Success trap

Last updated

The success trap refers to business organizations that focus on the exploitation of their (historically successful) current business activities and as such neglect the need to explore new territory and enhance their long-term viability. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Overview

The success trap arises when a firm overemphasizes exploitation investments, even if explorative investments are required for successful adaptation. [1] [2] Exploitation draws on processes that serve to incrementally improve existing knowledge, while exploration involves the pursuit and acquisition of new knowledge. [1] Firms and other organizations that have been performing well over an extended period of time are exposed to strong path dependence in exploitative activities, at the cost of explorative activities with which they have little experience. For example, in the 1990s Polaroid’s management failed to respond to the transition from analogue to digital photography, although the rise of digital technology had been evident since the 1980s. [4] Other well-known examples of companies that got caught in the success trap include Nokia, Kodak, Rubbermaid and Caterpillar. [4] [5] [6]

Conditions giving rise to success trap

A key condition giving rise to a firm getting caught in the success trap is the company culture, having been created based on the understanding of what makes success, the culture then solidifies. When the environment changes there is an initial dismissing of the significance of the change and the (over time) subsequent failure to adjust the strategy of the firm. [7] [8] [9] Thus, top managers do not ‘see’ the upcoming exogenous change, because their thinking and policies tend to constrain exploration and experimentation within the firm and inhibit the ability to bring about strategic change. A broader perspective arises from how exploration activities are suppressed in publicly owned companies as a result of the interplay between the CEO and other top executives, the Board of Directors, the pressure for short-term (improvements in) results arising from the capital market, and the substantial delay between the investment in exploration efforts and the return on these efforts. [10]

Preventing the success trap

The success trap can be best avoided early on, for example, by closely monitoring how other (e.g. leading) firms maintain a balance between exploitation and exploration activities, as well as by continually collecting information about changing customer needs, newly emerging technologies and other changes in the market and competitive environment. Drawing on this type of information, the executive board and board of directors together need to develop and sustain a shared long-term vision and strategy regarding the investments in exploitation and exploration activities. Once a publicly owned corporation has been suppressing exploration over an extended period of time, it tends to be almost impossible to get out of the success trap without major interventions - such as a hostile takeover by another corporation or an exit from the stock exchange. [10]

Consequences of the success trap

Firms that fall into the success trap suffer long term consequences. They grow their revenues at a lower pace than other companies and also create less shareholder value than more exploratory companies. These patterns can be observed for S&P 500 companies in the USA in the aggregate and also within industries. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

Intellectual capital is the result of mental processes that form a set of intangible objects that can be used in economic activity and bring income to its owner (organization), covering the competencies of its people, the value relating to its relationships, and everything that is left when the employees go home, of which intellectual property (IP) is but one component. It is the sum of everything everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge. The term is used in academia in an attempt to account for the value of intangible assets not listed explicitly on a company's balance sheets. On a national level, intellectual capital refers to national intangible capital (NIC).

Organizational learning is the process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization. An organization improves over time as it gains experience. From this experience, it is able to create knowledge. This knowledge is broad, covering any topic that could better an organization. Examples may include ways to increase production efficiency or to develop beneficial investor relations. Knowledge is created at four different units: individual, group, organizational, and inter organizational.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Strategic management</span> Planning for a companys responses to external issues

In the field of management, strategic management involves the formulation and implementation of the major goals and initiatives taken by an organization's managers on behalf of stakeholders, based on consideration of resources and an assessment of the internal and external environments in which the organization operates. Strategic management provides overall direction to an enterprise and involves specifying the organization's objectives, developing policies and plans to achieve those objectives, and then allocating resources to implement the plans. Academics and practicing managers have developed numerous models and frameworks to assist in strategic decision-making in the context of complex environments and competitive dynamics. Strategic management is not static in nature; the models can include a feedback loop to monitor execution and to inform the next round of planning.

In business, a competitive advantage is an attribute that allows an organization to outperform its competitors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Information management</span> Organisational activity concerning information lifecycle

Information management (IM) is the appropriate and optimized capture, storage, retrieval, and use of information. It may be personal information management or organizational. Information Management for organizations concerns a cycle of organizational activity: the acquisition of information from one or more sources, the custodianship and the distribution of that information to those who need it, and its ultimate disposal through archiving or deletion and extraction.

In business administration, absorptive capacity is defined as a firm's ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends. It is studied on individual, group, firm, and national levels. Antecedents are prior-based knowledge and communication. Studies involve a firm's innovation performance, aspiration level, and organizational learning. It has been said that in order to be innovative an organization should develop its absorptive capacity.

In business management, a learning organization is a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself. The concept was coined through the work and research of Peter Senge and his colleagues.

International business refers to the trade of Goods and service goods, services, technology, capital and/or knowledge across national borders and at a global or transnational scale.

The law of the handicap of a head start, first-mover disadvantage, or dialectics of lead, is a theory that suggests that an initial head start in a given area may result in a handicap in the long term. The term was coined in 1937 by Jan Romein, a Dutch journalist and historian, in his essay "The dialectics of progress", part of the series "The unfinished past". The mirror image of the law – an initial arrears in a given area may stimulate a development leading to a long-term advantage – is known as the law of the stimulative arrears. This concept contrast with first-mover advantage.

The Icarus paradox is a neologism coined by Danny Miller in his 1990 book by the same name. The term refers to the phenomenon of businesses failing abruptly after a period of apparent success, where this failure is brought about by the very elements that led to their initial success. It alludes to Icarus of Greek mythology, who drowned after flying too close to the Sun. The failure of the very wings that allowed him to escape imprisonment and soar through the skies was what ultimately led to his demise, hence the paradox.

Entrepreneurship is the creation or extraction of economic value in ways that generally entail beyond the minimal amount of risk, and potentially involving values besides simply economic ones.

Innovation Intermediaries is a concept in innovation studies to help understand the role of firms, agencies and individuals that facilitate innovation by providing the bridging, brokering, knowledge transfer necessary to bring together the range of different organisations and knowledge needed to create successful innovation. The term open innovation intermediaries was used for this concept by Henry Chesbrough in his 2006 book as "companies that help other companies implement various facets of open innovation".

Corporate foresight has been conceptualised by strategic foresight practitioners and academics working and/or studying corporations as a set of practices, a set of capabilities and an ability of a firm. It enables firms to detect discontinuous change early, interpret its consequences for the firm, and inform future courses of action to ensure the long-term survival and success of the company.

Philippe N. Baumard graduated from the University of Aix-Marseille II, and Paris Dauphine University. Philippe Baumard is an organizational scientist who has held visiting professorships at New York University from 1997 to 1998, University of California, Berkeley from 2004 to 2007, Stanford University from 2008 to 2010. He is currently professor at the French National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts (CNAM), associate-researcher at École Polytechnique's Chair on Innovation & Regulation, Paris, and president of the scientific council of France's High Council for Strategic Education and Research.

Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to be efficient in its management of today's business and also adaptable for coping with tomorrow's changing demand. Just as being ambidextrous means being able to use both the left and right hand equally, organizational ambidexterity requires the organizations to use both exploration and exploitation techniques to be successful.

Digital transformation (DT) is the process of adoption and implementation of digital technology by an organization in order to create new or modify existing products, services and operations by the means of translating business processes into a digital format.

Process capital is the value to an enterprise which is derived from the techniques, procedures, and programs that implement and enhance the delivery of goods and services. Process capital is one of the three components of structural capital, itself a component of intellectual capital. Process capital can be seen as the value of processes to any entity, whether for profit or not-for profit, but is most commonly used in reference to for-profit entities.

Knowledge inertia (KI) is a concept in knowledge management. The term initially proposed by Shu-hsien Liao comprises a two dimensional model which incorporates experience inertia and learning inertia. Later, another dimension—the dimension of thinking inertia—has been added based on the theoretical exploration of the existing concepts of experience inertia and learning inertia.

Ambidextrous leadership is a recently introduced term by scholars to characterize a special approach to leadership that is mostly used in organizations. It refers to the simultaneous use of explorative and exploitative activities by leaders. Exploration refers to search, risk taking, experimentation, and innovation in organizations, whereas exploitation has to do with refinement, efficiency, implementation, and execution. Successful ambidextrous leaders must be able to achieve the appropriate mix of explorative and exploitative activities, unique for each organization, that will lead them to high firm performance outcomes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hart E. Posen</span> Canadian academic

Hart E. Posen is an academic, researcher, and business analyst. He is a Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at Dartmouth College, Tuck School of Business.

References

  1. 1 2 3 March, J.G. (1991), ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’. Organization Science, vol. 2, 71–87.
  2. 1 2 Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), ‘The myopia of learning’. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 14, 95–112.
  3. ↑ Hollow, Matthew. "Strategic Inertia, Financial Fragility and Organizational Failure: The Case of the Birkbeck Bank, 1870-1911". Business History. 56 (5). Durham University: 1–19. Retrieved October 1, 2014.
  4. 1 2 Tripsas, M. and Gavetti, G. (2000), ‘Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging’. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, 1147–61.
  5. ↑ Adams, M. and Boike, D. (2004), ‘The PDMA foundation 2004 comparative performance assessment study’. Visions, 28, 26–9.
  6. ↑ Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D. and Winter, S.G. (2007), Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.
  7. ↑ Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. (1988), ‘To avoid organizational crises, unlearn’. In: Cameron, K.S., Sutton, R.I. and Whetten, D.A. (Eds.), Readings in Organizational Decline, pp. 323–332. Cambridge: Ballinger.
  8. ↑ Sheppard, J.P. and Chowdhury, S.D. (2005), ‘Riding the wrong wave: organizational failure as a failed turnaround’. Long Range Planning, vol. 38, 239–260.
  9. ↑ Tushman, M.L., Newman, W.H. and Romanelli, E. (2004), ‘Convergence and upheaval: managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution’. In: Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (Eds.), Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings, pp. 530-540. New York: Oxford University Press.
  10. 1 2 Walrave, B., Van Oorschot, K.E. and Romme, A.G.L. (2011), ‘Getting trapped in the suppression of exploration: A simulation model’. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 48, 1727-1751.
  11. ↑ "Tomorrow never dies: The art of staying on top". The Boston Consulting Group. Retrieved November 23, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.