IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v20y2009i2p441-460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology, Identity, and Inertia Through the Lens of “The Digital Photography Company”

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Tripsas

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

Abstract

Organizations often experience difficulty when pursuing new technology. Large bodies of research have examined the behavioral, social, and cognitive forces that underlie this phenomenon; however, the role of an organization's identity remains relatively unexplored. Identity comprises insider and outsider perceptions of what is core about an organization. An identity has associated with it a set of norms that represent shared beliefs about legitimate behavior for an organization with that identity. In this paper, technologies that deviate from the expectations associated with an organization's identity are labeled identity-challenging technologies. Based on a comprehensive field-based case study of the entire life history of a company, identity-challenging technologies are found to be difficult to capitalize on for two reasons. First, identity serves as a filter, such that organizational members notice and interpret external stimuli in a manner consistent with the identity. As a result, identity-challenging technological opportunities may be missed. Second, because identity becomes intertwined in the routines, procedures, and beliefs of both organizational and external constituents, explicit efforts to shift identity in order to accommodate identity-challenging technology are difficult. Given the disruptive nature of identity shifts, understanding whether technology is identity challenging is a critical consideration for managers pursuing new technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Tripsas, 2009. "Technology, Identity, and Inertia Through the Lens of “The Digital Photography Company”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 441-460, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:20:y:2009:i:2:p:441-460
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0419
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1080.0419?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ezra W. Zuckerman & Hayagreeva Rao, 2004. "Shrewd, crude or simply deluded? Comovement and the internet stock phenomenon," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(1), pages 171-212, February.
    2. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    3. Dennis A. Gioia & Kumar Chittipeddi, 1991. "Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(6), pages 433-448, September.
    4. Raghu Garud & Michael A. Rappa, 1994. "A Socio-Cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case of Cochlear Implants," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 344-362, August.
    5. Sull, Donald N & Tedlow, Richard S & Rosenbloom, Richard S, 1997. "Managerial Commitments and Technological Change in the US Tire Industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(2), pages 461-501, March.
    6. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    7. Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
    8. Ron Adner & Constance E. Helfat, 2003. "Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 1011-1025, October.
    9. Erwin Danneels, 2003. "Tight–loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 559-576, June.
    10. J. David Osborne & Charles I. Stubbart & Arkalgud Ramaprasad, 2001. "Strategic groups and competitive enactment: a study of dynamic relationships between mental models and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 435-454, May.
    11. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    12. Hann Earl Kim & Johannes M. Pennings, 2009. "Innovation and Strategic Renewal in Mature Markets: A Study of the Tennis Racket Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 368-383, April.
    13. Mie Augier & David J. Teece, 2009. "Dynamic Capabilities and the Role of Managers in Business Strategy and Economic Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 410-421, April.
    14. David G. McKendrick & Glenn R. Carroll, 2001. "On the Genesis of Organizational Forms: Evidence from the Market for Disk Arrays," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(6), pages 661-682, December.
    15. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    16. Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2000. "Leadership, Capabilities, and Technological Change: The Transformation of NCR in the Electronic Era," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1083-1103, October.
    17. Greta Hsu & Michael T. Hannan, 2005. "Identities, Genres, and Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 474-490, October.
    18. Mary J. Benner, 2008. "Financial market reactions following technological discontinuities: a non-event study in two industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(1), pages 109-154, February.
    19. Henry Chesbrough & Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2002. "The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 529-555, June.
    20. Lori Rosenkopf & Atul Nerkar, 2001. "Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 287-306, April.
    21. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 422-440, April.
    22. Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer & John, Deborah Roedder, 1997. "Consumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(3), pages 266-284, December.
    23. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    24. C. Marlene Fiol, 2002. "Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organizational Identities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(6), pages 653-666, December.
    25. Cooper, Arnold C. & Schendel, Dan, 1976. "Strategic responses to technological threats," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-69, February.
    26. Constance E. Helfat & Marvin B. Lieberman, 2002. "The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(4), pages 725-760, August.
    27. Sarah Kaplan & Fiona Murray & Rebecca Henderson, 2003. "Discontinuities and senior management: assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 203-233, April.
    28. Frank T. Rothaermel & Warren Boeker, 2008. "Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 47-77, January.
    29. Giovanni Gavetti & Jan W. Rivkin, 2007. "On the Origin of Strategy: Action and Cognition over Time," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 420-439, June.
    30. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    31. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1996. "What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 502-518, October.
    32. Glasmeier, Amy, 1991. "Technological discontinuities and flexible production networks: The case of Switzerland and the world watch industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 469-485, October.
    33. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    34. L·szlÛ PÛlos & Michael T. Hannan, 2002. "Foundations of a theory of social forms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(1), pages 85-115, February.
    35. Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2008. "Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(1), pages 155-195, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    2. Rajshree Agarwal & Constance E. Helfat, 2009. "Strategic Renewal of Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 281-293, April.
    3. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    4. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    5. Giachetti, Claudio & Mensah, Deborah Tiniwah, 2023. "Catching-up during technological windows of opportunity: An industry product categories perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    6. Jean-Philippe Vergne & Colette Depeyre, 2015. "How do firms adapt? A fuzzy-set analysis of the role of cognition and capabilities in U.S. defense firms’ responses to 9/11," Post-Print hal-01274005, HAL.
    7. Pinar Ozcan & Douglas Hannah, 2020. "Social Origins of Great Strategies Advertising Suppliers to Realize Disruptive Social Media Technology," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 193-217, September.
    8. Arun Kumaraswamy & Raghu Garud & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, 2018. "Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1025-1042, November.
    9. Lo, Jade Y. & Nag, Rajiv & Xu, Lei & Agung, Shanti D., 2020. "Organizational innovation efforts in multiple emerging market categories: Exploring the interplay of opportunity, ambiguity, and socio-cognitive contexts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    10. Markku V. J. Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2013. "Top Management’s Attention to Discontinuous Technological Change: Corporate Venture Capital as an Alert Mechanism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 926-947, June.
    11. Mary J. Benner, 2010. "Securities Analysts and Incumbent Response to Radical Technological Change: Evidence from Digital Photography and Internet Telephony," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 42-62, February.
    12. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    13. Nathan R. Furr, 2019. "Product Adaptation During New Industry Emergence: The Role of Start-Up Team Preentry Experience," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 1076-1096, September.
    14. Callen Anthony & Andrew J. Nelson & Mary Tripsas, 2016. "“Who Are You?…I Really Wanna Know”: Product Meaning and Competitive Positioning in the Nascent Synthesizer Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 163-183, September.
    15. Alva Taylor & Constance E. Helfat, 2009. "Organizational Linkages for Surviving Technological Change: Complementary Assets, Middle Management, and Ambidexterity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 718-739, August.
    16. Sheen S. Levine & Mark Bernard & Rosemarie Nagel, 2018. "Strategic intelligence: The cognitive capability to anticipate competitor behaviour," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 527-527, February.
    17. Kristina McElheran, 2015. "Do Market Leaders Lead in Business Process Innovation? The Case(s) of E-business Adoption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1197-1216, June.
    18. Chila, Vilma, 2021. "Knowledge dynamics in employee entrepreneurship : Implications for parents and offspring," Other publications TiSEM a1f5d18c-783b-4af6-8414-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Saerom Lee & Felipe A. Csaszar, 2020. "Cognitive and Structural Antecedents of Innovation: A Large-Sample Study," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 71-97, June.
    20. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael, 2007. "Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma," Research Papers 1963, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:20:y:2009:i:2:p:441-460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.