wood, & Pillinger,

2012). By implication, managers with prior experience in changing markets and organiza-

tions are more likely to have developed knowledge structures that they can apply in multiple

contexts.

In addition to knowledge structures, mental processes and emotions underpin dynamic

managerial capabilities. With respect to mental processes (also termed “mental activities”),

Helfat and Peteraf point to “managerial cognitive capability”—defined as “the capacity of an

individual manager to perform one or more of the mental activities that comprise cognition”

(in press)—as a critical underpinning of dynamic managerial capabilities. These mentalactivities include attention and perception, reasoning and problem solving, language and

communication, and more. With respect to emotions, Zott and Huy argue that the capacity for

“emotion regulation” (“the management and modification of one’s own emotions”; in press)

is an important element of dynamic managerial capabilities.

Managerial social capital . Managerial social capital consists of goodwill derived from

relationships, both formal and informal, that managers have with others and can use to obtain

resources and information (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Thus, formal and informal work relations

provide managers with conduits for information that may be helpful in sensing new oppor-

tunities (Adner & Helfat, 2003). For example, managers who are in brokerage positions, and

thereby link individuals in different networks within and across companies, can obtain more

diverse information (Burt, 1992) that, in turn, may facilitate environmental scanning and

subsequent identification of new opportunities.

Managerial social capital is likely to underpin dynamic managerial capabilities for seizing

and reconfiguring as well. For example, social ties outside of the organization can provide

access to resources, such as financing and skilled personnel, needed for investments to seize

opportunities (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Advantageous positions in an internal social net-

work, such as a position of centrality, also may confer power over resources that are useful

in seizing opportunities. Similarly, internal power and influence derived from social capital(Coleman, 1988) may facilitate alterations in personnel, organizational structure, and physi-

cal assets involved in reconfiguration. Thus, in discussing social capital and dynamic capa-

bilities, Blyler and Coff argue that “firms would be unable to acquire, recombine, and release

resources” (2003: 680) without the social capital of individuals.

Managerial human capital . Human capital, as conceptualized by Becker (1964), refers

to learned skills and knowledge that individuals develop through their prior experience,

training, and education. Recent work has expanded the concept to include not only knowl-

edge and skills but also psychological attributes of cognitive ability (general intelligence)

and other abilities (personality, values, and interests) of individuals, termed “KSAOs”(knowledge, skills, [cognitive] ability, and other abilities; Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011). For

purposes of this review, we separate human capital from cognition and related abilities and


http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/


7/32


discuss their interrelationships below. Thus, we use the term “human capital” to indicate “the

core characteristics that human capital comprises . . . knowledge, education, experience, and

skills” (Wright, Coff, & Moliterno, 2014: 361). Some managerial human capital is specific to

particular teams, units, functional areas, technologies, firms, and industries, and other knowl-edge is generic (Bailey & Helfat, 2003; Castanias & Helfat, 1991, 2001; Kor, Mahoney, &

Michael, 2007). All of these forms of managerial human capital can be beneficial to the firm.

As Campbell, Coff, and Kryscynski (2012) note, human capital need not be firm specific to

create value for organizations.

Managers can draw on their knowledge and expertise to sense opportunities and threats,

seize opportunities, and reconfigure organizational resources, capabilities, and structure.

Managers with different functional area, technological, industry-specific, and firm-specific

expertise are likely to differ in their absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) for dif-

ferent types of information and, therefore, to differ in the opportunities that they sense. With

respect to the seizing function of dynamic managerial capabilities, managers are likely todiffer in the investments and other commitments that they make as a result of differences in

their learned expertise. Similar logic applies to reconfiguration; differences in managerial

expertise derived from human capital are likely to cause managers to differ in their recon-

figuration of organizational resources.

In addition to the human capital of individual managers, the concept of dynamic mana-

gerial capabilities encompasses teams of managers (Martin, 2011a, 2011b). This leads to

considerations of unit-level managerial human capital at the level of a team (Ployhart &

Moliterno, 2011) and suggests that complementarities between team members in their

human capital may have a positive impact on firm performance (Wright et al., 2014).

Multiple underpinnings in combination. The three underpinnings of dynamic managerial

capabilities—managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital—not only have separa-

ble effects but also interact with one another (Adner & Helfat, 2003). All three underpinnings

develop through prior experience; therefore, the same experience may contribute simultane-

ously to the three underpinnings of dynamic managerial capabilities (Beck & Wiersema,

2013). In addition, each of the underpinnings may affect one another. Managerial cogni-

tion affects the development of human capital by influencing the search for, and absorption

of, information during education, training, and work experience, as well as how managers

interpret and utilize this information. Ployhart and Moliterno developed a model that showshow unit-level human capital “is created from the emergence of individuals’ knowledge,

skills, abilities, and other characteristics” by explicating an “emergence enabling process”

(2011: 128) that amplifies and transforms individual cognition into valuable human capital

resources. In addition, human capital can affect managerial cognition. For example, in an

experimental study, Melone (1994) found that the attention (an aspect of cognition) that

executives paid to different business issues in potential acquisitions depended on their exper-

tise (human capital).

Social capital also affects the development of human capital through the knowledge that

managers obtain from their social relationships (Castanias & Helfat, 2001; Coleman, 1988).

For example, in a study of executives in a leadership development program, Leitch,McMullan, and Harrison (2013) found that skill development (enhancement of human capi-

tal) benefited from social ties among executives (social capital) during the program.




8/32


Managerial human capital may also affect the development of social capital as managers seek

to form social relationships in order to tap the expertise of others or are sought after for their

expertise (Adner & Helfat, 2003).

Finally, social capital may affect cognition and vice versa (Adner & Helfat, 2003).Information obtained from social ties may influence managerial beliefs about the external

environment and internal firm competencies. In addition, elements of managerial cognition,

such as perception and attention, are likely to affect which social ties managers seek to

establish.

Measuring the Performance of Dynamic Managerial Capabilities

Managers clearly differ with respect to the three underpinnings, and these differences

are likely to result in differential outcomes. Measuring the impact of these capabilities

on outcomes raises issues that are important to address before discussing the empiricalevidence. In particular, it is important to avoid a potential tautology of measuring

dynamic managerial capabilities as firm performance (Grant & Verona, 2013; Helfat et

al., 2007). Therefore, Helfat et al. recommend that empirical assessments of the perfor-

mance of dynamic capabilities of all types use a two-step process that first traces their

impact on intermediate outcomes in the form of strategic change and then assesses the

impact of such change on measures of firm performance, such as survival, growth, and

financial performance. Although measuring any type of capability independent of its

outcomes can pose challenges, studies of dynamic managerial capabilities can use a two-

step process to first trace the impact of the managerial resources that underpin dynamic

managerial capabilities on strategic change and then assess the contribution of such stra-

tegic change to firm performance. This empirical approach separates the intermediate

outcomes of dynamic managerial capabilities from subsequent organizational perfor-

mance (Martin, 2011a; Patel, Bachrach, & Martin, 2014). An alternate approach that

avoids a tautology involves tracing the relationship of each of the managerial resources

to firm performance under conditions of change without assessing intervening strategic

change.

In what follows, we review evidence regarding the performance of dynamic managerial

capabilities. We include only studies that provide direct evidence of the impact of managers

on strategic change, or of the impact of managers under conditions of change, which com-

pose a subset of the much larger literature on managers and firm performance. Some of the

studies assess the impact of managers only on strategic change, others assess the effect on

firm performance of strategic changes attributable to managers, yet others employ the two-

step procedure discussed above, and others assess the relationship between the underpin-

nings of dynamic managerial capabilities and firm performance under conditions of change

(including measures such as survival and growth).

Empirical Evidence

Several studies, summarized in Table S2 in the online supplement, provide evidence ofmanagerial impact on strategic change and consequent firm performance but do not examine

the underlying managerial resources. These studies link strategic change or performance




9/32


under conditions of change to stable attributes or nonrandom decisions and actions of manag-

ers, and a number of the studies refer specifically to dynamic managerial capabilities.

With respect to strategic change in general, a qualitative study by Holbrook, Cohen,

Hounshell, and Klepper (2000) documents that during the early years of the semiconductorindustry, differences in firm performance stemmed in part from differences in the firms’ top

executives and their strategic approaches. In a statistical study, Bertrand and Schoar (2003)

also found that manager fixed effects were important determinants of corporate investment

policies, cost-cutting policies, R&D expenditures, diversification, and acquisitions—factors

directed toward strategic change—and that manager fixed effects were significant determi-

nants of firm performance.

Other research has examined the impact of managers on particular aspects of strategic

change. For example, several studies have focused on asset orchestration, an important func-

tion of dynamic managerial capabilities. Sirmon and Hitt (2009), in a study of dynamic

managerial capabilities, investigated managerial decisions to invest in and deploy resourcesin U.S. regional banks and found that the best performance resulted when the fit between

resource investment and deployment was highest. Eggers (2012) also found that managerial

coordination of new product development was important to new product quality in the mutual

fund industry and argued that this was suggestive of dynamic managerial capabilities. In

another study of the U.S. mutual fund industry, Ringov (2013) found that less routinized

approaches to modifying asset portfolios, which he argued were consistent with dynamic

managerial capabilities, resulted in better fund performance in more highly dynamic external

environments.

Other studies have highlighted the role of top management in asset orchestration. Maritan’s

(2001) study of a large pulp and paper company found that direction from the top in initiating

investments in new assets and capabilities, combined with extensive interaction with busi-

ness unit managers, was critical to strategic change. In a study of ambidexterity, a topic

closely related to dynamic managerial capabilities, Tushman, Smith, Wood, Westerman, and

O’Reilly (2010) found that senior team integration and involvement with the business units

in 13 different companies was necessary for successful innovation outcomes. Galunic and

Eisenhardt also found that top executives in a high-technology firm continuously realigned

product-market responsibilities (termed “charters”) of the business units “in order to keep

pace with coevolving markets and technologies” (1996: 280). Additionally, Martin (2011a)

found evidence of dynamic managerial capabilities in 6 large software firms in the UnitedStates: Multibusiness teams, composed of the senior executive leaders of business units,

affected the reconfiguration of business unit resources, new product launches, establishment

of new business units, and financial performance.

Another set of studies documented managerial impact in response to external change.

Peteraf and Reed found that managerial adjustment of the fit between operations and admin-

istrative practices following deregulation of the U.S. airline industry led to improved effi-

ciency—indicative of how managers “exercise a dynamic capability for maintaining fit over

changing conditions” (2007: 1107). Adner and Helfat (2003) also found that heterogeneity in

top management restructuring in the U.S. oil industry accounted for 4.5% of the variance of

firm performance, after accounting for all other sources of performance variation, and arguedthat this resulted from differences in dynamic managerial capabilities. And in an analysis of

firms experiencing declining performance more generally, Morrow, Sirmon, Hitt, and




10/32


Holcomb (2007) found that difficult-to-imitate new product introductions and mergers and

acquisitions attributable to top management had a positive effect on stock market

performance.

Finally, studies have documented managerial impact on strategic renewal. Simons (1994)found that newly appointed managers in 10 firms altered existing management control sys-

tems (routines and procedures) and used them to implement strategic turnarounds as well as

significant redirection of existing strategies. Salvato’s (2009) study of strategic renewal at

Alessi through incremental change to its new product development processes also revealed

substantial and intentional top management intervention, which he argued was indicative of

dynamic managerial capabilities. In particular, these changes came about through Alessi’s

managers “relentlessly locating, refining, and reproducing potentially adaptive innovations

emerging from local experimentation” within the firm (Salvato, 2009: 402).

The foregoing studies provide evidence of systematic managerial impact on strategic

change and firm performance in both new and established firms. Asset orchestration throughnew investment, resource reconfiguration, and resource retrenchment plays an important

role. Although many of the studies focus on top management, others involve middle manage-

ment (e.g., the studies by Eggers, 2012; Ringov, 2013; and Salvato, 2009). In addition, the

studies of Holbrook et al. (2000), Galunic and Eisenhardt (1996), Maritan (2001), Salvato,

Simons (1994), Tushman et al. (2010), and Martin (2011a) provide clear evidence of mana-

gerial intent in guiding strategic change. The studies also point to heterogeneity in the impact

of top managers, suggesting that some managers have more effective dynamic managerial

capabilities than others and that some managers may lack these capabilities entirely.

Therefore, we next turn to evidence regarding the three underpinnings of dynamic manage-

rial capabilities, which may help to explain these differences in managerial effectiveness in

fostering strategic change.

Evidence Regarding Managerial Cognition, Social Capital, and

Human Capital

Numerous studies have examined managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital.

Here we review only studies that contain direct evidence of managerial impact on strategic

change and/or performance under conditions of change. We first review studies that contain

evidence pertaining only to managerial cognition, social capital, or human capital and thenreport on studies that have examined multiple underpinnings simultaneously. Figure 1 sum-

marizes the types of variables used in these studies. The top of the figure shows the types of

variables used to measure managerial cognition, social capital, and human capital. These

variables are then used as predictors of a large number of different types of measures of stra-

tegic change or performance under conditions of change, as depicted in the figure.

Managerial Cognition

We found 21 studies with evidence regarding the relationship between managerial cogni-

tion and strategic change efforts and outcomes. Of these, 14 studies focus solely on manage-rial cognition without incorporating managerial social or human capital. We discuss these

studies below, summarized in Table S3 in the online supplement. We discuss the remaining 7

studies in the Multiple Underpinnings of Dynamic Managerial Capabilities section. We




11/32


organize the studies below according to the three components of managerial cognition:

knowledge structures, mental processes, and emotions.

A number of studies have documented that differences in managerial knowledge struc-

tures are associated with differences in strategic change. For example, Rosenbloom (2000)

demonstrated that the inertial mind-set of NCR’s long-tenured managers impeded strategic

change, but eventually a new CEO with a different mind-set was instrumental in the com-

pany’s late but successful entry into computing. Laamanen and Wallin (2009) also found that

in three entrepreneurial software firms, the preexisting mental representations of top man-

agement affected the ways in which the companies developed their operational capabilities.In addition, Nadkarni and Barr (2008) found in four industries that managerial beliefs regard-

ing the cause-effect relationship between the environment and firm strategy (termed “causal

logics”) completely mediated the relationship between industry velocity and speed of firm

response to shifts in the external environment. Then, using letters to shareholders from com-

pany annual reports, Kaplan, Murray, and Henderson (2003) showed that differences between

pharmaceutical companies in the mental models of top management with regard to advances

in biotechnology led to differences in strategic initiatives in the emerging biotechnology sec-

tor. Using letters to shareholders, Nadkarni and Narayanan (2007) also found that complexity

of “strategic schemas” (knowledge structures used by top management in making strategic

decisions) in 14 industries was positively related to strategic flexibility in resource deploy-ment and competitive actions, which in turn was positively related to growth in sales and net

income as well as return on investment in industries undergoing greater change.

Figure 1

Empirical Studies: Measures of the Underpinnings of Dynamic Managerial

Capabilities, Strategic Change, and Performance Under Conditions of Change

Managerial Cognition

Knowledge Structures:

Mental Representations &

Mental Models, Beliefs,

Resource & Strategic Schemas

Mental Processes/Cognitive

Capabilities:

Attention, Perception

Interpretation, Reasoning

Emotions: Emotion Regulation

Managerial Social Capital

Social Network Ties:

External, Internal

Network Characteristics:

Size, Strength, Closeness,

Diversity, Centrality

Relationships:

Managers in Other Firms,Business Contacts, Directors,

Government Oficials

Managerial Human Capital

Education:

Level, Type of Background

Work Experience:

Position, Firm, Industry,

International, Functional Area,

Management/Leadership,

Entrepreneurial

Strategic Change

Market Entry/Product-Market Diversiication/International & Geographic Diversiication; Acquisitions/Divestitures;Alliances;

Technological Innovation/R&D/Patenting, Knowledge Creation/New Product Development; Organizational Redesign;

Turnarounds/Restructuring; Strategic Renewal; Investment in Physical, Human and Social Capital and New Capabilities;

Resource Allocation; Deployment of Human and Physical Capital/Asset Portfolio Modiication; Reduction in Environmental

Impact; Speed of Action/Response; New Product and Service Introduction; Organizational Ambidexterity

Performance Under Conditions of Change

Survival; Growth;Time to Market; Long-term Financial Performance;Change in Sales,

Income/Proit, Employment, Productivity, Market Share, Tobin’s q




12/32


The foregoing studies document that differences in managerial knowledge structures are

associated with differences in strategic change and consequent firm performance. However,

some case studies have documented purely negative effects of managerial knowledge struc-

tures on strategic change. Tripsas and Gavetti (2000) found that the way in which executivesconceived of their business prevented Polaroid from successfully adapting as the camera

industry shifted to digital cameras—despite the fact that Polaroid had developed leading

edge digital imaging technology. Similarly, in a study of the demise of the typewriter com-

pany Smith Corona, Danneels (2011) showed that top management’s mental representations

of company resources, termed “resource schemas,” reflected a misunderstanding of which

company resources had value and their potential application to new markets. These two stud-

ies suggest the downside of inflexible managerial knowledge structures in contrast to the

benefits for strategic flexibility of complex knowledge structures found by Nadkarni and

Narayanan (2007).

Several studies have also examined the role of mental processes in strategic change. Withrespect to the mental process of attention, the aforementioned study of Laamanen and Wallin

(2009) found that the allocation of managerial attention affected which firm operational

capabilities became the focus of development. Eggers and Kaplan (2009) also showed that in

the communications technology industry, companies whose CEOs paid greater attention to

emerging fiber optic technologies entered new fiber optic–based product markets more

quickly. The previously mentioned study by Nadkarni and Barr (2008) also found that mana-

gerial attention to the task and general environment positively affected speed of firm response

to changes in the external environment. In addition, Helfat et al. (2007) documented the

failure of Rubbermaid’s CEO to attend to changes in the retail market, leading to a perfor-

mance decline. Taken together, these studies suggest that managerial attention to external

change facilitates the extent and speed of strategic change, and lack of attention has the

opposite result.

