Search results

This article aims at reframing organizational change from a processual perspective to transcend the polarized tensions between planned and emergent approaches to change and to better align with the lived reality of practitioners. It informs the field of learning and development with fresh insights on how to broaden sensemaking repertoires of managers and employees in realizing organizational change.

To understand how change agents conceptualize organizational change at a conceptual level, this article relies on Heidegger’s three modes of being-in-the-world to identify three dominant conceptualizations of organizational change and subsequently theorizes on corresponding phenomenological qualities of sensemaking.

This article develops a theoretical scaffolding that posits the emergence of organizational change as dialectic process of three different conceptualizations of change, i.e. wayfinding logic, managerialistic logic and reflexive logic, that translate into three different phenomenological qualities of sensemaking, i.e. absorbed sensemaking, detached sensemaking and mindful sensemaking, respectively.

A processual reframing of organizational change informs learning and development scholars and practitioners in at least three ways: raising awareness of and probing underlying managerial assumptions of what change is and how change should be managed, training managers and employees to deal with sensemaking processes to effectively realize organizational change, and actively assist in developing a broader sensemaking repertoire to deal with the equivocality associated organizational change.

This processual reframing contributes to the sensemaking literature on organizational change by reframing change as a dialectic process of different underlying assumptions of change agents, and different qualities of sensemaking of change. It pinpoints to concrete actions that learning and development professionals can initiate to contribute to more effective change management practices.

The purpose of this paper is to show how manufacturers evolve when aiming at increasing customer value via the service addition path. More specifically, it aims to identify drivers and inhibitors as well as trajectories to reach “ideal” service addition types.

This paper employs a multiple case study design. In total 12 in‐depth interviews were conducted with managers from machine building manufacturers resulting in five longitudinal case studies of “best practice” companies. The paper is grounded in the “integrated solutions” research paradigm.

Four types of service addition can be identified based on this multiple case study. Diverse drivers push companies to higher degrees of customization and to less tangible offerings via different trajectories. On these trajectories, though, they are likely to encounter inhibitors.

The qualitative nature of this paper acts as a basis for future research efforts. On the one hand this paper has traditional shortcomings typical of interpretive studies. On the other, future research is stimulated as the exploratory but rich and longitudinal findings suggest further testing and development.

A strategy of service addition is frequently used by industrial companies to seek customer value and escape price pressure. This paper offers a framework that helps managers chose from the potential set of service addition types. The paper also identifies difficulties (the so‐called “inhibitors”) companies might encounter when pursuing this strategy.

The rich case‐based methodology enables the development of a preliminary model that identifies types of service addition and corresponding transition trajectories. The paper adds to the emergent “theory on service business for manufacturing firms” by offering a typology and an industry‐specific view on drivers and inhibitors of service addition along the different transition trajectories.

This paper seeks to develop a mid-range theory of how change recipient sensemaking processes affect the realization of strategic flexibility during simultaneous change in professional service firms.

The research presented is based on an exploratory embedded case study adopting a qualitative interpretive methodology, conducted at a professional service organization. A sensemaking lens was adopted in order to study organizational change processes. Data was collected through semi-structured open-ended in-depth interviews, and analyzed using first and second order analysis, inspired by the methodology used by Corley and Gioia (2004).

We identified four determinants of change recipient sensemaking: professional identification, dominant organizational discourse, equivocality of expectations, and cross-understanding between thought worlds. Case findings indicate that cognitive and affective dimensions of change recipient sensemaking are strongly interwoven in their effect on realizing strategic flexibility.

We contribute to the competence-based strategic management literature by introducing the concept of change recipient sensemaking in understanding the realization of strategic flexibility; by identifying four major determinants in a context of simultaneous change in a professional service organization; and by highlighting the interwoven and mutually reinforcing cognitive and affective dimensions of professional’s process of constructing meaning.

The purpose of this paper is organizing mindfully for relevant process research on strategic change. This essay arises from an increasing concern that our understanding of strategic change is not delivering meaningful, relevant and true process wisdom that allows researchers to enrich their academic discourse and practitioners to effectively realize strategic change imposed by hostile business markets. Our goal is to challenge fundamental assumptions of our field’s dominant discourse in performing research and generating theories for strategic change under real contexts, and redirect attention to a mindful organizing perspective to understand process elements of strategic change that really matter.

This paper is an essay based on theoretical reasoning. We address the relevance gap in the strategic business marketing field by focusing on one specific gap: the study and understanding of strategic change. To illustrate the relevance of a mindful organizing perspective for closing this relevance gap, we focus on the processes of mindful organizing identified by Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) and argue how these organizational processes contribute to a better understanding of strategic change while implicitly assuming a complexity-based perspective on organizing. These five processes, moreover, address the identified limitations of present approaches, i.e. formative causality, pre-interpretation and independent linearity.

We suggest a “provocative change research avenue” elaborating on the role of mindful organizing to bridge the relevance gap in this area. This advances a richer and more relevant framing to elevate theorizing in the area of strategic marketing and management beyond existing avenues, which not necessarily reflects organizational life’s equivocality, interdependencies and intricacies. We, thus, call for the field of strategic marketing and management to adopt a discourse grounded in complexity-based assumptions.

Overall, this essay highlights that closing relevance gaps in our field cannot be done with quick fix recipes. The endeavor implies a fundamental re-framing of the way we look at firms and managers. It also implies different theoretical underpinnings and more interpretive research approaches to tap the richness in real-life business settings. By focusing on one area, we have shown how such an effort might proceed.

Although the paper is mainly written for researchers of change processes and innovation in industrial companies, practitioners will get inspiration as several viewpoints for mindful organizing will help them in building a more realistic and viable change approach.

Our intended contribution is to advocate a deeper and richer process understanding of strategic change by advancing mindful organizing as an epistemological and praxeological perspective on strategic change, thereby bridging the relevance gap (Hodgkinson and Rousseau, 2009; Weick, 2001) and enriching our field’s strategic change theories. Epistemologically, mindful organizing offers a useful perspective by stressing the change process’ complexity, interdependence and emergence. Praxeologically, mindful organizing represents an adaptive organizational capability that allows organizations to develop higher awareness of their strategic change processes.

Manufacturers increasingly seek new ways to add customer value and differentiate. However, in business markets such efforts often remain relatively unsuccessful, leading to a large number of services offered and higher costs, but with limited corresponding returns. Based on extensive expert interviews and case study research, this paper studies how suppliers in the highly commoditized metalworking industry try to realize new types of customer value. The paper identifies “ideal” value positions pursued by Belgian contract manufacturers and service providers in order to survive in an industry characterized by fierce price competition from low labor cost countries. Further, the paper shows how companies can migrate to these “ideal” value offerings. Key success factors and potential traps for each ideal type are identified. Market strategy transition necessitates an internal “alignment” strategy and an external “coevolution” with chain partners.

The purpose of this case study is to illustrate the difficulty of capturing value by an upstream supplier in a mature business market. The case shows how successful market introduction and value capturing, especially in the case of mature markets, are dependent on the dominant logic of the participants in the supply chain. Scholars can use the case for a class discussion on value pricing.

The approach takes the form of a multilevel case design as part of a larger project on value‐based pricing sponsored by the Dutch foundation of Technique and Marketing (STEM).

In this mature and technical industry, the dominant mindset of suppliers and customers turns out to be heavily biased towards cost containment. Also, a volume orientation and a short‐term perspective are typical. This leads to adversarial relations in the supply chain, which makes it difficult to jointly introduce new value concepts. Notwithstanding the innovativeness of a new packaging concept with clear potential advantages to all downstream players, it turns out to be difficult to align these players during market introduction. In sum, existing relations, pricing structures and competitive behavior hinder new concept introduction and a value‐sharing perspective.

With its focus on one industry and one product introduction, this case cannot be generalized to all business settings. However, the in‐depth analysis stimulates further research on value‐based pricing to incorporate industry characteristics and the pricing reality embedded in the dominant logic of the industry.

The experience of this company might inspire other managers operating in similar environments. Managers should not underestimate the challenge of changing their pricing approaches. Turning to a value‐based pricing might require a sustained effort in order to change industry rules.

The literature hails value‐based pricing without often considering the implementation difficulties. Especially upstream players have difficulties in capturing value inherent in their offerings.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on how new value creation can be driven by value innovation. It aims to study the process of value innovation within the functional foods industry, one of the fastest‐growing segments of the food industry. The paper seeks to highlight value innovation efforts by ingredient suppliers in the functional foods industry and to describe how suppliers seek to break the dominant logic, highlighting drivers of and obstacles to doing so.

The paper builds on a qualitative methodology. Two focus groups with participants from different levels in the industry's value chain were organized, combined with in‐depth interviews with managers and industry experts. This interpretive approach allows for the identifications of managerial cognitions, considered a necessity, given the fact that these types of innovations are hard‐to‐detect strategic “embryos” and they must be continuously contrasted against the experienced “industry recipe”.

The study pin‐points contrasting business logics at different levels in the chain, which might block value innovation. Value innovation initiatives in this industry are undertaken along two dimensions: breaking the dominant chain logic through new forms of collaboration and/or by crossing existing industry boundaries; and breaking the dominant product focus through introducing original value concepts. This study also revealed that upstream companies increasingly build competencies for value innovation.

Given the qualitative methodology, the study remains explorative in nature. Nevertheless, it can form the basis for further research by offering an approach to “operationalize” the identification of value innovation initiatives.

This research provides tools for managers in the food industry to question their value creation processes. For food companies the paper contains interesting thoughts on the industry recipes, methods for value innovation in this industry and suggestions on how to boost the value innovation propensity.

This is a first application of value innovation in the functional foods industry. The methodological approach used to identify the industry recipe and the dimensions found for categorizing value innovation efforts are also contributing to the “general” value innovation literature.

This paper tackles the issues surrounding interactions among firm, industry, and government policy. It focuses on such concepts as company self-interest, industry interest, competitive advantage, and industrial policy of government. Basing their analysis on a descriptive model of strategy formulation, and stressing the importance of intra-organizational political behavior, the authors conclude that subjectivity and discrepancy of interests are major phenomena inherent in every proclaimed industry interest. A short analysis on the origins and dynamics of competitive advantage illustrates that the dexterity of a government to create sustainable competitive advantages for firms is questionable. Subsequently, the authors examine the various general options available to government, ranging from “shelter” policies to policies emphasizing the comparative advantages of a region or industry. In a final section, some reflections are offered on effective directions of an industrial policy by the government. A small case study on the attractiveness of the Belgian economy for foreign investors concludes the discussion.

This report examines strategic innovation efforts of companies in an industry displaying traits of maturity. Strategic innovation efforts intend to create superior customer value and competitive advantage. Realizing the full benefits of these efforts necessitates that companies change their view on existing relationships in the supply chain of the industry under consideration. Based on case study research in nine installation companies in the Dutch electro technical industry, we conclude that a mismatch between intended strategies and the dominant logic of these companies (and their business partners) impedes strategic innovation efforts. We thus identify barriers to strategic innovation. This report suggests strategy options that have the potential to overcome these barriers and relate these options to managerial mindsets and cognitions with respect to competitive strategy, organization and network relationships.

This paper aims to apply innovation networks (INs) theory to the context of domesticated markets, where innovation triggers deinstitutionalization. In such contexts, the success of INs depends on their capacity to transform the business field in which they are embedded, so that it accommodates innovative business models. Such “institutional INs” beget a meso-level finality, and this poses different requirement on their effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to confront extant models of collaborative innovation in networks with this specific context to offer exploratory insights into how innovation can be achieved in domesticated contexts and what the differential implications are for network configurations and strategic “reinstitutionalization” practices.

Based on an illustrative embedded case study in the Dutch steel industry, a framework offering indications on the effectiveness of discrete configurational dimensions and their fit with reinstitutionalization practices for institutional INs is suggested. The case builds on 26 semi-structured interviews and 4 focus groups with top managers in the industry. As the aim is to extend theoretical models of INs to this under-researched context, an abductive approach to theorizing, consistent with the extended case method, is adopted.

Findings suggest that collaborating to redesign an institutionalized business field collectively implies a more explicit attention to interdependencies within the business field.

Besides suggesting modifications to extant frames regarding heterogeneity in and the configuration of networks, this paper has some practical implications. The framework proposed offers managers some support in the largely ignored issue of developing a collective action network. With these findings, we aspire to stimulate further research into this relevant, yet underdeveloped, topic.

The study extends IN theory toward innovation realization in domesticated contexts. In such contexts, IN’s success depends on their capacity to transform the business field in which they are embedded, so that it enables innovative ways of creating end-customer value. Besides suggesting a new area for theorizing about innovation networks, institutional innovation networks are also a useful template for institutional innovation and collective action research. The paper offers a framework to support managers in the largely ignored challenge of developing a collective action network. In an increasingly transparent, connected and consolidated business environment, such a challenge becomes ever more essential.