THE STRATEGY-AS-PRACTICE THROUGH THE LENS OF THE MICROFOUNDATIONS OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES

A ESTRATÉGIA COMO PRÁTICA ATRAVÉS DA LENTE DOS MICROFUNDAMENTOS DAS CAPACIDADES DINÂMICAS

LA ESTRATEGIA COMO PRÁCTICA A TRAVÉS DEL LENTE DE LOS MICROFUNDAMENTOS DE LAS CAPACIDADES DINÁMICAS

ABSTRACT

Organizational practices are the link between the micro and the macro level of organizations. At the micro level we find theorists as strategy-as-practice, focused on strategy as a social practice, strategies and day-to-day activity, concerned with strategizing. At the macro level we find theories such as dynamic capabilities with a focus on routines and capabilities at the organizational level. This study correlates two distinct perspectives, the first strategy-as-practice, with its roots in social practices, the second dynamic capabilities, which has its economic roots. The study aims to analyze strategy-as-practice, through the lens of the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. The results demonstrate the organizational heterogeneities responsible for the development of dynamic capabilities. It is also shown that practical social activities are decisive in the process of building organizational strategies, creating armored dynamic capabilities.

Keywords:
Strategy-as-practice; Dynamic capabilities; Heterogeneous capabiblities; Senzing; seizing and transforming.

As práticas organizacionais são o elo entre os níveis micro e macro das organizações. No nível micro, encontramos teóricos como “Estratégia-Como-Prática”, focados na estratégia como prática social, estratégias e atividade cotidiana, preocupados com a estratégia. No nível macro, encontramos teorias como capacidades dinâmicas com foco em rotinas e capacidades no nível organizacional. Este estudo correlaciona duas perspectivas distintas, a primeira estratégia como prática, com suas raízes nas práticas sociais; a segunda, como capacidades dinâmicas, que tem raízes econômicas. O estudo tem como objetivo analisar a estratégia como prática, através das lentes das microfundamentações das capacidades dinâmicas. Os resultados demonstraram as heterogeneidades organizacionais responsáveis pelo desenvolvimento de capacidades dinâmicas. Mostra-se também que as atividades sociais práticas são decisivas no processo de construção das estratégias organizacionais, criando capacidades dinâmicas blindadas.

Palavras-chave
Estratégia como prática; Capacidades dinâmicas; Capacidades heterogêneas; Senzing; seizing e transforming.

Las prácticas organizacionales son el vínculo entre el nivel micro y macro de las organizaciones. En el nivel micro encontramos teóricos como Estrategia-Como-Práctica, enfocados en la estrategia como práctica social, estrategias y actividad del día a día, preocupados por la elaboración de estrategias. A nivel macro, encontramos teorías como las capacidades dinámicas con un enfoque en las rutinas y capacidades a nivel organizacional. Este estudio correlaciona dos perspectivas distintas, la primera estrategia-como-práctica, con sus raíces en las prácticas sociales, la segunda, las capacidades dinámicas, que tiene sus raíces económicas. El estudio tiene como objetivo analizar la estrategia como práctica, a través de la lente de los microfundamentos de las capacidades dinámicas. Los resultados demostraron las heterogeneidades organizacionales responsables del desarrollo de capacidades dinámicas. También se muestra que las actividades sociales prácticas son decisivas en el proceso de construcción de estrategias organizacionales, creando capacidades dinámicas blindadas.

Palabras clave:
Estrategia como práctica; Capacidades dinámicas; Capacidades heterogéneas; Senzing; seizing y transforming.

INTRODUCTION

The understanding of the strategies presented at the macro organizational level (KOUAMÉ; LANGLEY, 2018; SALVATO; RERUP, 2011), are directly related to the activities that are performed at the micro level (JOHNSON; LANGLEY; MELIN; WHITTINGTON, 2007). The description of the linkage of micro-organizational processes to respond to results at the macro level are real challenges for organizational studies (JOHNSON et al., 2007; KOUAMÉ; LANGLEY, 2018; PETTIGREW; WOODMAN; CAMERON, 2001). In order to understand the organizational strategies, it is necessary to leave the macro level and be prepared to get involved with the development of the strategies that were built at the micro levels of organizational analysis (JOHNSON et al., 2007; KOUAMÉ; LANGLEY, 2018).

The collective heuristic, such as organizational performance, is justified in terms of actions and interactions of lower level entities (FELIN et al., 2012). In turn, micro-entities can be influenced by macro entities, Coleman's “bathtub” (1990) illustrates this perspective.

Interventions designed to change a variable at the macro level are often done at levels below those of the system as a whole (COLEMAN, 1990). Building robust, reliable and adaptable capabilities requires significant knowledge of what is happening at microeconomic levels, such as learning mechanisms and responses to practitioners' needs (FOSS et al., 2010). The study of strategies-as-practice, presents itself as a perspective, which can contribute to the identification of micro activities that give rise to macro strategies (FOSS et al., 2010; JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; PETTIGREW et al., 2001; WHITTINGTON, 1996, 2002).

Practice is the link between the micro and the macro level (WHITTINGTON, 2002). At the micro level we find theorists like strategy-as-practice (WHITTINGTON, 1996; JARZABKOWSKI, 2005), focused on social strategy-as-practice, with strategies and day-to-day activity, concerned with strategizing. At the macro level we find theories as dynamic capabilities (EISENHARDT; MARTIN, 2000; HELFAT, 2000; TEECE et al., 1997; TEECE, 2007), with a focus on routines and capabilities at the organizational level.

This study seeks to correlate two distinct perspectives, the first of which is strategy-as-practice, with its roots in social and socio-cultural practices, the second dynamic capabilities, which has its economic/ financial roots.

In the view of strategy-as-practice in the view of (JARZABKOWSKI, 2005; JOHNSON et al., 2003; WHITTINGTON, 2006, 2007), strategy is understood as a flow of organizational activities, in which thinking and acting, formulation and implementation are suppressed by strategic practice. The strategy-as-practice has three categories: practices, praxis and practitioners (JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2019; JOHNSON et al., 2003; WHITTINGTON, 1996, 2006).

In the view of dynamic capabilities (EISENHARDT; MARTIN, 2000; HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; TEECE et al., 1997), the study of dynamic capabilities becomes important for analyzing how organizations are renewing their strategies, capabilities and resources, for the creation of competitive advantages in a dynamic environment (AREND; BROMILEY, 2009; HELFAT; PETERAF, 2009; TEECE et al., 1997; TEECE, 2007, 2017; WILDEN, DEVINNEY; DOWLING, 2016).

The process of operationalizing dynamic capabilities is operationalized through its microfoundations that have three dimensions: senzing, seizing and transforming (HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; TEECE, 2007). Its operationalization aims to analyze the origins of dynamic capabilities, in order to build strong, robust, and armored capabilities, providing long-term competitive advantage (HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; PETERAF, 1993; PETERAF et al., 2013; PETERAF; TSOUKAS 2017; TEECE et al., 1997; TEECE 2007).

The study of the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities (senzing, seizing and transforming) through the categories of strategy-as-practice (practices, praxis and practitioners) indicates a successful path to identify the origins of dynamic capabilities (REGNÉR, 2008, 2015).

In the dynamic environment where organizations are inserted (EISENHARDT; MARTIN, 2000; TEECE et al., 1997), heterogeneity and variations in organizational practices are common (JARZABKOWSKI, 2004). Organizations are systems that are adaptable to the environment, requiring practical activities as well as unique strategies in order to respond to the constantly changing environment (EISENHARDT; BROWN, 1999; JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; JARZABKOWSKI, et al., 2019; PASCALE, 1999).

Although the economic perspectives (dynamic capabilities) and socio-cultural (strategy-as-practice) are so different, it is possible to correlate the theories, through microfoundations, so that the socio-cultural contributes to the analysis of the economic (REGNÉR, 2008, 2015).

The strategy-as-practice has been proposed as a means of deepening the study of social complexity and unpacking dynamism in the theory of dynamic capabilities (AMBROSINI et al., 2007; JARZABKOWSKI, 2005; JOHNSON et al., 2003, 2007; REGNÉR, 2008, 2015), presenting a way of how social practices, the daily routines of organizational actors, can contribute to the process of building the dynamic capabilities of organizations (KOUAMÉ; LANGLEY, 2018; HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; Hernes and SCHULTZ 2020; JOHNSON et al., 2003, TEECE, 2007). “Frequently lacking is an appreciation of the microfoundations, which provide an explanation for the origins and development of dynamic capabilities” (FALLON-BYRNE; HARNEY, p. 23).

In this context, this study has as its main objective "to analyze strategy-as-practice, through the lens of the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities".

The literature is concerned with the marginalization of research on strategy-as-practice in not providing academics and professionals, as the processes and practices of the lower level (engaged by individuals and groups) are connected to the macro level of the organization (process level and results, including strategy, organizational capabilities, and performance) (JOHNSON et al., 2007; KOUAMÉ; LANGLEY, 2018; PETTIGREW; WOODMAN; CAMERON, 2001; SZULANSKI; PORAC; DOZ, 2005).

Although studies on strategy-as-practice can aggregate strategic content or capabilities, there is still little research that seeks to establish this relationship between dynamic capabilities and strategy-as-practice (REGNÉR, 2008, 2015). A dynamic view of strategy, needs to go beyond simple correlations between variables and explain the mechanisms of how certain conditions, of social practice, interact to produce certain organizational assets (BROMILEY, 2005; CAMPBELL-HUNT, 2007; KING, 2000; TSOUKAS; KNUDSEN, 2002; WHITTINGTON; YAKIS-DOUGLAS, 2020).

An increasing group of scholars began to use a practical lens to understand the problems of strategy development in organizations, arising the need for new studies that address and deepen organizational practices, (JARZABKOWSKI; KAPLAN, 2010).

1 SOCIAL STRATEGY-AS-PRACTICE

The study of strategy-as-practice leads us to a movement focused on social practices, which has been gaining increasing prominence by social science scholars, such as Bourdieu (1990), Giddens (1984), Schatzki (2002) and Sztompka (1991). Organizational actors (practitioners) are agents of action, responsible for the construction of reality, which is carried out through the dialectic between organizational actors and the environment itself (JARZABKOWSKI, 2004, 2005).

In the 90s, strategy-as-practice began to be the focus of some researchers (JARZABKOWSKI, 2004, 2005; WHITTINGTON, 1996). However, Smircich and Stubbart (1985) had already presented a study with a more practical perspective of strategy, when they considered that “environments are staged through social construction and the interaction processes of organized actors”, highlighting that people, strategists who act at different levels and positions of the organization, with their actions, which will determine how the strategy will be implemented.

Whittington (2006), analyzes the different perspectives of strategy (politics, planning, process and practice), stating that the focus of the latter as a practical perspective is a strategy as a social practice, where the practitioners of the strategy can act and interact. Social strategy-as-practice occurs much more through tacit knowledge than through formal or universal knowledge (JARZABKOWSKI, 2005; WHITTINGTON, 2006, 2007).

Globalization brought about the need for investigations into the actions of strategy-as-practices (BALOGUN et al., 2003, PETRICEVIC; TEECE, 2019). The globalization process presents rapid reformulations of the economic order in organizations (PETRICEVIC; TEECE, 2019), causing the need to know the process of building dynamic capabilities (TEECE, 2007), which begins at the micro level, in order to shield the capabilities built by organizations.

Strategy-as-practice is the study of practices performed by its practitioners in the place where they occur, in the context in which they are inserted (BALOGUN et al., 2003; BURGELMAN; FLOYD; LAAMANEN; MAINTAINE; VAARA; WHITTINGTON, 2018; HAMBRICK, 2004; JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; JOHNSON et al., 2003; SAMRA-FREDRICKS, 2003; SEIDL; WHITTINGTON, 2014). The strategy-as-practice highlights the way in which the middle manager (FLOYD; WOOLDRIDGE, 2000; ROULEAU, 2005; ROULEAU; BALOGUN, 2011), carries out his strategies, emphasizing the concept of strategizing, which relates the performance of activities with strategy development by strategists (JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2016; WHITTINGTON, 2007, 2017, WHITTINGTON et al., 2004).

The strategy-as-practice has some points of confluence. This is because in the study of strategy there is the simultaneous interest of the organizational strategy with the practical, praxis and practitioner themes and their connections (JARZABKOWSKI, 2005). The strategy comes to be understood as a flow of organizational activities, in which thinking and acting, formulation and implementation are suppressed by strategic practice (JOHNSON et al., 2003; JARZABKOWSKI, 2005).

Strategic activities (at the macro or micro level of the organization) and the socio-cultural context are interconnected (JOHNSON et al., 2007; WHITTINGTON, 2006, 2007). The constructions of practices involve cognitive, behavioral, procedural, discursive, motivational and physical activities are combined, coordinated and adapted, generating new practices (JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2007; JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2012; JOHNSON et al., 2007; WHITTINGTON, 2006, 2007).

Strategy-as-practice presents itself as a field in which its evolution took place in a quick and enriching manner, providing the generation of theory that analyzes the way strategic processes are carried out in their daily organizational life (VAARA; WHITTINGTON, 2012).

Practices are understood by Vaara and Whittington (2012) as tools, norms and strategic procedures that give rise to organizational strategies. The artifacts that contribute to strategy practices and decision-making processes involve meetings, spreadsheets, graphical representations, flip-charts, strategic events and reviews that will contribute to strategic processes (JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2019; JARZABKOWSKI; SEIDL, 2008; JARZABKOWSKI; SPEE, 2009; VAARA; WHITTINGTON, 2012).

According to Stander and Pretorius (2016), corroborating with Johnson et al., (2003) and Whittington (2002, 2007), the strategy-as-practice is positioned as a moderator who seeks to explain the practice or doing of the strategy, instead of getting stuck in theory, examining the social practice known as strategy.

The importance of strategy-as-practice lies in allowing us to examine what is really necessary for organizational goals to be successfully achieved. Strategy-as-practice can be associated with knowledge, learning and, thus, be responsible for better organizational performance, through the flow of activities, practices and organizational actors, articulated by middle management.

2 DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND THEIR CONCEPTS

Dynamic capabilities take into account the role of dynamism in the environment (EISENHARDT; MARTIN, 2000; HELFAT, 2007; TEECE, 2007) in determining competitive advantage (DURAND; VAARA, 2009; TEECE et al., 1997). The way in which organizations react to this dynamism over time, whether through routines, processes, or even through other capacities, allowing the organization to reach new configurations of resources and capacities (DURAND; VAARA, 2009; EISENHARDT; MARTIN, 2000; HELFAT, 2007; TEECE, 2007).

In a competitive market, where the scenario is constantly changing, dynamic capabilities emerge to contribute to understanding competitive advantage (HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; PETRICEVIC; TEECE, 2019). Dynamic capabilities are the skills of organizations to integrate, build and reconfigure competencies internally and externally, to address a rapidly changing environment (TEECE et al., 1997).

Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) conceptualize dynamic capabilities as the organization's processes that use resources - specifically the processes to integrate, reconfigure, win and release resources - to combine and even create market changes. According to Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), dynamic capabilities are the organizational and strategic routines by which organizations achieve new configurations of resources as markets emerge, collide, divide, evolve and die.

According to Peteraf et al., (2013) the seminal study by Teece et al., (1997) presents a concept linked to the economic area and is related to a highly dynamic environment, while the concept of Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) is more procedural, applied to a moderately dynamic environment. Capacity is directly linked to the change that provides for redeployment and reconfiguration of organizational resources, meeting the demands of its customers (ZAHRA; GEORGE 2002), in a purposeful way, dynamic capabilities can create extend or even modify organizational resources (HELFAT et al., 2007).

Dynamic capabilities occur in the interaction between the organization and practitioners at all organizational levels, who take advantage of their creative potential to provide opportunities in the generation of assets for the organization (REGNÉR, 2008, 2015), a process that is developed continuously over time (TEECE 2012). Dynamic capabilities provide the improvement of the organization's operational routines (WILHELM et al., 2015), constantly seek to seize opportunities and survive the threats presented in the dynamic environment in which organizations are inserted.

Dynamic capabilities become an important theory for the analysis of strategic renewals, developed in order to explain how to achieve growth or even sustain competitive advantage in the face of the dynamism of the environment (AREND; BROMILEY, 2009; ARORA-JONSSON, BRUNSSON; HASSE, 2020; HELFAT; PETERAF, 2009; TEECE et al., 1997; TEECE 2007, 2017, 2018; WILDEN et al., 2016).

The competitive advantage lies in managerial and organizational processes (activities, routines, patterns of current practice and learning), (BURGELMAN et al., 2018; JARZABKOWSKI, 2005; JARZABKOWSKI; SPEE, 2009; JOHNSON et al., 2003; SEIDL; WHITTINGTON, 2014; WHITTINGTON, 2006; 2007); shaped by the positions of specific resources/ assets (technological, complementary, financial assets, reputation, structure, institutional and market), the strategic alternative paths available for organization and the opportunities presented by technology and the market (TEECE et al., 1997).

Dynamic capabilities are not limited to specific organizational capabilities as a form of competitive advantage, their focus is on the process by which the organization develops and renews its competence. The essence of the dynamic capabilities of its competitive advantage, according to Teece et al., (1997) is based on the tripod of processes, positions and paths.

Dynamic capabilities visualize the competitive advantage resulting from high operational performance routines within an organization, shaped by process and positions (HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; TEECE et al., 1997). Environmental dynamism forces organizations to shape themselves based on internal resources, building and reconfiguring their assets, in order to adapt to market changes. The market is unpredictable, factors such as values, culture, organizational experiences, distinctive skills and capacity in general, cannot be acquired, they must be built (EISENHARDT; MARTIN, 2000; TEECE et al., 1997).

In order to operationalize the process of building dynamic capabilities, Teece (2007) proposed a way of identifying the origins of dynamic capabilities through microfoundations. The study by Teece (2007) provided a visualization of the operationalization of the studies of dynamic capabilities, which we will analyze in the next sections first, which are microfoundations and then analyze the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities.

3 PERSPECTIVES AND CONCEPTIONS OF MICROFOUNDATIONS

In recent years, interest in studies on microfoundations has increased (POWELL; RERUP, 2017), mainly in disciplines such as administration, economics, political sciences and sociology (HAACK, SIEWEKE; WESSEL, 2020).

Current research on dynamic capabilities has evolved from a macro-level view to analyze its foundations at the micro level (AMBROSINI; BOWMAN, 2009; HELFAT et al., 2007; KOUAMÉ; LANGLEY, 2018; PETRICEVIC; TEECE 2019; REGNÉR, 2008; 2015). Microfoundations are described as processes and routines implicit in dynamic capabilities (HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; PETRICEVIC; TEECE, 2019; TEECE, 2007; 2009).

Microfoundations are not a new topic, studies in the 1960s already addressed the theme when economists began to discuss how to link micro and macroeconomics, such as Hayek (1948), in their studies at the Austrian school of economic thought.

The microfoundations were also in the studies of Coleman (1964), Lazarsfeld and Menzel (1970) and Popper (1957), who studied the philosophy and sociology of the influence of the collective and the individual in society. They still have Barnard (1938) and March and Simon (1958), on the micro-level phenomena as people, processes and structures that influence organizational performance.

Some studies analyze the interaction and influence of individuals' microfoundations and processes and structures as causing the emergence of capacities (FELDMAN; PENTLAND, 2003; FELIN et al., 2012; HOOPES; MADSEN, 2008; MILLER et al., 2012; SALVATO, 2003). Concomitantly, other studies have conducted research on the origins of resources and dynamic capabilities (FELIN et al., 2012; HEIMERIKS et al., 2012; HELFAT et al., 2007; PISANO, 2000; ZOLLO; WINTER, 2002).

Microfoundations have their roots in the foundations of institutional theory, such as ethnomethodology (SEGRE, 2004; WAKEHAM, 2017; ZUCKER; SCHILKE, 2020), symbolic interactionism (BLUMER, 1969; FURNARI, 2019) and Bourdieu's theory of practice (ANESA; CHALKIAS; JARZABKOWSKI; SPEE, 2019; BOURDIEU, 1990; GOLDENSTEIN; WALGENBACH, 2019). More recent perspectives also present possibilities of approach such as inhabited institutionalism (HALLETT, 2010; HALLETT; VENTRESCA, 2006; HALLETT; HAWBAKER, 2020) and Scandinavian institutionalism (BOXENBAUM; PEDERSEN, 2009; SURACHAIKULWATTANA; PHILLIPS, 2020).

Research on microfoundations presents three perspectives that stand out: communicative, cognitive and behavioral (CORNELISSEN; DURAND; FISS; LAMMERS; VAARA, 2015; JEPPERSON; MEYER, 2011; THORNTON et al., 2012; SIEWEKE, 2014; SMETS et al., 2015; ZILBER, 2002). Specifically, scholars who emphasize a cognitive perspective explore how institutional change and maintenance are shaped by thought structures and emotions (CORNELISSEN, et al., 2015; SIEWEKE, 2014; THORNTON et al., 2012). A communicative perspective highlights the role of various communicative media in developing an understanding of appropriate behavior (CORNELISSEN et al., 2015, HAACK, et al., 2020). A behavioral perspective explores how daily activities and routines structure and restructure institutional contexts. (JEPPERSON; MEYER, 2011; SMETS et al., 2015; ZILBER, 2002).

The cognitive perspective refers to individuals and structures of collective thinking and mental representations, such as pictures, categories, schemes and scripts, that prescribe legitimate ways of acting (CORNELISSEN et al., 2015; SIEWEKE, 2014; THORNTON et al., 2012 ). The organization can serve as a critical window for the recursive relationships between macro and micro levels of institutions (CORNELISSEN et al., 2015). A cognitive perspective explored as institutional change and maintenance are shaped by thought structures and emotions (HAACK et al., 2020).

The communicative perspective, highlighting the role of various communicative media in developing an understanding of appropriate behavior, (HAACK et al., 2020). According to CORNELISSEN et al., (2015), cognition, communication and institutions are inherently interconnected. Communication is equivalent to a construct that is defined as a process of interaction in which the actors exchange points of view and build mutual understanding (CORNELISSEN et al., 2015). Thoughts and / or perspectives are created from combinations of past and present impressions.

The behavioral perspective focuses on how practices, which are understood as the grouping of recurring human activities, are formed by institutions and are known for institutional perspectives (HAACK et al., 2020). Thus, this perspective deals with the fact that institutions are flexibly instantiated and reiterated, without having a fixed structural order, so that immediate processes lead individuals to adapt to any situation. The idea that individuals are essential for institutions is uncontroversial (JEPPERSON; MEYER, 2011), since they continually produce the institutions in which they are inserted (SMETS et al., 2015; ZILBER, 2002), being that, it is for through the interactions and daily practices that institutions come to exercise their influence.

The microfoundations analyze how the micro organizational environment, through the practices of organizational actors, can influence the results of the macro environment, such as organizational performance. Likewise, the micro level is influenced by the macro environment through strategies that are deliberated by the top actors. The microfoundations study the interaction of the micro and macro levels of the organization and the influence that one implies on the other, showing that both are interconnected.

According to Felin et al., (2012), microfoundations can serve as causal explanations for the creation of a routine capacity, or even for studies of their origins. According to Teece (2007), dynamic capabilities allow organizations to create, implement and protect intangible assets that support superior long-term business performance.

4 MICROFOUNDATIONS OF CAPABILITIES DYNAMIC

The process of operationalizing dynamic capabilities occurs through the three categories Teece (2007): (i) (sensing) refers to detection, the ability to perceive and model opportunities and threats; (ii) (seizing) refers to the ability to take advantage of the opportunities that have been identified and (iii) (transforming) refers to reconfiguration, the ability to remain competitive through reinforcement, combination, protection and, when necessary , the reconfiguration of the organization's tangible and intangible assets.

The development and implementation of the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities presents challenges, being influenced by the skills, processes, procedures, organizational structures, decision rules and distinct disciplines, which end up sustaining the capacity for sensing, seizing and reconfiguring (Teece, 2007).

“Sensing” is the identification, development, co-development and evaluation of technological opportunities in relation to the customer's needs (HELFAT; WINTER, 2011; HELFAT; PETERAF, 2003, 2015. TEECE, 2014). According to Nonaka et al., (2016), sensing results mainly from organizational actors on the front lines that interact directly with the environment, where the opportunities identified by these actors are synthesized and organized by them.

“Seizing”, they are aimed at understanding the highlighted opportunities and, to design solutions and business models that guarantee consumer satisfaction (HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; TEECE, 2007). Included in the capabilities of this group are those aimed at guaranteeing and complying with resources for carrying out the actions designed, as well as the ability to develop strong relationships along the production chain, in the organization's relationship with suppliers, complementaries or even customers (TEECE, 2011; 2014).

“Transforming” is the continuous renovation and organizational transformation (TEECE, 2007; 2014), it refers to the organization's skills to combine and manage the service strategy, and the organizational design to achieve strategic adjustment (HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; ŽITKIENĖ et al., 2015). The horizontal organizational structure allows easier knowledge sharing, increasing not only the capabilities of “transforming”, but also “sensing” and “seizing” (TEECE, 2007).

The study of the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities provides a detailed analysis of activities, day-to-day practices, social and cultural actions involved in the process of developing dynamic capabilities. Also, this approach provides for the identification of heterogeneity of dynamic capabilities (HAMBRICK; CROSSLAND, 2018; POWELL et al., 2011), which contributes to their long-term process.

