Resumo

It is difficult to overstate the positive outcomes Dynamic Capabilities (DCs) produce in firms, however, how they are formed and what leads to them is still not fully understood. A key component part of DCs is their idiosyncratic and pervasive nature throughout the firm, in implicit and explicit routines. In much the same way, corporate culture is present in every aspect of the firm. DCs must operate in a climate fostered by corporate culture. As such we propose typologies of corporate culture constitute a condition of DCs.

We set out to understand which combinations of corporate culture's dimensions, as configurations, constitute a condition to the presence of DCs. The connection between corporate culture and DCs is still virtually nonexistent, particularly when considering configurational approaches that highlight the interconnectedness of the dimensions of corporate culture. At the end of this article, we aim to understand, as well, if these configurations are common across industrial and service sectors, or, alternatively, heterogeneous. This leads to a greater depth of understanding of how DCs are formed.

This article is squarely situated in the resource-based view, with DCs being significant resources of the firm. However, DCs are a particular resource due to their intangibility and idiosyncrasy. Corporate culture shares these characteristics. Corporate culture has the additional feature of its typology and effects being dependent on, not necessarily the sum of its parts, but the configuration in which its several dimensions are present or absent. The merging of theory and methodology, together with an important avenue of research remaining understudied is, in this manner, merged.

We issued a survey by questionnaire to internationalized Portuguese SMEs, of the industry and service sector. We then begin a fsQCA analysis, starting with the calibrating procedures. Next, we perform a necessity analysis of the presence and absence of the dimensions of corporate culture as conditions. After, we perform a sufficiency analysis, where configurations are identified. We also perform a sensitivity analysis, and predictive validity analysis, to ensure the quality of our results. Finally, the sufficiency analysis is extended by dividing the sample into the mentioned sectors.

Our results indicate that no single dimension is necessary. Some are more relevant than others, specifically, pragmatism and result orientation. Additionally, different conditions and their opposites are present in different configurations, indicating the suitability of a set-theoretic approach, interconnectedness of corporate culture's dimensions, and that, for these purposes, no further aggregation of dimensions should be made. Different configurations are identified, such that 2 are specific to each sector, and three are common across sectors. High consistency is found throughout.

Corporate culture typologies are indeed a meaningful predictor of the presence of DCs, indicating the validity of our proposal. Furthermore, different configurations are found in service and industry sectors, but there are also common configurations. Certain cultural dimensions appear in some configurations, in others, their opposites, highlighting the interconnected nature of corporate culture. Fundamentally, this highlights that more than the presence of one or other dimension, it is the configuration of several dimensions constituting a cultural typology that drives DCs' presence.

Schilke, O. (2014). Second-order dynamic capabilities: How do they matter? Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 368–380. Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases. In Source: Administrative Science Quarterly (Vol. 35, Issue 2).