abstract

Structural theories of absorptive capacity (ACAP) usually aim to specify organizational design characteristics that lead to a high level of ACAP. Drawing on the theories of organizational design and knowledge management, this paper reviews how organizational structure relates to ACAP in single and dual learning modes. This study analyzed the structure of the ACAP relationship in management and organization studies based on a literature review of ACAP research. This study contributes to the ACAP literature in five ways: (1) it investigates the role of ACAP as an independent variable; (2) it focuses on the behavioral domain of ACAP; (3) it relates structural variables to ACAP in single and dual learning modes; (4) it establishes a link between structural variables and ACAP using a two-stage model, comprising initiation and implementation stages; and (5) it predicts ACAP by identifying several testable propositions and deriving two predictive contingency models. Several propositions and two predictive contingency models are recommended as directions for future research and theory construction.

Introduction

During the past two decades, researchers have proposed a number of models and frameworks with which to analyze absorptive capacity (ACAP). The interest in ACAP has grown significantly over the past three decades, and continues to do so today (Apriliyanti & Alon, 2017; Gao, Yeoh, Wong, & Scheepers, 2017). Unfortunately, few studies capture the richness and multidimensional nature of ACAP (Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2005a), although several recent works have examined the multidimensionality of ACAP (Apriliyanti & Alon, 2017; Gao et al., 2017; Martinkenaite & Breunig, 2016). A recent review of the literature on ACAP by Gao et al. (2017) shows that ACAP is typically represented in the literature as either a dependent or an independent variable or as a mediator. Very few studies consider ACAP as an independent variable, or as mediating or moderating variables. Thus, researchers have largely ignored the organizational antecedents of ACAP, focusing instead on the outcomes of ACAP. Gao et al. (2017) find that researchers are more interested in investigating the influence of ACAP on organizational phenomena than in examining the effect of organizational phenomena on organizationalACAP. Conventionally,ACAP is perceived as the outcome of an investment in research and development, although recently, debates over its proactive dimension have begun to emerge (De Araújo Burcharth, Lettl, & Ulhøi, 2015; Gao et al., 2017). It is important that we investigate ACAP as being dependent, independent, a mediator, or a moderator, because, as argued by Cepeda-Carrion, Leal-Millán, Martelo-Landroguez, and LealRodriguez (2016), the multidimensionality of ACAP is essentially a distinct concept and, consequently, may draw on different structures, objectives, and strategies. One the other hand, Jansen et al. (2005a) argue that organizational antecedents may have differing effects on the dimensions of ACAP and, thus, may lead to different performance outcomes. Until the work of Cohen and Levinthal (1990), research had focused on technical aspect of organizations, or intellectual property (e.g., copyrights, patents, trade secrets, proprietary rights, and R&D expenditure), as the key determinants of ACAP. Then, Zahra and George (2002) began a new debate, focusing on the non-technical aspect of organizations, such as organizational capabilities and managerial practices, as the key drivers of ACAP (Ali & Park, 2016). Recently, Gao et al. (2017) categorized the domain of ACAP literature into technical and behavior aspects, and concluded that 44 of 65 studies focus on the technical domain.