Networks, Persistence and Change—A Path Dependence Perspective

Chapter

Abstract

The network form of organizing is usually considered to provide organizations with the strategic flexibility needed to survive in increasingly turbulent environments. At the same time, empirical research demonstrates that the network form—not least strategic alliances, regional networks and clusters, and global production and supply networks—runs the risk of becoming inert over time, reducing not only the networks’ strategic flexibility but also making organizational change increasingly difficult. Upon closer inspection, some of the structural inertia or institutional persistencies of this form may turn out to result from organizational path dependencies which are particularly difficult to detect and to overcome. It is argued that the emerging theory of organizational path dependence that builds on previous economic and institutional approaches in this field may be particularly helpful in this respect.

Keywords

Income Arena Metaphor 

References

  1. 1.
    Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital—prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (2000). Making change permanent. A model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 12, 97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arthur, W. B. (Ed.) (1994). Increasing returns and path dependency in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyer, J. (2010). The same or not the same—on the variety of mechanisms of path dependence. International Journal of Social Science, 5(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bourgeois, III, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34(7), 816–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burger, M., & Sydow, J. (2014). How inter-organizational networks can become path-dependent: Bargaining practices in the photonics industry. Schmalenbach Business Review, 66(1), 73–99.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colpan, A. M., Hikino, T., & Lincoln, J. R. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of corporate groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332–337.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dobusch, L., & Schüßler, E. (2013). Theorizing path dependence: A review of positive feedback mechanisms in prominent cases. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(3), 617–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. P. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation (vol. 1, pp. 167–188). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans, P. A. L., & Doz, Y. (1989). The dualistic organization. In P. A. L Evans, Y. Doz, & A. Laurent (Eds.), Human resource management in international firms (pp. 219–242). London: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grabher, G., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (2004). Networks. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organization Science, 20(2), 422–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hedlund, G. (1986). The hypermodern MNC—a heterarchy? Human Resource Management, 25(1), 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledgement and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15(summer special issue), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khanna, T. (1998). The scope of alliance. Organization Science, 9(3), 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim, T., Oh, H., & Swaminathan, A. (2006). Framing interorganizational network change: A network inertia perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31, 704–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koch, J. (2011). Inscribed strategies: Exploring the organizational nature of strategic lock-in. Organization Studies, 32, 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li, S. X., & Rowley, T. J. (2002). Inertia and evaluation mechanisms in interorganizational partner selection: Syndicate formation among US investment banks. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1104–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Manning, S., & Sydow, J. (2011). Projects, paths, practices: Sustaining and leveraging project-based relationships. Industrial & Corporate Change, 20(5), 1369–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    March, J. G. (1991). Exploitation and exploration in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A. (2013). Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Annuals of the Academy of Management, 7(1), 195–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maurer, I., & Ebers, M. (2006). Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications: Lessons from biotechnology start-ups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 262–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meyer, U., & Schubert, C. (2007). Integrating path dependency and path creation in a general understanding of path constitution. Science, Technology & Innovation, 3, 23–44.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Müller-Seitz, G. (2012). Leadership in interorganizational networks: A literature review and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), 428–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oliver, D., & Ross, J. (2005). Decision-making in high-velocity environments: The importance of guiding principles. Organization Studies, 26(6), 889–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33, 479–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Raab, J., & Kenis, P. (2009). Heading toward a society of networks: Empirical developments and theoretical challenges. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(3), 198–210.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluidity? On the dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schüßler, E. (2009). Strategische Prozesse und Persistenzen: Pfadabhängige Organisation und Wertschöpfung in der deutschen Bekleidungsindustrie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Staber, U., & Sydow, J. (2002). Organizational adaptive capacity: A structuration perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 408–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Starkey, K., Barnatt, C., & Tempest, S. (2000). Beyond networks and hierarchies: Latent organizations in the UK television industry. Organization Science, 11(3), 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sydow, J., & Duschek, S. (2011). Management interorganisationaler Beziehungen. Netzwerke-Cluster-Allianzen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sydow, J., & Schreyögg, G. (2013). Self-reinforcing processes in organizations, networks and fields—an introduction. In J. Sydow, & G. Schreyögg (Eds.), Self-reinforcing processes in and among Organizations (pp. 3–13). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34, 689–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sydow, J., Schüßler, E., & Müller-Seitz, G. (in press). Managing interorganizational relations. Debates and cases. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sydow, J., Windeler, A., Schubert, C., & Möllering, G. (2012). Organizing R & D consortia for path creation and extension: The case of semiconductor manufacturing technologies. Organization Studies, 33(7), 907–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vergne, J. P., & Durand, R. (2011). The path of most persistence: An evolutionary perspective on path dependency and dynamic capabilities. Organization Studies, 32(3), 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Freie Universität BerlinManagement DepartmentBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations