IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/trn/utwpem/2013-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Resilience and specialization in volatile environments:evidence from the Italian Air Force Tornado crews learning practices

Author

Listed:
  • M. Laura Frigotto
  • Marco Zamarian

Abstract

The link between specialization and resilience in the organizational design literature is oftentimes characterized as a trade-off: either organizations attune their structures to a narrow class of external stimuli, or they choose the ability to manage a wide variety of inputs, thus increasing their ability to survive. Mixed behaviours are typically described in terms of compromise and lack of coherence. In this paper, we study the reliable and robust actions implemented in a volatile environment: we analysed the flying abilities and learning paths of pilots in the Italian Air Force. We show that in order to provide reliability and robustness, both high specialization and broad scope systems are required; expertise and learning are built across these areas which are traditionally described as segregated. In fact, the usefulness of such systems rests on their capability to buy time for processing and for finding appropriate or new solutions in volatile situation.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Laura Frigotto & Marco Zamarian, 2013. "Resilience and specialization in volatile environments:evidence from the Italian Air Force Tornado crews learning practices," DEM Discussion Papers 2013/17, Department of Economics and Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:trn:utwpem:2013/17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.unitn.it/files/download/27419/demdp2013_17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    3. Heiner, Ronald A, 1983. "The Origin of Predictable Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 560-595, September.
    4. Jerker Denrell & James G. March, 2001. "Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 523-538, October.
    5. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    6. Dvora Yanow & Haridimos Tsoukas, 2009. "What is Reflection‐In‐Action? A Phenomenological Account," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1339-1364, December.
    7. Karlene H. Roberts, 1990. "Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 160-176, May.
    8. Wesley M. Cohen & Daniel A. Levinthal, 1994. "Fortune Favors the Prepared Firm," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 227-251, February.
    9. Brian T. Pentland & Martha S. Feldman, 2005. "Organizational routines as a unit of analysis," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 14(5), pages 793-815, October.
    10. Kantur, Deniz & İşeri-Say, Arzu, 2012. "Organizational resilience: A conceptual integrative framework," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 762-773, November.
    11. Ronald Heiner, 1990. "Rule-governed behavior in evolution and human society," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 19-46, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mittone, Luigi & Morreale, Azzurra & Ritala, Paavo, 2024. "Initial conditions and path dependence in explorative and exploitative learning: An experimental study," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Vikas A. Aggarwal & Hart E. Posen & Maciej Workiewicz, 2017. "Adaptive capacity to technological change: A microfoundational approach," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 1212-1231, June.
    3. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    4. Hart E. Posen & Dirk Martignoni & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2013. "E Pluribus Unum: Organizational Size and the Efficacy of Learning," DRUID Working Papers 13-09, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    5. Oliver Baumann, 2015. "Models of complex adaptive systems in strategy and organization research," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 14(2), pages 169-183, November.
    6. Christina Fang & Jeho Lee & Melissa A. Schilling, 2010. "Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 625-642, June.
    7. Böhling, Kathrin, 2009. "Symbolic knowledge at work: Comitology and learning from experts in European technology policy [Symbolisches Wissen in der europäischen Technologiepolitik: Experten, Lernen und das Ausschusswesen]," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2009-301, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    8. Ning Jia, 2019. "Corporate innovation strategy and disclosure policy," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 253-288, January.
    9. Luciana D’Adderio, 2014. "The Replication Dilemma Unravelled: How Organizations Enact Multiple Goals in Routine Transfer," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1325-1350, October.
    10. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    11. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    12. Jia, Ning, 2018. "Corporate innovation strategy and stock price crash risk," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 155-173.
    13. Stephan Billinger & Kannan Srikanth & Nils Stieglitz & Terry R. Schumacher, 2021. "Exploration and exploitation in complex search tasks: How feedback influences whether and where human agents search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 361-385, February.
    14. Mooweon Rhee & Tohyun Kim, 2015. "Great Vessels Take a Long Time to Mature: Early Success Traps and Competences in Exploitation and Exploration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 180-197, February.
    15. Sunkee Lee, 2019. "Learning-by-Moving: Can Reconfiguring Spatial Proximity Between Organizational Members Promote Individual-level Exploration?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 467-488, May.
    16. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Antti Ainamo, 1999. "The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms in the Fashion Industry: A Historical and Comparative Study of France, Italy, and the United States," Post-Print hal-01892019, HAL.
    17. Marios Kokkodis, 2023. "Adjusting Skillset Cohesion in Online Labor Markets: Reputation Gains and Opportunity Losses," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 1245-1258, September.
    18. James H. Moore & Matthew S. Kraatz, 2011. "Governance Form and Organizational Adaptation: Lessons from the Savings and Loan Industry in the 1980s," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 850-868, August.
    19. Daniella Laureiro-Martínez & Stefano Brusoni & Nicola Canessa & Maurizio Zollo, 2015. "Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 319-338, March.
    20. Phanish Puranam & Murali Swamy, 2016. "How Initial Representations Shape Coupled Learning Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 323-335, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:trn:utwpem:2013/17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: roberto.gabriele@unitn.it (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detreit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.