Designing for Dynamism: How Organizational Architecture Unlocks the Capacity to Sense, Shape, and Seize Opportunities
Download the article here:
Listen to a review of this article:
Abstract: This article examines how organizational design enables dynamic capabilities—the higher-order capacities through which firms sense, shape, and seize opportunities in volatile environments. Drawing on the framework of Felin and Powell (2016) and the broader dynamic capabilities literature, it defines key structural mechanisms, including polyarchy, social proofs, self-organizing teams, and open innovation architectures, and assesses their consequences for organizational performance and individual wellbeing. Evidence-based responses are presented across five intervention domains: decentralized decision authority, social convergence mechanisms, open innovation and crowdsourcing, talent acquisition aligned to capability building, and peer-based accountability systems. Examples from video games, hearing aids, consumer appliances, music streaming, food processing, and film illustrate both the promise and the pitfalls of these designs. The article concludes with three forward-looking pillars—continuous structural recalibration, distributed strategic leadership, and ecosystem-oriented learning systems—that practitioners can use to build long-term organizational resilience in an era of persistent disruption.
Every executive eventually confronts the same unsettling question: Is the way we are organized still suited to the world we actually compete in? The question is deceptively simple, yet it sits at the heart of one of the most consequential decisions a leadership team can make. Strategy and structure have always been intertwined—Chandler (1962) showed that structure tends to follow strategy—but the relationship has grown more complex and more urgent in an era of digital disruption, supply-chain volatility, and relentless competitive entry.
For much of the twentieth century, the dominant answer was some variant of hierarchical design: functional silos, chains of command, and formal planning cycles. These structures served companies well in relatively stable industries, where advantage could be sustained through scale, proprietary knowledge, and control over distribution. But as Felin and Powell (2016) argued in California Management Review, the traditional tools of organizational design—hierarchy, functional specialization, formal reporting, and long-range planning—are poorly suited to volatile markets. What such markets demand, they contended, is a higher-order capacity to sense, shape, and seize new opportunities, and that capacity is fundamentally enabled or constrained by organizational architecture.
The practical stakes are considerable. Organizations that cannot reconfigure their internal structures as their environments change risk falling into what Levitt and March (1988) described as competency traps, in which firms become ever more skilled at routines that no longer fit their circumstances. Firms that experiment thoughtfully with structural innovation—decentralized authority, social coordination mechanisms, self-organizing teams, and porous boundaries—may be better positioned to adapt. The gap between these outcomes is, in essence, a design gap.
This article offers a practitioner-oriented exploration of how organizational design creates the conditions for dynamic capabilities. It draws on the conceptual framework advanced by Felin and Powell (2016), supplemented by research on dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997), open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), and behavioral strategy (Powell et al., 2011). It also attends to the limits of radical decentralization, which the organizational record shows clearly.
The Organizational Design Landscape
Defining Dynamic Capabilities in the Context of Organizational Design
Dynamic capabilities, as conceptualized by Teece et al. (1997), refer to a firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments. Teece (2007) later disaggregated them into three clusters: sensing opportunities and threats, seizing opportunities by mobilizing resources, and transforming the firm by continuously renewing its assets and routines.
What makes the Felin and Powell (2016) contribution distinctive is its insistence that these capabilities are not abstract managerial qualities detached from structure. Rather, organizational design is a crucial enabler of them. The capacity to sense, shape, and seize opportunities depends not only on the insight of top executives or the firm's technology, but on the structural arrangements that allow distributed knowledge to be captured, shared, aggregated, and acted upon.
This framing builds on a long tradition in organization theory. Burns and Stalker (1961) distinguished between mechanistic organizations suited to stable conditions and organic forms better adapted to turbulent ones. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) showed that firms must differentiate their internal units to match the complexity of their environments and then integrate those units through coordinating mechanisms. Felin and Powell (2016) extend this lineage by proposing specific design principles—polyarchy, social proofs, and open organizational boundaries—suited to the volatility of contemporary markets.