5 THE CORRELATION OF STRATEGY-AS-PRACTICE AND DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES

Studies from the perspective of strategy-as-practice, with its social focus (JARZABKOWSKI; LÊ; BALOGUN, 2019; JOHNSON et al., 2003; WHITTINGTON, 2006, 2019), contribute to the construction of dynamic capabilities, with their focus economic (HELFAT, 2007; Teece et al., 1997, TEECE, 2007). Dynamic capabilities focus on addressing processes of aggregation of evolutionary selection and organizational levels, which are shaped for a more economic context (HELFAT; PETERAF, 2015; REGNÉR, 2008, 2015). The strategy-as-practice complements the dynamic capabilities and provides suggestions for a dynamic view of the strategy, addressing the microfoundations of the dynamics that give rise to organizational assets. (REGNÉR, 2008; 2015).

The structure (rules and resources) (JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2019), the agents (organizational actors / practitioners) (JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; NICOLINI, 2013; WHITTINGTON, 2006, 2019) and the reconfiguration of activities (routines / practices) (JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; REGNÉR, 2008) form a study area that provides for the creation and / or reconfiguration of dynamic capabilities (REGNÉR, 2008, 2015). A dynamic view of strategy needs to go beyond simple correlations between variables and should explain the mechanism of how a certain condition interacts to produce a certain organizational asset (BROMILEY, 2005; HELFAT; PETERAF 2015; TSOUKAS; KNUDSEN, 2002).

Capacity at the organizational level is essential in any dynamic examination of the strategy, but it needs to be related to the activity and interacting both at the individual and group levels to understand its origin, the way it changes over time, the processes and mechanisms underlying social factors (FELDMAN; ORLIKOWSKI, 2011; JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2019; JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; NICOLINI, 2013; REGNÉR, 2008, 2015; WHITTINGTON, 2006, 2019).

To identify the origin of dynamic capabilities (EISENHARDTE; MARTIN, 2000; TEECE et al., 1997), studies of activities and micro practices (JOHNSON et al., 2007; KOUAMÉ; LANGLEY, 2018) are presented as the way to find the answers, and to be able to develop the dynamic capabilities that consolidate the competitive advantage before the competing market.

With regard to the root discipline, while strategy-as-practice is rooted in the social theory of authors such as Bourdieu (1990), Giddens (1984), Schatzki (2002) and Sztompka (1991), the fundamental interest of strategy-as-practice (JARZABKOWSKI, 2005; WHITTINGTON, 1996; 2006; 2007) is focused on social strategic-as-practice, with strategies and day-to-day activity, concerned with strategizing, focused on the micro-organizational level.

On the other hand, dynamic capabilities (EISENHARDT; MARTIN, 2000; TEECE et al., 1997; WINTER, 2003), have roots in the evolutionary economics discipline of authors such as Nelson, Winter, Penrose, Schumpeter and Teece (REGNÉR, 2008) , concerned with the organizational level with a focus on routines and capacities at the macro organizational level (KOUAMÉ; LANGLEY, 2018).

The two perspectives have not only differences, but also similarities. The focus on processes is one of these convergences, where strategy-as-practice focuses on continuous process in terms of practice, while dynamic capabilities focus on continuous process in routine terms (JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; REGNÉR, 2008; 2015; TEECE et al., 1997). Both strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities explicitly emphasize standardized processes (JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; WINTER, 2003).

Another similar characteristic among the perceptives is related to the historical and local context on which the strategy develops (REGNÉR, 2008; TEECE et al., 1997). While the strategy-as-practice perspective mainly focuses on the social and cultural context, the dynamic capabilities perspective focuses mainly on the economic context (BAUM; DOBBIN, 2000; REGNÉR, 2008; 2015).

The comparative shows that both elements are correlated, identifying that it is possible to study strategy-as-practice (JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; JOHNSON et al., 2003) through dynamic capabilities (TEECE et al., 1997; WINTER, 2003) , where strategy-as-practice acts as a lens to study and understand the process of building dynamic organizational capabilities.

The strategy-as-practice emphasizes the practical strategy, the day-to-day strategy, the activities present in the daily strategy formation processes, involving the most diverse levels of the organization, from the highest organizational level (ADNER; HELFAT, 2003; TEECE et al., 1997; WÓJCIK, 2020), up to the operational level, including external actors, all are involved, contributing to the strategy-as-practice process (BALOGUN; JOHNSON, 2004; FLOYD; WOOLDRIDGE, 2000).

The top organizational level has often, explicitly or implicitly, remained in the spotlight and this remains true for many of the studies on dynamic capabilities (ADNER; HELFAT, 2003; FLOYD; WOOLDRIDGE, 2000; Teece et al., 1997). In contrast, in the strategy-as-practice approach, researchers like Burgelman (1983a, b) and Regnér (1999) explicitly recognize that a diverse set of actors (practitioners) may be involved in the development of new strategies and the accumulation of assets organization (TEECE et al., 1997).

Middle managers can easily be influential (BALOGUN; JOHNSON 2004; FLOYD; WOOLDRIDGE, 2000), so that strategies and new organizational assets can be generated at different organizational levels and, not only at the top manager level, but also between middle manager and bottom manager (BALOGUN et al., 2003; FLOYD; WOOLDRIDGE, 1992; 2000; WOOLDRIDGE; FLOYD 1990; FLOYD; LANE, 2000).

The strategy formation process also involves external, broader groups, such as consultants, regulators and consumers (MANTERE, 2005). The inclusion of several strategists allows for organizational heterogeneity (HAMBRICK; CROSSLAND, 2018; POWELL et al., 2011), where different actors can reflect on capabilities and can encourage endogenous changes in such capabilities (FELDMAN; PENTLAND, 2003).

In short, strategy-as-practice can help to complement dynamic capabilities, identifying how dynamic capabilities generate value for the organization, looking from a practical and social perspective, involving actors from all levels of the organization, in order to identify social origins, cultural and practical dynamic capabilities.

6 THEORETICAL MODEL OF STRATEGY-AS-PRACTICE THROUGH THE LENS OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES MICROFOUNDATIONS

The environment in which the organization operates is a trigger for the need for change and, consequently, for the creation of dynamic capabilities (REGNÉR, 2008, 2015). Their construction being operationalized through the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities (TEECE, 2007), which are influenced by strategy-as-practice (BALOGUN et al., 2003), through the intersection of practices, praxis and practitioners.

(i) practices: are related to shared routines, behaviors, traditions, norms and procedures for thinking and acting (WHITTINGTON, 2006; JOHNSON; LANGLEY; MELIN; WHITTINGTON, 2007). Practices are social, symbolic and material tools used in making the strategy (JARZABKOWSKI; SPEE 2009).

(ii) praxis: refer to the identification, explanation and analysis of the practices used by the organization, as well as the way in which people carry out activities (JARZABKOWSKI; SPEE, 2009, WHITTINGTON, 2006; JOHNSON; LANGLEY; MELIN; WHITTINGTON, 2007).

(iii) practitioners: refer to strategists or strategy workers who carry out their practices and carry out their praxis (WHITTINGTON, 2006; Johnson et al., 2007). Practitioners are the actors who carry out the formulation of strategies (JARZABKOWSKI; SPEE 2009).

Figure 1 illustrates the model that we now present for the analysis of this study. The model is structured in three elements: (i) dynamic environment, functioning as a kitten to create dynamic capabilities; (ii) interaction of microfoundations of dynamic capabilities through the lens of strategy-as-practice, where the transformation of strategies generating dynamic capabilities occurs; and finally; (iii) dynamic capabilities, which are generated and provide the identification of its origins, as well as its shielding from the knowledge of the elements that formed and implemented it.

Figure 1
strategy-as-practice, through the lens of Microfoundations of dynamic capabilities

The dynamic environment in which organizations are found, provides the entry of novelties (threats and / or opportunities), which will allow variations in the environment, which will be managed by the medium level (REGNÉR, 2008). The trigger, caused by the dynamic environment, forces organizations to create dynamic capabilities to survive environmental changes. Dynamic capabilities are operationalized by the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities (sensing, seizing and transforming), which are influenced by strategy-as-practice (practices, praxis and practitioners).

The strategy-as-practice through the lens of the microfoundations of capabilities has nine categorizations that were conceptualized from the main authors about microfoundations of dynamic capabilities such as Ellonen et al., (2011), Regnér (2008, 2015) and Teece (2007, 2009, 2014); and from the main authors on strategy-as-practice like Jarzabkowski et al. (2007), Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009), Jarzabkowski, (2005), Jarzabkowski and Whittington, (2008), Regnér (2008, 2015), Whittington (1996, 2006).

Table 1
Categories of microfoundations of dynamic capabilities through the lens of strategy-as-practice

Data	Practice	Praxis	Practitioners	Authors
Sensing	Sensing Practices Sensing practices are practices related to the identification and monitoring of organizational opportunities. They are tools and procedures (norms and cognitive procedures), involved in activities related to how the organization monitors its organizational environment and how it identifies opportunities.	Sensing Praxis Sensing praxis are praxis related to the identification and monitoring of organizational opportunities. These are socially achieved activities, which are responsible for the direction and survival of the organization, in activities related to how the organization monitors its organizational environment and how it identifies opportunities	Sensing practitioners Sensing practitioners are practitioners related to identifying and monitoring organizational opportunities. Are the actors and the description of their involvement in the processes involved in activities related to how the organization monitors its organizational environment and how it identifies opportunities	Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) ; Ellonen et al., (2011); Helfat (2000, 2007); Helfat and Peteraf (2003, 2009, 2015), Helfat et al (2007); Helfat and Winter (2011); Jarzabkowski (2004, 2005); Jarzabkowski et al., (2012); Jarzabkowski et al., (2016) ; Jarzabkowski et al., (2019) ; Jarzabkowski and Kaplan (2010); Jarzabkowski et al., (2007); Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2008); Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009); Jarzabkowski and Whittington (2008); Regnér (2008, 2015); Teece et al., (1997); Teece (2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017) and Whittington (1996, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2017).
Seizing	Seizing Practices Seizing practices are practices related to taking advantage of the opportunities identified. They are organizational tools and procedures (norms and cognitive procedures) related to the activities of how the opportunities identified by the organization are used and learned.	Seizing praxis The seizing praxis are the praxis related to the use of the identified opportunities. These are socially achieved activities, which are responsible for the direction and survival of the organization, in the activities of how the opportunities identified by the organization are used and learned.	Seizing practitioners Seizing practitioners are practitioners related to taking advantage of the opportunities identified. They are actors and the description of their involvement in the process, related to the activities of how the opportunities identified by the organization are used and learned.
Transforming	Transforming Practices Transforming practices are the practices involved in the reconfiguration process to shape the changes required for organizational development. They are organizational tools and procedures (norms and cognitive procedures) related to the activities involved in the organizational reconfiguration process in order to shape the necessary changes for its development.	Transforming Praxis The praxis of transforming are the praxis involved in the reconfiguration process to shape the necessary changes to organizational development. These are socially achieved activities, which are responsible for the direction and survival of the organization, in the activities involved in the organizational reconfiguration process to shape the necessary changes for organizational development.	Transforming practitioners Transforming practitioners are practitioners involved in the reconfiguration process to shape the changes needed for organizational development. Actors and the description of their involvement are related activities in the organizational reconfiguration process to shape the changes necessary for organizational development

Table 1, the concepts of the categories of the micro-fundament of dynamic capabilities, correlates with the categories of strategy-as-practice, in order to present a way of analyzing practices, praxis and practitioners, through the lens of sensing, seizing and transforming.

Practices (JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2007; WHITTINGTON, 1996, 2002) are present in dynamic capabilities (TEECE et al., 1997), through the creation and development of activities, routines, processes or even environments that enable and instigate its creation, its development and its improvement.

The correlation of strategy-as-practice, with dynamic capabilities (REGNÉR, 2008, 2015), shows that they are in a context of active positions, that is, it uses technological, financial and structural resources for organizational development (TEECE et al., 1997).

Strategy-as-practice (JARZABKOWSKI, 2005) can complement dynamic capabilities (TEECE et al., 1997; WINTER, 2003), through its praxis, which comes to strengthen, incorporating technological, financial and structural culture in the organization , through artifacts, language and cognitions that contribute to the organizational change necessary to survive the turbulent environment (BURGELMAN et al., 2018; FELDMAN; ORLIKOWSKI, 2011; JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2016; SEIDL; WHITTINGTON, 2014; VAARA; WHITTINGTON , 2012).

Praxis are also present in dynamic capabilities through the activity flows accepted by society and that guide the development strategies of organizations (JARZABKOWSKI, 2005; JOHNSON et al., 2003; WHITTINGTON, 2006, 2007). The creation of a favorable environment for innovation is seen through the action of praxis, creating an organizational culture focused on innovation (JARZABKOWSKI, 2005). Innovation is built on a daily basis, in the social environment and on a daily basis of organizational activities, resulting from the interaction of organizational actors and their resources made available by the organization (JARZABKOWSKI et al., 2007).

Strategy-as-practice complements dynamic capabilities, through its practitioners, who are at different organizational levels (WHITTINGTON, 2002; REGNÉR, 2015). The strategy occurs through the commitment of practitioners to carry out new practices or even the combination of existing ones, in order to achieve the objectives and goals deliberated by the top level (JARZABKOWSKI, 2005; WHITTINGTON, 1996; 2006; 2007).

The practitioner is not only present in dynamic capabilities (EISENHARDT; MARTIN, 2000, TEECE et al., 1997), but also presents himself as a key player in the dynamic process (HELFAT, 2007; TEECE, 2007), acting both individually and collective, internal or external to the organization. Understanding strategic changes requires a greater focus on organizational actors and real experiences, dynamic capabilities require a high level of commitment from practitioners (AMBROSINI; BOWMAN, 2009).

The different profiles of practitioners provide organizations with heterogeneous strategies (HAMBRICK; CROSSLAND, 2018; POWELL et al., 2011), making it difficult for competitors to copy dynamic capabilities (EISENHARDT; MARTIN, 2000, TEECE et al., 1997), ensuring the shielding of strategies over time (JARZABKOWSKI, 2004; PETERAF, 1993; TEECE et al., 1997).

Organizational actors present themselves as key elements for success in the process of creating and / or reconfiguring dynamic capabilities. They orchestrate the internal and external processes for building dynamic capabilities. According to Teece (2007), organizational actors have a much larger role than the simple coordination of the organization. The organizational actor needs to recognize problems and trends in order to orchestrate resources and processes, creating organizational opportunities.

The strategy-as-practice is the study of the practices carried out by its practitioners in the place where it occurs in the context in which it is inserted (BALOGUN et al., 2003). The strategy-as-practice highlights the way in which organizational actors carry out their strategies, emphasizing the concept of strategizing, which relates the performance of activities with the elaboration of strategies by strategists (WHITTINGTON, 1996). As the activities generate results for the organization, they show themselves as competitive advantages of the same (JOHNSON et al., 2003).

The term “dynamic” is an expression presented exclusively in relation to dynamic capabilities, on the other hand, practices, praxis and practitioners could show whether the environment is dynamic. Regnér's (2008) studies emphasize that the advance in the approach of studies on dynamic capabilities and strategy-as-practice provides a fertile basis for examining and explaining the dynamic process through which unique organizational assets are developed.

From the point of view of practices, the creation and modification of assets can occur in different ways, such as: making strategies more flexible to better adapt to the turbulent environment; creating processes and routines that favor learning and the appreciation of prior knowledge; also creating not only structure, but an environment conducive to innovative development (CARDOSO, ROSSETTO; DA SILVA, 2018).

Studies, for example, of meeting artifacts, spreadsheets, graphical representations, flipcharts, strategic events and reviews that will contribute to strategic processes, according to Jarzabkowski et al., (2019) are also examples of tools that can be analyzed to identify ways that can contribute to strategy practices and decision-making processes, important for building and modifying assets. These are practices that can be studied in organizations in order to analyze the practices carried out that are inserted in a dynamic environment (CHATTERJEE et al., 2021).

From a praxis point of view, it collaborates with the creation and modification of assets in dynamic environments as it identifies and analyzes the practices used by the organization, as well as the analysis of how the organization develops and modifies assets to survive in dynamic environments (CARDOSO et al., 2020). As an example of studies of praxis in a dynamic environment, we can mention the involvement and combination of cognitive, behavioral, procedural, discursive, motivational, emotional and physical activities that when analyzed, combined, coordinated and adapted, they generate new organizational assets, providing the creation and modification of assets for organizations.

With regard to practitioners who are the organizational actors responsible for formulating strategies, they end up becoming key pieces to identify the strategic actions developed for the creation and modification of unique assets in dynamic environments (CARDOSO et al., 2018). For example, actors' creative engagements in practices or capabilities can facilitate endogenous change in such practices and capabilities. According to Kearney et al., (2019), and Regnér (2008), the practitioners' approach can explain how the interactions between certain actors within a sociocultural and cognitive context, surrounded by certain artifacts, can generate a particular type of behavior and, in the end, as a result, generate unique strategies.

For example, studying the activities of middle management (BALOGUN, 2011), it is possible to analyze how these organizational actors (practitioners) perform activities and formulate their strategies, contributing to the construction of unique assets, providing superior performance to organizations. In this way, the study of how strategic activities are built at the micro level can provide the identification of the origins of dynamic capabilities, facilitating the shielding of these resources from competitors.

It is still important to highlight that the studies of practices, praxis and practitioners not individually, but in combination, provide a more in-depth analysis of the strategic activities carried out by organizations in their dynamic environments to generate competitive advantage, through the creation and modification of assets. unique (CHATTERJEE et al., 2021.

According to a study by Regnér (2008), strategy-as-practice can complement the studies of dynamic capabilities with regard to the activities underlying organizational assets, providing the creation and/or modification of an organization's assets. At this point, the construction and modification of assets could be analyzed through practices, analyzing the social, symbolic and material tools used in the creation and modification of the assets. Studies of practices and praxis could explain the flow of assets created and modified, as well as studies of organizational actors (practitioners) would allow analyzing how the processes of formulating strategies are carried out.

According to Regnér (2008), strategy-as-practice examines the detailed internal workings of organizational mechanisms and how certain agents and structures socially incorporated through combinations, rather than treated individually, can generate competitive advantage. In this direction, the combination of strategy-as-practice elements can be an important way to identify the activities responsible for the creation and modification of unique assets that provide organizations with a competitive advantage (BARNEY, 1991).

In summary, understanding the different combinations between certain activities, cognitive, behavioral, language structures and artifacts, provides a better understanding of how social practices can help organizations create and modify their dynamic capabilities (CARDOSO et al 2020; REGNÉR 2008).

7 FINAL REMARKS

This study analyzed strategy-as-practice through the lens of the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. It was found that looking at dynamic capabilities through the lens of strategy-as-practice identifies the social and cultural factors involved in the process of developing strategies, which makes it possible to analyze the factors that provide the heterogeneity of dynamic organizational capabilities.

The analysis of organizational strategies at the micro level makes it possible to identify the activities that gave rise to dynamic capabilities, in order to shield them while maintaining them over time, or even by implementing mechanisms that replicate dynamic capabilities in other organizations, when necessary.

The microfoundations of dynamic capabilities can contribute to the analysis of capabilities, but the strategy-as-practice provides for finding heterogeneities in the process of capabilities building, identifying social and cultural factors as well as the role of organizational actors in the process of developing dynamic capabilities.

The conclusion of this study indicates that strategies-as-practice, through the lens of dynamic capabilities, provide an analysis of the construction of dynamic capabilities, in order to identify the strategic activities and organizational assets necessary for the construction of heterogeneous capabilities, maintaining the dynamic capabilities over time.

In this step, we have two perspectives, one being social (strategy-as-practice) and the other economic (dynamic capabilities), which despite having different roots, can correlate so that the first manages to contribute to the construction of the second. To do so, it is necessary to resort to theoretical renunciations that may be necessary in order to take advantage of the full potential of the strategy-as-practice approach and dynamic capabilities, leaving research with a focus on long-term plans, focused on top management, formal strategies and analysis of organizations in stable environments; for studies focusing on short-term plans, involving other organizational levels such as micro or meso, informal strategies and analysis of organizations in dynamic environments.

As limitations of the study, we highlight the care taken to analyze and correlate social aspects through the dynamic capabilities approach. Dynamic capabilities are primarily aimed at high-level actors in the organization, while strategy-as-practice addresses management at different organizational levels. The strategy-as-practice perspective emphasizes the practical strategy, the day-to-day strategy, the activities present in the daily processes of strategy formation. Involving the most diverse levels of the organization, from the high organizational level to the operational level, including external actors, everyone is involved, contributing to the strategy process as a practice. While the characteristic processes such as focal unit and strategic focus of dynamic capabilities are concerned with the ability to generate value for the organization.

Another limitation is in the context of the two perspectives, while the strategy-as-practice is focused on a socially and culturally embedded context, analyzing social, cognitive, language/symbolic factors and artifacts; dynamic capabilities are geared to the context of the positions of technological, financial and structural assets.

As future lines of research, we highlight the need for theoretical and empirical studies that address the care of analyzing social aspects through the perspective of dynamic capabilities, addressing the lack of studies that address the perspectives of strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities as a mechanism to improve organizational performance.

Yet as future lines of research, although dynamic capabilities address issues of how organizational assets are created and modified, there are few studies addressing this process and activities in detail that involve how organizational actors carry out their activities.

Thus, we understand that it is possible to establish a relationship from the perspective of the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Since capacity building requires the reformulation and remodeling of processes, skills and routines knowing that the mechanism that works in these cases is dynamic capabilities.

