Adaptation
vs. Selection in Industry Change: Toward a Contingency View
A Professional
Development Workshop
sponsored by the BPS Division of the Academy of Management
Saturday, August 7, 2004
12:00 - 2:45 PM
New Orleans Sheraton
Participate
in the on-line Discussion
Forum
Co-organizers:
J. Peter Murmann (Kellogg) and Jan
W. Rivkin (Harvard)
Panelists:
Bill Barnett & Elizabeth Pontikes (Stanford), Clayton
Christensen (Harvard), Anita
McGahan (Boston U.),
Will Mitchell (Duke)
Synopsis:
In this workshop, panelists and audience members will discuss the roles
of selection and adaptation in shaping industry change. In particular,
they will consider how future research can move us from a horserace between
the selectionist and adaptationist perspectives toward a contingency view,
in which we understand the underlying conditions that favor selection
or adaptation.
Full Description:
Two dominant models of industry change have existed side by side during
the last 25 years. At one end of the spectrum, pioneering work on organizational
ecology holds that industry-level change arises as the result of selection:
individual organizations are largely inert so industries evolve only through
organizational births and deaths (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Change within
an organization is so hazardous that it is selected against (Hannan and
Freeman, 1984). At the other extreme of the spectrum, many management
scholars put great faith in adaptation: organizations can change and renew
themselves, giving rise to industry change without entry and exit (Kanter,
1983; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997).
Even those scholars who acknowledge the importance of both selection and
adaptation tend to favor one over the other. Evolutionary economists,
for instance, recognize that managers try to adapt to external circumstances,
but interlocking routines, bounded rationality, and historical commitments
make organizational adaptation difficult and selection crucial (Nelson
and Winter, 1982). Beyond making prudent investments in organizational
capabilities, managers can do little to improve the long-term viability
of their organizations (Winter in Murmann et al., 2003). In contrast,
researchers with the positioning perspective depict organizations as fairly
flexible and open to redesign (Porter, 1980; 1985). The advice they give
implicitly assumes wide latitude for adaptation, though positioning scholars
acknowledge that organizational change can be slow and painful.
The question of whether industries change by means of adaptation or selection
has been hotly debated for some time. Increasingly, we see work that incorporates
both mechanisms for industry change, sometimes working together (Levinthal,
1997). This suggests a contingency approach to the old debate. Perhaps
the important question is not which mechanism is dominant, but when is
each prevalent. What are the environmental and organizational circumstances
that favor one over the other?
The aim of this Professional Development Workshop is to bring together
a panel and an audience that wish to explore this emerging approach to
industry change. The panel convenes leading scholars with evolutionary,
ecological, economic, and organizational perspectives. It includes individuals
with both selectionist and adaptationist tendencies. The audience we aim
to attract includes individuals who are currently conducting research
on industry change through an evolutionary or ecological lens as well
as individuals who are eager to begin such research.
Prior to the workshop, we will ask (but not require) audience members
to pre-register. We will solicit from pre-registrants questions and topics
that they would especially like the panelists to address. During the workshop,
the panelists will engage in two rounds of discussion and debate among
themselves and with the audience. The first round will pose a series of
questions about industry change – ones that we expect to be controversial
– to the panelists. In particular, we will ask advocates of the
selectionist and adaptationist perspectives to lay out empirical evidence
for their points of view. The goal of this round is to bring to the surface
the hottest debates on the topic of selection vs. adaptation.
During the second round, panelists will focus their comments on practical
guidance for other scholars, discussing the kinds of research that needs
to be conducted in order to advance our understanding of adaptation and
selection. How might one design competing empirical tests of the selectionist
and adaptationist perspectives? What mix of theory-building and empirical
work is appropriate? What are the most glaring gaps in our theory and
evidence related to industry change? What tools and data sets might be
especially revealing? How could one would design research projects to
discern more precisely what causes organizational inertia or flexibility?
What studies would clarify the conditions under which adaptation or selection
is particularly powerful? What do we and do we not know about industry
change, and among the unknowns, which are the most crucial to pursue?
The combination of the two rounds, we hope, will give the audience both
rich food for thought and practical research advice.
We created a Discussion
Forum on etss.net so that you can
post questions and comments before and after the workshop.
|