颠覆性创新合法性与企业家战略行动:研究述评与展望
|
摘要
颠覆性创新不但与既有技术范式和制度逻辑冲突,而且还与创新有关群体分歧严重,其合法性是创新研究的重要前沿理论课题。本文综述了颠覆性创新合法性研究成果并指出了未来的研究方向。首先,分析了创新合法性评价者视角兴起的现实背景与理论意义,评述了该研究视角下创新利益相关者价值冲突内容与特点,总结了基于利益相关者价值冲突的颠覆性创新合法性理论内涵。其次,评述了颠覆性创新利益相关者物质利益、精神价值与道德规范冲突对其合法性的挑战,回顾了颠覆性创新合法性动态演化驱动机制、市场选择与扩散机制等有关研究。再次,综述了颠覆性创新合法性研究对于企业家创新战略行动的关注,总结了颠覆性创新利益相关者价值冲突与企业家战略行动互动关系,提出了基于利益相关者价值冲突视角的颠覆性创新合法性与企业家创新战略行动理论分析框架。本文为颠覆性创新合法性研究提供参考,为颠覆性创新实践提供借鉴。
This paper reviews the research results of the legitimacy of disruptive innovation and future research directions. Firstly, it analyzes the realistic background and theoretical significance of the emergence of the perspective of innovation legitimacy evaluators, reviews the contents and characteristics of the value conflicts of innovation stakeholders from the perspective, and summarizes the theoretical connotation of disruptive innovative legitimacy based on the value conflicts of stakeholders. Secondly, it summarizes the challenges of the legitimacy of disruptive innovation,including the conflicts about stakeholders' material interests, spiritual values and moral norms, and analyzes the driving mechanism, market selection mechanism and diffusion mechanism of the dynamic evolution of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Disruptive innovation stakeholders' material interest conflict challenges include preference value conflicts, market value conflicts, etc. Spiritual value conflict challenges include emotional value conflicts, trust value conflicts, etc. Moral norm conflict challenges include institutional norm conflicts, moral ethics conflicts and cultural value conflicts, etc. Moreover,the interactive relationship between disruptive innovation stakeholders' value conflicts and entrepreneurs' strategic actions is the dynamic evolutionary driving mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Disruptive innovation stakeholders' value conflicts and entrepreneurs' market choices form the dynamic evolutionary market selection mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. When disruptive innovation gains a foothold in the low-end or high-end market, it will lead to a broader range of stakeholders' value conflicts and entrepreneurs' strategic actions, forming the diffusion mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Thirdly, it puts forward the theoretical framework of disruptive innovation legitimacy and entrepreneurs' strategic actions based on the perspective of stakeholders' value conflicts. The unique strategic orientation of disruptive innovation legitimacy leads to the change of institutional logic, and the value orientation of disruptive innovation entrepreneurs affects the orientation of innovation market values and then the strategic actions of entrepreneurs. The heterogeneity of evaluators' value judgment about disruptive innovation is manifested in stakeholders' value conflicts. Stakeholders' value conflicts are conducive to the discovery of entrepreneurs' innovative values and guide entrepreneurs' strategic actions. The interactive relationship between entrepreneurs' strategic actions and stakeholders' value conflicts forms the dynamic evolution driving mechanism,market selection mechanism and diffusion mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Therefore, in the process of the dynamic evolution of disruptive innovation legitimacy, that is, in the process of stakeholders' value conflicts and co-evolution of disruptive innovation, there is inherent correlation between disruptive innovation legitimacy and entrepreneurs' strategic actions, thus forming the theoretical analyzing framework of disruptive innovation legitimacy and entrepreneurs' strategic actions.Finally, this paper points out the problems that need to be solved and the future research directions of the disruptive innovation legitimacy theory.
This paper reviews the research results of the legitimacy of disruptive innovation and future research directions. Firstly, it analyzes the realistic background and theoretical significance of the emergence of the perspective of innovation legitimacy evaluators, reviews the contents and characteristics of the value conflicts of innovation stakeholders from the perspective, and summarizes the theoretical connotation of disruptive innovative legitimacy based on the value conflicts of stakeholders. Secondly, it summarizes the challenges of the legitimacy of disruptive innovation,including the conflicts about stakeholders' material interests, spiritual values and moral norms, and analyzes the driving mechanism, market selection mechanism and diffusion mechanism of the dynamic evolution of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Disruptive innovation stakeholders' material interest conflict challenges include preference value conflicts, market value conflicts, etc. Spiritual value conflict challenges include emotional value conflicts, trust value conflicts, etc. Moral norm conflict challenges include institutional norm conflicts, moral ethics conflicts and cultural value conflicts, etc. Moreover,the interactive relationship between disruptive innovation stakeholders' value conflicts and entrepreneurs' strategic actions is the dynamic evolutionary driving mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Disruptive innovation stakeholders' value conflicts and entrepreneurs' market choices form the dynamic evolutionary market selection mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. When disruptive innovation gains a foothold in the low-end or high-end market, it will lead to a broader range of stakeholders' value conflicts and entrepreneurs' strategic actions, forming the diffusion mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Thirdly, it puts forward the theoretical framework of disruptive innovation legitimacy and entrepreneurs' strategic actions based on the perspective of stakeholders' value conflicts. The unique strategic orientation of disruptive innovation legitimacy leads to the change of institutional logic, and the value orientation of disruptive innovation entrepreneurs affects the orientation of innovation market values and then the strategic actions of entrepreneurs. The heterogeneity of evaluators' value judgment about disruptive innovation is manifested in stakeholders' value conflicts. Stakeholders' value conflicts are conducive to the discovery of entrepreneurs' innovative values and guide entrepreneurs' strategic actions. The interactive relationship between entrepreneurs' strategic actions and stakeholders' value conflicts forms the dynamic evolution driving mechanism,market selection mechanism and diffusion mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Therefore, in the process of the dynamic evolution of disruptive innovation legitimacy, that is, in the process of stakeholders' value conflicts and co-evolution of disruptive innovation, there is inherent correlation between disruptive innovation legitimacy and entrepreneurs' strategic actions, thus forming the theoretical analyzing framework of disruptive innovation legitimacy and entrepreneurs' strategic actions.Finally, this paper points out the problems that need to be solved and the future research directions of the disruptive innovation legitimacy theory.
