Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Microfoundations in the strategic management of technology and

innovation: Definitions, systematic literature review, integrative
framework, and research agenda
Maximilian Palmié a, Stephanie Rüegger a, b, Vinit Parida c, d, *
a
Institute of Technology Management, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
b
INCAE Business School, Costa Rica
c
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
d
Department of Management, University of Vaasa, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While innovations and new technologies are often pivotal to the long-term prosperity of firms, such firm-level
Microfoundations outcomes emerge from the actions and interactions of organizational members who develop innovations and
Strategic management use new technologies. The “microfoundations movement” seeks to understand how micro-level (e.g., individual)
Technology management
actions and interactions lead to macro-level (e.g., organizational) outcomes and mediate relations between
Innovation management
Systematic literature review
macro-level variables. Although the movement has grown tremendously over the last decade, it has yet to deeply
Integrative literature review pervade the domain of strategic technology and innovation management. Due to its tremendous growth, it is
Research agenda quite fragmented and dispersed, which impedes the identification of the most promising opportunities for future
Multi-level research research. To overcome this problematic situation, we conduct a systematic literature review of existing research
Cross-level research on microfoundations in the strategic management of technology and innovation, synthesize it into an integrative
Coleman’s boat framework, and chart promising paths for future research. Specifically, we apply a multi-coder, multi-step
approach, identify 87 relevant articles published in 23 leading academic journals over the period from 2003 to
2022, and propose a research agenda comprising more than 20 promising avenues for future research based on
the resulting insights. These findings have important implications for the academic literature and management
practice.

1. Introduction more essential for the ongoing competitiveness and long-term prosperity
of firms (Audretsch et al., 2014; Foss et al., 2011; Schilling & Shankar,
It is widely accepted that individuals play a major role in producing 2019). The same holds true for new technologies, which often only
innovations (e.g., Amabile, 1988; Dahlander et al., 2016; Felin & Hes­ deliver the value added desired by firms if they are well received and
terly, 2007; Simon, 1991). Nevertheless, the familiar image of “the lone adequately put into operation by organizational members (Boothby
inventor working tirelessly until one comes across the grand discovery, et al., 2010; Hoppmann et al., 2020; Leonardi & Barley, 2010). Conse­
which is followed by shouts of Eureka and much excitement” (Friedman quently, important interdependencies exist between individuals and
et al., 2008, p. 18; emphasis in original) is often misleading. Few in­ organizations. While organizations influence the conditions in which
ventors are actually “lone wolves”, but most are embedded in social individuals can be innovative and adopt new technologies, individuals
structures that are key to the development of successful innovations affect the prosperity of their firm through their innovation-related ac­
(Dodgson & Gann, 2018; Grigoriou & Rothaermel, 2014). The great tions and their use of new technologies (Felin & Foss, 2005; Grant, 1996;
majority of successful innovations originate in firms and emerge through Schilling & Shankar, 2019).1
the interplay of numerous individuals (Schilling & Shankar, 2019; White In consequence, firms need answers to two interrelated questions to
& Bruton, 2010). At the same time, innovations are becoming more and thrive in today’s business landscape: (1) Which actions and interactions

* Corresponding author at: Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Palmié), [email protected] (S. Rüegger), [email protected] (V. Parida).
1
Dodgson (2021, p. 13) reasons that Peter Drucker’s famous aphorism of “culture eats strategy for breakfast” also indicates the crucial role of employee behavior
(embedded in culture) in driving organizational outcomes.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113351
Received 2 December 2021; Received in revised form 22 September 2022; Accepted 27 September 2022
Available online 14 October 2022
0148-2963/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

of their employees can improve firm performance and which (inter)ac­ consolidate the 87 articles published in 23 different journals over the
tions are detrimental? (2) How can fruitful (inter)actions and their period 2003 to 2022 that were identified in this way, and we propose a
translation into firm performance be encouraged and supported? Un­ research agenda comprising 21 promising avenues for future research
fortunately, answering these questions in the technology and innovation based on the resulting insights.
context is not trivial for three reasons: First, innovation success depends Our synthesis and research agenda can make substantial contribu­
on fundamentally different, even opposing behaviors (Klonek et al., tions to the academic literature and management practice. Even though
2020; Rosing et al., 2011) – it involves idea creation, championing, and the importance of human action and interaction for strategic technology
implementation (Badir et al., 2020; van de Ven et al., 1999). Second, and innovation management has long been acknowledged (e.g., Leo­
technology and innovation often pervade the entire organization – firms nard-Barton, 1992), it has been pointed out repeatedly that human
typically seek to stimulate innovative behavior across various de­ (inter)action remains an under-researched element of strategic tech­
partments (Yuan & Woodman, 2010) and often possess technologies nology and innovation management (Dodgson, 2021; Elsahn et al.,
affecting employees in various functions (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). 2020; Loon et al., 2020; Raffaelli et al., 2019; Schneckenberg et al.,
Thus, the outcomes of innovation and technology management depend 2015; Teece, 2010). This constellation may explain why research on the
on the (inter)actions of a large number of people. Third, the emerging strategic management of technology and innovation has produced
nature of innovation means that it is hard, if not impossible, to predict rather inconsistent findings and frequently failed to produce prescriptive
all major contingencies (Huikkola et al., 2022; Palmié et al., 2016). insights (Gupta et al., 2007; Keupp et al., 2012; Tidd, 2001). Studying
While employees need to be able to adapt their behavior2 situationally, the behavioral foundations of the strategic management of technology
they could try to use this flexibility to their own advantage by engaging and innovation could strengthen scholars’ ability to rule out alternative
in political behaviors and “power plays” (Roeth et al., 2019). Overall, explanations, understand fundamental causes, increase predictability,
these reasons imply that the behavioral foundations of technology and and improve managerial intervention (Abell et al., 2008; Coleman,
innovation are complex and hard to understand intuitively, providing a 1990; Foss, 2011). Our research agenda can direct scholarly efforts to­
fertile ground for academic research. ward the most promising research opportunities and, thereby, assist the
Generally speaking, the strategic management literature has recently emergence of academic guidance to practicing managers.
developed a strong interest in studying how organizations affect in­
dividuals and how individuals, in turn, affect organizations. Studies of 2. Terminology
such interdependencies belong to an emerging field that has been called
the “microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory”, 2.1. Evolution and state-of-the-art definition of microfoundations
which emerged in 2003 and has gained traction since 2010 (Felin et al.,
2015; Foss & Pedersen, 2016). The microfoundations movement seeks to Lippman and Rumelt, who are credited with being the first to use the
understand how human action and interaction lead to organization-level term “microfoundations” in a strategic management article (Foss &
outcomes and mediate relations between organizational variables (Felin Pedersen, 2016), introduced the concept to the field by stating: “The
et al., 2015; Foss, 2011). While the microfoundations movement has micro-foundations of a subject are the definitions of its basic elements
grown tremendously over recent years, it has entered various domains of and the allowable operations that can be performed using these ele­
strategic management research, seeking microfoundations for a large ments” (Lippman & Rumelt, 2003, p. 903). Subsequently, several au­
variety of phenomena (Felin et al., 2015; Foss & Pedersen, 2016). Thus, thors used the term in a similar manner, associating it with important
the movement is highly dispersed and fragmented (Felin et al., 2015, p. constituting elements. For instance, Teece (2007) describes “cross-
618). Given its emerging and dispersed nature, it has typically not yet functional R&D teams, new product development routines, quality
pervaded each individual domain deeply, offering many more oppor­ control routines, and technology transfer and/or knowledge transfer
tunities for additional research (Contractor et al., 2019; Felin et al., routines, and certain performance measurement systems as important
2015; Foss & Pedersen, 2016). However, the fragmented and dispersed elements (microfoundations) of dynamic capabilities” (p. 1322) and
nature of previous microfoundations work is currently impeding the further suggests that the “microfoundations of dynamic capabilities […
identification of the most promising opportunities for such research. comprise] distinct skills, processes, procedures, organizational struc­
Consequently, scholars have demanded a refocusing and synthesis of tures, decision rules, and disciplines” (p. 1319).
knowledge (Barney & Felin, 2013; Felin et al., 2015). The microfoundations movement, however, tends to converge on a
The strategic management of technology and innovation is one narrower understanding of the term in line with methodological indi­
stream within the microfoundations movement that is in particular need vidualism and reductionism (Foss, 2011). Most scholars in this move­
of such refocusing and synthesis. While academics have recently started ment associate the term with individuals as the elements constituting an
to consolidate the corresponding literature, they have so far focused on organization and focus on individual action and interaction as the
highly specific aspects. For instance, Loon et al. (2020) reviewed the foundations of organizational phenomena (Felin et al., 2015; Foss,
literature on the HR microfoundations of capabilities for business model 2011). The main thrust of the microfoundations movement in the
innovation, while Magistretti et al. (2021) reviewed the literature on the management field can be defined as understanding how individual-level
microfoundations of design thinking as a dynamic capability for inno­ factors impact organizations, how the interaction of individuals leads to
vation. Given the pervasiveness of technology and innovation, these emergent, organization-level outcomes, and how relations between
literature reviews only cover small fractions of the strategic technology organizational variables are mediated by individual actions and in­
and innovation management (STIM) domain, leaving much of the teractions (cf. Felin et al., 2015, p. 576). Thus, microfoundations
domain unconsolidated. scholars locate the proximate cause of a phenomenon at a level of
The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to conduct a systematic analysis below the phenomenon itself (Felin & Hesterly, 2007), usually
literature review of existing research on the microfoundations in the seeking to explain organizational phenomena by treating organizational
STIM domain, synthesize it, develop an integrative framework, and members as the proximate cause of these phenomena.
chart promising paths for future research. After introducing the terms This narrower understanding of microfoundations is well illustrated
“microfoundations” and “strategic technology and innovation manage­ by a figure originally developed by sociologist James S. Coleman (1990)
ment”, we describe the multi-coder, multi-step approach that we used to and now commonly called “Coleman’s boat” or “Coleman’s bathtub”. In
identify relevant articles in leading academic journals. We subsequently its basic form, which is depicted in Fig. 1, the model consists of two
levels (micro and macro), two nodes on every level, and causal arrows
between these nodes, which describe intra- and cross-level relationships.
2
This article uses the terms “action” and “behavior” interchangeably. The nodes on the upper level and the arrow linking them (Arrow #4)

2
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Fig. 1. Coleman’s boat: a general model of social science explanation. Note: Based on Coleman (1990), Felin et al. (2015), and Hedström and Swedberg (1998).

represent a simplified view of pure macro scholarship: The “social facts” level to serve as the microfoundations of a business ecosystem at the
directly affect the “social outcomes”. The nodes on the lower level and macro level.3
the arrow linking them (Arrow #2) represent a simplified view of pure It is therefore possible to generalize the above definition of micro­
micro scholarship: The “conditions of individual action” lead to “indi­ foundations, which is tailored to the dominant usage in the management
vidual action” by means of so-called “action-formation mechanisms”. domain. In general terms, research on microfoundations can be defined
When individuals are placed in varying conditions, their cognition, as efforts to understand how micro-level factors impact macro-level
motivation, opportunities, and other action-relevant factors are likely to entities, how the interaction of micro-level actors leads to emergent
vary as well, which in turn influences how they will act (Contractor and collective outcomes, and how relations between macro-level vari­
et al., 2019). The two remaining arrows first connect the macro level to ables are mediated by micro-level actions and interactions.
the micro level (Arrow #1) and then the micro level back to the macro
level (Arrow #3), thereby allowing for a microfoundational explanation.
Arrow #1 acknowledges that macro-level facts influence and shape the 2.2. Evolution and definition of strategic technology and innovation
conditions of individual action through so-called “situational mecha­ management
nisms” (Hedström & Swedberg, 1998). For instance, differences in the
prevailing institutions across organizations can provide individuals with The strategic management of technology and innovation – synony­
either incentives or disincentives for certain actions. Arrow #3, in turn, mously called strategic technology and innovation management (STIM)
acknowledges that macro-level outcomes emerge from the aggregation – can be understood as the intersection of two management domains:
of individual actions as a result of so-called “transformational mecha­
nisms” (Hedström & Swedberg, 1998). Microfoundational research can,
therefore, account for the influence of macro-level facts on macro-level
outcomes, without having to rely on pure macro-level causality.
Therefore, microfoundational explanations can replace pure macro-level
explanations (Arrow #4 in Fig. 1), which are frequently considered
“incomplete”, “unsatisfying”, or even “shallow” because they do not
account for individual agency (Contractor et al., 2019, p. 8). Various
research streams including traditionally macro-focused strategy or
technology and innovation management have experienced increasing
pressures for the reconciliation of micro- and macro-level research in
recent years (Barney & Felin, 2013; Felin & Foss, 2006). Consequently,
they have seen drastic increases in the adoption of micro-level con­
structs, contributing to a general microfoundations movement (Felin
et al., 2015).
Although most microfoundations scholars in the management field
equate individual human beings (e.g., managers, employees) with the
micro level and firms with the macro level, it should be noted that the Fig. 2. The domain of strategic technology & innovation management (STIM)
“microfoundations [approach] is fundamentally an analytical levels as intersection between the strategic management (SM) and technology &
innovation management domains.
argument” (Foss & Pedersen, 2016, p. 3). The microfoundations para­
digm is not limited to organizational explananda but can, in principle, be
used to explain “anything that is supra-individual (e.g., all the way from
dyadic relations between individuals to nations)” (Contractor et al.,
2019, p. 6). By the same token, the micro level of the microfoundations 3
The basic form of Coleman’s boat can be extended by concatenating several
paradigm need not be restricted to individuals but can embrace collec­
“boats” horizontally and/or vertically. With horizontal concatenation of two
tive actors as long as the collective actors are situated at a lower level of
boats, it is possible to explain the “social facts” of the boat on the right by
analysis than the chosen macro-level entity or are nested within the
treating them as the “social outcomes” of the boat on the left. With vertical
macro-level entity (Chittoor et al., 2019; Foss & Pedersen, 2016). For concatenation (stacking) of two boats, it is possible to consider three levels – the
instance, business units can be placed on the micro level to study the macro level of the upper boat, the micro level of the lower boat, and a meso
effect of their actions and interactions on their parent firm at the macro level that simultaneously corresponds to the macro level of the lower boat and
level. Alternatively, interdependent firms can be placed on the micro the micro level of the upper boat. An example is provided by Bendig et al.
(2018).

3
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Strategic Management (SM) and Technology and Innovation Manage­ synthesis” (Tranfield et al., 2003). The lines of argument synthesis “can
ment (TIM) (cf. Fig. 2). Strategic management is essentially concerned be used if different [… studies] examine different aspects of the same
with the creation and appropriation of value and the generation of phenomenon” (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 218). Our study will therefore
competitive advantage (Durand et al., 2017; Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). highlight the diverse thematic foci and constructs within the micro-
Until the early 1990s, strategic management mainly looked at market-/ foundational STIM literature and synthesize them into an integrated
industry-level factors to explain a firm’s competitive position (e.g., model (Torraco, 2016).
Porter, 1980). The growing popularity of the resource-based view An integrative literature review begins with the systematic selection
(Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993) subsequently turned the focus to firm- of relevant, comprehensive, and representative literature in the chosen
level factors, and the advent of the microfoundations movement then field of research (Tranfield et al., 2003). The systematic selection of
brought individual-level factors to the fore (Foss, 2011; Hoskisson et al., literature on the micro-foundations of STIM for this paper proceeded
1999). Thus, the individual level can be considered the endpoint of a along the following steps, which are also summarized in Fig. 3. First,
continuous move of the strategic management field down the levels of three research assistants perused various search engines (Google
analysis in order to leverage hitherto unobserved heterogeneity in Scholar, EBSCOhost, Web of Science) to identify articles that simulta­
explaining competitive advantage. neously contain keywords for both “microfoundations” and “technol­
As strategic management scholars examined more and more poten­ ogy/innovation” in the following 30 peer reviewed journals: Academy of
tially relevant antecedents of value creation, value appropriation, and Management Annals, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of
competitive advantage, it became more and more difficult conceptually Management Perspectives, Academy of Management Review, Adminis­
to develop a succinct and satisfactory formal definition of strategic trative Science Quarterly, British Journal of Management, Entrepre­
management, and the published definitions of the field became “quite neurship Theory & Practice, Global Strategy Journal, International
varied” (Nag et al., 2007, p. 937). To overcome the divergence of pre­ Journal of Management Reviews, Journal of Business Research, Journal
vious definitions and the fragmentation of our understanding, Nag et al. of Business Venturing, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal
(2007) derived a definition inductively from a large-scale survey of of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Marketing,
management scholars. According to this consensus definition, “[t]he Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Product Innovation Man­
field of strategic management deals with the major intended and agement, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Long Range
emergent initiatives taken by general managers on behalf of owners, Planning, Management Science, Organization Science, Organization
involving utilization of resources, to enhance the performance of firms Studies, R&D Management, Research Policy, Small Business Economics,
in their external environments” (Nag et al., 2007, p. 944). Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Strategic Management Journal,
Similarly, concise and ultimate definitions of technology manage­ Strategic Organization, Strategy Science, and Technological Forecasting
ment and innovation management do not exist (Dodgson, 2017; Orli­ & Social Change. The employed keywords, which might occur in either
kowski & Scott, 2008). Existing definitions of technology management the articles’ titles or full texts, are “microfoundations”, “multi-level”,
converge in the notion that technology is a form of implicit or explicit “cross-level”, and “methodological individualism” on the one hand, and
knowledge or a set of skills that allow actors to accomplish something (e. “innovation”, “technology”, “R&D”, and “ambidexterity”4 on the other.
g., transforming inputs into outputs of greater value) and that is typi­ Spelling variations of these keywords were also considered (e.g.,
cally embodied in material or immaterial objects (e.g., people, pro­ “multilevel” instead of “multi-level”). In line with the seminal article of
cesses, tools, and methods) (Burgelman et al., 2008; Schilling & Felin et al. (2015) that analyzes the emergence of the microfoundations
Shankar, 2019; White & Bruton, 2010). Technology management then movement since 2003, the literature search focused on articles pub­
includes efforts to “plan, develop, implement, monitor, and control lished in 2003 or later. The search was last conducted on March 30, 2022
technological capabilities” in order to accomplish the objectives of the and, thus, contains articles included in the above databases up to this
organization (White & Bruton, 2010, p. 17). Existing definitions of date. The research assistants scrutinized the search results indepen­
innovation management converge in the notion that innovation man­ dently of each other in order to exclude search results that are of limited
agement is about managing the complementary facets that constitute the relevance to a literature review on the “microfoundations of technology
innovation process – the creation of novel and useful ideas as well as and innovation management”. Combining their independent assess­
their implementation and conversion into new or improved objects ments, 293 articles were considered potentially relevant for our pur­
(Anderson et al., 2014; Badir et al., 2020). These objects can take various poses by one or more of the assistants.
forms – for example, new products or services, new production process Second, each of the 293 articles that emerged from Step 1 was
technologies, new administrative systems, or new business models independently rated by two research assistants according to the extent to
(Keupp et al., 2012; Ritala et al., 2020). which it represents microfoundations work and according to the extent
In sum, we can define strategic technology and innovation man­ to which it represents a technology/innovation topic, based on the un­
agement as follows. STIM consists of the seminal decisions and the major derstanding of the terms outlined above. These extents were measured
initiatives regarding the acquisition, development, and deployment of by 10-point scales, with 1 indicating a very low extent (not at all) and 10
technology and innovation for competitive advantage or superior per­ indicating a very high extent (perfect representation). If an article was
formance (cf. Burgelman et al., 2008; Wheelwright & Clark, 1992; White rated 7 or higher in both dimensions (microfoundations and innovation/
& Bruton, 2010; Zahra, 1996). technology) by both research assistants, it was used for the subsequent
analysis. If it was rated 6 or lower in at least one dimension by both
3. Methodology research assistants, it was not used in the subsequent analysis. If an
article was rated 7 or higher by one rater and 6 or below by the other
To examine the state of our knowledge regarding microfoundations rater in at least one dimension, the article was additionally rated by one
in the STIM domain, we conduct an integrative literature review. The of the co-authors. The article was then considered relevant for the
integrative literature review is “a form of research that reviews, cri­
tiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an inte­
grated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are 4
“Ambidexterity” refers to the ability to combine the exploration of novel
generated” (Torraco, 2005, p. 356). An integrative review is a special opportunities (or “exploratory innovation”) and the exploitation of existing
kind of systematic literature review that permits the combination and capabilities (or “exploitative innovation”) (Jansen et al., 2009). Since ambi­
synthesis of findings (Callahan, 2010; Torraco, 2016). dexterity has been at the center of “[o]ne of the most lively organization theory
Our study will produce a “meta-ethnography” of the micro- debates in recent years” (Luger et al., 2018, p. 449), it is explicitly considered
foundational literature on STIM by conducting a “lines of argument here.

4
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Fig. 3. Process of article selection.

subsequent analyses if it achieved an average rating of 6.5 or higher journal list, may not contain the specified keywords, or may have been
across the three raters in both dimensions, and irrelevant if its average published outside the selected time frame. These literature reviews are
rating was below 6.5 in at least one dimension. Based on this procedure, not intended to be exhaustive but are designed to draw a representative
a total of 128 articles were considered relevant and retained for the picture of the respective body of knowledge and the corresponding ho­
subsequent analysis. rizons for inquiry (Furrer et al., 2008; Keupp et al., 2012).5 This estab­
Third, each of the 128 articles resulting from Step 2 was indepen­ lished approach suggests that the identified 87 articles can provide
dently rated by one research assistant and one of the co-authors ac­ useful information on the state of microfoundations research in the
cording to the extent to which it can be considered a “strategic strategic technology and innovation management domain, even though
management” (SM) article based on the “consensus definition” of SM, the 87 articles most certainly do not account for all relevant research on
which was inductively derived by Nag et al. (2007). Analogous to the this topic. Table 1 provides a list of the 87 articles considered in our
procedure of Nag et al. (2007), a four-point scale was used for this literature review, while Table 2 presents a detailed account of where and
purpose, with 1 meaning “clearly not an SM article” and 4 meaning when these articles were published.
“clearly an SM article”. If an article was rated 3 or 4 by both raters, it was
used in the subsequent analysis. If it was rated 1 or 2 by both raters, it 4. Synthesis and paths for future research
was not used in the subsequent analysis. If an article was rated 3 or 4 by
one rater and 1 or 2 by the other rater, the article was additionally rated Our synthesis and research agenda are structured according to
by a second co-author. The article was then considered relevant for the Coleman’s boat. We examined the theoretical and empirical models
subsequent analyses, if it achieved an average rating of 2.5 or higher featured in the reviewed articles, extracted the constructs used by these
across the three raters, and irrelevant if its average rating was below 2.5. models, situated them in Coleman’s boat, and clustered them at multiple
In total, 87 articles were either unanimously considered SM by the two levels of granularity. This approach allowed us to identify which con­
raters or achieved an average of at least 2.5 across the three coders. structs and groups of constructs have been studied heavily and which
These 87 articles are considered as representing the state of the art on constructs and groups of constructs remain under-researched. Fig. 4
“microfoundations in strategic technology and innovation management provides an overview of the identified construct clusters. Tables 3 to 7
research” and are analyzed subsequently. summarize the results of our review.
It should be noted that literature reviews conducted in this way will
probably not identify every piece of research that is relevant to their
respective topic (e.g., Furrer et al., 2008; Hutzschenreuter & Israel, 4.1. Social facts
2008; Keupp et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2010). Relevant studies may have
been published in books, book chapters, or journals not included in the Social facts are relevant aspects of the context in which individuals
act and are taken as given for the focal explanation (Coleman, 1990). In

5
Some literature reviews conducted in this way even actively sacrifice
exhaustiveness in favor of stronger representativeness by excluding some
identified articles (that were hence published in the focal set of journals during
the analyzed time frame using the specified keywords) from their subsequent
analyses. Specifically, they excluded identified articles that received relatively
few citations and were thus not well incorporated into the community’s body of
knowledge (e.g., Keupp et al., 2012).

5
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

List of the 87 articles featured in our integrative literature review. Focal Micro & Macro Levels
Focal Micro & Macro Levels
# Article Method Social Micro Social
# Article Method Social Micro Social Facts Outcomes
Facts Outcomes
35 Huang et al. Quantitative Meta Executives Org.
1 Aggarwal et al. Mathematical/ Org. Individual Org. 2021 JBR empirical Org.
2017 SMJ simulation 36 Hughes et al. Quantitative Team Individual Team
2 Ahn et al. 2017 Quantitative Executives Org. 2018 BJM empirical
RDM empirical 37 Hughes et al. Quantitative Meta TMT Org.
3 Albats et al. 2020 Qualitative Individual Meta Org. 2020 TFSC empirical Org.
TFSC empirical 38 Jansen et al. Quantitative TMT Org.
4 Ardito et al. 2019 Quantitative Meta Individual Org. 2008 JMS empirical
TFSC empirical Org. 39 Katou et al. 2021 Quantitative Meta Executives Org.
5 Baer et al. 2013 Theoretical/ Team Individual Team JBR empirical Org.
SMJ conceptual 40 Kazadi et al. Qualitative Meta Org. Meta Org.
6 Banerjee et al. Quantitative Individual Org. 2016 JBR empirical Org.
2019 SO empirical 41 Kemper et al. Quantitative TMT Org.
7 Baron and Tang Quantitative Individual Org. 2013 JPIM empirical
2011 JBV empirical 42 Kiss et al. 2020 Quantitative Executives Org.
8 Bendig et al. Quantitative Org. Executives Org. SMJ empirical
2018 LRP empirical 43 Lee and Csaszar, Quantitative Meta Individual Org.
9 Bjørnskov and Literature 2020 StS empirical Org.
Foss 2016 AMP review 44 Lee et al. 2019 Quantitative Team Individual Team
10 Braun et al. 2018 Quantitative Meta Individual Org. JM empirical
BJM empirical Org. 45 Lehoux et al. Qualitative Team Individual Team
11 Carmeli and Quantitative Team Individual Org. 2021 JPIM empirical
Dothan 2017 empirical 46 Lenka et al. 2018 Qualitative Org. Individual Org.
TFSC JBR.pdf empirical
12 Choudhury and Quantitative Team Executives Org. 47 Li et al. 2018 Quantitative Team Org.
Haas 2018 SMJ empirical AMJ empirical
13 Christofi et al. Literature 48 Lichtenthaler Literature
2019 TFSC review 2011 AMP review
14 Coreynen et al. Quantitative Org. Individual Org. 49 Lisak et al. 2016 Quantitative Team Executives Team
2020 JBR empirical JIBS empirical
15 Dabrowska et al. Theoretical/ 50 Litchfield and Theoretical/ Individual Org.
2022 RDM conceptual Gentry 2010 SO conceptual
16 Dai et al. 2016 Quantitative Team Org. 51 Liu et al. 2011 Quantitative Team Individual Team
JMS empirical RDM empirical
17 Davis and Mathematical/ Org. Individual Org. 52 Liu et al. 2017 Quantitative Meta Team Org.
Aggarwal 2019 simulation JBR empirical Org.
SMJ 53 Loon et al. 2020 Literature
18 De Silva et al. Qualitative Meta Executives Org. JMS review
2021 JBR empirical Org. 54 Maak et al. 2016 Theoretical/ Meta Executives Org.
19 Devarakonda Quantitative Meta Individual Meta Org. JMS conceptual Org.
et al. 2022 StS empirical Org. 55 Magistretti et al. Literature
20 Distel 2019 JM Quantitative Org. Individual Org. 2021 JPIM review
empirical 56 Martin et al. Theoretical/ Meta Individual Org.
21 Dixon et al. 2014 Qualitative Team Org. 2019 SO conceptual Org.
LRP empirical 57 Marvel et al. Quantitative Executives Org.
22 Ebers and Quantitative Team Org. 2020 JBV empirical
Maurer 2014 RP empirical 58 Mazzucchelli Quantitative Individual Org.
23 Felin and Theoretical/ et al. 2019 TFSC empirical
Hesterly 2007 conceptual 59 Mollick 2012 Quantitative Individual Org.
AMR SMJ empirical
24 Felin et al. 2017 Editorial/ 60 Mom et al. 2019 Quantitative Org. Executives Org.
SO perspective JM empirical
25 Fichter 2009 Qualitative Team Org. 61 Nag and Gioia Qualitative Executives Org.
RDM empirical 2012 AMJ empirical
26 Foss et al. 2011 Quantitative Meta Individual Org. 62 Nuruzzaman Quantitative TMT Org.
OS empirical Org. et al. 2019 GSJ empirical
27 Furr et al. 2012 Quantitative Executives Org. 63 O’Brien et al. Quantitative Org. Executives Org.
SEJ empirical 2019 GSJ empirical
28 Gao et al. 2021 Quantitative Executives Org. 64 Paruchuri and Quantitative Individual Org.
TFSC empirical Eisenman 2012 empirical
29 Garcia Martinez Quantitative Meta Individual Org. JMS
et al. 2019 BJM empirical Org. 65 Pollok et al. 2019 Mixed-method Team Individual Org.
30 Glaser et al. 2015 Quantitative TMT Org. JPIM empirical
SBE empirical 66 Raffaelli et al. Theoretical/ Org. TMT Org.
31 Grigoriou and Quantitative Team Individual Org. 2019 SMJ conceptual
Rothaermel 2014 empirical 67 Remneland Qualitative Team Org.
JM Wikhamn 2019 empirical
32 Gupta et al. 2007 Editorial/ RADM
OS perspective 68 Rothaermel and Quantitative Org. Individual Org.
33 Harris and Wood Qualitative Org. Executives Org. Hess 2007 OS empirical
2020 LRP empirical 69 Roundy and Theoretical/
34 Helfat and Literature Lyons 2022 SO conceptual
Martin 2015 JM review 70 Org. Individual Org.
(continued on next page)

6
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Table 1 (continued )

International Journal of Management Reviews; JBR = Journal of Business Research; JBV = Journal of Business Venturing; JIBS = Journal of International Business Studies; JOM = Journal of Management; JMS = Journal
of Management Studies; JPIM = Journal of Product Innovation Management; LRP = Long Range Planning; OS = Organization Science; RDM = R&D Management; RP = Research Policy; SBE = Small Business Economics;
AMJ = Academy of Management Journal; AMP = Academy of Management Perspectives; AMR = Academy of Management Review; BJM = British Journal of Management; GSJ = Global Strategy Journal; IJMR =
Total
Focal Micro & Macro Levels

15
13

87
1
0
1
3
1
2
1
5
4
2
4
3
6
6
7

7
6
# Article Method Social Micro Social
Facts Outcomes

TFSC

10
Santoro et al. Qualitative

1
3
4
1
1
2020 TFSC empirical
71 Scuotto et al. Quantitative Individual Meta Org.

StS

2
2
2020 TFSC empirical
72 Scuotto et al. Quantitative Org. Executives Org.

SEJ = Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal; SMJ = Strategic Management Journal; SO = Strategic Organization; StS = Strategy Science; TFSC = Technological Forecasting & Social Change.
2022 TFSC empirical

SO

1
5
73 Sheehan et al. Quantitative Org. Team Org.
2021 BJM empirical

SMJ
74 Siggelkow and Mathematical/ Individual Org.

1
1

2
1
2
1

8
Rivkin 2006 AMJ simulation
75 Simsek 2009 Literature
JMS review

SEJ

1
76 Srivastava et al. Quantitative Executives Org.
2020 JBV empirical
77 Stadler et al. Quantitative Org. Individual Org.

SBE
2022 OS empirical

1
78 Strutzenberger Literature
and Ambos 2014 review

RP

1
IJMR
79 Tarba et al. 2020 Editorial/

RDM
LRP perspective
80 Tuncdogan et al. Quantitative Executives Org.

1
5
2017 LRP empirical
81 Un and Cuervo- Quantitative Org. Individual Org.

OS

1
5
Cazurra 2004 empirical
BJM
82 Venugopol et al. Quantitative Org. Team Org. LRP
2020 JBR empirical

1
1

6
83 Vuori and Huy Qualitative Org. Executives Org.
2016 ASQ empirical
JPIM

84 Yao and Chang Quantitative Individual Org.

4
2017 SMJ empirical
85 Zahra and Editorial/
JMS

Wright 2011 perspective

1
1

6
AMP
86 Zimmermann Qualitative Org. Team Org.
et al. 2015 OS empirical
JOM

87 Zimmermann Quantitative Org. Executives Org.

1
1

5
et al. 2020 LRP empirical
JIBS

Note to Table 1: 1

1
STIM = Strategic technology and innovation management; Org. = Organization;
Meta Org. = meta-organization; TMT = Top Management Team.
JBV

3
organization research, this context consists of meta-organizational as
well as organizational facts (cf. Barney & Felin, 2013).
JBR

1
1
1

2
3

8
Meta-organizational facts depict the competitive and institutional
landscape in which an organization operates. While it has been observed
IJMR

that individual behavior within organizations may often be driven as

1

much by supra-organizational influences as by the organizational

context (Zahra & Wright, 2011), meta-organizational facts have so far
GSJ

received moderate attention in the reviewed literature. Some studies

2

feature meta-organizational facts that characterize the competitive

environment of an organization, such as the focal industry’s R&D in­
BJM

tensity (e.g., Devarakonda et al., 2022), or the complexity and unpre­

1

2
1

5
Number of articles by journal source and year.

dictability of the firm’s opportunity space (e.g., Davis & Aggarwal,

ASQ

2019; Katou et al., 2021). In contrast to the competitive environment,

1

the socio-political context has scarcely been addressed (a notable

exception is Maak et al. (2016) who examine the role of power distance
AMR

in social innovation). This neglect is detrimental because differences in

1
1

innovativeness across nations, which have long been acknowledged,

highlight the impact of the socio-political context on innovation (e.g.,
AMP

Shane, 1992). For instance, the socio-political context affects how

2

accepting individuals are of risk and how willing they are to deviate
Note to Table 2:

from tried-and-true solutions (Kreiser et al., 2010; Mueller et al., 2013).

AMJ

More generally, it seems likely that employees in different socio-political

1

3
1

contexts approach innovation differently. Hence, understanding how

Table 2

Total
2021
2022
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

the socio-political context affects the actions and interactions of

Year

7
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Fig. 4. Clustered overview of identified constructs. Note to Fig. 4: The numbers given in superscript after each construct refer to the Article IDs in Table 1.

employees with respect to innovation and technology is a promising Other relevant organizational facts have been treated erratically in
avenue for further research. the reviewed literature and, therefore, represent a fruitful avenue for
Organizational facts comprise attributes of an organization and of further research. This is the case for organizational resources as well as
its workforce. Several organizational factors have been covered exten­ for organizational strategies. Resources matter because effectuation
sively in the reviewed literature – for instance, firms’ relationships with theory suggests that experimentation with the means at hand can often
external partners (e.g., Bjørnskov & Foss, 2016; Ebers & Maurer, 2014; lead to the identification of innovative solutions and new applications
Garcia Martinez et al., 2019), their informal organization structures (e. (Palmié et al., 2019; Sarasvathy, 2001). It can therefore be expected that
g., Un & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004; Venugopal et al., 2020; Zimmermann the resources that are available in a firm have an impact on how inno­
et al., 2020), and their formal organization structures (e.g., Mom et al., vative its employees can be and what the innovative solutions will look
2019; Pollok et al., 2019; Sheehan et al., 2021). An important element of like. Strategies matter because they commonly determine what an or­
formal structures is the centralization of decision making, often referred ganization’s members are expected and able to do (Finkelstein et al.,
to by its converse, autonomy (Palmié et al., 2014). Even though au­ 2009; Keupp et al., 2012). Since they are usually mandated, approved,
tonomy has been quite frequently studied in the microfoundations and supported by an organization’s top management, their relevance for
literature, it offers an intriguing opportunity for future research. The employees is typically high, and their impact on employee actions and
findings regarding the effect of autonomy on innovation have been interactions is enormous. Nevertheless, strategies have rarely been dis­
notoriously mixed (cf. Cardinal, 2001; Palmié et al., 2016). On the one cussed in the reviewed literature. Moreover, those rare exceptions have
hand, decentralization gives employees the freedom to solve any prob­ focused on innovation strategies. However, recent research indicates
lems they encounter in innovative ways. On the other hand, the devel­ that diverse strategies should be studied simultaneously (Schweiger
oped solutions may not be compatible with the requirements of other et al., 2019). The effect of a particular innovation strategy can sub­
organizational members. Such lack of compatibility reduces the use­ stantially depend on the other strategies of an organization (Haefner
fulness of these innovations. Based on Amabile (1998), Palmié et al. et al., 2021; Minoja et al., 2010). Microfoundations research could
(2014) advance the distinction between strategic autonomy and oper­ contribute to this line of work by illuminating how employees react
ational autonomy. They argue that providing employees with significant differently to one and the same innovation strategy when it is combined
leeway in how they can approach the problems they encounter (i.e., with various other strategies.
much operational autonomy), while limiting their ability to set their
own agenda (i.e., little strategic autonomy) can produce innovative so­ 4.2. Conditions of individual action
lutions that are quite useful for the entire organization. From a micro­
foundational perspective, it would be interesting to see how various Microfoundational research conceptualizes individual behavior and
combinations of operational and strategic autonomy affect employees’ actions in organizations as the outcome of conditions that may be rooted
actions and interactions. in individuals’ specific work context and in individual attributes (Felin

8
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Table 3
Relationships analysed in the reviewed articles.
Subsequent nodes Conditions of individual action Individual behavior & Social outcomes
(“To…”) action

Individual Job-/ General I&T-related Social Collective Development of Innovative Overall

Initial node
work context situation- individual action action behaviors organizational performance & performance
(“From…”)
specific ind. attributes capabilities output
attributes

Social facts
Meta- 19, 39, 54 18, 19, 35, 18, 35, 39, 17, 19, 39 18, 35, 19, 35, 54, 56 39 17, 18, 54 19, 39
organizational 39 54 39, 54,
facts 56
Organizational 19, 20, 26, 29, 4, 12, 14, 19, 1, 14, 40, 45, 1, 5, 11, 19, 5, 10, 40, 4, 5, 19, 33, 1, 20, 44, 52, 65, 11, 12, 14 10, 26, 19, 36, 45,
facts 31, 33, 36, 40, 43, 44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 20, 33, 36, 43, 46, 37, 40, 45, 51, 72, 77 29, 31, 43, 44, 45, 51, 82
44, 46, 51, 52, 60, 66, 68, 66, 70, 87 37, 43, 44, 49, 52, 54, 60, 70, 77, 46, 49, 54, 63, 66,
54, 70, 81, 82 70, 72, 73, 45, 46, 60, 54, 63, 81, 82, 86, 87 68, 72, 73, 83
77, 83 65, 77, 81, 83, 86
82
Conditions of
individual
action
Ind. work context 6, 22 30, 50 6, 16, 64 22, 41, 50, 58 30, 47 59
Job-/situation- 7, 27 3 2, 3, 71 58 7, 27, 57, 62, 76
specific
individual
attributes
General 28, 42, 61 3 2, 3, 42, 61, 28, 84 57, 61, 76, 80
individual 71, 80
attributes
Individual
behavior &
action
Innovation- & 74 21 21
technology-
(I&T-) related
action
Social action 25, 67, 38
Notes to Table 3:
1. The reported numbers refer to the Article IDs in Table 1.
2. Articles are assigned to a row based on the node in Coleman’s boat that they chose as a starting point for their investigation (cf. Fig. 1). For instance, if an article studies the effect of
the individual work context (node B) on collective behaviors (node D) via I&T-related action (node C), it is listed in the row associated with node B, the column associated with node
C, and the column associated with node D. It is not repeated in the row associated with node C, even though it could be argued that an article covering the path B-C-D inherently
covers the path C-D as well.

& Foss, 2006; Molina-Azorín, 2014). With respect to individual attri­ 2017; Albats et al., 2020; Marvel et al., 2020), and relevant previous
butes, it is possible to distinguish between job/situation-specific and experience (e.g., Albats et al., 2020; Furr et al., 2012; Nuruzzaman et al.,
general attributes. 2019). The second cluster focuses on organizational members’ more
Individual work context. Overall, aspects of the individual work general attributes that are not (only) directly related to their tasks and
context have received substantial attention. Prior studies often adopted jobs or to a specific situation. Prime examples are personality charac­
a social or interpersonal view in this area. For instance, considerable teristics such as the extent of an individual’s extroversion (Albats et al.,
effort was directed toward network positions (e.g., Kazadi et al., 2016; 2020) or personal values and orientations (Martin et al., 2019; Yao &
Kemper et al., 2023; Lenka et al. 2018) and trust (e.g., Hughes et al., Chang, 2017). However, two important job/situation-specific attributes
2018; Lee et al., 2019; Santoro et al. 2020). While the reviewed litera­ remain under-represented to date: motivation and emotions. Motivation
ture covered job characteristics to some extent, some prominent job – especially, intrinsic motivation – is commonly considered a key
characteristics are still missing. The job characteristics model (Hackman ingredient for innovation-related individual action (Amabile, 1998;
& Oldham, 1976) may be considered the most influential model of work Anderson et al., 2014). Various types of actions are necessary for suc­
design by far (cf. Parker et al., 2017). The work design dimensions it cessful innovation – for instance, coming up with new ideas, finding
highlights have been found to be powerful predictors of a variety of organizational support for these ideas, and implementing them, (de Jong
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2007). Scholars & den Hartog, 2010). The cognitive demands and processes differ
recently proposed to extend the job characteristics model with further considerably – at times, even directly conflict – across actions. Certainly,
outcomes that are relevant to organizational innovation, such as employees are unlikely to have similar levels of motivation for all these
learning (Parker et al., 2017). The sparse attention that the reviewed kinds of actions. Such intra-individual differences in motivation entail
literature has so far devoted to the work design dimensions of the job several opportunities for insightful microfoundations research. Research
characteristics model therefore represents a crucial limitation. Future could investigate which organizational facts stimulate motivation for
research examining such factors as skill variety, task significance, and which kind of action or how organizations can stimulate the motivation
task identity as conditions of individual action with respect to innova­ of their employees regarding more than one kind of action. As motiva­
tion could advance not only microfoundations research but also work tion has received scant attention in microfoundations research thus far,
design theory. it represents a promising path for a significant body of additional work.
Job/situation-specific individual attributes have been studied Emotions affect the breadth of cognitive categories that individuals
extensively. Common examples include innovation-related skills (e.g., consider, the ease with which individuals can switch between alterna­
Marvel et al., 2020; Mazzucchelli et al., 2019), education (Ahn et al., tive cognitive sets, and their situational ability to make unusual and

9
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Table 4 Table 6
Summary for social facts. Summary for individual behavior & action.
Synopsis: Microfoundational studies featuring social facts use micro-level behavior as a Synopsis: Individual behavior and action are at the core of the microfoundational
link between the focal social fact and the macro-level explanandum. Hence, they paradigm with their focus on individual agency. In general, both innovation-/
describe process models rather than investigate single-stage influences. The most- technology-related action and social action have been studied quite extensively (a
commonly studied types of social facts are organizational facts (firm- and team-level notable exception being political behavior). However, it is somewhat surprising that
variables), whereas meta-organizational facts (especially, socio-political facts) have the conditions of individual action have received even more attention in the
been under-researched. reviewed literature than individual behavior and action as such. Notably, empirical
research can be said to adopt a simplified version of Coleman’s boat, frequently
Most-commonly studied explananda: focusing on either one of the nodes on the micro level and sidestepping the other.

• For meta-organizational facts: Collective behaviors Most-commonly studied explananda:

• For organizational facts: Innovative performance and output
Indicative questions for future research: • For innovation- and technology-related action: Collective behavior
• For social action: Innovative performance and output
• How does the socio-political context affect innovation performance by influencing Indicative questions for future research:
individual behavior?
• How do combinations of operational and strategic autonomy affect employees’ • How do individual actions related to idea implementation contribute to firms’
actions and interactions and, consequently, firms’ innovation performance? innovation performance?
• How do available resources affect innovation performance by influencing • What are functional political behaviors in the innovation and technology context
employees’ actions and interactions? and what are dysfunctional ones? How can functional political behaviors be
• How does combining a focal innovation strategy with other strategies affect stimulated and dysfunctional ones inhibited?
innovation performance by altering how employees react to the innovation Exemplar articles:
strategy?
Exemplar articles: • Hughes, M., Coen Rigtering, J. P., Covin, J. G., Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2018).
Innovative Behavior, trust, and perceived workplace performance. British Journal of
• Bendig, D., Strese, S., Flatten, T. C., da Costa, M. E. S., & Brettel, M. (2018). On Management, 29, 750–768.
micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities: A multi-level perspective based on CEO • Katou, A. A., Budhwar, P. S., & Patel, C. (2021). A trilogy of organizational
personality and knowledge-based capital. Long Range Planning, 51(6), 797–814. ambidexterity: Leader’s social intelligence, employee work engagement and
• Coreynen, W., Vanderstraeten, J., van Witteloostuijn, A., Cannaerts, N., Loots, E., & environmental changes. Journal of Business Research, 128, 688–700.
Slabbinck, H. (2020). What drives product-service integration? An abductive study
of decision-makers’ motives and value strategies. Journal of Business Research, 117,
189–200.
Table 7
Summary for social outcomes.

Table 5 Synopsis: Microfoundations research, by definition, uses a macro-level outcome as its

Summary for conditions of individual action. explanandum. Correspondingly, all articles in our sample feature at least one social
outcome. Microfoundations research may either exclusively focus on micro-level
Synopsis: Articles dealing with the conditions of individual actions focus on the specific factors affecting these macro-level outcomes or it may additionally include macro-
situation of individual actors. The conditions may comprise attributes of a situation level facts affecting these micro-level factors. Moreover, we observed that many
that these actors encounter, situation-specific attributes of these actors (e.g., their articles focused on similar social outcomes leaving room for further studies.
emotions), or general attributes of these actors that are independent of a single
situation (e.g., their personality). Microfoundations research acknowledges that Most-commonly studied social facts:
these conditions of individual action, which are said to affect individual behavior,
and thereby social outcomes, may themselves by influenced by social facts. Several • For collective behaviors: Organizational facts
conditions of individual action are studied quite frequently in the reviewed • For development of organizational capabilities: Organizational facts
literature. Notable exceptions are supervisor-related conditions, emotions, and • For innovative performance & output: Organizational facts, and the lowest share of
motivation. meta-organizational facts
• For overall performance: Organizational facts, but the highest share of meta-
Most-commonly studied explananda: organizational facts
Most-commonly studied conditions of individual action:
• For individual work context: Collective behaviors, but relatively high shares of
development of organizational capabilities and overall performance, respectively • For collective behaviors: General individual attributes
• For job-/situation-specific individual attributes: Innovative performance and • For development of organizational capabilities: Individual work context
output • For innovative performance & output: Job-/situation-specific individual attributes
• For general individual attributes: Collective behaviors • For overall performance: Individual work context
Indicative questions for future research: Most-commonly studied individual action & behavior:

• How do job characteristics proposed by the job characteristics model affect firms’ • For collective behaviors: Innovation- and technology- (I&T-)related action
innovation performance by influencing the innovation-related behavior of • For development of organizational capabilities: I&T-related action, and a relatively
employees? low share of social action
• How can organizations enhance their innovation performance by enhancing the • For innovative performance & output: I&T-related action and social action equally
motivation of their employees for multiple innovation-related behaviors? pronounced
• How do employees’ emotions affect the innovation performance of firms? • For overall performance: I&T-related action, and the lowest share of social action
• How do employees’ personal values affect the innovation performance of firms? Exemplar articles:
Exemplar articles:
• Marvel, M. R., Wolfe, M. T. & Kuratko, D. F. (2020). Escaping the knowledge
• Distel, A. P. (2019). Unveiling the microfoundations of absorptive capacity: A study corridor: How founder human capital and founder coachability impacts product
of Coleman’s bathtub model. Journal of Management, 45(5), 2014–2044. innovation in new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6), 1–16.
• Foss, N. J., Laursen, K., & Pedersen, T. (2011). Linking customer interaction and • Mazzucchelli, A., Chierici, R., Abbate, T. & Fontana, S. (2019). Exploring the
innovation: The mediating role of new organizational practices. Organization microfoundations of innovation capabilities. Evidence from a cross-border R&D
Science, 22(4), 980–999. partnership. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 146, 242–252.

remote connections (Baron & Tang, 2011). Moreover, emotions affect Since the reviewed literature paid scant attention to this topic, we
how employees interact with their colleagues (e.g., Sy et al., 2006). For encourage microfoundations scholars to conduct further research on
such reasons, emotions play a significant role in the successful perfor­ emotions and innovation.
mance of innovative behavior (Baas et al., 2008; Baron & Tang, 2011). General individual attributes comprise individual characteristics

10
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

whose influence extends beyond a single situation or life domain (e.g., innovation. The reviewed literature accounts for their relevance by
the job). Personality traits, such as cognitive flexibility, have been studying some social actions extensively – notably, leadership behaviors
examined from time to time (e.g., Kiss et al., 2020; Raffaelli et al., 2019). (e.g., Da Silva et al., 2021; Mom et al., 2019) and coordination behaviors
In contrast, personal values – which are a central determinant of indi­ (e.g., Katou et al., 2021; O’Brien et al., 2019). However, the analyzed
vidual action (Gallego & Oberski, 2012) – have been rarely addressed (a articles rarely acknowledge the importance of political behavior, un­
partial exception is social-welfare orientation, which was studied by De derstood as “activities [to] use power and other resources to obtain one’s
Silva et al. (2021), Katou et al. (2021), and Maak et al. (2016)). Personal preferred outcomes in a situation in which there is uncertainty or
values determine what employees pay attention to and what they find disagreement about choice” (Pfeffer, 1981, p. 7; Roeth et al., 2019, p.
acceptable or what they consider problematic. Hence, values influence 536). Whereas political behavior traditionally possessed a negative
where employees hope for stability, where they see a need for change, connotation, scholars lately started to emphasize its functional impact
how they interpret situations, and how they interact with other people. on innovation success (e.g., Bunduchi, 2017; Radaelli et al., 2017). Thus,
It therefore seems likely that many values – not only innovation-specific political behavior allows individuals to increase the legitimacy of the
values – may have an impact on how employees approach innovation innovation, decrease resistance to it, overcome barriers to collaboration,
(cf. Palmié et al., 2023). A stronger focus on values would resonate well forge coalitions, and reduce misinterpretations, leading to a fast and
with the microfoundations tradition, which embraces heterogeneity agile innovation process (Roeth et al., 2019). It therefore seems desir­
among actors and organizations (Felin et al., 2015). Consequently, we able to develop a more nuanced understanding of political behavior in
call for more research on personal values and their role in innovation. the technology and innovation process, its functional and dysfunctional
forms, the organizational facts encouraging or discouraging certain
forms of political behavior, and the implications for the focal organi­
4.3. Individual action zation. In other words, we call for more microfoundations research on
political behavior.
Microfoundational research subscribes to methodological individu­ Occasional neglect of individual agency. Following Max Weber’s
alism (Foss, 2011), which assigns the power to act to individuals, dictum that collectives “must be understood on the basis of individual
whereas collectives do not have the power to act on their own. Conse­ behavior” (Agassi, 1975, p. 145), microfoundations scholars usually
quently, collectives “must be understood on the basis of individual subscribe to the primacy of individual agency (Contractor et al., 2019).
behavior” (Weber as cited in Agassi, 1975, p. 145).6 Thus, micro­ Nevertheless, we observed that a considerable portion of the empirical
foundational research gives primacy to individual actions as key de­ microfoundations literature adopts a simplified version of Coleman’s
terminants of organizational and other macro-level outcomes (Felin boat, focusing on one of the nodes on the micro level and sidestepping
et al., 2015; Molina-Azorín, 2014). Particularly important for the stra­ the other. Such simplification explains why conditions of individual
tegic management of technology and innovation are technology- and action and individual behavior itself need not be studied to the same
innovation-related actions and social actions. extent. Indeed, the reviewed literature did not cover both micro-level
Technology- and innovation-related actions. Innovation involves nodes equally. Counterintuitively, however, it has paid greater atten­
both the creation of new ideas as well as their implementation (Badir tion to the conditions of individual action than to individual action itself
et al., 2020). These two aspects are associated with fundamentally (cf. Fig. 4). Thus, some articles link conditions of individual action
different, if not opposing activities (Klonek et al., 2020; Rosing et al., directly to social outcomes, without considering individual action and
2011). While creativity – the generation of new ideas – involves behavior in between (cf. Table 3). Given the variety of different be­
variance-increasing experimentation and divergent thinking, the haviors required for successful innovation (e.g., Badir et al., 2020;
implementation of ideas involves the variance-decreasing establishment Rosing et al., 2011), this approach is unfortunate. By going directly from
of routines and convergent thinking (Rosing et al., 2011). Even though conditions of individual action to social outcomes, it remains unclear
the activities associated with both aspects are fundamentally different, how the conditions of individual action affect the diverse behaviors. Not
they are still complementary, and both sets of activities are required for knowing the impact of a given condition of action on any of these
successful innovation. The articles in our sample studied creative required behaviors makes it hard to combine multiple conditions of
behavior repeatedly (e.g., Baron and Tang, 2011; Distel, 2019). They action in the most fruitful way. Therefore, we call for more micro­
have also devoted significant attention to ambidexterity (e.g., Katou et foundational innovation management research that simultaneously
al, 2021; Mom et al., 2019), which denotes the capability “to deal with considers conditions of individual action and individual action itself.
tensions between the different conflicting activities associated with
exploration and exploitation” (Luger et al., 2018, p. 450). In contrast, 4.4. Bottom-up emergence
the reviewed literature has paid little attention to actions primarily
directed at idea implementation.7 Given its pivotal role in innovation Bottom-up emergence – which means the transformation of indi­
success, this neglect seems unfortunate. We therefore call for further vidual (micro-level) action into collective (macro-level) outcomes – lies
research on these actions from a microfoundations perspective. at the core of the microfoundational paradigm (Felin et al., 2015; Tang
Social action. In contrast to the “lone inventor” trope, most in­ & Marinova, 2020). Several of the reviewed articles included constructs
novations result from the interactions of multiple individuals (Friedman that intervene in the relationship between some kind of individual ac­
et al., 2008). Therefore, social actions are essential for successful tion and collective outcome without being either a kind of individual
action or a collective outcome itself. These constructs – typically mod­
erators or mediators – are presented in this section. They may stem from
6
Nevertheless, Max Weber and other methodological individualists – espe­ the realm of the environmental context, the organizational context, or
cially those representing “structural individualism” or “institutional individu­ they may be interpersonal factors.
alism” (Agassi, 1975; Udehn, 2002) – acknowledge that collective-level Environmental context. Articles in our sample dealing with bottom-
influences affect how individuals act and interact. This influence is captured by
up emergence commonly studied factors pertaining to the competitive
Arrow #1 in Coleman’s boat.
7 environment – such as environmental dynamism or technological tur­
Idea development can be understood as a form of exploration and idea
implementation as a form of exploitation (e.g., Rosing et al., 2011). However, bulence (e.g., Dai et al., 2016; Davis and Aggarwal, 2019) –, but
ambidexterity research tends to adopt a broader perspective on the explor­ neglected socio-cultural factors. Socio-cultural factors, such as power
ation–exploitation duality that comprises adaptation vs alignment, incremental distance or collectivism, are likely to influence how employees interact
vs radical innovation, product development vs product commercialization, and with their colleagues and supervisors (Hofstede et al., 2005). These
local vs distant search (Luger et al., 2018). socio-cultural factors may, therefore, affect how innovative efforts of

11
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

employees are received and transformed into innovative outcomes at the has paid substantial attention to the microfoundations of rather general
organizational level. Their impact should be studied in greater detail. innovation capabilities (e.g., Aggarwal et al., 2017; Bendig et al., 2018;
Organizational context. Some firms have repeatedly proven very Grigoriou & Rothaermel, 2014). However, the innovation process con­
receptive to innovative initiatives of their employees, repeatedly turning sists of very diverse, even opposing aspects, with some requiring
the emergent solutions into successful businesses, whereas other firms variance-increasing approaches and divergent thinking and others
regularly stifle employee-led innovation initiatives (Paul & Fenlason, variance-decreasing approaches and convergent thinking (e.g., Klonek
2014). The reviewed articles usually attribute successful bottom-up et al., 2022; Rosing et al., 2011). Given its multi-faceted nature, the
emergence to the individual power of the employees involved (e.g., innovation process is likely to involve very different capabilities. The
their hierarchical position; Braun et al., 2018; Glaser et al., 2015) or to microfoundations of these capabilities, in turn, may differ from each
an adequate knowledge base in the organization (e.g., Nuruzzaman other. However, only a single article in our sample has so far used a very
et al., 2019; Paruchuri & Eisenman, 2012). However, the aforemen­ specific innovation-related capability (namely, perspective taking) as its
tioned inter-organizational heterogeneity suggests that firms can explanandum (Litchfield & Gentry, 2010). We therefore encourage
develop structured processes to facilitate the transformation of indi­ scholars to study the emergence of further specific capabilities.
vidual innovative efforts into successful firm-level innovation. However, Innovative performance and output are the cornerstones of the
very few studies have analyzed such processes to date, implying that strategic management of technology and innovation (Keupp et al.,
much remains to be learned about the defining characteristics of these 2012). Many of the reviewed articles explored the microfoundations of
processes. such outcomes as the number of new products (e.g., Srivastava et al.,
Interpersonal factors. When the reviewed literature analyzed the 2020) or the revenues made with new products (e.g., Mollick, 2012).
role of interpersonal factors in bottom-up emergence, it mostly looked at Nevertheless, the investigation of innovative performance and output in
team characteristics, such as trust within a team or team diversity (e.g., a microfoundations perspective exhibits three shortcomings. These
Lisak et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2017). In contrast, it rarely addressed shortcomings concern social and environmental innovation, adminis­
explicit activities of organizational leaders and other organizational trative innovation, and business model innovation.
members that could support the transformation of individual Reflecting a growing awareness of environmental and social chal­
innovation-related efforts into organizational outcomes. Van de Ven and lenges among its stakeholders, numerous profit-seeking and non-profit
colleagues observed that innovative initiatives are more likely to be organizations wish to develop and scale innovations that do not maxi­
successful if managers act as mentors, sponsors, critics, or mediators vis- mize economic profits, but that create social and/or environmental
à-vis the innovative employees and their initiatives, respectively (e.g., benefits (Lehoux et al., 2021; Maak et al., 2016). However, this trend is
van de Ven et al., 1999). We believe that there is ample room for not reflected in the reviewed literature. Only very few articles explicitly
additional research on how such activities affect the bottom-up emer­ addressed social or environmental innovations. Consequently, we do not
gence of innovation efforts. yet know if the microfoundations of these innovations differ from the
microfoundations of “conventional” innovations.
4.5. Social outcomes Another type of innovation that is neglected in the analyzed articles
is administrative innovation. This neglect is neither new nor germane to
Microfoundational approaches aim to explain a macro-level (social) the microfoundations literature. Ten years ago, a systematic literature
outcome. While the north-eastern node (node D) in Fig. 1 depicts the review on the strategic management of innovation in general (as
explanandum, the remaining nodes and arrows form the explanans opposed to its microfoundations in particular) bemoaned that most
(Contractor et al., 2019). The phenomenon to be explained may be a studies dealt with product and process innovations, whereas hardly any
collective behavior, the development of organizational capabilities, were concerned with administrative innovation (Keupp et al., 2012). At
innovative performance and output, or overall performance. While our the same time, the antecedents of administrative innovations are
text has so far mostly focused on organizations at the macro level, the commonly expected to differ fundamentally from the antecedents of
microfoundational paradigm can in principle accommodate other col­ product and process innovations, resulting in decades-old calls for a
lective entities (e.g., teams, ecosystems, industries, nations) (Contractor better understanding of administrative innovations (see Keupp et al.
et al., 2019). However, Table 1 illustrates that the overwhelming ma­ (2012) for an overview). Since none of the articles in our sample has
jority of the reviewed articles utilize the microfoundations paradigm to explicitly concerned itself with administrative innovations, we can only
explain social outcomes at the organizational level. echo these calls for the case of microfoundations.
Collective behaviors have been studied frequently. Prime examples Finally, business models have become a widely accepted source of
are collaborative undertakings with external partners (e.g., Ahn et al., competitive advantage (Foss & Saebi, 2017; Zott et al., 2011). However,
2017; Fichter, 2009), engaging in organizational ambidexterity (e.g., business model innovation (BMI) – a “new subject of innovation, which
Harris & Wood, 2020; Huang et al., 2021), and knowledge mobilization complements the traditional subjects of process, product, and organi­
(e.g., knowledge transfer; Davis & Aggarwal, 2019; Devarakonda et al., zational innovation” (Zott et al., 2011, p. 1032) – is still rather poorly
2022; Kazadi et al., 2016). Notably absent from this list are non-market understood (Foss & Saebi, 2017). Our study confirms that business
behaviors. Many technological innovations require fundamental model innovation is under-represented in the microfoundations litera­
changes in their institutional environment to unfold their full potential ture. According to Foss and Saebi’s (2017) review of the BMI literature,
(Schweitzer et al., 2021). Hence, innovative firms increasingly need to one of the unresolved questions in this domain pertains to the question
deal with their institutional environment by adapting to some institu­ whether business model innovation originates in the lower levels of the
tional structures, adding to existing institutional structures, or trans­ organization (p. 201). Microfoundations research is in a good position to
forming them (Dorobantu et al., 2017; Schweitzer et al., 2021). A firm’s answer this question by illuminating not only whether business model
“concerted pattern of actions to improve its performance by managing innovation emerges from the actions and interactions of organizational
the institutional or societal context of economic competition” is called members but also how it emerges (if at all).
the firm’s non-market strategy (Mellahi et al., 2016, p. 144). Even Overall performance. Some articles in our sample did not use
though the relevance of non-market strategies for firms’ innovation innovation performance as their organizational outcome of interest, but
performance is continuously growing, the reviewed literature has not an overall indicator of firm performance (e.g., Lehoux et al., 2021;
yet studied the microfoundations of the underlying collective behaviors Mollick, 2012; VenugopAl et al., 2020). Unfortunately, the analyzed
– the concerted patterns of action. This seems to be a very promising articles again replicate a shortcoming of the broader strategic manage­
avenue for further research. ment literature by focusing on indicators of economic performance,
Development of organizational capabilities. The reviewed literature which may not be “desirable and/or inevitable” (Nag et al., 2007, p. 951;

12
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

also see Keupp et al. (2012) for a similar argument regarding the liter­ organizational strategies on innovative behavior and innovation per­
ature on the strategic management of innovation). More and more formance; (5) the influence of job characteristics from the job charac­
stakeholders care about not only a firm’s economic performance but also teristics model on innovative behavior and innovation performance; (6)
its social impact and its environmental impact – that is, the firm’s “triple ways to stimulate motivation for various innovation-related behaviors
bottom line” (Bansal, 2005; Elkington, 2018). Dodgson (2021, p. 16) and their effect on innovation performance; (7) the effect of employees’
even argues that environmental and social issues will provide “the emotions on innovative behavior and innovation performance; (8) the
greatest challenges” to the future of strategic technology and innovation effect of employees’ values on innovative behavior and innovation
management. It is therefore highly problematic that the reviewed performance; (9) idea implementation behavior and its effect on inno­
literature has paid very little attention to firms’ environmental and so­ vation performance; (10) political behavior and its effect on innovation
cial impact (a notable exception is Maak et al. (2016)). Micro-level ac­ performance; (11) the association between conditions of individual ac­
tions and interactions usually do not yield macro-level effects in either tion and various individual behaviors required for successful innovation;
the economic dimension, the social dimension, or the environmental (12) the influence of the socio-cultural context on the bottom-up
dimension, but the microlevel antecedents typically have economic, emergence of innovation-related behavior; (13) structured processes to
social, and environmental implications at the same time. The outcomes facilitate the bottom-up emergence of innovation-related behavior; (14)
across the three dimensions are often moderately correlated at best the effect of interpersonal support on the bottom-up emergence of
(Margolis et al., 2007; Ones & Dilchert, 2013; Orlitzky et al., 2003). innovation-related behavior; (15) collective non-market behaviors to
Hence, actions and interactions, which are beneficial for one or two facilitate institutional change in favor of new technologies; (16) specific
dimensions, may have adverse effects in the other dimension(s). We innovation capabilities; (17) social and environmental innovation; (18)
therefore call for much more microfoundational research on the social administrative innovation; (19) business model innovation; (20) the
and environmental implications of innovative efforts and technology effect of innovation-related behavior on triple-bottom-line performance;
adoption in firms. (21) innovation-related phenomena of macro-level entities other than
Other collective entities than organizations. Sixty-two of the organizations. For each of these topics, we provide arguments as to why
seventy-two theoretical or empirical articles in our sample focus on it is relevant to close the particular knowledge gap. These arguments
organizational outcomes at the macro level (Table 1). In contrast, only six may facilitate the emergence of research efforts that can make a sub­
articles consider infra-organizational entities (e.g., teams) and only four stantial contribution to the development of the field. Furthermore, we
articles consider meta-organizational entities (e.g., alliances) as the focal refer to pioneering work that has already addressed a topic in need of
collective at the macro level. The reviewed articles resemble the broader further investigation in order to help scholars identify relevant work for
strategic management literature in this regard (cf. Foss, 2011). How­ their specific research question.
ever, the microfoundations paradigm “is fundamentally an analytical Microfoundations open new avenues for managers to intervene and
levels argument” (Foss & Pedersen, 2016, p. 3) and is not inherently influence macro-level phenomena (Abell et al., 2008; Coleman, 1990;
limited to individual human beings on the micro level and organizations Foss, 2011). Some macro-level phenomena (e.g., capabilities) cannot be
on the macro level (cf. the section where we define microfoundations). directly influenced by executives, but executives can indirectly influence
From a conceptual standpoint, the microfoundations movement has them through measures directed at the micro level – for example, hiring
enormous potential to study the characteristics, decisions, and actions of new employees, training, or changing the reward system (Coff & Kry­
organizations and other collective actors as microfoundations of supra- scynski, 2011; Foss & Pedersen, 2016). Moreover, even if executives can
organizational phenomena. We encourage scholars to examine the intervene at the macro level (e.g., deciding on changes in the formal
microfoundations of ecosystems and other meta-organizations. organizational architecture; cf. Gulati et al., 2009), the implementation
of this intervention typically involves the micro level, which is decisive
5. Conclusion for the macro-level effect (Coleman, 1990). Hence, a sound under­
standing of microfoundations can help executives fulfill their mandate to
The recent growth in microfoundational research demonstrates the gain and sustain a competitive advantage (Abell et al., 2008; Foss,
enormous potential of the microfoundations paradigm to advance our 2011). By synthesizing existing microfoundational work and proposing
understanding of important phenomena. Current calls for further a research agenda for future microfoundations research, our integrative
microfoundational work indicate that the microfoundations movement literature review not only contributes to the academic literature but also
will likely continue to grow in the future (Elsahn et al., 2020; Loon et al., has practical relevance.
2020; Raffaelli et al., 2019). At the same time, its rapid growth has led to Overall, our literature review indicates that despite the enormous
a fragmentation that – if it were to remain unaddressed – could impede growth of the microfoundations movement in the last decade, scholars
the identification of the most promising opportunities for additional have only begun to leverage the potential of the microfoundations
research. A synthesis of existing microfoundational research can address approach for the strategic management of technology and innovation. A
this problem and provide a solid foundation for subsequent efforts microfoundations lens allows the field to respond to some of the most
(Barney & Felin, 2013; Felin et al., 2015). Our integrative literature pressing challenges it faces.
review delivered this synthesis for microfoundational research in the
STIM domain. We analyzed 87 articles published in 23 peer-reviewed CRediT authorship contribution statement
journals over the period from 2003 to 2022. Together, these articles
can be considered representative of present microfoundational research Maximilian Palmié: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Project
in the STIM domain. Our analysis found that some relevant topics have administration, Investigation, Conceptualization. Stephanie Rüegger:
already gained considerable attention, whereas others have been under- Writing – original draft, Resources, Data curation, Conceptualization.
researched so far. From these observations, we charted promising op­ Vinit Parida: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Conceptualization.
portunities for future research, which may contribute substantially to
the development of the field. Specifically, we identified knowledge gaps Declaration of Competing Interest
that future microfoundational research should resolve with regard to the
following topics: (1) The influence of the socio-political context on The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
innovation; (2) the influence of organizational resources on innovative interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
behavior and innovation performance; (3) the interplay between stra­ the work reported in this paper.
tegic and operational autonomy and its effect on innovative behavior
and innovation performance; (4) the combined effect of multiple

13
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Data availability Choudhury, P., & Haas, M. R. (2018). Scope versus speed: Team diversity, leader
experience, and patenting outcomes for firms. Strategic Management Journal, 39(4),
977–1002.
The authors are unable or have chosen not to specify which data has Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Riad Shams, S. M. (2019). Triggering
been used. technological innovation through cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A micro-
foundational perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 146, 148–166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.026
Acknowledgments Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2011). Drilling for micro-foundations of human capital-based
competitive advantages. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1429–1443.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Boston: Harvard University Press.
We thank Andreas Aebersold, Carolin Hunkemöller, Anna Mader, Contractor, F., Foss, N. J., Kundu, S., & Lahiri, S. (2019). Viewing global strategy through
Paul Stephan, and Tihomir Tsenkulovski for their support in collecting a microfoundations lens. Global Strategy Journal, 9(1), 3–18.
and analyzing the data. Coreynen, W., Vanderstraeten, J., van Witteloostuijn, A., Cannaerts, N., Loots, E., &
Slabbinck, H. (2020). What drives product-service integration? An abductive study
of decision-makers’ motives and value strategies. Journal of Business Research, 117,
References 189–200.
Dąbrowska, J., Almpanopoulou, A., Brem, A., Chesbrough, H., Cucino, V., Di Minin, A.,
… Ritala, P. (2022). Digital transformation, for better or worse: A critical multi-level
Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N. (2008). Building micro-foundations for the routines,
research agenda. R&D. Management.
capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(6),
Dahlander, L., O’Mahony, S., & Gann, D. M. (2016). One foot in, one foot out: How does
489–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1413
individuals’ external search breadth affect innovation outcomes? Strategic
Agassi, J. (1975). Institutional individualism. British Journal of Sociology, 26(2), 144–155.
Management Journal, 37(2), 280–302.
Aggarwal, V. A., Posen, H. E., & Workiewicz, M. (2017). Adaptive capacity to
Dai, Y., Roundy, P. T., Chok, J. I., Ding, F., & Byun, G. (2016). ‘Who knows what?’ in new
technological change: A microfoundational approach. Strategic Management Journal,
venture teams: Transactive memory systems as a micro-foundation of
38(6), 1212–1231.
entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Management Studies, 53(8), 1320–1347.
Ahn, J. M., Minshall, T., & Mortara, L. (2017). Understanding the human side of
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12211
openness: The fit between open innovation modes and CEO characteristics. R&D
Davis, J. P., & Aggarwal, V. A. (2020). Knowledge mobilization in the face of imitation:
Management, 47(5), 727–740.
Microfoundations of knowledge aggregation and firm-level innovation. Strategic
Albats, E., Bogers, M., & Podmentia, D. (2020). Companies’ human capital for university
Management Journal, 41(11), 1983–2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3187
partnerships: A micro-foundational perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity
Change, 157, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120085
and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76–87.
De Silva, M., Al-Tabbaa, O., & Khan, Z. (2021). Business model innovation by
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014a). Innovation and creativity in
international social purpose organizations: The role of dynamic capabilities. Journal
organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding
of Business Research, 125, 733–749.
framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
Devarakonda, R., Pavićević, S., & Reuer, J. J. (2022). Microfoundations of R&D alliance
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014b). Innovation and creativity in
formation: The interplay of scientist mobility and the cooperative context of
organizations. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/
collaboration. Strategy Science, 7(1), 56–70.
0149206314527128
Distel, A. P. (2019). Unveiling the microfoundations of absorptive capacity: A study of
Ardito, L., Peruffo, E. & Natalicchio, A. The relationships between the
Coleman’s bathtub model. Journal of Management, 45(5), 2014–2044.
internationalization of alliance portfolio diversity, individual incentives, and
Dixon, S., Meyer, K., & Day, M. (2014). Building dynamic capabilities of adaptation and
innovation ambidexterity: A microfoundational approach. Technological Forecasting
innovation: A study of micro-foundations in a transition economy. Long Range
& Social Change, 148, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119714.
Planning, 47(4), 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.011
Audretsch, D. B., Coad, A., & Segarra, A. (2014). Firm growth and innovation. Small
Dodgson M. (2021). The strategic management of technology and innovation. Oxford
Business Economics, 43(4), 743–749.
Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Oxford University Press.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-
Dodgson, M. (2017). Innovation in firms. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1),
creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological
85–100.
Bulletin, 134(6), 779.
Dodgson, M., & Gann, D. (2018). Innovation: A very short introduction. Oxford University
Badir, Y. F., Frank, B., & Bogers, M. (2020). Employee-level open innovation in emerging
Press.
markets: Linking internal, external, and managerial resources. Journal of the
Dorobantu, S., Kaul, A., & Zelner, B. (2017). Nonmarket strategy research through the
Academy of Marketing Science, 48(5), 891–913.
lens of new institutional economics: An integrative review and future directions.
Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem
Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 114–140.
formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/
Durand, R., Grant, R. M., & Madsen, T. L. (2017). The expanding domain of strategic
10.1002/smj.2004
management research and the quest for integration. Strategic Management Journal, 38
Banerjee, A., Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2019). Two cheers for diversity: An experimental
(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2607
study of micro-level heterogeneity in problemistic search. Strategic Organization, 17
Ebers, M., & Maurer, I. (2014). Connections count: How relational embeddedness and
(4), 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018815467
relational empowerment foster absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 43(2), 318–332.
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.017
development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.
Elkington, J. (2018). 25 years ago, I coined the phrase “triple bottom line”. Here’s why
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
it’s time to rethink it. Harvard Business Review, 25, 2–5.
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Elsahn, Z., Callagher, L., Husted, K., Korber, S., & Siedlok, F. (2020). Are rigor and
Barney, J. B., & Felin, T. (2013). What are microfoundations? Academy of Management
transparency enough? Review and future directions for case studies in technology
Perspectives, 27(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0107
and innovation Management. R&D Management, 50(3), 309–328.
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-
effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business
foundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 441–455.
Venturing, 26(1), 49–60.
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2006). Individuals and organizations: Thoughts on a micro-
Bendig, D., Strese, S., Flatten, T. C., da Costa, M. E. S., & Brettel, M. (2018). On micro-
foundations project for strategic management and organizational analysis. In D. J.
foundations of dynamic capabilities: A multi-level perspective based on CEO
Ketchen & D. D. Bergh (Eds.), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 3,
personality and knowledge-based capital. Long Range Planning, 51(6), 797–814.
pp. 253–288. Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-8387(06)03009-8.
Bjørnskov, C., & Foss, N. J. (2016). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth:
Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and
What do we know and what do we still need to know? Academy of Management
new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge.
Perspectives, 30(3), 292–315. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0135
Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 195–218.
Boothby, D., Dufour, A., & Tang, J. (2010). Technology adoption, training and
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in
productivity performance. Research Policy, 39(5), 650–661.
strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575–632.
Braun, T., Ferreira, A. I., Schmidt, T., & Sydow, J. (2018). Another post-heroic view on
Felin, T., Lakhani, K. R., & Tushman, M. L. (2017). Firms, crowds, and innovation.
entrepreneurship: The role of employees in networking the start-up process. British
Strategic Organization, 15(2), 119–140.
Journal of Management, 29(4), 652–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12256
Fichter, K. (2009). Innovation communities: The role of networks of promotors in open
Bunduchi, R. (2017). Legitimacy-seeking mechanisms in product innovation: A
innovation. R&D Management, 39(4), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
qualitative study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 315–342.
9310.2009.00562.x
Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M., & Wheelwright, S. C. (2008). Strategic Management
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and
of Technology and Innovation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
research on executives, top management teams and boards. New York, NY: Oxford
Cardinal, L. B. (2001). Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use
University Press.
of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization
Foss, N. J. (2011). Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and
Science, 12(1), 19–36.
what they may look like. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1413–1428. https://doi.org/
Carmeli, A., & Dothan, A. (2017). Generative work relationships as a source of direct and
10.1177/0149206310390218
indirect learning from experiences of failure: Implications for innovation agility and
product innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 119, 27–38. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.007

14
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Foss, N. J., & Lindenberg, S. (2013). Microfoundations for strategy: A goal-framing Kemper, J., Schilke, O., & Brettel, M. (2013). Social capital as a microlevel origin of
perspective on the drivers of value creation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27 organizational capabilities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(3),
(2), 85–102. 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12004
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2016). Microfoundations in strategy research. Strategic Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O. (2012). The strategic management of
Management Journal, 37(13), E22–E34. innovation: A systematic review and paths for future research. International Journal
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: of Management Reviews, 14(4), 367–390.
How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1), Kiss, A. N., Libaers, D., Barr, P. S., Wang, T., & Zachary, M. A. (2020). CEO cognitive
200–227. flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity. Strategic
Foss, N. J., Laursen, K., & Pedersen, T. (2011). Linking customer interaction and Management Journal, 41(12), 2200–2233. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3192
innovation: The mediating role of new organizational practices. Organization Science, Klonek, F. E., Gerpott, F. H., & Parker, S. K. (2020). A conceptual replication of
22(4), 980–999. ambidextrous leadership theory: An experimental approach. The Leadership
Friedman, R. S., Roberts, D. M., & Linton, J. D. (Eds.). (2008). Principle concepts of Quarterly, 101473.
technology and innovation management: critical research models: Critical research Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Dickson, P., & Weaver, K. M. (2010). Cultural influences on
models. IGI Global. entrepreneurial orientation: The impact of national culture on risk taking and
Furr, N. R., Cavarretta, F., & Garg, S. (2012). Who changes course? The role of domain proactiveness in SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 959–984.
knowledge and novel framing in making technology changes. Strategic Lee, H. W., Pak, J., Kim, S., & Li, L. Z. (2019). Effects of human resource management
Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 236–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1137 systems on employee proactivity and group innovation. Journal of Management, 45
Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the (2), 819–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316680029
strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management Lee, S., & Csaszar, F. A. (2020). Cognitive and structural antecedents of innovation: A
research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 1–23. large-sample study. Strategy Science, 5(2), 71–97.
Gallego, A., & Oberski, D. (2012). Personality and political participation: The mediation Lehoux, P., Silva, H. P., Denis, J. L., Miller, F. A., Pozelli Sabio, R., & Mendell, M. (2021).
hypothesis. Political Behavior, 34(3), 425–451. Moving toward responsible value creation: Business model challenges faced by
Gao, Y., Zhao, X., Xu, X., & Ma, F. (2021). A study on the cross level transformation from organizations producing responsible health innovations. Journal of Product
individual creativity to organizational creativity. Technological Forecasting and Social Innovation Management, 38(5), 548–573.
Change, 171, Article 120958. Lenka, S., Parida, V., Sjödin, D. R., & Wincent, J. (2018). Exploring the microfoundations
Glaser, L., Fourné, S. P., & Elfring, T. (2015). Achieving strategic renewal: The multi- of servitization: How individual actions overcome organizational resistance. Journal
level influences of top and middle managers’ boundary-spanning. Small Business of Business Research, 88, 328–336.
Economics, 45(2), 305–327. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Management of technology and moose on tables.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Organization Science, 3(4), 556–558.
Journal, 17(S2), 109–122. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action,
Grigoriou, K., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2014). Structural microfoundations of innovation: materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing.
The role of relational stars. Journal of Management, 40(2), 586–615. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1–51.
Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2009). Strategy and the design of organizational Li, Y., Wang, M., van Jaarsveld, D. D., Lee, G. K., & Dennis, G. (2018). From employee-
architecture. Strategic Management Journal, 30(5), 575–576. experienced high-involvement work system to innovation: An emergence-based
Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Innovation at and across multiple human resource management framework. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5),
levels of analysis. Organization Science, 18(6), 885–897. 2000–2019. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1101
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future
a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/
Haefner, N., Palmié, M., & Leppänen, P. T. (2021). With (out) a little help from my 10.5465/amp.25.1.75
friends? Reconciling incongruous findings on stakeholder management, innovation, Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (2003). The payments perspective: Micro-foundations of
and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 10422587211024497. resource analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 903–927.
Harris, M., & Wood, G. (2020). Ambidextrous working in health and social care services: Lisak, A., Erez, M., Sui, Y., & Lee, C. (2016). The positive role of global leaders in
A configurational view. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enhancing multicultural team innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, 47
lrp.2020.102051 (6), 655–673.
Hedstrom, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge Litchfield, R. C., & Gentry, R. J. (2010). Perspective-taking as an organizational
University Press. capability. Strategic Organization, 8(3), 187–205.
Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and Liu, X., Huang, Q., Dou, J., & Zhao, X. (2017). The impact of informal social interaction
assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41(5), on innovation capability in the context of buyer-supplier dyads. Journal of Business
1281–1312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314561301 Research, 78, 314–322.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of Loon, M., Otaye-Ebede, L., & Stewart, J. (2020). Thriving in the new normal: The HR
the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. microfoundations of capabilities for business model innovation. An integrated
Hoppmann, J., Anadon, L. D., & Narayanamurti, V. (2020). Why matter matters: How literature review. Journal of Management Studies, 57(3), 698–726. https://doi.org/
technology characteristics shape the strategic framing of technologies. Research 10.1111/joms.12564
Policy, 49(1), Article 103882. Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and
Hoskisson, R. E., Wan, W. P., Yiu, D., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Theory and research in exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3),
strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 449–470.
417–456. Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Voegtlin, C. (2016). Business statesman or shareholder
Huang, S., Battisti, M., & Pickernell, D. (2021). CEO regulatory focus as the advocate? CEO responsible leadership styles and the micro-foundations of political
microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity: A configurational approach. CSR. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 463–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Journal of Business Research, 125, 26–38. joms.12195
Hughes, M., Coen Rigtering, J. P., Covin, J. G., Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2018). Magistretti, S., Ardito, L., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2021). Framing the
Innovative Behavior, trust, and perceived workplace performance. British Journal of microfoundations of design thinking as a dynamic capability for innovation:
Management, 29, 750–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12305 Reconciling theory and practice. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
Huikkola, T., Kohtamäki, M., & Ylimäki, J. (2022). Becoming a smart solution provider: Margolis J. D., Elfenbein H. A., & Walsh J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-
Reconfiguring a product manufacturer’s strategic capabilities and processes to analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and
facilitate business model innovation. Technovation, 102498. financial performance. Working Paper, Harvard Business School.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, Martin, A., Keller, A., & Fortwengel, J. (2019). Introducing conflict as the
social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization, 17(1),
theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 38–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017740262
(5), 1332. Marvel, M. R., Wolfe, M. T., & Kuratko, D. F. (2020). Escaping the knowledge corridor:
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Israel, S. (2009). A review of empirical research on dynamic How founder human capital and founder coachability impacts product innovation in
competitive strategy. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 421–461. new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior jbusvent.2020.106060
team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of Mazzucchelli, A., Chierici, R., Abbate, T., & Fontana, S. (2019). Exploring the
transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007. microfoundations of innovation capabilities. Evidence from a cross-border R&D
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x partnership. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 146, 242–252. https://doi.
Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.003
Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., Sun, P., & Siegel, D. (2016). A review of the nonmarket strategy
mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797–811. literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42(1),
Katou, A. A., Budhwar, P. S., & Patel, C. (2021). A trilogy of organizational 143–173.
ambidexterity: Leader’s social intelligence, employee work engagement and Minoja, M., Zollo, M., & Coda, V. (2010). Stakeholder cohesion, innovation, and
environmental changes. Journal of Business Research, 128, 688–700. competitive advantage. Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in
Kazadi, K., Lievens, A., & Mahr, D. (2016). Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation Society, 10(4), 395–405.
process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2014). Microfoundations of strategic management: Toward micro-
stakeholders. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 525–540. macro research in the resource-based theory. Business Research Quarterly, 17(2),
102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2014.01.001

15
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Mollick, E. (2012). People and process, suits and innovators: The role of individuals in Roundy, P. T., & Lyons, T. S. (2021). Where are the entrepreneurs? A call to theorize the
firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1001–1015. https://doi.org/ micro-foundations and strategic organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
10.1002/smj.1958 Strategic Organization, 14761270211056240.
Mom, T. J. M., Chang, Y.-Y., Cholakova, M., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2019). A multilevel Santoro, G., Quaglia, R., Pellicelli, A. C., & De Bernardi, P. (2020). The interplay among
integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and entrepreneur, employees, and firm level factors in explaining SMEs openness: A
organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45(7), 3009–3034. https:// qualitative micro-foundational approach. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
doi.org/10.1177/0149206318776775 151, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119820
Mueller, V., Rosenbusch, N., & Bausch, A. (2013). Success patterns of exploratory and Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from
exploitative innovation: A meta-analysis of the influence of institutional factors. economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management
Journal of Management, 39(6), 1606–1636. Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Nag, R., & Gioia, D. A. (2012). From common to uncommon knowledge: Foundations of Schilling, M. A., & Shankar, R. (2019). Strategic management of technological innovation.
firm-specific use of knowledge as a resource. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), McGraw-Hill Education.
421–457. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0352 Schneckenberg, D., Truong, Y., & Mazloomi, H. (2015). Microfoundations of innovative
Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M. J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? capabilities: The leverage of collaborative technologies on organizational learning
Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management and knowledge management in a multinational corporation. Technological
Journal, 28(9), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.615 Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 356–368.
Nielsen, S. (2010). Top management team diversity: A review of theories and Schweiger, S. A., Stettler, T. R., Baldauf, A., & Zamudio, C. (2019). The complementarity
methodologies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(3), 301–316. of strategic orientations: A meta-analytic synthesis and theory extension. Strategic
Nuruzzaman, N., Gaur, A. S., & Sambharya, R. B. (2019). A microfoundations approach Management Journal, 40(11), 1822–1851.
to studying innovation in multinational subsidiaries. Global Strategy Journal, 9(1), Schweitzer, F., Palmié, M., Gassmann, O., Kahlert, J., & Roeth, T. (2021). Open
92–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1202 innovation for institutional entrepreneurship: How incumbents induce institutional
O’Brien, D., Sharkey Scott, P., Andersson, U., Ambos, T., & Fu, N. (2019). The change to advance autonomous driving. R&D. Management.
microfoundations of subsidiary initiatives: How subsidiary manager activities unlock Scuotto, V., Beatrice, O., Valentina, C., Nicotra, M., Di Gioia, L., & Briamonte, M. F.
entrepreneurship. Global Strategy Journal, 9(1), 66–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/ (2020). Uncovering the micro-foundations of knowledge sharing in open innovation
gsj.1200 partnerships: An intention-based perspective of technology transfer. Technological
Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Measuring, understanding, and influencing employee Forecasting & Social Change, 152, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
green behaviors. In A. H. Huffman, & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Green Organizations: Driving techfore.2019.119906
Change with IO Psychology (pp. 115–148). Routledge. Scuotto, V., Magni, D., Palladino, R., & Nicotra, M. (2022). Triggering disruptive
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: Challenging the separation technology absorptive capacity by CIOs. Explorative research on a micro-foundation
of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), lens. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, Article 121234.
433–474. Shane, S. A. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial Venturing, 7(1), 29–46.
performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. Sheehan, M., Garavan, T. N., & Morley, M. J. (2021). The microfoundations of dynamic
Palmié, M., Huerzeler, P., Grichnik, D., Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2019). Some capabilities for incremental and radical innovation in knowledge-intensive
principles are more equal than others: Promotion-versus prevention-focused businesses. British Journal of Management.
effectuation principles and their disparate relationships with entrepreneurial Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2006). When exploration backfires: Unintended
orientation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(1), 93–117. consequences of multilevel organizational search. Academy of Management Journal,
Palmié, M., Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2014). Pull the right levers: Creating 49(4), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159798
internationally “useful” subsidiary competence by organizational architecture. Long Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization
Range Planning, 47(1–2), 32–48. Science, 2(1), 125–134.
Palmié, M., Zeschky, M., Winterhalter, S., Sauter, P. W., Haefner, N., & Gassmann, O. Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding.
(2016). Coordination mechanisms for international innovation in SMEs: Effects on Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
time-to-market and R&D task complexity as a moderator. Small Business Economics, 6486.2009.00828.x
46(2), 273–294. Srivastava, S., Sahaym, A., & Allison, T. H. (2020). Alert and awake: Role of alertness and
Palmié, M., Rüegger, S., Holzer, M., & Oghazi, P. (2023). The “golden” voice of “green” attention on rate of new product introductions. Journal of Business Venturing, 1–24.
employees: The effect of private environmental orientation on suggestions for https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106023
improvement in firms’ economic value creation. Journal of Business Research, Stadler, C., Helfat, C. E., & Verona, G. (2022). Transferring knowledge by transferring
conditionally accepted. individuals: Innovative technology use and organizational performance in multiunit
Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design firms. Organization Science, 33(1), 253–274.
research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), Strutzenberger, A., & Ambos, T. C. (2014). Unravelling the subsidiary initiative process:
403. A multilevel approach. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(3), 314–339.
Paruchuri, S., & Eisenman, M. (2012). Microfoundations of firm R&D capabilities: A https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12022
study of inventor networks in a merger. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), Sy, T., Tram, S., & O’Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional
1509–1535. intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68
Paul, K. B., & Fenlason, K. J. (2014). Transforming a legacy culture at 3M: Teaching an (3), 461–473.
elephant how to dance. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Climate and Culture, Tang, Y. E., & Marinova, D. (2020). When less is more: The downside of customer
569–583. knowledge sharing in new product development teams. Journal of the Academy of
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based Marketing Science, 48(2), 288–307.
view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191. Tarba, S. Y., Jansen, J. J. P., Mom, T. J. M., Raisch, S., & Lawton, T. C. (2020).
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: Critical review
Pollok, P., Lüttgens, D., & Piller, F. T. (2019). How firms develop capabilities for and research directions. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
crowdsourcing to increase open innovation performance: The interplay between lrp.2020.102048
organizational roles and knowledge processes. Journal of Product Innovation Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
Management, 36(4), 412–441. of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13),
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Competitors. New York: Free Press. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range
Radaelli, G., Currie, G., Frattini, F., & Lettieri, E. (2017). The role of managers in Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.
enacting two-step institutional work for radical innovation in professional Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and
organizations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(4), 450–470. performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169–183.
Raffaelli, R., Glynn, M. A., & Tushman, M. (2019). Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples.
and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strategic Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
Management Journal, 40(7), 1013–1039. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3011 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
Remneland Wikhamn, B. (2019). Open innovation change agents in large firms: How evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British
open innovation is enacted in paradoxical settings. R&D Management, 50(2), Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
198–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12389 Tuncdogan, A., Boon, A., Mom, T., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2017).
Ritala, P., Schneider, S., & Michailova, S. (2020). Innovation management research Management teams’ regulatory foci and organizational units’ exploratory
methods: Embracing rigor and diversity. R&D Management, 50(3), 295–307. innovation: The mediating role of coordination mechanisms. Long Range Planning, 50
Roeth, T., Spieth, P., & Lange, D. (2019). Managerial political behavior in innovation (5), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.11.002
portfolio management: A sensegiving and sensebreaking process. Journal of Product Udehn, L. (2002). The changing face of methodological individualism. Annual Review of
Innovation Management, 36(5), 534–559. Sociology, 28(1), 479–507.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the Un, C. A., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). Strategies for knowledge creation in firms. British
leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Journal of Management, 15(51), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974. 8551.2004.00404.x
Rothaermel, F. T., & Hess, A. M. (2007). Building dynamic capabilities: Innovation Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation
driven by individual-, firm-, and network-level effects. Organization Science, 18(6), journey. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
898–921. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0291

16
M. Palmié et al. Journal of Business Research 154 (2023) 113351

Venugopal, A., Krishnan, T. N., Upadhyayula, R. S., & Kumar, M. (2020). Finding the Maximilian Palmié is Professor of Technology and Innovation Management and Senior
microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity-Demystifying the role of top Lecturer of Energy and Innovation Management at the University of St. Gallen
management behavioural integration. Journal of Business Research, 106, 1–11. (Switzerland). He received his PhD in Management from the University of St. Gallen. His
Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2016). Distributed attention and shared emotions in the research focuses on the management of sustainability transformations and the manage­
innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle. Administrative Science ment of digital transformations, especially on questions related to scaling, stakeholder
Quarterly, 61(1), 9–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839215606951 engagement, and business model innovation. His work has been published in Entrepre­
White, M. A., & Bruton, G. D. (2010). The management of technology and innovation: A neurship Theory & Practice, International Journal of Management Reviews, Strategic
strategic approach. Cengage Learning. Entrepreneurship Journal, and other outlets.
Yao, F. K., & Chang, S. (2017). Do individual employees’ learning goal orientation and
civic virtue matter? A micro-foundations perspective on firm absorptive capacity.
Stephanie Rüegger is a project leader at VIVA Idea – a consultancy for social inclusion
Strategic Management Journal, 38(10), 2041–2060. https://doi.org/10.1002/
challenges in Costa Rica – and a research affiliate at the Institute of Technology Man­
smj.2636
agement, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. She received her MBA focusing on finance
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of
and sustainability from INCAE Business School, Costa Rica. Before her MBA, she studied
performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53
Economics as well as Strategy & International Management at the University of St. Gallen
(2), 323–342.
and worked at the Grameen Creative Lab of Nobel Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus. Her
Zahra, S. A. (1996). Technology strategy and financial performance: Examining the
research interests include sustainability and social impact.
moderating role of the firm’s competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing,
11(3), 189–219.
Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Vinit Parida is a Professor in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Luleå University of
Perspectives, 25(4), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2010.0149 Technology, Sweden. His research interests include servitization, business models, open
Zimmermann, A., Hill, S. A., Birkinshaw, J., & Jaeckel, M. (2020). Complements or innovation, and organizational capabilities. He has published more than 80 journal arti­
substitutes? A microfoundations perspective on the interplay between drivers of cles, including articles in Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management
ambidexterity in SMEs. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Journal, Journal of Management Studies, Long Range Planning, Industrial Marketing
lrp.2019.101927 Management, Production and Operations Management, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2015). How is ambidexterity initiated? and others.
The emergent charter definition process. Organization Science, 26(4), 1119–1139.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0971
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and
future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

17