Discussion
In this paper I juxtapose and subject to an empirical test the conflicting claims of EM and TPS, and their associated clusters of scholarship, on the relationship between the performance contribution of codified dynamic capabilities and environmental dynamism. What is more, I argue that their contradictory propositions and findings may be due to said relationship being contingent on key, yet thus far overlooked and unaccounted for, differences in factors internal to the firm e specifically, on heterogeneity in firms' dynamism exposure and asset base complexity. Empirical tests in the context of the mutual funds industry provide evidence that the value of codified dynamic capabilities does decline as environmental dynamism increases, yet at any given level of environmental dynamism the magnitude and even the sign of the performance contribution of codified dynamic capabilities are significantly influenced by a firm's dynamism exposure and asset base complexity. Going beyond received wisdom, this paper thereby moves the debate on the nature and performance consequences of dynamic capabilities away from the simple environmental dynamism determinism of TPS and EM toward a more nuanced contingency approach that considers the complex interplay between environmental and internal firm factors.
