Abseiling From The Shard: The Cognitive Foundations Of Capability Development In Temporary Organizations

DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12295
Date01 September 2019
Published date01 September 2019
AuthorChris J. Ford,Martin Friesl
Abseiling From The Shard: The Cognitive
Foundations Of Capability Development In
Temporary Organizations
CHRIS J. FORD and MARTIN FRIESL
Lancaster University Management School,Lancaster, LA1 4YX, UK
This paper focuses on capability development in temporary organizations. Prior research in such organizations
problematizes but does not explicitly address the cognitive foundations of capability development, particularly with
regard to actorsinterpretation of organizational purpose, resources and capabilities. Drawing on the recent
advances in researchon the micro-foundations of capabilitydevelopment, we present an in-depth,longitudinal study
of the run up to a large-scalefundraising event. We proposea process model of capability developmentin temporary
organizationsthat delineates how managerial cognition affects the accumulation of resourcesas well as the eventual
assembly of organization level capabilities. This process model complements existing research on capability
development in temporary organizations and provides new insights into the evolution of temporary organizations
over time.
Keywords: temporary organizations; capability development; organizational purpose; micro-foundations
Introduction
This paper investigates the development of capabilities in
temporary organizations (TOs). TOs, such as projects,
events or rescue operations require the collaborative
action of multiple parties within a restricted timeframe
(Lanzara, 1983; Grabher, 2004; Bechky, 2006; Bakker,
2010; Bakker et al.,2016; Burke and Morley, 2016). Such
organizations promise flexibility, efficiency and
innovation benefits due to the development of specialized
resources and capabilities for a specific and time-bound
organizational purpose (Lundin and Söderlund, 1995;
Bechky, 2006; Engwall and Westling, 2004; Grabher,
2004). Yet, this purpose is often only loosely defined,
which adds to the existing challenge of developing
capabilities within a short time period (Jones et al.,
1998; Engwall and Westling, 2004).
Prior studies already highlight the crucial relationship
between purpose and capability but also point to an
intricate aspect of this relationship that has remained
unexplored. While an agreed-upon purpose is crucial
for the identification of relevant resources (Grabher,
2004), actorsinterpretations of what this purpose is
(Lundin and Söderlund, 1995) and what kinds of
resources are required to fulfil it are negotiated and are
likely to change over time (Engwall and Westling,
2004). In other words, capability development in TOs
is underpinned by actorschanging interpretations and
understandings of purpose as well as resources and
capabilities. Yet, these cognitivedynamics of
capability development in temporary organizations have
not been understood very well. Addressing this gap
promises new insights into the development of highly
specialized capabilities under severe time constraints as
well as new explanatory means for the evolution of
TOs more broadly .
In order to address this research gap we draw on
recent advances relating to the micro-foundations of
capability development (Felin and Foss, 2005; Felin
et al., 2012). This perspective emphasizes the need to
study capability development through the lens of
individual interpretations, actions and interactions (Foss,
2011; Felin et al., 2012). We particularly draw on
Eggers and Kaplans (2013) model of capability
development, for two reasons: First, it follows a theme
within prior research on TOs (e.g., Grabher, 2004)
which considers the assembly of resources crucial for
the development of new capabilities. Second, this
Correspondence: MartinFriesl, Lancaster UniversityManagement School,
Lancaster,LA1 4YX, UK. E-mail m.friesl@lancaster.ac.uk
1
Fully co-authored paper, namesin alphabetical order
DOI: 10.1111/emre.12295
©2018 European Academy of Management
European Management Review, Vol. 16, 50 523, (2019)
7
model differentiates between managerial cognition
underpinning the acquisition of resources, and cognition
underpinning the creation of coordinated linkages
between those resources in order to develop capabilities.
Based on this perspective this paper answers the
following research question: How does managerial
cognition influence capability development in TOs over
time?
Following other studies on capability development we
chose a longitudinal, single case research design
(Montealegre, 2002; Danneels, 2010). In particular, our
analysis draws on a study of the nine-month run up to a
high profile one-day fundraising event. The event offered
donors the opportunity to abseil from The Shardin
London; at that time the tallest building in Western
Europe. What started as a fairly small event soon became
a very complex endeavour, involving the collaboration of
a number of different organizations, representinga diverse
set of organizational types, including (among others): the
Duke of York, The Outward Bound Trust, the Royal
Marines Commando, Mountaineering teams and Sellar
Property Group.
Based on our analysis we develop a process model that
delineates the role of managerial cognition in two
interrelatedcycles of capability development: the resource
accumulationcycle and the capability assembly cycle.For
each of these cycles we identify distinct types of
managerial cognition. The process model explains the
reciprocal relationship of purpose and resources and also
highlightsthe role of capability level cognition as a crucial
coordinating mechanism through which actors anticipate
outcomes, create co-specialized roles and integrate
resources in a temporal sequence. Moreover, this process
model provides deep insights into two challenges TOs
face: the drift of organizational purpose and, related to
that, the development of tightly integrated capabilities,
which lie at the heart of any potential efficiency gains
promised by TOs.
Our paper complements existing research on
capability development in TOs (e.g., Engwall and
Westling, 2004) by showing how the accumulation of
resources and the assembly of capability are
underpinned by managerial cognition. In particular, we
develop a process model that differentiates between
cognitive dynamics underpinning resource accumulation
as well as capability assembly. Moreover, we add to
extant research (Engwall, 2003; Grabher, 2004) by
delineating the dialectic relationship between purpose
and resource related cognition, providing new
explanatory means for the evolution of TOs and the
accumulation of resources. Finally, we provide new
insights into the twin challenges of purpose drift and
capability integration through the life of a temporary
organization, pointing out implications for management
practice.
Capability development in temporary
organizations
TOs not only allow individuals but also organizational
actors to respond to quickly changing demands in the
business environment, by flexibly combining expertise,
resources and routines to pursue a particular task (Lundin
and Söderlund, 1995; Jones et al., 1998; Sydow et al.,
2004). Drawing on Bakker (2010: 468) we define TOs
as a set of organizational actors working together on a
complex task over a limited period of time. This implies
that capabilities are assembled along a transient value
chain, for a short period of time, before the TO is
dissolved or reconfigured in order to pursue new
objectives (Manning and Sydow, 2011). Below we
provide an overview of the state of research on capability
development in TOs and then make the case for
investigating the role of managerial cognition in this
context.
State of existing research
There are three perspectives on capability development in
extant research on TOs: a learning perspective, an
evolutionary perspective and an integrative perspective.
We synthesize key insights from each perspective and,
based on this, argue why research on TOs would benefit
from investigatingthe interplay of organizational purpose
and capability.
An important stream of research on TOs has focused
on learning processes (Lindkvist, 2005; Janowicz-
Panjaitan et al., 2009). Studies taking a learning
perspectivepoint out that experience and repetition are
important capability building mechanisms (Engwall,
2003). For instance, Davies and Brady (2000) argue that
firms develop the ability to manage TOs (such as project
teams) if they frequently engage in initiating and
implementing projects. In a later study they show how
initial exploratory learning in the form of improvisation
is superseded by exploitative learning as the firm applies
prior experience to new projects (Brady and Davies,
2004). In these studies TOs (e.g., projects) are realized
withina particular focal organization. The focal
organization provides the structural means (such as
functional roles and routines) to retain and make project
experience available (Zollo and Winter, 2002). Thus,
this perspective largely focuses on a firmsabilityto
set up, run and orchestrate TOs internally rather than
the development of specific (and potentially one-off)
capabilities, whether internally or externally located, to
fulfil the purpose of a project.
Another group of studies takes an integration
perspectiveon capability development. This second
group of studies focuses on the identification and
integration of resources within a TO, as a mechanism
C.J. Ford and M. Friesl
©2018 European Academy of Management
508

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT