Being Efficiently Fickle: A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Choice

By Jack A. Nickerson, Todd R. Zenger. Organ. Sci., 2002

393 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management Science and Operations Research, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0c04305b37d9673e800deb436c82ee0080d2794a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

The Second Face of Appropriability: Generative Appropriability and Its Determinants (2013, background): “Decentralized structures—modular or fully decomposable in Simonian terms (Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996)—permit each subgroup to specialize in a limited domain of knowledge and become highly sensitive and responsive to needs in that domain (Nickerson & Zenger, 2002; Yayavaram & Ahuja, 2008).”
Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future (2013, background): “Nickerson and Zenger (2002) and Boumgarden, Nickerson, and Zenger (2012) refer to this process as “vacillation” and argue that firms can more easily switch between formal structures than they can change the culture and informal organization.”
Balanced scorecard in SMEs: effects on innovation and financial performance (2017, neutral): “, structurally separate R&D units) (Benner and Tushman 2003), temporal differentiation (Nickerson and Zenger 2002), or strategic alliance networks (Lin et al.”
From the Editors—Why We Need a Theory of Stakeholder Governance—And Why This is a Hard Problem (2020, background): “Finally, perhaps there is no general theory for resolving conflicting interests among a firm’s stakeholders (Barnard, 1938/1968; Follett, Fox, & Urwick, 1940; Miller, 1992; Nickerson & Zenger, 2002).”
How Do Firms Adapt to Discontinuous Change? Bridging the Dynamic Capabilities and Ambidexterity Perspectives (2016, background): “By “vacillating” between discrete organizational arrangements, firms can dynamically increase the levels of exploration and exploitation and thereby enhance long-term performance.(33) How Do Firms Adapt to Discontinuous Change?”
Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award—“Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited” Ten Years Later (2015, background): “…for attending to exploration and exploitation, including rhythmic switching, sequential attention, and vacillation (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Nickerson & Zenger, 2002); contextual ambidexterity (e.g., Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004); the creation of independent…”
Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization (2009, neutral): “Thus, assuming unchanging conditions of gains from ambidexterity, adjustment of the informal organization to the formal organization could provide an endogenous explanation for repeated re-organization (Nickerson and Zenger, 2002), though this depends critically on the rate of adjustment of the info”
Dynamic Balancing of Exploration and Exploitation: The Contingent Benefits of Ambidexterity (2018, methodology): “While earlier studies used system dynamics models (Nickerson and Zenger 2002), or NK models (Levinthal 1997), multiarmed bandit models dominate the more recent discussion (Lee and Puranam 2016, Posen and Levinthal 2012, Stieglitz et al. 2016).”