1
Organizational Goal Setting
Organizational Goal Setting
Charles McCutchen
School of Business, Liberty University
BUS 735 – Understanding the Organization
Dr. Cline
December 12th, 2021
Author Note
Charles McCutchen
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charles McCutchen
Email: cmccutchen4@liberty.edu
2
Organizational Goal Setting
Abstract
Theories have long been used to help businesses understand what steps they need for their
businesses to be successful. This paper details two companies that are in their infancy stage and
how the members are addressing the concerns with the lack of communication, the lack of
human capital, lack of required skillsets and the addition of joint ventures. Theories were
analyzed and solutions were provided to improve upon the communications that the businesses
lack and ultimately looking at being humble as the journey transforms and not being afraid to ask
for help where its warranted.
Keywords: organizational theory, hubris, resource-based theory, performance theory,
contingency theory
3
Organizational Goal Setting
Introduction - Identification of Issues
The organization described in this paper is two businesses that feed off each other. One is
a development company where a 56-acre mixed use development will be built, and the other is a
cannabis business where HEMP will be used as insulation inside the walls of the built structures.
One of the issues, which stem across both companies is there, is a lack of communication. There
is a lack of human capital, so there are dual roles that members have to address. There are needed
skillsets when building a company, but not readily available. These same people have to be paid,
so the company must rely on its members and relationships previously formed. There’s no
organizational chart to figure out the roles and responsibilities so what’s currently in place is
everyone takes their skillsets and completes tasks while some tasks overlap. There is a
considerable task of admin that must be performed, and some documents are not as polished as
they could be, so the company could come off as unprofessional. These documents have to be
viewed by multiple people and being that we’re not the experts in administration matters, we
provide content that meets the need that we think is appropriate. We have attorneys to do some of
the paperwork, and that money comes out of our pockets. The CEO of both companies is the
same person, an engineer, but he doesn’t have the requisite knowledge to understand all aspects
of both companies. So decisions are made on a democratic basis where we use our best judgment
to determine the best outcome. We’re just now taking on other joint venture partners to help with
some of the industries where we’re unsure how to proceed. The other issue is one business is
product-based, and the other is service-based. Because we don’t have the supply and demand
4
Organizational Goal Setting
skillset, it forms a lot of concern as to how much time and effort to put into learning it or just
hiring someone who understands how we’ll be successful in the coming years.
Analysis and Evaluation
Organizational theory
Change will forever be constant in an organizational environment, and to contend when
new situations arise, the firm must conform their design and planning (Schauerte et al.,
2020;2021). As it relates to the organization being discussed, there are new technologies that
don't have a lot of research, so some planning is being built as the organization grows. The goal
is to take the available information and build upon it because it is not disruptive. Businesses
change due to politics, the economy, and technology. The acceleration of the digital world and
artificial intelligence further adds to the disruption to what organizations have to strive to
accomplish (Agrawal et al., (2018). With the cannabis company adding in the digital revolution,
it has only increased the business's size and scope to deliver goods on a global scale (Baum &
Haveman, 2020).
In turn, these advancements have significantly modified the organizational strategies and
proceedings. With this expansion, online businesses can keep up with the production of a brick-
and-mortar company while many of them are changing their business models to incorporate an
online business (Baum & Haveman, 2020). Organizations have taken the digital revolution and
used it to their advantage to implement different strategies in their supply chain (Baum &
Haveman, 2020). Both the development company and the cannabis company are novices in the
5
Organizational Goal Setting
digital revolution. However, a new digital infrastructure attracts new participants that will be
more than willing to use their resources (Schauerte et al., 2020;2021).
Hubris
CEOs can hinder a company from growing and cause the business to fail. A term called
hubris is a person with a position of authority but is overconfident in their abilities (Tourish,
2020). Hubris is discussed to highlight the actions of the current CEO and him being the CEO for
both companies where there it affects the organization such that there is a struggle for power in
who has the last word, whether it’s him or the resident experts on a particular topic (Tourish, D.,
2020). Moreover, there are certain instances where hubris can be used to help the organization in
that no attribute when it relates to personality or a non-adaptive trait is universally flexible
(Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Other characteristics that help the organization are having a leader
with self-confidence and inspiring the workers (Owen & Davidson, 2009). On the flip side, it’s
been known that most people who are CEOs are somewhat presumptuous (Goel & Thakor,
2008).
Resource-Based Theory
Resource-based theory advocates for a raised performance that will help an organization
gain a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984). It also offers a
unified perspective on assets tied together that can create higher caliber value for the customer
(Schauerte et al., 2020;2021). Firms can adjust their resource base to renew their competing
advantage in the industry (Helfat et al., 2007; Makadok, 2001; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). In
the cannabis industry, newer technology is at the forefront, and companies want to stay ahead to
ensure their success as time goes, so changes in the resource base only helps the organization
6
Organizational Goal Setting
with low performance and vying profit (Helfat & Eisenhardt, 2004; Karim and Capron, 2015;
Moliterno & Wiersema, 2007).
Organizations use an exclusive mix of resources to continue receiving a competitive
advantage (Barney 1991; Penrose 1959). The cannabis company's resources are based upon joint
ventures to add to the level of expertise that's not already in-house. Resources can be defined as
everything that can help or hinder an organization (Wernerfelt, 1984, p. 172). More specifically,
resources are recognized as a unified merger of the organization's capabilities and assets (Day
1994; Moorman & Day 2016). Assets also refer to a firm's personality that a company can
evolve, collect and use as a bargaining chip for marketplace purposes (Barney 1991; Hunt and
Morgan 1995; Srivastava et al. 2001). A company's capabilities include skillsets and how they
share what's been learned to convert that information into a solutions-based product; Barney
2001; Srivastava et al. 2001, which can ensure utilitarian activities on a high level (Day 1994).
Valuable resources are scarce, not convertible (Barney 1991) and empower organizations to keep
a competitive edge and develop from within (Collis and Montgomery 1995; Grant 1991;
Wernerfelt 1984).
The cannabis-based business is resource gathering because it doesn't have all the tools
necessary to grow without the addition of outside firms that will help plug the holes in the
administration. Value is created in an organization when one structure controls the necessary
resources (Schauerte et al., 2020;2021). There must be a diversity in which resources are being
used so an organization can maintain its competitive advantage (Peteraf & Barney 2003;
Kozlenkova et al. 2014). The cannabis industry is volatile and uncertain, so these resources'
resilience is essential for advancement (Schauerte et al., 2020;2021). Teece et al. (1997) further
7
Organizational Goal Setting
suggest the idea of dynamic capabilities, which places the spotlight on how management
modifies its ability in environments to frequent changes. Dynamic capabilities provide a
competitive edge when using resources, and they also help in the configurations that are
produced (Barney et al. 2001; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Schilke et al. 2018).
Performance Theory
Managers keep the organization afloat, and as their level of knowledge increases, so
should their ability to perform and organize the resources, so they get a better output to aid the
organization. Organizations create aspiration levels which are outcomes that are regarded as
suitable by the decision-maker (Schneider, 1992: 1053). Firms take those same aspiration levels
and use them to help managers, and members better see the organization's structure (Cyert &
March, 1992; Greve, 2003c; Simon, 1997). With performance theory and the development
company, we each have a past performance which was the main point in forming the
organization as its been laid out. Performance evaluations are based upon what's been done in the
past and the social aspirations that were formed (Bromiley & Harris, 2014; Gavetti et al., 2012).
An organization can take the previous performance and the current performance and give a grade
as to how the member is doing (Greve, 2003a).
In contrast, when viewing a member's social performance, we consider the industry. An
example would be looking at what the engineers in other firms have completed concerning what
our engineers in the company do (Audia & Brion, 2007). Each organization should have a
baseline for what's deemed appropriate performance (Kotiloglu et al., 2021;2019;). When a
member's performance passes a certain threshold, there could be issues that affect the entire
organization, so measures should be put in place to mitigate this (Kotiloglu et al., 2021;2019;).
8
Organizational Goal Setting
The aspiration levels have a cause and effect feel where the organization steps in if the member's
performance is low, and organizations reduce their actions if a member is performing above the
level (Greve, 2003c; Posen et al., 2018; Shinkle, 2012).
Contingency Theory
Organizational performance is at the forefront of an organization, and the contingency
theory aligns with it in that there is more than one way to achieve it (Chaundry, 2020). When
implementing technology centered around the contingency theory, the tasks and the technical
side are what an organization view (Chaundry, 2020). Technology details the environmental,
psychological, and awareness resources used from the internal to the external output
(Orlikowski, 1992). The cannabis company is at the cusp of new technology, making it difficult
to ascertain which method to use to be profitable. Depending on the setup, the organizational
structure can bring about adaptability and persuasiveness (Woodward, 1965). With both
companies (Development and Cannabis), the intention is to use a traditional technology with a
hierarchy for decision-making purposes (Chaundry, 2020). Technology, when linked with
contingency, will help the organization with tasks and influence the members' performance. The
cannabis industry holds a lot of uncertainties coming from the external environment primarily
centered around the laws and which states will or won't allow access, so the organization has to
use the resources that are out there to endure until the law are more defined. The external
environment influences an organization's features and how performance is weighed (Chaundry,
2020).
From the open system viewpoint, an organization develops based on what goods and
services the environment help to bring to the forefront (Scott, 1992). Open system theorists
9
Organizational Goal Setting
emphasize the importance of an organization when it's at its lowest point when resources are
scarce to adapt (Yuchtman and Seashore, 1967: 898). Take the pandemic into context when
business dried up for many organizations, and the issue we'll face is the lack of people wanting to
work, so we have to have programs in place to combat the need to hire and attain quality
workers. Not all contingency structures match the organization. When that happens, a firm could
deteriorate, so an organization can innovate for a better fit to alleviate the change and achieve
better performance (Scott & Davis, 2016).
Solutions
As far as CEOs having overconfidence, a fix is that a Board can be erected to oversee
constraint so a CEO takes an entire company down with the decisions that may be off base.
There could also be incentives to account for risk management (Tourish, 2020). Another method
that can help solve this is addressing hubris in the disciplinary actions set forth so that a
whistleblower won't be retribution. Performance management is structured to address a lack of
performance without fear of coming back to haunt the member who brought the situation up. As
a company, there is a lack of organizational resources due to being a new company, and one way
to solve this is to outsource the finances and other resources so members of the company can
focus on their particular skillsets (Vidal & Mitchell, 2018). In essence, there would be overall
improvement due to hiring those already proficient in that industry. We're taking on the risk of
combining both companies with working in tandem within both businesses. By doing that, we
are innovating to grow in the hopes of taking the real estate industry into a new shift by using
10
Organizational Goal Setting
HEMP to build homes and structures. Our actions are in line with the performance feedback
theory in that we have to adjust and take into account the changes that may lead us to implement
other tactics that may not provide us the responses toward the industry we initially thought, but it
will give us an understanding that our actions can cause us to respond to scenarios differently
(Greve, 2003c).
Being a service organization, we have to incorporate a rewards program, communication,
and workshops on leadership to help us increase the anticipation of creating a better service
experience for change implementation not only for the customers but also for our members
(Chaundry, 2020). Right now, we're working in our worlds, and in 2022 we'll add on new
members, and with that comes uncertainty. We'll be looking to maintain job satisfaction because
it costs time and money to train people. Great relationships help with job satisfaction and treating
people like you'd want to be treated from the person who shows up the first day up to the CEO
(SHRM, 2016). Positive interdependence will be a fundamental tool that will be used to establish
a good working environment, from the relationships between employees to supervisors
(Alberracin, 2019). Both parties must have common goals to foster an excellent connection for
positive interdependence to be effective (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). To build that relationship
there needs to be a considerable amount of time that each member would have to spend with
each other. Then come the rules and regulations behind a personal and professional relationship
(Alberracin, 2019). With each company's problems, it's hard to determine which theory or
method to follow without knowing which is beneficial. Studies show that a computer simulation
would be the best use of time to understand what a company should be doing regarding
performance and structure (e.g., Ethiraj and Levinthal, 2004; Levitt et al., 1994). One course of
11
Organizational Goal Setting
action for both businesses is to ensure the law firms and consultants are in place to create the
structure and strategies that will help build the foundation because their skillsets are essential to
holding businesses together (Scott & Davis, 2016).
Textbooks and Bible Perspective
Everything in an organization comes down to decisions. Some decisions are made
without counsel and using the best judgment possible. At the same time, others seek experts to
take on the burden of not knowing. Proverbs 12:15 (King James Bible, 1769/2017) states, “The
way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.” That passage
states that we should seek counsel and not go at decisions alone. The cannabis organization is in
its infancy stage. There’s a lot of holes that must be filled. While on the journey, we’re constantly
finding experts who can help us, and the best part about forming these new relationships is their
expertise is welcomed with open arms. Some leaders don’t feel the need to ask for help, and their
overconfidence could lead to trouble due to not wanting to humble themselves. Merida (2015)
posits that humbling yourself in the eye of the Lord will bring about enlightenment from the
Lord. Josiah honored the Lord as we read further to find Manasseh jilted the Lord, and we see
how other Kings like Uzziah and Hezekiah feel due to not honoring the Father. Taking
Manasseh’s situation where he had an example of faithful, he chose to take matters into his hand
and go against God’s will (Merida).
Conclusion
Using the theories helps break down the steps needed for a successful business. It's a
blueprint for accomplishing the organization's goals and mitigating the pitfalls many
organizations have faced along the same journey. Not having an organizational structure creates
12
Organizational Goal Setting
obstacles that will arise when significant decisions have to be made, which causes a lack of
communication. The outlined solutions address how we fix the issues faced with programs and
people to help. No matter which direction we take the organization, we must keep the faith that
these decisions have been prayed on and that we keep being good Christians helping God's
people along the journey. For the business to succeed we must be humble enough to know when
to ask for help.
References
Agrawal, A., Gans, J. S., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction machines: The simple economics of artificial
intelligence. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Business School Press.
https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amr.2020.0030
Albarracin, E. (2019). Positive interdependence theory in effective manager-coach and employee
coaching relationships. International Management Review, 15(2), 41-90.
Audia, P. G., & Brion, S. (2007). Reluctant to change: Self-enhancing responses to diverging
performance measures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102: 255-269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.007
13
Organizational Goal Setting
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Baum, J. A. C. (2019). Bridging, brokerage, and experiential learning in a peer production network.
Working paper, University of Toronto. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amr.2020.0030
Baum, J. A. C., & Haveman, H. A. (2020). Editors’ comments: The future of organizational theory. The
Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 268-272. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0030
Bromiley, P., & Harris, J. D. (2014). A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations.
Strategic Management Journal 35(3): 338–357.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2191
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1966). The Management of innovation. London UK: Tavistock
Publications.
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard
Business Review, 73(4), 118–128.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800404
Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management
Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
14
Organizational Goal Setting
Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. (2004). “Bounded Rationality and the Search for Organizational
Architecture: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Design of Organizations and Their
Evolvability,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 49:404–37.
Gavetti, G., Greve, H. R., & Levinthal, D. A. (2012). The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and
prospects. Academy of Management Annals 6(1): 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.656841
Goel, A., & Thakor, A. (2008). ‘Overconfidence, CEO Selection, and Corporate Governance’, Journal of
Finance 63: 2737–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01412.x
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy
formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166664
Greve, H. R. (2003a). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from
shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal 46(6): 685–702.
https://doi.org/10.5465/30040661
Greve, H. R. (2003c). Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective
on Innovation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haynes, M., Thompson, S., & Wright, M. (2003). The determinants of corporate divestment: Evidence
from a panel of UK firms. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(1), 147– 166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00167-1
Helfat, C. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational
modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management
Journal, 25(13), 1217– 1232. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.427
15
Organizational Goal Setting
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S.
G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of
Marketing, 59(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900201
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365-379.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
Karim, S., & Capron, L. (2015). Reconfiguration: Adding, redeploying, recombining, and divesting
resources and business units. Strategic Management Journal, 37, E54– E62.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2537
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Original
work published 1769).
Kotiloglu, S., Chen, Y., & Lechler, T. (2021;2019;). Organizational responses to performance feedback:
A meta-analytic review. Strategic Organization, 19(2), 285-
311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127019883361
Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in
marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0336-7
Lakhani, K., & von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: "Free" user-to-user assistance.
Research Policy, 32: 923 – 943.
16
Organizational Goal Setting
Lakhani, K., & Wolf, R. (2005). Why hackers do what they do? Understanding motivation effort in
free/open source projects. In J. Feller, B. FitzGerald, S. Hissam, & K. Lakhani (Eds.),
Perspectives in free and open source software: 3–21. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-47.
Levitt, R. E., Thomson, J., Christiansen, T. R., Kunz, J. C. & Jin, Y. (1994). “Virtual Design Team:
Simulating How Organizational Structure and Information Processing Tools Affect Team
Performance,” in Computational Organization Theory, ed. Kathleen M. Carley and M. J. Prietula.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent
creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387– 401.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.158
Merida, T. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings (Christ-Centered Exposition). B & H Publishing
Group. Nashville, Tennessee.
Moliterno, T. P., & Wiersema, M. F. (2007). Firm performance, rent appropriation, and the strategic
resource divestment capability. Strategic Management Journal, 28(11), 1065– 1087.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2486004
Moorman, C., & Day, G. S. (2016). Organizing for marketing excellence. Journal of
Marketing, 80(November), 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0423
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in
organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398-427.
17
Organizational Goal Setting
Owen, D., & Davidson, J. (2009). ‘Hubris Syndrome: An Acquired Personality Disorder? A Study of US
Presidents and UK Prime Ministers Over the Last 100 Years’, Brain 132: 1396–406.
https:// doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp008
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002) ‘The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy’, Journal of Research in Personality 36: 556–63.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1097-1
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision
Economics, 24(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1126
Posen, H. E, Keil, T, Kim, S, & Meissner, F. D. (2018) Renewing research on problemistic search—A
review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals 12(1): 208–251.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0018
Raymond, E. S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an
accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA : O'Reilly Media.
Schauerte, R., Feiereisen, S., & Malter, A. J. (2020;2021;). What does it take to survive in a digital
world? Resource-based theory and strategic change in the TV industry. Journal of Cultural
Economics, 45(2), 263-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-020-09389-x
Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review
of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of
Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0014
18
Organizational Goal Setting
Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current
theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
18(5): 1040–1057.
Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations. New Jersey NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2016). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open
system perspectives. Routledge.
Shinkle, G. A. (2012). Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: Building on the past and
aiming for the future. Journal of Management 38(1): 415–455.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419856
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative
Organization. New York: Macmillan.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2016). Survey findings: Influencing workplace culture
through employee recognition and other efforts. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/surveys
Snyder, C. A., Cox, J. F., & Jesse, R. R. (1982). A dependent demand approach to service organization
planning and control. Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 455-466.
Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The resource-based view and marketing: The
role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6),
777–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700610
Taylor, S., & Brown, J. (1988). ‘Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental
Health’, Psychological Bulletin 103: 193–210.
19
Organizational Goal Setting
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(7), 509– 533. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0981
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New
York NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tourish, D. (2020). Towards an organisational theory of hubris: Symptoms, behaviours and social fields
within finance and banking. Organization (London, England), 27(1), 88-
109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419828588
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational
environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392832
von Krogh, G., & von Hippel, E. (2006). The promise of research on open science. Management
Science, 52: 975 – 983.
Vidal, E., & Mitchell, W. (2018). Virtuous or vicious cycles? The role of divestitures as a
complementary Penrose effect within resource‐based theory. Strategic Management
Journal, 39(1), 131-154. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2701
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 5(2), 171– 180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. (1967). “A System Resource Approach to Organizational
Effectiveness,” American Sociological Review, 32:891–903.
