Revisiting the imitation assumption: Why imitation may increase, rather than decrease, performance heterogeneity

Research Summary: Imitation is a central construct in strategy theory because it is assumed to diminish inter‐firm performance heterogeneity within an industry. We revisit this assumption, which is premised on the logic that imitated practices act directly to make the imitator more similar to its target. This logic is incomplete because imitation also acts indirectly—via its effect on an imitator's post‐imitation experiential learning efforts through which it refines imitated practices and fills remaining knowledge gaps. We examine how an imitator's focus of attention during this post‐imitation experiential learning process impacts performance heterogeneity. Employing a computational model, we contrast the heterogeneity resulting from imitative entry with that from de novo (non‐imitative) entry and identify conditions under which imitation may increase, rather than decrease, inter‐firm performance heterogeneity. Managerial Summary: Imitation is commonly assumed to be a low‐risk strategy by which firms can narrow the performance gap to the market leader. This assumption is predicated on an understanding of imitation that neglects the impact of imitation on subsequent, post‐imitation, learning. Such learning serves to refine the imitated practices and fill remaining knowledge gaps. Our theory suggests that imitation is more risky than is typically assumed. Imitation leads to bifurcated performance outcomes. An imitator is more likely to: (a) catch up to the market leader, and (b) perform far worse than it would have without imitation. Key factors driving the riskiness of imitation are the observability of the market leader's practices and an imitator's decision regarding its focus of attention in post‐imitation learning.