Shifting Gears, Shifting Niches: Organizational Inertia and Change in the Evolution of the U.S. Automobile Industry, 1885–1981

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractWe examine how experiential learning affects organizational change and its consequences on firm mortality. We develop hypotheses about the interactions of experiences with a specific type of organizational change on the one hand, and environmental stability, organizational size, and organizational niche width on the other hand. Our findings draw from analysis of the U.S. automobile industry between 1885 and 1981 and support the general prediction that "process" effects of change in the organizational core elevate the hazard of failure. We also find that a dynamic interpretation of organizational environments as comprised of other organizations helps to explicate the interplay between organization and environmental forces that shape the occurrence and outcome of transformation.

Origins of Social Capital: Socialization and Institutionalization Approaches Compared

“…However, this is not the case among voluntary associations (competition does, however, curb membership growth (Wollebaek & Selle, 2006)). With regard to change, it should be extremely difficult to undertake fundamental change in an old and established organization (Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett, 1993;Dobrev, Kim, & Carroll, 2003;Halliday, Powell, & Granfors, 1993;Kelly & Amburgey, 1991;Miller & Chen, 1994;Tushman & Anderson, 1986). But in our material, old organizations change more often than young groups.…”

Effects of Social Capital and Power on Surviving Transformational Change: The Case of Initial Public Offerings.

“…Barnett and Carroll (1995) suggested that core structural change can be defined in terms of the extensiveness of the concurrent and subsequent changes that are related to an initial transformation. Cascades of associated but unforeseen disruptions to routines and procedures throughout firms may be the primary cause of the observed spikes in failure rates associated with organizational change more generally (Amburgey et al, 1993;Dobrev et al, 2003). It is worth reiterating the distinction between buffering mechanisms meant to insulate a firm from the need for transformation in the first place, and shielding mechanisms that protect the firm from the deleterious effects of a given transformation (Miner et al, 1990).…”

“…Using theoretical perspectives drawn primarily from organizational ecology (e.g., Barnett & Carroll, 1995;Hannan & Freeman, 1984), researchers have attempted to differentiate "core" from "peripheral" change, arguing that changes to four structural features-mission, authority structure, technology, and marketing strategy-are those most likely to reset the liability of newness clock. This approach is somewhat limiting, however, as what constitutes a core or peripheral change, as well as its degree of criticality, can vary among firms and populations (Aldrich, 1999;Dobrev, Kim, & Carroll, 2003). Aldrich (1999) suggested an alternative, nonordinal set of criteria for evaluating the degree to which a given event constitutes a significant transformation.…”

Assembling Frameworks for Strategic Innovation Enactment: Enhancing Transformational Agility through Situational Scanning

“…The influence of organizational social dynamics, including enablers and inhibitors like momentum and inertia, are frequently underestimated and overlooked (Dobrev et al 2003;Slaughter 1999). Momentum is an energy level driving change activities, coupled with the rate at which change is happening, while inertia relates to forces that reduce momentum and move an organization toward stagnation, mediocrity, rigidity, and entropy (D'Aveni et al 2010;De Pree 2004;Doz and Kosonen 2008).…”