State of Practice: Prevalence, Drivers, and Distribution
Experimentation with flatter, more decentralized organizational forms spans multiple industries, driven by converging forces: digital technologies that make information cheap and widely available, talent that expects autonomy and purpose, and competitive landscapes in which the pace of change can outstrip top-down planning.
In video games, Valve Corporation became widely known for a structure in which employees choose their own projects (Felin & Powell, 2016; Valve Corporation, 2012). In music streaming, Spotify described organizing development into small, autonomous, cross-functional "squads" grouped into larger "tribes" (Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012). In consumer appliances, Haier reorganized itself into thousands of small, self-governing units with direct accountability to users (Hamel & Zanini, 2018). In food processing, Morning Star operates without traditional managers, relying instead on negotiated colleague agreements among employees (Hamel, 2011).
Yet for every genuine organizational innovator, many more firms profess commitment to innovation and autonomy while retaining bureaucratic processes and reward systems that reinforce old habits (Felin & Powell, 2016)—an organizational version of what Kerr (1975) called the folly of rewarding one behavior while hoping for another. The gap between aspiration and practice remains wide.
Organizational and Individual Consequences of Design Misalignment
Organizational Performance Impacts
At the organizational level, the primary risk of design misalignment is strategic inertia—the inability to adapt capabilities as the environment changes. Levitt and March (1988) showed how organizational learning tends to reinforce existing competences, which can lead firms into competency traps when conditions shift.
Felin and Powell (2016) framed the design challenge in terms of two dimensions drawn from Lawrence and Lorsch (1967): how much an organization differentiates, giving units and individuals autonomy to respond to their part of the environment, and how strongly it integrates those efforts. Organizations with little differentiation and heavy centralized integration tend to stifle the sensing and initiative of people closest to emerging opportunities. Organizations with high differentiation but weak integration may generate many ideas but lack the coordination to commercialize them. Dynamic capabilities, in their framing, depend on combining strong differentiation with integrating mechanisms that do not rely on hierarchy alone.
The economic logic is grounded in information. As Arrow (1974) observed, organizations can acquire and use more information than any individual, but only if their structures let distributed knowledge be captured and combined. Sah and Stiglitz (1986) showed formally that decision structures matter: in polyarchies, where many units can independently approve projects, fewer good projects are rejected, at the cost of accepting more weak ones; in hierarchies, the reverse is true. In volatile environments, where missing a promising opportunity can be especially costly, this trade-off can favor more distributed authority.
Decentralization also has well-documented costs. The Danish hearing aid maker Oticon famously dismantled its hierarchy in favor of a project-based "spaghetti organization," which accelerated innovation for a time. Foss (2003) showed, however, that the company later reintroduced more structure, in part because managers' ongoing interventions undermined the credibility of employees' delegated authority and coordination problems mounted. The lesson is not that decentralization fails, but that it must be designed and governed carefully.
Individual Wellbeing and Stakeholder Impacts
Design choices shape the daily experience of employees. Poorly designed organizations impose hidden costs: confusion from unclear decision rights, frustration from incentives that contradict stated values, and withdrawal from cultures that profess innovation while rewarding conformity (Kerr, 1975).
Organizations that genuinely empower individuals can strengthen motivation and creative contribution. Research on self-managing teams describes how autonomy, paired with clear goals and mutual accountability, can support both engagement and performance (Manz & Sims, 1993). Valve's handbook for new employees, for example, tells new hires that they were not hired to fill a narrow job description but to seek out the most valuable work they can do, and it describes peer-based evaluation as the basis for performance assessment and compensation (Valve Corporation, 2012).
Radical autonomy is not costless for individuals, however. Without visible structure, informal power and social dynamics can become harder to see and navigate, and some people thrive with less ambiguity than others. Designers of flat organizations need to make decision rights, expectations, and paths to influence explicit enough that freedom does not become uncertainty.
For customers and external stakeholders, design choices shape the relevance and speed of what organizations deliver. Firms that keep their boundaries porous and engage external stakeholders through user communities and crowdsourcing can tap ideas and expertise they would not otherwise access (Boudreau & Lakhani, 2013).
Evidence-Based Organizational Responses
Table 1: Design Interventions for Dynamic Capabilities
Intervention | Core Mechanism | Key Practices | Illustrative Example | Main Risk to Manage |
Decentralized decision authority (polyarchy) | Authority moves to those closest to information and opportunities | Mission-oriented roles; frontline project initiation; tolerance for some failed bets | Valve Corporation's self-selected projects | Weak coordination; hidden informal hierarchy |
Social convergence mechanisms | Peer choices and thresholds coordinate autonomous action | Self-selection; social thresholds for launching projects; transparent information | Oticon's project-based organization | Manager interference undermining delegated authority |
Open innovation and crowdsourcing | External knowledge extends sensing and seizing | User communities; innovation contests; co-creation platforms | Valve's Steam platform; Haier's user-facing micro-enterprises | Absorbing and integrating external input |
Talent aligned to capability building | Selection and onboarding fit the design | Hire for judgment and initiative; onboard around strategic questions | Spotify's squad model | Assuming the model works without the right people and support |
Peer-based accountability | Reputation and peer evaluation replace managerial oversight | Peer reviews linked to rewards; transparent performance data; tolerance for productive failure | Hollywood project networks; Morning Star's colleague agreements | Bias and popularity effects in peer judgments |
Decentralized Decision Authority Through Polyarchy
The most fundamental design intervention for dynamic capabilities is the redistribution of decision authority from the center to the periphery. Felin and Powell (2016) described this as polyarchy: a system in which authority is widely distributed and individuals are empowered to make significant choices about what they work on and how. Polyarchy is not merely flattening the organization chart; it involves granting real autonomy over judgment, decisions, and execution to individuals and small teams.
The rationale is informational. In volatile environments, the people best positioned to sense new opportunities—engineers at the technical frontier, salespeople in the field, scientists in the lab—are rarely at the top of the hierarchy. Polyarchy gives decision authority to those with the most relevant information (Arrow, 1974; Felin & Powell, 2016).
Effective approaches for practitioners:
Replace fixed job descriptions with mission-oriented roles: Ask people to create value against clear goals rather than only to fill a predefined slot.
Grant project initiation authority to frontline employees: Allow individuals and small teams to propose, staff, and launch projects within defined guardrails.
Align recruitment to capability formation: Select for the ability to recognize and pursue opportunities, not merely to execute predefined tasks.
Accept some failed bets as the cost of fewer missed opportunities: Polyarchies tend to reject fewer good projects at the cost of approving some weaker ones (Sah & Stiglitz, 1986); set budgets and review points so that the cost of weak projects stays bounded.
Valve Corporation offers one of the most widely discussed examples of polyarchy. Its handbook describes a company without traditional managers, in which employees choose which projects to work on and teams form around projects people believe are valuable (Valve Corporation, 2012). Felin and Powell (2016) used Valve to illustrate how such a design can allow people at the organization's boundary to sense opportunities and recruit colleagues to pursue them; the company's Steam digital distribution platform is often cited as an outcome of that kind of initiative. Valve's model also illustrates the need for caution: a design that suits a highly selective, privately held software firm may not transfer directly to organizations with different work, scale, or talent.
Social Convergence Mechanisms
Polyarchy without integration leads to fragmentation. Felin and Powell (2016) identified social proofs as a primary mechanism by which polyarchical organizations achieve coordination without reverting to hierarchy. In social psychology, social proof refers to people's tendency to look to others' choices when deciding what is appropriate (Cialdini, 1984). In organizational design, these dynamics can serve as lightweight integrating devices that channel decentralized decisions toward shared purposes.
Key social convergence mechanisms include:
Self-selection: People choose which projects to join, "voting with their feet," so that the aggregate choices of informed colleagues signal which ideas are worth pursuing.
Social thresholds: Requiring a minimum level of peer commitment before a project receives significant resources filters weak ideas while letting promising ones gather momentum.
