Paper to be presented at the 25th Celebration Conference 2008
on
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION - ORGANIZATIONS, INSTITUTIONS,
SYSTEMS AND REGIONS
Copenhagen, CBS, Denmark, June 17 - 20, 2008
USOUGHT INNOVATION: SERENDIPITY IN ORGANIZATIONS
Sandro Mendonça
SPRU
sfm@iscte.pt
Miguel Pina E Cunha
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
mpc@fe.unl.pt
Stewart R. Clegg
University of Technology, Sydney
Stewart.Clegg@uts.edu.au
Abstract:
Serendipity refers to the accidental discovery of something valuable. It is sometimes presented as an element
of organizational learning but is rarely the object of research. We discuss the notion of serendipity in the
organizational context and elaborate a model for its organizational expression. Four building blocks are
considered: the conditions that facilitate serendipitous discovery, the search of a solution for a given problem,
a process of bisociation leading to the combination of previously unrelated skills or information, and the
discovery of an unexpected solution to a different problem. We discuss what organizations can do to improve
the chances of serendipity, as well as the difficulties associated with the process.
JEL - codes: M13, O, -
2
UNSOUGHT INNOVATION:
SERENDIPITY IN ORGANIZATIONS
ABSTRACT
Serendipity refers to the accidental discovery of something valuable. It is sometimes
presented as an element of organizational learning but is rarely the object of research.
We discuss the notion of serendipity in the organizational context and elaborate a model
for its organizational expression. Four building blocks are considered: the conditions
that facilitate serendipitous discovery, the search of a solution for a given problem, a
process of bisociation leading to the combination of previously unrelated skills or
information, and the discovery of an unexpected solution to a different problem. We
discuss what organizations can do to improve the chances of serendipity, as well as the
difficulties associated with the process.
KEYWORDS: serendipity, bissociation, chance, accidental, unsought discoveries,
unintentional learning
3
INTRODUCTION
In his essay on serendipity, Umberto Eco remarked how
“a number of ideas that today we consider false actually changed the world (sometimes for
the better, sometimes for the worse) and how, in the best instances, false beliefs and
discoveries totally without credibility could then lead to the discovery of something true (or
at least something that we consider true today). In the field of the sciences, this mechanism
is known as serendipity” (Eco, 1999, p.viii).
The term “serendipity” was coined by the English novelist Horace Walpole, in a letter
to a friend, the British diplomat Horace Mann, in January 28, 1754 (Remer, 1965).
Walpole was inspired by an exotic old tale told of the ancient princes of Sri Lanka,
known as Serendip. As a child he had read the The Three Princes of Serendip, first
published in 1557, by a Venetian, Michele Tramezzino and later translated to other
languages. In his letter to his diplomatist friend Walpole mentioned a special type of
luck that he termed serendipity, after the ancient tale, which resulted from the
combination of a happy accident with sagacity or perspicacity in understanding.
There are many examples of the value of this special type of luck. Columbus was
looking for a new trade route to the Orient when, in 1492, he unexpectedly came upon
the Americas. Sir Alexander Fleming was conducting research on influenza when, in
1922, he discovered penicillin. In the early 1950s, George de Mestral was returning
home after a walk in the countryside in Switzerland, when he noticed that his coat was
covered with cockleburs. As he tried to pick them off, he wondered why they were so
sticky. He used a microscope to discover that cockleburs are covered with hooks that
4
became embedded in the loops of the fabric of his jacket. His knowledge of the
cockleburs spawned the product known as Velcro, a word derived from velvet and
crochet.
It is important to note that accidental discoveries such as those cited in the paragraph
above are not merely the effects of good luck: they are also the result of agency.
Columbus discovered America because he was looking for the Orient. Fleming
discovered penicillin because of his research on influenza. De Mestral invented Velcro
because he was curious about the cockleburs and decided to investigate them. All these
accidental discoveries suggest that serendipity involves prepared, curious and openminded people acting on the world and finding some relation of knowledge and material
possibility, the potential knowledge of which was always there but that others of their
society had not realized.
In each case organization was required to make the discovery; for Columbus the huge
business of finding sponsors, organizing ships and crew, and navigating across
unknown oceans; for Fleming, the resources of a well-funded and organized laboratory,
while De Mestral could rely on an infrastructure that produced scientific
instrumentation and a locally embedded knowledge of textile weaving and machinery to
make looms and proprietary hook cutting systems. Hence, in each case, serendipity was
not the result of an isolated moment of accident but of curiosity coupled with
organizational determination.
Serendipitous discoveries and accidental processes have been discussed in several fields
of the social sciences, namely the sociology of science (Merton, 1949). The role of
5
chance as serendipity in scientific breakthroughs became a major topic in the sociology
of science but it has also been influential in economics (Landes, 1994), information
studies (Foster & Ford, 2003), history (Delgadillo & Lynch, 1999), and ethnographic
research (Fine & Deegan, 1996). However, apart from passing references to phenomena
such as the chemist at 3M who inadvertently discovered Post-It Notes it has a very
limited presence in analysis of organizations.
In this paper, serendipity is studied as one of the possible forms of organizational
exploration. Occasional mentions of the concept appear in the literature but systematic
analyses of serendipity in organizations are scarce, despite its regular appearance in the
press, such as the following: “While process excellence demands precision, consistency,
and repetition, innovation calls for variation, failure, and serendipity” (Hindo, 2007).
We suggest that the concept of serendipity may be of interest to organizational
researchers and propose several possibilities for investigation and application.
The paper contributes to the organizational literature in the following ways. First, we
articulate a model of serendipity in the organizational context and facilitate further
empirical work on the topic. Second, we build on existing research to relate this notion
to a number of organizational concepts and areas of study, from strategy to
organizational behavior and entrepreneurship. Third, we contribute to the development
of knowledge on the emergent side of organizational life. As we will discuss,
serendipity as an event may be facilitated, but not managed, at least in the sense of
being subject to forms of organizational control or being programmed to happen. To say
this does not contradict our earlier remarks about organization; serendipity may emerge
from organization or organization may be used once it has occurred but serendipity can
6
never be organized to happen. At essence, it is a chance seized. We thus focus on the
momentary, temporary and elusive, in contrast with the images of stability and structure
that tend to dominate the field. Our interest may seem counter-intuitive in a field
dominated by research on the control of uncertainty and less attentive to the role and
importance of unsought discovery and surprise (Cunha, Clegg & Kamoche, 2006, yet
the potential of events to surprise us has not been diminished by our knowledge of
uncertainty, as demonstrated by the emblematic tragedy of the 9/11.
We propose that the notion of serendipity should not be dismissed from organization
theory due to its element of surprise and the challenges it raises for empirical research.
With these goals in mind, we structure the paper in the following way. We start with the
concept and discuss what serendipity means. Next we propose a model of the
serendipity process in organizations, using a theoretical and tentative model but one that
can be empirically tested. Based on this model and on previous research we advance a
number of possibilities that organizations may use to facilitate the process in practice.
ORDER AND ORGANIZATIONAL SERENDIPITY?
The desire for order and the activity of ordering drives out serendipity. If one knows
what one wants and defines anything else as deviance from the norm one is less likely
to embrace serendipity. Order rules in most organization theory as a branch of
management. Management theory was born as a secular religion of administrative
science with Auguste Comte’s positivism, and in many ways it has never failed to shake
off the attempts to achieve an orderly social construction of reality that characterized
those heady days of intellectual experimentation that originated with the French
Enlightenment. It is, perhaps, by reason of this legacy that management theory finds an
7
inability to predict and control important events highly unsettling (Bandura, 1998).
Chance, luck and happenstance, however, may be as relevant in organizational life as in
other life domains for it is by no means clear that the positive agenda for an
administrative science of the organization world has achieved that order desired from
knowledge of the constant relationships of phenomena as they are constituted by
general laws. General laws remain thin on the ground; constant relationships seem
remarkably fragile in the face of events that confound them.
Despite an evident scarcity of settled law-like explanations, since its outset,
organization theory has had a penchant for order (Clegg, Courpasson & Phillips, 2006).
Taylor was obsessed by it; Mayo and Barnard vested management with a moral purpose
in securing it, and much of its normal development since that time has been oriented to
a structural functionalist account of it (Donaldson 1996). Tsoukas’ (2004) argues that
scholars have devoted more attention to formal organizations than to the broader
phenomenon of organization as a process of becoming rather than being (see also
Kornberger et al., 2004). Indeed, it was in 1993 that the Nobel Laureate, Herbert Simon,
founded the idea of strategic planning as assuring “a stream of new ideas that will allow
the organization to continue to adapt to its uncertain outside world” (p.141). The
organization has long been seen as a keep or haven of order against an uncertain and
disorderly world (Clegg 1990). To keep security the order presumed should not be left
to chance but, as Simon’s quote illustrates, seeds of ideas should be seen germinated by
strategic planning. The alternative idea, that logic may be seen in disorder (Warglien &
Masuch, 1995) and mess (Abrahamson & Freedman, 2006), is not quite theoretical
heresy but is largely excluded from the core of formal theory.
8
Serendipity refers to the accidental discovery of something that turns out to be valuable.
In an elegant formulation Van Andel (1994, p.631) defines it as “the art of making an
unsought finding”. By “finding”, the author is referring to the combination of two or
more elements (observations, hypotheses, ideas, facts, or insights) to create something
new. Denrell, Fang and Winter define it as “effort and luck joined by alertness and
flexibility” (2003, p.978). Merton and Barber (2004, p.293) define serendipity as
stumbling on an “unanticipated, anomalous and strategic datum that becomes an
occasion for developing a new theory or for extending an existing theory”.
Unanticipated, because serendipitous discovery is a fortuitous by-product, an
unexpected observation, which bears on theories not in question until then; anomalous,
because serendipitous discovery is surprising as it appears as inconsistent with previous
theories or expected facts, and it is strategic, when serendipitous discovery permits
implications which bear upon generalized theory.
In addition, the event or happenstance that is serendipity’s trigger needs to be enacted as
a datum – after all, that unfolding was always already present but awaiting enactment –
whose relevancies are constituted in new and surprising ways. Surprises can happen and
nothing be made of them. Making something from the unexpected is not purely a matter
of luck. Merton and Barber (2004, p.171) note that luck tends to favor prepared minds,
those ready to benefit from luck. Preparedness itself, they argue, is linked with qualities
such as alertness, flexibility, courage and assiduity. There is merit in being able to reap
the fruits of serendipity.
The notion of serendipity is not unknown to organization and management scholars but
its nature is described as “quintessentially ambiguous” by James Shulman in the preface
9
to Merton and Barber (2004). Quintessential ambiguity, coupled with a penchant for
order, control and predictability in the theories of organization, as well as the general
lack of acknowledgement of the benefits and pleasures of disorder, are additional causes
for the absence of sustained discussion of serendipity in the organizational literature. In
the rest of this section we discuss some effects of mess and disorder on organizational
practice and organizational research.
Serendipity in organizational practice
That there is logic to disorder does not mean that organizations are irrational or
incoherent but rather that there is an element of unpredictability and emergence in the
fabric of complex systems that needs to be considered and studied. The logic of disorder
may be found in Cohen, March and Olsen’s (1972) work on garbage-can type decision
making, which demonstrated the role of chance, luck and timing in organizational
choice. In this model, choice occurs through the accidental confluence of problems,
solutions, participants and problems. Other authors also contributed to the analysis of
luck and accident in organizational life. Olsen (1976) referred to organizations
characterized by a lack of shared and consistent goals, clear technology and member
participation, as “organized anarchies”. Pascale’s (1984) work on Honda’s entry in the
American market is a classic example of unexpected discovery, or of how organizations
make sense of unplanned opportunities as they go along. Serendipity has also been
presented as an outcome of exploratory learning efforts (March 1991).
While it is often said that highly prescribed and standardized processes lead to good
products as the fruit of hard work and tight control (Cooper, 1998) the importance of
serendipity has been seen as particularly visible in the case of innovation, especially in
10
new product development.. The role of chance and serendipity, elements of “the
unexpected”, as Drucker (1985) put it, have been illustrated in theory and practice. For
example, Pfizer scientists were assessing sildenafil citrate as a medication for blood
pressure. They serendipitously discovered that it was effective in the treatment of a
totally different problem: erectile dysfunction, an incidental discovery that led to the
creation of Viagra. Viagra and the previously mentioned example of 3M’s Post-It Notes
are examples of serendipitous discovery of successful new products. Art Fry’s (1987)
account of Post-It Notes clearly suggests that serendipity is not only a matter of good
luck but also a case of persistence and effort. The effort to make the accidents work
through their development as new products is often discounted from popular narratives.
Serendipity in organizational research
despite a bias for order serendipity is not unfamiliar to management researchers.
Referring to the process of theory building, Bourgeois (1979) invited researchers to take
advantage of serendipity and Weick (1989, p.519) noted that theorists tend to describe
the theorizing process in rather mechanical terms, “with little appreciation of the often
intuitive, blind wasteful, serendipitous, creative quality of the process”. Discussions of
learning through experience of the surprising and the unexpected are abundant in the
academic research process. Davis (1971) noted that interesting theories are often
discovered inadvertently. Eisenhardt (1989, p.536) observed that “the research question
may shift during the research”. Inspired by Robert K. Merton (1949), Glaser and Strauss
(1967) present grounded theory as method open to discovery and serendipity. Some
researchers have converted theory-testing research into theory-building research by
taking advantage of serendipitous findings. Mintzberg’s influential book on the nature
of managerial work provides an example of a project whose focus emerged almost “by
11
accident” (Martin de Holan and Mintzberg, 2004). Similarly, Pitsis et al. (2003) thought
that they were researching inter-organizational collaboration but found that, much as
Schutz (1967), they had stumbled on an example of the future-perfect at work The study
of serendipity may therefore constitute a methodological challenge to the research
community: what you propose to do is not necessarily what you will do – not as a
matter of deceit but as a matter of good fortune.
THE PROCESS OF SERENDIPITY
In this section, a model of organizational serendipity is presented. The model,
graphically depicted in Figure 1, consists of four building blocks. The first is the set of
precipitating conditions that, when present, increase the chances of serendipitous
discovery. We structure our model on the basis of the three types of elements
considered by Fine and Deegan (1996): temporal, analytical and relational dimensions.
The temporal element refers to the role of happenstance in the process as something
unexpected turns up. The analytical element refers to the cognition and learning
processes involved. The relational element captures the social side of the process. The
role of each of these includes the specificity of the conjuncture: temporal happenstance,
that is being in the right place at the right time; the importance of active learning, that is
being in the right place at the right time and realizing and actively searching for
potential in the conjuncture, and the centrality of, relationships that enable the right
place, right time, right learning, to be brought to fruition. Second, there is the search for
a solution to an envisioned problem. Third, there is the importance of bisociation where,
when people are looking for a solution to a problem, they combine previously unrelated
matrices of skills or information, leading to some unsought solution for another
problem.
12
--------------------------------------Figure 1 about here
-------------------------------------
Precipitating conditions
Two factors may create the right temporal conditions for serendipity to happen:
organizational rhythms and a deliberate effort to develop a peripheral vision.
Organizational time has been often been presented as a linear succession of
chronological points. However, it can be approached differently: as a succession of
events that merge into one another and create a socially constructed and collectively
shared time experience, with different events/times merging together to create complex
rhythms that retrospectively project meaning backwards and forwards, enacting and reenacting purposes and projects (Schutz 1967; Weick 1979). Ancona and Chong (1999,
p.40) note that “Everyday life in organizations is rhythmic”.
Rhythms vary. At the height of industrial society the rhythm of the industrial line could
be punctuated by 15 second human repetition of cycles in tasks such as spot-welding,
before robots took over. Rhythms determine the time-span of discretion in
organizations, according to Elliott Jacques (1964). Different organizations develop and
maintain particular rhythms. As observed by Brown and Eisenhardt (1997),
organizations may develop and cultivate internal rhythms that act, simultaneously, as
sources of renovation of their product portfolios, countering internal inertia.
Organizations create rhythmic patterns as parts of their culture; think of organizations as
13
different as NASA and a Presidential Election Committee – both have rhythms defined
by a definite event – a space launch or an election – that has yet to elapse. Rhythms may
facilitate unexpected discoveries when they are entrained in such a way that they
stimulate alertness and a constant pressure for exploration and renewal. The established
rhythms for a new product launch in the most innovative companies studied by Brown
and Eisenhardt (1997) suggests that these temporal cycles may be a stimulus for
maintaining the mind in a state of attention to novelty.
Another precipitating condition is the organization’s effort to develop its peripheral
vision. Peripheral vision is a cultivated sensitivity for avoiding being blinkered, not
missing that which is obscured or overlooked. It involves a re-education of attention
away from focal objects and events to the marginal activities, the cognitively repressed,
and the seemingly incidental events surrounding them. If, as Day and Shoemaker
(2004a) have put it, the periphery is where attention is not, then, the margins may be
apprehended only indirectly.
Recent evidence suggests that the exploration of the periphery may facilitate discovery
by means of serendipity. Regnér’s (2003) study of how the periphery informs the
strategy process shows that people working at the periphery use inductive approaches
that involve trial and error, informal contacts and noticing, experiments and heuristics,
whereas those in the core tend to rely on deductive approaches, formal reports,
intelligence documents and other means that discourage serendipitous findings. When
organizations have a propensity for exploring the periphery, they may be better
positioned to discover something through the serendipity that polyphonic voices can
stimulate (Kornberger et al., 2006). For instance, Hirsch (1971) suggests that this was
14
the history of innovation in contemporary popular music, at least while it was
dominated by the formal distribution channels of the major labels.
The second element of serendipitous discovery involves analysis and learning. Despite
its accidental nature, people discover unsought things when they make a purposeful
search effort. The literature suggests that some people may be more effective in these
efforts than others due to their individual dispositions. Van Andel (1994, p.645)
suggested that “most serendipitists are open-minded, perceptive, curious, intuitive,
smart, flexible, artistic, humorous, and diligent”. While this list of antecedents is yet to
be tested, traits may play a part in the process. Learning styles may also be considered.
People learn through analysis, intuition, improvisation (Mintzberg and Westley, 2001)
and imitation (Brunsson 2006). Intuitive learning, resulting from establishing
connections that were not previously proposed, and improvisational learning, i.e. acting
in order to learn, may be styles more conducive to serendipitous discovery while
imitation and analysis may be less likely. The difference between serendipitous and
non-serendipitous learning lies in the elements of surprise involved. Graebner’s (2004)
study of acquisitions shows that one source of creating value by serendipity is through
exposure to different practices. The value-creating process may be triggered when
different practices enact some form of surprise. For example, a small firm was acquired
by a large one, which viewed itself as highly competent in new product development.
To the surprise of the managers, the acquired firm proved to be superior to the acquirer
in some parts of the process, an unexpected finding that was followed by the “floating”
of ideas into the buyer, as one informant put it (Graebner, 2004, p.772).
15
A powerful source of learning is a market orientation (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), an
insight that goes back at least as far as Adam Smith (1776/1904). Organizations that
exist to create customer value will do so through a set of organization-wide processes
related to the creation, dissemination and utilization of customer intelligence rather than
its exclusion or manipulation. Research indicates that market orientation can have a
positive impact on organizational learning (Kyriacopoulos & Moorman, 2004),
especially exploratory learning. When organizations scan the environment in order to
learn about the customer they may find interesting and previously unknown information
and opportunities (Frambach, Prabhu & Verhallen, 2003).
Another element facilitating serendipity is a culture of action. People are inclined to
understand problems and solve them not just through thinking but also through acting.
The bias for action has both been praised (Peters & Waterman, 1982) and criticized
(Bruch & Ghoshal, 2002). In action-oriented cultures people are moved by perceptions
of agency and a drive for initiative. When they act, they try to make things happen. The
succession of events, some of them unexpected and anomalous, may facilitate the
subsequent occurrence of moments when serendipity occurs.
The third element is relational. It refers to accidental discovery as a result of social
connections and interactions, suggesting that serendipity benefits from social capital
(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). One episode reported by Lovas and Ghoshal (2000, p.884)
illustrates how serendipity finds its way by virtue of rich networks. Jes Olsen, a
manager at Oticon, a Danish multinational company, was dealing with a problem: the
development of a microprocessor small and powerful enough to fit inside a hearing aid.
One evening, while having a beer with some friends from Microtonic, a firm
16
specializing in micromechanics, Olsen mentioned the problem and “one of his friends
knew of such a microprocessor, which was subsequently used in the Multifocus product
line.” Serendipity travels with social capital. People are willing to open up to friends,
and friends with knowledge may provide adequate if unexpected solutions: “meetings
and social events provide the unplanned and unstructured opportunities for the
accidental coming together of ideas that may lead to the serendipitous development of
new intellectual capital” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p.258). When the organization
facilitates the circulation of information and the sharing of people’s knowledge, novel
ideas emerge more easily. Hence, firms with higher social capital tend to facilitate
knowledge creation and intuitive discovery in bisociative ways. People may more easily
imagine the solution to the problem they have been dealing with for a long time, when
they contact experts in different fields (Lovas and Ghoshal, 2000), a process that
facilitates bisociative efforts; hence, the discovery of hidden connections.
Serendipity may also benefit from high levels of trust and support. When trust and
feelings of psychological security prevail, people may explore new and ambiguous
opportunities more easily, whereas in their absence they may prefer to follow rules and
avoid untested and informal courses of action. Trial and error and willingness to expose
puzzling findings will not occur unless people feel the surrounding environment is safe,
a place where their insecurities will not be exposed or ridiculed, as demonstrated by
Edmondson’s (1999) research in medical practice.
Search for “Problem A”
The way organizations manage time may stimulate or hinder serendipity to occur when
they look for a solution to another problem. Minimal structuring through the use of tight
17
deadlines, combined with space for creativity, may facilitate the discovery of
unexpected opportunities (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997). While such situations create
pressure they provide ample space for creativity, thus circumventing the traditional
opposition between organic and mechanistic forms. The combination of clear time
limits with well defined processes may, on the contrary, discourage people from
plunging into new experiences. The introduction of Six Sigma at 3M created a culture
of discipline, with a focus on execution (Hindo, 2007). Time became a source of
pressure for executing, a force for exploitation, and an obstacle to variation. On the
contrary, well-defined deadlines with free space between for creativity, emphasizing
empowerment, and entrained cycles, may lead to the understanding of time as an
ingredient of creative discovery, as in the relentlessly changing firms studied by Brown
and Eisenhardt. Time limits were pressing but they gave people the chance to do
something different. When this happens, they may have the opportunity to complement
or substitute local search for different forms of search, including broadcast or deep
search. The management of time influences attention and establishes the willingness to
open up to the unexpected. When time limits are pressing and work methods are well
designed, people tend to engage in local search and strive for flawless execution. Hence,
they are bounded by what they know and do best. They increase focus, neglect the
periphery and engage in the use of routines. It is in those circumstances that routines
may be a source of automatic behavior and deviation-reduction. In such cases the design
of organization time limits serendipity.
When the combination of work design and time pressure facilitates the appropriation of
routines as deviation-amplifying, people will engage in ‘mindful’ behavior (Weick &
Sutcliffe, 2006), becoming more alert and open to marginal activities and re-educating
18
their attention away from focal objects and events to events repressed cognitively as
well as seemingly incidental phenomena. When acting mindfully, the chances of
unexpected learning increase because serendipity thrives on alertness. Fairtlough (2007)
makes a similar argument in proposing relative autonomy as a model for organizational
design: relatively autonomous actors have more space in which to explore even as they
are constrained by the need to report. Indeed, the latter action is an important stimulus
for learning. The discovery of something unexpected involves a search process. It is the
exploratory effort that creates the willingness to learn that ends up producing
unexpected discoveries. Serendipity plays a more important role at the beginning of an
exploratory effort, when alertness and mindfulness are higher, the conclusion of
Miyazaki’s (1999) research on Japanese optoelectronics firms. Kornberger et al. (2006)
demonstrate the way that polyphony favors serendipity by throwing more surprising
things, from the margins and from where let expected, into the strategic mix.
Denrell, Fang and Winter (2003) also stressed the importance of flexibility. Flexible
organizations built around communities of mindful practitioners may be more open to
serendipitous findings when showing deference for expertise rather than for structure
and hierarchy. Weick and Roberts’ (1993) study of aircraft carriers shows that the
possibility of swiftly rearranging the organization in order to react to unexpected events
may be an important condition for introducing unexpected discoveries in the
organization’s operation. When such flexibility is absent, the serendipitously opened
window of opportunity may close and be forgotten.
Bisociation
19
Unexpected discoveries may occur because people are in the right place at the right
time. Temporal happenstance is sometimes a domain of unsuspected discovery. People
discover things because they were lucky to be there when something happened. To
advance knowledge of the bissociative moment, two directions are valuable. One
direction involves the Jungian concept of synchronicity (Jung, 1960; Jaworski, 1996),
the occurrence of meaningful coincidences in time, which evokes such notions as precognition, interconnection and clairvoyance. These ideas should be studied in the
context of organizational discovery, where their relevance has been suggested in fields
as diverse as career development (Guindon & Hanna, 2002), idea generation (Govier,
2003) and new venture creation (Baker, Miner & Eesley, 2003). The other direction is
the notion of abduction, introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce in 1878 and recently
recovered by Santanella (2005) and Hansen (2007). The “Eureka” or “Aha! moment”
can be grasped by recourse to abductive thinking. Abduction is the creative act of
constructing explanations in the course of experience. It refers to “the creative act of
constructing explanations to account for surprising observations in the course of
experience (hypothesis generation). Abduction results in a tentative and subjective
interpretive synthesis among our sensitizing concepts” (Hansen, 2007). Such thinking
may open up moments of insight, be they in the context of entrepreneurship or of
mature organizational discovery. These moments sometimes lead to discoveries with
enormous human and commercial value but they can still be perceived as mysterious,
sudden acts of awareness, or instant revelations. It is obviously necessary to develop a
deeper knowledge of this moment itself rather than accepting it as part of the
opportunity recognition process.
20
Bisociation occurs when someone combines previously unrelated matrices of skills or
information (Koestler, 1964; Smith & DiGregorio, 2002). After a period of mental
incubation, matrices are related and a new way of representing a problem emerges. A
bisociative process happens when unsuspected connections or hidden analogies are
revealed, enabling the momentary burst of creativity reported by Hargadon and Bechky
(2006). These analogies often result from serendipitous links between information
sources, whether conjoined factually or by analogy (Foster & Ford, 2003). Kekulé’s
intuition of the structural formula for the benzene ring resulted from seeing imaginary
snakes in the fireplace, one of which formed a ring by biting its tail (McKelvey, 2002).
The association between metaphorical snakes of fire and the benzene ring is
demonstrative of the potentially strange paths and the lack of analytic logic that might
accompany serendipitous discovery. Individuals engaged in bisociation may discover
unexpected things due to their new ways of approaching a problem. These new ways of
seeing have been labeled differently: “flashes of insight” and “illuminations” are two
examples (Mintzberg & Westley 2001; Ireland et al., 2003).
The process of discovery may not be purely cognitive. Improvisation and bricolage may
facilitate bissociative efforts. Improvisation qualifies the action triggered in response to
some unplanned event. When improvising, people may use creative solutions that will
possibly be ruled out while dealing with known cases. The attraction of improvisation
for novelty may itself generate it in the first place. As expressed in the jazz metaphor,
improvisers have a bias for unsought discovery, this being the distinguishing feature of
their art (Hatch, 1997).
21
Organizationally, the case of Tim Grayson, described by Baker and Nelson (2005),
shows how familiarity with resources may lead to a succession of unsought discoveries
resulting from bricolage, or the creative use of familiar and well-known resources.
Grayson, a farmer whose land was crossed by abandoned coal mines, had a problem that
eventually turned out to be a great opportunity: the tunnels resulting from the mining
activity contained methane, a toxic gas that persists in abandoned mines for decades.
Baker and Nelson describe how Grayson was able to transform this nuisance into a
series of business opportunities. He burned the methane gas to produce electricity which
he sold to the local utility, thereby achieving a positive environmental impact. He also
built a greenhouse for hydroponic tomatoes, which were heated with the water from the
generator’s cooling system. Having nutrient-rich water heated for free, he also started
raising tilapia, a tropical delicacy with increasing demand in the US market.
Additionally, he introduced fish to the waters that bathed the tomatoes and used the fish
waste as fertilizer. In summary, Grayson managed to transform a poisonous mine into a
sequence of multiple opportunities that nobody had previously envisioned. The solution
of one problem through bricolage created the potential for further moments of
unplanned discovery in ways similar to the fruit processor who discovered, when he
was faced with a $50,000 charge by Sydney Water for removal of waste, that he had
previously dumped down the drain, that their was more value in what he threw away, as
a result of learning from a chemist in a business network that he belonged to (Porras,
2000).
A relational element facilitative of bissociation is diversity. Research has suggested that
diversity of perceptions favors a richer understanding of the environment and, therefore,
allows the organization to act in a more informed and open way (Starbuck 1965).
22
Moreover, diversity in the composition of the organization’s population allows a wider
repertoire of solutions and a higher level of flexibility (Hedberg et al. 1976). These
characteristics facilitate, in turn, a higher degree of adaptability to changing
environments (Brown & Eisenhardt 1997). Minimal consensus may be valued as a
design for matching external complexity through serendipity via the complexity of
individual organizational members, instead of using the complexity of organizational
design (Weick 1993). In short, the organization copes with environmental complexity
by having very diverse members, instead of adopting complex structural forms (as
discussed a propos minimal structuring).
Unexpected solution for “Problem B”
After the so-called Eureka or “Aha!” moments, the ideas that have been incubating are
now able to express themselves with clarity in the mind of the discoverer. The fact that
the ideas have acquired a new meaning does not guarantee their survival in an
organization’s market for ideas. The story of the Post-It Notes at 3M shows a long
process of internal venturing before the eventual launch of what became a big hit. We
suggest that the perception of the adequacy of the solution will depend, among other
things, upon the organization’s zeitgeist: is the organization mature enough to accept a
new unsought idea? Is the political landscape favorable to the idea? Is the discoverer
him/herself in an influential position at the moment? We propose that all these factors
may influence the fate of the discovery: it is not the merit of the discovery that counts
per se but also the context in which it emerges. For example, when the Project Alliance
Leadership Team of the Sydney Olympics infrastructure project, the Northside Storage
Tunnel, sought breakthrough innovations rather than business as usual they designed an
organizational culture that was intended to encourage innovation and risk-taking (Pitsis
23
et al., 2003; Clegg et al., 2002). The most important principle was the establishment of a
‘no blame culture’.
Organizations with cultures that value an aesthetic of imperfection (Weick, 1999) and a
capacity to cope with ambiguity are a good space for serendipity to thrive. In cultures of
efficiency and rigor the liberties and caprices of serendipity may be unwelcome. They
may be perceived not only as eruptions of uncertainty but also as symptoms of loose
managerial control. When this happens, even potentially positive anomalies may be
buried to conform to the expected and admissible.
Having discussed the process of serendipity in organizations, we next consider its
facilitation. In the strictest sense, serendipity cannot be managed or programmed. As
Van Andel (1994, p.646), put it “the very moment I can plan or program ‘serendipity’, it
cannot be called serendipity anymore.” But some steps may be made if a firm intends
to open itself to good fortune.
FACILITATING SERENDIPITY
In their work on cognitive repairs, or organizational practices that compensate for
individual shortcomings, Heath, Larrick and Klayman (1998) contrasted two distinct
paths to such repairs. Some repairs originate in a top down approach: they were
deliberately designed and implemented by managers or outside professionals, such as
consultants. Others emanate from the bottom up, resulting from unplanned discoveries
made while doing the work. Action is a facilitator of learning and people may act in
order to learn and discover (Weick, 1990).
24
Being an emergent process, serendipity cannot be managed/programmed but
organizations can create conditions for it to “appear”. They can increase the likelihood
of serendipity, without guaranteeing any results. For example, a mobile-phone
application has been created to improve workplace collaboration through the facilitation
of chance encounters among people “who don’t – but should – know each other”
(Eagle, 2004, p.10). The name of the application: Serendipity. The creation of the
Serendipity software application suggests that organizations may try to generate
serendipity – not necessarily by accident. They can also act in order to increase the
chances of occurrence of these fortuitous happenings, and facilitate the occurrence of
the most convenient ones.
Another way of facilitating serendipity would consist in the creation of fertile soil.
Research has advanced a number of ideas on how this can happen. As noted by Bandura
(1998), people can make chance happen if they pursue an active life that increases the
number of fortuitous encounters. People with the serendipitist traits advanced by Van
Andel and mentioned in the previous section, may express a higher capacity and
willingness to find the associations inherent to the bissociative process. In the same line
of thought, proactive sociocognitive views predict that chance favors inquisitive,
venturesome and persistent people (Austin, 1978). As such, companies favoring an
action-oriented approach and that are rich in serendipitist talents may have more
favorable conditions for unsought discovery to happen. In contrast, bureaucratic
structures may inhibit the exploration of accidental discoveries (Child & McGrath,
2001). Bureaucratic emphasis on the formal and the regulated may discourage the
discovery and communication of unsought findings. Informal interaction between
people with different types of knowledge may also be necessary, which may be
25
facilitated by competent gatekeepers (Foster & Ford, 2003). Physical proximity, the
creation of moments of contact between workers of different specialties, together with
effective gatekeeping, may facilitate accidental discoveries. An illustration is Southwest
Airlines’ “Mind the Gap” program, which consisted in the creation of cross-functional
teams across the entire organization, in an effort to foster closer teamwork and
innovative ideas (Ganesan, 2004). Hargadon and Bechky’s (2006) multiple case study
of creativity confirmed the importance of creating mindful social interactions: it is not
only the co-location that matters but also a context that facilitates help seeking and
giving, enriched with reflective reframing of the occurrences. The authors distinguished
the ongoing context of creativity and the moments of creative insight. The role of
serendipity in these moments is yet to be determined.
Deep-distant search (Katila & Ahuja, 2002) appears as a fruitful problem-solving
strategy. The process, utilizing the organization’s stock of knowledge but redirecting
people’s attention, combines expertise with curiosity, a possibility consistent with
Shane’s (2000) finding that entrepreneurs tend to discover opportunities related to the
information they already possess. Therefore, the application of the existing stock of
knowledge to new domains may be preferable to the development of new knowledge in
different domains. Organizations often engage in local search, which may be adequate
for solving problems in a current domain of interest, but not so adequate when novel
problems require different approaches. Empirical work by Lakhani (2006) showed that
creative forms of search, such as broadcast search, may be useful for addressing R&D
problems that the organization was unable to resolve internally. Broadcast search
overcomes local search constraints by engaging individuals who belong to
heterogeneous domains and who have access to knowledge that is not available
26
internally. Broadcast search can be conducted by companies acting as knowledge
brokers between seeker firms and globally dispersed independent solvers. New
information and communication technologies open new and creative ways of addressing
problems by allowing the organization to search for knowledge in its periphery. As
Lakhani (2006) shows, some answers represent unanticipated but adequate solutions
from distant knowledge fields.
In segmented cultures, “thought worlds” tend to dominate (Dougherty, 1992).
Information flows less freely and people become more and more focused, diminishing
the possibilities for bisociation to occur. As such, cross-functional teams (Holland,
Gaston & Gomes, 2000) and boundaryless structures (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992)
may improve the chances of bisociation. Exposure to diverse knowledge and practice
(e.g., in conferences, benchmarking, the blogosphere) may also create an environment
conducive to the “cognitive twist” associated with bisociation. Communication with
people from different knowledge domains facilitates bisociation. The changes
introduced by some organizations in their human resource function are suggestive: HR
professionals are increasingly viewing their work as one of connecting and facilitating
the circulation of knowledge in order to promote further knowledge creation, rather than
aiming to accomplish the traditional HR functions (such as selection, development,
compensation).
Unexpected discoveries may be vulnerable to a number of obstacles, including the wellknown ‘Not Invented Here’ syndrome. People may diminish the relevance of unsought
findings because they were simply not looking for them. The unexpected can trigger
resistance within the organization. Because of its lack of formal support and
27
background, the new idea may be perceived as lacking legitimacy or challenging the
hierarchy – a risky business (Leavitt, 2007). Additionally, when the idea is really new, it
can also have difficulty in attracting the public – both internally in one organization, and
externally, a problem involved in the discovery of the Post-It Notes, as described by its
inventor (Fry, 1987). When surprising discoveries break established knowledge, they
may also be discounted as irrelevant or wrong. It is for this reason that “naive”
discoverers, coming from outside areas or departments may take the discoveries as
valid, whereas insiders just ignore them (Hannan, 2006).
Several reasons account for the difficulties of dealing with the fruits of serendipity in
the organizational context. First, there is the need of preparation so that one can
recognize the serendipitous when encountered (Rosenman, 1988). Another potential
problem is that in some organizations legitimacy may be an issue. As discussed before,
the fact that a discovery was made inadvertently may render it less legitimate or
confusing. “Failed experiments” have to conquer legitimacy and support inside
organizational structures. As such, serendipitous discoveries may need idea or product
“champions” even more than sought discoveries. Additionally, if these discoveries take
an organization out of its planned path, they may involve an effort of “forgetting” that
may be difficult (Martin de Holan and Philips, 2004), especially for those committed to
the previous course of action, who may not appreciate the de-railing of their plans by an
accidental finding. An organization’s appreciation of “weird ideas” (Sutton, 2001), or
the organization’s propensity to challenge its own assumptions, may create the space for
unexpected solutions to be protected and validated.
---------------------------------------
28
Table 2 about here
-------------------------------------
NEW DIRECTIONS
In a literature review of organizational learning, Huber (1991) observed that little
research effort has been devoted to unintentional learning. There may be many reasons
for this lack of attention, including the presumed superior quality of intentional
learning, and the methodological difficulties and challenges inherent in the study of a
phenomenon that, being unintentional, is also unpredictable, irregular, random and
ambiguous. We contributed to this field by analyzing one of the possible shapes of
unintentional learning. Chance, luck, and accidental discoveries are often presented as
the result of the random combination of multiple factors that are beyond the company’s
control (e.g., Barney, 1986), but the effort expended in better understanding this
ambiguous concept may be relevant.
Recent research suggests that the discovery of strategic opportunities is sometimes a
matter of serendipity (Denrell, Fang and Winter, 2003) and that strategic decisions, such
as internationalization, may be driven by a high degree of serendipity (Meyer and Skak,
2002). We discussed the meaning of chance and luck involved in the process of
serendipitous discovery – a form of unintentional learning. We proposed a model of
serendipity that suggests that chance tends to favor only organizations that are prepared
to seize the moment. In other words, organizations can cultivate and nurture the factors
that lead to serendipity and express and cultivate associated qualities.
29
If we take organizations as entities in which relevant emergent elements can appear,
then serendipity may have a role in explaining the processes of organization (Tsoukas &
Chia, 2002). We are aware of the dangers involved on an organization’s reliance on
serendipity as a means of discovery, given its unpredictable, non-programmable and
untamed nature; thus, we attempt to increase familiarity with the concept in the
organization studies field while not suggesting that serendipity is superior to other
forms of learning and discovery, such as those described by Miller (1996) or to the
structured management of innovation value chains (Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007).
A number of aspects of the paper may be the subject of criticism. For instance, we have
not established a precise line between the notions of positive serendipity, negative
serendipity and pseudo-serendipity (Van Andel, 1994). Positive serendipity refers to the
discovery of an accidental fact followed by a correct abduction (e.g., Rontgen’s
discovery of X-rays). In the case of negative serendipity, a surprising fact/relation is
seen but not optimally investigated by the discoverer (e.g. Colombo’s discovery of the
Americas). Pseudo-serendipity refers to the discovery of something one was looking for
but finding it in a surprising manner (Roberts, 1989). Given our focus on the role of
emergent discovery in organizations, we ignored these distinctions, but future
researchers may prefer to take them into account.
Serendipity opens a number of possibilities for future research (see table 3 for a sample
of directions). First, as we suggested, it may be perceived as a relevant research topic
per se. As Taleb (2007, p. 167) observed in his book on the impact of the highly
improbable, Sir Francis Bacon commented that the least predictable advances are also
the most important ones. The fact that both choice and chance have a role in the destiny
30
of organizations is gaining incremental acceptance in the theory of organizations (De
Rond & Thietart, 2007). Random errors play a role in the process of organizational
change and evolution (March, 2006), which means that scholars of organization should
incorporate this element in their theorizing. Second, it may help to illuminate the
meaning and impact of other relevant but under-researched concepts such as abduction
and bricolage. The role of abduction in the serendipitous process is yet to be considered.
Third, the analysis of serendipity may add to the knowledge management literature. The
combination of knowledge inherent to the bissociative process may shed new light on
how organizations refresh their knowledge base through emergence. Fourth, the
understanding of serendipity may contribute to our knowledge of how processes
develop by-products of value. Cohen and Levinthal (1994) presented absorptive
capacity as a by-product of some other activity, such as R&D. Serendipity may be
another organizational by-product worth considering. Similarly to absorptive capacity, it
may also contribute to organizational preparedness and adaptiveness.
--------------------------------------Table 3 about here
-------------------------------------
Despite the relevance of the notion of serendipity for organizational theory and
management practice, there are difficulties associated with it. One of these difficulties is
detectable in Santos et al.’s (2004) piece of advice: because knowledge is sometimes
discovered by accident, managers should “constantly be on the lookout for unexpected
sources of knowledge” (p.35). The tricky part of this good suggestion is that unexpected
sources of knowledge are by definition impossible to predict. Therefore organizations
31
cannot depend on serendipity and unintentional learning alone. Nevertheless,
serendipitous discoveries may result from intentional exploratory search processes. This
may help us understand why some organizations are luckier than others.
CONCLUSION
The present paper may be read as an invitation for management scholars to develop
further research in a vein that is contrary to the dominant logic of organization and
management studies as the engineering foundations of the field bequeathed them
(Shenhav, 1999). Abandoning the bias for routine and predictability, accompanied by
the appreciation of the unplanned and fortuitous (Plowman et al., 2007), can unshackle
organizations from the predictable legacy of much organization and management
theory. Indeed, our paper is not only an example of an argument constructed in terms
other than those of a hypothetico-deductive method it is also an argument against the
primacy attached to such work in management theory – and practice – in general.
Serendipitous discovery does not emerge from what is already thought and known and
its systematic application, as we have argued. Instead, its essential nature is surprise.
A wholly different view of organizations to that which sees them as more or less stable
structures struggling with exogenous and endogenous sources of uncertainty emerges
from this perspective. On the contrary, lively organizations, organizations that exhibit
vitality and innovation rather than a commitment to the perfectibility of routine, will be
spaces of enquiry, surprise, with time for reflection. They can be designed to be like that
and we have spent our time in this paper suggesting what that design might be. The
model, of course, is the university seminar or research laboratory, where there is a
collective commitment to strive for ideal speech situations in which anything might
32
happen or be said, in which vitality is not subject to conformance with routines that
stultify (Habermas, 1971) but finds expression in the power to act, the history to be able
to inform that action intelligently, and the imagination to be able to do so (Clegg, 2006).
33
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, Eric & David H. Freedman (2006). A perfect mess. The hidden benefits of
disorder. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Adler, Paul S., Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine (1999). Flexibility versus
efficiency: A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system.
Organization Science, 10, 43-68.
Ancona, Deborah & Chee-Leong Chong (1996). Entrainment: Pace, cycle and rhythm
in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 251-284.
Austin, James H. (1978). Chase, chance, and creativity. The lucky art of novelty. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Baker Ted, Anne S. Miner & Dale T. Eesley (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage,
account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process.
Research Policy, 32, 255-276.
Baker, Ted, & Reed Nelson (2005). Creating something out of nothing: Resource
construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50, 329-366.
Bandura, Albert (1998). Exploration of fortuitous determinants of life paths.
Psychological Science, 9, 95-99.
Barney, Jay B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business
strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231-1241.
Bourgeois, Jay L. (1979). Toward a method of middle-range theorizing. Academy of
Management Review, 4, 443-447.
Brown, Shona L. & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt (1997). The art of continuous change:
Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting
34
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1-34.
Bruch, Heike & Sumantra Ghoshal (2002). Beware the busy manager. Harvard
Business Review, February, 62-69.
Brunsson, Nils (2006). Mechanisms of Hope, Oslo/Copenhagen: Liber/CBS Press.
Child, John, & Rita Gunther McGrath (2001). Organizations unfettered: Organizational
form in an information-intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
1135-1148.
Ciborra, Claudio (2002). The labyrinths of information. Challenging the wisdom of
systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clegg, Stewart R. (2006) ‘The Bounds of Rationality: Power/History/Imagination”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(7):847-863.
Clegg, Stewart R., David Courpasson & Nelson Phillips (2006). Power and
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clegg, Stewart R., Tyrone Pitsis, Theckla Rura-Polley and Morton Marosszeky (2002)
Governmentality Matters: Designing an Alliance Culture of Inter-organizational
Collaboration for Managing Projects, Organization Studies, 23, 317-337.
Cohen, Wesley M. & Daniel A. Levinthal (1994). Fortune favors the prepared firm.
Organization Science, 40, 227-251.
Cohen, Michael D., James G. March & Johan P. Olsen (1972). A garbage can model of
organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
Cooper, Robert G. (1998). Benchmarking new product performance: Results of the best
practices study. European Management Journal, 16(1), 1-17.
Cunha, Miguel Pina e, Stewart R. Clegg & Ken Kamoche (2006). Surprises in
management and organization: Concept, sources, and a typology. British Journal
of Management, 17, 317-329.
35
Davis, Murray (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a
sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of Social Science, 1, 309-344.
Day, George S. & Paul Schoemaker (2004a). Peripheral vision: Sensing and acting on
weak signals. Long Range Planning, 37, 117-121.
Day, George S. & Paul Schoemaker (2004b). Driving through the fog: Managing at the
edge. Long Range Planning, 37, 127-142.
De Rond, Mark & Raymond Alain Thietart (2007). Choice, chance, and inevitability in
strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 535-551.
Delgadillo, Roberto & Beverly P. Lynch (1999). Future historians: Their quest for
information. College and Research Libraries, 60, 245-259.
Denrell, Jerker, Christina Fang & Sidney G. Winter (2003). The economics of strategic
opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 977-990.
Donaldson, Lex (1996). “The Normal Science of Structural Contingency Theory.” Pp.
57-77 in Handbook of Organization Studies edited by Stewart R. Clegg and
Cynthia Hardy, London: Sage.
Dougherty, Deborah (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in
large firms. Organization Science, 3, 179-202.
Drucker Peter F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles.
New York: Harper & Row.
Eagle, Nathan (2004). Can serendipity be planned? MIT Sloan Management Review,
Fall, 10-14.
Eco, Umberto (1999). Serendipities. Language and lunacy. New York: Phoenix.
Edmondson, Amy C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
36
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy
of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
Fairtlough, Gerard (2007) The Three Ways of Getting Things Done: Heterarchy,
Hierarchy & Responsible Autonomy in Organizations. Axminster: Triarchy Press
Fine, Gary, & James Deegan (1996). Three principles of Serendip: The role of chance in
ethnographic research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 434-447.
Foster, Allen & Nigel Ford, (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: An empirical
study. Journal of Documentation, 59, 321-340.
Frambach, Ruud T., Jaideep Prabhu & Theo M.M. Verhallen (2003). The influence of
business strategy on new product activity: The role of market orientation.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 377-397.
Fry, Art (1987). The post-it note: A case of intrapreneurial success. SAM Advanced
Management Journal, Summer, 4-9.
Ganesan, Senthil (2004). Southwest Airlines: Generating competitive advantage
through human resources management. Hyderabad: ICFAI.
Glaser, Barney, & Anselm Strauss (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:
Aldine, 1967.
Govier, Ernest (2003). Brainsex and occupation: The role of serendipity in the genesis
of an idea. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 440-452.
Graebner, Melissa E. (2004). Momentum and serendipity: How acquired leaders create
value in the integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25,
751-777.
Guindon, Mary H., & Fred J. Hanna (2002). Coincidence, happenstance, serendipity,
fate, or the hand of God: Case studies in synchronicity. Career Development
Quarterly, 50, 195-208.
37
Habermas, Jurgen (1971) Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.
Hannan, Patrick J. (2006). Luck and wisdom in research. New York: iUniverse.
Hansen, Hans (2007). Abduction. In Daved Barry & Hans Hansen (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of new approaches in management and organization. London: Sage.
Hansen, Morten & Julian Birkinshaw (2007). The innovation value chain. Harvard
Business Review, June, 121-130.
Hargadon, Andrew B. & Beth A. Bechky (2006). When collections of creatives become
creative collectivities: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization
Science, 17, 484-500.
Hatch, Mary Jo (1997). Jazzing up the theory of organizational improvisation’.Advances
in Strategic Management’, JAI Press. Greenwich, CT: Vol 14, 181-191.
Heath, Chip, Richard P.Larrick, & Joshua Klayman (1998). Cognitive repairs: How
organizational practices can compensate for individual shortcomings. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 20, 1-37.
Hedberg, Bo L.T., Paul C. Nystrom, & William H. Starbuck (1976). Camping on
Seesaws: Prescriptions for Self-Designing Organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 41-65.
Hindo, Brian (2007). At 3M, a struggle between efficiency and creativity. Newsweek,
June 11, IN8-16.
Hirsch, Paul (1971), Sociological approaches to the pop music phenomenon, American
Behavioral Scientist, 14, pp. 371-388
Hirschhorn, Larry & Thomas Gilmore (1992). The new boundaries of the
“boundaryless” company. Harvard Business Review, 70(3), 104-115.
38
Holland, Sarah, Kevin Gaston & Jorge F. Gomes (2000). Critical success factors for
cross-functional teamwork in new product development. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 2, 231-259.
Huber, George P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Management Science, 2, 88-115.
Ireland, R. Duane, Michael A. Hitt & David G.Sirmon, (2003). A model of strategic
entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29,
963-898.
Jacques, Elliott (1964). Time-Span Handbook: the Use of Time-Span of Discretion to
Measure the Level of Work in Employment Roles and to Arrange an Equitable
Payment Structure, London, Heinemann.
Jaworski, Joseph (1996). Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Jung, Carl G. (1960). Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Katila, Riita & Gautam Ahuja (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal
study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 1183-1194.
Koestler, Arthur (1964). The act of creation. London: Arkana.
Kohli, Ajay K. & Bernard J. Jaworski (1990). Market orientation: The construct,
research propositions and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54,
April, 1-18.
Kornberger, Martin, Chris Carter and Stewart R. Clegg (2006) ‘Rethinking the
Polyphonic Organization: Managing as Discursive Practice’, Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 22: 3-30.
39
Kornberger, Martin, Stewart R. Clegg and Carl Rhodes (2005)
‘Learning/Becoming/Organizing’, Organization, 12(2): 147–167.
Kyriacopoulos, Kyriakos & Christine Moorman (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing
exploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 219-240.
Lakhani, Karim (2006). Broadcast search in problem solving: Attracting solutions from
the periphery. Unpublished manuscript.
Landes, David (1994). What room for accident in history? Explaining big changes by
small events. Economic History Review, 47, 637-656.
Leavitt, Harold J. (2007). Big organizations are unhealthy environments for human
beings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 253-263.
Lovas, Bernard & Sumantra Ghoshal (2000). Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic
Management Journal, 21, 875-896.
March, James G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
March, James G. (2006). Rationality foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic
Management Journal, 27, 201-214.
Martin de Holan Pablo & Mintzberg, Henry (2004). Management as life’s essence: 30
years of ‘The Nature of Managerial Work’. Strategic Organization, 2, 205-212.
Martin de Holan Pablo, & Phillips, Nelson (2004). Remembrance of things past? The
dynamics of organizational forgetting. Management Science, 50, 1603-1613.
McKelvey, Bill (2002). Glossary of epistemology terms. In Joel A.C. Baum (Ed.)
Companion to organizations (pp.889-898). Oxford: Blackwell.
40
Mendonça, Sandro, Cunha, Miguel Pina e, Kaivo-oja, Jari & Ruff, Frnak (2007).
Venturing into the wilderness: Preparing for wild cards in the civil aircraft and
asset management industries. Unpublished manuscript.
Merton, Robert K. & Elinor Barber (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Meyer, Klaus & Ana Skak (2002). Networks, serendipity and SME entry into Eastern
Europe. European Management Journal, 20(2), 179-188.
Miller, Danny (1996). A preliminary typology of organizational learning: Synthesizing
the literature. Journal of Management, 22, 485-505.
Mintzberg, Henry, & Westley, Frances (2001). Decision making: It's not what you
think. Sloan Management Review, 42(3), 89-93.
Miyazaki, Kumiko (1999). Building technology competencies in Japanese firms.
Research Technology Management, 42(5), 39-45.
Nahapiet, Janine & Sumantra Ghoshal (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and
the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266.
Olsen, Johan P. (1976). Choice in an organized anarchy. In J.G. March & J.P. Olsen
(Eds.),
Ambiguity
and
choice
in
organizations
(pp.82-139).
Bergen:
Universitetsforlaget.
Pascale, Richard T. (1984). Perspectives on strategy: The real story behind Honda’s
success. California Management Review, 26, 47-72.
Peters, Tom & Robert Waterman (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from
America’s best-run corporations. New York: Harper & Row.
Pitsis, Tyrone, Clegg, Stewart R, Marosszeky, M., and Rura-Polley, T. (2003)
‘Constructing the Olympic Dream: Managing Innovation through the Future
Perfect’, Organization Science, 14:5, 574-590.
41
Plowman, Donde A., Lakami T. Baker, Mukta Kulkarni, Stephanie T. Solansky &
Deandra Travis (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and
amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 515-543.
Porras, Salvador (2000). Business Networks: An Effective Way of Organising
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Technology Sydney.
Regnér, Patrick (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive
strategy making. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 57-82.
Remer, Theodore G. (1965). Serendipity and the Three Princes, from the Peregrinaggio
of 557. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Roberts, Royson M. (1989). Serendipity. Accidental discoveries in science. New York:
Wiley.
Rosenman, Martin F. (1988). Serendipity and scientific discovery. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 22, 132-138.
Santanella, Lucia (2005). Abduction: the logic of guessing. Semiotica, 153 , 175-198
Santos, Jose, Yves Doz & Paul Williamson (2004). Is your innovation process global?
MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer, 31-37.
Schutz, Alfred (1967) The phenomenology of the social world, Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Shane, Scott (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial
opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448-469.
Shenhav, Yehouda (1999). Manufacturing rationality. The engineering foundations of
the managerial revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Adam (1904/1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations. London: Methuen and Co.
42
Simon, Herbert A. (1993). Strategy and organizational evolution. Strategic Management
Journal, 14, 131-142.
Starbuck, William H. (1965). Organizational growth and development. In J.G. March
(ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 451-533). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sutton, Robert I. (2001). Weird ideas that work. New York: Free Press.
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable.
New York: Random House.
Tsoukas, Haridimos (2004). New times, fresh challenges: Reflections on the past and
the future of organization theory. In Haridimos Tsoukas & Christian Knudsen
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory (pp.607-622). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Tsoukas, Haridimos & Chia, Robert (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking
organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567-582.
Van Andel, Pek (1994). Anatomy of the unsought finding: Serendipity: origin, history,
domains, traditions, appearances, patters and programmability. British Journal for
the Philosophy of Science, 45, 631-648.
Warglien, Massimo, & Michael Masuch (1995). The logic of organizational disorder.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Weick, Karl E. (1979) The social psychology of organizing (Second edition) Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, Karl E. (1990). Cartographic myths in organizations. In A.S. Huff (Ed.)
Mapping strategic thought (pp.1-10). New York: Wiley.
Weick, Karl E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch
disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652.
43
Weick, Karl E. (1999). The aesthetic of imperfection in orchestras and organizations. In
Miguel Pina e Cunha & Carlos Alves Marques (Eds.), Readings in organization
science (pp.541-563). Lisboa: ISPA.
Weick, Karl E. & Roberts, K.H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful
interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381.
Weick, Karl E. & Sutcliffe, Kathleen M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of
organizational attention. Organization Science, 17, 514-524.
44
Figure 1: The serendipity process
Precipitating
conditions
Bisociation
Search
problem A
for
Unexpected
solution for
problem B
45
Table 1: Serendipity and organization: Intervening factors
Process phase
Precipitating conditions
Facilitating conditions
Temporal
ƒ Rhythms of organizations
ƒ Entrainment
Analytical
ƒ Peripheral vision
ƒ Market orientation
ƒ Serendipitist dispositions and
learning styles
ƒ Cultures of action
Search for problem A
Relational
ƒ Organizational trust and support
ƒ Social capital
Temporal
ƒ Minimal structuring
Analytical
ƒ Deep search
ƒ Broadcast search
ƒ Mindfulness
Bisociation
Relational
ƒ Flexible designs
ƒ Deference to expertise
Temporal
ƒ Synchronicity
ƒ Abduction
Analytical
ƒ Bricolage
ƒ Improvisation
Unexpected solution for
Problem B
Relational
ƒ Diversity
Temporal
ƒ Organizational zeitgeist
Analytical
ƒ Aesthetics of imperfection
Work on the topic
Brown & Eisenhardt (1997)
Ancona & Chong (1996)
Day & Shoemaker (2004 a)
Kohli & Jaworski (1990)
Van Andel (1994)
Bandura (1998)
Edmondson (1990)
Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998)
Kamoche & Cunha (2001)
Katila & Ahuja (2002)
Lakhani (2006)
Weick & Sutcliffe (2006)
Fairtlough (2007)
Weick & Roberts (1993)
Jaworski (1996)
Hansen (2007)
Baker & Nelson (2005)
Cunha, Cunha & Kamoche (1999)
Kornberger, Carter and Clegg (2006)
Pitsis et al. (2003)
Weick (1999)
Relational
ƒ An appreciation of the unexpected Weick & Sutcliffe (2006)
Sutton (2001)
ƒ Tolerance for uncertainty
46
Table 2: Facilitating serendipity in organizations
Dimension
Temporal
Analytical/learning
Relational
Facilitative processes
ƒ Cultivating and entraining rhythms
ƒ Adopting minimal structures
ƒ Hiring people with serendipitist inclinations
ƒ Stimulating diverse organizational search styles
ƒ Cultivating peripheral vision
ƒ Adopting a market orientation
ƒ Encouraging diversity and weirdness
ƒ Implement knowledge sharing technologies
ƒ Building social capital
ƒ Designing the organization for flexibility
47
Table 3: A sample of research questions on serendipity and organization
Process phase
Precipitating conditions
Search for problem A
Bisociation
Unexpected solution for
Problem B
Research questions
ƒ How can organizations keep functioning at the edge of chaos?
ƒ How can organizations develop a capacity for peripheral vision?
ƒ Is organization and management theory a theory of focus?
ƒ Do organizations fear serendipity?
ƒ What organizational characteristics facilitate mindfulness?
ƒ Who, in organizations, is better positioned for serendipitous discoveries?
ƒ How do goals and focus interfere with serendipitous discovery?
ƒ What is a serendipitist inclination?
ƒ How can boundary objects and artifacts be used to facilitate serendipity?
ƒ What types of materials facilitate serendipity?
ƒ What really happens in the “Aha! Moments”?
ƒ How does diversity impact serendipity?
ƒ How do organizations deal with unexpected findings?
ƒ How do organizations create an aesthetics of imperfection?
ƒ How can organizations overcome the fear of the unexpected?
ƒ How do we define and conceive luck in organizations?