IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v16y2005i6p674-686.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intrafirm Competition and Charter Evolution in the Multibusiness Firm

Author

Listed:
  • Julian Birkinshaw

    (London Business School, Regents Park, London NW1 4SA, United Kingdom)

  • Mats Lingblad

    (Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University, 50 Stamford Road, 50-05-025, Singapore 178899)

Abstract

We develop a theoretical framework for a specific form of intrafirm competition , namely the extent of overlap between the charters of two or more units in a single organization. This phenomenon is commonly seen in large organizations, e.g., cases of two business units producing competing products, or two product development groups trying to solve the same technological problem, but the existing academic literature provides little insight into the forms intrafirm competition takes, or the conditions under which it is beneficial or harmful to the organization.Building on the concept of an organization charter (Galunic and Eisenhardt 2001), we identify two generic forms of intrafirm competition: the dynamic community model has fluid and frequently changing charter boundaries, and it emerges through the creation of strategic options in the face of a changing environment; the coexistence model has fixed and relatively static charter boundaries, and it owes its existence to economies of scope and differentiation of unit charters to cover multiple market segments. In the body of the paper we develop a theoretical framework to specify the environmental and organizational conditions under which each form of intrafirm competition is expected to occur.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian Birkinshaw & Mats Lingblad, 2005. "Intrafirm Competition and Charter Evolution in the Multibusiness Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 674-686, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:16:y:2005:i:6:p:674-686
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0142
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1050.0142?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. Kathleen Reavis Conner, 1988. "Strategies for product cannibalism," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(S1), pages 9-26, June.
    2. Pankaj Ghemawat & Joan E. I Ricart Costa, 1993. "The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 59-73, December.
    3. D. Charles Galunic & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 1996. "The Evolution of Intracorporate Domains: Divisional Charter Losses in High-Technology, Multidivisional Corporations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 255-282, June.
    4. Schwenk, Charles R., 1989. "Devil's advocacy and the board: A modest proposal," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 22-27.
    5. Barrie R. Nault & Mark B. Vandenbosch, 1996. "Eating Your Own Lunch: Protection Through Preemption," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 342-358, June.
    6. Mason, Charlotte H. & Milne, George R., 1994. "An approach for identifying cannibalization within product line extensions and multi-brand strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(2-3), pages 163-170.
    7. Oliver E. Williamson, 1991. "Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(S2), pages 75-94, December.
    8. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    9. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal, 2004. "Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 159-173, February.
    10. Viswanath, P. V. & Frierman, Mike, 1995. "Asset fungibility and equilibrium capital structures," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 319-334, October.
    11. Jean-Francois Hennart, 1993. "Explaining the Swollen Middle: Why Most Transactions Are a Mix of “Market” and “Hierarchy”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 529-547, November.
    12. Teece, David J., 1980. "Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 223-247, September.
    13. Martin Gaynor, 1989. "Competition within the Firm: Theory Plus Some Evidence from Medical Group Practice," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(1), pages 59-76, Spring.
    14. K. Sridhar Moorthy & I. P. L. Png, 1992. "Market Segmentation, Cannibalization, and the Timing of Product Introductions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 345-359, March.
    15. Olav Sorenson, 2000. "Letting the market work for you: an evolutionary perspective on product strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(5), pages 577-592, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Sunder Kekre & Kannan Srinivasan, 1990. "Broader Product Line: A Necessity to Achieve Success?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(10), pages 1216-1232, October.
    18. Ghemawat, Pankaj & Ricart, Joan E., 1993. "Organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency, The," IESE Research Papers D/255, IESE Business School.
    19. Panzar, John C & Willig, Robert D, 1981. "Economies of Scope," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(2), pages 268-272, May.
    20. C. K. Prahalad & Richard A. Bettis, 1986. "The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), pages 485-501, November.
    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. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    2. Kappen, Philip, 2011. "Competence-creating overlaps and subsidiary technological evolution in the multinational corporation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 673-686, June.
    3. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Avimanyu Datta, 2011. "An Integrative Model to Explain the Ability to Commercialize Innovations: Linking Networks, Absorptive Capacity, Ambidexterity and Environmental Factors," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 2(2), pages 2-22, June.
    6. Yalcinkaya, Goksel & Aktekin, Tevfik & Yeniyurt, Sengun, 2020. "Out with the old: A Bayesian approach to estimating product modification rates," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 141-149.
    7. Sirén, Charlotta & Kohtamäki, Marko, 2016. "Stretching strategic learning to the limit: The interaction between strategic planning and learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 653-663.
    8. Sabyasachi Sinha, 2015. "The Exploration–Exploitation Dilemma: A Review in the Context of Managing Growth of New Ventures," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 40(3), pages 313-323, September.
    9. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    10. Jonathan R. Clark & Robert S. Huckman, 2012. "Broadening Focus: Spillovers, Complementarities, and Specialization in the Hospital Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 708-722, April.
    11. Tan, Justin & Wang, Liang, 2010. "Flexibility-efficiency tradeoff and performance implications among Chinese SOEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 356-362, April.
    12. Michael Freeman & Nicos Savva & Stefan Scholtes, 2021. "Economies of Scale and Scope in Hospitals: An Empirical Study of Volume Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 673-697, February.
    13. Filipe M. Santos & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2005. "Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 491-508, October.
    14. Peter Maskell & Mark Lorenzen, 2003. "The Cluster as Market Organization," DRUID Working Papers 03-14, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    15. Sung‐Choon Kang & Scott A. Snell, 2009. "Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 65-92, January.
    16. Mikko Ketokivi & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2020. "Transaction Cost Economics As a Theory of Supply Chain Efficiency," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(4), pages 1011-1031, April.
    17. Basu, Sandip & Phelps, Corey & Kotha, Suresh, 2011. "Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 153-171, March.
    18. Bustinza, Oscar F. & Vendrell-Herrero, Ferran & Gomes, Emanuel, 2020. "Unpacking the effect of strategic ambidexterity on performance: A cross-country comparison of MMNEs developing product-service innovation," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(6).
    19. Erwin Danneels & Rajesh Sethi, 2011. "New Product Exploration Under Environmental Turbulence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1026-1039, August.
    20. Thomas Hutzschenreuter & Julian Horstkotte, 2013. "Performance effects of top management team demographic faultlines in the process of product diversification," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(6), pages 704-726, June.

    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:16:y:2005:i:6:p:674-686. 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.