IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osk/wpaper/1524.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Issue selection flexibility and strategic rigidity: Lessons from Sharp's crisis

Author

Listed:
  • Koichi Nakagawa

    (Graduate school of economics, Osaka University)

  • Yoichi Matsumoto

    (Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration, Kobe University)

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between attention to managerial issues and organizational inertia. Past research shows that rigid cognition makes managers focus on specific issues during strategy formulation, and such focus prevents from altering strategies. In this study we introduce the idea from an attention based-view that issues move in and out of the focus. Analyzing the case of the Sharp Corporation from this viewpoint, it was found that top managers frequently changed peripheral issues and their answers while central issues and answers remained unchanged. Managers used several issues flexibly for justifying their fixed answers for their central issues. From this case, we get some new propositions that flexible change of issues rather prevents from changing strategies, if the managers f cognition is rigid.

Suggested Citation

  • Koichi Nakagawa & Yoichi Matsumoto, 2015. "Issue selection flexibility and strategic rigidity: Lessons from Sharp's crisis," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-24, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:osk:wpaper:1524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.econ.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/global/dp/1524.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Andrew J. Hoffman & William Ocasio, 2001. "Not All Events Are Attended Equally: Toward a Middle-Range Theory of Industry Attention to External Events," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 414-434, August.
    3. Raghu Garud & Michael A. Rappa, 1994. "A Socio-Cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case of Cochlear Implants," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 344-362, August.
    4. Theresa S. Cho & Donald C. Hambrick, 2006. "Attention as the Mediator Between Top Management Team Characteristics and Strategic Change: The Case of Airline Deregulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 453-469, August.
    5. Jane E. Dutton & Susan J. Ashford & Regina M. O’ Neill & Erika Hayes & Elizabeth E. Wierba, 1997. "Reading the wind: how middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 407-423, May.
    6. H. Igor Ansoff, 1980. "Strategic issue management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 131-148, April.
    7. Amit Nigam & William Ocasio, 2010. "Event Attention, Environmental Sensemaking, and Change in Institutional Logics: An Inductive Analysis of the Effects of Public Attention to Clinton's Health Care Reform Initiative," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 823-841, August.
    8. Sarah Kaplan & Fiona Murray & Rebecca Henderson, 2003. "Discontinuities and senior management: assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 203-233, April.
    9. Rhonda K. Reger & Anne Sigismund Huff, 1993. "Strategic groups: A cognitive perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 103-123, February.
    10. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Robert A. Baron & Michael D. Ensley, 2006. "Opportunity Recognition as the Detection of Meaningful Patterns: Evidence from Comparisons of Novice and Experienced Entrepreneurs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(9), pages 1331-1344, September.
    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. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    2. Donal Crilly & Pamela Sloan, 2014. "Autonomy or Control? Organizational Architecture and Corporate Attention to Stakeholders," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 339-355, April.
    3. Callen Anthony & Andrew J. Nelson & Mary Tripsas, 2016. "“Who Are You?…I Really Wanna Know”: Product Meaning and Competitive Positioning in the Nascent Synthesizer Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 163-183, September.
    4. van den Oever, Koen, 2017. "Uncharted waters : A behavioral approach to when, why and which organizational changes are adopted," Other publications TiSEM 0136c8c2-ecdd-4f82-8ca7-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Nadine Kammerlander & Andreas König & Melanie Richards, 2018. "Why Do Incumbents Respond Heterogeneously to Disruptive Innovations? The Interplay of Domain Identity and Role Identity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1122-1165, November.
    6. Markku V. J. Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2013. "Top Management’s Attention to Discontinuous Technological Change: Corporate Venture Capital as an Alert Mechanism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 926-947, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Vecchiato, Riccardo, 2020. "Analogical reasoning, cognition, and the response to technological change: Lessons from mobile communication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    9. König, Andreas & Schulte, Martin & Enders, Albrecht, 2012. "Inertia in response to non-paradigmatic change: The case of meta-organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1325-1343.
    10. Godart, Frédéric & Pistilli, Luca, 2024. "The multifaceted concept of disruption: A typology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    11. Willem Smit, 2023. "Top Manager Heuristics Under Knightian Uncertainty: Control Versus Prediction and the Moderating Impact of Framing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1302-1340, July.
    12. Mary Tripsas, 2009. "Technology, Identity, and Inertia Through the Lens of “The Digital Photography Company”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 441-460, April.
    13. Waverly W. Ding, 2011. "The Impact of Founders' Professional-Education Background on the Adoption of Open Science by For-Profit Biotechnology Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 257-273, February.
    14. Miles M Yang & Feifei Yang & Tingru Cui & Ying-Chu Cheng, 2019. "Analysing the dynamics of mental models using causal loop diagrams," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(3), pages 495-512, August.
    15. Shinkle, George A. & Hodgkinson, Gerard P. & Gary, Michael Shayne, 2021. "Government policy changes and organizational goal setting: Extensions to the behavioral theory of the firm," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 406-417.
    16. J. P. Eggers, 2016. "Reversing course: Competing technologies, mistakes, and renewal in flat panel displays," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1578-1596, August.
    17. William Ocasio, 2011. "Attention to Attention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1286-1296, October.
    18. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    19. Sucheta Nadkarni & Tianxu Chen & Jianhong Chen, 2016. "The clock is ticking! Executive temporal depth, industry velocity, and competitive aggressiveness," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 1132-1153, June.
    20. Ding, Waverly, 2010. "The Impact of Founder Professional Education Background on the Adoption of Open Science by For-Profit Biotechnology Firms," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt9728v4sv, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cognition; attention; managerial issues; organizational inertia; SharpCorporation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osk:wpaper:1524. 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: The Economic Society of Osaka University (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feosujp.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.