Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T20:31:32.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Search of Optimal Distinctiveness: Balancing Conformity and Differentiation via Organizational Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2021

Yimei Hu Open the ORCID record for Yimei Hu [Opens in a new window] ,
Huanren Zhang Open the ORCID record for Huanren Zhang [Opens in a new window]  and
Yuchen Gao Open the ORCID record for Yuchen Gao [Opens in a new window]
Yimei Hu
Affiliation:
Aalborg University, Denmark
Huanren Zhang
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
Yuchen Gao*
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, China
*
Corresponding author: Yuchen Gao ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Firms in a nascent industry need to search across various technological trajectories and market opportunities with limited prior knowledge. While inter-firm learning (e.g., imitation) helps the focal firm adapt in the process of conformity, intra-firm learning (e.g., independent experimentation) helps a firm stand out from rivals in the process of differentiation, both of which can gain competitive advantages. This study investigates how the conformity-differentiation balance can be achieved from the cross-level learning perspective. Adopting a mixed-method design, we first conduct a case study on the Chinese photovoltaic industry. The case suggests that firms are inclined to conform in upstream and bottleneck technological domains but differentiate in the downstream market applications. We then extend the case findings through a computational simulation based on March's learning model. When experimentation and imitation are possible, the balance between conformity and differentiation can be reframed as the classical balance between exploitation and exploration across the firm and industry levels: while experimentation is often exploitative at the firm level but exploratory at the industry level, imitation is often exploratory at the firm level but exploitative at the industry level. The study makes a new attempt to bridge the optimal distinctiveness literature with the organizational learning literature.

处于新兴行业的企业需要在有限的先验知识下，对各种技术轨迹和市场机会进行搜索。企业间学习（例如模仿）有助于焦点企业适应一致性过程，而企业内学习（例如独立实验）则有助于企业在差异化过程中脱颖而出。二者均可使企业获得竞争优势。本研究从跨层次学习的角度考察了企业如何实现一致性与差异化的平衡。我们采用了混合研究方法的设计，首先对中国的光伏产业进行案例研究。该案例表明，企业倾向于在上游和瓶颈技术领域寻求一致性，但在下游市场应用领域追求差异化。然后，我们基于詹姆斯⋅马奇教授的学习模型，通过仿真来扩展案例研究的发现。当企业既可以实验也可以模仿时，一致性和差异化之间的平衡可以重新构建为一种经典的利用和探索之间的平衡，该平衡跨越企业和行业两个层面：虽然实验在企业层面往往是利用性的，但在行业层面上是探索性的；模仿在企业层面往往是探索性的，但在行业层面却是利用性的。本研究为将最优差别文献与组织学习视角联系起来做出了新的尝试。

Аннотация

Компании в зарождающейся отрасли должны искать различные технологические решения и рыночные возможности в условиях дефицита предварительных знаний. В то время как приобретение знаний внутри компаний (например, имитация) помогает целевой компании адаптироваться в процессе соответствия, приобретение знаний за пределами компаний (например, независимое экспериментирование) помогает компании выделиться среди конкурентов в процессе дифференциации, -- и то, и другое способствует приобретению конкурентных преимуществ. В этой работе изучается, как можно достичь баланса подобия и различий с точки зрения межуровневого обучения. На основании комбинации различных методов сбора материала, мы сначала проводим тематическое исследование на примере китайской фотоэлектрической промышленности. Этот пример свидетельствует о том, что компании стремятся быть подобными в начальных и технологически важных звеньях производственной цепи, но различаются в конечных прикладных «рыночных» звеньях. Далее мы расширяем полученные данные с помощью компьютерного моделирования, которое основано на модели обучения Марча. Когда экспериментирование и имитация возможны, баланс между соответствием и дифференциацией может быть переформулирован как классический баланс между эксплуатацией и исследованиями на уровне компании и отрасли: в то время как экспериментирование часто являются эксплуатационным на уровне компании, но исследовательским на уровне отрасли, имитация часто является исследовательской на уровне компании, но эксплуатационной на отраслевом уровне. В данной работе предпринимается новая попытка связать научную литературу об оптимальном своеобразии с литературой по организационному обучению.

Resumen

Las empresas de una industria naciente tienen que buscar entre varias trayectorias tecnológicas y oportunidades de mercado con un conocimiento previo limitado. Mientras que el aprendizaje entre empresas (por ejemplo, la imitación) ayuda a la empresa focal a adaptarse en el proceso de conformidad, el aprendizaje intraempresarial (por ejemplo, la experimentación independiente) ayuda a una empresa a destacarse de sus rivales en el proceso de diferenciación, y ambos pueden obtener ventajas competitivas. Este estudio investiga cómo se puede conseguir el equilibrio entre conformidad y diferenciación desde la perspectiva del aprendizaje entre niveles. Adoptando un diseño de métodos mixtos, primero realizamos un estudio de caso sobre la industria fotovoltaica china. El caso sugiere que las empresas tienden a conformarse en los ámbitos tecnológicos previos y de cuello de botella, pero se diferencian en las aplicaciones del mercado posterior. Después, ampliamos los hallazgos del caso mediante una simulación computacional basada en el modelo de aprendizaje de March. Cuando la experimentación y la imitación son posibles, el equilibrio entre la conformidad y la diferenciación puede replantearse como el equilibrio clásico entre la explotación y la exploración en los niveles de la empresa y la industria: mientras que la experimentación suele ser explotadora en el nivel de la empresa pero exploratoria en el nivel de la industria, la imitación suele ser exploratoria en el nivel de la empresa pero explotadora en el nivel de la industria. El estudio hace un nuevo intento de tender un puente entre la literatura sobre la diferenciación óptima y la literatura sobre el aprendizaje organizacional.

Keywords

conformitydifferentiationexploitationexplorationoptimal distinctivenessparadoxical balance一致性差异化探索利用最优差别悖论平衡подобиедифференциацияэксплуатацияисследованияоптимальное своеобразиепарадоксальный балансconformidaddiferenciaciónexplotaciónexploracióndiferenciación óptimaequilibrio paradójico
Type
Special Issue Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 17 , Special Issue 4: Remembering James G. March , October 2021 , pp. 690 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The first two authors contributed equally to this research.

This paper has been updated since its initial publication. For details see DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2021.66

ACCEPTED BY Deputy Editor Peter Ping Li

References

REFERENCES

Barlow, M. A., Verhaal, J. C., & Angus, R. W. 2019. Optimal distinctiveness, strategic categorization, and product market entry on the Google Play app platform. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8): 1219–1242.Google Scholar
Baum, J. A. C., Li, S. X., & Usher, J. M. 2000. Making the next move: How experiential and vicarious learning shape the locations of chains’ acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4): 766–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2013. Reflections on the 2013 decade award – ‘Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited' ten years later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4): 1–16.Google Scholar
Bitektine, A., Lucas, J. W., & Schilke, O. 2018. Institutions under a microscope: Experimental methods in institutional theory. In Bryman, A. & Buchanan, D. A. (Eds.), Unconventional methodology in organization and management research: 147–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
The Boston Consulting Group. 1970. Perspectives on experience. Boston: Boston Consulting Group.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5): 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruneel, J., Yli-Renko, H., & Clarysse, B. 2010. Learning from experience and learning from others: How congenital and interorganizational learning substitute for experiential learning in young firm internationalization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2): 164–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. 2013. Platform competition: Strategic trade-offs in platform markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11): 1331–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Deephouse, D. L. 1999. To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 147–166.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denrell, J. 2003. Vicarious learning, undersampling of failure, and the myths of management. Organization Science, 14(3): 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denrell, J., & Fang, C. 2010. Predicting the next big thing: Success as a signal of poor judgment. Management Science, 56(10): 1653–1667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denrell, J., & March, J. G. 2001. Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5): 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, R., & Jacqueminet, A. 2015. Peer conformity, attention, and heterogeneous implementation of practices in MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(8): 917–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, R., & Kremp, P. A. 2016. Classical deviation: Organizational and individual status as antecedents of conformity. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1): 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, C., & Levinthal, D. 2009. Near-term liability of exploitation: Exploration and exploitation in multistage problems. Organization Science, 20(3): 538–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. 2020. Open innovation: A theory-based view. Strategic Management Review, 1(2): 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, G., & Lahiri, A. 2016. Changing with the times: An integrated view of identify, legitimacy, and new venture life cycles. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3): 383–409.Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haans, R. F. J. 2018. What's the value of being different when everyone is? The effects of distinctiveness on performance in homogeneous versus heterogeneous categories. Strategic Management Journal, 40(1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haunschild, P. R. 1993. Interorganizational imitation: The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4): 564–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. 1997. Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3): 472–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haveman, H. A. 1993. Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4): 593–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmqvist, M. 2004. Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1): 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, P., & Baum, J. A. C. 1997. Opportunity and constraint: Organizations’ learning from the operating and competitive experience of industries. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1): 75–98.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity and performane: A meta- analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 797–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, D., & Friedman, A. 2007. The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 667–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. 1981. A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2(4): 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 1998. Towards a geocentric framework of organizational form: A holistic, dynamic and paradoxical approach. Organization Studies, 19(5): 829–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2014. The unique value of yin-yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 321–332.Google Scholar
Li, P. P., Leung, K., Chen, C. C., & Luo, J.-D. 2012. Indigenous research on Chinese management: What and how. Management and Organization Review, 8(1): 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Li, P. P., Liu, Y., & Yang, D. 2010. Learning trajectory in offshore OEM cooperation: Transaction value for local suppliers in the emerging economies. Journal of Operations Management, 28(3): 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, D., Lu, J., Li, P. P., & Liu, X. 2015. Balancing formality and informality in business exchanges as a duality: A comparative case study of returnee and local entrepreneurs in China. Management and Organization Review, 11(2): 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. 2018. Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3): 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Journal of Management, 2(1): 71–87.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 1996. Learning to be risk adverse. Psychological Review, 103(2): 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 2003. Understanding organisational adaptation. Society and Economy, 25(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 2010. The ambiguities of experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzelli, A., Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. 2018. Blending in while standing out: Selective conformity and new product introduction in family firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 42(2): 206–230.Google Scholar
Mazzucato, M., & Mazzucato, M. 2017. From market fixing to market-creating: A new framework for innovation policy innovation policy. Industry and Innovation, 23(2): 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKnight, B., & Zietsma, C. 2018. Finding the threshold: A configurational approach to optimal distinctiveness. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4): 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
Miller, D., Amore, M. D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Minichilli, A., & Quarato, F. 2018. Strategic distinctiveness in family firms: Firm institutional heterogeneity and configurational multidimensionality. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(1): 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. D., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. J. 2006. Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March's exploration-exploitation model. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudambi, R., Li, L., Ma, X., Makino, S., Qian, G., & Boschma, R. 2018. Zoom in, zoom out: Geographic scale and multinational activity. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(8): 929–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6): 61–78.Google Scholar
Posen, H. E., & Levinthal, D. A. 2012. Chasing a moving target: Exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments. Management Science, 58(3): 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4): 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reypens, C., & Levine, S. S. 2017. To grasp cognition in action, combine behavioral experiments with protocol analysis. In Galavan, R. J., Sund, K. J., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (Eds.), Methodological challenges and advances in managerial and organizational cognition: 123–146. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. 2015. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd's of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3): 932–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stettner, U., & Lavie, D. 2014. Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13): 1903–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 28(13): 1319–1350.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, J., & Bogers, M. 2014. Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4): 814–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, B., Wan, Z., & Levinthal, D. A. 2014. Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 1257–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. 2017. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2): 185–203.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Wang, H., & Zhou, X. 2020. Dare to be different? Conformity vs. differentiation in corporate social activities of Chinese firms and market responses. Academy of Management Journal, 63(3): 717–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, E. Y., Fisher, G., Lounsbury, M., & Miller, D. 2017. Optimal distinctiveness: Broadening the interface between institutional theory and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1): 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, E. Y., Ishihara, M., Jennings, P. D., & Lounsbury, M. 2018. Optimal distinctiveness in the console video game industry: An exemplar-based model of proto-category evolution. Organization Science, 29(4): 588–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zott, C., & Amit, R. 2007. Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2): 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, E. W. 2016. Optimal distinctiveness revisited. In Pratt, M. G., Schultz, M., Ashforth, B. E., & Ravasi, D. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of organizational identify: 183–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Hu et al. supplementary material

Hu et al. supplementary material 1

Download Hu et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 331.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hu et al. supplementary material

Hu et al. supplementary material 2

Download Hu et al. supplementary material(File)
File 213.6 KB