In this article, I view the dynamic capabilities of a social venture by examining organizational spaces through the means of qualitative engagement. Through the explication of one such organizational space, the WCB Bank, dynamic capability is understood as inhering in the purpose, the constructed memory and selves of human actors in the organization, and the collective endeavours that make the organization through deliberative processes. Such a view of organizations, while transcending the nuance of resources, provides an idea of capability as emerging from the varied meanings that human actors make in organizations. An understanding of these meanings leads to comprehending dynamic capabilities as epistemological elements which lead to accessing the knowledge of the organization for the moment.
AlvessonM. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 13–33.
2.
BettiE. (1990). Hermeneutics as the general methodology of the Geisteswissenschaften. In OrmistonG., & SchriftA. (Eds.), The hermeneutic tradition (pp. 159–197). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
3.
BickerstaffK., & WalkerG. (2005). Shared visions, unholy alliances: Power, governance, and deliberative processes in local transport planning. Urban Studies, 42(12), 2123–2144.
4.
BurgessJ. (2006). Participatory action research: First person perspectives of a graduate student. Action Research, 4(4), 419–437.
5.
ButlerA., FordD., & TregaskisC. (2007). Who do we think we are? Self and reflexivity in social work practice. Qualitative Social Work, 6(3), 281–299.
6.
ChattopadhyayG. (1985). Some speculations on the unconscious roots of organisational culture. Management and Labour Studies, 10(4), 169–183.
7.
ChattopadhyayG. (1998). A fresh look at authority and organisation: Towards a spiritual approach for managing illusion. In RobertF. & VinceR. (Eds.), Group relations, organisation and management. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
CollinsH. (2007). Bicycling on the moon: Collective tacit knowledge and somatic limit tacit knowledge. Organisation Studies, 28(2), 257–262.
9.
DanneelsE. (2010). Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strategic Management Journal, 32(1), 1–31.
10.
FreedA. F. (1999). Reviewed work: Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self by Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz. Language in Society, 28(2), 301–304.
11.
JensenC., & LauritsenP. (2005). Qualitative research as partial connection: Bypassing the power, knowledge nexus. Qualitative Research, 5(1), 59–77.
12.
KearnsA., & ForrestR. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125–2143.
13.
MathurA. N. (2003). Who owns traditional knowledge?Frontiers of e-Business Research, 2(1), 295–314.
14.
MillerE., & RiceA. (1967). Systems of organisations: The control of task and sentient boundaries. London, UK: Tavistock Publications.
15.
MillerL. C., & TaylorJ. (2006). The constructed self: Strategic and aesthetic choices in autobiographical performance. In MadisonD. S. & HameraJ. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of performance studies (pp. 169–187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Elsevier B.V.
16.
NoorderhavenN. (2004). Hermeneutic methodology and international business research. In Marschan-PiekkariR. & WelchC. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
17.
PotterJ., & WetherellM. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
18.
PrasadA. (2002). The contest over meaning: Hermeneutics as an interpretive methodology for understanding texts. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 12–33.
19.
PrasadA., & MirR. (2002). Digging deep for meaning: A critical hermeneutic analysis of CEO letters to shareholders in the oil industry. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 92–116.
20.
QuinnR. E., & ThakorA. V. (2018). Creating a purpose-driven organization: How to get employees to bring their smarts and energy to work. Harvard Business Review, 96(4), 78–86.
21.
RicoeurP. (1980). Existence and hermeneutics. In BleicherJ. (Eds.), Contemporary hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as method, philosophy and critique (pp. 236–256). London, UK: Routledge.
22.
RoyK., & KhokleP. W. (2016). Staged development of dynamic capabilities: A study of international joint ventures in India. Thunderbird International Business Review, 58(6), 537–554.
23.
SchacterD. L., & AddisD. R. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: Remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 773–786.
24.
SiggelkowN. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 20–24.
25.
SridharanV. (2015). Conscious belief as constructed memory: An empirical challenge to dispositionalism. Mind and Society, 14(1), 21–33.
26.
TeeceD. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations, of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
27.
WeickK. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Michigan, USA: Random House.
28.
WhiteA., Yakis-DouglasB., Helanummi-ColeH., & VentrescaM. (2017). Purpose-led organization: “Saint Antony” Reflects on the idea of organizational purpose, in principle and practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(1), 101–107.
29.
WhitleyR. (2003). The institutional structuring of organisational capabilities: The role of authority sharing and organisational careers. Organisation Studies, 24(5), 667–695.
30.
YinR. K., & HealdK. A. (1975). Using the case survey method to analyze policy studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 371–381. doi: 10.2307/2391997.
31.
ZolloM., & WinterS. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.
