Organizational dynamism and adaptive business model innovation: The triple paradox configuration

Firm performance in turbulent business environments strongly depends on the adaptive (re)generation of the firm's business model. However, studies on the enablers of business model innovation are sparse. This study leverages the literature on dynamic capabilities, on organizational ambidexterity/vacillation, and Lewis's view of organizational paradoxes to build an integrated model of organizational dynamism that includes seven dimensions: three pairs of paradoxical constructs (cooperation–competition, exploration–exploitation, and conformity–agency) and dynamic capabilities. The study posits that these seven dimensions of organizational dynamism describe the key enablers of adaptive business model innovation (ABMI). The results of applying a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to 35 selected cases confirm that the paradoxical dimensions of organizational dynamism, although logically opposed, strongly intertwine in enabling the adaptive (re)generation of a firm's business model. Further, this article highlights fsQCA's suitability to test models that include paradoxical constructs.

[1]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  The Theory of Economic Development , 2017 .

[2]  Dusya Vera,et al.  Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: A knowledge management perspective , 2007 .

[3]  M. Bengtsson,et al.  Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges , 2014 .

[4]  Patrick Spieth,et al.  BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION: TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA , 2013 .

[5]  Patrick A. Mello.  Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis , 2014 .

[6]  Thomas Greckhamer,et al.  Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Strategic Management Research , 2008 .

[7]  Todd R. Zenger,et al.  Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance , 2012 .

[8]  Dirk Schneckenberg,et al.  Business Model Innovation – State of the Art and Future Challenges for the Field , 2014 .

[9]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[10]  Qing Li,et al.  A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[11]  Kalle Pajunen,et al.  Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment: a fuzzy-set analysis , 2008 .

[12]  Mário Franco,et al.  Entrepreneurship: an organisational learning approach , 2009 .

[13]  Peer C. Fiss.  Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research , 2011 .

[14]  Michael H. Morris,et al.  The entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified perspective , 2005 .

[15]  Ilan Oshri,et al.  Business Model Renewal and Ambidexterity: Structural Alteration and Strategy Formation Process During Transition to a Cloud Business Model , 2014 .

[16]  Lars-Erik Gadde,et al.  Business Networks , 2010, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2nd Ed..

[17]  C. Markides.  Business Model Innovation: What Can the Ambidexterity Literature Teach US? , 2013 .

[18]  Arch G. Woodside,et al.  Case Study Research: Theory, Methods, Practice , 2010 .

[19]  Michel Lander,et al.  Structure! Agency! (And Other Quarrels): A Meta-Analysis Of Institutional Theories Of Organization , 2009 .

[20]  M. Tushman,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future , 2013 .

[21]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[22]  S. Zahra,et al.  Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda , 2006 .

[23]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing , 2011 .

[24]  Thomas Greckhamer,et al.  Cross-cultural Differences in Compensation Level and Inequality across Occupations: A Set-theoretic Analysis , 2011 .

[25]  Roderick E. White,et al.  Reflections on The 2009 AMR Decade Award: Do We Have A Theory of Organizational Learning? , 2011 .

[26]  Varun Grover,et al.  Shaping Agility through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of Information Technology in Contemporary Firms , 2003, MIS Q..

[27]  Arch G. Woodside,et al.  Visualizing⋅Matching⋅Generalizing: Case Identification Hypotheses and Case-Level Data Analysis , 2015 .

[28]  Michael Timberlake.  The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies.By Charles C. Ragin. University of California Press. 185 pp. $27.50 , 1989 .

[29]  Francesca Ricciardi,et al.  The emerging wave of agility-oriented business networks in Italy: a new strategy for facing global competition , 2016 .

[30]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[31]  Raphael Amit,et al.  Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[32]  J. George,et al.  Dual Tuning in a Supportive Context: Joint Contributions of Positive Mood, Negative Mood, and Supervisory Behaviors to Employee Creativity , 2007 .

[33]  W. Zikmund.  Business Research Methods , 1984 .

[34]  Georg Schreyögg,et al.  How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization , 2007 .

[35]  P. Trkman,et al.  Business Model: What it is and What it is Not , 2014 .

[36]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  Fuzzy-Set Social Science , 2001 .

[37]  R. Amit,et al.  The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research , 2011 .

[38]  H. Chesbrough.  Business model innovation: it's not just about technology anymore , 2007 .

[39]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  Redesigning social inquiry , 2008 .

[40]  Marianne W. Lewis.  Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide , 2000 .