Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intensity, timeliness, and success of incumbent response to technological discontinuities: a synthesis and empirical investigation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The extant literature highlights numerous different factors influencing the timeliness and intensity of incumbent response to discontinuous technological change. However, this literature has so far not been synthesized and is therefore limited in its analytical, predictive, and normative power. We develop a comprehensive model of incumbent response that organizes different explanatory factors into the three distinct dimensions of (1) identification and interpretation, (2) decision making, and (3) organizational implementation. We also conceptualize how response intensity and timeliness affect business performance in new technological domains. We test the model against data from 320 firms from the German dental lab industry, finding substantial support for the majority of our hypotheses. This study offers unique empirical insight in observing that cognitive constructs such as framing and management flexibility have the strongest impact on both intensity and timeliness of incumbent response to technological, and thus, strategic discontinuities. Together, our findings have important implications for both theory and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although hypotheses 1–7 consist of one nomological sentence, each hypothesis contains two sub-propositions: the “a”-hypothesis formalizes an influence on the intensity, the “b”-hypothesis an effect on the timeliness of incumbent response.

References

  • Adner R, Snow DC (2010) Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats. Ind Corp Chang 19(5):1655–1675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad Manag J 39(5):1154–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm Sci Q 35(4):604–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14(3):396–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assink M (2006) Inhibitors to disruptive innovation capability. J Eur Innov Manag 9(2):215–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audia PG, Greve HR (2006) Less likely to fail: low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Manag Sci 52(1):83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr PS, Huff AS (1997) Seeing isn’t believing: understanding diversity in the timing of strategic response. J Manag Stud 34(3):337–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr PS, Stimpert JL, Huff AS (1992) Cognitive change, strategic action and organizational renewal. Strateg Manag J 13(5):15–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ (2007) The incumbent discount: stock market categories and response to radical technological change. Acad Manag Rev 32(3):703–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman EH (1980) A risk/return paradox for strategic management. Sloan Manag Rev 21(3):17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman R (1983) A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Acad Manag Rev 8(1):61–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy RK, Tellis GJ (1998) Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. J Mark Res 35(4):474–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW (2001) Assembling the elephant: a review on empirical studies on the impact of technical change upon incumbent firms. In: Burgelman R, Chesbrough H (eds) Comparative studies of technological evolution. JAI Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 1–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen CM (1997) The innovator’s dilemma. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen CM, Bower JL (1996) Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strateg Manag J 17(3):197–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn I, Henderson RM (1994) Racing to invest? The dynamics of competition in ethical drug discovery. J Econ Manag Strategy 3(3):481–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper AC, Smith CG (1992) How established firms respond to threatening technologies. Acad Manag Executive 6(2):55–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Weick KE (1984) Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Acad Manag Rev 9(2):284–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels E (2006) Dialogue on the effects of disruptive technology on firms and industries. J Prod Innov Manag 23(1):2–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day GS (1994) The capabilities of market-driven organizations. J Marketing 58(4):37–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Policy 11(3):147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhaime IM, Schwenk CR (1985) Conjectures on cognitive simplification in acquisition and investment decisions. Acad Manag Rev 10(2):287–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton JE (1993) The making of organizational opportunities—an interpretive pathway to organizational change. In: Cummings LL, Staw BM (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 15. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 195–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton J, Jackson S (1987) Categorizing strategic issues: links to organizational action. Acad Manag Rev 12(1):76–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Bourgeois LJ (1988) Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: toward a midrange theory. Acad Manag J 31(4):737–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manag J 21(S):1105–1121

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman MS, Pentland BT (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm Sci Q 48(1):94–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford J, Baucus D (1987) Organizational adaptation to performance downturns: an interpretation-based perspective. Acad Manag Rev 12(2):366–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster RN (1986) Innovation. The attacker’s advantage. Summit books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Galunic DC, Eisenhardt KW (2001) Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Acad Manag J 44(6):1229–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon H (1997) Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. J Mark Res 34(1):77–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Acad Manag J 48(5):741–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert RJ, Newberry DM (1982) Pre-emptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. Am Econ Rev 72(3):514–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder PN, Tellis GJ (1993) Pioneer advantage: marketing logic or marketing legend? J Mark Res 30(2):158–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve HR, Taylor A (2000) Innovation as catalysts for organizational change: shifts in organizational cognition and search. Adm Sci Q 45(1):54–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güttel W, Kohnlechner S (2009) Continuously hanging by a thread: managing contextual ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 61(2):149–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan MT, Freeman J (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Am J Sociol 82(5):929–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 49(2):149–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson R (1993) Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND J Econ 24(2):248–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson R, Clark K (1990) Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm Sci Q 35(1):9–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill CW, Rothaermel FT (2003) The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad Manag Rev 28(2):257–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff AS (1992) Mapping strategic thought. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff JS, Huff AS, Thomas H (1992) Strategic renewal and the interaction of cumulative stress and inertia. Strateg Manag J 13(S):55–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson S, Dutton J (1988) Discerning threats and opportunities. Adm Sci Q 33(3):370–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S (2008) Cognition, capabilities and incentives: assessing firm response to the fiber-optic revolution. Acad Manag J 51(4):672–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S (2010) Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty. Organ Sci (forthcoming)

  • Kaplan S (2011) Research in cognition and strategy: reflections on two decades of progress and a look to the future. J Manag Stud 48(3):665–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S, Murray F, Henderson RM (2003) Discontinuities and senior management: assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology. Ind and Corp Chang 12(4):203–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly D (2009) Adaptation and organizational connectedness in corporate radical innovation programs. J Prod Innov Manag 26(5):487–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler S, Sproull L (1982) Managerial response to changing environments–perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Adm Sci Q 27(4):548–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchell S (1995) Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and innovation adaptation: a qualitative/quantitative approach. J Acad Mark Sci 23(3):195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli AB, Jaworski BJ, Kumar A (1993) MARKOR: a measure of market orientation. J Mark Res 30(4):467–478

    Google Scholar 

  • König AS (2009) Cognitive framing and incumbent inertia in response to technological discontinuities—a replication and extension of the Gilbert study in the German book retailing industry. ProBusiness, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwaku A (2005) Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. J Mark 69(3):61–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrick RP (2004) Debiasing. In: Koehler D, Harvey N (eds) Handbook of experimental psychology. Blackwell, Malden, pp 316–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg Manag J 13(S):111–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt T (1960) Marketing myopia. Harv Bus Rev 38(4):45–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt B, March J (1988) Organizational learning. Annu Rev Sociol 14:319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB (1988) First-mover advantages. Strateg Manag J 9(S):41–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Livengood RS, Reger RK (2010) That’s our turf! Identity domains and competitive dynamics. Acad Manag R 35(1):48–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüscher LS, Lewis MW (2008) Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Acad Manag J 51(2):221–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald ML, Khanna P, Westphal JD (2008) Getting them to think outside the circle: corporate governance, CEOs' external advice networks, and firm performance. Acad Manag J 51(3):453–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellahi K, Wilkinson A (2004) Organizational failure: a critique of recent research and a proposed integrative framework. Int J Manag Rev 5/6(1):21–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Milburn T, Schuler R, Watman K (1983) Organizational crisis. Part I: Definition and conceptualization. Hum Relat 36(12):1141–1160

    Google Scholar 

  • Milkman KL, Chugh D, Bazerman MH (2009) How can decision making be improved? Persp Psychol Sci 4(4):378–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Friesen P (1980) Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation. Acad Manag J 23(4):591–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 2(3):192–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman C (1995) Organizational market information processes: cultural antecedents and new product performance. J Mark Res 32(3):318–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins J, Walker O (1996) Competency, prior performance, opportunity framing, and competitive response: exploring some behavioral decision theory perspectives. Mark Lett 7(2):147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver JC, Slater SF (1990) The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. J Mark 54(4):20–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng D, Westgren R, Steven S (2009) Competitive blind spots in an institutional field. Strateg Manag J 30(4):349–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett RE, Ross L (1980) Human inference. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio W (1995) The enactment of economic diversity: a reconciliation of theories of failure-induced change and threat-rigidity. Res Organ Behav 17:287–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelham AM, Wilson DT (1995) A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance. J Acad Mark Sci 24(1):27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J (1981) Power in organizations. Pitman, Marsfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinganum JF (1983) Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. Am Econ Rev 73(4):741–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightman LS (1991) Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapienza AM (1987) Imagery and strategy. J Manag 13(3):543–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma S (2000) Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Acad Manag J 43(4):681–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu K (2007) Prospect theory, behavioral theory, and the threat-rigidity thesis: combinative effects on organizational decisions to divest formerly acquired units. Acad Manag J 50(6):1495–1514

    Google Scholar 

  • Song XM (1997) The determinants of Japanese new product successes. J Mark Res 34(1):64–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM, Sandelands LE, Dutton JE (1981) Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: a multilevel analysis. Adm Sci Q 26(4):501–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez F, Lanzolla L (2007) The role of environmental dynamics in building a first mover advantage theory. Acad Manag Rev 32(2):377–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sull DA, Tedlow RS, Rosenbloom RS (1997) Managerial commitments and technological change in the US tire industry. Ind Corp Chang 6(2):461–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski DM, Troy LC, Bharadwaj SG (1995) Order of entry and business performance: an empirical synthesis and reexamination. J Marketing 59(4):17–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tellis GJ, Golder PN (1996) First to market, first to fail? Real causes of enduring market leadership. Sloan Manag Rev 37(2):65–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JB, Clark SM, Gioia DM (1993) Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, action and outcomes. Acad Manag J 36(2):239–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas M (2009) Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “The digital photography company”. Organ Sci 20(2):441–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas M, Gavetti G (2000) Capabilities, cognition and inertia: evidence from digital imaging. Strateg Manag J 21(10/11):1147–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Adm Sci Q 31(3):439–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Smith WK, Wood RC, Westerman G, O’Reilly C (2004) Innovation streams and ambidextrous organization designs. Working Paper, December, 15, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Sci 211(4481):453–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback J (1994) Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge

  • Verhees FJ, Meulenberg MT (2004) Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation, and performance in small firms. J Small Bus Manag 42(2):134–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss GB, Sirdeshmukh D, Voss ZG (2008) The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 51(1):147–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Roberts K (1993) Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm Sci Q 38(3):357–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt C, Sarkar M (2009) Learning from supply-side agents: the impact of technology solution providers’ experiential diversity on clients’ innovation adoption. Acad Manag J 52(1):37–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White JC, Varadarajan PR, Dacin PA (2003) Market situation interpretation and response: the role of cognitive style, organizational culture, and information use. J Mark 67(3):63–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from participants at the 2007 Academy of Management Meeting in Philadelphia, Special Topic Editor Kai-Ingo Voigt, and two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403, Nuremberg, Germany

    Simon Bockmühl, Andreas König & Harald Hungenberg

  2. IMD International, 23, Ch. de Bellerive, 1001, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Albrecht Enders

  3. Institute for International Business, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Althanstraße 51, 1090, Wien, Austria

    Jonas Puck

Authors
  1. Simon Bockmühl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas König
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Albrecht Enders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harald Hungenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jonas Puck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas König.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bockmühl, S., König, A., Enders, A. et al. Intensity, timeliness, and success of incumbent response to technological discontinuities: a synthesis and empirical investigation. Rev Manag Sci 5, 265–289 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-011-0068-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-011-0068-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation