Using Set-theoretic Approach to Examine Configurations of Strategies and Resources

Why do some organizations succeed and others fail? This major question has generated plenty of research across various fields of management and has yielded tremendous insights into the complex dynamics of organizations. Management practitioners as well as theorists have attempted to integrate these insights and solutions to get a holistic perspective of managing complex organizations in turbulent environments. For example, practitioners use the concept of business models to convey the configurations of strategies, resources and capabilities, and other factors that influence the performance of organizations. Similarly, scholars have proposed theories of complementaries (Milgrom & Roberts, 1990, 1995) and configurations (Miles & Snow, 1978; Mintzberg, 1979; Porter, 1980, 1985) to suggest not only the multitude of factors, their collections and sub-collections but the interrelationships of these factors with one another. Consequently, there are multifaceted theories that are waiting to be tested because the pace of development of research methods has not kept up with the theoretical developments in organizational studies. This lack of theory testing has stunted the development of rigorous theoretical and practical frameworks in the field leading to theory proliferation in management theory on the one hand, and witch doctors and guru solutions in management practice, on the other.

[1]  Randy Hodson,et al.  Organizational Success and Worker Dignity: Complementary or Contradictory?1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  J. Walkup.  Fuzzy-set social science , 2003 .

[3]  Vincent J. Roscigno,et al.  The Organizational and Social Foundations of Worker Resistance , 2004 .

[4]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization , 1990 .

[5]  M. Porter.  Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance , 1985 .

[6]  G. Rose.  The Structure of Organizations , 1971 .

[7]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[8]  R. Gulati,et al.  The economic modeling of strategy process: ‘clean models’ and ‘dirty hands’ , 2000 .

[9]  Gregory G. Dess,et al.  Porter's (1980) Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance , 1984 .

[10]  J. Barney.  Looking inside for competitive advantage , 1995 .

[11]  Thomas H. Brush,et al.  Toward a contingent resource‐based theory: the impact of information asymmetry on the value of capabilities in veterinary medicine , 1999 .

[12]  Benoît Rihoux,et al.  Innovative Comparative Methods for policy Analysis. Beyond the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide , 2006 .

[13]  Peer C. Fiss.  A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations , 2007 .

[14]  Peter D. Sherer.  Leveraging Human Assets in Law Firms: Human Capital Structures and Organizational Capabilities , 1995 .

[15]  Robert Drazin,et al.  Equifinality: Functional Equivalence in Organization Design , 1997 .

[16]  David J. Miller,et al.  Relating Porter's Business Strategies to Environment and Structure: Analysis and Performance Implications , 1988 .

[17]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage , 2006, Political Analysis.

[18]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA) , 2008 .

[19]  P. Boxall,et al.  Human Resource Strategy and Competitive Advantage: A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Consultancies , 1999 .

[20]  William H. Glick,et al.  Fit, Equifinality, and Organizational Effectiveness: A Test of Two Configurational Theories , 1993 .

[21]  Abagail McWilliams,et al.  Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective , 1994 .

[22]  John Paul MacDuffie,et al.  Prototypes and strategy: assigning causal credit using fuzzy sets , 2004 .

[23]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing , 1995 .

[24]  R E Miles,et al.  Organizational strategy, structure, and process. , 1978, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[25]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  Between Complexity and Parsimony: Limited Diversity, Counterfactual Cases, and Comparative Analysis. , 2005 .

[26]  Bruce Kogut,et al.  Exploring complexity when diversity is limited: institutional complementarity in theories of rule of law and national systems revisited , 2006 .

[27]  Yiannis E. Spanos,et al.  An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective , 2001 .

[28]  Jon Kvist,et al.  Diversity, Ideal Types and Fuzzy Sets in Comparative Welfare State Research , 2006 .

[29]  Yiannis E. Spanos,et al.  Strategy and industry effects on profitability: evidence from Greece , 2004 .

[30]  C. C. Snow,et al.  Organizational Configurations and Performance: A Comparison of Theoretical Approaches , 1993 .

[31]  Jay B. Barney,et al.  Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases , 2005 .

[32]  Michael Song,et al.  Marketing and technology resource complementarity : An analysis of their Interaction Effect in two environmental contexts , 2005 .