Table 2. Periodization of dynamic...

Table 2.

Periodization of dynamic capabilities research: phases, turning points and tensions

Periods	Theoretical phases	Representative papers	Turning points	Tensions
1997–2003	Foundational conceptualization of dynamic capabilities	Teece et al. (1997); Rindova and Kotha (2001); Zollo and Winter (2002); Helfat and Peteraf (2003); Winter (2003); Zott (2003)	DC research emerged as static explanations of advantage became insufficient for explaining renewal, recombination, and reconfiguration under faster technological and competitive change (Teece et al., 1997)	Stability vs flexibility: whether DCs are stable, path-dependent systems of capability building or flexible processes for rapid reconfiguration
2004–2010	Organizational mechanisms and managerial expansion	Zahra et al. (2006); Teece (2007); Augier and Teece (2008, 2009); Ambrosini et al. (2009); Bruni and Verona (2009); Newey and Zahra (2009); Pandza and Thorpe (2009); Sirmon and Hitt (2009); Barreto (2010)	The field moved from defining DCs to specifying the processes and managerial actions through which renewal occurs, including sensing, seizing, reconfiguring, orchestration, and entrepreneurial management (Teece, 2007; Barreto, 2010)	Organizational mechanisms vs Managerial agency: whether adaptation is primarily structured by organizational processes or enacted through managerial judgment, cognition, and intent
2011–2015	Microfoundational deepening and contingency qualification	Helfat and Winter (2011); Hodgkinson and Healey (2011); Drnevich and Kriauciunas (2011); Teece (2012, 2014); Peteraf et al. (2013); Wilden et al. (2013); Schilke (2014a, 2014b); Bingham et al. (2015); Helfat and Martin (2015); Helfat and Peteraf (2015)	Unresolved questions about performance effects, ordinary–dynamic capability boundaries, and contextual variation redirected attention toward microfoundations, managerial cognition, and contingency conditions (Peteraf et al., 2013; Schilke, 2014a; Helfat and Martin, 2015)	Microfoundations vs contingency: whether DC value derives from cognition, emotion, human/social capital, and learning, or from fit with environmental and organizational conditions
2016–2019	Configurational, multilevel, and processual consolidation	Fainshmidt et al. (2016, 2019); Ringov (2017); Girod and Whittington (2017); Prange et al. (2018); Teece (2018a, 2018b); Schilke et al. (2018); Salvato and Vassolo (2018); Huy and Zott (2019)	Growing fragmentation across mechanisms, levels, and contexts pushed DC research toward architectural integration, configurations, multilevel theorizing, digital transformation, and ecosystem interaction (Wilden et al., 2016; Schilke et al., 2018; Warner and Wäger, 2019)	Architectural integration vs causal ambiguity: whether DCs can be organized into coherent systems or whether their operation remains path-dependent, relational, emotional, and partially opaque
2020–2026	Frontier expansion and adapting–shaping relationship	Suddaby et al. (2020); Colombo et al. (2021); Helfat (2022); Schulze and Brusoni (2022); Fergnani (2022); Foss et al. (2023); Teece (2023a, 2023b); Maghzi et al. (2024); Cristofaro et al. (2025); Hock-Doepgen et al. (2025); Aoki (2026)	Systemic disruption, ecosystem dependence, and future-oriented uncertainty shifted DC research beyond adaptation toward resilience, foresight, ecosystem orchestration, environmental shaping, and transition management (Helfat, 2022; Foss et al., 2023; Cristofaro et al., 2025)	Adaptation vs shaping: whether DCs primarily restore fit under shocks and misalignment or also enable firms to influence markets, ecosystems, futures, standards, and competitive trajectories

Periods	Theoretical phases	Representative papers	Turning points	Tensions
1997–2003	Foundational conceptualization of dynamic capabilities	Teece et al. (1997); Rindova and Kotha (2001); Zollo and Winter (2002); Helfat and Peteraf (2003); Winter (2003); Zott (2003)	DC research emerged as static explanations of advantage became insufficient for explaining renewal, recombination, and reconfiguration under faster technological and competitive change (Teece et al., 1997)	Stability vs flexibility: whether DCs are stable, path-dependent systems of capability building or flexible processes for rapid reconfiguration
2004–2010	Organizational mechanisms and managerial expansion	Zahra et al. (2006); Teece (2007); Augier and Teece (2008, 2009); Ambrosini et al. (2009); Bruni and Verona (2009); Newey and Zahra (2009); Pandza and Thorpe (2009); Sirmon and Hitt (2009); Barreto (2010)	The field moved from defining DCs to specifying the processes and managerial actions through which renewal occurs, including sensing, seizing, reconfiguring, orchestration, and entrepreneurial management (Teece, 2007; Barreto, 2010)	Organizational mechanisms vs Managerial agency: whether adaptation is primarily structured by organizational processes or enacted through managerial judgment, cognition, and intent
2011–2015	Microfoundational deepening and contingency qualification	Helfat and Winter (2011); Hodgkinson and Healey (2011); Drnevich and Kriauciunas (2011); Teece (2012, 2014); Peteraf et al. (2013); Wilden et al. (2013); Schilke (2014a, 2014b); Bingham et al. (2015); Helfat and Martin (2015); Helfat and Peteraf (2015)	Unresolved questions about performance effects, ordinary–dynamic capability boundaries, and contextual variation redirected attention toward microfoundations, managerial cognition, and contingency conditions (Peteraf et al., 2013; Schilke, 2014a; Helfat and Martin, 2015)	Microfoundations vs contingency: whether DC value derives from cognition, emotion, human/social capital, and learning, or from fit with environmental and organizational conditions
2016–2019	Configurational, multilevel, and processual consolidation	Fainshmidt et al. (2016, 2019); Ringov (2017); Girod and Whittington (2017); Prange et al. (2018); Teece (2018a, 2018b); Schilke et al. (2018); Salvato and Vassolo (2018); Huy and Zott (2019)	Growing fragmentation across mechanisms, levels, and contexts pushed DC research toward architectural integration, configurations, multilevel theorizing, digital transformation, and ecosystem interaction (Wilden et al., 2016; Schilke et al., 2018; Warner and Wäger, 2019)	Architectural integration vs causal ambiguity: whether DCs can be organized into coherent systems or whether their operation remains path-dependent, relational, emotional, and partially opaque
2020–2026	Frontier expansion and adapting–shaping relationship	Suddaby et al. (2020); Colombo et al. (2021); Helfat (2022); Schulze and Brusoni (2022); Fergnani (2022); Foss et al. (2023); Teece (2023a, 2023b); Maghzi et al. (2024); Cristofaro et al. (2025); Hock-Doepgen et al. (2025); Aoki (2026)	Systemic disruption, ecosystem dependence, and future-oriented uncertainty shifted DC research beyond adaptation toward resilience, foresight, ecosystem orchestration, environmental shaping, and transition management (Helfat, 2022; Foss et al., 2023; Cristofaro et al., 2025)	Adaptation vs shaping: whether DCs primarily restore fit under shocks and misalignment or also enable firms to influence markets, ecosystems, futures, standards, and competitive trajectories

Note(s):

The turning points summarize shifts in the field’s dominant problem agenda. They do not imply abrupt breaks or deterministic causality. Supplementary Material SM3 provides the extended evidentiary basis for each transition

Source(s): Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable