No abstract

Although the dynamic capabilities framework has proved important for explaining longterm competitive advantage, some scholars have attacked it as lacking theoretical underpinnings. In this paper, we clarify the lineage of the "dynamics" in the dynamic capabilities framework from the non-strategic model of Cyert and March to the dynamic evolutionary theory of the firm in Nelson and Winter that enabled the initial breakthrough of Teece, Pisano and Shuen. We explain that the theoretical schism in dynamic capabilities between the tradition of Eisenhardt and Martin and that of Teece and colleagues can be traced to their relative emphasis on behavioral versus evolutionary theories. Finally, we provide a brief overview of implications for emergent topics and empirical research, along with ideas for future research.

Research on dynamic capabilities has been one of the most prolific research streams of the last two decades. Peteraf et al. (2013) show that the research stream has suffered from a divide into two schools: One school following the conceptualization by Teece and colleagues and another school following the conceptualization by Eisenhardt and Martin. In this study, we discuss the implications of this divide. At the core, we argue that the to schools do not agree how evolutionary theory is implicated in dynamic capabilities. This disagreement has consequences for the empirical assessment of dynamic capabilities. We argue that the concept of Eisenhardt and Martin would benefit from a more ecological oriented empirical assessment whereas Teece conceptualization focuses on the entrepreneurial role of top management teams.

No abstract