Abstract
From the Coeditors: Robert David, Luca Berchicci, Glen Dowell, Ann Langley, Tim Rowley
The concept of configuration emerged in the 1970s and 1980s as a cornerstone of research in strategic organization, with scholars drawing on it to conceptualize patterns of strategy and structure (Miles and Snow, 1978; Meyer et al., 1993), to develop strategic taxonomies (Miller and Friesen, 1978; Miller, 1986), and to identify strategic groups within specific industries (McGee and Thomas, 1986). However, because of new theoretical preoccupations, or perhaps in part because of methodological limitations (Ketchen and Shook, 1996), configurational thinking appeared to fade somewhat during the 1990s and early 2000s.
But configurations are back! Two manifestations of this, one more methodological, and one more phenomenological are evident in the literature. On the one hand, the emergence of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) techniques has renewed interest in configurations, and offered novel ways to isolate and analyse them (Fiss, 2011; Misangyi et al., 2017) with applications to strategy and organization theory (Fainshmidt et al., 2017; Greckhamer et al., 2008; Soda and Furnari, 2012; Misangyi, 2016). On the other, the popular notion of the “business model” (Baden-Fuller and Mangematin, 2013; Zott and Amit, 2013), in which organizational components are viewed as forming interconnected systems for strategically delivering value, clearly embodies configurational thinking, but in a rather different way than in earlier decades.
The So!apbox Forum in the current issue of Strategic Organization is composed of four essays, beginning with a challenging question from Danny Miller (one of the authors most closely associated with the early development of the configurational perspective): Although we have a renewed repertoire of methods for getting at configurations, where actually are the configurations? In other words, has the emphasis on techniques (new and old) hidden from view the promised “rich characterizations” of organizational functioning that the configurational approach should be providing if it is to be useful and insightful?
The other essays in the set build on or respond to this challenge. Karl Täuscher focuses on the business model as an exemplar of a configurational concept, and discusses how two different methodologies – QCA and systems dynamics – hold promise for better understanding their internal dynamics and the way in which business models can deliver value.
In their essay, Thomas Greckhamer, Peer Fiss, Santi Furnari and Ruth Aguilera respond directly to Danny Miller’s provocation concerning the pros and cons of QCA and other methods, while at the same time offering a terrific service to scholars in the field in the form of a primer on best practices for using QCA in strategy and organization research. Their essay is followed by a short rejoinder by Danny Miller that takes up some of the knottier issues raised in Greckhamer et al.’s answer to his initial challenge.
The final essay in the set by Bob Hinings, a scholar who has always favored theoretically grounded perspectives on configurations (Meyer et al., 1993; Hinings and Greenwood, 1988), brings us full circle. Stepping back from the methodological debate, Hinings asks “What are configurations for?” He reminds us that configurations are important only to the extent that they offer valuable theoretical insight beyond alternative perspectives. He identifies three ways in which configurational thinking may contribute to scholarship in strategic organization, and looks ahead to future applications. He asks amongst other things, how organizational configurations of the digital age build on or differ from the bureaucratic forms of the past.
We hope that this interesting and informative set of essays will stimulate and challenge a new generation of configurational thinkers.