TY - JOUR
T1 - How do firms tackle strategic change? A theoretical model of the choice between dynamic capability-based and ad hoc problem-solving approaches
AU - Wang, Yue
AU - Wang, Karen Yuan
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical account of how firms make choices between dynamic capability-based and ad hoc problem-solving approaches toward strategic change. Design/methodology/approach: A model has been developed to answer the questions of how and under what conditions firms develop appropriate approaches to handle strategic change. Findings: Drawing upon structural inertia theory (SIT) and the resource-based view (RBV), the model predicts that firms, regardless of their age and size, are more likely to adopt an ad hoc problem-solving approach to handle change in both highly dynamic and low-dynamic environments. However, in moderately dynamic environments, a dynamic capability-based approach may be more appropriate, depending on which theoretical logic (SIT or RBV) the decision is made. Originality/value: The paper builds on the useful distinction made by Winter (2003) in terms of the ways to handle organizational change and extends the recent research on temporary vs sustainable competitive advantages to investigate how firms tackle strategic change within the contexts of both environmental dynamism and organizational attributes.
AB - Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical account of how firms make choices between dynamic capability-based and ad hoc problem-solving approaches toward strategic change. Design/methodology/approach: A model has been developed to answer the questions of how and under what conditions firms develop appropriate approaches to handle strategic change. Findings: Drawing upon structural inertia theory (SIT) and the resource-based view (RBV), the model predicts that firms, regardless of their age and size, are more likely to adopt an ad hoc problem-solving approach to handle change in both highly dynamic and low-dynamic environments. However, in moderately dynamic environments, a dynamic capability-based approach may be more appropriate, depending on which theoretical logic (SIT or RBV) the decision is made. Originality/value: The paper builds on the useful distinction made by Winter (2003) in terms of the ways to handle organizational change and extends the recent research on temporary vs sustainable competitive advantages to investigate how firms tackle strategic change within the contexts of both environmental dynamism and organizational attributes.
KW - Ad hoc problem solving
KW - Dynamic capability
KW - Dynamic environments
KW - Environmental dynamism
KW - Organizational attributes
KW - Strategic change
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026908089&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1108/JOCM-03-2016-0045
DO - 10.1108/JOCM-03-2016-0045
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85026908089
VL - 30
SP - 725
EP - 743
JO - Journal of Organizational Change Management
JF - Journal of Organizational Change Management
SN - 0953-4814
IS - 5
ER -