Peer evaluation: Colleagues assess one another's contributions, embedding accountability in the social fabric rather than imposing it solely through managers.
Quorum-like sensing: Drawing an analogy to collective decision-making in animal groups (Sumpter, 2010), Felin and Powell (2016) suggested that people develop sensitivity to when an idea has gathered enough support to proceed.
These mechanisms can coordinate decentralized activity, filter weak ideas before major resources are committed, and counter individual cognitive biases by subjecting proposals to the judgment of informed peers (Powell et al., 2011). The wisdom of such aggregate judgments depends, however, on diversity and independence among those judging (Surowiecki, 2004) and on giving more weight to those with demonstrated expertise (Budescu & Chen, 2015).
Oticon, the Danish hearing aid manufacturer, provides an instructive example. In the early 1990s, it replaced its hierarchy with a project-based structure in which employees could initiate and join projects, and resources flowed to initiatives that attracted support. Foss (2003) described the arrangement as an internal hybrid of market and hierarchy. The reorganization was associated with a period of rapid innovation, but Foss also showed how repeated top-down interventions in supposedly delegated decisions weakened employees' trust in the system, and the company eventually reintroduced more conventional structure. The case illustrates both the power of social convergence and the importance of leaders honoring the authority they delegate.
Open Innovation and Crowdsourcing
Dynamic capabilities are not confined to the boundaries of the firm. Felin and Powell (2016) argued that effective polyarchies maintain porous boundaries that let information flow to and from the marketplace. This aligns with Chesbrough's (2003) open innovation paradigm, which holds that valuable ideas can come from outside the organization and that paths to market can extend beyond it.
Effective approaches include:
Establish user communities: Firm-hosted communities where users share ideas and modifications can serve as distributed sensing mechanisms (Jeppesen & Frederiksen, 2006).
Deploy innovation contests: Broadcasting problems to external solvers can generate solutions from unexpected sources; Jeppesen and Lakhani (2010) found that solvers from fields distant from the problem were often especially likely to succeed.
Enable co-creation at scale: Platforms can allow external contributors to design, develop, and distribute products directly to users.
Use crowdfunding as a market signal: Crowdfunding can provide both capital and early evidence of demand for new offerings (Belleflamme et al., 2014).
Valve's Steam platform exemplifies this approach. Steam lets external developers publish and sell games directly to players, and features such as the Steam Workshop allow players to create and share content for games. For several years, Valve's Greenlight program let the user community vote on which independent games should be listed on Steam before it was replaced in 2017 by a direct submission process (Felin & Powell, 2016). These mechanisms turned customers and outside developers into contributors to the platform's sensing and seizing processes.
Haier, the Chinese appliance maker, has pushed decentralization and openness further. Under chief executive Zhang Ruimin, Haier adopted the RenDanHeyi model, reorganizing the company into thousands of micro-enterprises with direct accountability to users and considerable freedom to work with outside partners and investors (Hamel & Zanini, 2018). The model's stated aim is "zero distance" between the company and its users. Haier has also applied elements of this approach after acquiring GE Appliances in 2016, demonstrating that such architectures can be attempted in traditional manufacturing, not only in software.
Talent Acquisition Aligned to Capability Building
The effectiveness of any organizational design depends on the people who work within it. Felin and Powell (2016) emphasized that polyarchy begins with employee selection: if a design relies on autonomy, initiative, and opportunity recognition, recruitment must look for those qualities.
Effective approaches include:
Hire for judgment under uncertainty: Assess how well candidates can identify and pursue valuable opportunities when given resources and freedom.
Assess capability for social navigation: In a polyarchy, people must persuade, recruit colleagues, and build coalitions—the activities through which social proofs operate.
Prioritize diversity of perspective: Aggregate judgment improves when people bring different knowledge and independent views (Surowiecki, 2004).
Design onboarding around strategic orientation: Valve's handbook encourages new employees to ask what the most valuable thing they could be working on is, orienting them toward opportunity sensing from the start (Valve Corporation, 2012).
Spotify offers an example of talent strategy and structure developed together. Kniberg and Ivarsson (2012) described development teams organized as small, cross-functional, autonomous squads with end-to-end responsibility for parts of the product, supported by "chapters" and "guilds" that connected specialists across teams. Working this way requires people who can operate without close supervision, make product decisions, and collaborate across disciplines. Spotify's own authors presented the model as a snapshot of an evolving approach rather than a template, a useful reminder that copying another firm's structure without its people, culture, and supporting practices is unlikely to reproduce its results.
Peer-Based Accountability Systems
A common objection to polyarchy is that if no one is in charge, no one is accountable. Felin and Powell (2016) countered that social proofs, particularly peer evaluation, can provide accountability aligned with an organization's innovation objectives.
Effective approaches include:
Use structured peer reviews: Valve's handbook describes peer-based evaluation and ranking as inputs to compensation (Valve Corporation, 2012).
Link rewards to the behaviors the design depends on: Tie recognition and pay to contribution and value creation, avoiding the trap of rewarding one behavior while hoping for another (Kerr, 1975).
Make performance information transparent: Social coordination works best when information about projects, team membership, and outcomes is widely available.
Guard against bias in peer judgments: Calibrate peer reviews and monitor for popularity effects and demographic bias.
Tolerate productive failure: Distinguish well-reasoned initiatives that fail from careless execution.
The Hollywood film industry offers a useful analog at industry scale. Faulkner and Anderson (1987) showed how film production operates through short-term projects in which professionals coalesce around a film and then disperse, with careers built on track records and reputation. Lampel and Shamsie (2003) described how the industry's shift from the studio system to project-based networks reshaped its capabilities. In these networks, reputation functions as a form of peer accountability: past collaboration and performance determine future opportunities.
Morning Star, a large California tomato processor, offers an example of peer accountability inside a single firm. Instead of managers, employees negotiate annual colleague letters of understanding with the coworkers most affected by their work, specifying commitments and performance measures, and they hold one another to those commitments (Hamel, 2011). The approach shows that peer-based accountability is not limited to creative or software work.
Building Long-Term Organizational Resilience
Continuous Structural Recalibration
A central lesson from the dynamic capabilities literature is that organizational design is not a one-time choice but an ongoing process. Felin and Powell (2016) emphasized that volatile environments call for continuous attention to design and continuous adaptation of structures and processes.
The balance between autonomy and integration must shift as conditions change. A design that works well during rapid technological change may become a liability when markets stabilize and execution efficiency matters most; a tightly integrated structure built for operational excellence may falter when disruption reshapes the landscape. Oticon's experience shows that recalibration can mean adding structure as well as removing it (Foss, 2003).
Organizations therefore need the capacity to redesign their own structures. Teece (2007) described this as the transforming dimension of dynamic capabilities: reconfiguring assets, structures, and routines when the environment demands. For practitioners, this means piloting new forms of decentralization in bounded parts of the organization, building feedback loops that surface design problems quickly, and creating governance that can authorize structural changes without excessive inertia.
Distributed Strategic Leadership
Traditional models concentrate strategic vision and initiative in the senior executive team. The designs described in this article distribute much of that work across the enterprise. Senior leaders do not become irrelevant; their role shifts from directing toward designing the conditions in which people throughout the organization can sense and act on opportunities (Felin & Powell, 2016).
This is consistent with Teece's (2007) emphasis on entrepreneurial management in orchestrating dynamic capabilities. In polyarchical organizations, however, entrepreneurial initiative is not reserved for the chief executive; it is distributed to anyone who can sense an opportunity, recruit collaborators, and move an idea forward. The senior leader's task is to design the recruitment processes, incentives, information systems, and decision rules that make this possible—and, as Oticon's experience shows, to resist interventions that undercut the authority they have delegated (Foss, 2003).
Ecosystem-Oriented Learning Systems
The third pillar is learning that spans organizational boundaries. Effective polyarchies, Felin and Powell (2016) observed, do not stop sensing at the firm's borders; they engage customers, developers, researchers, and partners in collaborative learning.
This requires platforms and processes that move knowledge in both directions. User communities provide ongoing market intelligence (Jeppesen & Frederiksen, 2006). Innovation contests reveal solutions in domains the firm may not fully understand (Jeppesen & Lakhani, 2010). Co-creation platforms turn customers into development partners, and crowdfunding can provide early demand signals (Belleflamme et al., 2014).
The challenge is to ensure that external knowledge is not merely collected but integrated into strategic decisions. That returns organizations to the fundamental design problem: balancing differentiation with integration, openness with coherence, and autonomy with collective purpose (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
Conclusion
The central argument of this article, drawn from Felin and Powell (2016) and the broader dynamic capabilities literature, can be stated simply: organizational design is a primary lever through which firms build dynamic capabilities. The capacity to sense, shape, and seize opportunities does not emerge spontaneously from strategy or technology. It is enabled—or blocked—by choices about how decision authority is distributed, how knowledge is aggregated, how people are selected and rewarded, and how the organization engages with its environment.
The record also counsels humility. Radical decentralization can unlock initiative, but it can also create coordination problems, hidden power dynamics, and pressure to reimpose control, as Oticon's history shows (Foss, 2003). Self-organizing systems still require deliberate design.
Five actionable takeaways follow:
Redistribute decision authority toward the periphery: Give genuine autonomy to people and teams closest to customers and technologies, paired with lightweight coordination mechanisms.
Design social convergence systems: Use self-selection, peer commitment thresholds, peer evaluation, and transparent information to channel autonomous action toward shared purposes.
Open the organization's boundaries: Use user communities, innovation contests, co-creation platforms, and market signals to extend sensing and seizing beyond the firm.
Align talent strategy with structure: Recruit and onboard for judgment, initiative, and collaboration, not only functional expertise.
Treat organizational design as a capability in itself: Experiment, gather feedback, and recalibrate structures as conditions change—adding structure when needed as well as removing it.
Leaders who embrace these principles commit not only to structural innovation but to the sustained, disciplined work of designing, monitoring, and refining the systems that make organizational dynamism possible.
Research Infographic
References
Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. W. W. Norton.
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609.
Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2013). Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard Business Review, 91(4), 60–69.
Budescu, D. V., & Chen, E. (2015). Identifying expertise to extract the wisdom of crowds. Management Science, 61(2), 267–280.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. MIT Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: How and why people agree to things. William Morrow.
Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (1987). Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 879–909.
Felin, T., & Powell, T. C. (2016). Designing organizations for dynamic capabilities. California Management Review, 58(4), 78–96.
Foss, N. J. (2003). Selective intervention and internal hybrids: Interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon spaghetti organization. Organization Science, 14(3), 331–349.
Hamel, G. (2011). First, let's fire all the managers. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48–60.
Hamel, G., & Zanini, M. (2018). The end of bureaucracy. Harvard Business Review, 96(6), 50–59.
Jeppesen, L. B., & Frederiksen, L. (2006). Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Science, 17(1), 45–63.
Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769–783.
Kniberg, H., & Ivarsson, A. (2012). Scaling agile @ Spotify with tribes, squads, chapters & guilds [White paper]. Spotify.
Lampel, J., & Shamsie, J. (2003). Capabilities in motion: New organizational forms and the reshaping of the Hollywood movie industry. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2189–2210.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard University Press.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high-performing companies. Wiley.
Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. (2011). Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1369–1386.
Sah, R. K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1986). The architecture of economic systems: Hierarchies and polyarchies. American Economic Review, 76(4), 716–727.
Sumpter, D. J. T. (2010). Collective animal behavior. Princeton University Press.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Doubleday.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Valve Corporation. (2012). Handbook for new employees. Valve Press.
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).Designing for Dynamism: How Organizational Architecture Unlocks the Capacity to Sense, Shape, and Seize Opportunities. Human Capital Leadership Review, 37(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.39.4.5
