Beyond the Whole: How Configurational Thinking and Causal Core-Periphery Theory Reshape Organizational Strategy
Download the article here:
Listen to a review of this article:
Abstract: Organizational typologies—such as those developed by Miles and Snow, Porter, and Mintzberg—have long served as foundational frameworks for strategic decision-making and organizational design. Yet practitioners and scholars often treat these typologies as indivisible wholes, overlooking the possibility that not all elements within a configuration are equally important. This article synthesizes and extends Fiss's (2011) perspective on causal core and periphery in organizational configurations, exploring how distinguishing between essential and peripheral elements can sharpen strategic practice. Drawing on set-theoretic methods and the concepts of equifinality and causal asymmetry, it argues that organizations pursuing high performance should move beyond holistic adherence to a single ideal type and instead identify which configurational elements actually drive outcomes. Implications for organizational design, strategic change, and competitive positioning are discussed, with illustrations from financial services, apparel, newspaper publishing, contact lenses, and software. Evidence-based responses and forward-looking pillars for building configurational intelligence are offered for practitioners and researchers.
If you have ever sat in a strategy workshop and heard someone describe your organization as a "Defender" or a "Prospector," you have encountered typological thinking in action. These labels, drawn from the Miles and Snow (1978) framework and others like it, work as cognitive shorthand. They compress elaborate combinations of strategy, structure, and environment into tidy archetypes that managers can debate, consultants can benchmark, and researchers can test.
The trouble is that this tidiness can mislead. Doty and Glick (1994) cautioned that the apparent simplicity of typologies hides important complexities, including questions about how ideal types should be defined, measured, and tested as theories. When leaders adopt a typology wholesale—treating every element as equally critical—they risk pursuing alignment on dimensions that matter little while neglecting the conditions that genuinely separate high performers from the rest.
In a widely cited study in the Academy of Management Journal, Peer Fiss (2011) confronted this problem directly. Drawing on configurational theory and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), Fiss proposed that organizational configurations consist of a causal core—elements with strong evidence of a causal relationship to the outcome—and a periphery—elements whose causal connection to the outcome is weaker. This seemingly simple distinction carries significant consequences. It implies that multiple configurations can achieve the same performance level (equifinality), that peripheral elements may vary without altering results, and that the conditions associated with success and with its absence can differ (causal asymmetry).
The practical stakes are considerable. Organizations invest heavily in restructuring, digital transformation, and strategic pivots. Knowing which elements of a configuration actually matter can be the difference between a well-targeted intervention and an expensive distraction. This article unpacks Fiss's (2011) framework, translates configurational thinking into practical guidance, and outlines how organizations can build long-term configurational intelligence.
The Configurational Strategy Landscape
Defining Configurations, Typologies, and Causal Architecture
A configuration is a specific combination of organizational attributes—strategy, structure, and environmental context—that together relate to a particular outcome. Configurational approaches differ from simple contingency models because they treat organizational elements as interdependent bundles rather than independent variables whose effects can be isolated (Meyer et al., 1993).
A typology is a set of conceptually derived ideal types, each representing a unique combination of attributes believed to determine relevant outcomes (Doty & Glick, 1994). Well-known typologies include Miles and Snow's (1978) Prospector, Analyzer, Defender, and Reactor types; Porter's (1980) generic strategies of cost leadership, differentiation, and focus; Burns and Stalker's (1961) organic and mechanistic forms; and Mintzberg's (1983) structural configurations. Typologies differ from taxonomies, which are empirically derived, often through methods such as cluster analysis (Ketchen et al., 1993).
Fiss's (2011) causal core-periphery distinction adds theoretical precision. Core elements are causal conditions for which the evidence indicates a strong causal relationship with the outcome; peripheral elements are those for which the evidence is weaker. This definition shifts "coreness" away from an element's interconnectedness with other organizational elements, as in Hannan et al.'s (1996) work, toward its causal role relative to the outcome. In fsQCA, Fiss operationalized this by comparing solutions: conditions that appear in both the parsimonious and intermediate solutions are treated as core, while those that appear only in the intermediate solution are treated as peripheral.
Three further concepts complete the vocabulary:
Equifinality: The principle, drawn from open systems theory, that a system can reach the same final state from different starting conditions and by different paths (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In configurational terms, multiple distinct configurations can produce equally high performance (Gresov & Drazin, 1997).
Neutral permutations: Within a configuration type, different combinations of peripheral elements may surround the same core without altering the outcome. Fiss (2011) distinguished first-order equifinality, in which different core types achieve the same outcome, from second-order equifinality, in which different peripheral combinations accompany the same core.
Causal asymmetry: The conditions leading to the presence of an outcome may differ from those leading to its absence (Ragin, 2008). Correlational reasoning tends to assume symmetry—reverse the sign and you reverse the outcome—whereas set-theoretic analysis allows the two to be examined separately.
Prevalence, Drivers, and the State of Practice
Typological thinking remains deeply embedded in strategic management. The Miles and Snow (1978) typology has been examined across many industries and continues to generate research decades after its introduction (DeSarbo et al., 2005; Hambrick, 2003; Kabanoff & Brown, 2008). In an early review, Zahra and Pearce (1990) documented its widespread use while noting limitations in how its internal mechanisms had been tested, including heavy reliance on managers' self-typing.
The way typologies are used in practice often diverges from how they were intended. Archetypes are sometimes presented as blueprints to be adopted wholesale. Self-typing instruments ask respondents to identify with a single archetype, which reveals little about the causal processes within types (Zahra & Pearce, 1990). And cluster analysis, while useful for identifying groups, offers limited insight into the internal causal structure of configurations (Fiss, 2011; Short et al., 2008).
Several forces are pushing organizations toward more sophisticated configurational thinking. Digital transformation requires simultaneous changes to strategy, structure, technology, and talent, raising the question of which changes are essential. The ambidexterity imperative—balancing exploration and exploitation—demands a nuanced understanding of trade-offs within configurations (March, 1991; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). And methodological advances, particularly fsQCA (Ragin, 2008), have made it feasible to examine configurational complexity in ways that conventional regression approaches handle poorly (Fiss, 2011; Greckhamer et al., 2018; Misangyi et al., 2017).
Organizational and Individual Consequences of Configurational Misunderstanding
Organizational Performance Impacts
When leaders treat all elements of a strategic archetype as equally critical, they invite several costly errors.
First, they may pursue alignment on peripheral dimensions at the expense of core ones. In Fiss's (2011) analysis of high-technology manufacturing firms in the United Kingdom, only some of the attributes associated with the Miles and Snow types consistently appeared as core conditions for high performance, while others appeared only as peripheral conditions that could be present, absent, or traded off within otherwise similar configurations. The practical message is that some elements of an archetype carry far more causal weight than others.
Second, holistic adherence to a single archetype may obscure viable alternatives—or, conversely, overstate the viability of compromise. Fiss (2011) found that configurations resembling the hybrid Analyzer type were associated with high performance but not with very high performance, at which level configurations resembling purer Prospector or Defender types prevailed. This finding resonates with Porter's (1980, 1996) argument about the risks of being "stuck in the middle" between cost leadership and differentiation and with March's (1991) analysis of the tension between exploration and exploitation.
Third, failing to recognize causal asymmetry can lead organizations to assume that the mirror image of a success recipe is a recipe for failure. Fiss (2011) showed that the configurations associated with the absence of high performance were not simply the reverse of those associated with its presence. Diagnosing underperformance therefore requires a different analytical lens from prescribing high performance—an important point for turnaround and restructuring work.
Aggregate evidence also supports attention to configurations. A meta-analysis of 40 studies by Ketchen et al. (1997) found that organizational configurations were meaningfully related to performance, with stronger relationships when configurations were defined broadly, when samples were drawn from single industries, and when longitudinal designs were used.
Individual and Stakeholder Impacts
The consequences of configurational misunderstanding extend beyond financial metrics. When leaders restructure based on a wholesale archetype rather than a targeted analysis of core elements, disruption cascades to people throughout the organization.
Employee change fatigue. Redesigns that alter peripheral structures—reporting lines or formal procedures, for example—without addressing core strategic elements can generate substantial disruption without meaningful performance gains. Established mental models are also hard to discard: managers' cognitive frameworks can persist even when environments change (Hodgkinson, 1997), and managers may continue to categorize competitors using outdated maps (Reger & Palmer, 1996).
Customer and stakeholder misalignment. An organization that imposes a single archetype across all units may apply, for instance, tight centralization in customer-facing areas that need responsiveness, with consequences for service quality and innovation.
Talent mismatch. A firm that believes it must adopt every element of a given profile may recruit, structure, and reward people in ways that fit the archetype rather than the conditions actually driving performance, narrowing its talent pool unnecessarily.
Evidence-Based Organizational Responses
Table 1: Configurational Responses, Practices, and Illustrative Examples
Response | Core Idea (Fiss, 2011) | Key Practices | Illustrative Example |
Configurational diagnosis | Distinguish core from peripheral conditions | Map the property space; calibrate against external benchmarks; analyze sufficiency and asymmetry | Fiss's (2011) analysis of U.K. high-technology firms |
Designing for equifinality | Multiple configurations can achieve the same outcome | Offer configurational menus; specify non-negotiable core; pilot peripheral variations | Vanguard's core activities and elaborating elements (Siggelkow, 2002) |
Managing causal asymmetry in change | Recipes for success and its absence differ | Separate turnaround from growth diagnostics; sequence change around core conditions | Liz Claiborne's misfit and renewal (Siggelkow, 2001) |
Navigating the ambidexterity paradox | Hybrids may support good but not exceptional performance | Match ambidexterity to aspirations; separate exploration and exploitation structurally | USA Today and Ciba Vision (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2004) |
Building configurational intelligence | Set-theoretic methods reveal combinations, not just net effects | Train teams in set-theoretic reasoning; use calibrated measures; apply QCA to multi-unit data | QCA of business-unit performance (Greckhamer et al., 2008) |
Configurational Diagnosis: Identifying What Really Matters
The starting point for an evidence-based response is configurational diagnosis: a systematic effort to distinguish the causal core from the periphery in a specific context. Rather than asking "Which archetype are we?", leaders should ask "Which combinations of conditions are consistently associated with our target outcome?" (Fiss, 2011).
Evidence summary. Fiss (2011) demonstrated that fsQCA can decompose configurations into core and peripheral conditions by comparing parsimonious and intermediate solutions. Greckhamer et al. (2018) codified best practices for such analyses, emphasizing clear definition of the outcome, theoretically grounded selection of conditions, and calibration based on substantive knowledge rather than sample-dependent anchors.
Effective approaches:
Map the full property space: Inventory the strategic, structural, and environmental attributes relevant to the typology in use; for Miles and Snow, these include strategic orientation, formalization, centralization, complexity, size, and environmental conditions (Fiss, 2011).
Calibrate against external benchmarks: Define thresholds for "high" performance and other conditions using industry or sector benchmarks rather than sample averages, as Fiss (2011) did by benchmarking performance against sector norms.
Analyze for sufficiency, not just correlation: Identify which combinations of conditions are sufficient for the outcome, rather than only which individual variables correlate with it (Ragin, 2008).
Test for causal asymmetry: Analyze configurations associated with the presence and the absence of the desired outcome separately.
Fiss's (2011) own study serves as the clearest illustration. Using data on high-technology manufacturing firms in the United Kingdom, he calibrated measures of strategy, structure, and environment, analyzed which combinations were sufficient for high and very high performance, and identified core and peripheral conditions within each. The analysis revealed several equifinal configurations, showed that only some typology attributes were consistently core, and found asymmetry between configurations for high performance and its absence. For practitioners, the study models how to move from labeling an organization to understanding the causal architecture of its performance.
Embracing Equifinality: Designing Multiple Paths to Performance
A second response involves designing explicitly for equifinality—accepting that multiple viable configurations can exist and that insisting on a single best configuration may be counterproductive.
Evidence summary. Fiss (2011) identified multiple configurations associated with high performance, reflecting both first-order and second-order equifinality. Earlier work similarly documented equifinal configurations (Doty et al., 1993; Gresov & Drazin, 1997), and Marlin et al. (2007) found equifinality in the relationship between strategic groups and performance.
Effective approaches:
Offer configurational menus, not mandates: When rolling out strategic or structural changes, present units with proven configurations rather than a single template, specifying non-negotiable core conditions and adaptable peripheral ones.
Treat trade-offs as design features: Substitution among peripheral conditions is inherent to configurational logic, not a sign of failure.
Pilot peripheral alternatives: Test different peripheral combinations in comparable units before system-wide rollout to learn which best complement the core in each context.
The Vanguard Group, the mutual fund company, illustrates how core and elaborating elements fit together over time. In a longitudinal study, Siggelkow (2002) traced how Vanguard developed a set of core activities centered on low-cost, passively managed funds and then added elaborating elements—such as distribution choices and operational practices—that reinforced that core. Siggelkow showed that fit emerged through a process of building and elaborating around core elements rather than through simultaneous adoption of a complete blueprint. For practitioners, the lesson is that a stable core can support varied and evolving surrounding elements, provided those elements reinforce the core rather than contradict it.
Managing Causal Asymmetry in Strategic Change
A third response addresses the implications of causal asymmetry for planned change.
Evidence summary. Because the configurations associated with high performance and with its absence differ (Fiss, 2011; Ragin, 2008), reversing the conditions associated with success does not reliably predict failure, and eliminating the apparent causes of failure does not automatically produce success. Research on organizational transformation also shows that changing core elements—strategy, power distribution, structure, and control systems—tends to be a discontinuous, high-stakes undertaking (Romanelli & Tushman, 1994).
Effective approaches:
Separate turnaround diagnostics from growth diagnostics: When an organization underperforms, avoid simply adopting the "opposite" of the current configuration; analyze independently which conditions are sufficient for the desired performance.
Distinguish necessary from sufficient conditions: A condition may be necessary for high performance without being sufficient on its own; set-theoretic analysis can test both (Ragin, 2008).
Sequence change around core conditions: Because core conditions carry the strongest causal connection to outcomes, change programs should prioritize them before adjusting peripheral elements.
Liz Claiborne, the apparel company, offers a cautionary example. Siggelkow (2001) documented how the firm built a highly consistent set of activities that fit its environment well during its rise. When the environment changed—particularly as department store retailing shifted—the very tightness of that fit made adaptation difficult, contributing to a decline before the company later recovered by changing core elements of its configuration. The case shows that a configuration's strengths in one environment can become liabilities in another, and that recovery required rethinking core choices rather than simply reversing what had worked before.
Microsoft offers a more recent illustration. After becoming chief executive in 2014, Satya Nadella emphasized a shift toward cloud computing and a culture built on a growth mindset, describing the transformation as a renewal of the company's core identity and purpose (Nadella et al., 2017). Read through a configurational lens, the effort focused first on core elements of strategy and culture, while many structural details evolved over time.
Navigating the Ambidexterity Paradox
A fourth response applies configurational thinking to ambidexterity—pursuing exploration and exploitation simultaneously.
Evidence summary. Fiss's (2011) finding that hybrid Analyzer-like configurations were associated with high but not very high performance has implications for the ambidexterity literature (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). It suggests that blending exploration and exploitation within a single configuration may be sufficient for good outcomes but insufficient for exceptional ones—a hypothesis that warrants further testing across industries.
Effective approaches:
Calibrate ambidexterity to performance aspirations: A balanced configuration may suffice for solid performance; exceptional performance may require committing more fully to a clear core.
Separate exploration and exploitation structurally or temporally: Rather than blending them within one unit, consider separate units with distinct configurations, integrated at the senior level, or alternation over time.
Monitor the performance threshold: Reassess periodically whether a hybrid configuration remains adequate as competitive intensity changes.
O'Reilly and Tushman (2004) described organizations that pursued ambidexterity through structural separation. At USA Today, for example, the newspaper created a separate unit for its online business with its own processes, structures, and culture, while integrating it with the print operation at the senior management level. At Ciba Vision, the contact lens maker established separate units to pursue breakthrough innovations alongside its established business. In their study, structurally separated designs were more successful at producing breakthrough innovations without harming existing businesses than cross-functional teams, unsupported teams, or functional designs. These cases illustrate how organizations can preserve relatively coherent configurations within units while pursuing different strategic logics across them.
Building Configurational Intelligence Through Set-Theoretic Methods
The fifth response involves investing in analytical capabilities for ongoing configurational analysis.
Evidence summary. Fiss (2011) showed that fsQCA can identify core and peripheral conditions, model equifinality, and analyze causal asymmetry. A broader "neo-configurational" perspective has since emerged, emphasizing causal complexity—conjunction, equifinality, and asymmetry—as central to organizational analysis (Misangyi et al., 2017). Set-theoretic methods have been applied to questions ranging from foreign direct investment (Pajunen, 2008) to the institutional foundations of export performance (Schneider et al., 2010).
Effective approaches:
Train strategy teams in set-theoretic reasoning: Even without specialized software, the logic of necessary and sufficient conditions, combined causes, and asymmetry can be applied qualitatively.
Adopt calibrated measurement: Replace sample-dependent anchors with externally meaningful thresholds for key strategic dimensions (Ragin, 2008).
Integrate QCA into strategic reviews: Organizations with multi-unit data—franchise systems, multi-site providers, global manufacturers—can use QCA to identify which combinations of conditions are consistently associated with top performance.
Greckhamer et al. (2008) demonstrated this kind of application by using QCA to examine how combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit attributes related to business-unit performance. Rather than estimating the separate contribution of each level, they showed that high performance arose from different combinations of conditions—insights that conventional variance decomposition approaches could not reveal. For organizations with portfolios of units, the same logic can show leaders which combinations of conditions, rather than which individual practices, distinguish their best performers.
Building Long-Term Configurational Resilience
Recalibrating the Psychological Contract Around Strategic Flexibility
If configurational thinking teaches one lesson, it is that peripheral elements can change while the core remains stable. Organizations that internalize this insight can recalibrate expectations with employees, emphasizing adaptability rather than structural permanence. Rather than implying that every structure is fixed, leaders can communicate which core elements define the organization's identity and which peripheral elements are expected to evolve.
Romanelli and Tushman (1994) characterized core elements of organizations as strategy, power distribution, structure, and control systems, changes to which constitute fundamental transformation. When leaders make clear which commitments are core and which arrangements are adaptable, employees can anchor their sense of purpose in the durable core while treating peripheral adjustments as normal adaptation rather than signs of strategic confusion.
Developing Distributed Configurational Leadership
Configurational intelligence should not reside solely with senior executives. Because different equifinal configurations may suit different units, product lines, or geographies (Fiss, 2011), organizations benefit from a distributed model in which unit leaders can select among viable peripheral combinations while maintaining fidelity to the core.
Burton and Obel (2004) emphasized that organizational design must address the dynamics of fit among strategy, structure, and environment. In a distributed model, the corporate center defines core conditions, establishes the range of acceptable peripheral configurations, and provides analytical tools for local leaders to assess fit. This approach preserves strategic coherence while enabling the adaptive variety that equifinality makes possible.
Investing in Continuous Configurational Learning
Configurations are not static. Fiss (2011) noted that although different permutations may be equifinal with respect to an outcome at a given time, they may not be equivalent with respect to future development, because different combinations open and close different evolutionary paths (Stadler et al., 2001).
This calls for continuous configurational learning: ongoing assessment of which elements drive current performance, how their importance is shifting, and what new configurations are emerging among competitors. Such a system might include periodic set-theoretic analyses of multi-unit data, scenario planning that models configurational alternatives, and competitive intelligence focused on rivals' configurations rather than isolated moves.
Grandori and Furnari (2008) argued that understanding which organizational elements combine productively is central to organizational design, yet theory predicting such complementarities remains underdeveloped. Continuous configurational learning lets organizations build their own evidence base about what works together—and what does not.
Conclusion
Typologies will remain a staple of strategic thinking because they offer accessible frameworks for navigating complexity. But as Fiss (2011) demonstrated, treating typologies as indivisible wholes is both theoretically limited and practically costly. The distinction between causal core and periphery turns typological thinking from a static classification exercise into an analytical tool.
For practitioners, several takeaways follow:
Diagnose before prescribing: Understand which elements of your configuration actually drive outcomes; not every attribute of an archetype matters equally.
Design for multiple paths: Treat equifinality as an asset by specifying non-negotiable core conditions while permitting peripheral adaptation.
Respect causal asymmetry: Do not assume the opposite of success is failure; analyze the presence and absence of desired outcomes separately.
Calibrate ambidexterity expectations: Hybrid configurations may support good performance, but exceptional performance may require a clearer core, potentially pursued through structurally separate units.
Build configurational intelligence: Train leaders in set-theoretic reasoning, use calibrated measurement, and make configurational analysis part of strategic review.
The shift from "Which type are we?" to "Which combinations of conditions consistently produce the outcomes we seek?" is more than a methodological refinement. It is a reorientation of how leaders think about strategy, structure, and performance—one that promises not only better theories but better-designed organizations.
Research Infographic
References
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock.
Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (2004). Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: The dynamics of fit (3rd ed.). Springer.
DeSarbo, W. S., Di Benedetto, C. A., Song, M., & Sinha, I. (2005). Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1), 47–74.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251.
Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196–1250.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
Grandori, A., & Furnari, S. (2008). A chemistry of organization: Combinatory analysis and design. Organization Studies, 29(3), 459–485.
Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482–495.
Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., & Lacey, R. (2008). Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 695–726.
Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organization design. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 403–428.
Hambrick, D. C. (2003). On the staying power of defenders, analyzers, and prospectors. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 115–118.
Hannan, M. T., Burton, M. D., & Baron, J. N. (1996). Inertia and change in the early years: Employment relations in young, high technology firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(2), 503–536.
Hodgkinson, G. P. (1997). Cognitive inertia in a turbulent market: The case of UK residential estate agents. Journal of Management Studies, 34(6), 921–945.
Kabanoff, B., & Brown, S. (2008). Knowledge structures of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders: Content, structure, stability, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(2), 149–171.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Combs, J. G., Russell, C. J., Shook, C., Dean, M. A., Runge, J., Lohrke, F. T., Naumann, S. E., Haptonstahl, D. E., Baker, R., Beckstein, B. A., Handler, C., Honig, H., & Lamoureux, S. (1997). Organizational configurations and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 223–240.
Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, C. C. (1993). Organizational configurations and performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1278–1313.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Marlin, D., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Lamont, B. (2007). Equifinality and the strategic group–performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(2), 208–232.
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. McGraw-Hill.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall.
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. (2017). Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1), 255–282.
Nadella, S., Shaw, G., & Nichols, J. T. (2017). Hit refresh: The quest to rediscover Microsoft's soul and imagine a better future for everyone. Harper Business.
O'Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.
Pajunen, K. (2008). Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 652–669.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.
Reger, R. K., & Palmer, T. B. (1996). Managerial categorization of competitors: Using old maps to navigate new environments. Organization Science, 7(1), 22–39.
Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141–1166.
Schneider, M. R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. (2010). Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 246–266.
Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2008). Research on organizational configurations: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1053–1079.
Siggelkow, N. (2001). Change in the presence of fit: The rise, the fall, and the renaissance of Liz Claiborne. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 838–857.
Siggelkow, N. (2002). Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 125–159.
Stadler, B. M. R., Stadler, P. F., Wagner, G. P., & Fontana, W. (2001). The topology of the possible: Formal spaces underlying patterns of evolutionary change. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 213(2), 241–274.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A., III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A., II. (1990). Research evidence on the Miles-Snow typology. Journal of Management, 16(4), 751–768.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD, Chief Research Officer (Nexus Institute for Work and AI); Co-Founder & Chief Workforce and Learning Officer (Future State University); Founder & CEO (Human Capital Innovations); Professor of Organizational Leadership & Change (UVU). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). Beyond the Whole: How Configurational Thinking and Causal Core-Periphery Theory Reshape Organizational Strategy. Human Capital Leadership Review, 39(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.39.4.7
