歡迎來到文藻W-Portfolio

論文名稱	The Paradox of threat and organizational inertia
研討會開始日期	2008-07-07
研討會結束日期	2008-07-09
所有作者	Chen-Yi Tsai, Julia L. Lin, Shih-Chieh Fang
作者順序	第一作者
通訊作者	是
研討會名稱	2008 International Conference on Business and Information (BAI2008)
是否具有對外公開徵稿及審稿制度	是
研討會舉行之國家	NATKOR-大韓民國(南韓)
研討會舉行之城市	Seoul
發表年份	2008
所屬計劃案	無
可公開文檔
可公開文檔
可公開文檔

[摘要] :
Organizational inertia is prevailing in organizational phenomenon. The phenomenon that incumbent firms fail to adapt to environmental change had become a critical issue within organizational research. For its path dependence nature, organizations follow and preserve successful experience and history. But organization with great heritage may become resistance to change. That is, firms with outstanding performance often become inertia and fail to perceive environment radical change. But some firms, which even recognize threat and opportunities, still fall into self competence trap and can’t implement their change intent. In face of performance threat, some scholars argued failure-leaded change. But threat rigidity perspective suggested rigidity of organizational response. There are also many different research results from empirical studies.
Organizational inertia are multi-facets, at least, including economic, cognitive and routine-based rationales. Inspired form two Cases of Palaroid and Firestone, this paper argues that there are at least two different types of organizational inertia throughout organizational response to organizational threat: cognitive inertia and active inertia. Both cognitive and active perspectives are integrated to explore the process of organizational inertia and the response to organizational threat. The threat of organization has different effects on cognitive and action response. There are various theoretical perspectives to understand organizational inertia. The paper tries to integrate prospect theory and threat-rigidity perspective to understand the process of organizational inertia.
Key Words: Organizational change; Organizational Inertia; Prospect theory, Threat-Rigidity Hypothesis.

[英文摘要] :
Organizational inertia is prevailing in organizational phenomenon. The phenomenon that incumbent firms fail to adapt to environmental change had become a critical issue within organizational research. For its path dependence nature, organizations follow and preserve successful experience and history. But organization with great heritage may become resistance to change. That is, firms with outstanding performance often become inertia and fail to perceive environment radical change. But some firms, which even recognize threat and opportunities, still fall into self competence trap and can’t implement their change intent. In face of performance threat, some scholars argued failure-leaded change. But threat rigidity perspective suggested rigidity of organizational response. There are also many different research results from empirical studies.
Organizational inertia are multi-facets, at least, including economic, cognitive and routine-based rationales. Inspired form two Cases of Palaroid and Firestone, this paper argues that there are at least two different types of organizational inertia throughout organizational response to organizational threat: cognitive inertia and active inertia. Both cognitive and active perspectives are integrated to explore the process of organizational inertia and the response to organizational threat. The threat of organization has different effects on cognitive and action response. There are various theoretical perspectives to understand organizational inertia. The paper tries to integrate prospect theory and threat-rigidity perspective to understand the process of organizational inertia.
Key Words: Organizational change; Organizational Inertia; Prospect theory, Threat-Rigidity Hypothesis.

[參考文獻] :
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.
Barr, P. S. 1998. Adapting to unfamiliar environmental events: A look at the evolution of interpretation and its role in strategic change. Organization Science, 9(): 644–669.
Barr, P. S., Simper, J. L., & Huff, A. S. 1992. Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(1): 15–36.
Bibson, C. B. 2001. From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1); 121–134.
Chandy, P. K. & Tellis, G. J. 1998. Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize, Journal of Marketing Research XXXV(), 474–487.
Charitou, C. D., & Markides, C. C. 2003. Responses to disruptive strategic innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter: 55–63.
Chattopadhyah, P, Glick, W. H., & Huber, G.P. 2001. Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities, Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 932–955.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 76–90.
Fiss, P. C. & Zajac, E. J. 2006. The symbolic management of strategic change: Sense giving via framing and recoup ling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1173–1193.
Ford, J.D., Ford. & D’Amelio A. (forthcoming) Resistance to change: The rest of the story, Academy of Management Revie.,
Gabriel, H., & Venkat, S. P. 2003. Is performance driven by industry or firm–specific factor? A new look at the Evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 24(), 1–16.
Gavetti, G. 2005. Cognition and hierarchy, Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities’ development. Organization Science, 16(), 599–617.
Gavetti, G. 2005. Strategy formulation and inertia. Harvard Business School case, 705-468, Harvard Business School Publishing.
Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward(), Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(), 113–137.
Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. 2001. Bridging cognition back in and moving forward. Journal of Management and Governance, 5(), 213–216.
Gilbert, C. G. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia, Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(), 741–763.
Gilbert, C. G. 2006. Change in the presence of residual fit(), Can competing frame coexist? Organization Science, 17(), 150–167.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(): 433–448.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. 1994. Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(): 363–383.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(), 149–164.
He, Z. L., & Ｗong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
Hodgkinson, G. O. 1997. Cognitive inertia in a turbulent market, The case of UK residential estate agents. Journal of Management Studies, 34(), 921–945.
Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1988. Discerning threats and Opportunities, Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(),370–387.
Larsen, E., & Lomi A. 2002. Representing change(), A system model of organizational inertia and capabilities as dynamic accumulation processes. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 10 (), 271–296.
Leonard–Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Special issue), 111–125.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
March, J. G., & Simon H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Maurer, I., & Ebers, M. 2006. Dymaics of social capital and their performance implications(), Lessons from biotechnology start–ups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(), 262–292.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Evolutionary theorizing in Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2)(), 23–46.
Nijssen, E. J., Hillebrand, B., & Vermeulen, P. A. 2005. Unraveling willingness to cannibalize, a closer look at the barrier to radical innovation. Technovation, 25(2), 1400–1409.
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(),1245–1264.
Nutt, P. C. 1998. Framing strategic decisions. Organization Science, 9: 195–216.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179.
Rajagopalan, N., & Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 22: 48–79.
Rumelt, R. P. 1991. How Much Does Industry Matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(), 167–185.
Rumelt, R. R. 1995. Inertia and Transformation. In Cynthia Montgomery (eds), Resource–based and evolutionary theories of the firm, Toward a synthesis, Nowell, Mass(), Kluwer Academic Publishers. 101–132.
Simon, H. A. (1947). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat–rigidity effects in organizational behavior(), A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.
Sull, D. N. 1999. The dynamics of standing still, Firestone Tire & rubber and the radial revolution. Business History Review, 73(), 430–464.
Takayama, M., Watanabe, C. & Griffy-Brown, C. 2002. Remaining innovative without sacrificing stability: an analysis of strategies in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry that enables firms to overcome inertia resulting from successful market penetration of new product development, Technovation 22, 747–759.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Tripsas, M., & Gavett, G. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia(), Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(), 1147–1161.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. 2005. Improvisation and innovation performance in teams. Organization Science, 16(), 203–224.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A Resource–Based View of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5:171–180.