Research on innovation networks has highlighted the pivotal role that actors with more prominence and power, such as hub firms, may play in orchestrating the activities of other network members along a collective innovation effort. Our study examined the under-theorized, but no less important, type of orchestration that characterizes other organizations, such as business incubators and venture associations, who seek to support the dispersed entrepreneurial efforts of network members. We refer to this type as "open-system" orchestration, as opposed to the commonly studied "closed-system" type performed by hub firms. Our findings reveal how the processes of open-system orchestration differ markedly from those of closed-system orchestration, and detail how these processes influence the micro-foundations of network members' sensing capabilities. By doing so, we also offer empirical substantiation and theoretical elaboration to the idea that dynamic capabilities might not reside exclusively inside firms, but could be co-created relationally with other parties in the business ecosystem. Entrepreneurship and innovation often occur within large networks of independent or semiindependent firms (Freeman, 1991; Howells, 2006; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996). Previous studies have drawn attention to the fact that, in some of these networks, a central actor takes a leading role in "orchestrating" collaboration among member firms (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Paquin & Howard-Grenville, 2013). This line of inquiry has focused on so-called "hub firms"typically large corporations attempting to harness the resources and capabilities of several smaller partners to pursue a collective innovation goal (Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011)-and has begun to unpack the processes through which these orchestrators govern their networks (see Dagnino, Levanti, & Mocciaro Li Destri, 2016, for a review). Recent studies, however, indicate that in other types of innovation networks, rather than attempting to extract value from members' coordinated efforts as hub firms do (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006), central actors primarily support members' dispersed and largely independent search and pursuit of new business opportunities. This is the case, for instance, of business incubators and accelerators, national and regional agencies, or associations of small and medium-sized enterprises. Scholars have referred to organizations that perform this supporting role as "bridging organizations" (Berkes, 2009; Sapsed, Grantham, & DeFillippi, 2007) or "open-system This paper has greatly benefitted from the support and comments provided by the Editor Scott Sonenshein and three anonymous reviewers whom we thank sincerely. We also gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments of

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. (Forthcoming in Strategic Organization) We gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments of SO editors and reviewers, Shazad Ansari, Cliff Bowman, David Denyer, Koen Heimeriks, Constance Helfat, Pursey Heugens, Mark Jenkins, Gianvito Lanzolla, Donna Ladkin, Will Mitchell and Taco Reus as well as the feedback received from participants at a seminar at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 2010 Academy of Management Conference in Montreal, Canada, and benefited from the extensive comments of three anonymous reviewers and the participants themselves. Permanent repository link: 2 DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES IN THE DOCK: A CASE OF REIFICATION?In his award-winning SO!APBOX essay, Donald Hambrick observed that the strategic management field "is rapidly being pulled apart by centrifugal forces. Like a supernova that once packed a wallop, our energy is now dissipating and we are quickly growing cold " (2004: 91), and included dynamic capabilities as one of the constructs that appeared to be most detrimental to the field's stability. At first sight, as scholars interested in dynamic capabilities, we conceded that Hambrick appeared to be right. Navigating the literature we encountered a plethora of dynamic capability definitions, countless number of capability types (e.g. R&D, marketing, etc.) labelled as 'dynamic' and a variety of formulaic expressions under the generic umbrella of 'to adapt and change firms need dynamic capabilities'. Yet, after nearly two decades, a rising number of over 100 articles, special issues and conference presentations (Di Stefano, Peteraf and Verona, 2010) seem to suggest that dynamic capabilities were, instead, one of the centripetal forces that helped keep the field together. So we were faced with a puzzle: were dynamic capabilities the last flash of the dying supernova, or could they rather save strategic management from its anticipated selfdestruction?More recently, dynamic capability research appears to have become an academic conversation polarized between equally passionate critics and supporters. Perhaps a paramount example is the exchange between Arend and Bromiley (A&B) and Helfat and Peteraf (H&P) on the future of dynamic capabilities published in Strategic Organization in 2009: whereas A&B suggested that the dynamic capability construct should be abandoned due to its weak theoretical foundations and inconsistencies, H&P called for further developmental efforts given the infancy of the field and its growing relevance. Not 3 surprisingly, this paradigmatic match between advocates of rigor and defendants of relevance (Hirsch and Levin, 1999 1 ) has regularly appeared in Strategic Organization's 2 'Most-Read' rankings, together with Hambrick's (2004) call for the consolidation of strategic management. How to solve this dilemma, then: should we discard dynamic capabilities or persist with them?In the...

Entrepreneurs in developing economies try to cope with weak or absent formal institutions—often referred to as “institutional voids”—by relying extensively on intermediary organizations such as business incubators and development organizations or informal institutions such as political, kinship, or family relationships. However, in many African countries, intermediary support is limited and informal institutions are also unreliable, adding risks and costs to doing business and increasing the severity of institutional voids in the surrounding ecosystem. We investigate the practices followed by 47 commercial entrepreneurs in Kenya to “work around” these severe institutional voids to achieve their goals of business creation and growth. We find that severe institutional voids stimulate the hybridization of goals to include social value creation, create a need for a more strategic orchestration of business relationships, and motivate entrepreneurs to proactively cross-brace the institutional infrastructure around them. We contribute by unveiling the important role of entrepreneurs as microinstitutional agents in developing economies and by detailing how commercial and social goals become intertwined in the context of African entrepreneurship.

Based on a three-year qualitative, longitudinal case study of a social venture partnership, we extend the understanding of distributed leadership in organizational knowledge creation. We develop an expanded model of distributed leadership that identifies the antecedents, different forms, and enablers of distributed leadership in knowledge creation. Our findings move beyond a static and monolithic understanding of distributed leadership to illustrate how an expanded model informs the situational leadership framework and spiral of knowledge creation across an organization's hierarchy and boundary in the context of social entrepreneurship.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze, from a dynamic capabilities perspective, the role of big data analytics in supporting firms' innovation processes.Design/methodology/approachRelevant literature is reviewed and critically assessed. An interpretive methodology is used to analyze empirical data from interviews of big data analytics experts at firms within digitally related sectors.FindingsThis study shows how firms leverage big data to gain “richer” and “deeper” data at the inter-sections between the digital and physical worlds. The authors provide evidence for the importance of counterintuitive strategies aimed at developing innovative products, services or solutions with characteristics that may initially diverge, even significantly, from established customer/user needs.Practical implicationsThe authors’ findings offer insights to help practitioners manage innovation processes in the physical world while taking investments in big data analytics into account.Originality/valueThe authors provide insights into the evolution of scholarly research on innovation directed toward opportunities to create a competitive advantage by offering new products, services or solutions diverging, even significantly, from established customer demand.