The satisficing principle in capability learning

By S. G. Winter. 2000

1,091 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ea8970dd9ae3d08a211ce0a7135702a94f3c2f4

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

A capability-based view of competitive heterogeneity (2008, background): “Winter (2003), ‘The economics of strategic opportunity,’ Strategic”
Reconsidering Pay Dispersion's Effect on the Performance of Interdependent Work: Reconciling Sorting and Pay Inequality (2012, background): “For instance, work teams may perceive some level of a capability, such as the ability to manage talent, as satisfactory and refrain from developing the capability further (Winter, 2000).”
Knowledge Sharing Ambidexterity in Long-Term Interorganizational Relationships (2008, background): “processes are likely to be refined, making a shrinking set of incremental objectives to be satisficing (Winter 2000).”
Cognition and Hierarchy: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Capabilities' Development (2005, methodology): “Indeed, continuity is intrinsic to capabilities' ability to confer lasting competitive advantage: To the extent that a firm's competitive advantage is rooted in its capabilities, their continuity is a powerful deterrent to imitation (Winter 2000).”
Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms (2011, background): “This routine nexus of capability also features prominently in the neoevolutionary theory of economics (Nelson and Winter 1982, Winter 2000), which conceives organizational competencies as a bundle of approved “linking- or combining-routines”.”
Outlines of a behavioral theory of the entrepreneurial firm (2008, background): “This has later been interpreted and widely acknowledged to mean that firms must engage in active search and imagination to create sustainable strategic opportunities (Winter, 2000).”
Quo Vadis, Dynamic Capabilities? A Content-Analytic Review of the Current State of Knowledge and Recommendations for Future Research (2018, background): “This capacity for repeated and reliable performance is thought to steminsignificantways fromorganizational routines (Eisenhardt &Martin, 2000; Stadler, Helfat, & Verona, 2013;Winter, 2000, 2003).”
Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance (2014, background): “…advantage determines the ability of an organization to reconfigure and to constantly renew its supply of valuable and idiosyncratic resources and capabilities to foster innovation (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Grant, 1996; Nelson & Winter, 1982; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Winter, 2000).”
Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities: Individuals, Processes, and Structure (2012, neutral): “…shows that knowledge, experience, learning processes, and a firm’s history underlie a firm’s capabilities and practices (e.g., Argote and Darr, 2000; Darr, Argote and Epple, 1995; Klepper, 2002; Klepper and Simons, 2000; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Pisano, 2000; Rerup and Feldman, 2011; Winter, 2000).”
The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles (2003, background): “Winter (2000) notes that a crisis may raise aspirations and motivate the organization to improve the level of capability.”
The Lack of Consensus About Strategic Consensus: Advancing Theory and Research (2005, neutral): “The resource-based literature, for example, focuses on the accumulation of new, or the improvement of existing, organizational capabilities (e.g., Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Szulanski, 1996; Winter, 2000).”