To examine the consequences of a period of extraordinary success for the long-term adaptive capability of a firm's strategy-making process, this comparative longitudinal study of Andy Grove's tenure as Intel Corporation's chief executive officer (CEO) documents how he moved Intel's strategy-making process from an internal-ecology model to the classical rational-actor model during 1987-1998. His creation of a highly successful strategy vector pursued through an extremely focused induced-strategy process led to coevolutionary lock-in with the personal computer market segment, in which Intel's strategy making became increasingly tied to its existing product market. Intracompany analysis of four new business development cases highlights the inertial consequences of coevolutionary lock-in. The paper examines implications of coevolutionary lock-in in terms of its effect on balancing induced and autonomous strategy processes and exploitation and exploration in organizational learning.
AllisonG.ZelikowP.: 1999Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2d ed.New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
3.
ArthurB.: 1987“Competing technologies: An overview.” In DosiG. (ed.), Technical Change and Economic Theory: 590–607. New York: Columbia University Press.
4.
AudiaP. G.LockeE. A.SmithK. G.: 2000“The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change.”Academy of Management Journal, 43: 837–853.
5.
BamfordRaymond S.BurgelmanRobert A.: 1997a“Intel Corporation: The Hood River Project (A).”Stanford Business School Case SM-49A.
6.
BamfordRaymond S.BurgelmanRobert A.: 1997b“Intel Corporation: The Hood River Project (B).”Stanford Business School Case SM-49B.
7.
BamfordRaymond S.BurgelmanRobert A.: 1998“Intel's strategic position in the family room, 1998.”Stanford Business School Case SM-50.
BarnettW. P.HansenM. T.: 1996“The red queen in organizational evolution.”Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 17: 139–157.
10.
BaumJ. A. C.McKelveyB. (eds.): 1999Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of Donald T. Campbell. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
BendorJ.HammondT. H.: 1992“Rethinking Allison's models.”American Political Science Review, 86: 301–322.
12.
BowerJ. L.: 1970Managing the Resource Allocation Process. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
13.
BrownS. L.EisenhardtK. M.: 1997“The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1–34.
14.
BurgelmanR. A.: 1983“A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 223–244.
15.
BurgelmanR. A.: 1991“Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research.”Organization Science, 2: 239–262.
16.
BurgelmanR. A.: 1994“Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 24–56.
17.
BurgelmanR. A.: 2002Strategy is Destiny: How Strategy-Making Shapes a Company's Future. New York: Free Press.
18.
BurgelmanR. A.CarterD. L.BamfordR. S.: 1999“Intel Corporation: The evolution of an adaptive organization.”Stanford Business School Case SM-65.
19.
BursteinD.KlineD.: 1995“In the square-off between TV and computer, the smart money might be on the boob tube.”Los Angeles Times, October 29.
20.
ChristensenC. M.BowerJ. L.: 1996“Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms.”Strategic Management Journal, 17: 197–218.
21.
CoganG. W.BurgelmanR. A.: 1991“Intel Corporation (C): Strategies for the 1990s.”Stanford Business School Case PS-BP-256C.
22.
CollinsJ. C.: 2001Good to Great. New York: HarperBusiness.
23.
DyckB.StarkeF. A.: 1999“The formation of breakaway organizations: Observations and a process model.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 792–822.
24.
FarrellJ.MonroeH. K.SalonerG.: 1998“The vertical organization of industry: Systems competition versus component competition.”Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 7: 143–182.
25.
FineK. M.BurgelmanR. A.: 1997“Intel Corporation (F): Going beyond success in 1997.”Stanford Business School Case S-BP-256F.
26.
GersickC. J. G.: 1994“Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture.”Academy of Management Journal, 37: 9–45.
27.
GilderG.: 1989Microcosm: The Quantum Revolution in Economics and Technology. New York: Simon and Schuster.
28.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L.: 1967The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
29.
GroveA. S.: 1993“How Intel makes spending pay off.”Fortune, February 22: 57–61.
30.
GroveA. S.: 1996Only the Paranoid Survive. New York: Doubleday.
31.
HannanM. T.FreemanJ.: 1977“The population ecology of organizations.”American Journal of Sociology, 83: 929–984.
IsaacsonW.: 1997“The microchip is the dynamo of a new economy driven by the passion of Intel's Andrew Grove.”Time, December 29: 46–51.
34.
KawamotoD.GalanteS.: 1998“The legacy of Andy Grove.”CNET, March 26.
35.
Leonard-BartonD.: 1990“A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites.”Organization Science, 1: 248–266.
36.
LevinthalD.MarchJ. G.: 1993“The myopia of learning.”Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, 14: 95–112.
37.
LovasB.GhoshalS.: 2000“Strategy as guided evolution.”Strategic Management Journal, 21: 875–896.
38.
MarchJ. G.: 1991“Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.”Organization Science, 1: 71–87.
39.
MillerD.: 1994“What happens after success: The perils of excellence.”Journal of Management Studies, 31: 85–102.
40.
MillerD.: 1999“Selection processes inside organizations: The self-reinforcing consequences of success.” In BaumJ. A. C.McKelveyB. (eds.), Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of Donald T. Campbell: 93–109. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
MillerD.ChenM.-J.: 1994“Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: A study of the U.S. airline industry.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 1–23.
42.
MintzbergH.AhlstrandB.LampelJ.: 1998Strategy Safari. New York: Free Press.
43.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R.: 1978The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
44.
PollackA.: 1988“An ‘awesome’ Intel corners its market.”New York Times, April 3.
45.
PrahaladC. K.BettisR. A.: 1986“The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance.”Strategic Management Journal, 7: 485–501.
46.
ReinhardtA.SagerI.BurrowsP.: 1997“Can Andy Grove keep profits up in an era of cheap PCs?”Business Week, December 22.
47.
RotembergJ. J.SalonerG.: 1994“The benefits of narrow business strategies.”American Economic Review, 84: 1330–1349.
48.
RotembergJ. J.SalonerG.: 2000“Visionaries, managers, and strategic direction.”RAND Journal of Economics, 31: 693–716.
49.
SchlenderB. R.: 1989“Intel produces a chip packing huge power and wide ambitions.”Wall Street Journal, February 28.
50.
SchlenderB. R.: 1996“A conversation with the lords of Wintel.”Fortune, July 8.
51.
SorensonO.: 2000“Letting the market work for you: An evolutionary perspective on product strategy. “Strategic Management Journal, 21: 577–592.
SteereD.BurgelmanR. A.: 1993a“Intel Corporation (D): Microprocessors at the crossroads.”Stanford Business School Case S-BP-256D.
54.
SteereD.BurgelmanR. A.: 1993b“Intel Corporation (E): New directions for the 1990s.”Stanford Business School Case S-BP-256E.
55.
SuzukiO.BurgelmanR. A.: 1998“The PC-based desktop videoconferencing systems industry in 1998.”Stanford Business School Case SM-51.
56.
TredennickN.: 1991“1991: The year of the RISC.” Microprocessor Report, February 6: 16.
57.
TushmanM. E.RomanelliE.: 1985“Organization evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation.” In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 171–222. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
58.
Van de VenA. H.: 1992“Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note.”Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 13: 169–188.
59.
WelchJ.ByrneJ. A.: 2001Jack. New York: Warner Business.
60.
YinR. K.: 1984Case Study Research. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
61.
ZuckermanE. W.: 2000“Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and de-diversification.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 591–619.
