Creative Action: Rethinking dynamic capabilities

Reference: MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R., & Seidl, D. (2015). Rethinking dynamic capabilities from a creative action perspective. Strategic Organization, 13(4), 340-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015593274

Abstract: Dynamic capabilities research aims to explain how firms manage to change in order to sustain their competitive advantage. Yet, despite considerable progress, dynamic capabilities theorizing struggles to capture novelty, which lies at the heart of change. We argue that this is caused by inherent limitations of the ways in which human action has been conceptualized: dynamic capabilities theorizing to date is based on rational or normative notions of actions, neither of which account for novelty in action. Hence, we propose that to overcome this impasse dynamic capabilities research needs to incorporate a concept of creative action into its theoretical apparatus. We elaborate on the positioning of creative action relative to existing dynamic capabilities theorizing and outline its implications for future dynamic capabilities research.

My comments: This is a very strong essay that sets to go beyond the rational/normative accounts of human action in regard to creativity. Reading work from across disciplines often leads us to important sources that are very relevant to what we do, yet we had never heard of. This paper introduced me to the work of Hans Joas, in particular his 1996 book "The Creativity of Action", which I now look forward to reading soon as it turns out framed a situationalist view of creativity. The paper by MacLean et al. is also a good model for papers of this type: it presents a clear and well-informed account of the limitations of the current paradigm on dynamic capabilities (DC), and then clearly presents an alternative way of defining these when one considers Emerging intention, Embodied expression, and Interactive identity formation, the three components of creative action. Based on these three ideas, the authors follow lines of inferences that lead to novel ways of understanding DC. The final section on "Implications" is well-presented and includes research questions as well as decisions on research methods. The paper is of a conceptual nature, and its methodology is rhetorics.