Becoming the best: by beating or ignoring the best? Toward an expanded view of the role of managerial selection in complex and turbulent environments

This paper explores how the rules that guide search affect organizational adaptation in complex and turbulent environments. Our consideration of such rules extends beyond search scope—i.e., exploitation of current technologies vs. exploration of new technologies—to include focus on competition. We consider two types of competitive focus—i.e., external, where the choice of focal technology to be improved is influenced by information about other organizations and internal, where it is not influenced by others. We refer to this expanded set of rules as managerial selection and vary it to explore how it affects organizational adaptation. Employing an agent based simulation model, built on the framework of NKC fitness landscapes, we consider multiple types of interdependencies within and between technologies and across competitors. We show that in the presence of these multiple interdependencies, the ability of organizations to adapt is conditioned as much or more by the focus of search than by its scope. In particular, we observe that in simple and stable environments, organizational adaptation is enhanced by an external focus but in complex and turbulent environments, such external focus is counterproductive.

[1]  Thorbjørn Knudsen,et al.  Economic selection theory , 2002 .

[2]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  The origins of order , 1993 .

[3]  Jan W. Rivkin.  Imitation of Complex Strategies , 2000 .

[4]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Simulation modeling in organizational and management research , 2007 .

[5]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[6]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[7]  Pamela R. Haunschild,et al.  Modes of Interorganizational Imitation: The Effects of Outcome Salience and Uncertainty , 1997 .

[8]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[9]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators , 2008 .

[10]  G. Hodgson,et al.  The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and routines , 2004 .

[11]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Markets, Firms, and the Process of Economic Development , 1999 .

[12]  M. Spence,et al.  Learning Curve Spillovers and Market Performance , 1985 .

[13]  Rajshree Agarwal,et al.  Performance Differentials between Diversifying Entrants and Entrepreneurial Start-Ups: A Complexity Approach , 2007 .

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

[15]  William L. Maxwell,et al.  Some Problems of Digital Systems Simulation , 1959 .

[16]  Leigh Tesfatsion,et al.  Handbook of Computational Economics, Volume 2: Agent-Based Computational Economics (Handbook of Computational Economics) , 2006 .

[17]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics of organizations , 1996 .

[18]  Arie Y. Lewin,et al.  Interdependency, Competition, and Industry Dynamics , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[19]  W. Dugger.  The Economic Institutions of Capitalism , 1987 .

[20]  P. Romer.  Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[21]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Patterned Interactions in Complex Systems: Implications for Exploration , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[22]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  A model of adaptive organizational search , 1981 .

[23]  Markku V. J. Maula,et al.  Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations , 2009 .

[24]  Jan W. Rivkin.  Reproducing Knowledge: Replication Without Imitation at Moderate Complexity , 2001 .

[25]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  Cascading Organizational Change , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[26]  E. Penrose.  The theory of the growth of the firm twenty-five years after , 1960 .

[27]  G. Bell,et al.  Evolutionary genetics: The evolution of evolution , 2005, Heredity.

[28]  A. Alchian.  Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory , 1950, Journal of Political Economy.

[29]  J. March.  Continuity and Change in Theories of Organizational Action , 1996 .

[30]  Jongseok Lee,et al.  Reconsideration of the Winner-Take-All Hypothesis: Complex Networks and Local Bias , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[31]  Robert A. Burgelman.  Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research , 1991 .

[32]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Understanding Variation in Managers' Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[33]  Nicolaj Siggelkow.  Change in the Presence of Fit: the Rise, the Fall, and the Renaissance of Liz Claiborne , 2001 .

[34]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[35]  Neil A. Morgan,et al.  Benchmarking Marketing Capabilities for Sustainable Competitive Advantage , 2005 .

[36]  A. Roth.  The Economist as Engineer: Game Theory, Experimentation, and Computation as Tools for Design Economics , 2002 .

[37]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Strategy as guided evolution , 2000 .

[38]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[39]  Boris Groysberg,et al.  Hiring Stars and Their Colleagues: Exploration and Exploitation in Professional Service Firms , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[40]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Myopia of Selection: Does Organizational Adaptation Limit the Efficacy of Population Selection? , 2007 .

[41]  Thorbjørn Knudsen,et al.  Two Faces of Search: Alternative Generation and Alternative Evaluation , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[42]  M. Lieberman.  The learning curve, diffusion, and competitive strategy , 1987 .

[43]  Daniel A. Levinthal.  Adaptation on rugged landscapes , 1997 .

[44]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[45]  Uskali Mäki.  The Methodology of Positive Economics , 2009 .

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

[47]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[48]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

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

[50]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Developing Theory Through Simulation Methods , 2006 .

[51]  Gino Cattani,et al.  The Value of Moderate Obsession: Insights from a New Model of Organizational Search , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[52]  D. Campbell,et al.  Variations in Variation and Selection: The Ubiquity of the Variation-and-Selective-Retention Ratchet in Emergent Organizational Complexity , 2003 .

[53]  J. Kleijnen.  Analyzing simulation experiments with common random numbers , 1988 .

[54]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[55]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Looking Forward and Looking Backward: Cognitive and Experiential Search , 2000 .

[56]  Competition and Selection , 1991 .

[57]  William H. Bossert,et al.  A primer of population biology , 1972 .

[58]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles , 2003 .

[59]  J. Holland,et al.  Artificial Adaptive Agents in Economic Theory , 1991 .

[60]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[61]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

[62]  N. Lazaric,et al.  Knowledge, hierarchy and the selection of routines: an interpretative model with group interactions , 2005 .

[63]  Robert A. Burgelman.  Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments , 1994 .

[64]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Theories of Economic Organization: The Case for Realism and Balance , 1996 .

[65]  M. Friedman.  Essays in Positive Economics , 1954 .