In this commentary, we propose that two communication practices, information allocation and collective reflexivity, are dynamic capabilities that help develop a firm’s long-term viability. The concept that an organization’s actions or inaction constrain or enhance its future options and outcomes and—ultimately—its long-term survival, is the organization’s viability. We discuss two facilitating conditions—presence awareness and organizational identification—and three organizational issues influencing the two communication practices that affect organizational viability—organizational members’ perceived environmental uncertainty, organizational members’ perceived scarcity of time, and feedback cycles between actions and outcomes that shape and are shaped by their temporal focus.
ArgyrisC.SchönD. A. (1996). Organizational learning II. Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
AshbyW. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London, England: Chapman & Hall.
3.
BallardD. I.SeiboldD. R. (2003). Communicating and organizing in time. A meso-level model of organizational temporality. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 380-415.
4.
BallardD. I.SeiboldD. R. (2006). The experience of time at work: Relationship to communication load, job satisfaction, and interdepartmental communication. Communication Studies, 57, 317-340.
5.
BargeK. J. (2004). Reflexivity and managerial practice. Communication Monographs, 71(1), 70-96.
6.
BargeK. J.LeeM.MadduxK.NabringR.TownsendB. (2008). Managing dualities in planned change initiatives. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 364-390.
7.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
8.
BeebeS. A.BeebeS. J.IvyD. K. (2006). Communication: Principles for a lifetime (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
ClampittP. G.WilliamsM. L. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring how employees and organizations manage uncertainty. Communication Research Reports, 22, 315-324.
10.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
11.
CravottaR.KleinerB. H. (2001). New developments concerning reductions in force. Management Research News, 24(3/4), 90-93.
12.
CrossanM.CunhaM. P.VeraD.CunhaJ. (2005). Time and organizational improvisation. Academy of Management Review, 30, 129-145.
13.
D’AlessioM.GuarinoA.De PascalisV.ZimbardoP. G. (2003). Testing Zimbardo’s Stanford Time Perspective Inventory (STPI)–short form. An Italian study. Time and Society, 12, 333-347.
14.
DierickxI.CoolK. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504-1511.
15.
DosiG. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1120-1171.
16.
DubinskasF. (1988). Janus organizations: Scientists and managers in genetic engineering firms. In DubinskasF. (Ed.), Making time: Ethnographies of high-technology organizations (pp. 170-232). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
17.
EspinosaJ. A.SlaughterS. A.KrautR. E.HerbslebJ. D. (2007). Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 135-169.
18.
GranovetterM. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
19.
HarrisonD. A.PriceK. H.GavinJ. H.FloreyA. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045.
20.
HollingsheadA. B.BrandonD. P. (2003). Potential benefits of communication in transactive memory systems. Human Communication Research, 29, 607-615.
21.
HuangM. (2009). A conceptual framework of the effects of positive affect and affective relationships on group knowledge networks. Small Group Research, 40, 323-346.
22.
HuberG. P. (2004). The necessary nature of future firms: Attributes of survivors in a changing world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
KinnieN.HutchinsonS.PurcellJ. (1997). Downsizing: Is it always lean and mean?Personnel Review, 27, 296-311.
24.
LeiD.HittM. A.BettisR. (1996). Dynamic core competences through meta-learning and strategic context. Journal of Management, 22, 549-569.
25.
Leonard-BartonD. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125.
26.
LevinthalD. A.MarchJ. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95-112.
27.
ManevI. M.StevensonW. B. (2001). Balancing ties: Boundary spanning and influence in the organization’s extended network of communication. Journal of Business Communication, 38, 183-205.
28.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploitation and exploration in organizational research. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
29.
MarroneJ. A.TeslukP. E.CarsonJ. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423-1439.
30.
McGrathJ. E.KellyJ. R. (1986). Time in human interaction: Toward a social psychology of time. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31.
PalazzoloE. T.SerbD.SheY.SuC.ContractorN. S. (2006). Co-evolution of communication and knowledge networks as transactive memory systems: Using computational models for theoretical development. Communication Theory, 16, 223-250.
32.
ParksC. D.PoseyD. C. (2005). Temporal factors in social dilemma choice behavior: Integrating interdependency and evolutionary perspectives. In StrathmanA.JoiremanJ. (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 225-242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
PeltokorpiV. (2008). Transactive memory systems. Review of General Psychology, 12, 378-394.
34.
PerlowL. A. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals, and families can benefit from work practices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
35.
RiceR. E. (2008). Unusual routines: Organizational (non)sensemaking. Journal of Communication, 58(1), 1-19.
36.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
37.
SidhuJ. S.CommandeurH. R.VolberdaH. W. (2004). Exploring exploration orientation and its determinants: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 914-932.
38.
TeeceD. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319-1350.
ThompsonJ. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
41.
WalshJ. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6, 280-321.
42.
WalshJ. P.UngstonG. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16, 57-91.
43.
WaltherJ. B.BazarovaN. N. (2008). Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35, 622-645.
44.
WegnerD. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13, 319-339.
45.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
WilliamsL. S. (2008). The mission statement. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 94-119.
47.
YuanY. C.FulkJ.MongeP. R. (2007). Access to information in connective and communal transactive memory systems. Communication Research, 34, 131-155.
48.
ZimbardoP. G.BoydN. J. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271-1288.
