IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v17y2006i1p150-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?

Author

Listed:
  • Clark G. Gilbert

    (Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Rock Center #217, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

Opportunities associated with discontinuous change typically do not trigger organizational response until the opportunity is perceived as a threat. However, threat perception can then trigger a response that accentuates organizational rigidity. This cognitive paradox is explored using a multilevel, longitudinal case study of a newspaper organization’s response to digital publishing. The results suggest that the competing frames of threat and opportunity can coexist within the firm when it creates organizationally differentiated subunits. Such a structure minimizes the need to integrate competing frames at the subunit level, enabling different behaviors to be enacted simultaneously across different units of the firm. This differentiated organizational form places an increased burden on senior teams that have to manage the inconsistencies across subunits. Insight into the structure of competing frames has broader implications for the structure of dynamic capabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Clark G. Gilbert, 2006. "Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 150-167, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:17:y:2006:i:1:p:150-167
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0160
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1050.0160?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    2. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 290-311, March.
    3. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    4. C. K. Prahalad & Richard A. Bettis, 1986. "The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), pages 485-501, November.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    7. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    8. Levinthal, Daniel & March, James G., 1981. "A model of adaptive organizational search," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 307-333, December.
    9. Robert A. Burgelman, 1991. "Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 239-262, August.
    10. Sull, Donald N., 1999. "The Dynamics of Standing Still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the Radial Revolution," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 430-464, October.
    11. Thomas R. Eisenmann & Joseph L. Bower, 2000. "The Entrepreneurial M-Form: Strategic Integration in Global Media Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 348-355, June.
    12. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    13. Henry Mintzberg & James A. Waters, 1985. "Of strategies, deliberate and emergent," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 257-272, July.
    14. Theresa K. Lant & Stephen J. Mezias, 1992. "An Organizational Learning Model of Convergence and Reorientation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 47-71, February.
    15. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    16. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    17. Mittal, Vikas & Ross, William T., 1998. "The Impact of Positive and Negative Affect and Issue Framing on Issue Interpretation and Risk Taking," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 298-324, December.
    18. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2003. "Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 650-669, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael, 2007. "Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma," Research Papers 1963, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    2. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    3. Giovanni. Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2004. "50th Anniversay Article: The Strategy Field from the Perspective of Management Science: Divergent Strands and Possible Integration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1309-1318, October.
    4. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    6. Felipe A. Csaszar & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2016. "Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(10), pages 2031-2049, October.
    7. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    8. Filipe M. Santos & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2005. "Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 491-508, October.
    9. Pascal Le Masson & Armand Hatchuel & Mario Le Glatin & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Designing Decisions In The Unknown: Towards A Generative Decision Model For Management Science," Post-Print hal-01937103, HAL.
    10. Daniel A. Levinthal & Alessandro Marino, 2015. "Three Facets of Organizational Adaptation: Selection, Variety, and Plasticity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 743-755, June.
    11. Sheen S. Levine & Mark Bernard & Rosemarie Nagel, 2018. "Strategic intelligence: The cognitive capability to anticipate competitor behaviour," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 527-527, February.
    12. Juha Uotila, 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 131-148.
    13. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Nathan R. Furr & Christopher B. Bingham, 2010. "CROSSROADS---Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1263-1273, December.
    14. Corinne A. Coen & Catherine A. Maritan, 2011. "Investing in Capabilities: The Dynamics of Resource Allocation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 99-117, February.
    15. Limaj, Everist & Bernroider, Edward W.N., 2019. "The roles of absorptive capacity and cultural balance for exploratory and exploitative innovation in SMEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 137-153.
    16. Tomoatsu Shibata & Mitsuru Kodama, 2013. "Strategy Transformation Through Strategic Innovation Capability," TMARG Discussion Papers 110, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University.
    17. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Richard Peter, 2017. "Experiential Learning, Competitive Selection, and Downside Risk: A New Perspective on Managerial Risk Taking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 915-930, October.
    18. Feiz Abadi, Javad & Gligor, David M. & Alibakhshi Motlagh, Somayeh & Srivastava, Raj, 2024. "When and under what conditions ambidextrous supply chains prove effective? Insights from simulation and empirical studies," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    19. Jean-Philippe Vergne & Colette Depeyre, 2015. "How do firms adapt? A fuzzy-set analysis of the role of cognition and capabilities in U.S. defense firms’ responses to 9/11," Post-Print hal-01274005, HAL.
    20. Stephan Billinger & Nils Stieglitz & Terry R. Schumacher, 2014. "Search on Rugged Landscapes: An Experimental Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 93-108, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:17:y:2006:i:1:p:150-167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.