This article was downloaded by: [115.249.96.

2] On: 03 September 2022, At: 02:23

Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA

Organization Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://pubsonline.informs.org

Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework for Research

on Strategy and New Organizational Forms
Arie Y. Lewin, Henk W. Volberda,

To cite this article:

Arie Y. Lewin, Henk W. Volberda, (1999) Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework for Research on Strategy and New
Organizational Forms. Organization Science 10(5):519-534. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.5.519

Full terms and conditions of use: https://pubsonline.informs.org/Publications/Librarians-Portal/PubsOnLine-Terms-and-

Conditions

This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use
or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher
approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org.

The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness
for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or
inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or
support of claims made of that product, publication, or service.

© 1999 INFORMS

Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages

With 12,500 members from nearly 90 countries, INFORMS is the largest international association of operations research (O.R.)
and analytics professionals and students. INFORMS provides unique networking and learning opportunities for individual
professionals, and organizations of all types and sizes, to better understand and use O.R. and analytics tools and methods to
transform strategic visions and achieve better outcomes.
For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org
 Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework
for Research on Strategy and New
Organizational Forms
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

Arie Y. Lewin • Henk W. Volberda

The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0120, aylewin@ibm.net
Rotterdam School of Management, Department of Strategic Management and Business Environment, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands, h.volberda@fac.fbk.eur.nl

Introduction from the many competing theoretical formulations, pro-

Does intentionality matter? How does it matter? These liferation of model specifications, and the absence of
questions have occupied center stage in research on ad- shared definitions for variables and measures. Organiza-
aptation and selection and in practitioner-oriented writ- tional ecology research, however, is disconnected from
ings since the dawn of modern theorizing and research adaptation at the level of the individual organizational
on management and organization. Intentionality is rooted unit and therefore cannot directly contribute to explicat-
in social–psychological theories of human behavior and ing firm level adaptation. As a consequence, the adapta-
purposeful action. It underlies theories of rationality in tion selection debate rages on.
economics, strategic management, and decision sciences. Another cause for the lack of progress has been the
It has been the foundation of management practice and premature maturation of theoretical and empirical inquiry
the raison d’être for the thriving enterprise of teaching in the field of organization studies. In their inaugural es-
and research in schools of business. say in Organization Science, Daft and Lewin (1990) ar-
gue for the imperative of loosening and breaking out of
Decades of research in strategy and organization sci-
the “straight-jacket” of organization science research. In
ence and in branches of economics and decision sciences
their view, the field of organization studies had already
have not resolved the adaptation–selection debate (Baum
lost its innovative vitality because of isomorphic forces
1996). This debate continues in the face of a concerted
that defined, reinforced, and prematurely legitimized cer-
research effort and vast growth in the stock of knowledge
tain research paradigms and methodological approaches.
in this area. The proliferation of research and persistence The ensuing decade has been characterized by a new vi-
of this debate reflects the different theoretical lenses and tality reflected in the diversity of empirical methods and
empirical methods employed in advancing knowledge new theoretical perspectives. However, the dominant dis-
and understanding of intentionality in the adaptation pro- course still takes place within single-theme theoretical si-
cess of organizations. A comparison of strategic manage- los. Recognizing that loosening the “straitjacket” was by
ment and organizational ecology theories highlights the itself not sufficient, Daft and Lewin (1993) published a
nature and source of the debate. While organizational second editorial essay calling for new organization the-
ecology theories focus on selection, variation, and reten- ories informed by the problems of management practice
tion processes for explicating the evolution of populations and addressing the challenge of adaptation in times of
of organizations, strategic management theories focus on cataclysmic change.
firm-level adaptation as a function of strategy and orga- Research on the emergence or evolution of new orga-
nization design. Organizational ecology research is based nizations has been attracting more attention (Tushman
on longitudinal data and shares essential variable defini- and Romanelli 1985, Romanelli 1991). Most research on
tions and measurements across studies. Strategic choice evolution of organizations involves studies of short-term
research has employed mostly cross-sectional designs or adaptations under various contingencies, or retrospective
studies of short-term adaptation events or single case case studies (Pettigrew 1985, Baden-Fuller and Stopford
studies. Moreover, the weak comparability of empirical 1992), and panel studies (e.g., Whittington et al., this is-
findings across strategic management studies derives sue). Such studies, however, focus on restructuring and

1047-7039/99/1005/0519/$05.00 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 䉷 1999 INFORMS

1526-5455 electronic ISSN Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999, pp. 519–534
 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

transformations within the prevalent M-Form and are not question by considering environmental change as an ex-
specifically concerned with emergence of new organiza- ogenous variable (cf. Baum and Singh 1994, Baum and
tional forms. Several theories propose that new organi- Korn 1999, March 1994). Moreover, they employ a single
zational forms emerge from entrepreneurial activities of theme for describing how and why organizations tend to
new entrants (Aldrich and Mueller 1982, Aldrich and become isomorphic with their environments through pro-
Zimmer 1986) or from the creative technology-destroying cesses of either adaptation or selection. Less frequently
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

competencies of industries (Schumpeter 1950, Tushman examined are questions of how organizations systemati-
and Anderson 1986). In all of these studies, the new form cally influence their environments and how organiza-
of interest is the population or industry. tional environments (comprised of other organizations
Contemporaneously, many popular and academic writ- and populations) influence those organizations in turn. In
ers speculate on the features or characteristics of new or- this section, we briefly summarize key theoretical frame-
ganizational forms (cf. Lewin and Stephens 1993; works in sociology, economics, and strategy and orga-
Volberda 1996, 1998). Management futurologists con- nization theory; the dominant themes of these frame-
ceptualize the new organization landscape as virtual cor- works as they relate to adaptation and selection; and the
poration (Davidow and Malone 1992); hollow corpora- implications of each approach for firm strategy and ad-
tion; dynamic network form (Miles and Snow 1986); aptation.
cellular organization (Miles, et al. 1997); hypertext or- Sociology encompasses two dominant views. Accord-
ganization (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995); platform orga- ing to population ecology (Hannan and Freeman 1977,
nization (Ciborra 1996); and shamrock organization 1984; Aldrich and Pfeffer 1976), managerial intention-
(Handy 1995). Most of these studies, however, represent ality should have little or no impact on adaptation. En-
retrospective accounts of single case examples of a suc- vironments select organizations through resource scarcity
cessful adaptive organizational form at a cross-section of and competition. The analysis of this selection process is
time (e.g., Sun Microsystems’ virtual organization; Dell applied at the population level of organizations, because
Computer’s dynamic network; Acer’s cellular form; the distribution of fitness across the population of orga-
Sharp’s hypertext form; Olivetti’s platform organization; nizations, rather than the fitness of any single organiza-
or F International’s electronic shamrock). The popular tion, is the object of interest. Furthermore, organizational
business press accounts of new forms serve as an impor- attempts at restructuring and transformation are taken to
tant signpost, but the theory underlying these ideas re-
be futile and even to decrease firm chances of survival.
mains to be more fully developed. In particular, theories
The inability to adapt is a direct outcome of inertial pres-
of evolution and mutation process of new organizational
sures that prevent organizations from changing in re-
forms remain to be developed (cf. Lewin et al., this issue).
sponse to their environments. The concept of structural
With this focused issue, we advance the coevolution
inertia, like that of fitness, refers to a correspondence be-
perspective as a new lens for research in organization
tween the adaptive behavioral capabilities of a class of
studies and for reintegrating organization theory and
strategy. We believe that coevolution frameworks will organizations and their particular environments (Hannan
inform any research in organization studies, which spans and Freeman 1984, p. 152; Mason 1949). Organizations
levels of analyses and involves adaptation over time. In accumulate structural and procedural baggage through re-
our judgement, coevolution frameworks could prove es- tention processes, and the ability of an organization to
pecially useful for progress in bridging the adaptation se- respond to changes in its environment is directly related
lection chasm and for developing insights into the mu- to the buildup of structural inertia. In population–ecology
tation process of the existing stock of organizations. The theory, firm survival is a function of high reliability and
coevolution lens has the potential for integrating micro- specialization. However, selection rates increase as en-
and macro-level evolution within a unifying framework, vironmental rates of change exceed firm rates of change.
incorporating multiple levels of analyses and contingent The extreme implications for strategy are that manage-
effects, and leading to new insights, new theories, new ment makes no difference. The best management can do
empirical methods, and new understanding. is focus on the firm’s niche, optimize the firm’s speciali-
zation, and hope for the best. As new entrants define a
new environment and the old niche decays, firms in the
Key Themes in Adaptation-Selection niche become increasingly isomorphic and are selected
Research out (Miller 1990).
How do firms coevolve with their environment? Most Institutional theories focus on why organizations
scholars in strategy and organization theory study this within a population exhibit similar characteristics. This

520 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

population isomorphism results from coercive, norma- and conducting transactions. Firms continuously balance
tive, and mimetic isomorphism, perceived to be legiti- market coordination costs with bureaucratic control costs.
mate (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Population isomor- The implications for strategy are that managers, in par-
phism allows initiatives that are not driven by necessity ticular transaction partners, are rational, risk averse, and
or obvious advantage to diffuse through an industry opportunistic. The strategic task of managers is to focus
group. Greenwood and Hinings (1996) illustrate the dy- on relative coordination costs of transacting inside versus
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

namic potential of institutional theory to explain adapta- outside the firm.

tion. The embeddedness of organizations in their insti- The behavioral theory of the firm (Cyert and March
tutional context is a basic reason for organizations’ 1963) has a managerial view of the firm as balancing the
resistance to change. The more organizations are coupled resource allocation processes to satisfy multiple stake-
to a prevailing organizational template in a highly struc- holders demands, while maximizing the personal goals of
tured institutional context, the higher the resistance to managers. The overall thesis is that managers are rational
change. Moreover, internal dynamics of organizations are in striving to maximize their personal goals while satis-
the reason for differences in the pace of change within fying stakeholder expectations. They seek to avoid un-
sectors. For firm strategy, institutional and neo- certainty by negotiating their environment, employing sa-
institutional theories imply that longevity and survival is tisficing decision making, maintaining firm performance
achieved through maintaining congruence with shifting within industry average, and seeking stability (equilib-
industry norms and shared logics. Therefore, firms should rium). Organization slack buffers environmental uncer-
adopt a fast follower strategy, which is assumed to be tainty and is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
directly related to long-term survival. innovation. The implications for strategy are threefold.
Economics has brought forward several theories that First, firm ability to innovate and create new opportunities
consider the selection–adaptation debate. These theories for above-average returns is determined primarily by
range from industrial organization and the behavioral the- availability and control of organization slack and by the
ory of the firm to recent evolutionary theories of eco- strategic intent to allocate slack to innovation. Second,
nomic change and resource- and knowledge-based theo- the theory provides a process description for growth of
ries of the firm. structural inertia and a justification for periodic rejuve-
Industrial organization theorists focus on the selection nation through restructuring and rationalization. Third,
of industries and the positioning of firms within that in- firm survival and longevity is directly related to scale and
dustry to achieve sustained competitive advantage (Porter organization slack, and allocation of slack resources to
1980, 1985). The industrial organization approach origi- innovation.
nated from the structure–conduct–performance paradigm Consistent with behavioral theory of the firm (Cyert
of industrial organization developed by Mason (1949) and March 1963), evolutionary theories assume that or-
and Bain (1959). In particular, the structure–conduct–per- ganizations accumulate know-how and tacit knowledge
formance paradigm places more emphasis on structure in the course of their existence (Nelson and Winter 1982).
(context) than on conduct (strategy) and on implications Organizations become repositories of unique skills that
for public policy as opposed to firm strategy. Porter are often difficult to transfer. These skills are the source
(1980), however, applies the paradigm at the firm level of both inertia and distinctive competence. The inertia is
to develop generic strategies of competitive advantage. In caused by sunk costs of past investments; escalation of
this formulation, the focus is on the quest for monopoly commitment; entrenched social structures; and organi-
rents through industry and segment selection and the ma- zation member attachment to cognitive styles, behavioral
nipulation of market structure to create market power. dispositions, and decision heuristics. The accumulated
The implications for strategy and adaptation are that busi- skills that render firms inert are also the source of oppor-
ness unit managers should choose an attractive industry tunities for strengthening firm-unique advantages and fur-
and define the frontier for a generic strategy such as cost thering and improving their know-how and tacit knowl-
leadership. Moreover, because greater rivalry will destroy edge. The potential benefits include greater reliability in
value, managers should erect barriers to entry and use delivering sound and comprehensible products, and many
oligopolistic bargains to prevent competitive escalation economies of efficiency and routine (Miller and Chen
within an industry. 1994, p. 1). The implications for strategy are that adap-
The transaction costs view focuses on the optimum tation is contingent on proximity to tacit knowledge and
level of internalization of transactions versus contracting to prior and commensurate skills. Improvements occur
via the market (Coase 1937; Williamson 1975, 1991). slowly and incrementally. The repositories of tacit knowl-
Markets and hierarchies are alternatives for structuring edge and routines endow firms with an opportunity and

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999 521

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

capacity to search. Yet the same routines suppress atten- 1967, Woodward 1965) give primary emphasis to reac-
tion span and the capacity to absorb new information by tive adaptation and discount or ignore the opportunity
specifying behavior that restricts search to new ideas con- firms have to influence their environment. Successful ad-
sistent with prior learning. aptation of organization to environment is assumed to be
In a similar way, the firm in the resource-based theory directly dependent on the ability of top management to
is seen as a bundle of tangible and intangible resources interpret the conditions facing the firm in an appropriate
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

and tacit know-how that must be identified, selected, de- manner and to adopt relevant courses of action. The im-
veloped, and deployed to generate superior performance plication of contingency theory for firm strategy is that
(Penrose 1959, Learned 1969, Wernerfelt 1984). Com- firms should achieve fits with changing competitive en-
petitive advantage originates from firm heterogeneity in vironments through appropriate organizational forms.
resources and capabilities (Penrose 1959, Teece et al. The managerial choice or strategic choice perspective
1993, Barney 1991, Lippman and Rumelt 1982, Peteraf (Child 1972, 1997; Miles and Snow 1978, 1994;
1993). The implications for strategy are that competitive Thompson 1967) argues that organizations are not always
advantage can be sustained through barriers to imitation passive recipients of environmental influence but also
have the opportunity and power to reshape the environ-
by investing in inimitable idiosyncratic capabilities
ment. Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985), Khandwalla (1977),
(Lippman and Rumelt 1982, Winter 1987) and leveraging
Mintzberg (1979), and many other neocontingency the-
these firm-core-specific assets for competitive advantage.
orists assert that adaptation is a dynamic process subject
Many studies show that in highly competitive environ- to both managerial action and environmental forces. The
ments a core competence can become core rigidity (Teece implications of strategic choice theories for firm strategy
1984, p. 106; Leonard-Barton 1992; Burgelman 1994; are that management should take into account the multi-
Barnett et al. 1994) or a competence trap (Levitt and ple ways in which organizations interact with their en-
March 1988, Levinthal and March 1993). Teece et al. vironments through the process of mutual adaptation be-
(1997) suggest that the mechanisms by which firms ac- tween the organization and its environmental domain.
cumulate and dissipate new skills and capabilities is the To align themselves with their environments, firms
source of competitive advantage. They propose that dy- must have some unique skills for learning, unlearning, or
namic capabilities represent the firm’s latent abilities to relearning on the basis of their past behavior. Organiza-
renew, augment, and adapt its core competence over time. tional learning theory or reflective change concerns the
This idea led to the view that knowledge is the most stra- development of insights, knowledge, and associations be-
tegically significant resource of the firm (Leonard-Barton tween past actions, the effectiveness of those actions, and
1992, Conner and Prahalad 1996, Grant 1996). In other future actions (Fiol and Lyles 1985, p. 811; Huber 1991).
words, knowledge is the crucial inimitable strategic re- This learning process is both adaptive and manipulative,
source of the firm. The implications for strategy and ad- in the sense that organizations adjust defensively to re-
aptation are that the organization should maximize ality and use the resulting knowledge offensively to im-
knowledge creation and integration. Managers should fa- prove the fits between organization and environment
cilitate all sources of knowledge creation such as impro- (Hedberg 1981, p. 3). An organization needs local search
visation and emergent processes, as well as external net- to develop and enhance competencies. At the same time,
work relationships (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). an organization must remain open for expanded search.
Organizations should be designed and managed as learn- In the terminology of Argyris and Schön (1978), orga-
ing organizations while at the same time safeguarding nizations need single-loop learning to accomplish some
unique knowledge capabilities (Nonaka and Takeuchi of their most important functions, such as creating con-
tinuity, consistency, and stability. On the other hand, or-
1995).
ganizational designs are imperfect and incomplete and
Finally, several theories in strategy and organization
thus require continual reflection and monitoring to meet
design are considered here as they inform selection–ad- challenges from both the changing external environment
aptation research. These theories encompass contingency, and the inertia-prone internal environment. The implica-
strategic choice, learning, and life cycle and punctuated tions for strategy are that organizations can remain vital
equilibrium theories (Volberda 1998). by balancing single- and double-loop learning (Hedberg
In contingency theory environmental conditions are re- et al. 1976, Volberda 1996). Single-loop learning, where
garded as a direct cause of variation in organizational existing norms and values are not questioned, creates ri-
forms. Management task is to achieve “good fits” with gidity. By contrast, a wholesale discrediting of norms cre-
the environment. The proponents of this approach (Burns ates chaos (Weick 1982). The extent to which organiza-
and Stalker 1961, Donaldson 1988, Lawrence and Lorsch tions’ exploration of unknown futures and their

522 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

exploitation of the known pasts balance each other is of variables such as resource scarcity, industry norms, static
crucial importance to effective learning (March 1991, routines, and structural inertia, these perspectives focus
Hedberg and Jönsson 1978). These forms of learning on the way environments select organizations.
need not be contradictory processes. They can be com- While these various single-lens perspectives have made
plementary, and organizations must learn how to carry profound contributions to the strategy and organization
out both forms. field, the resolution of the adaptation–selection debate has
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

Life cycle and punctuated equilibrium theories model not progressed very much. We believe that single-theme
adaptation and selection over time. Adaptation is as- explanations for the adaptation–selection phenomenon
sumed to hold during one time period and selection dur- have reached their limit. Progress in the field requires
ing a different time period. Consequently, several types combining and recombining multiple lenses instead of in-
of temporal relationships may exist among contrary creasing fragmentation. We should consider the joint out-
forces. Utterback and Abernathy (1975) suggested that comes of managerial adaptation and environmental selec-
the dominant type of innovation, whether technologically tion instead of naı̈ve selection or naı̈ve adaptation.
complex or simple, and whether applied to product or Empirical work exists that clearly supports one of the
process, depends upon the stage of development. extremes (selection versus adaptation). With a few ex-
Tushman and Anderson (1986) propose, on the basis of ceptions (e.g., Baum and Singh 1994, Bruderer and Singh
a number of product–class case studies, that technology 1996, Lant and Mezias 1990, Levinthal 1997), research-
progresses in stages through relatively long periods of ers have tended not to address the interrelationships be-
incremental, competence-enhancing innovation by elab- tween processes of firm-level adaptation and population-
orating a particular dominant design. These periods of
level selection pressures. Adaptation and selection are not
increasing consolidation and learning-by-doing may be
wholly opposed forces but are fundamentally interrelated.
punctuated by radical competence-destroying technolog-
Such a coevolutionary approach assumes that change may
ical innovations. These so-called punctuated equilibrium
occur in all interacting populations of organizations, per-
models, discussed most explicitly by Tushman and
mitting change to be driven by both direct interactions
Romanelli (1985), posit alternating cycles of preservation
“which elaborate structures, systems, controls, and re- and feedback from the rest of the system. In other words,
sources toward increased coalignment,” and cycles of change is not an outcome of managerial adaptation or
fundamental change—“periods of discontinuous transi- environmental selection but rather the joint outcome of
tion where strategies, structure, and systems are funda- intentionality and environmental effects.
mentally transformed towards a new basis of alignment.” The purpose of this focused issue is to focus on how
The implications for strategy are that firms should de- firms coevolve with each other and with a changing or-
velop organizational forms that are immune to the cycles ganizational environment (Baum and Korn 1999). The
of technology-destroying competencies and can survive next section reviews the extant evolutionary theories of
the periodic alternation between incremental and radical organizational change. On the basis of this critical reflec-
change (Duncan 1976; Shepard 1967; Tushman and tion, we describe several properties of coevolution: mul-
O’Reilly 1996). The central question is not what tech- tilevelness/embeddedness, multidirectional causalities,
nology, structure, or culture to put in place to encourage nonlinearity, positive feedback, and path and history de-
innovation, but how to manage the dichotomy between pendence. These properties of coevolutionary systems
routinizing current activities while simultaneously sup- lead us to reconsider accepted research directions, and to
planting these same routines. Table 1 summarizes the sa- consider fundamentally new research approaches on the
lient adaptation selection characteristics of the single-lens role that intentionality plays in organization adaptation
perspectives and their implications for firm strategy. and change.
The table shows that certain lenses, such as industrial
organization, the behavioral theory of the firm, and stra-
tegic choice perspectives attempt to further elaborate the Coevolutionary Theory and Adaptation
role of managerial intentionality. Other lenses highlight Selection Research
the limitations of managerial intentionality. Perspectives, Evolutionary theory is not a new idea in organization sci-
such as population–ecology, institutionalism, and, to ence. Coevolution was implicit in the early work on the
some extent, evolutionary theories, discount the ability of emergence of bureaucracy. Weber (1978) argued that the
organizations to self-consciously change themselves sig- bureaucratic form of organization arose at particular time
nificantly or repeatedly, or that conscious change initia- in history in response to the confluence of forces of
tives by management are likely to succeed. Instead, using change that ushered in the industrial age. Chandler (1962)

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999 523

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

Table 1 Single-Lens Theories Informing Selection Adaptation Discourse

Theoretical Roots Dominant Paradigm Selection/Adaptation Managerial Implications

Sociology Population Ecology Population selection and structural inertia Management makes no difference; new
entrants redefine industries; established
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

firms should focus on what they do best

until selected out

Institutional Theories Population isomorphism based on industry Established firms should adopt fast follower
norms and shared logics strategy

Economics Industrial Organization Level of industry attractiveness and Managers should choose an attractive
competitive advantage within that industry; define performance frontier for
industry a generic strategy; reduce intra-industry
rivalry

Transaction Costs Minimization of transactions costs Managers should focus on relative

coordination costs of transacting inside
versus outside the firm

Behavioral Theory of the Satisfying multiple stakeholders, structural Periodic restructuring and rationalization.
Firm inertia due to satisficing, uncertainty Exploration requires strategic intent to
avoidance and slack allocate slack to innovation

Evolutionary Theories Success reinforces incremental Managers should overcome preference for
improvements and proliferation of improvement of prior and commensurate
routines as source of inertia (e.g. sunk skills that result in incremental
costs, commitments, social structures). innovations

Resource-Based Theory of Idiosyncratic resources are the basis of Managers should maximize unique core
the Firm sustained competitive advantage; causal competency, correct causal ambiguity in
ambiguity in evaluating own and judging own and competitors core
competitor core competencies is the competencies
source of suboptimal performance

Dynamic Capabilities/ Sustained competitive advantage based on Management should focus on knowledge
Knowledge-Based dynamic capabilities and intellectual creation and integration, continuously
Theory of the Firm capital renew knowledge base

Strategy and Contingency Theory Environment source of variation in Top management must interpret and react
Organization performance to changes in environment, maintain fit
Design through changes to organization form

Strategic Choice Variation in performance results from Managers should achieve dynamic fit
environmental changes and from firm through monitoring and shaping of
shaping of environment. environment

Organizational Learning Variation in performance results from Managers need to balance single and
changes in environment and organization double loop learning
ability to adapt through learning.

Life cycle/punctuated Periods of adaptation and consolidation are Managers should anticipate radical change
equilibrium followed by periods of radical by managing dichotomy between
competence-destroying change. incremental and radical innovation

makes a similar coevolution argument, noting that the and space and to diversify their business interests. Kieser
M-Form of organization coevolved with the development (1989) describes how medieval guilds were replaced by
of the transportation and communication industries, mercantilist factories as markets and institutions coevol-
which enabled business enterprises to manage across time ved. He shows how coevolutionary processes resulted in

524 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

an increase of functional specialization of institutions, de- routines, capabilities, competencies) and ecological pro-
monopolization of social monopolies, and decoupling of cesses (dynamics of competition and selection).
individual motives and organizational goals. Table 2 Firm–industry analysis also points to search behavior
summarizes selected antecedents of coevolution. potential in moving toward a coevolutionary view of ca-
Weick (1979) conceptualizes a view of organizing in pabilities and competition (Huygens 1999). In a study on
which organization members are seen as enacting and so- evolution among Illinois banks, Barnett and Hansen
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

cially constructing their environment. Weick thus repre- (1996) report findings that support dynamic interactions
sents the environment simultaneously as endogenous and between firm learning and adaptation on the one hand,
exogenous. Aldrich (1979) outlined an evolutionary the- and higher levels of competition and selection on the
ory based on processes of variation, selection, and reten- other. This form of persistent coevolution is dubbed an
tion. Nelson and Winter (1982) and Levitt and March “arms race” or “the Red Queen effect” (Beinhocker 1997,
(1988) have proposed variations of mutual learning Kauffman 1995, Van Valen 1973) after the comment to
frameworks that retain and reinforce learning and incre- Alice, “It takes all the running you can do to keep in the
mental improvements of successful routines. Levinthal same place” (Carroll 1946). The concept of hypercom-
and Myatt (1994) study the macroevolution of the mutual petition (D’Aveni and Gunther 1994), in which escalating
fund industry in terms of the coevolution of industry mar- competition results in short periods of advantage punc-
ket activities and distinctive capabilities of firms within tuated by frequent disruptions, represents a similar ap-
the industry. These studies, which incorporate both firm proach (Illinitch et al. 1998). In these coevolutionary
and industry levels of analysis, subsume possible inter- models, the assumed symmetry between forces of adap-
actions between genealogical processes (replication of tation and selection results in their canceling each other

Table 2 Antecedents of Coevolution

Aspects of Coevolution Contributors

Historical Embeddedness • Replacement of medieval guilds by mercantilist factories (Kieser 1989)

• Emergence of bureaucracy (Weber 1978, 1910)
• Diffusion of M-form (Chandler 1962)
• Historical institutional analysis of French and British firms (Calori et al. 1997)

Levels of Coevolution • Micro- and macrocoevolution (McKelvey 1997)

• Intraorganization, organization, population, and community coevolution (Baum and
Singh 1994)
• Internal and external context (Pettigrew 1995)

Interaction Genealogical and Ecological Processes • Enactment, double interacts (Weick 1979)
• Variation, selection, retention (Aldrich 1979)
• Mutual learning (Nelson and Winter 1982, Levitt and March 1988)
• Coevolution of capabilities and competition (Huygens 1999; Levinthal and Myatt
1994)
• Synthesis of ecological and genealogical processes (Baum and Singh 1994,
Levinthal 1991, Mezias and Lant 1994)

Zero-sum Competitive Coevolutionary Systems • Red Queen Race (Beinhocker 1997, Kauffman 1995, Van Valen 1973)
• Hypercompetition (D’Aveni and Gunther 1994)

Pluralistic Competitive Coevolutionary Systems • Adaptation on various fitness landscapes (Levinthal 1997)
• Competitive coevolutionary configurations (Baum 1999, Heylighen and Campbell
1995)

Cooperative Coevolutionary Systems • Learning alliances (Harnel 1991)

• Coevolution of alliances (Koza and Lewin 1998)

Microcoevolution • Intraorganizational ecological processes (Burgelman 1991, 1994, 1996)

• Selection and adaptation at intracorporate levels of analysis (Barnett et al. 1994,
Galunic and Eisenhardt 1996)

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999 525

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

out. That is, search behavior on firm level may lead to can achieve the learning benefits of both external and in-
unique capabilities and competitive advantage, but as a ternal selection.
result of increased competitive dynamics, these advan- However, studies of simultaneous evolution or coevo-
tages are quickly eroded. The implication is that all spe- lution of organizations and their environments are still
cies keep changing in a neverending race only to sustain rare. We define coevolution as the joint outcome of man-
their current level of fitness. agerial intentionality, environment, and institutional ef-
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

Of course, a much larger variety of coevolutionary sys- fects. Coevolution assumes that change may occur in all
tems can be studied. Levinthal (1997) shows the relative interacting populations of organizations. Change can be
impact of different levels of firm adaptation and popula- driven by direct interactions and feedback from the rest
tion selection in a changing environment by simulating of the system. In other words, change can be recursive
adaptation on smooth versus rugged fitness landscapes. and need not be an outcome of either managerial adap-
Moreover, on the basis of Heylighen and Campbell’s tation or environmental selection but rather the joint out-
(1995) competitive configurations, Baum (1999, p. 120) come of managerial intentionality and environmental ef-
illustrates various alternatives to zero-sum, purely com- fects.
petitive coevolutionary systems that are supercompetitive
(increase in a firm’s fitness results in a decrease in rival
firms’ fitness); partly competitive (some resources are Properties of Coevolution and
shared and others not); synergistic (an increase in one Requirements for Coevolutionary
firm’s fitness results in an increase in rival firms’ fitness);
and independent (an increase in one firm’s fitness does Research
Although the coevolution construct has been gaining ad-
not affect rival firms’ fitness).
herents, coevolutionary effects are far from being well
In addition to various competitive coevolutionary con-
accepted or understood. In this section we consider some
figurations, there are several studies that investigate co-
of the essential properties of coevolution and their impli-
operative coevolutionary systems. For example, Hamel
cations for strategic management and organization ad-
(1991) concludes that international alliances that are
aptation research.
thought at the start to be synergetic turn out to be super-
Multilevelness/Embeddedness. Coevolutionary ef-
competitive. Moreover, Koza and Lewin (1998) argue
fects take place at multiple levels within firms as well as
that strategic alliances are embedded in the firm strategic between firms. While coevolution has been studied on a
portfolio and coevolve with firm strategy; institutional, single level of analysis, McKelvey (1997, p. 360) argues
organizational, and competitive environment; and man- that coevolution takes place at multiple levels. He makes
agerial intentionality for the alliance. a distinction between coevolution within the firm (micro-
Other studies beyond aggregate studies on dynamic coevolution) and coevolution between firms and their
competitive and cooperative interactions between firms niche (macrocoevolution). This approach recognizes that
involve intraorganization evolution or microevolution. processes of variation, selection, and retention operate
These studies consider coevolution of intrafirm resources, within the organization and interact with similar pro-
dynamic capabilities and competencies in an intrafirm cesses operating at the population level. The focus of ma-
competitive context (Barnett et al. 1994; Galunic and crocoevolutionary theory is on firms existing in a coe-
Eisenhardt 1996; Burgelman 1991, 1994, 1996). Galunic volutionary competitive context, while microcoevolution
and Eisenhardt (1996) study selection and adaptation at considers coevolution of intrafirm resources, dynamic ca-
the intracorporate level of analysis. They used charter pabilities, and competencies in an intrafirm competitive
changes to align and realign the competencies of various context.
divisions with coevolving markets and opportunities. Pettigrew (1995), for example, makes a distinction be-
They report that charter loss in M-Form firms involves a tween the external context involving economic, political,
mix of selection and adaptation processes. Selection oc- and social forces and the internal context focusing on re-
curs among competing divisions but losses involve pur- sources, capabilities, culture, and internal politics. In a
posive action by group executives and major adaptive more formal formulation, Baum and Singh (1994) con-
shifts by divisions. Burgelman’s (1994, 1996) sider coevolution at community, population, organiza-
intraorganizational-process model shifts the locus of se- tion, and intra-organization level. However, multilevel
lection from the firm as whole to classes of strategic ac- coevolutionary thinking requires scholars to consider the
tion inside the firm, and views managing intraorganiza- interactions between multiple levels of coevolution.
tional ecological processes as a means by which the firm Nonetheless, McKelvey (1997) as well as Baum and

526 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

Singh (1994) argue that coevolution by lower levels al- organizations, but also by indirect feedback through the
ways occurs in the context of higher levels of coevolu- rest of the system.
tion. In other words, microcoevolutionary order within Positive Feedback. Organizations systematically in-
firms emerges in the context of macroevolutionary selec- fluence their environments, and organizational environ-
tionist competitive pressure (McKelvey 1997, p. 361; ments fundamentally comprised of other organizations in
Cohen and Stewart 1994). Studies that use such a nested turn influence organizations. These recursive interactions
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

coevolutionary perspective are sparse (Tushman and result in interdependencies and circular causality; each
Rosenkopf 1996, Garud and Van de Ven 1992). An ex- firm influencing the other and in turn being influenced by
ception is March’s (1991) study of the interaction of evo- the behavior of the other. In this mutual interaction feed-
lutionary adaptive thinking at both the microstate level back perspective, the unidirectional view of cause-and-
(changes in individual beliefs) and the firm level (changes effect relationships gives way to a recursive bidirectional
in the organizational code), in the context of environ- view of mutual causality.
mental turbulence. The volume Variations in Organiza- Path and History Dependence. Adaptation in a co-
tion Science (Baum and McKelvey 1999) contains several evolutionary process is path- or history-dependent (Calori
chapters on multilevel coevolution (Ingram and Roberts et al. 1997, Kieser 1989, McKelvey 1997). Variation in
1999, Rosenkopf and Nerkar 1999, Van de Ven and adaptations among constituent firms in a population may
Grazman 1999). reflect heterogeneity in the population of firms at earlier
Multidirectional Causalities. Organizations and their points in time (Stinchcombe 1965, Levinthal 1997),
parts do not merely evolve. They coevolve with each rather than variation in niches in the environment (as sug-
other and with a changing organizational environment gested in population ecology) or a set of distinct external
(Baum 1999, Kauffman 1993, McKelvey 1997). Changes conditions (as generally suggested by contingency theo-
may occur in all interacting populations of organizations, ries).
permitting change to be driven by mutual direct interac- On the basis of these properties of coevolution, we
tions and by feedback from the rest of the system. In this identify several requirements that distinguish coevolu-
connection, Baum and Singh (1994), for example, make tionary research from non-coevolutionary research. How-
the distinction between direct coevolution, in which one ever, not all of these requirements must be satisfied in
population evolves in response to another population, and each study. Under conditions of coevolutionary equilib-
diffuse coevolution, in which one or more populations rium, conventional single-lens perspectives in which the
evolve in response to several other populations in a environment is treated as exogenous may be quite appro-
broader ecological system. In such complex systems of priate (independent coevolutionary systems). Nonethe-
relationships, dependent-independent variable distinc- less, a large and important class of phenomena involves
tions become less meaningful since changes in any one conditions of simultaneous evolution that persist over
variable may be caused endogenously by changes in oth- long time periods. We conclude that the application of a
ers. coevolutionary perspective should at a minimum (Lewin
Nonlinearity. As a consequence of indeterminate et al., this issue) consider the following dimensions:
feedback paths, changes in one variable can produce quite • Studying organization adaptations over a long period
counterintuitive changes in another variable. For exam- of time (McKelvey 1997, Levinthal 1997) by using lon-
ple, as a result of higher order feedback processes, the gitudinal time series of microstate adaptation events and
effects of changes in one variable frequently contradict measures of rate of change or pace of change;
inferences based on simple cause-effect logic of linear • Examining organization adaptation within a histori-
relations between independent and dependent variables cal context of the firm and its environment (Calori et al.
(Baum and Singh 1994, Casti 1994). That is, coevolution 1997, Kieser 1989, Kieser 1994, Stinchcombe 1965);
subsumes nonlinear feedback among interacting popula- • Considering multidirectional causalities between
tions, and such nonlinearities can substantially compli- micro- and macrocoevolution (McKelvey 1997), as well
cate attempts to understand evolutionary change. Schol- as between and across other system elements (Baum
ars in strategy and organization research have abstracted 1999). In such systems of relationships among variables,
away nonlinear interactions for the sake of analytical trac- the dependent-independent variable distinction becomes
tability (Anderson 1999a). A coevolutionary approach, less meaningful. Changes in any one variable are caused
however, requires that sets of co-acting organizations and endogenously by changes in the other;
their environments be the object of study, and that • Incorporating mutual, simultaneous, lagged, and
changes in all interacting organizations be allowed to re- nested effects. Such effects are not very likely to be linear,
sult not only from the direct interactions between pairs of and as a consequence of feedback flows, changes in one

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999 527

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

variable can produce counterintuitive changes in another series methods and hazard or rate function models. For
variable; example, sequence analyses (Abbott 1990; Sabherwal
• Considering path dependence, which enables and re- and Robey 1993) are not often considered in strategic
stricts adaptation at the firm level and at the population adaptation research where the data could be represented
level, thereby driving both retention and variation at dif- as strings (sequences) of microadaptation events over
ferent rates; time. Similarly, the rapid rise of computational organi-
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

• Incorporating changes occurring at the level of dif- zation theory has not significantly affected empirical
ferent institutional systems within which firms and in- methods needed for studying coevolutionary phenomena
dustries are embedded. Change in the regulatory environ- such as multidirectional causalities, simultaneous and
ment can affect the firm and the industry, but the firm lagged effects, nonlinearity and positive feedback loops.
and/or the industry may have also influenced these These methodological challenges continue to pose thorny
changes; obstacles for coevolutionary empirical research.
• Accommodating economic, social, and political ma- Measurement issues and accessibility to appropriate
crovariables that may change over time and influence the time series data also present new challenges—in partic-
deep structure within which micro- and macroevolution ular, the use of rates of change and velocity measures.
operate. (For example, the aging of the population is not Cross-sectional survey based studies and economic time
impacting each of the affected populations of organiza- series modeling dominate by far the empirical research
tions or individual organizations to the same extent.) It is landscape in strategic management. The PIMS data base
necessary to identify and incorporate the simultaneous or was a major source for time series research in strategic
lagged effect of such macrovariables. management and marketing strategy research with a focus
on economic model formulations of competitive dynam-
The Challenge of Coevolution Research ics (Boulding and Staelin 1995). The cause of empirical
We have argued that coevolution has the potential to coevolution research would advance greatly with the ad-
serve as a unifying framework for research in strategy vent of new types of time series data consisting of mi-
and organization studies and for reinterpreting, reframing, crostate adaptations (McKelvey 1997).
and redirecting the selection adaptation discourse. Real- Efforts at creating such data sources are still in their
izing this potential, however, will be contingent on fur- infancy. Appropriate microstate adaptation data se-
ther theoretical breakthroughs as well as dramatic in- quences will vary with research questions being investi-
creases in empirical research within coevolutionary gated and with the particular coevolutionary system under
inquiry systems. study. Examples of microstate data sequences include
It is evident to us that progress in complexity science product changes and new product introductions
(Anderson et al. 1999), emergence (Holland 1999), com- (Sanderson and Uzumeri 1997), strategic adaptations
putational organization theory (Carley 1995), and popu- such as mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, greenfield in-
lation ecology are converging toward creating a much vestments, (Webb and Pettigrew, this issue; Lewin and
needed theoretical footing for coevolutionary research. It Weigelt 1999), strategic partnerships and alliances
appears to us that the pace of theory building, new ana- (Lawless et al. 1999), changes in organization design
lytical models and new theoretical insights are outstrip- (Hunter 1999, Utikal et al. 1999, Obel et al. 1999) and IT
ping commensurate progress with empirical approaches. implementation events (Hunter 1998, Hanaoka and
Empirical coevolution research requires longitudinal Sakano 1999). Combining such microadaptation se-
methods of analyses and time series data. Although the quences with other event histories, such as regulatory
relevance and need for longitudinal research in strategic changes, technological innovations, and demographic
management and organization adaptation research is changes, with performance time series, and with founding
widely recognized (Miller and Friesen 1982, Huber and conditions establishes an organization environment sys-
Van de Ven 1995, Henderson and Mitchell 1997, Barnett tem within which coevolutionary studies can take place.
and Burgelman 1996), such research is far from becoming It becomes viable to investigate dynamic phenomena in-
the norm. For example, Organizational Research Meth- volving firm microevolution, industry macroevolution,
ods, a new journal sponsored by the Academy of Man- environmental and technological evolution and coevolu-
agement Research Methods Division, has published only tion processes within such a system. Such studies, for
one article that directly informs longitudinal research example, can reveal new insights into organization fail-
(Chan 1998) in its first two years of publication. Longi- ures, seemingly permanent failing organizations, and mu-
tudinal coevolutionary research will require a richer ar- tation and emergence of new organizational forms.
senal of methods and techniques beyond traditional time Coevolution studies of the type envisioned here are still

528 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

a rare exception because the required data sequences are new organizational forms. Punctuated equilibrium theo-
not readily available. The research and assembly of such ries (e.g., Gersick 1991, Tushman and Romanelli 1985,
large-scale primary data sequences requires time and re- Miller and Chen 1994) theorize that organizations pro-
sources on a scale not generally available to most re- ceed through life cycles of preservation and radical
searchers in strategic management and organization stud- change. Presumably, during periods of radical change,
ies. new organizational forms would emerge. Many empirical
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

Moreover, the time horizon for undertaking coevolu- retrospective case studies report on major organization
tion studies remains indeterminate. Theories and models rejuvenation and restructuring (e.g., Baden-Fuller and
of coevolution are silent on this issue. Yet the choice of Stopford 1992, Miller 1990, Pettigrew 1985). But the em-
the time horizon can be important in the conduct and pirical evidence does not seem to support reinvention and
interpretation of any longitudinal time series or coevo- mutation of organization form. To a large extent, this is
lution study. Barnett and Hansen (1996), for example, because of the lack of adequate theory for guiding re-
create a data set for the years 1900 to 1993. At present, search on mutation of organizations over time with a fo-
the choice of the time dimension in longitudinal research cus on tracking firm level adaptations. In our view, ge-
remains an arbitrary factor. Nevertheless, early coevolu- nealogical evolution or mutation of new organizational
tion studies using strategic and organization adaptation forms cannot be ruled out (Lewin et al., this issue). Pro-
data sequences (Hunter 1999; Lewin and Weigelt 1999; cesses affecting the mutation of new genealogical entities
Van den Bosch et al., this issue; Baden-Fuller et al. 1999; from the old remain largely unexplored (Baum and Singh
Webb and Pettigrew, this issue) reveal new insights about 1994).
population phenomena and, more important, about the Under what conditions are new organizational forms
adaptive behavior of individual and outlier organiza- likely to emerge from the existing stock? The same en-
tions—those that significantly outperform or underper- vironmental discontinuities that usher in new entrants can
form the population average. be expected to promote conditions of mutation of the ex-
McKelvey (1997) argues that coevolution studies isting stock of organizations. Therefore, populations of
should use data consisting of rates of change in the vari- organizations undergoing discontinuous change should
ables and measures of interest. The underlying assump- become the focal object of such studies—industries un-
tion is that time series of rates of change capture or reflect dergoing deconstruction involving technological, envi-
adaptation outcomes that are independent of firm micro-
ronmental, and economic discontinuities (e.g., retailing,
contextual details. For example, in strategic management,
financial services, biotechnology, and telecommunica-
research contrasting above- and below-average perfor-
tions). The challenge of undertaking such research in real
mance over long time periods can be assumed to reflect
time is to study the total population, to specify the appro-
firm-specific adaptation factors (e.g., exploitation and ex-
priate coevolutionary system, to identify the elements of
ploration, absorptive capacity, path dependence) that dis-
new organizational forms most likely to be mutated, and
tinguish between these two subpopulations when found-
ing conditions and environmental change event histories to adopt an open-ended program of research.
have been incorporated in the coevolutionary analysis. It is altogether clear to us that if current organizational
Although such large-scale longitudinal coevolutionary diversity is to be interpreted as a reflection of a long his-
studies are only starting to appear, they point to new di- tory of variation and selection, a deeper understanding of
rections in empirical research on the selection adaptation how organizational forms come to be different and remain
puzzle. different through time is required. We have already sug-
gested that populations of organizations in deconstructing
environments should become the research target. This
Research on New Organizational Forms still leaves open the question of which organizations and
In the previous section we discussed the “how” of un- what dimensions of organizational forms should be stud-
derstanding coevolution research. This section addresses ied.
where and when scholars should undertake research on The new organizational forms are assumed to evolve
the emergence of new organizational forms. Specifically, new higher order capabilities to explore new opportuni-
which organizations and what aspects of organizational ties effectively, as well as to exploit those opportunities
forms should be studied? The mutation of new organi- of flexibility and adaptivity (Volberda 1998). These so-
zational forms from the existing stock of organizations is called hyperadaptive forms have been variously described
largely underresearched. New entrants and/or radical as disposable organizations (March 1995), poised orga-
technological innovations have been shown to originate nization (Kauffman 1995), at the edge of chaos (Brown

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999 529

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

and Eisenhardt 1998, Kauffman 1995), dissipative struc- Dijksterhuis et al. (this issue) stress the role of manage-
tures (Prigogine and Stengers 1984), semistructures ment logics as contextual intervening variable in the co-
(Brown and Eisenhardt 1997), hypertext form (Nonaka evolution of organizational forms. In this paper, organi-
and Takeuchi 1995) or, more generally, flexible organi- zation adaptations executed by managers are expected to
zations that somehow internalize friction between change reflect the managerial schema (contextual application of
and preservation (Volberda 1996, 1998). While the ideas management logic) regardless of the rate of change in the
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

are not new (Weick 1979), complexity theory develops environment. As a consequence, firms that tend to favor
the basic arguments for how organizations coevolve on a classical logic will be selected out at increasing rates as
fitness landscape to a poised state between order and the environment becomes more turbulent. Van den Bosch
chaos (Kauffman 1995). et al. (this issue) develop a framework that operational-
At this “edge of chaos,” an organization is assumed to izes organization absorptive capacity for assimilating new
optimize the benefits of stability, while retaining the ca- knowledge as mediating variable of organization adap-
pacity to change, by combining and recombining both tation. This paper serves to highlight the importance of
path dependence and path creation processes (Baum and operationalizing and documenting mediating processes
Korn 1999). Such an organization creates sufficient struc- such as absorptive capacity, knowledge creation, legacy,
ture to maintain basic order but minimizes structural in- semiautonomous structures, and managerial intentional-
terdependencies. It evolves internal processes that un- ity. Finally, v. Werder (this issue) raises the issue of ar-
leash emergent processes such as improvisation (Weick gumentation rationality of managerial decision making.
1998), self-organizing (Anderson 1999b), emergent strat- The paper links levels of argumentation rationality to de-
egies (Ilinitch et al. 1998, Brown and Eisenhardt 1998), cisions involving exploration adaptations and, indirectly,
and strange attractors (e.g., product champions). It in- to coevolutionary outcomes.
volves a new underlying management logic founded on In conclusion with this Prolegomena we advance ar-
principles of self-organization, trust in bottom-up pro- guments for why and how a coevolutionary perspective
cesses, and effectiveness of equifinal outcomes (Lewin and framework of analysis can provide a new lens and
1999; Dijksterhuis et al., this issue). new directions for research in strategic management and
Because no single organization will discover and mu- organization studies. We identify the distinguishing prop-
tate the ultimate “reduced form” of the emerging hyper- erties of coevolution in an attempt to define coevolution-
adaptive organization, the research challenge is to gather ary research from other evolutionary research in social
data on microstate adaptations that track the mutation of sciences. We also outline and discuss the empirical chal-
the anticipated desired attributes. One suggestion is to lenges and requirements for undertaking research within
target organizations that have a history of sustaining ris- coevolutionary inquiry systems. In particular we stress
ing rates of wealth creation in times of disorder (Lewin the relevance of specifying coevolutionary models for re-
et al., this issue). Such organizations are more likely to framing the selection adaptation standoff when applied to
have internalized both exploitation and exploration ad- research on organization change over time, in general,
aptation capabilities and therefore may be better posi- and specifically to the mutation and emergence of new
tioned to mutate higher order adaptive capabilities. In this organizational forms.
focused issue, for example, Djelic and Ainamo (this is- Furthermore, a coevolutionary framework has the po-
sue) develop a historical perspective on coevolution of tential to bridge and reintegrate strategy and organization
new forms in the high-fashion industry. The paper details theory teaching and research within a holistic framework.
the effect of institutional constraints and historical legacy In our view such a reintegration is the sine qua non for
on coevolution of new forms in the luxury fashion mar- studying organizational change over time and parallels
ket. Similarly, Sakano and Lewin (this issue) report coun- the world of management practice where organization ad-
try effects (Japan vs. U.S.), as well as CEO intentionality aptations and strategy are intertwined and interdependent
as important driving factors of coevolution of firm strat- processes. We believe that the direction that we have out-
egies and organizational forms. Also, Whittington et al. lined in this Prolegomena and the collection of papers in
(this issue) show the impact of national institutional con- this volume will unleash a sense of renewed purpose for
texts on organizational change in the new competitive the field of organization studies and answer the call of
landscape. Webb and Pettigrew (this issue) illuminate the Daft and Lewin (1993) for new theories and research on
nature of dynamic changes unfolding within the insurance organizational forms.
industry in the U.K. and that these changes were also Acknowledgments
affected by competitive moves of the players themselves, We are indebted to many colleagues and research collaborators for
as well as by strategic change and mimetic isomorphism. seemingly endless discussions and feedback. In particular we wish to

530 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

acknowledge Frans Van den Bosch, Charles Baden-Fuller, Phil An- ———, H. J. Korn. 1999. Dynamics of dyadic competitive interaction.
derson, and Mitchell Koza for their suggestions and comments on ear- Strategic Management J. 20(3) 251–278.
lier drafts. We are especially indebted to Bill McKelvey for his active ———, J. V. Singh. 1994. Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations.
support and careful comments. Finally, we wish to thank our research Oxford University Press, NY.
assistants Carmen Weigelt, Jisung Kim, Marten Stienstra, and Billie Beinhocker, E. 1997. Strategy at the edge of chaos. McKinsey Quart.
Maciunas for editorial assistance. (1) 25–39.
Boulding, W., R. Staelin. 1995. Identifying generalizable effects of
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

References strategic actions on firm performance: The case of demand-side

Abbott, A. 1990. A primer on sequence methods. Organ. Sci. 1(4) 375– returns to R&D spending. Marketing Sci. 14(3) G222–236.
392. Brown, S. L., Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997 The art of continuous change:
Aldrich, H. E. 1979. Organizations and Environments. Prentice-Hall, Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relent-
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. lessly shifting organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1) 1–34.
———, S. Mueller. 1982. The evolution of organizational forms: ———, ———. 1998. Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured
Technology, coordination, and control. B. M. Staw, L. L. Chaos. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Cummings, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior. JAI Press. Bruderer, E., J. V. Singh. 1996. Organizational evolution, learning, and
Greenwich, CT. 4 33–87. selection: A genetic-algorithm-based model. Acad. Management
———, J. Pfeffer. 1976. Environments of organizations. Annual Rev. J. 39(5) 1322–1349.
Sociology 2 121–140. Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making
———, C. Zimmer. 1986. Entrepreneurship through social networks. and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organ.
D. Sexton, R. Smilor, eds. The Art and Science of Entrepreneur- Sci. 2(3) 239–262.
ship. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 3–23. ———. 1994. Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business
Anderson, P. 1999a. Complexity theory and organization science. Or- exit in dynamic environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(1) 24–56.
gan. Sci. 10(3) 216–232. ———. 1996. A process model of strategic business exit: Implications
———. 1999b. The role of the manager in a self-organizing enterprise. for an evolutionary perspective on strategy. Strategic Manage-
John Clippinger ed. The Biology of Business: Decoding the Nat- ment J. 17(Supp., Evolutionary Perspectives on Strategy) 193–
214.
ural Laws of Enterprise. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Forthcom-
Burns, T., G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tav-
ing.
istock, London.
———, A. Meyer, K. Eisenhardt, K. Carley, A. Pettigrew. 1999. In-
Calori, R., M. Lubatkin, P. Very, J. F. Veiga. 1997. Modelling the
troduction to the special issue: Applications of complexity theory
origins of nationally bound administrative heritages: A historical
to organization science. Organ. Sci. 10(3) 233–236.
institutional analysis of French and British firms. Organ. Sci. 8(6)
Argyris, C., D. A. Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of
681–696.
Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Carley, K. M. 1995. Computational and mathematical organization the-
Baden-Fuller, C., J. M. Stopford. 1992. Rejuvenating the Mature Busi-
ory: Perspective and directions. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory
ness: The Competitive Challenge. Routledge, NY.
1(1) 39–56.
———, B. Flier, E. Gedajlovic, F. A. J. Van den Bosch, H. W.
Carroll, L. 1946. Through the Looking Glass & What Alice Found
Volberda. 1999. Co-evolution of the dutch financial services sec-
There. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
tor: Describing and analyzing trajectories of strategic renewal.
Casti, J. 1994. Complexification: Explaining a Paradoxical World
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Man-
through the Science of Surprise. HarperCollins, New York.
agement, August 6–11, Chicago. Chan, D. 1998. The conceptualization and analysis of change over
Bain, J. S. 1959. Industrial Organization. Wiley, NY. time: An integrative approach incorporating longitudinal mean
Barnett, W. P., R. A. Burgelman. 1996. Evolutionary perspectives on and covariance structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indi-
strategy. Strategic Management J. 17(Summer) 5–19. cator latent growth modeling (MLGM). Organ. Res. Methods
———, H. R. Greve, D. Y. Park. 1994. An evolutionary model of or- 1(4).
ganizational performance. Strategic Management J. 15(Special Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History
Issue) 11–28. of the American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge,
———, M. T. Hansen. 1996. The Red Queen in Organizational Evo- MA.
lution. Strategic Management J. 17(Supp.) 139–157. Child, J. 1972. Organization structure, environment and performance:
Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advan- The role of strategic choice. Sociology 6(1) 1–22.
tage. J. Management 17 139–157. ———. 1997. Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, or-
Baum, J. A. C. 1996. Organizational ecology. Stewart R. Clegg, ganizations and environment: Retrospect and prospect. Organi-
Cynthia Hardy, Walter R. Nord, eds. Handbook of Organization zation Studies. 18(1) 43–76.
Studies. Sage, London. 77–114. Ciborra, C. U. 1996. The platform organization: Recombining strate-
———. 1999. Whole-part coevolutionary competition in organiza- gies, structures, and surprises. Organ. Studies 7(2) 103–118.
tions. J. A. C. Baum, B. McKelvey, eds. Variations in Organi- Coase, R. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica. 386–405.
zation Science: In Honor of Donald T. Campbell. Sage, London. Cohen, J., I. Stewart. 1994. The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Sim-
7 113–135. plicity in a Complex World. Viking, New York.

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999 531

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

Cohen, W. M., D. A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new per- Handy, C. 1995. The Age of Unreason. Arrow Business Books, Lon-
spective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1) don.
128–152. Hannan, M. T., J. H. Freeman. 1977. The population ecology of or-
Conner, K. R., C. K. Prahalad. 1996. A resource-based theory of the ganizations. American Journal of Sociology. 82(5) 929–963.
firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organ. Sci. 7(5) 477–501. ———, ———. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change.
Cyert, R. M., J. G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Amer. Sociological Rev. 49(2) 149–164.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hedberg, B. 1981. How organizations learn and unlearn. Paul C.
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

Daft, R. L., A. Y. Lewin. 1990. Can organization studies begin to break Nystrom, William H. Starbuck, eds. Handbook of Organizational
out of the normal science straitjacket? An editorial essay. Organ. Design. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York.
Sci. 1(1) 1–9. ———, S. Jonsson. 1978. Designing semi-confusing information sys-
———, ———. 1993. Where are the theories for the ‘new’ organi- tems for organizations in changing environments. Accounting,
zational forms? An editorial essay. Organ. Sci. 4(4) i–iv. Organ. Society 3(1) 47–64.
D’Aveni, R. A., R. E. Gunther. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the ———, P. Nystrom, W. H. Starbuck. 1976. Camping on seesaws: Pre-
Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. The Free Press, New York. scriptions for a self-designing organization. Admin. Sci. Quart.
Davidow, W. H., M. S. Malone. 1992. The Virtual Corporation: Struc- 21(1) 41–65.
turing and Revitalizing the Corporation for the 21st Century. Henderson, R., W. Mitchell. 1997. The interactions of organizational
HarperBusiness, New York. and competitive influences on strategy and performance. Strategic
Dijksterhuis, M., F. Van den Bosch, H. Volberda. 1999. Where do new Management J. 18(Summer Special Issue) 5–14.
organizational forms come from? Management logics as a source Heylighen, F., D. T. Campbell. 1995. Selection of organization at the
of coevolution. Organ. Sci. 10(5). This issue. social level: Obstacles and facilitators of metasystem transitions.
DiMaggio, P., W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional World Futures: J. General Evolution (Special Issue) 181–212.
isomorphism, and collective rationality in organization fields. Holland, J. H. 1999. Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Addison-Wes-
Amer. Sociological Rev. 48(2) 147–160. ley Reading.
Djelic, M. L., A. Ainamo. 1999. The coevolution of new organization Hrebiniak, L. G., W. F. Joyce. 1985. Organizational adaptation: Stra-
forms in the fashion industry: A historical and comparative study tegic choice and environmental determinism. Admin. Sci. Quart.
of France, Italy, and the United States. Organ. Sci. 10(5). This 30(Sept.) 336–349.
issue. Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes
Donaldson, L. 1988. In successful defence of organization theory: A and literatures. Organ. Sci. 2(1) 88–115.
routing of the critics. Organ. Studies 9(1) 28–32. ———, A. H. Van de Ven. 1995. Longitudinal Field Research Meth-
Duncan, R. B. 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual ods: Studying Processes of Organizational Change. Sage, Thou-
structures for innovation. Ralph H. Kilmann, Louis R. Pondy, sand Oaks, CA.
Dennis P. Slevin, eds. The Management of Organization Design. Hunter, S. D. 1999. Information technology and organization structure.
North Holland, New York. v. 1. Unpublished dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Fiol, C. M., M. A. Lyles. 1985. Organizational learning. Acad. Man- Huygens, M. 1999. Co-evolution of capabilities and competition: A
agement Rev. 10(4) 803–813. study of the music industry. Rotterdam, PhD Series in General
Galunic, D. C., K. M. Eisenhardt. 1996. The evolution of intracorporate Management, Rotterdam School of Management (33). Rotterdam,
domains: Divisional charter losses in high-technology, multidi- The Netherlands.
visional corporations. Organ. Sci. 7(3) 255–282. Ilinitch, A. Y., A. Y. Lewin, R. A. D’Aveni. 1998. Managing in Times
Garud, R., A. H. Van de Ven. 1992. An empirical evaluation of the of Disorder: Hypercompetitive Organizational Responses. Sage,
internal corporate venturing process. Strategic Management J. 13 Thousand Oaks, CA.
93–109. Ingram, P., P. W. Roberts. 1999. Suborganizational evolution in the
Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multi-level U.S. pharmaceutical industry. J. A. C. Baum, B. McKelvey, eds.
exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Acad. Man- Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of Donald T.
agement Rev. 16(1) 10–36. Campbell. Sage, London.
Grant, R. M. 1996. Prospering in dynamically competitive environ- Kauffman, S. A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-organization and
ments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Or- Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
gan. Sci. 7(4) 375–387. ———. 1995. Technology and evolution: Escaping the Red Queen
Greenwood, R., C. R. Hinings. 1996. Understanding radical organiza- effect. McKinsey Quart. 1995(1) 118–129.
tional change: Bringing together the old and the new institution- Khandwalla, P. N. 1977. The Design of Organizations. Harcourt Brace
alism. Acad. Management Rev. 21(4) 1022–1054. Jovanovich, New York.
Hamel, G. 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning Kieser, A. 1989. Organizational, institutional, and societal evolution:
within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management J. Medieval craft guilds and the genesis of formal organizations.
12 83–103. Admin. Sci. Quart. 34(4) 540–564.
Hanaoka, Y., T. Sakano. 1999. Co-evolution of IT-enabled organiza- ———. 1994. Why organization theory needs historical analyses—
tional changes in Japanese retailing industry: A longitudinal study and how this should be performed. Organ. Sci. 5(4) 608–620.
(1980–1977). Paper presented at Annual Acad. Management Koza, M. P., A. Y. Lewin. 1998. The co-evolution of strategic alli-
Meeting, August 6–11, Chicago. ances. Organ. Sci. 9(3) 255–264.

532 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

Lant, T. K., S. Mezias. 1990. Managing discontinuous change: A simu- Miles, R. E., C. C. Snow. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure,
lation study of organizational learning and entrepreneurship. Stra- and Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
tegic Management J. 11(Summer) 147–179. ———, ———. 1986. Organizations: new concepts for new forms.
Lawless, M. W., A. Y. Lewin, J. Kim. 1999. Evolution of alliances in California Management Rev. 28(3) 62–73.
increasingly turbulent environments: U.S. telecommunications, ———, ———. 1994. Fit, Failure, and the Hall of Fame: How Com-
1986–1998. Strategic Management Society, 19th Annual Inter- panies Succeed or Fail. Free Press, New York.
national Conference, Berlin, Germany. ———, ———, J. A. Mathews, G. Miles, H. J. Coleman Jr. 1997.
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

Lawrence, P. R., J. W. Lorsch. 1967. Organization and Environment: Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form.
Managing Differentiation and Integration. Division of Research, Acad. Management Executive 11(4) 7–20.
Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Miller, D. 1990. The Icarus Paradox: How Exceptional Companies
Boston. Bring about Their Own Downfall. Harper-Collins, New York.
Learned, E. P. 1969. Business Policy: Text and Cases. R. D. Irwin, ———, M.-J. Chen. 1994. Sources and consequences of competitive
Homewood, IL. inertia: A study of the U.S. airline industry. Admin. Sci. Quart.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A par- 39(1).
adox in managing new product development. Strategic Manage- ———, P. H. Friesen. 1982. The longitudinal analysis of organiza-
ment J. 13(Special Issue) 111–125.
tions. Management Sci. 28(9).
Levinthal, D. A. 1991. Random walks and organizational mortality.
Mintzberg, H. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of
Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(3) 397–420.
the Research. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
———. 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Sci.
Nelson, R. R., S. G. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Eco-
43(7) 934–950.
nomic Change. Belknap, Cambridge, MA.
———, J. G. March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Man-
Nonaka, I., H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company.
agement J. 14(Special Issue) 95–112.
Oxford University Press, New York.
———, J. Myatt. 1994. Co-evolution of capabilities and industry: The
evolution of mutual fund processing. Strategic Management J. Obel, B., B. Eriksen, M. Sondergaard, B. G. Sorensen. 1999. Co-
15(Special Issue) 45–62. evolution and organizational consequences of mergers in Danish
Levitt, B., J. G. March. 1988. Organizational learning. W. R. Scott, ed. financial services industry 1985–1996. Annual Meeting of the
Annual Review of Sociology. 14 Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA. Academy of Management, August 6–11, Chicago.
319–340. Penrose, E. T. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Wiley,
Lewin, A. Y. 1999. Application of complexity theory to organization New York.
science. Organ. Sci. 10(3) 215. Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A
———, C. P. Long, T. N. Carroll. 1999. The coevolution of new or- resource-based view. Strategic Management J. 14(3) 179–191.
ganizational forms. Organ. Sci. 10(5). This issue. Pettigrew, A. 1985. The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in
———, C. U. Stephens. 1993. Designing postindustrial organizations: Imperial Chemical Industries. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Combining theory and practice. G. P. Huber, W. H. Glick, eds. ———. 1995. Examining change in the long-term context of culture
Organizational Change and Redesign. Oxford University Press, and politics. J. M. Pennings and Associates, eds. Organizational
NY. 393–409. Strategy and Change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 269–318.
———, C. Weigelt. 1999. Co-Evolution of the U.S. Commercial Bank- Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing
ing Industry: A Longitudinal Analysis of Mergers As a Strategy Industries and Competitors. Free Press, New York.
of Wealth Creation (1982–1997). Annual Meeting of the Acad- ———. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Su-
emy of Management, August 6–11, Chicago. perior Performance. Free Press, New York.
Lippman, S. L., R. P. Rumelt. 1982. Uncertain imitability: An analysis Prigogine, I., I. Stengers. 1984. Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Di-
of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell J. alogue with Nature. Bantam Books, New York.
Econom. 13(2) 418–438. Romanelli, E. 1991. The evolution of new organizational forms. An-
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational nual Rev. Sociology 17 79–103.
learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1) 71–87.
Rosenkopf, L., A. Nerkar. 1999. On the complexity of technological
———. 1994. The evolution of evolution. Joel A. C. Baum, Jitendra
evolution: Exploring coevolution within and across hierarchical
V. Singh, eds. Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. Oxford
levels in optical disc technology. J. A. C. Baum, B. McKelvey,
University Press, New York, p. 501.
eds. Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of Donald T.
———. 1995. The future, disposable organizations, and the rigidities
of imagination. Organization. 2(3/4) 427–440. Campbell. Sage, London.
Mason, I. E. 1949. The current status of the monopoly problem in the Sabherwal, R., D. Robey. 1993. An empirical taxonomy of implemen-
U.S. Harvard Law Rev. 62(8). tation processes based on sequences of events in information sys-
McKelvey, B. 1997. Quasi-natural organization science. Organ. Sci. tem development. Organ. Sci. 4(4) 548–576.
8(4) 352–380. Sakano, T., A. Y. Lewin. 1999. Impact of CEO succession in Japanese
Mezias, S. J., T. K. Lant. 1994. Mimetic learning and the evolution of companies: A coevolutionary perspective. Organ. Sci. 10(5). This
organizational populations. J. A. C. Baum, J. V. Singh, eds. Evo- issue.
lutionary Dynamics of Organizations. Oxford University Press, Sanderson, S. W., M. Uzumeri. 1997. Managing Product Families. Ir-
New York. win, Chicago.

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999 533

 ARIE Y. LEWIN AND HENK W. VOLBERDA A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms

Schumpeter, J. A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organiza-
& Brothers, New York. tional forms and combinative capabilities. Organ. Sci. 10(5). This
Shepard, H. A. 1967. Innovation-resisting and innovation-producing issue.
organizations. J. Bus. 40(4) 470–477. Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1
Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Organizations and social structure. J. G. 1–30.
March, ed. Handbook of Organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago. Volberda, H. W. 1996. Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital
142–193. in hypercompetitive environments. Organ. Sci. 7(4) 359–374.
Downloaded from informs.org by [115.249.96.2] on 03 September 2022, at 02:23 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

Teece, D. J. 1984. Economic analysis and strategic management. Cali- ———. 1998. Building the Flexible Firm: How to Remain Competi-
fornia Management Rev. 26(Spring) 87–110. tive. Oxford University Press, New York.
———, G. Pisano, A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic Webb, D., A. Pettigrew. 1999. The temporal development of strategy:
management. Strategic Management J. 18(7) 509–533. Patterns in the U.K. insurance industry. Organ. Sci. 10(5). This
———, R. Rumelt, G. Dosi, S. Winter. 1993. Understanding corporate issue.
coherence: Theory and evidence. J. Econom. Behavior and Or- Weber, M. 1978/1910. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpre-
gan. 23(1) 1–30. tive Sociology. Translated by G. Roth and C. Wittich. University
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of California Press, Berkeley.
of Administrative Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York. Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-
Tushman, M. L., P. Anderson. 1986. Technological discontinuities and Wesley, Reading, MA.
organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(3) 439–465. ———. 1982. Management of organizational change among loosely
———, I. O’Reilly, C. A. 1996. The ambidextrous organization: Man- coupled elements. P. S. Goodman, ed. Change in Organizations:
aging evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Man- New Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice. Jossey-
agement Rev. 38(4) 8–30. Bass, San Francisco. 375–408.
———, E. Romanelli. 1985. Organizational evolution: A metamor- ———. 1998. Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis.
Organ. Science 9(5) 543–555.
phosis model of convergence and reorientation. B. M. Staw, L. L.
v. Werder, A. 1999. Argumentation rationality of management deci-
Cummings, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior. JAI,
sions. Organ. Sci. 10(5). This issue.
Greenwich, CT. 171–222.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Man-
———, L. Rosenkopf. 1996. Executive succession, strategic reorien-
agement J. 5(2).
tation and performance growth: A longitudinal study in the U.S.
Whittington, R., A. Pettigrew, S. Peck, E. Fenton, M. Conyon. 1999.
cement industry. Management Sci. 42(7) 939–953.
Change and complementarities in the new competitive landscape:
Utikal, H., O. Schliebusch, L. Theuvsen. 1999. From hierarchy to mar- A European panel study, 1992–1996. Organ. Sci. 10(5). This is-
ket: Co-evolution of new forms of organizing in the German au- sue.
tomotive and chemical industry. Annual Meeting of the Academy Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies. Free Press, New
of Management, August 6–11, Chicago. York.
Utterback, J. M., W. J. Abernathy. 1975. A dynamic model of process ———. 1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of
and product innovation. Omega 3(6) 639–656. discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(2) 269–296.
Van de Ven, A. H., D. N. Grazman. 1999. Evolution in a nested hier- Winter, S. G. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets.
archy. A genealogy of twin cities health care organizations, 1853– David J. Teece, ed. The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for
1995. J. A. C. Baum, B. McKelvey, eds. Variations in Organi- Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
zation Science: In Honor of Donald T. Campbell. Sage, London. Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice.
Van den Bosch, F., H. Volberda, M. de Boer. 1999. Coevolution of Oxford University Press, New York.

534 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE /Vol. 10, No. 5, September–October 1999