Seeking Adaptive Advantage: Evolutionary Theory and Managerial Action
Abstract
Observers of outstanding high-technology organizations report that senior managers often set vague goals, embrace simplistic slogans, propel internal teams into cutthroat competition, set up processes but no outcome standards, and permit employees to use time on unapproved projects (Quinn, 1986; Van de Ven, Angle, and Poole, 1989; Nonako, 1988). These practices seem to violate crucial management principles such as setting clear goals, enhancing cooperation, and assuring that each employee efficiently focus on top priorities. In this chapter, I suggest that such high tech practices may not violate good management principles, but illuminate instead a potential integrating framework for managerial action. In particular, I explore a simple evolutionary framework for conceptualizing a wide variety of potentially valuable managerial practices. A basic evolutionary model of an organization envisions it as a collection of routines, or stable bundles of activities. Over time, both intentional and unintentional variation occurs in the routines. Some of the new routines are selected into the ongoing practices. This simple variation-selection-retention cycle repeats continuously (Weick, 1979; Baum, 1988). This cycle can also be seen as a form of organizational learning but will be referred to as the evolutionary framework in this chapter.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Managers exercise agency as they choose both to introduce variations and to select variations produced by others.
“The role of agency in producing and selecting variation has been noted by Miner (1994) and Miner and Haunschild (1995), who showed that managers exercise agency as they choose both to introduce variations and to select variations produced by others.”
From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Miner (1994)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020 · see citing works
Cattani, G. (2006) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtj016 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
Hospital organization culture, capacity to innovate and success in technology adoption
do Carmo Caccia‐Bava, M., Guimaraes, T., & Harrington, S. J. (2006) · Journal of Health Organization and Management · doi:10.1108/14777260610662735 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- Authors
- Miner, A. S.
- Corresponding author
- Miner, Anne S
- ORCID
- Miner, Anne S
- Venue
- Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressNew York, NY
- Published
- 1994-03-31
- Pages
- 76-89
- OpenAlex
- W4388150373
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 2.94
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Keywords
- evolutionary theory, managerial action, organizational routines, organizational learning, high-tech enterprises, adaptive advantage, goal setting, organizational change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review