2010
(with Henk Volberda and Marjorie Lyles). "Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive Capacity: How To Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field," Organization Science.
The purpose of this Perspective Paper is to advance understanding of absorptive capacity, its underlying dimensions, its multi-level antecedents, its impact on firm performance and the contextual factors that affect absorptive capacity. Nineteen years after the Cohen and Levinthal 1990 paper, the field is characterized by a wide array of theoretical perspectives and a wealth of empirical evidence. In this paper, we first review these underlying theories and empirical studies of absorptive capacity. Given the size and diversity of the absorptive capacity literature, we subsequently map the existing terrain of research through a bibliometric analysis. The resulting bibliometric cartography shows the major discrepancies in the organization field, namely that (1) most attention so far has been focused on the tangible outcomes of absorptive capacity; (2) organizational design and individual level antecedents have been relatively neglected in the absorptive capacity literature; and (3) the emergence of absorptive capacity from the actions and interactions of individual, organizational and inter-organizational antecedents remains unclear. Building on the bibliometric analysis, we develop an integrative model that identifies the multi-level antecedents, process dimensions, and outcomes of absorptive capacity as well as the contextual factors that affect absorptive capacity. We argue that realizing the potential of the absorptive capacity concept requires more research that shows how “micro antecedents” and “macroantecedents” influence future outcomes such as competitive advantage, innovation, and firm performance. In particular, we identify conceptual gaps that may guide future research to fully exploit the absorptive capacity concept in the organization field and to explore future fruitful extensions of the concept.
---
(with Kenneth Husted and Snejina Michailova). “Governing Knowledge Sharing in organizations,” Journal of Management Studies.
We discuss and examine recent claims that research on knowledge processes has paid insufficient attention to micro (individual) level constructs and mechanisms and to the role of formal organization in governing knowledge processes. We review knowledge sharing research published in 13 (top academic plus top practitioner-oriented) journals in the period 1996–2006 in relation to these two propositions. The review confirms the claim that the knowledge sharing literature is preoccupied with constructs, processes, and phenomena defined at a macro (collective, organizational) level and pay comparatively little attention to micro level constructs. The review provides less support for the proposition that formal governance mechanisms have been under-researched in comparison to formal organization. Still, the multiple ways in which formal governance mechanisms may interact in influencing knowledge sharing outcomes have been under-researched, as has the interaction between more informal aspects of the firm and formal governance mechanisms. We argue that future research on knowledge sharing needs to fill these gaps.
---
(with Koen Heimeriks, Sidney Winter and Maurizio Zollo). “A Conversation on Organizational Routines,” European Management Review.
---
(with Teppo Felin). “Experience and Repetition as Antecedents of Organizational Routines and Capabilities: A Critique of Behaviorist and Empiricist Approaches,” Journal of Institutional Economics. (link above is to working paper version)
We discuss the behaviorist and empiricist foundations of the organizational routines and capabilities literature, specifically the extant emphasis placed on experience, repetition and observation as the key inputs and mechanisms of behavior, learning and change in organizations. Based on this discussion we highlight several concerns associated with specifying experience and repetition as antecedents of routines and capabilities, namely, (1) the problem of origins and causation, (2) the problem of extremes, (3) the problem of intentionality, (4) the problem of new knowledge, and (5) the problem of the environment. We highlight the “poverty of stimulus” argument and more generally discuss how internalist or rationalist, choice-based approach might provide a more fruitful (though preliminary) foundation for extant research on organizational routines and capabilities.
---
(with Peter Abell and Teppo Felin). “Squaring Coleman’s Diagram,” Erkenntnis.
---
(with Paola Gritti). “Customer Satisfaction and Competences: an Econometric Study of an Italian Bank,” Applied Economics Letters.
We empirically address how customer satisfaction and loyalty in the banking industry may affect profitability. This helps to identify the strategy and competencies necessary to benefit from customer relationships which are important sources for improved performance in the banking. We do this by analyzing data collected on 2,105 customers of 118 branches of one of the biggest banks of an Italian banking group. We find that customer satisfaction impacts loyalty, which in turn has a direct effect on financial and non-financial customer value/total customer value/complex customer value. Moreover, loyalty is a mediator between financial and not-financial customer value and two sources of customer satisfaction, namely relationships with the front office and the branch, on the one hand, and the products offered, on the other.
---
(with Peter G. Klein). “Alertness, Judgment, and Entrepeneurship”, Journal of Private Enterprise.
---
(with Lasse Lien). “Ownership and Competitive Dynamics.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.
---
(with Ellen Roemer). “Real Options and the Theory of the Firm.” International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital.
---
Micro-foundations for Management Research: What? Why? Whither?", Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa