Search results

The purpose of this paper is to use the theoretical perspective of structural inertia as a unique lens to study foreign sequential entry mode choices of multinational firms.

It adopts quantitative analysis of a sample of 121 Chinese publicly listed firms with 564 foreign entry incidents in the 2001-2012 period to test the hypotheses.

The empirical results show that multinational firms have a tendency to adopt the same mode in the subsequent entry as the number of prior entry mode choice of a given type (joint venture (JV) in this study) increases. The results support the theoretical prediction that organizations repeat their past activities due to structural inertia. Moreover, such an inertia effect in foreign sequential entry mode choices becomes stronger for older multinational firms, larger multinational firms and state-owned multinational firms.

Consistent with existing research, this study focuses on the entry mode choice between JV and wholly owned subsidiaries. However, it is better to examine the relationship identified in the study for different types of entry mode choices to assess result generalizability.

It reminds managers of multinational firms that they should be cautious to the influence of structural inertia that can be a barrier to strategic flexibility when they make entry mode choices.

The main contribution of this study resides in introducing structural inertia perspective to help understand the determinants of foreign sequential entry mode choices of multinational firms.

Although recent public attention has focused on boom-and-bust cycles in industries and financial markets, organizational theorists have made only limited contributions to our understanding of this issue. In this chapter, I argue that a distinctive strategic insight into the mechanisms generating boom-and-bust cycles arises from a focus on entrepreneurial inertia – the lag time exhibited by organizational founders or investors entering a market niche. While popular perceptions of boom-and-bust cycles emphasize the deleterious effect of hasty entrants or overvaluation, I suggest instead that slow, methodical entries into an organizational population or market may pose far greater threats to niche stability. This proposition is explored analytically, considering the development of U.S. medical schools since the mid-18th century.

Organizational change theorists tend to focus on substantive changes and frequently ignore or underplay the significance of the features of structural inertia. The effect of this preoccupation has minimized our understanding of frequently occurring patterns of limited structural change. The purpose of this paper is to encourage theorizing and debate about limited structural change.

This paper presents a conceptual explanation of the different patterns of limited structural change that arise in organizations undertaking change. It reviews and comments on how different patterns occur at the organization level as a result of the adjustment of component forces around pattern profiling centers of gravity.

A pervasive finding in change literature is that organizations tend to fall back on more of the same, even when they undergo some major structural change. The paper proposes a framework encapsulating four competencies that synergistically complement each other as a foundation for explaining different patterns of limited structural change.

The paper argues for advancing theory accounting for limited structural change, moving away from the dichotomy of change as normal and limited change as atypical. Normative rational change actions and bounded change actions interact and coexist in parallel. A focus on explaining limited change is a starting point for advancing our understanding of this coexistence.

Why and in what direction do organizations change?¹ Early responses to these questions generally fell into two camps. Adaptationist scholars proposed theories based on the assumption that organizations have wide latitude to change their structure, strategy, and scope. In the adaptationist view, organizations are able to change in the direction dictated by their environment or by the choices of organizational decision makers, whether in the pursuit of rational action (e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Williamson, 1985) or blind action (Weick, 1979). In its extreme form, the adaptationist view implied that firms can and do adapt nearly frictionlessly, suggesting that if there is a performance penalty associated with inappropriate organization, misaligned firms will change so as to reduce or eliminate this misalignment. Alternatively, selection-based theories, notably structural inertia theory within organizational ecology, contended that inertial forces tend to stymie attempts at organizational change (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). In its extreme form, the selectionist view implied that firms can rarely change successfully; instead, if there is a performance penalty associated with misalignment, misaligned firms will be “selected out” of the population.

Grounded in the structural and relational inertia literature, this paper aims to investigate how two types of founding conditions – prior state ownership and a founder’s state career history – may individually and interactively affect the resource acquisition and organizing capability of firms.

This study uses a unique, large-scale survey of 480 manufacturing firms in China.

The findings show that prior state ownership is positively related to a firm’s resource acquisition, and the founder’s state career history moderates the relationship between prior state ownership and a firm’s organizing capability such that a founder with a state career history can help a privatized firm overcome its structural inertia and achieve superior organizing capabilities. However, it is found that a founder’s state career history is not associated with a firm’s resource acquisition or organizing capability.

First, this study is cross-sectional. Second, this paper refocuses on Chinese manufacturing firms in two regions only. Third, the authors do not have information on how long founders had been in state sector. Fourth, the measure of resource acquisition and organizational capability is a self-reported perceptual measure.

First, this study suggests that founders’ state career history does not benefit firms in resource acquisitions. Once founders do not work for government organizations, they can lose the associated resource benefits. The founders may have to actively maintain their historical connections with the current government officials to continue to receive various information and resource benefits. Second, this study indicates that it is possible for privatized firms to have resource acquisition advantages resulting from their historical heritage and at the same time overcome the inferior organizing capabilities from their histories by having a founder with a prior state career history. Such founders tend to have the ability to overcome the unfavorable imprinting effect of previous histories and to help private firms develop better strategies and structures to fit the dynamic and competitive environment.

This study indicates that it is possible for state-owned enterprises to become efficient if they can employ capable managers with superior managerial skills.

Current literature on the effect of government affiliations on firm behavior and outcomes typically focuses on existing government affiliations and their benefits on a firm’s economic and information resources, legitimacy and new venture performance. This study is one of the first to examine how historical government affiliations may affect both the resource acquisition and organizing capability of a firm. In addition, existing studies have rarely studied simultaneously how a firm’s and a founder’s historical government affiliations may independently and interactively affect a firm’s ability to acquire resources and develop capabilities critical for a firm’s performance and survival. This study fills this gap.

The aim of the paper is to generate a substantive grounded theory of organizational change and leadership, particularly focusing on the manifestation and management of resistance to change, or what has been more broadly conceptualized as organization inertia.

A grounded theory study, investigating a particular type of change occurring in a variety of South African churches, was conducted using a Straussian approach. A sample of incidents was gathered from 38 in‐depth interviews conducted with ministers who were leading churches of various backgrounds, sizes, and denominations, in four South African provinces.

When analysing the process of church transition from a programme‐based to a cell‐based design, the concept “sense of community” was developed. This concept underscored the manifestation of organization inertia in the churches that were engaged in a process of change.

Further exploration of the literature suggests that – compared to other theories of resistance to change – the theory of social capital offers a better explanation of the occurrence of organization inertia in this study.

In the light of this paper's discovery, social capital theory is proposed as a new theoretical explanation of resistance to change.

Institutional theory had been developed for the purpose of explaining widespread diffusion, mimetic adoption and institutionalization of organizational practices. However, further extensions of institutional theory are needed to explain a range of different institutional trajectories and organizational responses since institutionalized standards constitute a minority of all diffusing practices. The study presents a theoretical framework which offers guidelines for explaining and predicting various adoption, variation and post-adoption scenarios.

The paper is primarily conceptual in nature, and the arguments are developed based on previous institutional theory and organizational change literature.

The notion of institutional inertia is proposed in order to provide a more detailed explanation of when and why organizations ignore, adopt, modify, maintain and abandon practices and the way intra-organizational institutional pressures shape, direct and constrain these processes. It is specified whether institutional inertia will be temporarily eclipsed or whether it will actively manifest itself during adoption, adaptation and maintaining attempts. The study distinguishes between four institutional profiles of organizational practices – institutionalized, institutionally friendly, neutral and contested practices – which can vary along three dimensions: accuracy, extensiveness and meaning. The variation and post-adoption outcomes for each of them can be completely characterized and predicted by only three parameters: the rate of institutional inertia, institutional profile of these practices and whether they are interpretatively flexible. In turn, an extent of intraorganizational institutional resistance to new practices is determined by their institutional profile and flexibility.

It is expected that proposed theoretical explanations in this paper can offer insights into these empirical puzzles and supply a broader view of organizational and management changes. The study’s theoretical propositions help to understand what happens to organizational practices after they are handled by organizations, thus moving beyond the adoption/rejection dichotomy.

The paper explores and clarifies the nature of institutional inertia and offers an explanation of its manifestation in organizations over time and how it shapes organizational practices in the short and long run. It challenges a popular assumption in organizational literature that fast and revolutionary transition is a prerequisite for successful change. More broadly, the typology offered in this paper helps to explain whether and how organizations can successfully handle and complete their change and how far they can depart from institutional norms.

One area in which strategy and organizational ecology converge is organizational change. This essay weaves together salient themes in my (and my co-authors’) various writings on organizational change, and is anchored in the research literature of the last twenty years. Among other ideas developed here, I point out that there is now a convergence of agendas in strategy and ecology, with an important role being played by intraorganizational ecology. I develop the distinction between strong and weak selection approaches to organizational ecology. While the strong selection view does not find empirical support, there is stronger support for the weak selection view. I lay out some key features of an emerging evolutionary synthesis for the study of strategy and organization, and develop an evolutionary approach to organizational change.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of organisational, relational and individual experiences in the creation and development of intellectual capital.

This is a conceptual paper, exploring the relationship between theories accounting for organisationally relevant experience and intellectual capital. A three‐dimensional model of human, structural and relational capital is used as a conceptual framework of intellectual capital, representing three levels of organisational behaviour. An understanding of the role of experience in developing human capital is provided by referring to experiential learning theory; the development of relational capital is explored from a social capital perspective; and structural capital from the vantage point of structural inertia theory and theories of organisational culture.

These theories suggest that experiences can be beneficial to intellectual capital development, but also potentially harmful if not managed effectively. Implications for organisations are considered and recommendations made for the use of experience so that it contributes effectively to the creation of the stock of intellectual capital. The paper concludes with recommendations for further research.

Against a background of a dearth of conceptual development in this area, these theories provide some understanding of the role of organisational, relational and individual experiences in the creation of intellectual capital.

At its core, this volume tackles the contradictory views of the performance-enhancing effects of organizational flexibility and inertia head on, and in doing so, contributes to the development of theory and empirical evidence at the interface of strategic management and organizational ecology. In addition to the inertia–flexibility nexus, the volume explores a wide range of additional connections between these two perspectives across nine topical areas that both ecological and strategic management researchers have examined: (1) Entrepreneurship, (2) Top Management Teams, (3) Organizational Change, (4) Organizational Learning, (5) Technology Strategy, (6) Competitive Strategy, (7) Cooperative Strategy, (8) Scale and Scope, and (9) Industry Evolution.