With respect to the mental process of interpretation, Sharma (2000) found that executives

in the Canadian oil and gas industry who interpreted environmental issues (e.g., habitat pro-

tection) as opportunities were more likely to take voluntary actions to reduce negative envi-

ronmental impact. Balogun (2003) also found that the ways in which middle managers

interpreted the restructuring process in a newly privatized U.K. utility affected their actions

and those of their teams. With respect to other mental processes, Baum and Bird (2010)

showed that “successful intelligence”—reflecting the capacity to use reasoning and problem-solving processes—was positively related to swift action and multiple “improvement actions”

by entrepreneurs in the printing and graphics industry, which in turn were positively related

to venture growth. And in an experimental study of decision making, Bateman and Zeithaml’s

(1989) results showed that, consistent with prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984),

executives reinvested more funds in a division when the decision had a gain-oriented rather

than a loss-oriented framing.

Finally, one study examined the relationship between managerial emotions and strategic

change. Zott and Huy (in press) found that differences in emotion regulation by founders of

six early-stage firms led to differences in company effectiveness in seizing business opportu-

nities through the shaping of human and social capital resources within the firms.The foregoing evidence demonstrates that managerial cognition—in the form of knowl-

edge structures, managerial mental processes or “cognitive capabilities” (Helfat & Peteraf, in




13/32


press), and emotion—have an impact on strategic change and associated business perfor-

mance. The evidence comes from almost 30 different industries using a range of methods,

including case studies, statistical analyses, and experiments. Consistent with the dynamic

managerial capabilities concept, differences between executives in their cognition wererelated to differences in strategic change and firm performance. In some instances, such as

Polaroid and Rubbermaid, managers appeared to lack dynamic managerial capabilities alto-

gether. That is, although managerial cognition underpins dynamic managerial capabilities,

not all managers have dynamic managerial capabilities and the requisite cognition to effec-

tively pursue strategic change.

Managerial Social Capital

We found 13 studies containing evidence regarding the relationship between managerial

social capital and strategic change efforts and outcomes. Only five of the studies focus solelyon managerial social capital without also incorporating managerial cognition or human capi-

tal. We discuss these studies below, summarized in Table S4 in the online supplement. We

discuss the remaining eight studies in the later section on research that incorporates multiple

underpinnings of dynamic managerial capabilities simultaneously.

With respect to managerial social capital, studies have examined social ties, characteris-

tics of social networks, and managerial relationships. Three studies document that external

social ties and social networks of managers affect strategic change. Haunschild (1993) found

that firms undertook more acquisitions when top managers had a larger number of external

director ties and greater network centrality. McDonald and Westphal (2003) showed that

CEO advice seeking from managers with nonredundant information outside of the firm had

a positive impact on the extent of change in product-market and geographic diversification.

In addition, Prashantham and Dhanaraj (2010) found that in three out of four new ventures in

the Bangalore software industry, entrepreneurs’ preexisting social relationships in the United

States and in U.S. multinational firms facilitated geographic diversification in the form of

entry into the United States.

Four of the studies also provide evidence that managerial social capital affects firm per-

formance under conditions of change. For example, McDonald and Westphal (2003) found

that CEO advice seeking from managers with nonredundant information not only affected

diversification but also was positively associated with subsequent firm performance. In addi-

tion, a study by Collins and Clark (2003) of 73 high-technology firms showed that external

network range (diversity of contacts), strength of external ties, and internal network size

(number of contacts) of the top management team (TMT) as a whole was positively related

to sales growth. However, external network size, internal network range, and strength of

internal ties were not significant. Acquaah (2007) also found that social capital of top execu-

tives in small-to-medium-sized enterprises in Ghana—developed through relationships with

top managers at other firms, government officials, and community leaders—was positively

and significantly related to growth of sales, net income, and productivity, as well as return on

assets and sales.

These studies point to the benefits of external managerial social capital in particular forstrategic change in the form of acquisitions and diversification, as well as for firm perfor-

mance under conditions of change, including with respect to firm growth.




14/32


Managerial Human Capital

Studies of managerial human capital have relied on measures of the amount and type of

education and work experience. Although researchers in the upper echelons tradition

(Hambrick & Mason, 1984) have viewed education and work experience as proxies for psy-

chological constructs such as beliefs and values, researchers in this tradition have recently

used education or work experience explicitly as measures of human capital (e.g., Geletkanycz

& Boyd, 2011; Khanna, Jones, & Boivie, 2014). We take this approach here, consistent with

the literature on strategic human capital (Wright et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it is important to

acknowledge that education is correlated with managerial cognition (particularly general

intelligence, also termed “cognitive ability”; Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011) and that work

experience is correlated with both managerial cognition and social capital, per our earlier

discussion. We return to this issue later.

We found 51 studies with evidence regarding the impact of managerial education or workexperience on strategic change efforts and outcomes. These studies come from a variety of

research streams, including entrepreneurship and upper echelons, as well as the resource-

based view, international business, strategic renewal, ambidexterity, diversification, innova-

tion, and competitive dynamics. Thirty-six studies have measures of education and/or work

experience but do not include measures of managerial cognition or social capital; these are

summarized in Table S5 in the online supplement. The remaining 15 studies incorporate

multiple underpinnings of dynamic managerial capabilities simultaneously, as summarized

in Table S6 in the online supplement. All of the studies contain quantitative analyses of the

amount or type of education and/or work experience for individual managers (primarily

CEOs or firm founders), the TMT, or both. Some studies include measures of heterogeneitywithin the TMT, which may reflect complementarities of human capital discussed earlier,

even though the original studies did not necessarily interpret these measures in this way.

As a group, the studies include 21 different types of variables that measure education

and work experience. Given the large number of studies as well as the number and variety

of variables, we have divided the human capital variables into three sets, as reflected in

Tables 2, 3, and 4. We list each type of variable and indicate the sign of the estimated coef-

ficient if statistically significant as well as statistically insignificant coefficients. The studies

that also contain measures of social capital or cognition are indicated with an asterisk. Each

table contains a different set of variables in the columns. Studies that do not include the col-

umn variables shown in a particular table are not included in that table. A blank space in acolumn indicates that the variable was not included in the study in question.

Tables 2 through 4 indicate that the studies vary considerably in which variables they

incorporate. In addition, the number of studies that incorporate any one type of variable is

relatively low. The tables show that only two types of education variables (CEO/founder

level of education and TMT level of education) and six types of work experience variables

(TMT firm tenure, TMT firm tenure heterogeneity, TMT functional area heterogeneity, TMT

industry experience, founder[s] prior experience as entrepreneur/self-employed, and

founder[s] prior management/leadership experience) have evidence from 10 or more studies.

Although a majority of the results for each of the two education variables indicates a positive

and significant effect on strategic change or performance, a nontrivial proportion of the

results lacks statistical significance. The results are similar for five of the six work experi-

ence variables (not including TMT firm tenure), which have a majority or near majority of




15/32

15

T a b

l e 2

H u m a n C a p i t a l V a r i a b l e s S e t 1

A r t i c l e

D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e ( s )

C E O T e n u r e

i n P o s i t i o n

C E O F i r m

T e n u r e

T M T F i r m

T e n u r e

T M T F i r m

T e n u r e

H e t e r o g e n e i t y

C E O /

F o u n d e r E d .

L e v e l

T M T E d .

L e v e l

T

M T E d . L e v e l


C E O / F o u n d e r

E d . B a c k g r o u n d

T M T E d .

B a c k g r o u n d

T M T E d .

B a c k g r o u n d


V a n d e V e n , H u d s o n , & S c h r o e d e r

( 1 9 8 4 )

N e w v e n t u r e p e r f o r m a n c e

+

B a n t e l & J a c k s o n ( 1 9 8 9 )

T e c h n i c a l a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

i n n o v a t i o n

N S

N S

+

N S

N S

C o o p e r , W o o , & D u n k e l b e r g ( 1 9 8 9 )

V e n t u r e s i z e

+

+ ( b u s i n e s s

m a n a g e m e n t )

B a t e s ( 1 9 9 0 )

N e w f i r m s u r v i v a l

+

F i n k e l s t e i n & H

a m b r i c k ( 1 9 9 0 )

S t r a t e g i c c h a n g e a

− b

S t u a r t & A b e t t i ( 1 9 9 0 )

N e w v e n t u r e e a r l y p e r f o

r m a n c e

−

G r i m m & S m i t h ( 1 9 9 1 )

S t r a t e g i c c h a n g e

N S

N S c

B r u d e r l & P r e i s e n d o r f e r ( 1 9 9 8 )

N e w v e n t u r e s u r v i v a l

d

+

W i e r s e m a & B a n t e l ( 1 9 9 2 )

C h a n g e i n e x t e n t o f d i v e

r s i f i c a t i o n

−

N S

+

M S + ( s c i e n c e

P h D )

+

T h o m a s , C

l a r k , &

G i o i a ( 1 9 9 3 ) *

N u m b e r o f n e w p r o d u c t s a n d

s e r v i c e s i n t r o d u c e d

N S e

N S

C o o p e r , G i m e n

o - G a s c o n , & W o o

( 1 9 9 4 )

N e w v e n t u r e g r o w t h a n d

s u r v i v a l

+

H a m b r i c k , C h o

, & C h e n ( 1 9 9 6 )

C o m p e t i t i v e a c t i o n s / r e s p o n s e s

f

M i x e d

R e s u l t s

M i x e d R e s u l t s



H a m b r i c k e t a l . (

1 9 9 6 )

M a r k e t s h a r e a n d p r o f i t g r o w t h

N S

+ ( p r o f i t )

M S + ( m a r k e t

s h a r e )

+ ( m a r k e t

s h a r e )

M S + ( p r o f i t )

+

B o e k e r ( 1 9 9 7 a )

P r o d u c t - m a r k e t e n t r y

N S

N S

B o e k e r ( 1 9 9 7 b )

C h a n g e i n e x t e n t o f d i v e

r s i f i c a t i o n g

−

−

+

P e n n i n g s , L e e ,

& v a n W i t t e l o o s t u i j n

( 1 9 9 8 ) *

F i r m s u r v i v a l

d

+

+

A l m u s & N e r l i n g e r ( 1 9 9 9 )

V e n t u r e g r o w t h

+

( t e c h n o l o g y )

+

( M B A h )

B r u d e r l & P r e i s e n d o r f e r ( 2 0 0 0 )

N e w f i r m g r o w t h

+

T i h a n y i , E

l l s t r a

n d , D a i l y , &

D a l t o n

( 2 0 0 0 )

I n t e r n a t i o n a l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n

+

N S

C a r p e n t e r & F r e d r i c k s o n ( 2 0 0 1 )

G l o b a l s t r a t e g i c p o s t u r e

i

+

+

D . Y . L e e & T s

a n g ( 2 0 0 1 )

N e w v e n t u r e g r o w t h

+ ( l a r g e r

f i r m s )

– ( s m a l l

f i r m s )

( c o n t i n u e d )




16/32

16

A r t i c l e


C E O T e n u r e

i n P o s i t i o n

C E O F i r m

T e n u r e

T M T F i r m

T e n u r e

T M T F i r m

T e n u r e


C E O /

F o u n d e r E d .

L e v e l

T M T E d .

L e v e l

T

M T E d . L e v e l




T M T E d .

B a c k g r o u n d

T M T E d .

B a c k g r o u n d


M i l l e r & S h a m s i e ( 2 0 0 1 )

P r o d u c t l i n e e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n

− j

M i l l e r & S h a m s i e ( 2 0 0 1 )

P r o f i t s p e r f i l m

− ( 1 4 – 1 6

y e a r s )

j

W e s t h e a d , W r i g h t , & U c b a s a r a n

( 2 0 0 1 )

E x p o r t s a l e s , p e r c e n t a g e

o f s a l e s

e x p o r t e d , n u m b e r o f e

m p l o y e e s ,

s a l e s r e v e n u e s , p r o f i t

r e l a t i v e t o

c o m p e t i t o r s

N S

B a r k e r & M u e l l e r ( 2 0 0 2 )

R & D i n t e n s i t y r e l a t i v e t o i n d u s t r y

N S

+

+

+

( s c i e n c e /

e n g i n e e r i n g )

D a t t a , R a j a g o p a l a n , &

Z h a n g ( 2 0 0 3 )

S t r a t e g i c c h a n g e a

− k

+ k

D a v i d s s o n & H

o n i g ( 2 0 0 3 ) *

A c t i v i t y d i r e c t e d t o w a r d

s t a r t i n g

a b u s i n e s s

N S

+

( m a n a g e m e n t )

D a v i d s s o n & H

o n i g ( 2 0 0 3 ) *

T i m e t o f i r s t s a l e , p r o f i t s

N S

N S

K o r ( 2 0 0 3 )

S a l e s g r o w t h

+ ( o n l y

f o u n d e r s )

N S

B o s m a , v a n P r a

a g , T

h u r i k , & d e W i t

( 2 0 0 4 )

N e w v e n t u r e s u r v i v a l , p r o f i t , a n d

e m p l o y m e n t

+ ( p r o f i t

o n l y )

C o l o m b o & G r i l l i ( 2 0 0 5 )

N e w v e n t u r e g r o w t h

N S

+ ( e c o n o m i c s /

m a n a g e m e n t )

M S +

( s c i e n c e /

t e c h n o l o g y )

K o r & M a h o n e y ( 2 0 0 5 )

T o b i n ’ s q

+

( m o d e r a t o r )

l

M o r a n ( 2 0 0 5 ) *

G e n e r a t i o n / i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f

n e w i d e a s

N S m

S m i t h , C o l l i n s ,

& C l a r k ( 2 0 0 5 ) *

K n o w l e d g e c r e a t i o n c a p

a b i l i t y

+

S m i t h e t a l . (

2 0

0 5 ) *

N e w p r o d u c t s a n d s e r v i c e s

N S

H e r m a n n & D a

t t a ( 2 0 0 6 )

M o d e o f f o r e i g n d i r e c t i n v e s t m e n t

M S – n

B a r k e m a & S h v y r k o v ( 2 0 0 7 )

N o v e l t y i n g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n o f

f o r e i g n d i r e c t i n v e s t m

e n t

+

+

N S

H a b e r & R e i c h e l ( 2 0 0 7 )

R e v e n u e s , n u m b e r o f e m

p l o y e e s ,

p r o f i t a b i l i t y r e l a t i v e t o

c o m p e t i t o r s , g r o w t h , o c c u p a n c y

a n d c u s t o m e r s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

t o u r i s m a n d b u s i n e s s s t r e n g t h

N S

K a p l a n ( 2 0 0 8 ) *

O p t i c a l t e c h n o l o g i e s p a t e n t s

+

M S –

M S +

( t e c h n o l o g y )

( c o n t i n u e d )

T a b l e 2 ( c o n t i n u e d )




17/32

17

A r t i c l e


C E O T e n u r e

i n P o s i t i o n

C E O F i r m

T e n u r e

T M T F i r m

T e n u r e

T M T F i r m

T e n u r e


C E O /

F o u n d e r E d .

L e v e l

T M T E d .

L e v e l

T

M T E d . L e v e l




T M T E d .

B a c k g r o u n d

T M T E d .

B a c k g r o u n d


C a o , S

i m s e k , &

Z h a n g ( 2 0 1 0 ) *

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l a m b i d e x t e r i t y

−

D i m o v ( 2 0 1 0 ) *

V e n t u r e e m e r g e n c e

N S

G e l e t k a n y c z &

B o y d ( 2 0 1 1 ) *

L o n g - t e r m ( 5 - y e a r ) f i r m

p e r f o r m a n c e

+

M a r c e l , B a r r , &

D u h a i m e ( 2 0 1 1 ) *

R e s p o n s e s t o c o m p e t i t o r a c t i o n s

+ ( l i k e l i h o o d o f

r e t a l i a t i o n )

N S ( l a g i n

r e t a l i a t i o n )

G r u b e r , M a c M i l l a n , & T h o m p s o n

( 2 0 1 2 )

N u m b e r o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d

M S +

N S

W o l f - C h r i s t i a n , K

ö n i g , E n d e r s , &

H a m b r i c k ( 2 0 1 3 ) *

S t r a t e g i c i n i t i a t i v e s i n

b i o t e c h n o l o g y

N S

N o t e : T a b l e s

2 , 3 , a n d 4 r e p r e s e n t t h r e e c o n t i g u o u s s e t s

o f h u m a n c a p i t a l v a r i a b l e s . S

t u d i e s t h a t d o

n o t i n c l u d e t h e c o l u m n v a r i a b l e s s h o w n i n a p a r t i c u l a r t a b l e a r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h a t

t a b l e . A b l a n k

s p a c e i n a c o l u m n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e v a r i a b l e w a s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y q u e s t i o n . P

l u s s i g n s i n d

i c a t e p o s i t i v e a n d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0

5 l e v e l o r l e s s ; m i n u s s i g n s i n d i c a t e n e g a t i v e a n d

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0

5 l e v e l o r l e s s ; M S + i n d i c a t e s p o s i t i v e a n d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 1

0 l e v e l o r l e s s ( m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c

a n t ) ; M S – i n d i c a t e s n e g a t i v e a n d s t a t i s t i c a

l l y s i g n i f i c a n t

a t t h e . 1

0 l e v

e l o r l e s s ; N S i n d i c a t e s n o n s i g n i f i c a n t a t

t h e . 1

0 l e v e l o r l e s s ; a s t e r i s k s n e x t t o a u t h o r n a m e s d e n o t e a r t i c l e s t h a t c o n t a i n m e a s u r e s o f m a n a g e r i a l c o g n i t i o n o r s o c i a l

c a p i t a l ; E d . =

e d u c a t i o n ; T M

T = t o p m a n a g e m e n t t e a m .

a S t u d y m e a s u

r e d s t r a t e g i c p e r s i s t e n c e ; t a b l e i n d i c a t e s i m p a c t o n t h e c o n v e r s e .

b P r i m a r i l y i n

h i g h d i s c r e t i o n c o m p u t i n g i n d u s t r y .

c I n d i v i d u a l m

a n a g e r s .

d S t u d y m e a s u

r e d f i r m d i s s o l u t i o n ; t a b l e i n d i c a t e s i m p a c t o n t h e c o n v e r s e .

e N u m b e r o f y

e a r s i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r o l e .

f P r o p e n s i t y , s

i g n i f i c a n c e , n o t e w o r t h i n e s s , s c o p e , e x e c u t i o n s p e e d f o r a c t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; p r o p e n s i t y , n o t e w o r t h i n e s s , s c o p e , g e n e r a t i o n s p e e d , e x e c u t i o n s p e e d f o r r e s p o n s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

g U n l e s s f i r m p e r f o r m a n c e w �

@@2014.Dyanmic Managerial Capabilities by Helfat

Documents