clarifying the dominant logic construct by ... - epub.wu.ac.at · alexander engelmann, barbara...

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 00, 1–33 (2020)DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12227

Clarifying the Dominant Logic Constructby Disentangling and Reassembling its

Dimensions

Alexander Engelmann, Barbara Kump1 and Christina Schweiger2

Department of Strategy & Innovation, WU – Vienna University of Economics & Business, Welthandelsplatz 1,Building D5, Vienna, 1020, Austria, 1Department of Global Business and Trade, WU – Vienna University ofEconomics & Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, Building D1, Vienna, 1020, Austria, and 2Department of HumanResources & Organisation, FHWien der WKW Vienna University of Applied Sciences for Management and

Communication, Waehringer Guertel 97, Vienna, 1180, AustriaCorresponding author email: [email protected]

Since its introduction, Prahalad and Bettis’s concept of dominant logic has informeda variety of scholarly conversations in management and strategy research. However,scholars have interpreted dominant logic in different ways, emphasizing different as-pects, such as managerial mindsets, administrative tools and management functions, asdefining elements. Similarly, empirical studies have captured various aspects, such asmeanings of entrepreneurs, observable strategic decisions and business model similar-ity, as indicators of dominant logic. Consequently, the concept lacks analytical clarity,and it is difficult to compare or generalize findings from this diverse set of studies.The aim of this review is to improve conceptual clarity by analysing, comparing andevaluating the existing interpretations and assessments of dominant logic in 94 studies.In the first part of the review, by disentangling the interpretations of the concept, weshow that dominant logic consists of four defining dimensions: (i) shared mental models;(ii) values and premises; (iii) organizational practices; and (iv) organizing structures. Inthe second part, we reassemble dominant logic into an integrative model and theorizeabout how these dimensions operate in concert to produce a firm’s dominant logic.Thus, our main contribution is a clarification and synthesis of the literature, whichcomes with implications on how future research can conceptualize and operationalizedominant logic more consistently.

Introduction

More than three decades ago, Prahalad and Bettis(1986, p. 491) introduced the concept of domi-nant logic, which they defined as ‘a mindset or aworldview or conceptualization of the business andthe administrative tools to accomplish goals andmake decisions in that business’. Their aim was tocomplement the extant economic perspectives on therelationship between diversification and firm perfor-mance by adding a cognitive explanation. Since then,the concept has been further refined (e.g. Bettis andPrahalad 1995; Bettis et al. 2011; Cote et al. 1999;von Krogh and Roos 1996) and associated with a

diverse set of variables, such as technological change(Zyglidopoulos 1999), entrepreneurial identityconstruction (Downing 2005), joint venture success(Guidice and Mero 2007) and dynamic managerialcapabilities (Kor and Mesko 2013). Empirically,dominant logic has been linked with a variety ofoutcomes, such as strategic acquisitions (Cote et al.1999), joint venture decisions (Lampel and Shamsie2000), entrepreneurial firm performance (Obloj et al.2010) and attention to stakeholders (Crilly and Sloan2012). Moreover, methodological reflections haveaddressed opportunities to empirically operationalizedominant logic (e.g. Laukkanen 1994; Phillipset al. 2008; Schraven et al. 2015). All these studies

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distributionand reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.C© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and JohnWiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1111%2Fijmr.12227&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-05-10

2 A. Engelmann et al.

underscore the richness of the concept and its impacton the scholarly conversations in management andstrategy research.

What is striking when examining the literature,however, is the plethora of interpretations andempirical approaches to investigating dominant logic– although most researchers have used Prahaladand Bettis’s (1986) original definition. For example,some researchers interpret a firm’s dominant logic as‘habitual modes of functioning based on prior suc-cesses and failures’ (Cote et al. 1999, p. 921); othersdescribe it as ‘a system of expectations, beliefs, andpriorities that are embedded in the firm’s routines,procedures, and resource commitments’ (Kor andMesko 2013, pp. 235–236); still others suggest that itconsists of sensemaking, choices, learning and rou-tines (Obloj et al. 2010). Similarly, empirical studiesinclude different phenomena, such as the decision-making patterns of globally distributed business units(Lampel and Shamsie 2000), shared orientationstoward childcare in firms (Kossek et al. 1994) andbusiness model similarity between subsidiariesand headquarters (Monteiro 2015) – all of whichare interpreted as indicators of a firm’s dominantlogic.

The success of the concept is not surprising, givenits intuitive nature, providing scholars and practition-ers with an appealing term for describing an organi-zation’s unique ways of operating. However, the con-cept also comes across as vague and ambiguous. Itseems that researchers have seized upon the room forinterpretation that Prahalad and Bettis’s (1986) orig-inal definition left, by choosing at their own discre-tion what actually constitutes dominant logic (cogni-tive schemas, management tools, attitudes, etc.) andwhere to look for it empirically (verbal statementsof managers, annual reports, investment decisions,etc.). The obvious drawback is a lack of shared un-derstanding of dominant logic, which impairs both itsanalytical clarity as a theoretical concept and its pre-dictive power in empirical studies. Because dominantlogic continues to inform important conversations,for example in entrepreneurship (Su and Wang 2018),family businesses (Lumpkin and Brigham 2011) andstrategic resource management (Combs et al. 2011;Matysiak et al. 2018), it is particularly timely to elu-cidate the extant perspectives on the concept and itsinner workings.

In this paper, we carry out a systematic literaturereview to take stock of the vast number of theoreticaland empirical studies building on Prahalad andBettis’s (1986) original ideas. Our main purpose is to

disentangle how scholars have used dominant logicby identifying, classifying and interrelating existinginterpretations and assessments of the concept. Oursystematic analysis of the interpretations revealsmore than 70 concepts referring to dominant logic.These can be categorized into four constituent dimen-sions of dominant logic that inform us about where itcan be found empirically: (i) shared mental models;(ii) values and decision premises; (iii) organizationalpractices; and (iv) organizing structures. A closerlook shows that all of them are covered by Prahaladand Bettis’s (1986) original definition. Hence, even ifthe existing terminological confusion would suggestthe opposite, the interpretations and correspondingempirical approaches seem to revolve around a co-herent core. To elaborate on this core, we depart fromour analysis of the literature and reassemble the fourdimensions into an integrative model of dominantlogic.

Our main contribution is a clarification andsynthesis of the literature, as well as a revisedconceptualization of dominant logic that is inline with its original definitions and which wouldfacilitate further theoretical development. By delvinginto its cognitive and manifested aspects, we gobeyond previous perspectives on dominant logicby theorizing about how exactly the identifieddimensions can be integrated. We argue that, becausethe dimensions operate in concert, alignment acrossthe four dimensions is an integral feature of dominantlogic – an aspect that has been neglected in previousresearch. Building on this argument, we call for amore rigorous application of the concept in empiricalstudies and provide concrete suggestions on how tocapture the four dimensions of dominant logic, bothseparately and in combination. Taken together, oursynthesis of the literature facilitates a more theoret-ically and empirically sound application of dominantlogic in the future and contributes to elevating theconcept from a vague metaphor to a more tangibleconstruct.

Before we describe the processes of literature re-view and analysis, we begin with a brief introductionto dominant logic. The main body of our paper issplit into two parts. First, we disentangle dominantlogic into the four defining dimensions and describethe ways in which the concept has been capturedempirically. Second, we reassemble the dimensionsand provide an integrative model of dominantlogic. We then discuss implications for theory andempirical assessment, as well as avenues for futureresearch.

C© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and JohnWiley & Sons Ltd.

A Literature Review on Dominant Logic 3

The concept of dominant logic

The origin of the concept of dominant logic lies instrategic cognition, a field that focuses on the linkageof organization members’ cognitive structures withstrategic choices and actions (for reviews, see Kaplan2011; Narayanan et al. 2011). Along with other re-searchers in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. Porac et al.1989; Reger and Huff 1993; Walsh 1995), Prahaladand Bettis (1986) explored ways in which economicapproaches to strategic issues (such as firm diversifi-cation) can be enriched with an additional cognitiveperspective. Therefore, they introduced the dominantlogic as ‘the way in which managers conceptualizethe business and make critical resource allocation de-cisions’ (Prahalad and Bettis 1986, p. 490). More pre-cisely, they argued that the difficulties of managing di-versified firms not only arise from industry structuresor the number of distinct businesses, but also fromorganizations’ cognitive structures, which are deter-mined by the knowledge and experience of the corpo-rate management team. These cognitive structures arenot purely ‘invisible’ in the sense of latent managerialthinking; they are also embodied in a firm’s ‘visible’infrastructure and administrative tools, such as thechoice of key individuals and processes of budget-ing, control or compensation (Bettis and Wong 2003;Grant 1988). Hence, the notion of dominant logiccovers both invisible (cognitive) and visible aspects.

In their 1995 article, Bettis and Prahalad publisheda ‘retrospective and extension’, where they high-lighted the role of dominant logic as an informationfilter and provided a new theoretical grounding withinthe theory of complex adaptive systems. This broaderview of dominant logic detached the concept from thecontext of diversification and suggested that it is anemergent property of human systems, predisposinga firm to certain kinds of strategic problems and in-teracting ‘with organizational systems and structuresin a complex way‘ (Bettis and Prahalad 1995, pp. 8–9). Although cognition remained an important carrierof dominant logic, this quotation also highlights itsembeddedness in practices and structures.

Von Krogh and Roos (1996) critically reflectedon Bettis and Prahalad’s development of the con-cept and added two important attributes to bolster itssystem-theoretical underpinning. The first attribute,self-reference, means that social systems tend to inter-pret upcoming issues by relying on prior knowledgeand experience. This tendency makes the dominantlogic enduring and history-dependent. The second at-

tribute, scale, implies that the dominant features of aparticular logic can be found at different levels withinan organization (e.g. individual, group, unit, orga-nization). One important aspect related to scale isself-similarity, meaning that similar patterns becomevisible across different scales.

The idea that human systems operate based on ashared, underlying logic is not unique to Prahalad andBettis’s concept, but is also at the core of the institu-tional logic view (Friedland and Alford 1991; Thorn-ton et al. 2012). According to this perspective, so-cietal institutions (e.g. family, religion, government,market) shape how social actors interpret the worlddue to shared ‘underlying assumptions, deeply held,often unexamined, which form a framework withinwhich reasoning takes place’ (Horn 1983, p. 1). Theinstitutional logic and the dominant logic views ap-proach a similar phenomenon from different perspec-tives. The institutional logic view assumes that firm-level logics originate from larger systems of meaning,such as the state, markets or professions (Thorntonet al. 2012). This perspective is primarily concernedwith field-level logics, such as the fields of finance(Lounsbury 2002), healthcare (Scott et al. 2000) andhigher education (Washington and Ventresca 2004).In contrast, the dominant logic perspective, in Praha-lad and Bettis’s sense, starts from an individual firm’sshared cognitions and its history, chosen paths andexperiences with success and failure. Indeed, a domi-nant logic is partly derived from institutional features,but it is mostly firm-specific, meaning that certain el-ements of a concrete firm will be similar across firmsin the same industry (Spender 1989), but other ele-ments will be individual to the firm (Cote et al. 1999).Hence, dominant logic is a phenomenon that origi-nates from managers’ cognition and emerges withinorganizations.

Many scholars in the field have contributed to im-proving the precision and rigour of the notion of dom-inant logic, be it through clearer theorizing (Bettisand Wong 2003; Boisot and Li 2005; von Krogh andRoos 1996), sound empirical studies (e.g. Bouwenand Steyaert 1990; Cote et al. 1999; Obloj et al. 2010)or methodical considerations (e.g. Laukkanen 1994;Schraven et al. 2015; van Rekom et al. 2006). Due toa lack of shared understanding, however, the literatureon dominant logic is still ambiguous. The aim of thisreview is to discern the perspectives that exist andprovide an integrative perspective on dominant logic.Hence, we ask: How is dominant logic interpretedand operationalized in the literature?



Figure 1. Process of the literature review

Process of the literature review

To review how scholars have interpreted and opera-tionalized an organization’s dominant logic, we per-formed a systematic literature review (Tranfield et al.2003) in the ABI/INFORM Global, Web of Science(WOS), SCOPUS and EBSCO databases. In thesedatabases, we input the query ‘dominant logic*’ andsearched across titles, abstracts and keywords. Be-cause the query yielded many papers from the service-dominant logic perspective in the field of marketing(Vargo and Lusch 2004), we adapted the query toexclude these papers. After merging duplicates, weobtained 503 texts (see Figure 1).

As shown in Figure 1, before elaborating on thecontent, we applied formal criteria for exclusion (lan-guage other than English, proceedings/working pa-pers/announcements), leading us to remove 38 arti-cles. The sample of the remaining 465 articles wasmanually refined in two steps. In the first step, byreviewing the titles and abstracts, we observed that295 studies were from a different subject area (e.g.biology, clinical psychology, politics, programming),leading to a straightforward exclusion.

In a second step, we analysed the full texts ofthe remaining 170 articles. Along the way, wedefined explicit content-related exclusion criteria.First, many studies used the term ‘dominant logic’in a metaphorical sense (e.g. as a substitute forparadigm), without referring to the original concept.Examples of this include a dominant logic of research(Woodside and Baxter 2013), of executive education(Lockhart 2013) or of the international disabilityfield (Meyers 2014). Another set of excluded studiescame from different fields in organization, manage-ment or strategy research, for instance, research on

organizational boundaries (Santos and Eisenhardt2005), category divergence (Alexy and George2013) and conceptualizations of innovation (D’Auriaet al. 2017). We excluded these articles becausedominant logic was not at the core of the studiesand was used only to support particular arguments.Finally, we excluded studies that employed aninstitutional view on logic. We discarded these textsbecause they did not focus on managerial agency,but instead on more abstract, industry-specific beliefsystems. After employing these three content-basedexclusion criteria, 94 articles remained that explicitlyaddressed the dominant logic of individual firms(Table 1).

Review of theoretical conceptualizations ofdominant logic

To answer the question of how dominant logic is inter-preted in the literature, we employed in-vivo coding(Saldana 2009) of the definitions and operationaliza-tions in all 94 (i.e. conceptual and empirical) pa-pers on dominant logic. This coding step revealedmore than 70 different concepts. To impose orderamong them, we applied a card sorting technique(Rugg and McGeorge 2005): we wrote each con-ceptualization on a card and sorted these cards intohigher-order dimensions that should cover all concep-tualizations. Whenever a ‘miscellaneous’ category re-mained, we skipped the categories and started again.After three trials, all of the cards were sorted into fourmeaningful higher-order dimensions (see Table 2):(i) shared mental models; (ii) values and premises;(iii) organizational practices; and (iv) organizingstructures.



Table 1. Overview of conceptual and empirical studies

Type of study Authors (year)

Conceptual (n = 36) Alt and Craig (2016)2; Bettis (2000)

1 * ; Bettis and Prahalad (1995)1 * ; Bettis et al. (2011)

1 * ; Boisot and Li

(2005)1 * ; Burke and Steensma (1998)

1; Campos et al. (2014)

1; Chinnis and White (1999)

1; Covin and

Lumpkin (2011)2; de Holan (2011)

2; Downing (2005)

1; Eweje and Wu (2010)

2; Franke and zu

Knyphausen-Aufsess (2014)1 * ; Grant (1988)

1 * ; Guidice and Mero (2007)1; Hall (1994)

1; Hartman et al.

(2017)1; Hill (2000)

1 * ; Kor and Mesko (2013)1; Lane and Sirmon (2003)

1; Lumpkin and Brigham (2011)

1;

Matysiak et al. (2018)1; Molz and Ratiu (2012)

1; Narayanan et al. (2011)

2 * ; Penney (2018)1; Phillips et al.

(2008)2 †

; Prahalad (2004)1 * ; Prahalad and Bettis (1986)

1 * ; Schweiger et al. (2016)1 †

; Strandvik et al.

