“More than three decades ago, Prahalad and Bettis (1986, p. 491) introduced the concept of Dominant Logic, which they defined as ‘a mindset or a worldview or conceptualization of the business and the administrative tools to accomplish goals and make decisions in that business. Their aim was to complement the extant economic perspectives on the relationship between diversification and firm performance by adding a cognitive explanation. Since then, the concept has been further refined (e.g. Prahalad and Bettis 1995; Bettis et al. 2011; Côté et al. 1999; von Krogh and Roos 1996) and associated with a diverse set of variables, such as technological change (Zyglidopoulos 1999), entrepreneurial identity construction (Downing 2005), joint venture success (Guidice and Mero 2007) and dynamic managerial capabilities (Kor and Mesko 2013). Since its introduction, Prahalad and Bettis’s concept of Dominant Logic has informed a variety of scholarly conversations in management and strategy research. However, scholars have interpreted Dominant Logic in different ways, emphasizing different aspects, such as managerial mindsets, administrative tools and management functions, as defining elements. Similarly, empirical studies have captured various aspects, such as meanings of entrepreneurs, observable strategic decisions and business model similarity, as indicators of Dominant Logic. Consequently, the concept lacks analytical clarity, and it is difficult to compare, generalize [or apply] findings from this diverse set of studies.”^[1]

Keywords: Dominant Logic, Dominant Logic Framework, Prahalad, Bettis.