REFERENCES

• ADNER, R.; HELFAT, C. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, v. 24, n. 10, p. 1011-1025, 2003.
• AMBROSINI, V.; BOWMAN, C. What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, v. 11, n. 1, p. 29-49, 2009.
• AMBROSINI, V.; BOWMAN, C.; BURTON-TAYLOR, S. B. Inter-team coordination activities as a source of customer satisfaction. Human Relations, v. 60, n. 1, p. 59-98, 2007.
• ANESA, M.; CHALKIAS, K.; JARZABKOWSKI, P.; SPEE, A. P. Practicing capitals across fields: Extending Bourdieu to study inter-field dynamics. In P. Haack, J. Sieweke, and L. Wessel. (Eds.), Microfoundations of Institutions, v. 65(B), p. 129-142, Bingley, UK: Emerald. 2020.
• AREND, R. J.; BROMILEY, P. Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: Spare change, everyone? Strategic Organization, v. 7, n. 1, p. 75-90, 2009.
• ARORA-JONSSON, S.; BRUNSSON, N.; HASSE, R. Where Does Competition Come From? The role of organization. Organization Theory, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-24, 2020.
• BALOGUN, J.; JOHNSON, G. Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, v. 47, n. 4, p. 523-549, 2004.
• BALOGUN, J.; HUFF, A. S.; JOHNSON, P. Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, v.40, n. 1, p. 197-224, 2003.
• BARNARD C. I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938.
• BARNEY, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1), p. 99-120, 1991.
• BAUM, J.A.; DOBBIN, F. Economics meets sociology in strategic management. Advances in Strategic Management, 17. Stamford CT: JAI Press. 2000.
• BLUMER, H. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1969.
• BOURDIEU, P. The Logic of Practice Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.
• BOXENBAUM, E.; PEDERSEN, J. S. Scandinavian Institutionalism: A case of institutional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, and B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (p. 178-204). Cambridge University Press. 2009.
• BROMILEY, P. The Behavioral Foundation of Strategic Management Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005.
• BURGELMAN, R. A. A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, v. 8, n. 1, p. 61-70, 1983a.
• BURGELMAN, R. A. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 28, n. 2, p. 223-244, 1983b.
• BURGELMAN, R. A.; FLOYD, S. W.; LAAMANEN, T.; MANTERE, S.; VAARA, E.; WHITTINGTON, R. Strategy processes and practice: Dialogues and intersections. Strategic Management Journal, v. 39, n. 3, p. 531-558, 2018.
• CAMPBELL-HUNT, C. Complexity in practice. Human Relations, v. 60, n. 5, p. 59-98. 2007.
• CARDOSO, F. E.; ROSSETTO, C. R.; SILVA, J. R. Microfundamentos das capacidades dinâmicas por meio da lente da estratégia como prática 2018. Tese (Doutorado) - Curso de Administração e turismo, Universidade vale do Itajaí, Biguaçu.
• CARDOSO, F. E.; ROSSETTO, C. R.; SILVA, J. R.; LAVARDA, R. B. Strategy-as-Practice Activities through the Lens of Microfoundations of Dynamic Capabilities. In: 80th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 2020, Nova York. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management Proceedings. v. 2020.
• CHATTERJEE, A., BRUCE, K. Collective Mindfulness and Strategy: Integrating the Core Theoretical Streams. In: 81th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 2021, Nova York. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management Proceedings. v. 2021.
• COLEMAN, J. S. Collective decisions. Sociological Inquiry, v. 34, n. 2, p. 166-81, 1964.
• COLEMAN, J.S. Foundations of Social Theory Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1990.
• CORNELISSEN, J. P.; DURAND, R.; FISS, P. C.; LAMMERS, J. C.; VAARA, E. Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, v. 40, n. 1, p. 10-27, 2015.
• DURAND, R.; VAARA, E. Causation, counterfactuals, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, v. 30, n. 12, p. 1245-1264, 2009.
• EISENHARDT, K. M.; BROWN, S. L. Patching: restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Business Review, v. 77, n. 3, p. 72-82, 1999.
• EISENHARDT, K. M. ; MARTIN, J. A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue, v. 21, n. 10-11, p. 1105-1121. 2000.
• ELLONEN, H.; JANTUNEN, A.; KUIVALAINEN, O. The role of dynamic capabilities in developing innovation-related capabilities. International Journal of Innovation Management, v. 15, n. 3, p. 459-478, 2011.
• FALLON-BYRNE, L.; HARNEY, B. Microfoundations of dynamic capabilities for innovation: a review and research agenda. Irish Journal of Management, v. 36, n. 1, p. 21-31. 2017.
• FELDMAN, M. S.; PENTLAND, B. T. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 39, n. 1, p. 484-510, 2003.
• FELDMAN, M. S.; ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, v. 22, p. 1240-1253, 2011.
• FELIN, T.; FOSS, N. J.; HEIMERIKS, K. H.; MADSEN, T. L. Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies, v. 49, n. 8, p. 1351-1374, 2012.
• FLOYD, S. W.; WOOLDRIDGE, B. Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, v. 13, n. 1, p. 153-167, 1992.
• FLOYD, S. W.; LANE P. J. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, v. 25, n. 1, p. 154-177, 2000.
• FLOYD, S. W.; WOOLDRIDGE, B. Building Strategy from the Middle: Reconceptualizing Strategy Process Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2000.
• FOSS, N. J.; HUSTEDK, K.; MICHAILOVA, S. Governing Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: Levels of Analysis, Governance Mechanisms, and Research Directions. Journal of Management Studies, v. 47, n. 3, p. 455-482, 2010.
• GIDDENS, A. The Constitution of Society Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1984.
• GOLDENSTEIN, J.; WALGENBACH, P. Embodied and reflexive agency in institutional fields: An integrative neo-institutional perspective of institutional change. In P. Haack, J. Sieweke, and L. Wessel. (Eds.), Microfoundations of Institutions, v. 65(A), p. 135-152, Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2020.
• HAACK, P.; SIEWEKE, J.; WESSEL, L. Microfoundations and Multi-Level Research on Institutions. In P. Haack, J. Sieweke, and L. Wessel. (Eds.), Microfoundations of Institutions, v. 65(A), p. 11-40, Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2020.
• HALLETT, T.; VENTRESCA, M. J. Inhabited institutions: social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Theory and Society, v. 35, n. 2, p. 213-236, 2006.
• HALLETT, T. The myth incarnate recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, v. 75, n. 1, p. 52-74, 2010.
• HALLETT, T.; HAWBAKER, A. Bringing society back in again: The importance of social interaction in an inhabited institutionalism. In P. Haack, J. Sieweke, and L. Wessel. (Eds.), Microfoundations of Institutions, v. 65(B), p. 317-336. Bingley, UK: Emerald. 2020.
• HAMBRICK, D. C. The disintegration of strategic management: It’s time to consolidate our gains. Strategic Organization, v. 2, n. 1, p. 91-98, 2004.
• HAMBRICK, D. C.; CROSSLAND, C. A strategy for behavioral strategy: Appraisal of small, midsize, and large tent conceptions of this embryonic community. Behavioral Strategy in Perspective, v. 3, n. 1, p. 23-39, 2018.
• HAYEK, F. A. Individualism and Economic Order Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1948.
• HEIMERIKS, K. H.; SCHIJVEN, M.; GATES, S. Manifestations of higher-order routines: The underlying mechanisms of deliberate learning in the context of post-acquisition integration. Academy of Management Journal, v. 55, n. 1, p. 703-726, 2012.
• HELFAT, C. The Evolution of Firm Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, v.21, n. (Special issue, Oct-Nov), 2000.
• HELFAT, C. E.; PETERAF, M. A. The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles, Strategic Management Journal, v. 24, n. 10, p. 997-1010, 2003.
• HELFAT, C. E. Dynamic Capabilities: understanding strategic change in organizations Blackwell, Malden, 2007.
• HELFAT, C.; FINKELSTEIN, S.; MITCHELL, W.; PETERAF, M. A.; SINGH, H.; TEECE, D. J.; WINTER, S. G. Dynamic capabilities. Resource-based change in organizations Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 2007.
• HELFAT, C. E.; PETERAF, M. A. Understanding dynamic capabilities: progress along a developmental path. Strategic Organization, v. 7, n. 1, p. 91-102, 2009.
• HELFAT, C.E.; WINTER, S. Untangling Dynamic and Operational Capabilities: Strategy for the (N)Ever-Changing World. Strategic Management Journal, v. 32, n. 11, p. 1243-1250, 2011.
• HELFAT, C. E.; PETERAF, M. A. Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, v. 36, n. 6, p. 831-850, 2015.
• HERNES, T.; SCHULTZ, M. Translating the Distant into the Present: How actors address distant past and future events through situated activity. Organization Theory, v.1, n. 1, p. 1-20, 2020.
• HOOPS, D. G.; MADSEN, T. L. A capability-based view of competitive heterogeneity. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 17, n. 3, p. 393-426, 2008.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P. Strategy-as-practice: Recursiveness, adaptation and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, v. 24, n. 3, p. 489-520, 2004.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P. An Activity-Based Approach London, UK: Thousand Oaks, 2005.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P.; BALOGUN, J.; SEIDL, D. Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, v. 60, n. 1, p. 5-27, 2007.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P.; SEIDL, D. The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy, Organization Studies, v. 29, n. 1, p. 1391-1426, 2008.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P.; WHITTINGTON. Shaping Strategy as a Structuration Process. Academy of Management Journal, v. 51, n. 4, p. 621-650, 2008.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P.; SPEE, A. P. Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, v. 11, n. 1, p. 69-95, 2009.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P.; KAPLAN, S. Taking “strategy-as-practice” across the Atlantic. In: Baum, J. A. C.; Lampel, J. Advances in Strategy Management - v. 27, The Globalization of Strategy Research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2010. p. 51-71. 2010.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P. A.; LÊ, J. K.; FELDMAN, M. S. Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, v. 23, n. 1, p. 907-927, 2012.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P.; LÊ, J.; SPEE, P. Taking a Strong Process Approach to Analyzing Qualitative Data. In Ann Langley, Haridimos Tsoukas (Eds): The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies, London; Thousand Oaks, California; New Delhi; Singapore: Sage Publishing. 2016.
• JARZABKOWSKI, P. ; LÊ, J. ; BALOGUN, J. The social practice of coevolving strategy and structure to realize mandated radical change. Academy of Management Journal, v. 62, n. 3, p. 850-882, 2019.
• JEPPERSON, R.; Meyer, J. W. Multiple levels of analysis and the limitations of methodological individualisms. Sociological Theory, v. 29, n. 1, p. 54-73, 2011.
• JOHNSON, G.; MELIN, L.; WHITTINGTON. R. Micro-strategy and strategizing towards an activity-based view. Journal of Management Studies, v. 40, n. 1, p. 3-22, 2003.
• JOHNSON, G.; LANGLEY, A.; MELIN, L.; WHITTINGTON, R. The Practice of Strategy: Research directions and resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
• KEARNEY, A., HARRINGTON, D., KELLIHER, F. Strategizing in the micro firm: A ‘strategy as practice’ framework. Industry and Higher Education, 33(1), p. 6-17, 2019
• KING, A. Thinking with Bourdieu Against Bourdieu: A ‘Practical’ Critique of the Habitus, Sociological Theory, v. 18, n. 3, p. 417-433, 2000.
• KOUAMÉ, S.; LANGLEY, A. Relating microprocesses to macro-outcomes in qualitative strategy process and practice research. Strategic Management Journal, v. 39, n. 3, p. 559-581, 2018.
• LAZARSFELD, P. F.; MENZEL, H. On the Relation Between Individual and Collective Properties. In A. Etzioni (eds), A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
• MANTERE, S. Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity. Strategic Organization, v.3, n. 2, p. 157-84, 2005.
• MARCH, J. G.; Simon, H. A. Organizations New York: Wiley, 1958.
• MILLER, K. D.; PENTLAND, B. T.; CHOI, S. Dynamics of performing and remembering organizational routines. Journal of Management Studies, v. 49, n. 8, p. 1536-58, 2012.
• NICOLINI, D. Practice Theory, Work and Organization Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
• NONAKA, I.; HIROSE, A.; TAKEDA, Y. ‘Meso’-Foundations of dynamic capabilities: Team-Level Synthesis and Distributed Leadership as the Source of Dynamic Creativity. Global Strategy Journal, v. 6, n. 3, p. 168-182, 2016.
• PASCALE, R.T. Surfing the edge of chaos. Sloan Management Review, Spring, p. 83-94. 1999.
• PETERAF, M. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, v. 14, n. 3, p. 179-191, 1993.
• PETERAF, M.; DI STEFANO, G.; VERONA, G. The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strategic Management Journal, v. 34, n. 12, p. 1389-1410, 2013.
• PETERAF, M.; TSOUKAS, H. Rethinking dynamic capabilities: How differences in understanding the dynamic capabilities construct may be reconciled through process research. In J. Sandberg, L. Rouleau, A. Langley, and H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Skillful Performance: Enacting Capabilities, Knowledge, Competence, and Expertise in Organizations, p. 160-183. Oxford University Press, 2017.
• PETRICEVIC, O.; TEECE, D. The structural reshaping of globalization: Implications for strategic sectors, profiting from innovation, and the multinational enterprise, Journal of International Business Studies v. 50, n. 9, p. 1487-1512, 2019.
• PETTIGREW, A. M.; WOODMAN, R. W.; CAMERON, K. S. Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, v. 44, n. 4, p. 697-713, 2001.
• PISANO, G. In Search of Dynamic Capabilities: The Origins of R&D Competence in Biopharmaceuticals. In Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. (Eds.), The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, p. 129-154. Nova York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• POPPER, K. The Open Society and its Enemies London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957.
• POWELL, T. C.; LOVALLO, D.; FOX, C. R. Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, v. 32, n. 13, p. 1369-1386, 2011.
• POWELL, W. W.; RERUP, C. Opening the black box: The microfoundations of institutions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, and R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2017.
• REGNÉR, P. Strategy creation and change in complexity adaptive and creative learning dynamics in the firm Institute of International Business, Stockholm School of Economics (IIB), 1999.
• REGNÉR, P. Strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities: steps towards a dynamic view of strategy. Human Relations, v. 61, n.4, p. 565-588, 2008.
• REGNÉR P. Relating Strategy-as-Practice to the resource-based view, capabilities perspectives and the micro-foundations approach. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, and E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy-as-Practice, p. 301-316. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
• ROULEAU, L. Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving. Journal of Management Studies, v. 42, p. 1413-1441, 2005.
• ROULEAU, L.; BALOGUN, J. Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence. Journal of Management Studies, v. 48, n. 5, p. 953-983, 2011.
• SALVATO, C. The role of micro-strategies in the engineering of firm evolution. Journal of Management Studies, v. 40, n.1, p. 83-108, 2003.
• SALVATO, C.; RERUP, C. Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, v. 37, n.2, p. 468-490, 2011.
• SAMRA-FREDERICKS, D. Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic direction. Journal of Management Studies, v. 40, n.1, p. 141-174, 2003.
• SCHATZKI, T.R. The Site of the Social University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002.
• SEGRE, S. Ethnomethodology in Italy. Sociological Theory, v. 22, n.4, p. 647-661, 2004.
• SEIDL, D.; WHITTINGTON, R. Enlarging the Strategy-as-Practice Research Agenda: Towards Taller and Flatter Ontologies. Organization Studies, v. 35, n. 10, p. 1407-1421, 2014.
• SIEWEKE, J. Imitation and processes of institutionalization: Insights from Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Schmalenbach Business Review, v. 66, n.1, p. 24-42, 2014.
• SMETS, M.; JARZABKOWSKI, P.; Burke, G. T.; SPEE, P. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, v. 58, n.3, p. 932-970, 2015.
• SMIRCICH, L.; STUBBART, C. Strategic Management in an Enactecd World. Academy of Management Review, v. 10, n. 4, p. 724-736, 1985.
• STANDER, K.; PRETORIUS, M. The next step in the strategy-as-practice evolution: A comparative typology matrix. Acta Commercii - Independent Research Journal in the Management Sciences; v. 16, n. 1, p. 1-11, 2016.
• SURACHAIKULWATTANA, P.; PHILLIPS, N. Creating the British academic health science centres: Understanding the microfoundations of the translation of organizational forms. In P. Haack, J. Sieweke, and L. Wessel. (Eds.), Microfoundations of institutions, v. 65(B), p. 273-296. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2020.
• SZTOMPKA, P. Society in Action: The theory of social becoming Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.
• SZULANSKI, G., Porac, J.; DOZ, Y. The challenge of strategy process research. Advances in Strategic Management, v. 22, n. xiii-xxxvi, 2005.
• TEECE, D. J.; PISANO, G.; SHUEN, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, v. 8, n.7, p. 509-533, 1997.
• TEECE, D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, v. 28, n.1, p. 1319-1350, 2007.
• TEECE, D. J. Dynamic Capabilities & Strategic Management Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
• TEECE, D. Dynamic Capabilities: A guide for managers. Ivey Business Journal, v. 75, n. 2, p. 29-33, 2011.
• TEECE, D. J. Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, v. 49, n. 8, p. 1395-1401, 2012.
• TEECE, D. J. A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 4, n. 1, p. 8-37, 2014.
• TEECE, D.J. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, v. 51, n. 1, p. 40-49, 2017.
• THORNTON, P. H; OCASIO, W.; LOUNSBURY, M. The Institutional Logics Perspective - A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
• TSOUKAS, H.; KNUDSEN, C. The conduct of strategy research. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas; R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Management: 413-437. London: SAGE, 2002.
• VAARA, E.; WHITTINGTON, R. Strategy as practice: Taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management Annals, v. 6, n. 1, p. 285-336, 2012.
• WAKEHAM, J. Bullshit as a Problem of Social Epistemology, Sociological Theory, v. 35, n. 1, p. 15-38, 2017.
• WHITTINGTON, R. Strategy-as-practice. Long Range Planning, v. 29, n. 1, p. 731-735, 1996.
• WHITTINGTON, R. Practice perspectives on strategy: unifying and developing a field. Academy of Management Conference Proceedings, Denver, August, 2002.
• WHITTINGTON, R. Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, v. 27, n. 5, p. 613-634, 2006.
• WHITTINGTON, R. Strategy practice and strategy process: Family differences and the sociological eye. Organization Studies, v. 28, n. 10, p. 1575-1586, 2007.
• WHITTINGTON, R. Strategy as practice, process and institution: Converging on activity. In A. Langley and H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies, p. 387-401. London, England: Sage, 2017.
• WHITTINGTON, R. Opening strategy: Professional strategists and practice change, 1960 to Today Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2019.
• WHITTINGTON, R.; YAKIS-DOUGLAS, B. The Grand Challenge of Corporate Control: Opening strategy to the normative pressures of networked professional. Organization Theory v. 1, n.4, p. 1-19, 2020.
• WILDEN, R.; DEVINNEY, T. M.; DOWLING, G. R. The Architecture of Dynamic Capability Research: Identifying the Building Blocks of a Configurational Approach. Academy of Management Annals, v. 10, n.1, p. 997-1076, 2016.
• WILHELM, H.; SCHLOMER, M.; MAURER, I. How dynamic capabilities affect the effectiveness and efficiency of operating routines under high and low levels of environmental dynamism. British Academy of Management, v. 26, n. 2, p. 327-345, 2015.
• WINTER, S. G. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, v. 24, n. 10, p. 991-995, 2003.
• WÓJCIK, P. Paradoxical nature of dynamic capabilities research: a content analysis of literature. Baltic Journal of Management, v. 15, n. 5, p. 727-755, 2020.
• WOOLDRIDGE, B.; FLOYD, S. The Strategy Process, Middle Management Involvement, and Organizational Performance, Strategic Management Journal, v. 11, n. 3, p. 231-241, 1990.
• ZAHRA, S.; GEORGE, G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, v. 27, n. 2, p. 185-203, 2002.
• ZILBER, T. B. The methodology/theory interface: Ethnography and the microfoundations of institutions. Organization Theory, v. 1, n. 2, p. 1-27, 2020.
• ŽITKIENĖ, R.; KAZLAUSKIENĖ, E.; DEKSNYS, M. Dynamic capabilities for service Innovation. MIC 2015 - Management Internacional Conference Portoroz, Slovenia 28-30may, 2015.
• ZOLLO, M.; WINTER, S. G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, v. 13, n. 3, p. 339-351, 2002.
• ZUCKER, L. G.; SCHILKE, O. Towards a theory of micro-institutional processes: Forgotten roots, links to social-psychological research, and new ideas. In P. Haack, J. Sieweke, and L. Wessel. (Eds.), Microfoundations of Institutions, v. 65(B), p. 371-389, 2020.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  21 Apr 2023
• Date of issue
  Jan-Apr 2023

History

• Received
  07 Feb 2021
• Accepted
  13 Sept 2022