(2014)2; Thomas (2005)

1; Verbeke (2010)

1; Volberda et al. (2010)

1; von Krogh and Roos (1996)

1 * ; Weiss

et al. (2015)1; Zyglidopoulos (1999)

1

Empirical (n = 58) Bouwen and Fry (1991)1; Bouwen and Steyaert (1990)

1; Cote et al. (1999)

1 * ; Kossek et al. (1994)1; Lampel

and Shamsie (2000)1; Lane and Lubatkin (1998)

1; Laukkanen (1994)

2 †; Smith et al. (2002)

1; von Krogh et al.

(2000)1; Zietsma et al. (2002)

2; D’Aveni et al. (2004)

1; de Holan and Phillips (2004)

2; Garg et al. (2003)

1;

Robertson and Swan (2004)1; Walters et al. (2005)

1; Beverland et al. (2007)

2; Boivin and Roch (2006)

1;

Bower (2018)2; Campos et al. (2012)

2; Ciszewska-Mlinaric et al. (2016)

2; Combs et al. (2011)

1; Crilly and

Sloan (2012)1; Dixon and Day (2007)

2; Ellonen et al. (2015)

1; Gentry et al. (2016)

1; Hadida and Paris

(2014)1; Haider and Mariotti (2016)

1; Heracleous et al. (2017)

2; Hockerts (2015)

2; Jacobs et al. (2016)

2;

Kunc and Morecroft (2009)2; Leiponen and Helfat (2010)

2; Lepoutre and Valente (2012)

2; Maijanen

(2015a)1; Maijanen (2015b)

1; Maijanen and Jantunen (2014)

1; Maijanen and Virta (2017)

2; Maijanen et al.

(2015)1; Monteiro (2015)

1; Moss et al. (2014)

2; Natti and Ojasalo (2008)

2; Oberg and Tsung-Ying Shih

(2014)2; Obloj et al. (2010)

1 * ; Obloj et al. (2013)1; Ocasio and Joseph (2005)

2; Philipson (2016)

2; Plambeck

and Weber (2010)2; Rad (2017)

2; Reiche et al. (2015)

2; Rodriguez (2005)

2; Schraven et al. (2015)

1 †; Su and

Wang (2018)1; Tansey et al. (2005)

2; van Rekom et al. (2006)

2 †; Vardaman et al. (2012)

2; Weinstein and

Standifird (2010)1; Xie et al. (2018)

2; Yang et al. (2014)

2

1Articles in which dominant logic is embedded in the entire narrative of the paper.2Articles in which dominant logic is part of a theoretical argument, and/or used to deduce hypotheses, and/or used to discuss findings, but notused in the entire narrative of the paper.*Theoretical foundations, refinements and discussions of dominant logic.†Articles that suggest and/or discuss methods particularly suitable for capturing dominant logic.

Review of empirical approaches to capture dominantlogic

To answer the question of how dominant logic hasbeen treated empirically, we started from the 58 em-pirical studies in our sample and analysed the inter-pretations and operationalizations of dominant logictherein. This analysis revealed that only 28 of the 58empirical studies explicitly operationalized dominantlogic (see Table 3). In the other 30 studies, the con-cept was used as a theoretical backing for particulararguments (e.g. for hypothesis development). For ex-ample, Leiponen and Helfat (2010) used dominantlogic to argue that firms tend to search narrowly fornew innovations. However, they assessed innovationobjectives (e.g. improve product quality) and knowl-edge sources (e.g. competitors) to explain variance ininnovation success, but did not operationalize domi-nant logic in their empirics. We found a similar usageof dominant logic in 30 of the empirical studies (su-perscripts in Table 1 distinguish the two different waysin which dominant logic was used in the empirical

studies). For the 28 studies capturing dominant logic,we inductively coded: (a) researchers’ interpretationsof dominant logic; (b) their assumptions of where intheir empirics they expected to find it (‘DL surfacesin . . . ’; Table 3); (c) their overall research design; and(d) their methods for data collection and data analysis(‘DL captured through . . . ’). Finally, (e) we assignedtheir empirical approaches to the four dimensions ofdominant logic.

Overall, we find two types of studies: those thatuse dominant logic as a source of explanation forother variables (e.g. firm performance; von Kroghet al. 2000) and those that explore the dominantlogic of a certain firm (e.g. Apple Inc., Boivin andRoch 2006) or specific context (e.g. entrepreneurialfirms in China; Obloj et al. 2013). Moreover, acrossall four dimensions of dominant logic, we find twobroad empirical strategies: inductive and deductive(see column (c) in Table 3). Inductive studies favourinterpretative methodologies, particularly case stud-ies, and collect mainly verbal data, such as formal and



Tabl

e2.

Ove

rvie

wof

inte

rpre

tati

ons

and

empi

rica

ltre

atm

ents

ofth

efo

urdi

men

sion

sof

dom

inan

tlog

ic

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

sV

alue

san

dde

cisi

onpr

emis

esO

rgan

izat

iona

lpra

ctic

esO

rgan

izin

gst

ruct

ures

Inte

rpre

tati

onof

DL

Sha

red

men

talr

epre

sent

atio

nsof

‘how

the

wor

ldis

’V

alue

san

dpr

emis

esco

ncer

ning

idea

sas

to‘h

owth

ings

shou

ldbe

’

Col

lect

ive

patt

erns

of‘h

owth

ings

are

typi

cally

done

’M

anif

este

dpa

tter

nsof

‘how

thin

gsar

ety

pica

llyor

gani

zed’

Con

cept

sus

edto

desc

ribe

DL

(exa

mpl

es)

Wor

ldvi

ew;s

tyle

sto

fram

epr

oble

ms;

mea

ning

s;do

min

ant

patt

erns

ofth

inki

ng;s

hare

dst

rate

gic

cogn

itio

n;fr

ames

ofre

fere

nce;

perc

eptu

alan

dco

ncep

tual

filt

ers;

men

tal

map

s;sh

ared

cogn

itiv

est

ruct

ure

orte

mpl

ate;

men

tal

mod

el;o

vera

rchi

ngin

terp

reta

tive

sche

ma;

scan

ning

emph

ases

;col

lect

ive

unde

rsta

ndin

g;kn

owle

dge

stru

ctur

e;et

c.

His

tori

cally

root

edva

lues

,nor

ms

oras

sum

ptio

ns;d

eepe

rle

vels

ofas

sum

ptio

nsan

dbe

lief

s;be

lief

stru

ctur

esor

syst

ems;

theo

ries

and

prop

osit

ions

;sy

stem

sof

expe

ctat

ions

;cr

iter

iafo

rch

oice

and

eval

uati

on;p

rem

ise

cont

rol;

set

ofde

cisi

on-m

akin

gru

les;

prin

cipl

esto

deal

wit

hun

fam

ilia

rsi

tuat

ions

;he

uris

tics

;etc

.

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

beha

viou

r;se

tof

elic

ited

man

agem

ent

proc

esse

san

dac

tion

s;m

anag

eria

lpra

ctic

es;p

ract

ices

asso

ciat

edw

ith

core

busi

ness

;ha

bitu

alm

odes

offu

ncti

onin

g;co

ordi

nati

onof

indi

vidu

alac

tivit

ies;

rout

ines

and

capa

bili

ties

;con

sist

ency

inac

tion

;way

sof

doin

gth

ings

;be

havi

oura

lscr

ipts

and

proc

edur

es;l

ocal

acti

onst

ruct

ures

;etc

.

Set

of‘d

omin

antt

hem

es,

confi

gura

tion

san

dor

gani

zati

onal

char

acte

rist

ics’

;or

gani

zati

onal

stru

ctur

esan

dsy

stem

s;ad

min

istr

ativ

ehe

rita

ge;m

anag

emen

tfu

ncti

ons

and

deci

sion

inst

rum

ents

;adm

inis

trat

ive

tool

s;co

stst

ruct

ures

;bus

ines

sm

odel

sim

ilar

ity;

stru

ctur

alsi

mil

arit

y;et

c.

Cor

eau

thor

sin

DL

lite

ratu

reC

rilly

and

Slo

an(2

012)

;L

auka

nnen

(199

4);P

raha

lad

and

Bet

tis

(198

6);S

chra

ven

etal

.(20

15)

Gui

dice

and

Mer

o(2

007)

;L

umpk

inan

dB

righ

am(2

011)

;va

nR

ekom

etal

.(20

06)

Gen

try

etal

.(20

16);

Lam

pela

ndS

ham

sie

(200

0);O

bloj

etal

.(2

010)

D’A

veni

etal

.(20

04);

Gra

nt(1

988)

;von

Kro

ghan

dR

oos

(199

6)

Loc

atio

nof

DL

DL

islo

cate

din

indi

vidu

alan

dco

llec

tive

cogn

itiv

est

ruct

ures

(e.g

.TM

T’s

shar

edm

enta

lm

odel

)an

dm

ainl

yca

ptur

edth

roug

hsu

bjec

tive

data

DL

islo

cate

din

indi

vidu

alan

dco

llec

tive

atti

tude

san

dor

ient

atio

ns(e

.g.l

ong-

term

orie

ntat

ion)

and

mai

nly

capt

ured

thro

ugh

surv

eys

DL

islo

cate

din

prac

tice

s(e

.g.

coor

dina

tion

activ

itie

s)an

dm

ainl

yca

ptur

edth

roug

hco

mbi

nati

ons

ofsu

bjec

tive

and

obje

ctiv

eda

ta

DL

islo

cate

din

orga

niza

tion

alst

ruct

ures

(e.g

.cos

tstr

uctu

res)

and

mai

nly

capt

ured

thro

ugh

obje

ctiv

e(i

.e.n

umer

ical

)pr

oxie

sE

xam

ples

for

typi

cal

empi

rica

lap

proa

ches

Cog

nitiv

em

appi

ng;c

riti

cal

disc

ours

ean

alys

isof

verb

alm

ater

ials

,in-

dept

hin

terv

iew

s

Mea

ns–e

ndan

alys

is;s

urve

ysc

ales

ofva

lues

(e.g

.as

orie

ntat

ions

,att

itud

es)

Ret

rosp

ectiv

ein

terv

iew

sof

past

deci

sion

san

dac

tion

s(e

.g.

acqu

isit

ion

deci

sion

s);

obje

ctiv

eda

taon

stra

tegi

cac

tion

s

Iden

tifi

cati

onof

recu

rrin

gpa

tter

nsof

orga

nizi

ng;

obje

ctiv

em

etri

cs(e

.g.

stru

ctur

alsi

mil

arit

y)



Tabl

e3.

Ove

rvie

wof

empi

rica

lstu

dies

wit

hdo

min

antl

ogic

cent

rall

yem

bedd

ed(n

=28

)

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Bou

wen

and

Ste

yaer

t(19

90)

Jour

nalo

fM

anag

emen

tSt

udie

s

Mea

ning

s(e

.g.b

eing

asa

lesm

anin

the

fiel

d)an

dco

rres

pond

ing

acti

ons

(e.g

.op

port

unit

y-se

ekin

g)

Foun

ders

’an

dm

anag

emen

ttea

ms’

com

mun

icat

edpe

rcep

tion

s(e

.g.

aspi

rati

ons,

beli

efs)

,ac

tion

s(e

.g.h

oriz

onta

lex

pans

ion)

and

dial

ecti

cpr

oces

ses

(e.g

.neg

otia

tion

)du

ring

the

grow

thof

anen

trep

rene

uria

lfirm

Indu

ctiv

e:S

C(L

=t+

1)

�G

roun

ded

theo

ry-b

ased

codi

ngof

mea

ning

san

dac

tion

s(e

.g.r

esou

rce

allo

cati

on)

inve

rbal

tran

scri

pts

ofin

terv

iew

sw

ith

foun

ders

and

mem

bers

ofth

em

anag

emen

ttea

m,d

ocum

ents

and

note

s�

Cre

atio

nof

men

talm

aps

�V

alid

atio

nof

iden

tifi

edco

ncep

tsw

ith

inte

rvie

wee

sth

roug

hco

-inq

uiry

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Org

aniz

atio

nal

prac

tice

s

Bou

wen

and

Fry

(199

1)In

tern

atio

nal

Stud

ies

ofM

anag

emen

tan

dO

rgan

izat

ion

Man

ager

ialp

ract

ices

and

skil

ls,e

xper

ienc

esst

ored

wit

hin

the

orga

niza

tion

and

cogn

itiv

est

yles

used

tofr

ame

prob

lem

s

Man

ager

s’an

dem

ploy

ees’

patt

erne

dac

tion

(e.g

.im

posi

ngch

ange

,fac

ilit

atin

gco

nfro

ntat

ion)

duri

ngin

nova

tion

proj

ects

infi

rms

Indu

ctiv

e:M

C(L

=t+

1)

�T

hem

atic

anal

ysis

of‘a

ctio

nst

rate

gies

’in

verb

altr

ansc

ript

s(6

00pa

ges)

,doc

umen

tsan

dno

tes,

coll

ecte

din

13fi

rms

that

unde

rwen

tan

inno

vati

onpr

ojec

t

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Org

aniz

atio

nal

prac

tice

s

Kos

sek

etal

.(1

994)

Hum

anR

elat

ions

Man

agem

ents

chem

asre

gard

ing

oper

atin

ga

spec

ific

dom

ain

Exe

cutiv

es’

expl

icit

atti

tude

sto

war

da

cert

ain

topi

c(e

.g.

chil

dcar

e)an

dim

plem

ente

dpr

ogra

mm

esre

flec

ting

thes

eat

titu

des

(e.g

.ch

ildc

are

prog

ram

mes

)

Ded

uctiv

e:re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

(C)

�D

evel

opm

ento

fan

idio

sync

rati

csc

ale

for

capt

urin

gat

titu

des

rega

rdin

gth

ree

DL

com

pone

nts

(env

iron

men

talc

ompo

nent

,m

anag

emen

tcon

trol

and

coer

cive

com

pone

nt)

�C

alcu

lati

onof

anin

dex

repr

esen

ting

agl

obal

dom

inan

tlog

ic(i

.e.a

nov

eral

lor

ient

atio

nto

war

dch

ildc

are)

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Org

aniz

atio

nal

prac

tice

s (Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Lan

ean

dL

ubat

kin

(199

8)St

rate

gic

Man

agem

ent

Jour

nal

Shar

ed‘k

now

why

’in

inte

r-or

gani

zati

onal

alli

ance

s

Kno

wle

dge

and

rese

arch

sim

ilar

itie

sbe

twee

ndy

ads

offi

rms

form

ing

R&

Dal

lian

ces

Ded

uctiv

e:re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

(H=

1995

–199

3)

�A

naly

sis

ofsi

mil

arit

ybe

twee

npr

ojec

tsan

dpr

oble

ms

of69

R&

Dal

lian

ces,

man

ifes

ted

inth

ety

pes

ofth

erap

euti

can

ddi

agno

stic

prod

ucts

they

deve

lop,

and

the

med

ical

cond

itio

nsor

dise

ases

thos

epr

oduc

tsad

dres

s(a

sses

sed

asth

enu

mbe

rof

rese

arch

com

mun

itie

sth

atbo

thpa

rtne

rsha

dpu

blis

hed

in)

�M

ore

com

mun

itie

ssh

ared

byth

epa

rtne

rsw

ere

indi

cativ

eof

agr

eate

rov

erla

pof

thei

rpr

oble

mse

ts

Org

aniz

ing

stru

ctur

es

Cot

eet

al.(

1999

)Jo

urna

lof

Man

agem

ent

Stud

ies

Top

man

ager

s’co

ncep

tual

izat

ion

ofth

ero

leof

the

firm

;cr

iter

iafo

rde

cisi

on-m

akin

gan

dev

alua

tion

;org

aniz

ing

and

man

agem

ent

prin

cipl

es

Act

ualc

ore

acti

viti

esan

dun

derl

ying

rati

onal

esre

flec

ting

cult

ural

valu

es(e

.g.e

mph

asis

onad

-hoc

coll

abor

atio

nor

flui

dor

gani

zati

onal

stru

ctur

es)

Indu

ctiv

e:S

C(H

=19

77–1

990)

�C

olle

ctio

nan

dan

alys

esof

docu

men

tary

evid

ence

and

in-d

epth

retr

ospe

ctiv

ein

terv

iew

sw

ith

20ke

yin

form

ants

rega

rdin

gth

eac

quis

itio

nbe

havi

our

ofa

larg

eC

anad

ian

engi

neer

ing

firm

�C

onst

ruct

ion

ofa

case

hist

ory

wit

hth

ree

inte

rrel

ated

type

sof

anal

yses

(i.e

.cat

egor

ical

,hi

stor

ical

and

patt

ern

iden

tifi

cati

on),

tria

ngul

atio

nof

subj

ectiv

ean

dob

ject

ive

data

(firm

-an

din

dust

ry-s

peci

fic)

rega

rdin

gst

rate

gic

acqu

isit

ion

deci

sion

s

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Org

aniz

ing

stru

ctur

es

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

von

Kro

ghet

al.

(200

0)C

reat

ivit

yan

dIn

nova

tion

Man

agem

ent

Dat

afil

ter

inth

efo

rmof

inte

rnal

(e.g

.peo

ple)

and

exte

rnal

(e.g

.te

chno

logy

)ca

tego

ries

for

inte

rpre

ting

new

info

rmat

ion

Top

man

ager

s’di

rect

lyqu

oted

stat

emen

ts,f

orex

ampl

ein

inte

rvie

ws

and

spee

ches

,and

publ

ishe

dm

ater

ials

(e.g

.ann

ualr

epor

ts)

Mix

ed:M

C(H

=19

93–1

998)

�C

onte

ntan

alys

is(c

ateg

oriz

ing

and

quan

tify

ing

wri

tten

stat

emen

tsof

Eri

kson

and

Nok

iato

pm

anag

ers)

�D

evel

opm

ento

fa

mea

sure

of‘b

andw

idth

’of

DL

(i.e

.fr

eque

ncy

ofst

atem

ents

wit

hin

the

iden

tifi

edca

tego

ries

)

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Lam

pela

ndS

ham

sie

(200

0)St

rate

gic

Man

agem

ent

Jour

nal

Heu

rist

icde

cisi

on-m

akin

gpr

emis

efo

rec

onom

izin

gon

cogn

itiv

eco

mpl

exit

y

Doc

umen

ted

stra

tegi

cde

cisi

ons

ofth

ebu

sine

ssun

its

ofa

larg

eco

rpor

atio

n

Ded

uctiv

e:S

C(H

=19

84–1

993)

and

regr

essi

on

�Id

enti

fica

tion

and

cate

gori

zati

onof

70jo

int

vent

ures

unde

rtak

enby

Gen

eral

Ele

ctri

c’s

(GE

’s)

busi

ness

unit

sbe

twee

n19

84an

d19

93in

tosm

alla

ndla

rge

part

ners

hips

�Te

stin

gof

hypo

thes

esth

atG

E’s

busi

ness

unit

sw

ould

bein

line

wit

hth

edo

min

antl

ogic

(e.g

.pre

fer

smal

lpar

tner

ship

sin

join

tven

ture

sin

anef

fort

tode

fend

thei

rco

mpe

titiv

epo

siti

on)

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Org

aniz

atio

nal

prac

tice

s (Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Sm

ith

etal

.(20

02)

Res

earc

hin

Post

-C

ompu

lsor

yE

duca

tion

Taci

tlyde

velo

ped

and

mai

ntai

ned

men

tal

map

s

Seni

orm

anag

ers’

com

mun

icat

edvi

ews

abou

topp

ortu

niti

esan

dco

nstr

aint

sre

gard

ing

stra

tegi

cm

anag

emen

t

Indu

ctiv

e:M

C(C

)�

Indu

ctiv

ean

alys

isof

25in

terv

iew

sw

ith

seni

orm

anag

ers

ofF

urth

erE

duca

tion

Col

lege

sw

ith

the

aim

ofch

arac

teri

zing

thos

eD

Ls

(i.e

.sha

red

men

tal

mod

els)

that

unde

rlie

thei

rst

rate

gizi

ng

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Gar

get

al.(

2003

)St

rate

gic

Man

agem

ent

Jour

nal

Man

ager

ials

cann

ing

emph

ases

and

atte

ntio

nco

nfigu

rati

ons

Rel

ativ

eim

port

ance

CE

Os

plac

eon

info

rmat

ion

from

diff

erin

gdo

mai

nsof

the

exte

rnal

and

inte

rnal

envi

ronm

ent

Ded

uctiv

e:re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

(C)

�L

iter

atur

e-ba

sed

deve

lopm

ent

ofa

surv

eyof

poss

ible

orie

ntat

ions

tow

ard

the

inte

rnal

(i.e

.inn

ovat

ion

vs.

effi

cien

cy)

and

exte

rnal

(gen

eral

vs.t

ask)

envi

ronm

ents

�S

urve

y-ba

sed

asse

ssm

ento

f11

6C

EO

s’at

tent

ion

confi

gura

tion

sin

the

man

ufac

turi

ngse

ctor

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

D’A

veni

etal

.(2

004)

Man

ager

iala

ndD

ecis

ion

Eco

nom

ics

Set

ofco

gnit

ive

sim

plifi

cati

ons,

anal

ogie

s,co

nven

tion

alw

isdo

man

din

tuit

ion

abou

tsuc

cess

ful

stra

tegi

es

Res

ourc

eco

ngru

ence

(i.e

.th

ede

gree

tow

hich

the

reso

urce

allo

cati

onpa

tter

nsof

ali

neof

busi

ness

rese

mbl

eth

ose

ofa

sist

erco

mpa

ny’s

line

sof

busi

ness

)

Ded

uctiv

e:re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

(C)

�C

alcu

lati

onof

stru

ctur

alsi

mil

arit

ybe

twee

nli

nes

ofbu

sine

ss(i

.e.a

nin

tens

ity

cong

ruen

cesc

ore)

for

adve

rtis

ing

inte

nsit

y(a

dver

tisi

ng/s

ales

),R

&D

inte

nsit

y(R

&D

/sal

es),

sell

ing

inte

nsit

y(o

ther

sell

ing

expe

nses

/sal

es)

and

capi

tal

inte

nsit

y(t

otal

asse

ts/s

ales

)

Org

aniz

ing

stru

ctur

es

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Rob

erts

onan

dS

wan

(200

4)O

rgan

izat

ion

Set

ofsc

hem

as,b

elie

fsan

dva

lues

shap

edby

econ

omic

,te

chno

logi

cala

ndcu

ltur

alm

acro

-lev

elim

pera

tives

Org

aniz

atio

nte

mpl

ates

(i.e

.mod

esof

gove

rnan

ce,s

uch

asco

ntro

lmec

hani

sms,

cent

rali

zati

onan

dpe

rfor

man

ceap

prai

sals

)

Indu

ctiv

e:S

C(H

=19

95–2

001)

�O

bser

vati

onan

dhi

stor

ical

reco

nstr

ucti

onan

dan

alys

isof

verb

alda

ta(i

nter

view

sw

ith

foun

der

and

man

ager

sof

Dyn

amic

Con

sult

ing,

akn

owle

dge-

inte

nsiv

efi

rm)

onm

anag

emen

tpri

ncip

lean

dpr

acti

ces

�Id

enti

fica

tion

ofsh

ifts

indo

min

antm

anag

emen

tlog

icov

erti

me

Org

aniz

ing

stru

ctur

es

Wal

ters

etal

.(2

005)

Jour

nalo

fSm

all

Bus

ines

sSt

rate

gy

Man

ager

ials

cann

ing

emph

ases

and

atte

ntio

nco

nfigu

rati

ons

Rel

ativ

eim

port

ance

CE

Os

plac

eon

info

rmat

ion

from

diff

erin

gdo

mai

nsof

the

exte

rnal

and

inte

rnal

envi

ronm

ent

Ded

uctiv

e:re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

(C)

�E

qual

toG

arg

etal

.(20

03)

�L

iter

atur

e-ba

sed

deve

lopm

ent

ofa

surv

eyof

poss

ible

orie

ntat

ions

tow

ard

the

inte

rnal

(i.e

.inn

ovat

ion

vs.

effi

cien

cy)

and

exte

rnal

(gen

eral

vs.t

ask)

envi

ronm

ents

�S

urve

y-ba

sed

asse

ssm

ento

f11

6C

EO

s’at

tent

ion

confi

gura

tion

sin

the

man

ufac

turi

ngse

ctor

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Boi

vin

and

Roc

h(2

006)

Man

agem

ent

Dec

isio

n

Con

vent

ions

(e.g

.m

erch

ant,

insp

irat

ion

logi

cs)

inth

efo

rmof

fram

ewor

ksfo

rpe

rcei

ving

,ana

lysi

ngan

dso

lvin

gpr

oble

ms

Cor

eev

ents

ina

firm

’shi

stor

yan

dth

eir

just

ifica

tion

Indu

ctiv

e:S

C(H

=19

80–1

997)

�Id

enti

fica

tion

and

anal

ysis

ofhi

stor

ical

reco

rds

(i.e

.sev

enbo

oks

and

pres

sar

ticl

es)

ofth

ehi

stor

yof

App

leIn

c.�

Ass

embl

ing,

crit

ical

lyex

amin

ing

and

sum

mar

izin

gre

cord

sto

extr

actt

hefi

rms’

prev

aili

nglo

gics

Org

aniz

atio

nal

prac

tice

s (Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Obl

ojet

al.(

2010

)E

ntre

pren

eurs

hip:

The

ory

and

Pra

ctic

e

Info

rmat

ion

filte

rsan

dan

acco

rdin

gse

tof

spec

ific

corp

orat

e-le

vel

rout

ines

Exe

cutiv

es’

orie

ntat

ions

tow

ard

entr

epre

neur

ial

beha

viou

r(e

.g.

oppo

rtun

ity-

seek

ing)

and

actu

albe

havi

our

(e.g

.reg

ular

anal

ysis

ofin

dust

ry)

Ded

uctiv

e:re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

(C)

�D

evel

opm

ento

fa

22-i

tem

scal

efo

ras

sess

ing

orie

ntat

ions

tow

ard

and

self

-rep

orte

dbe

havi

our

rega

rdin

g(i

)op

port

unit

y-se

ekin

g,(i

i)pr

oact

iven

ess,

(iii

)le

arni

ngan

d(i

v)ro

utin

esas

dim

ensi

ons

ofdo

min

antl

ogic

�D

istr

ibut

ion

in10

2en

trep

rene

uria

lfirm

sin

Pola

nd

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Org

aniz

atio

nal

prac

tice

s

Wei

nste

inan

dS

tand

ifird

(201

0)A

cade

my

ofSt

rate

gic

Man

agem

ent

Jour

nal

Uni

fyin

gun

ders

tand

ing

ofho

wan

orga

niza

tion

shou

ldfu

ncti

onw

hen

face

dw

ith

spec

ific

prob

lem

s

Man

ager

s’co

ncre

tebe

havi

our

whe

nac

ting

onth

em

arke

t

Ded

uctiv

e:re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

(C)

�D

evel

opm

enta

ndap

plic

atio

nof

asc

ale

toca

ptur

e77

8of

f-li

nebo

okse

ller

s’m

arke

tob

serv

atio

nsan

dpr

icin

gbe

havi

our

(e.g

.by

mea

suri

ngw

heth

erof

f-li

nese

ller

sre

gula

rly

setp

rice

sfo

rth

eir

book

sbe

low

the

prev

aili

ngpr

ice

on-l

ine)

�C

ompa

riso

nof

beha

viou

ras

afu

ncti

onof

indu

stry

expe

rien

ce(i

.e.y

ears

onth

em

arke

t)

Org

aniz

atio

nal

prac

tice

s

Com

bset

al.

(201

1)Jo

urna

lof

Man

agem

ent

Stud

ies

Man

agem

ents

chem

ath

atde

velo

psam

ong

top

man

ager

sfo

rco

ncep

tual

izin

gth

ebu

sine

ssan

dgu

idin

gde

cisi

ons

Con

cret

esh

ared

stra

tegi

can

dop

erat

iona

llog

ics

(e.g

.sim

ilar

serv

ice

orie

ntat

ion,

pric

epo

int

and

mar

keti

ngap

proa

ch)

offi

rms

ina

cert

ain

indu

stry

(e.g

.re

stau

rant

s)

Ded

uctiv

e:re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

(C)

�O

pera

tion

aliz

atio

nof

stre

ngth

ofD

Las

man

agem

ent

expe

rien

ce(n

umbe

rof

year

sin

top

man

agem

enti

nth

ere

stau

rant

indu

stry

)�

Pre

dict

ion

ofth

em

anag

emen

tex

peri

ence

–per

form

ance

rela

tion

ship

bym

odel

ling

the

use

offr

anch

isin

gan

dm

ulti

-cha

inin

gst

rate

gies

asm

oder

ator

s

Org

aniz

ing

stru

ctur

es

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Cri

llyan

dS

loan

(201

2)St

rate

gic

Man

agem

ent

Jour

nal

Info

rmat

ion

filte

ran

dm

anag

eria

lcog

niti

onE

xecu

tive

s’co

llec

tive

inte

rpre

tati

onof

the

envi

ronm

enta

sm

anif

este

d,fo

rex

ampl

e,in

annu

alre

port

s

Mix

ed:M

C(C

)an

dC

M

�M

ulti

-met

hod

mat

ched

-pai

rca

sest

udy

ofei

ghtg

loba

lco

rpor

atio

ns�

Usa

geof

arch

ival

docu

men

tati

ons

(ann

ual

repo

rts)

and

exec

utiv

ein

terv

iew

sas

data

sour

ces

�C

reat

ion

ofco

gnit

ive

map

sfo

rea

chen

terp

rise

inor

der

tore

veal

thei

ren

terp

rise

logi

c(i

.e.i

tsre

lati

onsh

ipw

ith

the

firm

’sec

onom

ican

dso

cio-

poli

tica

lenv

iron

men

t)

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Obl

ojet

al.(

2013

)Jo

urna

lof

Eas

t-W

est

Bus

ines

s

Cog

niti

vefr

amew

orks

and

orga

niza

tion

alro

utin

esE

xecu

tive

s’co

mm

unic

ated

perc

epti

ons

ofho

wth

eym

ake

sens

eof

the

envi

ronm

ent,

past

choi

ces,

man

agem

ent

syst

ems

and

crit

ical

even

ts

Indu

ctiv

e:M

C(C

)�

Inte

rpre

tive

codi

ngof

verb

alin

terv

iew

data

from

six

entr

epre

neur

ialfi

rms

inC

hina

rega

rdin

g(1

)th

epe

rcep

tion

sof

the

envi

ronm

ent,

(2)

choi

ces

and

acti

ons,

(3)

rout

ines

and

(4)

codi

fica

tion

ofle

arni

ng�

Dev

elop

men

tof

case

hist

orie

sfo

rea

chfi

rm�

Com

pari

son

ofpa

tter

nsof

dom

inan

tlog

icob

serv

edin

and

betw

een

thos

efi

rms

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Org

aniz

atio

nal

prac

tice

s (Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Had

ida

and

Pari

s(2

014)

Tech

nolo

gica

lFo

reca

stin

gan

dSo

cial

Cha

nge

Fil

ter

for

unde

rsta

ndin

gan

din

terp

reta

tion

Ent

repr

eneu

rs’

men

tal

mod

els

abou

tthe

indu

stry

asm

ade

expl

icit

inm

issi

onan

dvi

sion

stat

emen

ts

Indu

ctiv

e:M

C(C

);D

A

�D

ata

coll

ecti

onof

mis

sion

and

visi

onst

atem

ents

and

lett

ers

tosh

areh

olde

rsfr

omth

e21

mos

tvi

sibl

e-on

-the

-web

digi

tal

mus

icve

ntur

esab

outn

ewop

port

unit

ies

inth

ein

dust

ry�

Dis

cour

sean

alys

esof

the

data

acco

rdin

gto

two

cate

gori

es:

self

-cat

egor

izat

ion

and

the

orga

niza

tion

’sin

nova

tion

and

valu

ecr

eati

ondi

scou

rses

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Mai

jane

nan

dJa

ntun

en(2

014)

Inte

rnat

iona

lJo

urna

lon

Med

iaM

anag

emen

t

Col

lect

ivel

ysh

ared

beli

efs

Em

ploy

ees’

expl

icit

atti

tude

sto

war

dch

ange

and

futu

reor

ient

a-ti

ons/

expe

ctat

ions

Ded

uctiv

e:S

C(C

)an

dC

A

�C

reat

ion

ofa

surv

eyca

ptur

ing

chan

geat

titu

des,

wor

km

otiv

atio

ns,f

utur

eor

ient

atio

nsan

dex

pect

atio

ns�

App

lica

tion

to1,

379

empl

oyee

sof

ala

rge

Finn

ish

firm

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Ell

onen

etal

.(2

015)

Inte

rnat

iona

lJo

urna

lof

Inno

vati

onM

anag

emen

t

Shar

edco

gnit

ive

stru

ctur

esE

xecu

tive

s’co

mm

unic

ated

perc

epti

ons

abou

thow

they

conc

eptu

aliz

eth

eir

busi

ness

es

Indu

ctiv

e:M

C(C

)�

Indu

ctiv

ean

alys

isof

40in

form

al,n

arra

tive

inte

rvie

ws

wit

hm

ainl

yed

itor

s-in

-chi

efan

dpu

blis

hers

resp

onsi

ble

for

mag

azin

esor

onli

nese

rvic

esab

outt

hero

leof

prin

t,th

eco

reof

the

busi

ness

and

the

appr

oach

tow

ard

chan

gean

din

nova

tion

info

urbu

sine

ssun

its

ofa

larg

em

edia

corp

orat

ion

�C

ase

desc

ript

ion

ofth

esh

ared

DL

ofea

chca

se�

Com

pari

son

ofca

ses

inor

der

toun

ders

tand

the

rela

tion

ship

sbe

twee

nD

Lan

ddy

nam

icca

pabi

liti

es

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Mai

jane

n(2

015a

)In

tern

atio

nal

Jour

nalo

fB

usin

ess

Inno

vati

onan

dR

esea

rch

Col

lect

ivel

ysh

ared

beli

efs

Em

ploy

ees’

expl

icit

atti

tude

sto

war

dch

ange

and

futu

reor

ient

a-ti

ons/

expe

ctat

ions

Ded

uctiv

e:S

C(C

)an

dC

A

�C

reat

ion

ofa

surv

eyca

ptur

ing

chan

geat

titu

des,

wor

km

otiv

atio

ns,f

utur

eor

ient

atio

nsan

dex

pect

atio

ns�

App

lica

tion

to1,

379

empl

oyee

sof

ala

rge

Finn

ish

firm

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Mai

jane

n(2

015b

)Jo

urna

lofM

edia

Bus

ines

sSt

udie

s

Dat

afil

ter

inth

efo

rmof

inte

rnal

(e.g

.peo

ple)

and

exte

rnal

(e.g

.te

chno

logy

)ca

tego

ries

for

inte

rpre

ting

new

info

rmat

ion

Man

ager

ialw

orld

view

san

dth

eir

mai

nst

rate

gic

foci

asm

enti

oned

,for

exam

ple,

inan

nual

repo

rts

Indu

ctiv

e:S

C(H

=19

76–2

012)

�C

onte

ntan

alyt

ical

codi

ngof

annu

alre

port

sof

aFi

nnis

hbr

oadc

asti

ngco

mpa

nyes

tabl

ishe

din

1926

byus

ing

five

cate

gori

es:(

i)co

mpa

nym

issi

on;(

ii)

tech

nolo

gy;(

iii)

com

peti

tors

;(iv

)cu

stom

erre

lati

onsh

ip;a

nd(v

)co

nten

t

Sha

red

men

talm

odel

Mai

jane

net

al.

(201

5)In

tern

atio

nal

Jour

nalo

fB

usin

ess

Exc

elle

nce

Col

lect

ivel

ysh

ared

beli

efs

Em

ploy

ees’

expl

icit

atti

tude

sto

war

dch

ange

and

futu

reor

ient

a-ti

ons/

expe

ctat

ions

Ded

uctiv

e:S

C(C

)an

dre

gres

sion

anal

ysis

�C

reat

ion

ofa

surv

eyca

ptur

ing

chan

geat

titu

des,

wor

km

otiv

atio

ns,f

utur

eor

ient

atio

nsan

dex

pect

atio

ns�

App

lica

tion

to1,

379

empl

oyee

sof

ala

rge

Finn

ish

firm

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Mon

teir

o(2

015)

Jour

nalo

fIn

tern

atio

nal

Bus

ines

sSt

udie

s

Pro

ven

mar

ketk

now

ledg

eSi

mil

arit

yof

busi

ness

mod

els

incl

udin

gfi

rms’

know

ledg

e-so

urci

ngpr

oces

ses

and

atte

ntio

npr

efer

ence

s(e

.g.t

oex

tern

alte

chno

logi

cal

oppo

rtun

itie

s)

Mix

ed:S

C(C

)an

dre

gres

sion

anal

ysis

�O

pera

tion

aliz

atio

nof

DL

asle

velo

fag

reem

entb

etw

een

the

busi

ness

mod

elun

derl

ying

anex

tern

alte

chno

logy

and

the

busi

ness

mod

elof

the

reci

pien

tuni

t(in

am

ulti

nati

onal

firm

)m

easu

red

onfi

vedi

men

sion

s:(1

)va

lue

prop

osit

ion;

(2)

mar

ket

segm

ent;

(3)

valu

ech

ain

stru

ctur

ere

quir

edto

crea

tean

ddi

stri

bute

the

tech

nolo

gy;

(4)

cost

stru

ctur

ean

dpr

ofit

pote

ntia

l;an

d(5

)re

leva

ntte

chno

logi

cals

tand

ards

Org

aniz

ing

stru

ctur

es

Gen

try

etal

.(2

016)

Ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p:T

heor

yan

dP

ract

ice

Shar

edco

gnit

ion

that

guid

esst

rate

gic

deci

sion

-mak

ing

Man

ager

s’st

rate

gic

deci

sion

s(e

.g.w

ith

resp

ectt

olo

ng-t

erm

orie

ntat

ion)

Ded

uctiv

e:re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

(H=

1995

–200

5)

�O

pera

tion

aliz

atio

nof

DL

asde

cisi

onpr

emis

ein

favo

urof

long

-ter

mor

ient

atio

n�

Mea

suri

ngof

slac

k(i

.e.

abso

rbed

,una

bsor

bed

and

pote

ntia

lsla

ck),

risk

-tak

ing

and

bank

rupt

cyri

skth

roug

hco

mpl

ete

com

pany

file

sof

817

fam

ilyin

flue

nced

firm

s(F

IFs)

coll

ecte

dfr

omC

ompa

ctD

iscl

osur

efo

rth

eye

ars

1996

thro

ugh

2005

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Org

aniz

ing

stru

ctur

es

(Con

tinu

ed)



Tabl

e3.

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hor

(yea

r)an

djo

urna

l(a

)D

Lin

terp

rete

das

...

(b)

DL

surf

aces

in..

.(c

)R

esea

rch

desi

gn(d

)D

Lca

ptur

edth

roug

h..

.(e

)D

imen

sion

(s)

ofD

Lin

the

empi

rics

Hai

der

and

Mar

iott

i(20

16)

Man

agem

ent

Dec

isio

n

Man

ager

s’co

ncep

tual

izat

ion

ofth

ebu

sine

ssan

din

stit

utio

nal

com

plex

itie

sth

atin

form

sst

rate

gic

deci

sion

s

Man

ager

s’st

rate

gic

deci

sion

s,es

peci

ally

duri

ngcr

itic

alev

ents

such

asm

arke

tor

gove

rnm

enta

lcha

nges

Indu

ctiv

e:M

C(H

=19

60–2

001)

�R

etro

spec

tive

anal

ysis

of49

in-d

epth

inte

rvie

ws

and

seco

ndar

yda

ta(a

nnua

lre

port

s)in

two

Paki

stan

iau

tom

otiv

eco

mpa

nies

�Fo

cus

oncr

itic

alev

ents

ina

firm

’shi

stor

y,to

inve

stig

ate

the

proc

esse

san

dch

ange

sin

man

ager

s’de

cisi

on-m

akin

gbe

havi

our

over

tim

e

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Su

and

Wan

g(2

018)

Ent

repr

eneu

rshi

pR

esea

rch

Jour

nal

Min

dset

for

entr

epre

neur

ial

deci

sion

-mak

ing

Ent

repr

eneu

rs’

orie

ntat

ions

tow

ard

proa

ctiv

enes

s,in

nova

tiven

ess

and

risk

-tak

ing

Ded

uctiv

e:S

EM

(C)

�D

evel

opm

enta

ndap

plic

atio

n(t

o15

4ne

wve

ntur

esin

Chi

na)

ofa

scal

efo

rm

easu

ring

entr

epre

neur

ialo

rien

tati

onas

proa

ctiv

enes

s,in

nova

tiven

ess

and

risk

-tak

ing

Val

ues

and

prem

ises

Not

es.M

etho

d:M

C=

mul

tipl

e-ca

sest

udy;

SC

=si

ngle

-cas

est

udy;

H(y

ear)

=hi

stor

ical

peri

odof

data

coll

ecti

on;L

(t+

x)=

long

itud

inal

(tim

esof

data

coll

ecti

on);

C=

cros

s-se

ctio

nal;

CA

=cl

uste

ran

alys

is;S

EM

=S

truc

tura

lequ

atio

nm

odel

ing.



informal interviews or managerial statements in pub-lic settings (e.g. speeches, press), in annual reports oron firm websites. The authors in this tradition usu-ally portray dominant logic as a holistic attribute ofa human system comprising patterned cognitive andmanifested components. Deductive studies usuallystart from an operational definition of dominant logic,which is then quantitatively measured, either throughsurveys or through more objective data. These studiesseek to find explicit indicators of dominant logic torelate them to other variables, such as performancemeasures.

In all 28 empirical studies, human actors produce,maintain and/or change dominant logic. However,studies have focused on different agents (i.e. whocarries a dominant logic), ranging from individual-level (e.g. entrepreneurs, HR managers, CEOs) tocollective-level actors (e.g. management teams, busi-ness units, firms). Researchers who focus on cog-nitive structures or values and premises argue thatdominant logic can be found in invisible, subjectiverationalities. They employ either inductive strategiesbased on verbal data (e.g. interviews, verbal state-ments of managers in press articles or on websites)or deductive, survey-based instruments. In contrast,scholars who investigate the more visible dimensionsof dominant logic, that is, practices and organizingstructures, argue that dominant logic can be found inobjective (visible or measurable) manifestations, suchas similarities in cost structures or business models.Accordingly, they mostly employ deductive, quanti-tative strategies.

Disentangling interpretations andempirical assessments of dominantlogic

We now present the four dimensions of dominantlogic that we found in the literature and delineatethe theoretical rationale for each of the perspectives.Regarding the conceptualizations, we build on thecoding and categorization of the entire sample of 94papers. For each dimension, we provide a brief defi-nition and illustrative examples of the terms and con-cepts the authors used. Then, we discuss the empiricalapproaches that were employed to capture dominantlogic. As can be seen from column (e) in Table 3: 21 ofthe 28 studies employed methods to capture only oneof the four dimensions of dominant logic; 4 out of 28combined two dimensions; and 3 out of 28 combinedthree dimensions of dominant logic in their empirics.

Hence, a few of the quoted studies will recur in theempirical (i.e. ‘Capturing . . . ’) sections of differentdimensions.

Dominant logic as a shared mental model

Conceptualization. This dimension is the closest tothe main definitional component of dominant logic as‘the way in which managers conceptualize the busi-ness’ (Prahalad and Bettis 1986, p. 490). In cognitivepsychology, mental models are defined as ‘organizedpackets of information about the world, events, orpeople, stored in long term memory’ (Eysenck andKeane 2005, p. 564).

Examples of interpretations of dominant logic asshared mental models include terms such as mind-set or worldview (Prahalad and Bettis 1986), mean-ings (Bouwen and Steyaert 1990), cognitive stylesto frame problems (Bouwen and Fry 1991), domi-nant patterns of thinking (Laukkanen 1994), set ofshared schemata (Zyglidopoulos 1999), informationfilter (von Krogh et al. 2000), frames of reference(Downing 2005) and belief systems and mental mod-els (Kor and Mesko 2013). As these examples show,this category includes definitions of dominant logicas mental representations of ‘the world’ and of ‘howthings are’.

Operationalization. Although Grant (1988) arguedthat it might be difficult to empirically investigatedominant logic because cognition is hard to capture,researchers have developed rigorous approaches toinvestigate a firm’s dominant logic as a shared men-tal model. More explicitly, Laukkanen (1994) opera-tionalized a firm’s dominant logic (as ‘dominant pat-terns of thinking’) through a multistage procedureof causal mapping that allowed for identifying andvisualizing the managers’ cognitive maps of a do-main. Similarly, Schraven et al. (2015) developeda cognitive mapping technique including statisticaltests and graphical approaches to account for the twomain characteristics of dominant logic that were high-lighted in von Krogh and Roos’s (1996) conceptual ar-ticle: self-reference and scale. Specifically, Schravenet al. (2015) proposed that the only means–end linksthat are based on dominant logic are those that: (i)are reflected in multiple responses by one and thesame respondent; and (ii) re-occur across multiple re-spondents at different positions within the same firm.However, Laukkanen’s (1994) and Schraven et al.’s(2015) methods were rarely used in empirical researchon dominant logic. Crilly and Sloan’s (2012) analysis



of annual reports from eight enterprises is one of therare exceptions that applied causal mapping.

Whereas scholars in the cognitive mapping camprecommend employing specific structured interviewtechniques, Phillips et al. (2008) suggested identi-fying a firm’s dominant logic by means of criticaldiscourse analyses. They argued that ‘organizationallogics can be studied as cases of intersubjectivemeaning-making that use the discursive resourcesfrom outside the organization to achieve consensusaround its strategic ends and the means adoptedto achieve those ends’ (Phillips et al. 2008, p.776). However, we are only aware of one empiricalstudy that employed discourse analysis as a tool forcapturing dominant logic as a shared mental model.Hadida and Paris (2014) coded mission and visionstatements of 21 new ventures in the digital musicindustry to examine the discourses of entrepreneurs.

Instead, most studies in this category employed in-terpretive approaches that follow one of two strate-gies. First, some have used dominant logic as a ‘con-tainer’ that can be filled with empirical content; thiscontent is then regarded as ‘the dominant logic of. . . ’. Examples of this include: ‘entrepreneurial firmsin China’ (Obloj et al. 2013); ‘strategic practices offurther education colleges’ (Smith et al. 2002); ‘in-novation projects’ (Bouwen and Fry 1991); ‘a largebroadcasting company’ (Maijanen 2015b); and ‘theBelgian fashion industry’ (Jacobs et al. 2016). Theseauthors mainly used case study designs based oninterviews.

The second interpretive strategy to capture domi-nant logic as a shared mental model is to first dimen-sionalize it and then associate its dimensions with spe-cific outcomes. For instance, von Krogh et al. (2000)derived internal (people, culture, product and brand)and external (competitor, customers, consumer andtechnology) categories from annual reports, which– in their view – fully capture dominant logic as ashared mental model; subsequently, they created anumerical measure of the bandwidth of these cate-gories and related it to performance data from Nokiaand Erikson. Another example is the study by Ellonenet al. (2015). To capture the dominant logic of fourdivisions of a large media corporation, Ellonen andcolleagues interviewed managers, focusing on theirperceptions of the role of print, of the business thatthey are in, and of the industry and its effects on thecorporation. Then, they associated these different per-ceptions in each area with the divisions’ sensing, seiz-ing and transforming capacities. Cote et al. (1999),in their single-case study, elicited cognitive concepts

from annual reports (i.e. strength in management oflarge projects, multiculturalism and Canadian iden-tity) in a large engineering company and linked themwith that company’s acquisition choices and manage-ment approaches.

In summary, in this category, the agents of dom-inant logic are typically top managers and en-trepreneurs, or top management teams. This is in linewith the idea that cognition, even if it is shared amongmultiple actors, is bounded to individuals. When re-searchers interpret dominant logic as shared mentalmodels, they must find ways to capture latent cogni-tive structures. Whereas explicit methods have beenproposed to do so (e.g. Laukkanen 1994; Schravenet al. 2015), scholars often employ inductive strate-gies and collect verbal material (including interviews,as well as existing speeches, annual reports, text onwebsites, etc.) to infer a firm’s dominant logic. Theinterpretive studies differ with regard to the degreeof ‘induction’. Some choose a priori categories topin down dominant logic (e.g. Ellonen et al. 2015),while others study dominant logic more inductively(e.g. Cote et al. 1999). Our analysis reveals that in in-terpretive procedures, scholars do not always specifywhat exactly they regard as dominant logic (for an ex-ception, see Cote et al. 1999). Instead, they often seemto ‘freely choose’ those contents from their empiricaldata that are then referred to as shared mental models.Moreover, studies in this category usually argue thatdominant logic primarily surfaces in cognitive com-ponents, irrespective of whether they label them asconcepts, schemes or mental models, and what theytruly focus on (e.g. patterned action). These studiesin particular would benefit from a more rigorous dif-ferentiation of mental models and other constituentsof dominant logic (i.e. values and premises, practicesand structures) to prevent an arbitrary blending oftheir data.

Dominant logic as values and premises

Conceptualization. This category comprises inter-pretations that focus on dominant logic mainly asa vehicle for conveying ideas and beliefs of ‘howthe world should be’. Values can be defined as ‘cen-tral and enduring tenets of the organization’ (Collinsand Porras 2005, p. 73) or as ‘concepts or beliefsthat pertain to desirable end states or behaviours, thattranscend specific situations, and guide selection orevaluation of behaviour and events’ (Schwartz 1992,p. 4).



Examples include views of dominant logic as a setof unseen assumptions (Bettis and Prahalad 1995), lo-cal meaning framework based on historically rootedvalues (Bouwen and Fry 1991), set of premises (Lam-pel and Shamsie 2000), core values (van Rekomet al. 2006), institutionalized beliefs (de Holan 2011),meta-heuristic (Lumpkin and Brigham 2011), tem-plate that defines values and beliefs (Vardaman et al.2012) or fundamental strategic beliefs, assumptionsand intentions of the CEO and senior management(Kor and Mesko 2013).

Values can be general (e.g. motivate people,achieve a good result; van Rekom et al. 2006) orspecific to a topic. For instance, specific values mayconcern beliefs about the necessity of childcare initia-tives within an organization (Kossek et al. 1994) or theneed for flexibility and individual autonomy versusstandardization and formalization in patient care (Var-daman et al. 2012). As such, values build the underly-ing determinants of decision-making preferences andthus serve as – mostly unconscious – decision-makingpremises. For example, they can mediate the interde-pendent choices of a firm’s strategic orientation andits managerial resource development and deploymentpractices (Kor and Mesko 2013). This relationshipwith decision-making is also reflected in Prahalad andBettis’s original definition, describing dominant logicas ‘the way in which managers conceptualize the busi-ness and make critical resource allocation decisions’(Prahalad and Bettis 1986, p. 490; emphasis added).An example that explicitly emphasizes the role ofdominant logic for decision-making is Lumpkin andBringham’s (2011) description of long-term orienta-tion as a higher-order heuristic, in that it assists in fil-tering information during strategic decision-makingin family firms.

Operationalization. Similar to the cognitive map-ping approaches, van Rekom et al. (2006) presenteda sophisticated method for capturing dominant logicas core values and premises. Specifically, they sug-gested a means–end analysis, an interview techniquethat aims to identify important ends (i.e. goals) withinan organization and enquires into the means nec-essary to achieve these ends. The result is a col-lection of means–end statements. Starting from theidea that core values define what is considered a de-sired end, van Rekom et al. (2006) further arguedthat ends which are important to an organization willhave multiple means–end paths leading both towardthem and away from them. Hence, their method startswith an explorative phase to identify means–end re-

lations. In a second step, based on these means–endrelations, a standardized questionnaire is presentedto the firm’s members. The responses enable a cal-culation of the relative dominance of each of thevalues in the firm’s value system. However, despiteits rigour, none of the studies addressing dominantlogic empirically have used van Rekom et al.’s (2006)method.

Instead, most empirical methods in this categoryhave built on the assumption that values and premisessurface as core orientations, that is, as organiza-tion members’ ‘usual, general, or lasting direction ofthought, inclination, or interest’ (Merriam-WebsterOnline Dictionary, cited in Covin and Lumpkin 2011,p. 857). To capture such orientations, scholars havecollected cross-sectional survey data. Kossek et al.(1994), for example, assumed that particular config-urations of the dominant logic of human resource(HR) managers lead to the adoption of childcare ini-tiatives. They captured that overall dominant logicwith an idiosyncratic item scale that operationalizedthe organization members’ overall orientation towardchildcare. Likewise, Garg et al. (2003) described andoperationalized dominant logic as orientations towardeither the internal (i.e. innovation vs. efficiency) orthe external environment (i.e. general vs. task) inwhich manufacturing firms operate. Similarly, Su andWang (2018) viewed dominant logic as being the re-sult of an entrepreneurial orientation: a specific ‘en-trepreneurial mindset’ of new ventures that affectshow they make decisions.

In summary, in this dimension of values andpremises, dominant logic is assumed to be locatedwithin human agents. To capture a firm’s (shared)dominant logic as values and premises, scholarshave mostly employed straightforward deductiveapproaches, such as surveys, that operationalize dom-inant logic as concrete orientations ‘toward some-thing’. Interestingly, empirical studies in this categoryoften shift the agent of dominant logic from an indi-vidual or managerial actor to a more collective level,by surveying constructs relevant for the whole firm,such as firm-level proactiveness (e.g. ‘Our firm triesto influence directions of changes’; Obloj et al. 2010,p. 165). The threat of capturing dominant logic as anorientation is that the two concepts are quasi-equated.For example, Kossek et al. (1994), who argued thatdominant logic manifests as values and premises, de-fined a firm’s orientation toward childcare as its dom-inant logic. The obvious advantage is that dominantlogic then lends itself to be the theoretical backingfor that specific orientation (toward childcare, toward



the internal or external environment, etc.). However,if the dominant logic is considered to be the same asan organization’s orientations, then the value addedby the dominant logic as a theoretical concept islost.

Dominant logic as organizational practices

Conceptualization. This category accounts forPrahalad and Bettis’s (1986, p. 490) idea thatdominant logic is ‘a set of elicited managementprocesses’, or a form of process knowledge, and isalso in line with the view that cognition should beconsidered as embedded in organizational practice(Bettis et al. 2011; Burgelman et al. 2018; Nicolini2011). Organizational practice has been defined as‘routinized types of behaviour including bodily andmental activities, and the materials and tools used tocarry out these activities’ (Reckwitz 2002, p. 249).Accordingly, this category comprises all definitionsthat link dominant logic with patterned, recurringactions of organizations and its members, mainlyin the shape of organizational processes, standardoperating procedures, routines or recurring ‘ways ofoperating’. Examples of interpreting dominant logicas organizational practice include Bouwen and Fry’s(1991) interpretation of dominant logic as managerialpractice, Cote et al.’s (1999, p. 40) description of itas ‘entrenched habitual modes of functioning basedon prior successes and failures’ and Verbeke’s (2010,p. 40) view of dominant logic as ‘stable patterns ofdecisions and actions that coordinate the productiveuse of resources’.

Operationalization. Although many of the empir-ical studies in the literature view a firm’s dominantlogic as recurring organizational practices (e.g.Boivin and Roch 2006; Obloj et al. 2010, 2013),none of these studies empirically assessed actions orroutines in a process study (as described by Langleyet al. 2013). Instead, organizational practices aremostly inferred from retrospective interviews or arequeried through surveys. One typical example of theformer is the single-case study conducted by Bouwenand Steyaert (1990). The authors interviewed thefounder and key employees of Newcom, a new ven-ture, to understand how meanings (e.g. doing excitingand independent work, being a salesman) and corre-sponding actions (e.g. opportunity seeking, planning)affected the development of the young firm. Theycoded verbal transcripts and documents and foundtensions between an opportunistic (i.e. sales and client

orientation, technical competence) and an emergingbounding logic (i.e. controlling the inner workingsof the firm) that were resolved through dialogue.

In a different approach, Lampel and Shamsie(2000) investigated how a firm’s dominant logic man-ifested as recurring organizational practice. They ar-gued that a mission statement communicated by a for-mer CEO of General Electrics (i.e. being the numberone or two player in the focal market) represents thefirm’s dominant logic, since it shapes the corporation’sjoint venture decisions and designs. They then iden-tified 70 joint ventures undertaken by the businessunits of General Electrics between 1984 and 1993 andassessed whether the business units restricted jointventure efforts with large partners, instead preferringjoint ventures with small, national partners to adhereto their dominant logic of remaining the number-oneplayer. Similarly, Boivin and Roch (2006, p. 412) em-ployed a qualitative historical analysis – ‘a processof assembling, critically examining and summarizingthe records of the past’ – to extract dominant logic.More precisely, they assessed the prevailing logics ofApple Inc. with regard to its experiences with collab-oration. From their qualitative analysis, Boivin andRoch concluded that Apple’s inspirational logic im-peded the firm from successfully establishing internaland external strategic alliances.

Finally, survey-based approaches have been em-ployed in this category. Obloj et al. (2010, p. 165),for example, used survey items such as ‘We developefficient procedures in the early stage of our firm’s op-eration’ and ‘Important pieces of information mainlypass through formal channels in our firm’ to capturedominant logic as enacted cognition.

In summary, in line with Nicolini’s (2011, p. 603)idea that shared cognition ‘is located within the rela-tionships between the people participating in specificpractices’, the location of dominant logic is an orga-nizational practice. Accordingly, the agent of domi-nant logic is typically a collective actor (e.g. a busi-ness unit, an entrepreneurial firm, Apple Inc.) who islikely to act in a certain way (e.g. by preferring spe-cific joint-venture constellations) over time, in linewith an underlying mental model and set of values orpremises. Whereas an appropriate method to capturelogic as practices would be observational studies orethnographical approaches, and earlier research hascalled for such approaches (Bettis et al. 2011), theempirical studies in this category tend to infer pat-terned action from (retrospective) interviews, histori-cal analyses or surveys rather than actual behaviouraldata.



Dominant logic as organizing structures

Conceptualization. The idea of dominant logic asorganizing structures is inherent in the original def-inition, which includes ‘the administrative tools toaccomplish goals and make decisions’ (Prahalad andBettis 1986, p. 491; emphasis added) and von Kroghand Roos’s (1996) view of dominant logic as self-similar, meaning that organizational structures at dif-ferent scales resemble each other. Moreover, theo-rists have claimed that structural or configurationalarrangements, such as specialization, formalization,decentralization and hierarchy, serve as both carri-ers and manifestations of cognition (Zyglidopoulos1999; see also Giddens 1984).

Examples of definitions that interpret dominantlogic mainly as organizing principles or structuresinclude Grant’s (1988) management functions (i.e.resource allocation, strategy formulation and con-trol of performance targets), the texture of organiz-ing (Bowen and Steyaert 1990), the embodiment ofparts of dominant logic in organizational structuresand systems (Bettis and Prahalad 1995), similaritiesbetween lines of businesses in advertising or capitalintensity (D’Aveni et al. 2004) and the view of dom-inant logic as dominant themes and configurations(Obloj et al. 2010).

Operationalization. Methods to capture dominantlogic as organizing structures exist in both the in-terpretive and the deductive camps. As an exampleof the former, Cote et al. (1999) employed an inter-pretive strategy based on extensive documentary evi-dence and in-depth retrospective interviews to elabo-rate on the management and organizing principles ofa large Canadian engineering firm. They performeda historical, longitudinal case study where they anal-ysed the core activities and history of the firm as de-scribed in annual reports to identify both patterns oforganizing and the underlying organizing principles(individual autonomy and development, ad-hoc col-laboration and fluid structures). Similarly, Robertsonand Swan (2004) focused on organizing templates,which they defined as modes of organizing and gov-ernance. Through a longitudinal case study, includinginterviews and observations of day-to-day work in aknowledge-intensive firm, they tracked how these or-ganizing templates, as reflectors of managerial logics,changed from an adhocracy to a soft bureaucracy overtime. Another example of an interpretive approach isthe study by Obloj et al. (2013), who coded verbal in-terview data to investigate the members’ perceptions

of the environment, choices and actions, routines andcodification of learning. By analysing similarities anddifferences among six firms from different industries,Obloj et al. (2013, p. 300) found specific characteris-tics of management systems, such as ‘centralization,paternalistic leadership, simple planning or little for-malization’ to be core organizing principles of thestudied firms.

Regarding deductive approaches to capturing dom-inant logic as an organizing structure, implicitlybuilding on ideas from von Krogh and Roos (1996),a set of scholars strived to capture dominant logicas structural similarity. For example, D’Aveni et al.(2004) studied intra-firm similarities and proposedthat a firm’s dominant logic is reflected in structuralresource congruence (i.e. the degree to which the re-source allocation patterns of a line of business resem-ble those of a sister company’s line of business). Theauthors captured numerical data (e.g. cost structures)and calculated an intensity congruence score for ad-vertising, research and development (R&D), sellingand capital intensity. As another example, Monteiro(2015) viewed dominant logic as similarities betweenbusiness models of subsidiaries and headquarters. Inhis single-case study of a large multinational enter-prise, he collected subjective (i.e. surveys) and ob-jective (i.e. firm-internal database) data to show thatdominant logic exerts its impact by being a sourceof unconsciously preferred technologies. The authoroperationalized dominant logic as the firms’ busi-ness models and predicted that strategic options inthe subsidiaries that diverged from the headquarters’business model would be discarded. The level of dis-agreement between business models was assessed byasking managers to rate the level of fit along five di-mensions (e.g. market segment addressed by a newtechnology vs. corporate business model). Similarly,Gentry et al. (2016) hypothesized that the domi-nant logic of family-influenced firms is character-ized by long-term orientation. To test whether familyinfluence predicts long-term orientation, the authorsmeasured slack resources, strategic risk-taking andbankruptcy risk as indicators of the dominant logic oflong-term orientation.

Lane and Lubatkin (1998) examined knowledgeand research similarities of firms in R&D alliances.Specifically, they assessed inter-firm similarity bycounting the number of research communities inwhich both partners had published, with more sharedcommunities indicating a greater overlap of theirproblem sets (i.e. their dominant logic). Also buildingon the idea of similarity, Combs et al. (2011) argued



that dominant logic is a strategic resource, and thatmanagers who have experience in managing similarstrategic and operational demands develop dominantlogics that are beneficial for franchise strategy.

In summary, dominant logic – in this category –is mostly assumed to surface in organizational struc-tures (e.g. cost structures, R&D structures). Accord-ingly, the agent of dominant logic is a collectivethat enacts these structures on a day-to-day basis, inline with their underlying mental models, values andpremises. Empirical scholars investigating organizingstructures often focus solely on structural similarity,without taking into account other aspects. In manycases, they operationalize specific, rather narrow vari-ables, such as the number of similar research commu-nities or cost structures, and view these numbers asreflectors of dominant logic. Here, a dominant logicis located in manifested dimensions enabling opera-tional measurement. In the empirics of this category,the underlying cognition of actors exists as a back-ground assumption that helps explain why variancein the phenomenon occurs (e.g. why cost structuresbetween several lines of businesses differ). However,cognition is not captured explicitly. While this ap-proach enables large-scale studies and more complexquantitative modelling, the drawback is that much in-formation, especially with respect to more invisibleaspects of dominant logic, is lost with these rathernarrow operationalizations.

Summary

Our systematic literature review of the extant 94studies of dominant logic that explicitly build onPrahalad and Bettis’s original ideas revealed a varietyof interpretations and empirical approaches for cap-turing dominant logic. In their conceptualizations,researchers have used a multitude of terms andconcepts (e.g. information filter, mental model, man-agerial practice, organizational configuration) in asomewhat arbitrary manner to reveal their interpreta-tion of dominant logic. Depending on where scholarsexpected to find dominant logic (e.g. in mental modelsvs. organizing structures), they used different empiri-cal strategies (i.e. inductive vs. deductive) and variousmethods. This poses threats to the validity of findingsand prevents comparisons across studies. Through ourcontent analysis of the literature, we have disentan-gled the extant interpretations and operationalizationsand identified four different dimensions of dominantlogic. For each of the dimensions, we have describedhow researchers have interpreted the concept, where

it is assumed to be located and how exactly it wascaptured, thereby facilitating conceptual clarity.

At the same time, a closer look at the original def-inition of dominant logic shows that the four dimen-sions are already covered in Prahalad and Bettis’s(1986) original theorizing. Hence, they do not con-tradict each other, but merely take different anglesand are thus consistent. However, researchers seemto struggle with the multidimensionality of the con-struct: they often emphasize one particular dimension(e.g. shared mental model) at the expense of others,thereby neglecting how the dimensions interrelate.Hence, in the next section, we will reassemble thefour dimensions to develop a more coherent under-standing of what a dominant logic actually is and howit can be assessed more rigorously.

Reassembling dominant logic: anintegrative model

Revisiting the definition of dominant logic by Pra-halad and Bettis (1986, p. 491) as ‘a mindset or aworldview or conceptualization of the business andthe administrative tools to accomplish goals and makedecisions in that business’, it becomes clear that theauthors introduced it as a multifaceted construct. Itis neither a mere ‘mindset’ nor exclusively the ‘ad-ministrative tools’; all these aspects are interrelated.However, many scholars have neglected to acknowl-edge this interrelation. Our analysis of the interpre-tations and assessments of dominant logic enables usto increase the granularity of theorizing by zoomingin on the concept’s structure and inner workings.

As shown in Figure 2, we regard the four dimen-sions that we have identified as constituents of dom-inant logic which in concert determine the concept’sstructure. Thereby, we consider the dominant logic asa multifaceted entity that is rooted in (invisible) cogni-tion, but simultaneously surfaces in manifested (visi-ble) structures; in Prahalad and Bettis’s (1986) terms,it is both a mindset and the according administrativetools to bring that mindset to life. As indicated by thedashed lines in Figure 2, shared mental models, val-ues and premises represent the invisible, cognitive di-mensions (scholars have referred to them as schemas,orientations, meanings, beliefs, etc.); organizationalpractices and organizing structures are the visible,manifested dimensions (also referred to as manage-ment tools, administrative structures, etc.). Over time,and with accumulated experience, the cognitive (in-visible) shared mental models and values become



Figure 2. An integrative model of dominant logic

ingrained in manifested (visible) organizational prac-tices and structures (Bettis et al. 2011; Zyglidopou-los 1999), meaning that the invisible side has a gen-erative function because it underlies and affects thevisible side. Conversely, (visible) structures and prac-tices provide feedback into the underlying (invisible)mental models and values, thereby both reinforcingand modifying the underlying cognitive dimensions.Accordingly, all four dimensions are tightly coupledthrough consistent relationships. In what follows, wewill consider how the constituents of dominant logicoperate in concert.

Link 1: Shared mental models, values and premises

Whereas shared mental models permit actors to cate-gorize an event, assess its consequences and considerappropriate actions (Prahalad and Bettis 1986), valuesand decision premises make it possible for organiza-tion members to choose amongst existing alternativesand accordingly act upon them. Values and premisesencapsulate the information filter function of domi-nant logic because they guide managerial attention bydetermining what is important. They also affect howevents (e.g. technological innovations) are interpretedand evaluated.

For example, Bingham and Kahl (2013) showedthat actors in the insurance industry interpreted theemergence of the computer (from 1947 to 1975)through the mental model of either a machine or abrain. These interpretations were contingent on dif-ferent premises about what a computer is good for(i.e. calculating vs. decision-making). This interlink-age between mental models and values and premises

is also reflected in Bettis and Wong’s (2003) notionthat dominant logic governs both the search spaceassociated with problems (i.e. a mental model de-termining ‘how the world is’) and the key featuresof acceptable solutions (i.e. decision premises deter-mining ‘how the world should be’).

Even if mental models and values are related, it isimportant to differentiate between them more care-fully. Shared mental models surface in frames, cat-egories and vocabularies (Joseph and Gaba 2020).They are general perceptual mechanisms. In contrast,values and premises pertain to desirable end states,thus accommodating an evaluative function (e.g. bydetermining what is right/wrong). Values are the car-riers of what scholars have described as deeply rooted,taken-for-granted or culturally shaped beliefs, thatdefine the important goals within an organization, aswell as the appropriate means to achieve those goals(van Rekom et al. 2006). In summary, while they areclosely interrelated, mental models and values playdifferent roles within an organization and are thusseparate dimensions of dominant logic.

Link 2: Cognitive dimensions to organizationalpractices

Over time, mental models and values of individualactors become ‘embedded in a firm’s routines,procedures and resource commitments’ (Kor andMesko 2013, p. 236; emphasis removed; see alsoGrant 1988). Whereas at the birth of an organization,the dominant logic may be largely grounded in anentrepreneur’s cognition (e.g. her vision about thefirm), it eventually becomes enacted over time by the



organization’s members (Bettis et al. 2011). Forexample, values become desired ends and as aresult, particular organizational practices emerge asappropriate means to achieve those ends (van Rekomet al. 2006). Thereby, ‘background knowledge in theform of understanding, know-how, states of emotionand motivational knowledge’ shapes practices withinan organization (Reckwitz 2002, p. 249; see alsoFeldman and Pentland 2003; Tsoukas 1996). In otherwords, cognition generates and shapes organizationalpractices, which leads to a pattern in how things aretypically done (see also Rerup and Feldman 2011;Tsoukas 1996).

Critical strategic management tasks, such as re-source allocation, are then performed by relyingon negotiated and agreed-upon premises and pro-grammes (Luhmann 2018), surfacing in a ‘nexus ofinterconnected human practices’ that span ‘knowl-edge, meaning, human activity and sociality’ (Nicol-ini 2011, p. 602). In its most formalized version, thismay lead to standard operating procedures or (au-tomated) processes. In summary, invisible cognitivedimensions of dominant logic become visible in or-ganizational practices.

Link 3: Cognitive dimensions to organizingstructures

The cognitive dimensions of dominant logic maysolidify into organizational structures. Prahalad andBettis (1986) termed them ‘administrative tools’ andthought of these tools as history-dependent processknowledge. In this spirit, Grant (1988) argued thatcognition becomes effective through the managementfunctions of resource allocation, strategy formulationand controlling of performance targets. These func-tions manifest in hierarchical roles, vertical commu-nication and rules (e.g. means and ends) for theirenactment. The argument that organizational struc-tures are rooted in cognition has been recognized byscholars who interpret and assess dominant logic instructural terms, such as similarity in cost structuresand business models (e.g. D’Aveni et al. 2004; Laneand Lubatkin 1998; Monteiro 2015).

Even if they have not directly assessed cogni-tion, some authors have acknowledged that struc-tural dimensions of dominant logic are deeply rootedin cognitive processes (e.g. attention, information-processing or decision-making). Monteiro (2015), forexample, concluded that the headquarters of largecorporations favour confirmatory and proven exter-nal knowledge. They do so because selective atten-

tion mechanisms arising from dominant logic areat play, leading to overseeing the potential of newtechnologies. Similarly, resource relatedness (as mea-sured through a resource congruence score) betweenlines of businesses, as D’Aveni et al. (2004, p. 367)have stated, reflects ‘a set of cognitive simplifica-tions, analogies, conventional wisdom, and intuitionabout successful strategies’. Thus, the cognitive di-mensions of dominant logic underlie and shape orga-nizing structures.

Link 4: Organizational practices and organizingstructures

Theorists of dominant logic have also mentioned bothpractices and structures in their analysis of dominantlogic (e.g. Bettis and Wong 2003). Even if certainscholars, like von Krogh and Ross (1996, p. 734),have suggested that it is only a matter of perspectiveas to whether ‘a social phenomenon may appear asprocessual; [ . . . ] on another, arbitrarily chosen scale,the same social phenomenon may appear sufficientlystable to be called structural’, we argue that practiceand structure should be seen as two highly interrelatedbut distinct dimensions.

As we have outlined, practices are routinized typesof behaviour (e.g. procedures for hiring new mem-bers), and organizing structures refer to the ways inwhich an organization divides its labour and putsits parts together to achieve certain goals, result-ing in structural and configurational arrangements(e.g. hierarchies, specialization and decentralization)– hence, practice and structure are different entities,at least for the sake of operationalization. A recentcomprehensive review also confirmed the assump-tion that what organizational actors do is stronglydependent on the structural configurations in whichthey operate (Joseph and Gaba 2020). This idea isalso in line with Giddens’ (1984, p. 25) view that‘the structural properties of social systems (i.e. rulesand resources) are both medium and [the] outcome ofthe practices they recursively organize’. Bowen andSteyaert’s (1990) study illustrates this argument byshowing how dominant logic (i.e. the meanings andactions of an individual entrepreneur) become em-bedded over time in the development of the ‘texture’of organizing. In terms of the dimensions of domi-nant logic, this means that human actors within anorganization produce and reproduce regular practicesand organizational and social structures, thereby es-tablishing aligned systems of how things are typicallyorganized.



Link 5: Feedback from manifested dimensions tocognitive dimensions

We propose two feedback mechanisms from the man-ifested to the cognitive dimensions (i.e. reinforce-ment and modification). For the former, we assumethat dominant logic has a self-reinforcing nature thatunfolds through reproducing existing cognitive andmanifested structures (Bettis et al. 2011): throughrecurring organizational practices and established or-ganizing structures, existing mental models and val-ues are maintained and hence cognitive variance issuppressed (Bettis 2000). Successful business modelscan become so deeply ingrained in a firm’s organiz-ing structures that the underlying cognitive structuresbecome hard to change (Bettis et al. 2011). An ex-ample of the reproduction function of dominant logicis what happens when new organizational members,who share similar mental models and values, are re-cruited and socialized, thereby further condensing theextant dominant logic and potentially leading to cog-nitive inertia (Bettis and Wong 2003; Kor and Mesko2013).

This self-reinforcing function of dominant logicmay lead to both high performance – because rou-tines and structures are means for ensuring efficiencywithin an organization – and a state of inertia, whenenvironmental conditions change (Prahalad 2004);because mental models and values continue to endureeven when contradictory evidence is at hand (Balo-gun and Johnson 2004). For example, the successfulrazor-blade business model of Polaroid (i.e. its orga-nizing structure) was so prevalent that it prevented itstop management from changing their worldview andbringing in digital imaging as a new business model(Tripsas and Gavetti 2000). In other words, in the caseof Polaroid, the extant structures and practices seemto have reinforced the prevalent mental models andpremises.

Nevertheless, as a second feedback mechanism, ex-isting practices and structures may also contribute tomodifications of the underlying cognitive dimensions.Although it is not very prominent in the literature ondominant logic, this mechanism is well documentedin literatures on schema change (e.g. Bartunek andMoch 1987; Labianca et al. 2000), proposing thatany implementation of change in an organization re-quires a corresponding adjustment of its underlyingshared mental models in order to be effective.

Moreover, evidence on the relationship of routinesand mental models bolsters the argument that prac-tice may contribute to changes in mental models and

values. First, performing routines is not mindless, butcontains self-reflective and other-reflective behaviour(Feldman and Pentland 2003), and ‘[r]outine partici-pants gain a sense for what they ought to do throughacting’ (Dittrich and Seidl 2018, p. 134). The reflec-tion about ‘what one is doing’ potentially affects themental models of the actors involved in the routine.Second, routines do not just give shape to organizationmembers’ actions, but also function as normative con-straints (Feldman and Pentland 2003; Tsoukas 1996).Because actors do not perform routines exactly thesame way, but can ‘alter the potential repertoire ofactivities that creates and recreates [ . . . ] the routine’(Feldman and Pentland 2003, p. 108), over time, newpractices may be seen as legitimate. Changes in legiti-macy may impact decision premises, values or mentalmodels. In this way, the dominant logic as a whole canbecome adaptive, as it may incrementally change overtime (Bettis and Prahalad 1995).

A revised conceptualization of dominant logic

In summary, based on our review and analyses, we re-gard dominant logic as a multidimensional constructthat describes how (invisible) managerial cognitionis related to (visible) practices and structures. Moreprecisely, we think of dominant logic as a system ofshared mental models, values and decision premisesthat manifest in corresponding organizational prac-tices and organizing structures; all these dimensionsare aligned.

Our revised conceptualization of dominant logic isstill in line with Prahalad and Bettis’s (1986) origi-nal theorizing of dominant logic, but further refinesit. Whereas Bettis et al. (2011) have discerned ‘in-visible’ and ‘visible’ elements in their theorizing, wezoom in once again and are now able to precisely namethe four different dimensions that underlie the ‘mind-set’ and ‘administrative tools’ covering a dominantlogic. By introducing the notion of alignment acrossdimensions, we highlight that the dimensions need tobe consistent with each other, in order to be part ofa firm’s dominant logic. For example, ‘long term ori-entation’ can only be a feature of a firm’s dominantlogic if it is reflected in the shared mental model of theorganization’s members, its decision premises (e.g.little risk-taking), practices (e.g. conserving slack) orHR structures (e.g. long-term employment). We willreturn to this aspect in the discussion section to high-light implications for capturing dominant logic.

Our integrative model still fits the complex adaptivesystems theory – an important grounding of dominant



logic (Bettis and Prahalad 1995). Complex adaptivesystems theory assumes that organizational-level be-haviour is produced by agents within an organization:(i) who act based on their mental models; (ii) whoare dependent on each other and interact; and (iii)whose mental models and behaviour co-evolve overtime such that observable patterns emerge (Ander-son 1999). Accordingly, our integrative model sug-gests that these mutual dependencies lead to agreed-upon decision premises that condense into organizingstructures. Then, through their repeated interaction,organization members form routinized practices.

Discussion

In this review, we have taken stock of the existingresearch on dominant logic and provided a compre-hensive overview of the field. We have delved into theconcept and discerned four dimensions that reflecthow scholars have interpreted dominant logic. More-over, we have elicited and evaluated the empiricalstrategies employed to capture these four dimen-sions. Because scholars seemed to struggle with thatmultidimensionality, we have reassembled the fourdimensions into an integrative model that revealshow the dimensions interrelate to produce a firm’sdominant logic. Our more detailed perspective makesexplicit what has been mostly implicit in earlierresearch – namely, that dominant logic links sharedmental models, values and premises (‘invisible’cognition) with recurring organizational practicesand organizing structures (‘visible’ manifestation).This conceptualization highlights the need for futurestudies to be more careful in the application of theappropriate terminology, speaking of dimensionsof dominant logic rather than of dominant logic ingeneral. As a consequence, this review paves theway for a more precise application of the concept. Inwhat follows, we discuss theoretical and methodicalimplications and provide directions for futureresearch.

Theoretical implications

Our revised conceptualization of dominant logic de-scribes it as a system of four interrelated dimensions;it should be understood as a unique, recurring anddiscernible pattern of strategic thinking and decision-making, and the corresponding organizing structuresand practices. This idea that dominant logic shouldbe seen as a pattern extends previous considerations

of self-similarity: whereas self-similarity means that‘[t]he way managers conceptualize and manage tech-nologies, product development, distribution, adver-tising or people can be similar [ . . . ] throughout thecompany’ (von Krogh and Roos 1996, p. 735; see alsoSchraven et al. 2015), we argue that, in addition toseeking similar patterns across scales, scholars shouldalso consider alignment across dimensions. In moresimple terms, a certain aspect should only be con-sidered part of dominant logic if it recurs in sharedmental models, values and premises, routinized prac-tices and organizing structures.

Future researchers may further examine the micro-foundations underlying each of the four dimensions.For example, regarding mental models, sharednessis considered an important characteristic (e.g. vonKrogh and Roos 1996); however, it is unclear whoshares what, and to what extent that sharing occurs.Similarly, it is unclear how – in the case of com-peting values within a firm – certain values becomemore ‘dominant’ than others (e.g. von Rekom et al.2006). For example, which roles do conflict, discourseand power play in the evolution of a dominant logic(Bowen and Steyaert 1990; Phillips et al. 2008)?

Moreover, although we have taken a first steptoward integrating the four dimensions into amodel, future researchers may further illuminatethese interrelations. For example, regarding thefeedback mechanism of reinforcement between anorganization’s structure and the cognitive dimensionsof dominant logic, Joseph and Gaba (2020) recentlyestablished that structure impacts an organization’sdecision premises – this link may be specified inmore detail. Furthermore, although the mechanismof reinforcement has previously been acknowledged(Bettis et al. 2011), the way in which structuresand practices may contribute to modifications incognitive dimensions represents another interestingopportunity for future research.

In this context, our revised conceptualization alsoimplies a sensitive reflection of the inherent tempo-rality of dominant logic. Based on earlier work, wehave suggested that cognition transcends into the or-ganization over time, as it is enacted in recurringorganizational practices, and solidifies in organiza-tional structures (Bettis and Wong 2003; Kor andMesko 2013; van Rekom et al. 2006; see also Gid-dens 1984). Hence, as Figure 2 suggests, as the dom-inant logic of an organization develops, it becomesmore and more visible. Once established, organiza-tional practices and structures feed back to the cog-nitive dimensions, thereby reinforcing or modifying



existing mental models and values. Future work maystudy those temporal dynamics more explicitly, andlongitudinal analyses may reveal mechanisms of howfirms cultivate their unique ‘mentalities’, practicesand structures.

On a more general note, scholars could investigatemicro-foundations not just of its constituting dimen-sions, but of dominant logic as a whole. The domi-nant logic concept implies that actors inside a firmdevelop similar understandings that help them to col-lectively ‘make sense of, attribute meaning to, andinterpret internal and external events’ (Rentsch et al.2008, p. 144); these understandings then shape theorganization’s recurring practices and its entire struc-ture. Future research could examine general cogni-tive mechanisms, such as sensemaking (Weick et al.2005), attribution (Festinger 1957) and collective in-terpretation (Gavetti and Warglien 2015), which are atplay when a dominant logic is formed. These generalmicro-foundations of dominant logic have so far beenneglected in the scholarly community. Similarly, withonly a few exceptions (Schraven et al. 2015), schol-ars of dominant logic have neither theorized aboutwhat dominance actually means, nor reflected uponwhy their empirical content represents a dominantlogic. Hence, an interesting avenue for future researchwould be to theorize in more depth on the notion of‘dominance’.

Implications for empirical operationalization

It has been suggested in the literature that domi-nant logic can only be thoroughly assessed empiri-cally when the characteristics of self-reference andscale are taken into account (Schraven et al. 2015;von Krogh and Roos 1996). Empirically investigat-ing self-reference implies that a firm’s history needsto be considered, like in the examples of Bouwenand Steyaert (1990) and Cote et al. (1999). However,most studies in our sample did not tackle the role ofhistory in a systematic way. In order to investigatescale, von Krogh and Roos (1996) have argued thatresearchers have to look for patterns across differ-ent levels and scales within an organization. In ourreview, only a few studies have employed methodsto account for scale (D’Aveni et al. 2004; Lane andLubatkin 1998; Schraven et al. 2015). Hence, futureempirical research should focus more strongly on thefirms’ histories, as well as on recurring patterns acrossscales.

Our revised conceptualization of dominant logiccomes with some further implications for empiri-

cal assessment. One implication is that a reductionistanalysis (i.e. focusing on one dimension) is not suf-ficient; dominant logic needs be studied in a holisticway. This does not necessarily mean that all dimen-sions must be taken into account simultaneously, butscholars may combine at least some of them. So far,only a handful of scholars have combined, for in-stance, recurring organizational practices with valuesand premises (e.g. Kossek et al. 1994; Lampel andShamsie 2000), or shared mental models and organi-zational practices (e.g. Bouwen and Fry 1991). Othershave even identified three aspects of dominant logicin one and the same study (e.g. Bouwen and Steyaert1990; Cote et al. 1999; Obloj et al. 2013; Table 3).However, in general, empirical researchers have notexplicitly and purposefully discerned and combinedthe constituent dimensions of dominant logic. Ourrevised conceptualization and literature review mayserve as a starting point for scholars who aim to com-bine dimensions of dominant logic, specify how theyoperate in concert and choose or design appropriateoperationalization methods.

Importantly, as we have argued, empirical scholarsshould aim to discover themes that recur acrossdimensions. For example, for a certain value (e.g.long-term orientation) to be considered as part of adominant logic, there should be observable practices(e.g. risk-averse investment practices) that reflectthat value. Accordingly, empirical methods – bothdeductive and inductive – should be suitable toidentify such recurring themes across mental models,values and premises, organizational routines and or-ganizing structures. Mixed-method approaches (e.g.combinations of surveys, interviews, observationsand objective data) may be fruitful for assessingpatterns across invisible (e.g. values) and visibledimensions (e.g. practices) in one and the samestudy (e.g. see Cote et al. 1999). In this context,despite explicit claims for a more process-orientedperspective (Bettis et al. 2011), existing studies havealso largely ignored how dominant logic functionsas a process (e.g. how strategic decisions are actuallymade in practice). Hence, a process-based perspec-tive and the corresponding empirical approaches (e.g.observational studies, process analyses) remain op-portunities for future research. As another possibility,empirical scholars could use van Rekom et al.’s(2006) means–end analysis, or Schraven et al.’s(2015) cognitive mapping approach to operationalizecore values and mental models, respectively, andcombine them with methods to capture patterns inpractices (e.g. Pentland et al. 2010). Using more



standardized methodological approaches such asthese to capture dominant logic could also contributeto comparability of findings in the field.

A more general point of discussion is how empir-ical scholars have used dominant logic so far. Onegroup of (mostly deductive) studies used dominantlogic as an explanation for variance in other (mostlynumerical) variables. The concept of dominant logicprovided the theoretical basis for operationalizations,for instance, as similarity in the cost structures ofdifferent lines of business (D’Aveni et al. 2004)or similarity in research communities (Lane andLubatkin 1998). In their empirics, this group hasmostly designed operationalizations based on thevisible aspects of dominant logic (i.e. structures andpractices). The invisible, cognitive side of dominantlogic, as well as its evolution and history, were usedas background assumptions. This group may benefitfrom our integrative model, because it provides aclear, plausible reasoning for relationships betweeninvisible and visible aspects, which may help explainwhy, for example, certain numerical measures reflecta firm’s dominant logic.

The second group of (mostly interpretive) studiesaimed to study the dominant logic of a certain em-pirical context, for example, of entrepreneurial firmsin China (Obloj et al. 2013), or of new ventures inthe digital music industry (Hadida and Paris 2014).In these studies, dominant logic was often the tar-get of explanation, which seems particularly suitablefor exploring new empirical terrains. So far, somescholars in this group have used dominant logic as an‘open-ended container’ for their various observations.Instead of freely choosing the contents of their em-pirics, interpretive scholars may also look more sys-tematically for recurring themes across dimensions.Our integrative model also provides guidance here,as it outlines the different dimensions that need to becovered in an empirical study.

ReferencesAlexy, O. and George, G. (2013). Category divergence, strad-

dling, and currency: Open innovation and the legitimationof illegitimate categories. Journal of Management Studies,50, pp. 173–203.

Alt, E. and Craig, J.B. (2016). Selling issues with solutions:Igniting social intrapreneurship in for-profit organizations.Journal of Management Studies, 53, pp. 794–820.

Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organizationscience. Organization Science, 10, pp. 216–232.

Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restruc-turing and middle manager sensemaking. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47, pp. 523–549.

Bartunek, J.M. and Moch, M.K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization develop-ment interventions: A cognitive approach. The Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 23, pp. 483–500.

Bettis, R.A. (2000). Economics meets sociology in strate-gic management. Advances in Strategic Management, 17,pp. 143–166.

Bettis, R.A. and Prahalad, C.K. (1995). The dominant logic:Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Jour-nal, 16, pp. 5–14.

Bettis, R.A. and Wong, S.-S. (2003). Dominant logic, knowl-edge creation, and managerial choice. In Easterby-Smith,M. and Lyles, M.A. (eds), Handbook of OrganizationalLearning and Knowledge Management. Malden, MA:Blackwell, pp. 343–355.

Bettis, R.A., Wong, S.-S. and Blettner, D. (2011). Domi-nant logic, knowledge creation, and managerial choice.In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (eds), Handbookof Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management.Chichester: Wiley, pp. 369–381.

Beverland, M., Napoli, J. and Lindgreen, A. (2007). Indus-trial global brand leadership: A capabilities view. Indus-trial Marketing Management, 36, pp. 1082–1093.

Bingham, C.B. and Kahl, S.J. (2013). The process of schemaemergence: Assimilation, deconstruction, unitization andthe plurality of analogies. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 56, pp. 14–34.

Boisot, M. and Li, Y. (2005). Codification, abstraction, andfirm differences: A cognitive information-based perspec-tive. Journal of Bioeconomics, 7, pp. 309–334.

Boivin, C. and Roch, J. (2006). Dominant organizationallogic as an impediment to collaboration. Management De-cision, 44, pp. 409–422.

Bouwen, R. and Fry, R. (1991). Organizational innovationand learning. International Studies of Management andOrganization, 21, pp. 37–51.

Bouwen, R. and Steyaert, C. (1990). Construing organiza-tional texture in young entrepreneurial firms. Journal ofManagement Studies, 27, pp. 637–649.

Bower, J. (2018). Whitbread: Routines and resource build-ing on the path from brewer to retailer. Management andOrganizational History, 13, pp. 1–23.

Burgelman, R.A., Floyd, S.W., Laamanen, T., Mantere, S.,Vaara, E. and Whittington, R. (2018). Strategy processesand practices: Dialogues and intersections. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 39, pp. 531–558.

Burke, L.A. and Steensma, H.K. (1998). Toward a modelfor relating executive career experiences and firm perfor-mance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, pp. 86–102.

Campos, H.M., Atondo, G.H. and Quintero, M.R. (2014).Towards a theory for strategic posture in new technologybased firms. Journal of Technology Management and In-novation, 9, pp. 77–85.



Campos, H.M., dela Parra, J.P.N. and Parellada, F.S.(2012). The entrepreneurial orientation-dominant logic–performance relationship in new ventures: An exploratoryquantitative study. Brazilian Administration Review, 9,pp. 60–77.

Chinnis, A. and White, K.R. (1999). Challenging the dom-inant logic of emergency departments: Guidelines fromchaos theory. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17, pp. 1049–1054.

Ciszewska-Mlinaric, M., Obloj, K. and Wasowska, A. (2016).Effectuation and causation: Two decision-making logicsof INVs at the early stage of growth and internationaliza-tion. Journal of East European Management Studies, 21,pp. 275–297.

Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (2005). Built to Last: SuccessfulHabits of Visionary Companies. London: Random House.

Combs, J.G., Ketchen, D.J. Jr., Ireland, R.D. and Webb,J.W. (2011). The role of resource flexibility in leveragingstrategic resources. Journal of Management Studies, 48,pp. 1098–1125.

Cote, L., Langley, A. and Pasquero, J. (1999). Acquisitionstrategy and dominant logic in an engineering firm. Jour-nal of Management Studies, 36, pp. 920–952.

Covin, J.G. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2011). Entrepreneurial ori-entation theory and research: Reflections on a needed con-struct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, pp. 855–872.

Crilly, D. and Sloan, P. (2012). Enterprise logic: Explainingcorporate attention to stakeholders from the ‘inside-out’,Strategic Management Journal, 33, pp. 1174–1193.

D’Auria, A., Tregua, M., Spena, T.R. and Bifulco, F. (2017).Multiple context of innovation: Insights from literature.International Journal of Innovation and Technology Man-agement, 14, art. 1740007.

D’Aveni, R.A., Ravenscraft, D.J. and Anderson, P. (2004).From corporate strategy to business-level advantage: Re-latedness as resource congruence. Managerial and Deci-sion Economics, 25, pp. 365–381.

de Holan, P.M. (2011). Agency in voluntary organizationalforgetting. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20, pp. 317–322.

de Holan, P.M. and Phillips, N. (2004). Remembrance ofthings past? The dynamics of organizational forgetting.Management Science, 50, pp. 1603–1613.

Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality inroutine dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 61, pp. 111–138.

Dixon, S.E.A. and Day, M. (2007). Leadership, adminis-trative heritage and absorptive capacity. Leadership andOrganization Development Journal, 28, pp. 727–748.

Downing, S. (2005). The social construction of entrepreneur-ship: Narrative and dramatic processes in the coproductionof organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, 29, pp. 185–204.

Ellonen, H.-K., Jantunen, A. and Johansson, A. (2015). Theinterplay of dominant logic and dynamic capabilities in

innovation activities, International Journal of InnovationManagement, 19, art. 1550052.

Eweje, G. and Wu, M. (2010). Corporate response to anethical incident: The case of an energy company in NewZealand. Business Ethics, 19, pp. 379–392.

Eysenck, M.W. and Keane, M.T. (2005). Cognitive Psychol-ogy: A Student’s Handbook. New York: Psychology Press.

Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003). Reconceptualiz-ing organizational routines as a source of flexibility andchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, pp. 94–118.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Franke, T. and zu Knyphausen-Aufsess, D. (2014). On dom-inant logic: Review and synthesis. Journal of BusinessEconomics, 84, pp. 27–70.

Friedland, R. and Alford, R.R. (1991). Bringing society backin: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. InPowell, W.W. and Di Maggio, P.J. (eds), The New Insitu-tionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, pp. 232–263.

Garg, V.K., Walters, B.A. and Priem, R.L. (2003). Chief exec-utive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, andmanufacturing firm performance. Strategic ManagementJournal, 24, pp. 725–744.

Gavetti, G. and Warglien, M. (2015). A model of collectiveinterpretation. Organization Science, 26, pp. 1263–1283.

Gentry, R., Dibrell, C. and Kim, J. (2016). Long-term ori-entation in publicly traded family businesses: Evidence ofa dominant logic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,40, pp. 733–757.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.

Grant, R.M. (1988). On ‘dominant logic’, relatedness and thelink between diversity and performance. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 9, pp. 639–642.

Guidice, R.M. and Mero, N.P. (2007). Governing joint ven-tures: Tension among principals’ dominant logic on humanmotivation and behavior. Journal of Management and Gov-ernance, 11, pp. 261–283.

Hadida, A.L. and Paris, T. (2014). Managerial cognition andthe value chain in the digital music industry. TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, 83, pp. 84–97.

Haider, S. and Mariotti, F. (2016). Unfolding critical eventsand strategic decisions: The role of spatial and temporalcognition. International Journal for Researcher Develop-ment, 54, pp. 1813–1842.

Hall, R. (1994). Judgement and hyper-reality. Journal ofGeneral Management, 19, pp. 41–51.

Hartman, L.P., Werhane, P.H., Clark, C.E., Vansandt, C.V.and Sud, M. (2017). Strategic global strategy: The inter-section of general principles, corporate responsibility andeconomic value-added. Business and Society Review, 122,pp. 71–91.

Heracleous, L., Papachroni, A., Andriopoulos, C. and Gotsi,M. (2017). Structural ambidexterity and competency traps:



Insights from Xerox PARC. Technological Forecastingand Social Change, 117, pp. 327–338.

Hill, C.W.L. (2000). Dominant logic and the iron cage. Ad-vances in Strategic Management, 17, pp. 187–191.

Hockerts, K. (2015). A cognitive perspective on the businesscase for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and theEnvironment, 24, pp. 102–122.

Horn, J. (1983). An overview of trialectics within applica-tions to psychology and public policy. In Horn, R. (ed.),Toward a Practical Logic of Unity. Lexington, MA: Infor-mation Resources, pp. 1–39.

Jacobs, S., Cambre, B., Huysentruyt, M. and Schramme, A.(2016). Unraveling Belgian fashion designers’ high per-ceived success: A set-theoretic approach. Journal of Busi-ness Research, 69, pp. 1407–1411.

Joseph, J. and Gaba, V. (2020). Organizational structure, in-formation processing, and decision making: A retrospec-tive and roadmap for research. Academy of ManagementAnnals, 14. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0103

Kaplan, S. (2011). Research in cognition and strategy: Re-flections on two decades of progress and a look to thefuture. Journal of Management Studies, 48, pp. 665–695.

Kor, Y.Y. and Mesko, A. (2013). Dynamic managerial capa-bilities: Configuration and orchestration of top executives’capabilities and the firm’s dominant logic. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 34, pp. 233–244.

Kossek, E.E., Dass, P. and De Marr, B. (1994). The dominantlogic of employer-sponsored work and family initiatives:Human resource managers’ institutional role. Human Re-lations, 47, pp. 1121–1149.

Kunc, M.H. and Morecroft, J.D.W. (2009). Resource-basedstrategies and problem structuring: Using resource mapsto manage resource systems. Journal of the OperationalResearch Society, 60, pp. 191–199.

Labianca, G., Gray, B. and Brass, D.J. (2000). A groundedmodel of organizational schema change during empower-ment. Organization Science, 11, pp. 235–257.

Lampel, J. and Shamsie, J. (2000). Probing the unobtru-sive link: Dominant logic and the design of joint venturesat General Electric. Strategic Management Journal, 21,pp. 593–602.

Lane, P.J. and Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive ca-pacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 19, pp. 461–477.

Lane, P.J. and Sirmon, D.G. (2003). Meso-logic: Reconcil-ing a firm’s macro and micro mental models to improveperformance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1.https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2003.13793191

Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. and Van de Ven,A.H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization andmanagement: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.Academy of Management Journal, 56, pp. 1–13.

Laukkanen, M. (1994). Comparative cause mapping of orga-nizational cognitions. Organization Science, 5, pp. 322–343.

Leiponen, A. and Helfat, C.E. (2010). Innovation objectives,knowledge sources, and benefits of breadth. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 31, pp. 224–236.

Lepoutre, J.M.W.N. and Valente, M. (2012). Fools break-ing out: The role of symbolic and material immunity inexplaining institutional nonconformity. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 55, pp. 285–313.

Lockhart, J.C. (2013). Executive education: Can it be toogood. Journal of Executive Education, 12, pp. 1–12.

Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and sta-tus mobility: The professionalization of the field of fi-nance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, pp. 255–266.

Luhmann, N. (2018). Organization and Decision. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lumpkin, G.T. and Brigham, K.H. (2011). Long-term ori-entation and intertemporal choice in family firms. En-trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, pp. 1149–1169.

Maijanen, P. (2015a). Cognition as a driver and barrier ofstrategic renewal: Case of the Finnish Broadcasting Com-pany. International Journal of Business Innovation andResearch, 9, pp. 351–374.

Maijanen, P. (2015b). The evolution of dominant logic: 40years of strategic framing in the Finnish BroadcastingCompany. Journal of Media Business Studies, 12, pp. 168–184.

Maijanen, P. and Jantunen, A. (2014). Centripetal and cen-trifugal forces of strategic renewal: The case of the FinnishBroadcasting Company. International Journal on MediaManagement, 16, pp. 139–159.

Maijanen, P. and Virta, S. (2017). Managing explorationand exploitation in a media organisation – a capability-based approach to ambidexterity. Journal of Media Busi-ness Studies, 14, pp. 146–165.

Maijanen, P., Jantunen, A. and Hujala, M. (2015). Dominantlogic and dynamic capabilities in strategic renewal – caseof public broadcasting. International Journal of BusinessExcellence, 8, pp. 1–19.

Matysiak, L., Rugman, A.M. and Bausch, A. (2018). Dy-namic capabilities of multinational enterprises: The domi-nant logics behind sensing, seizing, and transforming mat-ter. Management International Review, 58, pp. 225–250.

Meyers, S.J. (2014). The social model of disability underthe shadow of the revolution: Ex-combatants negotiatingidentity in Nicaragua. Qualitative Sociology, 37, pp. 403–424.

Molz, R. and Ratiu, C. (2012). Logics of local actorsand global agents: Divergent values, divergent worldviews. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 8,pp. 225–240.

Monteiro, L.F. (2015). Selective attention and the initiationof the global knowledge-sourcing process in multinationalcorporations. Journal of International Business Studies,46, pp. 505–527.

Moss, T.W., Payne, G.T. and Moore, C.B. (2014). Strategicconsistency of exploration and exploitation in family busi-nesses. Family Business Review, 27, pp. 51–71.


https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0103

https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2003.13793191


Narayanan, V.K., Zane, L.J. and Kemmerer, B. (2011). Thecognitive perspective in strategy: An integrative review.Journal of Management, 37, pp. 305–351.

Natti, S. and Ojasalo, J. (2008). What prevents effective uti-lization of customer knowledge in professional B-to-B ser-vices? An empirical study. The Service Industries Journal,28, pp. 1199–1213.

Nicolini, D. (2011). Practice as the site of knowing: Insightsfrom the field of telemedicine. Organization Science, 22,pp. 602–620.

Oberg, C. and Tsung-Ying Shish, T. (2014). Divergent andconvergent logic of firms: Barriers and enablers for devel-opment and commercialization of innovations. IndustrialMarketing Management, 43, pp. 419–428.

Obloj, T., Obloj, K. and Pratt, M.G. (2010). Dominantlogic and entrepreneurial firms’ performance in a transi-tion economy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34,pp. 151–170.

Obloj, K., Weinstein, M. and Zhang, S. (2013). Self-limitingdominant logic: An exploratory study of Chinese en-trepreneurial firms. Journal of East-West Business, 19,pp. 291–316.

Ocasio, W. and Joseph, J. (2005). An attention-based the-ory of strategy formulation: Linking micro- and macrop-erspectives in strategy processes. Advances in StrategicManagement, 22, pp. 39–61.

Penney, C. (2018). Alliance portfolio diversity and dominantlogic theory. Journal of Business Strategies, 35, pp. 31–48.

Pentland, B.T., Haerem, T. and Hillison, D. (2010).Comparing organizational routines as recurrent pat-terns of action. Organization Studies, 31, pp. 917–940.

Philipson, S. (2016). Radical innovation of a business model:Is business modelling a key to understand the essenceof doing business. International Journal for ResearcherDevelopment, 26, pp. 132–146.

Phillips, N., Sewell, G. and Jaynes, S. (2008). Applying crit-ical discourse analysis in strategic management research.Organizational Research Methods, 11, pp. 770–789.

Plambeck, N. and Weber, K. (2010). When the glass is halffull and half empty: CEOs’ ambivalent interpretationsof strategic issues. Strategic Management Journal, 31,pp. 689–710.

Porac, J.F., Thomas, H. and Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Compet-itive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottishknitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies,26, pp. 397–416.

Prahalad, C.K. (2004). The blinders of dominant logic. LongRange Planning, 37, pp. 171–179.

Prahalad, C.K. and Bettis, R.A. (1986). The dominant logic:A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strate-gic Management Journal, 7, pp. 485–501.

Rad, M.G. (2017). Disruptive innovation in media indus-try ecosystem and need for improving managerial cogni-tive capabilities in poly mediation era. Cogent Business &Management, 4, pp. 1–23.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices.European Journal of Social Theory, 5, pp, 243–263.

Reger, R.K. and Huff, A.S. (1993). Strategic groups: Acognitive perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 14,pp. 103–123.

Reiche, B.S., Harzing, A.-W. and Pudelko, M. (2015). Whyand how does shared language affect subsidiary knowl-edge inflows? A social identity perspective. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 46, pp. 528–551.

Rerup, C. and Feldman, M.S. (2011). Routines as a sourceof change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54,pp. 577–610.

Rentsch, J.R., Small, E.E. and Hanges, P.J. (2008). Cogni-tions in organizations and teams: What is the meaning ofcognitive similarity? In B. Smith (Ed.), The people makethe place: 129–157. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Robertson, M. and Swan, J. (2004). Going public: The emer-gence and effects of soft bureaucracy within a knowledge-intensive firm. Organization, 11, pp. 123–148.

Rodrıguez, C.M. (2005). Emergence of a third culture:Shared leadership in international strategic alliances. In-ternational Marketing Review, 22, pp. 67–95.

Rugg, G. and McGeorge, P. (2005). The sorting techniques:A tutorial paper on card sorts, picture sorts and item sorts.Expert Systems, 22, pp. 94–107.

Saldana, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Re-searchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Santos, F.M. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2005). Organizationalboundaries and theories of organization. Organization Sci-ence, 16, pp. 491–508.

Schraven, D.F.J., Hartmann, A. and Dewulf, G.P.M.R. (2015).Resuming an unfinished tale: Applying causal maps to an-alyze the dominant logics within an organization. Organi-zational Research Methods, 18, pp. 326–349.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and struc-ture of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 25, pp. 1–65.

Schweiger, C., Kump, B. and Hoormann, L. (2016). A con-cept for diagnosing and developing organizational changecapabilities. Journal of Management and Change, 1/2,pp. 12–28.

Scott, W.R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P.J. and Caronna, C.A. (2000).Care, Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations:From Professional Dominance to Managed. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Smith, C., Gidney, M., Rosenfeld, R. and Barclay, N. (2002).Dominant logics of strategy in further education colleges.Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 7, pp. 45–61.

Spender, J.C. (1989). Industry Recipes. Oxford: Blackwell.Strandvik, T., Holmlund, M. and Gronroos, C. (2014). The

mental footprint of marketing in the boardroom. Journalof Service Management, 25, pp. 241–252.

Su, Z. and Wang, D. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation, con-trol systems, and new venture performance: A dominant



logic perspective. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 8,pp. 1–17.

Tansey, R., Neal, M. and Carroll, R. (2005). ‘Get rich, ordie trying’: Lessons from Rambus’ high-risk predatorylitigation in the semiconductor industry. Industry and In-novation, 12, pp. 93–115.

Thomas, D.E. (2005). Top management team internationaldominant logic: A new linkage in the internationaldiversification–performance link. Problems and Perspec-tives in Management, 3, pp. 54–63.

Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012). TheInstitutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Cul-ture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). Towards amethodology for developing evidence-informed manage-ment knowledge by means of systematic review. BritishJournal of Management, 14, pp. 207–222.

Tripsas, M. and Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition,and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 21, pp. 1147–1161.

Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge sys-tem: A constructionist approach. Strategic ManagementJournal, 17, pp. 11–25.

van Rekom, J., vanRiel, C.B.M. and Wierenga, B. (2006).A methodology for assessing organizational core values.Journal of Management Studies, 43, pp. 175–201.

Vardaman, J.M., Cornell, P., Gondo, M.B., Amis, J.M.,Townsend-Gervis, M. and Thetford, C. (2012). Beyondcommunication: The role of standardized protocols in achanging health care environment. Health Care Manage-ment Review, 37, pp. 88–97.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a newdominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68,pp. 1–17.

Verbeke, A. (2010). International community success: So-cial acquisition and dominant logic dimensions. Journalof International Business Studies, 41, pp. 38–46.

Volberda, H.W., Foss, N.J. and Lyles, M.A. (2010). Absorb-ing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize itspotential in the organization field. Organization Science,21, pp. 931–951.

von Krogh, G. and Roos, J. (1996). A tale of the unfinished.Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp. 729–737.

von Krogh, G., Erat, P. and Macus, M. (2000). Exploring thelink between dominant logic and company performance.Creativity and Innovation Management, 9, pp. 82–93.

Walsh, J.P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition:Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Sci-ence, 6, pp. 280–321.

Walters, B.A., Priem, R.L. and Shook, C.L. (2005). Smallbusiness manager scanning emphases and the dominantlogic of the business-level strategy. Journal of Small Busi-ness Strategy, 15, pp. 19–32.

Washington, M. and Ventresca, M.J. (2004). How organiza-tions change: The role of institutional support mechanismsin the incorporation of higher education visibility strate-gies, 1874–1995. Organization Science, 15, pp. 82–97.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005). Or-ganizing and the process of sensemaking. OrganizationScience, 16, pp. 409–421.

Weinstein, M. and Standifird, S.S. (2010). The advent of theinternet and the on-line book trade: The role of managerialcognition and the liabilities of experience. Academy ofStrategic Management Journal, 9, pp. 15–40.

Weiss, M., Schneider, D. and Lebid, J. (2015). Unfoldingthe concept of a TMT-diversification strategy fit. TeamPerformance Management, 21, pp. 139–158.

Woodside, A.G. and Baxter, R. (2013). Achieving accuracy,generalization-to-contexts, and complexity in theories ofbusiness-to-business decision processes. Industrial Mar-keting Management, 42, pp. 382–393.

Xie, X., O’Neill, H. and Tan, J. (2018). Post-entry diversifica-tion in a shifting institutional environment: How strategypatterns differ for de novo and corporate spin-off ven-tures. Journal of Small Business Management, 56, pp. 281–296.

Yang, K.P., Chou, C. and Chiu, Y.J. (2014). How unlearningaffects radical innovation: The dynamics of social capitaland slack resources. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 87, pp. 152–163.

Zietsma, C., Winn, M., Branzei, O. and Vertinsky, I. (2002).The war of the woods: Facilitators and impediments of or-ganizational learning processes. British Journal of Man-agement, 13, pp. 61–74.

Zyglidopoulos, S. (1999). Initial environmental conditionsand technological change. Journal of Management Studies,36, pp. 241–262.


clarifying the dominant logic construct by ... - epub.wu.ac.at · alexander engelmann, barbara...

Documents