How dynamic capabilities facilitate the survivability of social enterprises: A qualitative analysis of sensing and seizing capacities

References

• Albert, L. S., Dean, T. J., & Baron, R. A. (2016). From social value to social cognition. How social ventures obtain the resources they need for social transformation. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 289–311. doi:10.1080/19420676.2016.1188323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331–350. doi:10.1002/sej.1200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. doi:10.1111/etap.2006.30.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5–6), 373–403. doi:10.1080/08985626.2011.577242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 329–342. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280. doi:10.1177/0149206309350776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.57318391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing – insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. doi:10.1080/19416520.2014.893615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector. Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Blyler, M., & Coff, R. W. (2003). Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strategic Management Journal, 24(7), 677–686. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2003). How the resource-based and the dynamic capability views of the firm inform corporate-level strategy. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 289–303. doi:10.1111/bjom.2003.14.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1–9. doi:10.5465/amr.2016.0196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635–659. doi:10.1111/etap.2010.34.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costanzo, L. A., Vurro, C., Foster, D., Servato, F., & Perrini, F. (2014). Dual-mission management in social entrepreneurship: Qualitative evidence from social firms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 655–677. doi:10.1111/jsbm.2014.52.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Carolis, D. M., & Saparito, P. (2006). Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 41–56. doi:10.1111/etap.2006.30.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C. (2013). Editors’ comments: Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 325–331. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denford, J. S. (2013). Building knowledge: Developing a knowledge-based dynamic capabilities typology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 175–194. doi:10.1108/13673271311315150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desa, G., & Basu, S. (2013). Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic EntrepreneurShip Journal, 7(1), 26–49. doi:10.1002/sej.2013.7.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Domenico, M. L., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703. doi:10.1111/etap.2010.34.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Anheier, H. K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 137–159. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.001033
   Google Scholar
• Doherty, B. (2011). Resource advantage theory and fair trade social enterprises. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(4), 357–380. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2011.581379
   Google Scholar
• Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436. doi:10.1111/ijmr.2014.16.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5–34. doi:10.1177/1094428106289252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.1255632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance. Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0564
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, T. (2014). Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(1), 65–82. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2013.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. (2016). Human capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4), 449–467. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O’Connor, E. J. (2009). Managing intractable identity conflicts. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 32–55. doi:10.5465/amr.2009.35713276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froelich, K. A. (2016). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246–268. doi:10.1177/0899764099283002
   Google Scholar
• George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. (2008). The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 265–280. doi:10.1111/ijmr.2008.10.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfat, C. E. (2007). Dynamic capabilities. Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Hessels, J., van Gelderen, M., & Thurik, R. (2008). Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations, and their drivers. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 323–339. doi:10.1007/s11187-008-9134-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hockerts, H. (2006). Entrepreneurial opportunity in social purpose business ventures. In J. Mair, J. A. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 142–154). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hodgkinson, G. P., & Healey, M. P. (2011). Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities: Reflexion and reflection in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1500–1516. doi:10.1002/smj.964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hume, D. (1995). An inquiry concerning human understanding. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Jenner, P., & Oprescu, F. (2016). The sectorial trust of social enterprise: Friend or Foe? Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 236–261. doi:10.1080/19420676.2016.1158732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannisson, B. (2016). Economies of overview — guiding the external growth of small firms. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 32–44. doi:10.1177/026624269000900104
   Google Scholar
• Jurksiene, L., & Pundziene, A. (2016). The relationship between dynamic capabilities and firm competitive advantage. European Business Review, 28(4), 431–448. doi:10.1108/EBR-09-2015-0088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kannothra, C. G., Manning, S., & Haigh, N. (2017). How hybrids manage growth and social-business tensions in global supply chains: The case of impact sourcing. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 659.
   Google Scholar
• Katre, A., & Salipante, P. (2012). Start-up social ventures: Blending fine-grained behaviors from two institutions for entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 967–994. doi:10.1111/etap.2012.36.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum, A. M., & Stuart, T. E. (2014). Network responsiveness: The social structural microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 353–367. doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 145–165. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1750-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2016). Hybrid business models for peace and reconciliation. Business Horizons, 59(5), 503–524. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwong, C., Tasavori, M., & Wun-mei Cheung, C. (2017). Bricolage, collaboration and mission drift in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(7–8), 609–638. doi:10.1080/08985626.2017.1328904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laaksonen, O., & Peltoniemi, M. (2018). The essence of dynamic capabilities and their measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 184–205. doi:10.1111/ijmr.2018.20.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149. doi:10.1177/0021886314522322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, G., Eng, T.-Y., & Takeda, S. (2015). An investigation of marketing capabilities and social enterprise performance in the UK and Japan. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 267–298. doi:10.1111/etap.12041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• McAllister, C. P., Ellen, B. P., & Ferris, G. R. (2016). Social influence opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization. Increased theoretical specification through political skill’s dimensional dynamics. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1926–1952. doi:10.1177/0149206316633747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, K., Kurucz, E. C., & Colbert, B. A. (2018). Social entrepreneurial opportunity and active stakeholder participation: Resource mobilization in enterprising conveners of cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 121–131. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J. A., Carsrud, A. L., & Reynolds, P. D. (2010). Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661–680. doi:10.1111/etap.2010.34.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. P., Verreynne, M.-L., & Luke, B. (2014). Social enterprises and the performance advantages of a vincentian marketing orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(4), 549–556. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-2009-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A., Madill, J., & Chreim, S. (2016). Social enterprise dualities: Implications for social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing, 6(2), 169–192. doi:10.1108/JSOCM-06-2015-0043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss, T. W., Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Dual identities in social ventures: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 805–830. doi:10.1111/etap.2011.35.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newth, J. (2016). Social enterprise innovation in context: Stakeholder influence through contestation. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 6(4), 455. doi:10.1515/erj-2014-0029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieves, J., & Haller, S. (2014). Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources. Tourism Management, 40, 224–232. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peattie, K., & Morley, A. (2008). Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(2), 91–107. doi:10.1108/17508610810901995
   Google Scholar
• Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484–1508. doi:10.1111/joms.2012.49.issue-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. (2008). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.2791601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichertz, J. (2010). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Retrieved from https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1001135.13.02.2017
   Google Scholar
• Richards, A., & Reed, J. (2015). Social capital’s role in the development of volunteer-led cooperatives. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(1), 4–23. doi:10.1108/SEJ-09-2013-0037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, K., & Karna, A. (2015). Doing social good on a sustainable basis: Competitive advantage of social businesses. Management Decision, 53(6), 1355–1374. doi:10.1108/MD-09-2014-0561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runfola, A., Perna, A., Baraldi, E., & Gregori, G. L. (2017). The use of qualitative case studies in top business and management journals: A quantitative analysis of recent patterns. European Management Journal, 35(1), 116–127. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2016.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research. An interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 77–96). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
   Google Scholar
• Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64. doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 544–555. doi:10.1108/13598541211258609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161–194. doi:10.1002/sej.v3:2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, B. R., Knapp, J., Barr, T. F., Stevens, C. E., & Cannatelli, B. L. (2010). Social enterprises and the timing of conception: Organizational identity tension, management, and marketing. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(2), 108–134. doi:10.1080/10495141003676437
   Google Scholar
• Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., Besharov, M. L., & Arnold, D. G. (2013). Managing social-business tensions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442. doi:10.5840/beq201323327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spens, K. M., & Kovács, G. (2006). A content analysis of research approaches in logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 36(5), 374–390. doi:10.1108/09600030610676259
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1991). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. doi:10.1177/0735275112457914
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 1–30. doi:10.2307/41165852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1989). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In B. Karpak & S. Zionts (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making and risk analysis using microcomputers (pp. 81–126). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145–1154. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers, I., & Lyon, F. (2014). Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of environmentally-motivated social enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 32(4), 449–470. doi:10.1177/0266242612457700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vivas López, S. (2005). Competitive advantage and strategy formulation. Management Decision, 43(5), 661–669. doi:10.1108/00251740510597699
   Google Scholar
• Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities. A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 740–762. doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wry, T., & York, J. G. (2017). An identity- based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 437–460. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955. doi:10.1111/joms.2006.43.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, S., Zhang, W., & Du, J. (2011). Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and innovation in networked environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 1035–1051. doi:10.1108/13673271111179352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 97–125. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar