IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v26y2015i6p1734-1751.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Categorical Imperative and Structural Reproduction: Dynamics of Technological Entry in the Semiconductor Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Gianluca Carnabuci

    (Università della Svizzera Italiana, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland)

  • Elisa Operti

    (ESSEC Business School Paris, 95021 Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, France)

  • Balázs Kovács

    (Università della Svizzera Italiana, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland; and Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520)

Abstract

Extant organizational literature argues that straddling institutionalized categories begets an illegitimacy discount, leading organizations to reproduce established categorical boundaries. If gaining legitimacy requires compliance with this “categorical imperative,” why do we frequently observe categorical straddling even in uncontested and fully institutionalized categorical structures? To address this question, we propose that de novo (i.e., newly founded) and de alio (i.e., diversifying) organizations respond differently to the categorical imperative. Specifically, de novo organizations are more likely to enter and fit in high-contrast categories than in low-contrast ones, whereas the opposite is true for de alio entrants. To test these hypotheses, we follow technological entry dynamics within the semiconductor industry between 1976 and 2002. Using patent information, we examine how category contrast affects which technological categories de novo and de alio organizations enter, and the performance associated with those entry events. A comprehensive set of empirical analyses lend support to our hypotheses. Besides clarifying the link between the categorical imperative and structural reproduction, this study bears implications for entrepreneurship and strategy research on entry dynamics.

Suggested Citation

  • Gianluca Carnabuci & Elisa Operti & Balázs Kovács, 2015. "The Categorical Imperative and Structural Reproduction: Dynamics of Technological Entry in the Semiconductor Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1734-1751, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:26:y:2015:i:6:p:1734-1751
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2015.1011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1011
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2015.1011?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. Ronald L. Breiger & John W. Mohr, 2004. "Institutional Logics from the Aggregation of Organizational Networks: Operational Procedures for the Analysis of Counted Data," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 17-43, May.
    2. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1999. "Technological entry, exit and survival: an empirical analysis of patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 643-660, August.
    3. Gerard George & Reddi Kotha & Yanfeng Zheng, 2008. "Entry into Insular Domains: A Longitudinal Study of Knowledge Structuration and Innovation in Biotechnology Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1448-1474, December.
    4. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    5. Maarten L. Buis, 2010. "Stata tip 87: Interpretation of interactions in nonlinear models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(2), pages 305-308, June.
    6. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    7. Giacomo Negro & Michael T. Hannan & Hayagreeva Rao, 2010. "Categorical contrast and audience appeal: niche width and critical success in winemaking," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1397-1425, October.
    8. Juan Alcácer & Wilbur Chung, 2007. "Location Strategies and Knowledge Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 760-776, May.
    9. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Patel, Pari & Pavitt, Keith, 1997. "The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 141-156, May.
    11. Lim, Kwanghui, 2004. "The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 287-321, March.
    12. Ashenfelter, Orley & Card, David, 1985. "Using the Longitudinal Structure of Earnings to Estimate the Effect of Training Programs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(4), pages 648-660, November.
    13. Gino Cattani, 2006. "Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new technologies: how Corning invented and developed fiber optics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(2), pages 285-318, 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. Giacomo Negro & Ming D. Leung, 2013. "“Actual” and Perceptual Effects of Category Spanning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 684-696, June.
    16. Bresnahan,Timothy & Gambardella,Alfonso (ed.), 2004. "Building High-Tech Clusters," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521827225.
    17. John M. de Figueiredo & Brian S. Silverman, 2007. "Churn, Baby, Churn: Strategic Dynamics Among Dominant and Fringe Firms in a Segmented Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 632-650, April.
    18. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    19. Dietmar Harhoff & Francis Narin & F. M. Scherer & Katrin Vopel, 1999. "Citation Frequency And The Value Of Patented Inventions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(3), pages 511-515, August.
    20. 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.
    21. Wry, Tyler & Lounsbury, Michael, 2013. "Contextualizing the categorical imperative: Category linkages, technology focus, and resource acquisition in nanotechnology entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 117-133.
    22. Mowery,David C. & Nelson,Richard R. (ed.), 1999. "Sources of Industrial Leadership," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521645201.
    23. Michael T. Hannan & László Pólos & Glenn R. Carroll, 2007. "Language Matters, from Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies," Introductory Chapters, in: Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies, Princeton University Press.
    24. Jeffrey G. York & Michael J. Lenox, 2014. "Exploring the sociocultural determinants of de novo versus de alio entry in emerging industries," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(13), pages 1930-1951, December.
    25. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2012. "Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 1-24, January.
    26. 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.
    27. Giacomo Negro & Michael T. Hannan & Hayagreeva Rao, 2011. "Category Reinterpretation and Defection: Modernism and Tradition in Italian Winemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1449-1463, December.
    28. Olga M. Khessina & Glenn R. Carroll, 2008. "Product Demography of De Novo and De Alio Firms in the Optical Disk Drive Industry, 1983--1999," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 25-38, February.
    29. Anne Bowers, 2015. "Relative Comparison and Category Membership: The Case of Equity Analysts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 571-583, April.
    30. Zuckerman, Ezra W. & Kim, Tai-Young & Ukanwa, Kalinda & James, von Rittmann, 2003. "Robust Identities or Non-Entities? Typecasting in the Feature Film Labor Market," Working papers 4291-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    31. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    32. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heewon Chae, 2022. "Income or education? Community‐level antecedents of firms' category‐spanning activities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 93-129, January.
    2. Michalis E. Papazoglou, 2023. "Favorable strategies for the success of entry into new technological areas: an entrepreneurial perspective," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 403-426, March.
    3. Wang, Pengfei, 2019. "Price space and product demography: Evidence from the workstation industry, 1980–1996," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    4. Diego Zunino & Fernando F. Suarez & Stine Grodal, 2019. "Familiarity, Creativity, and the Adoption of Category Labels in Technology Industries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 169-190, February.
    5. Michalis E. Papazoglou & Jen Nelles, 2023. "Keeping Pace with Technological Change: Insights into the Recency of Internal Knowledge Inputs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(4), pages 3724-3740, December.
    6. Goldenstein, Jan & Hunoldt, Michael & Oertel, Simon, 2019. "How optimal distinctiveness affects new ventures' failure risk: A contingency perspective," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 477-495.
    7. Martina Montauti & Filippo Carlo Wezel, 2016. "Charting the Territory: Recombination as a Source of Uncertainty for Potential Entrants," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 954-971, August.
    8. Krzeminska, Anna & Lundmark, Erik & Härtel, Charmine E.J., 2021. "Legitimation of a heterogeneous market category through covert prototype differentiation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(2).
    9. Balázs Kovács & Gianluca Carnabuci & Filippo Carlo Wezel, 2021. "Categories, attention, and the impact of inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(5), pages 992-1023, May.

