Is dominant logic a value or a liability? On the explorative turn in the German power utility industry

E. Brandtner, Jörg Freiling
{"title":"Is dominant logic a value or a liability? On the explorative turn in the German power utility industry","authors":"E. Brandtner, Jörg Freiling","doi":"10.7341/202117225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study seeks to specify the role of ‘dominant logic’ in an organization. So doing, the ambiguous character of the dominant logic emerges, as on the one hand, a dominant logic can make sense of a change, provide useful guidelines and keep the company focused. However, on the other hand, a dominant logic may provide reasons why preventing change could be ‘logical’ or work as a blinder when it comes to interpreting up-and-coming developments. Therefore, a dominant logic can be a value and a liability in times of change. Methodology: This study sets out to contribute to prior research by raising two questions. First, how can we re-conceptualize the construct of dominant logic to address both the driving and the hampering role in the case of explorative turns? And, second, which factors restrain and which allow explorative turns? With special regard to the German energy transition in the 2010s, this research grounds on explorative qualitative empirical research and employs a single case-study design for a traditional German power utility company, which – as an incumbent – has to deal with the high complexity in the German power industry. Data sources are in-depth and problem-centered interviews with both internal and external experts as well as field observations. An inductive procedure allows the development of research propositions from data, framed by prior research. Findings: As a result, this study delivers a six-factor framework to shine a light on the micro-foundations of dominant logic. Whether a dominant logic is of value or is a liability in organizational change and allows an explorative turn, depends on the identified abilities to unlearn, to explore, to change and to manage. Data suggests that an explorative turn, driven by dominant logic, works better in the case of combined learning and unlearning capacities, an ambidextrous balance of exploration and exploitation, co-existing logics, continuous adaptations of dominant logic and lower levels of leadership power and formal structures. Implications for theory and practice: This study specifies the roles of dominant logic that may hamper explorative turns in times of severe disruptions. Originality and value: It contributes to the research of managerial cognition by refining and applying the concept of dominant logic. It provides empirical evidence on how this phenomenon creates inertia, drives change, and discusses the needs for and the barriers to an explorative turn. From a managerial viewpoint, dominant logic serves as a filter to identify required changes and to tune the speed of change. This, however, depends on managerial reflection on the appropriateness of dominant logic in the run of events.","PeriodicalId":44596,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7341/202117225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: This study seeks to specify the role of ‘dominant logic’ in an organization. So doing, the ambiguous character of the dominant logic emerges, as on the one hand, a dominant logic can make sense of a change, provide useful guidelines and keep the company focused. However, on the other hand, a dominant logic may provide reasons why preventing change could be ‘logical’ or work as a blinder when it comes to interpreting up-and-coming developments. Therefore, a dominant logic can be a value and a liability in times of change. Methodology: This study sets out to contribute to prior research by raising two questions. First, how can we re-conceptualize the construct of dominant logic to address both the driving and the hampering role in the case of explorative turns? And, second, which factors restrain and which allow explorative turns? With special regard to the German energy transition in the 2010s, this research grounds on explorative qualitative empirical research and employs a single case-study design for a traditional German power utility company, which – as an incumbent – has to deal with the high complexity in the German power industry. Data sources are in-depth and problem-centered interviews with both internal and external experts as well as field observations. An inductive procedure allows the development of research propositions from data, framed by prior research. Findings: As a result, this study delivers a six-factor framework to shine a light on the micro-foundations of dominant logic. Whether a dominant logic is of value or is a liability in organizational change and allows an explorative turn, depends on the identified abilities to unlearn, to explore, to change and to manage. Data suggests that an explorative turn, driven by dominant logic, works better in the case of combined learning and unlearning capacities, an ambidextrous balance of exploration and exploitation, co-existing logics, continuous adaptations of dominant logic and lower levels of leadership power and formal structures. Implications for theory and practice: This study specifies the roles of dominant logic that may hamper explorative turns in times of severe disruptions. Originality and value: It contributes to the research of managerial cognition by refining and applying the concept of dominant logic. It provides empirical evidence on how this phenomenon creates inertia, drives change, and discusses the needs for and the barriers to an explorative turn. From a managerial viewpoint, dominant logic serves as a filter to identify required changes and to tune the speed of change. This, however, depends on managerial reflection on the appropriateness of dominant logic in the run of events.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主导逻辑是一种价值还是一种负担?论德国电力事业的探索性转向
目的:本研究旨在明确“主导逻辑”在组织中的作用。这样一来,主导逻辑的模糊性就显现出来了,因为一方面,主导逻辑可以让变化变得有意义,提供有用的指导方针,让公司保持专注。然而,另一方面,一个占主导地位的逻辑可能提供了为什么阻止变化可能是“合乎逻辑的”,或者在解释即将到来的发展时起到障眼法的作用。因此,在变化的时代,主导逻辑可以是一种价值和一种负担。方法论:本研究提出了两个问题,旨在对先前的研究做出贡献。首先,我们如何重新概念化主导逻辑的结构,以解决在探索转向的情况下的驱动和阻碍作用?其次,哪些因素限制了探索性转向,哪些因素允许了探索性转向?对于2010年代德国的能源转型,本研究以探索性质的实证研究为基础,采用单一案例研究设计,研究对象是一家传统的德国电力公用事业公司,该公司作为在位者,必须应对德国电力行业的高度复杂性。数据来源是与内部和外部专家的深入和以问题为中心的访谈以及实地观察。归纳程序允许从数据中发展研究命题,由先前的研究框架。研究结果:因此,本研究提供了一个六因素框架,以照亮主导逻辑的微观基础。在组织变革中,主导逻辑是有价值的,还是一种负担,并允许探索转向,取决于确定的忘却、探索、改变和管理的能力。数据表明,由主导逻辑驱动的探索性转向,在学习和遗忘能力相结合、探索和利用的双向平衡、共存逻辑、主导逻辑的持续适应以及较低水平的领导权力和形式结构的情况下效果更好。对理论和实践的启示:本研究明确了主导逻辑的作用,它可能会在严重中断的时候阻碍探索性的转变。原创性和价值:通过提炼和应用主导逻辑的概念,有助于管理认知的研究。它提供了关于这种现象如何产生惯性、推动变革的经验证据,并讨论了探索转向的需求和障碍。从管理的角度来看,主导逻辑可以作为一个过滤器来识别所需的更改并调整更改的速度。然而,这取决于管理层对事件运行中主导逻辑的适当性的反思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
20
审稿时长
48 weeks
期刊最新文献
Measuring the Level of Automation and its Impact on Organizational Performance and Employees’ Job Performance Dart Emotional Spiritual Quotient (DESQ) Impact on Employee Performance and Role of Training Module (TM-DESQ): A Public Enterprise Perspective for Islamic Republic of Pakistan Post-Covid Prospects of Entrepreneurial Education in Pakistan Innovation and Digital Revolution: The Role of Fintech in Mitigating the Effects of Covid-19 Managing Women Empowerment - An Analytical Study on Socioeconomic Conditions of Women Living in Karachi
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1