Demystifying misted mirrors to investigate emerging people issues in SMEs: Implications for strategic change

• Date: 01 January 2020
• Author: John Mendy
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2308
• Published date: 01 January 2020

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Demystifying misted mirrors to investigate emerging people

issues in SMEs: Implications for strategic change

John Mendy

Lincoln International Business School,

University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom

Correspondence

John Mendy, Lincoln International Business

School, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool

Campus, Lincoln LN6 7TS, United Kingdom.

Email: jmendy@lincoln.ac.uk

Abstract

The concept of “contingent misting”is a missing aspect in Strategy's “organisations

design products”and HRM's architectural pairings. This study highlights the structural,

cultural, and technical challenges that SME owners and employees are dealing with

during new productand service-improvement launches. The results identify a thematic

categorization of individual and organizational-level characteristics to help ascertain

the complex challenges and impacts of innovating. It is propounded that our under-

standing and knowledge of mirroring architectures faced by SMEs are deepened as we

appreciate thecontingent nature of people's competence and adaptation.

1|INTRODUCTION

SMEs' positive impacts on “national economies”have caught the

attention of researchers (Gunasekaran, Rai, & Griffin, 2011;

Steinerowska-Streb & Steiner, 2014, page 375). Despite their contribu-

tions to market growth and entrepreneurship activities, the way SMEs

deal with the complex processes of managing constraints related to

adaptation (Simon, 1962; Williams, Ridgman, Shi, & Ferdinand, 2014) are

under-researched. On the other hand, there has been a plethora of

research on product designs (MacCormack et al., 2012; Sanderson &

Uzumeri, 1995), on manufacturing (Ulrich, 1995) and on improving the

structures and technologies that might enhance product designs in pre-

dominantly MNEs (Baldwin & Clark, 2000). However, there is a dearth of

empirical research on product designs and the effectiveness of the

impact of architectural pairings on new products and services (Fleming &

Sorenson, 2004) in MNEs and SMEs alike. The construct of “mirroring”

has been proposed by scholars such as MacCormack, Baldwin, and

Rusnak (2012) to highlight the interaction between an organization's

structure and its products' design. “Mirroring”has been conceptualized

as the way an organization's management, decision-making, and commu-

nication practices and systems shape and are shaped by its products.

Some companies have adopted this new architectural way of pairing

products and organizations with the hope that positive results would be

achieved. Although this has been claimed to have efficient results in

MNEs (Elia, Massini, & Narula, 2017), the application of “mirroring”on

new products and services has received neglect in SMEs.

Despite this glaring gap, there also seems to be limited investiga-

tions into SME contexts and in the way they manage the possible

mirroring impacts on individual and collective outcomes. What is

encouraging to note is the growing recognition of how management

may use “mirroring”as a technique to deal with some innovation chal-

lenges and complexity (Tassabehji & Isherwoood, 2014) in a product's

lifecycle (Garezzi, Terzi, Bertazzi, & Brianza, 2005). However, there is

a problem which can be explained by the fact that studies that empha-

size on “mirroring”as a technique appear to focus on an apparent

binary-divide: conceptual/normative or descriptive. The concept

polarizes the debates and discussions further. Complex people and

systems issues related to product changes remain unresolved despite

the efforts made by Simon (1962) and his colleagues. Macroeconomic

constraints (Kola & Kadongo, 2017), product export growth issues

(Quaicoe, Aboadgy, & Bokpin, 2017), and product architecture and

management constraints have added to the limited success of the

technique, as a strategic tool (Ulrich, 1995). Other researchers pro-

posed product performance and management (Liu & Vrontis, 2017) as

a strategy (Zoogah & Mburu, 2015) that targets modular aspects

related to SMEs' internationalization (Saridakis, Yanqing, & Coo-

per, 2017).

Other aspects related to the modular view of mirroring include

transformational leadership (Top, Akdere, & Turcan, 2015) and the

standardization of HRM practices to help manage product develop-

ment (Ulrich, 1995). More recent developments to product and

JEL classification codes: O15, O31, M54, P42.

DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2308

Strategic Change. 2020;29:35–45. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jsc © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 35