    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. Antonio Malva & Stijn Kelchtermans & Bart Leten & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Basic science as a prescription for breakthrough inventions in the pharmaceutical industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 670-695, August.
    2. Elizabeth George Pontikes, 2022. "Category innovation in the software industry: 1990–2002," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1697-1727, September.
    3. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    4. Yanfeng Zheng & Qinyu (Ryan) Wang, 2020. "Shadow of the great firewall: The impact of Google blockade on innovation in China," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2234-2260, December.
    5. Jade Yu-Chieh Lo & Mark Thomas Kennedy, 2015. "Approval in Nanotechnology Patents: Micro and Macro Factors That Affect Reactions to Category Blending," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 119-139, February.
    6. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    7. Mohd Shadab Danish & Pritam Ranjan & Ruchi Sharma, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Patent Attributes on the Value of Discrete and Complex Innovations," Papers 2208.07222, arXiv.org.
    8. Mahmoud Ibrahim Fallatah, 2021. "Innovating in the Desert: a Network Perspective on Knowledge Creation in Developing Countries," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(3), pages 1533-1551, September.
    9. Sam Arts & Lee Fleming, 2018. "Paradise of Novelty—Or Loss of Human Capital? Exploring New Fields and Inventive Output," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1074-1092, December.
    10. Gatti, Corrado & Volpe, Loredana & Vagnani, Gianluca, 2015. "Interdependence among productive activities: Implications for exploration and exploitation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 711-722.
    11. Corredoira, Rafael A. & Banerjee, Preeta M., 2015. "Measuring patent's influence on technological evolution: A study of knowledge spanning and subsequent inventive activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 508-521.
    12. Apa, Roberta & De Noni, Ivan & Orsi, Luigi & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2018. "Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1700-1712.
    13. Buhr, Helena & Funk, Russell J. & Owen-Smith, Jason, 2021. "The authenticity premium: Balancing conformity and innovation in high technology industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    14. Novelli, Elena, 2015. "An examination of the antecedents and implications of patent scope," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 493-507.
    15. Michele Cincera & Ela Ince, 2019. "Types of Innovation and Firm performance," Working Papers TIMES² 2019-032, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Gino Cattani, 2005. "Preadaptation, Firm Heterogeneity, and Technological Performance: A Study on the Evolution of Fiber Optics, 1970–1995," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 563-580, December.
    17. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira Fabrizio, 2012. "How Do Product Users Influence Corporate Invention?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 971-987, August.
    18. John-Paul Ferguson & Gianluca Carnabuci, 2017. "Risky Recombinations: Institutional Gatekeeping in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 133-151, February.
    19. Cameron D. Miller & Puay Khoon Toh, 2022. "Complementary components and returns from coordination within ecosystems via standard setting," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 627-662, March.
    20. Huo, Dong & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2014. "Dilemma in Individual Collaboration for Invention: Should We be Similar or Diverse in Knowledge?," MPRA Paper 56185, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:26:y:2015:i:6:p:1734-1751. 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.