IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v6y1997i2p461-501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managerial Commitments and Technological Change in the US Tire Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Sull, Donald N
  • Tedlow, Richard S
  • Rosenbloom, Richard S

Abstract

This paper examines the response of the five largest American producers of automotive tires to a radical technological change, the introduction of radial tires. Many theories attempt to explain firms' response to radical technological change. The effects of new technologies on economic incentives and on established firm capabilities are the factors highlighted in existing theory. The tire producers invested heavily in radial technology despite the expected destruction of manufacturing competencies and the prospect of poor financial returns. This paper suggests that an additional factor, managerial commitments, can also play an important role in shaping firms' response to disruptive technology. It argues that firms are more likely to adopt "commitment-enhancing" than "commitment-destroying" technologies and are likely to choose paths of implementation that are compatible with existing commitments. Copyright 1997 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:6:y:1997:i:2:p:461-501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gustavo Rinaldi, 2008. "The disadvantage of entrants: did transition eliminate it? The case of the Russian footwear industry (1992–2000)," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 105-128, March.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Solon Moreira & Thomas Maximilian Klueter & Stefano Tasselli, 2020. "Competition, Technology Licensing-in, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1012-1036, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Mary J. Benner & Ram Ranganathan, 2013. "Divergent Reactions to Convergent Strategies: Investor Beliefs and Analyst Reactions During Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 378-394, April.
    8. Andrea Urbinati & Davide Chiaroni & Vittorio Chiesa & Simone Franzò & Federico Frattini, 2018. "An Exploratory Analysis on the Contextual Factors that Influence Disruptive Innovation: The Case of Uber," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 1-26, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Stefano Brusoni & Andrea Prencipe, 2006. "Making Design Rules: A Multidomain Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 179-189, April.
    11. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2015. "Killing the Golden Goose? The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D," NBER Working Papers 20902, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Andrea Urbinati & Davide Chiaroni & Vittorio Chiesa & Simone Franzò & Federico Frattini, 2019. "How Incumbents Manage Waves of Disruptive Innovations: An Exploratory Analysis of the Global Music Industry," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 1-23, February.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Giachetti, Claudio & Mensah, Deborah Tiniwah, 2023. "Catching-up during technological windows of opportunity: An industry product categories perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    16. Sadovska, V., 2018. "Sustainable value creation in the agricultural sector. A literature review," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276984, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    18. Mary J. Benner & Joel Waldfogel, 2016. "The Song Remains the Same? Technological Change and Positioning in the Recorded Music Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 129-147, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:indcch:v:6:y:1997:i:2:p:461-501. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.