IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orstsc/v5y2020i2p71-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive and Structural Antecedents of Innovation: A Large-Sample Study

Author

Listed:
  • Saerom Lee

    (Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

  • Felipe A. Csaszar

    (Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

Abstract

This paper studies how cognitive and structural antecedents affect adaptation to disruptive innovations. We do so by analyzing how video game firms adapted to the free-to-play business model around the period of disruption (2012–2015). Our data set (which contains 461 firms, collectively employing 83,157 individuals) allows us to characterize each firm’s organizational structure and each employee’s experience profile; it also captures the performance of firms under the existing and new technological regimes (that is, firms that do and do not adopt the disruptive innovation). We show that adoption, implementation under the existing regime, and implementation under the new regime are affected by cognitive and structural antecedents in different and often opposite ways. We also point out conditions under which cognitive and structural antecedents can compensate for each other. Overall, our study contributes to a better understanding of how firms should organize to face disruptive innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orstsc:v:5:y:2020:i:2:p:71-97
    DOI: 10.1287/stsc.2020.0107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2020.0107
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/stsc.2020.0107?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. 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. Giovanni Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal & Jan W. Rivkin, 2005. "Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: the power of analogy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 691-712, August.
    4. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    6. Sah, Raaj Kumar & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1986. "The Architecture of Economic Systems: Hierarchies and Polyarchies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 716-727, September.
    7. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2013. "An Efficient Frontier in Organization Design: Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Exploration and Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1083-1101, August.
    8. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Jan W. Rivkin, 2005. "Speed and Search: Designing Organizations for Turbulence and Complexity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 101-122, April.
    9. Ron Adner & Constance E. Helfat, 2003. "Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 1011-1025, October.
    10. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    11. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    12. Michael A. Hitt & Beverly B. Tyler, 1991. "Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(5), pages 327-351, July.
    13. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    14. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    15. James P. Walsh, 1995. "Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 280-321, June.
    16. Andrew A. King & Christopher L. Tucci, 2002. "Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 171-186, February.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Karen A. Bantel & Susan E. Jackson, 1989. "Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(S1), pages 107-124, June.
    21. Ethan Mollick, 2012. "People and process, suits and innovators: the role of individuals in firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(9), pages 1001-1015, September.
    22. Giovanni Gavetti, 2005. "Cognition and Hierarchy: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Capabilities’ Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 599-617, December.
    23. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2018. "What Makes a Decision Strategic? Strategic Representations," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 606-619, December.
    24. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2012. "Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: Evidence from mutual funds," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 611-632, June.
    25. Sridhar Seshadri & Zur Shapira, 2003. "The flow of ideas and timing of evaluation as determinants of knowledge creation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(5), pages 1099-1124, October.
    26. Felipe A. Csaszar & Daniella Laureiro-Martínez, 2018. "Individual and Organizational Antecedents of Strategic Foresight: A Representational Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 513-532, September.
    27. Felipe A. Csaszar & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2016. "Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(10), pages 2031-2049, October.
    28. 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.
    29. Dongil D. Keum & Kelly E. See, 2017. "The Influence of Hierarchy on Idea Generation and Selection in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 653-669, August.
    30. Jacoby, Jacob, 1984. "Perspectives on Information Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(4), pages 432-435, March.
    31. Boh, Wai Fong & Evaristo, Roberto & Ouderkirk, Andrew, 2014. "Balancing breadth and depth of expertise for innovation: A 3M story," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 349-366.
    32. Clayton M. Christensen & Rory McDonald & Elizabeth J. Altman & Jonathan E. Palmer, 2018. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1043-1078, November.
    33. Constance E. Helfat & Margaret A. Peteraf, 2015. "Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 831-850, June.
    34. Charles R. Schwenk, 1984. "Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision‐making," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 111-128, April.
    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. Palmié, Maximilian & Rüegger, Stephanie & Parida, Vinit, 2023. "Microfoundations in the strategic management of technology and innovation: Definitions, systematic literature review, integrative framework, and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Sáenz-Royo, Carlos & Lozano-Rojo, Álvaro, 2023. "Authoritarianism versus participation in innovation decisions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    3. Saerom (Ronnie) Lee, 2022. "The myth of the flat start‐up: Reconsidering the organizational structure of start‐ups," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 58-92, January.
    4. Joost Rietveld & Joe N. Ploog, 2022. "On top of the game? The double‐edged sword of incorporating social features into freemium products," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(6), pages 1182-1207, June.

    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. 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.
    2. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2018. "What Makes a Decision Strategic? Strategic Representations," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 606-619, December.
    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. Felipe A. Csaszar & J. P. Eggers, 2013. "Organizational Decision Making: An Information Aggregation View," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2257-2277, October.
    5. Rahul Kapoor & Daniel Wilde, 2023. "Peering into a crystal ball: Forecasting behavior and industry foresight," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 704-736, March.
    6. Matthew P. Mount & Markus Baer & Matthew J. Lupoli, 2021. "Quantum leaps or baby steps? Expertise distance, construal level, and the propensity to invest in novel technological ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(8), pages 1490-1515, August.
    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. Tang Wang & Vikas A. Aggarwal & Brian Wu, 2020. "Capability interactions and adaptation to demand‐side change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1595-1627, September.
    9. Xue, Jinjie & Liu, Junqi & Geng, Zizhen & Yuan, Hongping & Chao, Lei, 2023. "Why and when do paradoxical management capabilities matter to paradoxical pressure? An empirical investigation of the role of coopetition," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    10. Dean A. Shepherd & Jeffery S. Mcmullen & William Ocasio, 2017. "Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers' opportunity beliefs for strategic action," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 626-644, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Nicolai J. Foss & Peter G. Klein & Lasse B. Lien & Thomas Zellweger & Todd Zenger, 2021. "Ownership competence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 302-328, February.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Tim Heubeck & Reinhard Meckl, 2022. "Antecedents to cognitive business model evaluation: a dynamic managerial capabilities perspective," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(8), pages 2441-2466, November.

    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:orstsc:v:5:y:2020:i:2:p:71-97. 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.