IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v36y2018i3p353-365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incumbent capability enhancement in response to radical innovations

Author

Listed:
  • Sarkar, Soumodip
  • Osiyevskyy, Oleksiy
  • Clegg, Stewart R.

Abstract

Schumpeterian market disequilibrium marked by entrepreneurial entry and incumbent exit has long held an important place in management literature. The extant literature has overwhelmingly championed the newcomer, despite incumbents' obvious advantages in resources, experience and market knowledge. The current research provides evidence for the effectiveness of the incumbent's strategy of capability enhancement (along an established technological trajectory) while responding to radical technological innovations. We develop a cognitive process model that integrates managerial cognition with capability development and deployment views, depicting the dynamics of the incumbent's capability enhancement process. We analyze the cognitive drivers of organizational actions in all stages (rigidity, triggering event, and capability renewal) and elucidate the role of top management cognition in the processes of detecting and correcting errors in a strategic course of action. We ground our model in the case of a cork-stopper industry veteran's decline as corks ceded ground to screw tops and other stoppers in the wine industry. How a major company fought back in response to the emergence of these, in the industry context, radical technological innovations, provides the basis for our narrative. The proposed theoretical model contributes to literature on technology management (with regard to incumbent strategies in response to radical innovation threats) as well as the role of cognition in strategy (providing an explanation of the cognitive underpinnings of capability development).

Suggested Citation

  • Sarkar, Soumodip & Osiyevskyy, Oleksiy & Clegg, Stewart R., 2018. "Incumbent capability enhancement in response to radical innovations," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 353-365.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:36:y:2018:i:3:p:353-365
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2017.05.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237317300786
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2017.05.006?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    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. David Courpasson & Françoise Dany & Stewart Clegg, 2012. "Resisters at work : Generating productive resistance in the workplace," Post-Print hal-02312599, HAL.
    4. Runfola, Andrea & Perna, Andrea & Baraldi, Enrico & Gregori, Gian Luca, 2017. "The use of qualitative case studies in top business and management journals: A quantitative analysis of recent patterns," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 116-127.
    5. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. 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.
    7. Andrew H. Van de Ven & Marshall Scott Poole, 1990. "Methods for Studying Innovation Development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 313-335, August.
    8. William Ocasio, 1997. "Towards An Attention‐Based View Of The Firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 187-206, July.
    9. Michael D. Cohen & Paul Bacdayan, 1994. "Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 554-568, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Rialp-Criado, Alex & Galván-Sánchez, Inmaculada & Suárez-Ortega, Sonia M, 2010. "A configuration-holistic approach to born-global firms' strategy formation process," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 108-123, April.
    12. Vlaar, Paul & De Vries, Paul & Willenborg, Mattijs, 2005. "Why Incumbents Struggle to Extract Value from New Strategic Options:: Case of the European Airline Industry," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 154-169, April.
    13. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    14. Ron Adner & Daniel Snow, 2010. "Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1655-1675, October.
    15. Giovanni Gavetti, 2005. "Cognition and Hierarchy: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Capabilities’ Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 599-617, December.
    16. Brian Wu & Zhixi Wan & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2014. "Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(9), pages 1257-1278, September.
    17. Michael Gibbert & Winfried Ruigrok & Barbara Wicki, 2008. "What passes as a rigorous case study?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(13), pages 1465-1474, December.
    18. Carlo Salvato, 2009. "Capabilities Unveiled: The Role of Ordinary Activities in the Evolution of Product Development Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 384-409, April.
    19. David Courpasson & Françoise Dany & Stewart Clegg, 2012. "Resisters at Work: Generating Productive Resistance in the Workplace," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 801-819, June.
    20. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1996. "What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 502-518, October.
    21. Robert A. Burgelman, 1991. "Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 239-262, August.
    22. 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.
    23. Sull, Donald N., 1999. "The Dynamics of Standing Still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the Radial Revolution," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 430-464, October.
    24. Constance E. Helfat & Margaret A. Peteraf, 2003. "The dynamic resource‐based view: capability lifecycles," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 997-1010, October.
    25. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    26. Orton, James Douglas, 1997. "From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 419-438, December.
    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. Langley, Paul & Rieple, Alison, 2021. "Incumbents’ capabilities to win in a digitised world: The case of the fashion industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    2. Wohlgemuth, Veit & Wenzel, Matthias & Berger, Elisabeth S.C. & Eisend, Martin, 2019. "Dynamic capabilities and employee participation: The role of trust and informal control," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 760-771.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Nadine Kammerlander & Andreas König & Melanie Richards, 2018. "Why Do Incumbents Respond Heterogeneously to Disruptive Innovations? The Interplay of Domain Identity and Role Identity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1122-1165, November.
    5. Afonso Almeida Costa & Peter Zemsky, 2021. "The choice of value‐based strategies under rivalry: Whether to enhance value creation or bargaining capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(11), pages 2020-2046, November.
    6. Giachetti, Claudio & Mensah, Deborah Tiniwah, 2023. "Catching-up during technological windows of opportunity: An industry product categories perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    7. Natalya Vinokurova & Rahul Kapoor, 2020. "Converting inventions into innovations in large firms: How inventors at Xerox navigated the innovation process to commercialize their ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2372-2399, December.
    8. Dongil D. Keum, 2020. "Cog in the wheel: Resource release and the scope of interdependencies in corporate adjustment activities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 175-197, February.
    9. Nathan R. Furr & Daniel C. Snow, 2015. "Intergenerational Hybrids: Spillbacks, Spillforwards, and Adapting to Technology Discontinuities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 475-493, April.
    10. Wolfgang H. Güttel & Stefan Konlechner & Barbara Müller, 2012. "Entscheidungsmuster und Veränderungsarchitekturen in Wandelprozessen: Eine Dynamic Capabilities-Perspektive," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 64(6), pages 630-654, September.
    11. Clark G. Gilbert, 2006. "Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 150-167, February.
    12. Brian Wu & Zhixi Wan & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2014. "Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(9), pages 1257-1278, September.
    13. Daniella Laureiro-Martinez, 2014. "Cognitive Control Capabilities, Routinization Propensity, and Decision-Making Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1111-1133, August.
    14. Vikas A. Aggarwal & Hart E. Posen & Maciej Workiewicz, 2017. "Adaptive capacity to technological change: A microfoundational approach," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 1212-1231, June.
    15. Flore Bridoux & Régis Coeurderoy & Rodolphe Durand, 2017. "Heterogeneous social motives and interactions: The three predictable paths of capability development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(9), pages 1755-1773, September.
    16. Onufrey, Ksenia & Bergek, Anna, 2021. "Transformation in a mature industry: The role of business and innovation strategies," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Shinjinee Chattopadhyay & Janet Bercovitz, 2020. "When one door closes, another door opens … for some: Evidence from the post‐TRIPS Indian pharmaceutical industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 988-1022, June.
    19. 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.
    20. F. Ted Tschang & Gokhan Ertug, 2016. "New Blood as an Elixir of Youth: Effects of Human Capital Tenure on the Explorative Capability of Aging Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 873-892, August.

    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:eee:eurman:v:36:y:2018:i:3:p:353-365. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    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.