References

msuecon

Вестник Московского университета. Серия 6. Экономика

Lomonosov Economics Journal

0130-0105

MSUPRESS

10.55959/MSU0130-0105-6-60-6-12

msuecon-1588

Research Article

МЕЖДИСЦИПЛИНАРНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

Эволюция подходов к измерению организационных и стратегических конструктов на основе автоматизированного анализа текста

The evolution of approaches to the measurement of organizational and strategic constructs with the use of computational text analysis

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0279-3847

Кабанов

Д. А.

Kabanov

D. A.

Кабанов Дмитрий Александрович — аспирант

Москва

Moscow

dkabanov@hse.ru

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7075-0016

Комаров

М. М.

Komarov

M. M.

Комаров Михаил Михайлович — к.т.н., PhD, профессор

Москва

Moscow

mkomarov@hse.ru

Высшая школа бизнеса, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»РоссияGraduate School of Business, HSE UniversityRussian Federation

2025

04022026

606277306

2026

Кабанов Д.А., Комаров М.М.

Kabanov D.A., Komarov M.M.

Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://msuecon.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/1588

Рост объемов и разнообразия информационных материалов, публикуемых от имени организаций, открывает новые перспективы для исследований с применением автоматизированного анализа текста в менеджменте и стратегическом управлении. Однако, в то время как сами методы компьютерной обработки текстовых данных подробно описаны, методологические подходы к измерению организационных и стратегических конструктов на их основе остаются менее проработанными. В этом случае автоматизированный анализ текста выступает лишь частью комплексного методологического аппарата для проведения измерений. Несмотря на то, что использование данного аппарата предоставляет новые возможности исследователям, число работ, задействующих его, невелико, поскольку особенности подходов к разработке мер организационных и стратегических конструктов для автоматизированного анализа текста не получили достаточно широкого освещения в научной литературе. В этой связи предметом настоящей работы выбраны подходы к разработке мер организационных и стратегических конструктов для проведения измерений на основе автоматизированного анализа текста. Целью авторов является систематизация: накопленного методологического опыта, этапов развития данного направления, а также подходов к разработке мер организационных и стратегических конструктов. В работе применяются методы критического анализа и синтеза — представлен критический обзор, охватывающий более 20 узкоспециализированных эмпирических исследований по теме, опубликованных в ведущих журналах по менеджменту. В качестве результатов представлены: анализ эволюции направления, анализ и типология подходов к разработке мер организационных и стратегических конструктов по четырем типам. Авторы иллюстрируют возможности применения типологии на примере динамических организационных способностей. Настоящая статья предлагает основу для исследования и совершенствования подходов к измерению организационных и стратегических конструктов на базе автоматизированного анализа текста. Работа также выступает вводным материалом по данному междисциплинарному направлению для исследователей и практикующих специалистов в области менеджмента и стратегического управления.

With the increased availability of textual documents published by organizations, computational text analysis (CTA) opens new avenues for management and strategy research. However, while existing text processing techniques are well documented, approaches to measuring organizational and strategic constructs based on these techniques — that represent only a portion of measurement methodologies within CTA-based research — remain considerably less developed. Although the use of CTA-based methodologies offers new opportunities for researchers, the literature employing them remains scattered, with the limitations of such methodologies being infrequently discussed. In this regard, the authors aim to examine the evolution of this line of research, focusing explicitly on measure development practices within CTA-based methodologies. This study offers an overview of methodological progress and challenges in this area based on a critical review of over 20 specialized empirical research articles, and presents the typology of measure development approaches in CTAbased assessments of organizational and strategic constructs. The authors illustrate the use of the proposed typology by examining the literature that employs CTA to assess dynamic capabilities. The present work seeks to provide a useful methodological foundation for further study and enhancement of CTA-based measurement of organizational and strategic constructs, offering an accessible introduction to this interdisciplinary area for both management and strategy scholars as well as practitioners in the field.

стратегическое управлениеметоды организационных исследованийизмерение конструктовавтоматизированный анализ текста

strategic managementorganizational research methodsconstruct measurementcomputational text analysis

References1

Катькало, В. С. (2008). Эволюция теории стратегического управления. (3-е изд.). СПбГУ.

Katkalo, V. S. (2008). The evolution of strategic management theory. (3rd ed.). SPbU.

Arora, S. K., Li, Y., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2020). Measuring dynamic capabilities in new ventures: exploring strategic change in US green goods manufacturing using website data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(5), 1451–1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961019-09751-y.

Belderbos, R., Grabowska, M., Leten, B., Kelchtermans, S., & Ugur, N. (2017). On the use of computer-aided text analysis in international business research. Global Strategy Journal, 7(3), 312–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1162.

Boyd, B. K., Bergh, D. D., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2013). Constructs in strategic management. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 3–14.

Boyd, B. K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Construct measurement in strategic management research: illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 239–257.

Bhandari, K. R., Rana, S., Paul, J., & Salo, J. (2020). Relative exploration and fi rm performance: Why resource-theory alone is not suffi cient? Journal of Business Research, 118, 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.001.

den Hertog, P., van der Aa, W., & de Jong, M. W. (2010). Capabilities for managing service innovation: towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 490–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231011066123.

Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2009). Cognition and renewal: Comparing CEO and organizational eff ects on incumbent adaptation to technical change. Organization Science, 20(2), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0401.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/10970266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E.

Fyff e, S., Lee, P., & Kaplan, S. (2023). “Transforming” Personality Scale Development: Illustrating the Potential of State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing. Organizational Research Methods, 27(2), 265–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231155771.

Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1920110.

Gokhberg, L., Meissner, D., & Kuzminov, I. (2022). What semantic analysis can tell us about long term trends in the global STI policy agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(6), 2249–2277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09959-5.

Hickman, L., Thapa, S., Tay, L., Cao, M., & Srinivasan, P. (2020). Text Preprocessing for Text Mining in Organizational Research: Review and Recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 114–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120971683.

Kabanoff , B., Waldersee, R., & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1075–1104. https://doi.org/10.5465/256621.

Kaplan, S. (2008). Cognition, capabilities, and incentives: Assessing fi rm response to the fi ber-optic revolution. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 672–695. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.33665141.

Keil, T., Maula, M., & Syrigos, E. (2017). CEO entrepreneurial orientation, entrenchment, and fi rm value creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(4), 475–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/etp.12213.

Kohler, M., Feldmann, N., Kimbrough, S. O., & Fromm, H. (2014). Service innovation analytics: Leveraging existing unstructured data to assess service innovation capability. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (IJISMD), 5(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijismd.2014040101.

Laaksonen, O., & Peltoniemi, M. (2016). The Essence of Dynamic Capabilities and their Measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 184–205. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12122.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009.

Lu, Q., Meng, X., Su, J., Ming, A. A. K., Wu, Y., & Wang, C. (2023). TMT functional background heterogeneity and SMEs’ performance: The role of dynamic capabilities and business environment. Journal of Business Research, 160, 113807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113807.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.

McKenny, A. F., Aguinis, H., Short, J. C., & Anglin, A. H. (2018). What doesn’t get measured does exist: Improving the accuracy of computer-aided text analysis. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2909–2933. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316657594.

Menon, A., Choi, J., & Tabakovic, H. (2018). What You Say Your Strategy Is and Why It Matters: Natural Language Processing of Unstructured Text. Academy of Management Proceedings, (1), 18319. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2018.18319abstract.

Morris, R. (1994). Computerized content analysis in management research: A demonstration of advantages & limitations. Journal of Management, 20(4), 903–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(94)90035-3.

Moss, T. W., Payne, G. T., & Moore, C. B. (2014). Strategic consistency of exploration and exploitation in family businesses. Family Business Review, 27(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486513504434.

Mousa, F.-T., Wales, W. J., & Harper, S. R. (2015). When less is more: EO’s infl uence upon funds raised by young technology fi rms at IPO. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.003.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pandey, S., & Pandey, S. K. (2019). Applying natural language processing capabilities in computerized textual analysis to measure organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(3), 765–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117745648.

Pandey, S., Pandey, S. K., & Miller, L. (2017). Measuring innovativeness of public organizations: Using natural language processing techniques in computer-aided textual analysis. International Public Management Journal, 20(1), 78–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1143424.

Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., & Pollock, T. G. (1999). Industry Categories and the Politics of the Comparable Firm in CEO Compensation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 112– 144. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667033.

Short, J. C., Broberg, J. C., Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA) an illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109335949.

Short, J. C., & Palmer, T. B. (2008). The application of DICTION to content analysis research in strategic management. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 727–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107304534.

Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G. T., & Broberg, J. C. (2009). Family Firms and Entrepreneurial Orientation in Publicly Traded Firms. Family Business Review, 22(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486508327823.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.

Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., Smith, M. S., & , Ogilvie, D. M. (1966). The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640.

Teece, D. J. (2023). The Evolution of the Dynamic Capabilities Framework. In: Adams, R., Grichnik, D., Pundziene, A., Volkmann, C. (Eds.), Artificiality and Sustainability in Entrepreneurship (p. 113–129).

FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11371-0_6.

Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/3.3.537-a.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::aid-smj882>3.0.co;2-z.

Ugur, N., Belderbos, R., Kelchtermans, S., & Leten, B. (2024). The Long March: The quest for valid text-based indicators of exploration and exploitation.Strategic Organization, 22(2), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270241231724.

Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and fi nancial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.738.

Vaara, E., & Fritsch, L. (2022). Strategy as language and communication: Theoretical and methodological advances and avenues for the future in strategy process and practice research. Strategic Management Journal, 43(6), 1170–1181. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3360.

Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318.

Wolfe, R. A., Gephart, R. P., & Johnson, T. E. (1993). Computer-facilitated qualitative data analysis: Potential contributions to management research. Journal of Management, 19(3), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639301900307.

Wolfe, M. T., & Shepherd, D. A. (2015). “Bouncing back” from a loss: Entrepreneurial orientation, emotions, and failure narratives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 675–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12057.

Yang, J., Liu, J., Yao, Z., & Ma, C. (2024). Measuring digitalization capabilities using machine learning. Research in International Business and Finance, 70, 102380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102380.

Zhang, Y., DeCarlo, T. E., Manikas, A. S., & Bhattacharya, A. (2023). To exploit or explore? The impact of crowdfunding project descriptions and backers’ power states on funding decisions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(2), 444–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00871-w.

Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.