Espoused versus realized knowledge management tool usage in knowledge intensive organizations

Many knowledge intensive organizations (KIOs) have invested in tools and policies to enhance knowledge-sharing and application as this is crucial for their growth. The implementation of these tools results in multiple approaches for knowledge-sharing being available. This article reports on an empirical study of five global management consultancies investigating how consultants choose between these knowledge-sharing alternatives and the factors driving this choice. Our findings indicate that consultants base their decisions on both judging the anticipated benefits of the knowledge content and the associated process costs. Importantly, the criteria employed to assess these knowledge-sharing alternatives was different to that of the leadership. The use of different criteria resulted in the leadership championing tools and policies that the consultants did not perceive as valuable. The study contributes to the human resource management and knowledge management literature, not only by surfacing criteria, yet to be discussed in the literature, used by the leadership and consultants of KIOs in determining which knowledge-sharing approach to use, but also by highlighting that when considering KM tools it was critical to take a multi-level approach as there may be some differences in rationales as to why some systems are used or not

Building theory at the intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management

This article builds theory at the intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management literature—specifically, in relation to dynamic capabilities literature. By combining industrial organization economics–based, resource-based, and dynamic capability–based views, it is possible to develop a better understanding of the strategies that businesses may follow, depending on their managers’ assumptions about ecological sustainability. To develop innovative strategies for ecological sustainability, the dynamic capabilities framework needs to be extended. In particular, the sensing–seizing–maintaining competitiveness framework should operate not only within the boundaries of a business ecosystem but in relation to global biophysical ecosystems; in addition, two more dynamic capabilities should be added, namely, remapping and reaping. This framework can explicate core managerial beliefs about ecological sustainability. Finally, this approach offers opportunities for managers and academics to identify, categorize, and exploit business strategies for ecological sustainability

The role and impact of second-order dynamic capabilities in resource base modification : an empirical investigation

Axe OrganisationsInternational audienceThis qualitative case study illuminates how second-order dynamic capabilities enable the formation and deployment of first-order dynamic capabilities, capabilities that allow the modification of the resource base. Contrary to many studies that haveconcentrated on the formation of dynamic capabilities, we explore both the formation and deployment of first-order dynamic capabilities. We reveal that second-order dynamic capabilities enable the formation and deployment of first-order dynamic capabilities through four mechanisms: information-gathering, strategic analysis, capacity to experiment and implementation of strategic practices. We also highlight that the formation and deployment of first-order dynamic capabilities reinforce thesefour components of second-order dynamic capabilities. These findings allow us to contribute to the literature by providing a nuanced understanding of both the dynamic capability hierarchy and second-order dynamic capabilities

The role and impact of second-order dynamic capabilities in resource base modification : an empirical investigation

Axe OrganisationsInternational audienceThis qualitative case study illuminates how second-order dynamic capabilities enable the formation and deployment of first-order dynamic capabilities, capabilities that allow the modification of the resource base. Contrary to many studies that haveconcentrated on the formation of dynamic capabilities, we explore both the formation and deployment of first-order dynamic capabilities. We reveal that second-order dynamic capabilities enable the formation and deployment of first-order dynamic capabilities through four mechanisms: information-gathering, strategic analysis, capacity to experiment and implementation of strategic practices. We also highlight that the formation and deployment of first-order dynamic capabilities reinforce thesefour components of second-order dynamic capabilities. These findings allow us to contribute to the literature by providing a nuanced understanding of both the dynamic capability hierarchy and second-order dynamic capabilities

Managerial Consensus and Corporate Strategy:: Why Do Executives Agree or Disagree about Corporate Strategy?

This paper reports on a study which examined firstly the extent to which managers from the same corporation shared similar perceptions of corporate strategy, secondly, the extent of consensus across the corporations and finally the extent of consensus about different rationales for corporate strategy. The results revealed that consensus was not widespread. We suggest that this could occur where the rationale is unknown to the entire managerial team, ambiguous, regarded as unbelievable or of little interest. We also explain why there was generally consensus about competence-based strategies, and a lack of consensus about the motives for divestment and acquisition strategies.Corporate strategy Managerial perceptions Consensus

Strategy from an individual perspective

In this paper we suggest that strategic change should be considered from an individual manager perspective. We believe that change can only take place in organisations if managers behave differently, if they engage in non-routine activities. We argue that managers engage in change activities if they perceive that the situation they are facing is uncomfortable. Their search for solutions can take multiple forms. However we suggest that change will be durable if managers believe in the actions they are taking and that this is most likely to happen if the managers have already experienced, in some way, the changes being proposed.

Issues and trends in causal ambiguity research : a review and assessment

Causal ambiguity relates to ambiguity as to how organizational actions and results, inputs and outcomes, or competencies and advantage are linked. Causal ambiguity is important because of its organizational performance implications. Over the last 25 years, research has analyzed the concept from various theoretical angles. As a result, the literature is fragmented and presents different, and sometimes contradictory, views on the concept. In this article, we systematically review the literature on causal ambiguity and develop a framework incorporating the types, antecedents, and consequences of causal ambiguity for both organizational performance and organizational learning. We disentangle the arrays of conceptualizations and operationalizations present in the literature, and we isolate distinct streams in causal ambiguity research. One stream of research concentrates on causal ambiguity as an interfirm barrier to imitation, a second relates to causal ambiguity as an intrafirm barrier to factor mobility, and a third focuses on causal ambiguity as a potential trigger for intrafirm learning. Our review also helps to consolidate research on the substitution dilemma, the causal ambiguity paradox, and the challenge of learning under causal ambiguity. Finally, we develop a coherent set of implications for management practice, and we provide an agenda for further research.(VLID)4698131Version of recor