Santi Furnari

Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective

Causal complexity has long been recognized as a ubiquitous feature underlying organizational phenomena, yet current theories and methodologies in management are for the most part not well-suited to its direct study. The introduction of the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) configurational approach has led to a reinvigoration of configurational theory that embraces causal complexity explicitly. We argue that the burgeoning research using QCA represents more than a novel methodology; it constitutes the emergence of a neo-configurational perspective to the study of management and organizations that enables a fine-grained conceptualization and empirical investigation of causal complexity through the logic of set theory. In this article, we identify four foundational elements that characterize this emerging neo-configurational perspective: (a) conceptualizing cases as set theoretic configurations, (b) calibrating cases’ memberships into sets, (c) viewing causality in terms of necessity and sufficiency relations between sets, and (d) conducting counterfactual analysis of unobserved configurations. We then present a comprehensive review of the use of QCA in management studies that aims to capture the evolution of the neo-configurational perspective among management scholars. We close with a discussion of a research agenda that can further this neo-configurational approach and thereby shift the attention of management research away from a focus on net effects and towards examining causal complexity.

Exploring the topology of the plausible: Fs/QCA counterfactual analysis and the plausible fit of unobserved organizational configurations

Few ideas have been more persistently central in both strategy and organization research than the concept of fit (Child, 1974; Miller, 1992; Parker and Van Witteloostuijn, 2010; Sinha and Van de Ven, 2005). Beyond its theoretical appeal, the prominence of the idea of fit in the management literature is also due to its powerful practical applications. In fact, the conceptual frameworks developed around this idea have offered a systematic approach that can be applied to any organization to uncover areas of misalignment that may affect performance goals (Tushman and O’Reilly, 2002). Since early contingency approaches, research has focused on a two-dimensional notion of fit, investigating, for example, the internal fit between strategy and structure (e.g. Chandler, 1962; Miller, 1992) or the external fit between structure and contextual factors (e.g. Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) as bivariate relationships. Drawing on these fundamental intuitions, in the last two decades scholars have developed the notion of configurational fit, defined here as ‘the systemic relationship among multiple sets of elements, either internal or external to an organization’ (cf. Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985; Meyer et al., 1993; Siggelkow, 2002; Snow et al., 2005). More precisely, configurational fit captures the multidimensionality and complexity of the relationships linking organizational elements (such as organizational structures, integration mechanisms and people); the attributes of a firm’s strategy (such as degree of diversification, vertical integration, customer orientation); and environmental dimensions (such as market volatility, technological dynamism, regulation and environmental munificence). An emergent and promising stream of literature has also recently expanded the set of factors that can systemically interact in a configuration, including informal organizational elements (Gulati and Puranam, 2009; Soda and Zaheer, 2012), showing how the multidimensional interaction among these factors can generate positive or detrimental effects on performance. 10310.1177/1476127012452826Soda and FurnariStrategic Organization 2012

Institutional fields as linked arenas: Inter-field resource dependence, institutional work and institutional change

Theories of institutional change have paid limited attention to the ways in which relations between institutional fields might facilitate or hinder institutional change. I introduce inter-field resource dependence as an important condition explaining institutional change between fields. Building on resource dependence theory, I conceptualize two dimensions of inter-field resource dependence: mutual dependence and power imbalance. I argue that these two dimensions have opposite effects on the likelihood of institutional change between fields. Mutual dependence between two fields increases the chances of institutional change by inducing actors in both the fields to work at creating new shared institutions in order to regulate their mutual dependence. Power imbalance between two fields decreases the chances of institutional change by inducing actors in the dominant field to work at maintaining existing institutions in order to preserve their power. Thus, different types of inter-field resource dependence motivate actors to undertake different forms of institutional work, which in turn shape the likelihood of institutional change between fields. Developing this core argument, I theorize that whether the institutional change occurring between two fields is radical or incremental is a function of the type of resource dependence linking the two fields; for example, when power imbalance is high, institutional change is unlikely but when it occurs it tends to be radical.

A Cognitive Mapping Approach to Business Models: Representing Causal Structures and Mechanisms

Research has highlighted the cognitive nature of the business model intended as a cognitive representation describing a business’ value creation and value capture activities. Whereas the content of the business model has been extensively investigated from this perspective, less attention has been paid to the business model’s causal structure – i.e. the pattern of causeeffect relations that, in top managers’ or entrepreneurs’ understandings, link value creation and value capture activities. Building on the strategic cognition literature, this paper argues that conceptualizing and analyzing business models as cognitive maps can shed light on four important properties of a business model’s causal structure: the levels of complexity, focus, and clustering that characterize the causal structure; and the mechanisms underlying the causal links featured in that structure. I use examples of business models drawn from the literature as illustrations to describe these four properties. Finally, I discuss the value of a cognitive mapping approach for augmenting extant theories and practices of business model design.

Types of Complementarity, Combinative Organization Forms and Structural Heterogeneity: Beyond Discrete Structural Alternatives

In recent years, applied studies have shown widespread, profound and increasing heterogeneity across firms in terms of their strategy, organization arrangement and performance. This book investigates the diversity of business firms, offering a picture of the different organizational settings they adopt in their endeavour to cope with increasing competitive pressure.

Chapter 4 Configurational Analysis and Organization Design: Towards a Theory of Structural Heterogeneity

This chapter reconstructs the roots of configurational analysis in organization theory and organizational economics, focusing on the elements of configurational thinking that are particularly relevant to organizational design; and outlining some future prospects for a configurational theory of organization design. We detect the presence of configurational ideas in many organization theories and organizational economics approaches. We argue that this, seldom acknowledged, continuity extends and enriches the implications of configurational analysis for organization design. In addition, we define and identify ‘structural heterogeneity’ as an organizational property that can be distinctively studied by configurational analysis, distinguishing between internal heterogeneity – diversity of organizational attributes within one configuration – and external heterogeneity – diversity of organizational configurations under the same environmental conditions. Some of the insights that can be gained through a configurational analysis of structural heterogeneity are illustrated through a fs/QCA study of a multi-industry sample of firms.

Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research:

Qualitative comparative analysis is increasingly applied in strategy and organization research. The main purpose of our essay is to support this growing community of qualitative comparative analysis scholars by identifying best practices that can help guide researchers through the key stages of a qualitative comparative analysis empirical study (model building, sampling, calibration, data analysis, reporting, and interpretation of findings) and by providing examples of such practices drawn from strategy and organization studies. Coupled with this main purpose, we respond to Miller’s essay on configuration research by highlighting our points of agreement regarding his recommendations for configurational research and by addressing some of his concerns regarding qualitative comparative analysis. Our article thus contributes to configurational research by articulating how to leverage qualitative comparative analysis for enriching configurational theories of strategy and organization.

When does an issue trigger change in a field? A comparative approach to issue frames, field structures and types of field change

Previous research has shown that institutional fields evolve around issues, but has devoted less attention to explain why certain issues trigger substantial field-level changes while others remain largely inconsequential. In this article, I argue that the extent to which an issue is likely to trigger field change and the type of field change triggered depend on the structure of the field and the ways in which the issue is framed. I develop a model linking two types of issue frames (adversarial vs collaborative issue frames) with two types of field structures (centralized vs fragmented). The model explains how the likelihood of field change and type of field change vary across four configurations of these issue frames and field structures. In particular, I highlight four types of field change that entail different re-distribution of power within a field (weakening vs reinforcing the field’s elite; aligning vs polarizing fragmented actors). Overall, I contribute a much called-for comparative approach to institutional fields, explaining how the effects of issue frames on field change vary across different fields.

A Framing Perspective on Field Emergence: Constructing Institutional Fields as Settlements

Research on the formation of institutional fields has under- studied the micro-processes by which actors construct fields and how these processes may vary in different field structures. In this paper, I develop a framing perspective on field emergence, theorizing the relationship between the structure of a field and the frames that field actors use to influence the interpretation of unsettled issues emerging in a field. I extend the insight that fields form around issues by suggesting that fields can form around issues in different ways, depending on how issues are framed and on the extent to which different issue frames are able to attract attention and support in different field structures. The model relates two different types of issue frames (adversarial vs collaborative issue frames) to two field structures (centralized vs fragmented), illustrating several types of field-level changes that can emerge from the interaction of these issue frames and field structures.

Interstitial Brokers and Institutional Change

This paper develops the notion of ‘interstitial brokers’ –actors spanning an interstice or gap between organizational fields- examining how these actors can initiate institutional change when the fields that they bridge are shaped by competing institutional logics. Competing logics expose interstitial brokers to role tensions that hinder the process of resource mobilization for institutional change. I investigate the micro-processes through which interstitial brokers can overcome these role tensions, successfully mobilizing resources for change. As case of institutional change, I examine the selection of Frank Gehry as the new Millennium’s global icon of Chicago’s public architecture, traditionally oriented towards local Chicago-based architects. I track this iconic change to the actions of a set of interstitial brokers located in the interstice between the competing fields of private business philanthropy and public government. Findings show that in the presence of competing logics interstitial brokers can successfully mobilize resources silently, avoiding direct confrontation and negotiation with defenders of the institutional status-quo, decoupling their vision from action, and co-opting representatives of the status-quo in their mobilization efforts.