引文
[1]刘云, Greg W G.基于评价者视角的组织合法性研究:合法性判断[J].外国经济与管理,2017,(5):73-84, 114.
[2]Binz C, Harris-Lovett S, Kiparsky M, et al. The thorny road to technology legitimation—institutional work for potable water reuse in California[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2016, 103:249-263.
[3]Bitektine A, Haack P. The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy:Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process[J].Academy of Management Review,2015, 40(1):49-75.
[4]Bitektine A. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations:The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status[J]. Academy of Management Review,2011, 36(1):151-179.
[5]Bunduchi R. Legitimacy-seeking mechanisms in product innovation:A qualitative study[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2017, 34(3):315-342.
[6]Geels F W, Verhees B. Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation journeys:A cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear energy(1945-1986)[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2011, 78(6):910-930.
[7]Govindarajan V, Kopalle P K, Danneels E. The effects of mainstream and emerging customer orientations on radical and disruptive innovations[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2011, 28(S1):121-132.
[8]Hall J, Matos S V, Martin M J C. Innovation pathways at the Base of the Pyramid:Establishing technological legitimacy through social attributes[J]. Technovation,2014, 34(5-6):284-294.
[9]Hall J K, Martin M J C. Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain:A framework for evaluating radical technology development[J]. R&D Management,2005, 35(3):273-284.
[10]Hynes N, Elwell A D. The role of inter-organizational networks in enabling or delaying disruptive innovation:A case study of m VoIP[J]. Journal of Business&Industrial Marketing,2016, 31(6):722-731.
[11]Jiao H, Zhao G Z. When will employees embrace managers’ technological innovations? The mediating effects of employees’perceptions of fairness on their willingness to accept change and its legitimacy[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2014, 31(4):780-798.
[12]Klenner P, Hüsig S, Dowling M. Ex-ante evaluation of disruptive susceptibility in established value networks—When are markets ready for disruptive innovations?[J]. Research Policy,2013, 42(4):914-927.
[13]Lankoski L, Smith N C, van Wassenhove L. Stakeholder judgments of value[J]. Business Ethics Quarterly,2016, 26(2):227-256.
[14]Mittlefehldt S. Seeing forests as fuel:How conflicting narratives have shaped woody biomass energy development in the United States since the 1970s[J]. Energy Research&Social Science,2016, 14:13-21.
[15]Navis C, Glynn M A. Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity:Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility[J]. Academy of Management Review,2011, 36(3):479-499.
[16]Osiyevskyy O, Dewald J. Explorative versus exploitative business model change:The cognitive antecedents of firm‐level responses to disruptive innovation[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,2015, 9(1):58-78.
[17]Parry M E, Kawakami T. The encroachment speed of potentially disruptive innovations with indirect network externalities:The case of E-readers[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2017, 34(2):141-158.
[18]Pérez L, Dos Santos Paulino V, Cambra-Fierro J. Taking advantage of disruptive innovation through changes in value networks:Insights from the space industry[J]. Supply Chain Management:An International Journal,2017, 22(2):97-106.
[19]Roy R. Role of relevant lead users of mainstream product in the emergence of disruptive innovation[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2018, 129:314-322.
[20]Scherer A G, Palazzo G, Seidl D. Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments:Sustainable development in a globalized world[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2013, 50(2):259-284.
[21]Sood A, Tellis G J. Demystifying disruption:A new model for understanding and predicting disruptive technologies[J].Marketing Science,2011, 30(2):339-354.
[22]Tost L P. An integrative model of legitimacy judgments[J]. Academy of Management Review,2011, 36(4):686-710.
[23]Tripsas M, Gavetti G. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia:Evidence from digital imaging[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000, 21(10-11):1147-1161.
[24]überbacher F. Legitimation of new ventures:A review and research programme[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2014,51(4):667-698.
[25]Von Pechmann F, Midler C, Maniak R, et al. Managing systemic and disruptive innovation:Lessons from the Renault Zero Emission Initiative[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2015, 24(3):677-695.
[26]Voronov M, de Clercq D, Hinings C R. Conformity and distinctiveness in a global institutional framework:The legitimation of Ontario fine wine[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2013, 50(4):607-645.
[27]Wallin A. Building legitimacy for entrepreneurial innovations in health service ecosystem:An institutional approach[J].What’s Ahead in Service Research? New Perspectives for Business and Society,2016:76-83.
[28]Wan F, Williamson P J, Yin E D. Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation:Evidence from China[J].Technovation,2015, 39-40:94-104.
[29]Wood D J. Measuring corporate social performance:A review[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews,2010, 12(1):50-84.
[30]Yu D, Hang C C. A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews,2010,12(4):435-452.
[31]Zhang W, White S. Overcoming the liability of newness:Entrepreneurial action and the emergence of China’s private solar photovoltaic firms[J]. Research Policy,2016, 45(3):604-617.
[32]Zimmerman M A, Zeitz G J. Beyond survival:Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy[J]. Academy of Management Review,2002, 27(3):414-431.
[2]Binz C, Harris-Lovett S, Kiparsky M, et al. The thorny road to technology legitimation—institutional work for potable water reuse in California[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2016, 103:249-263.
[3]Bitektine A, Haack P. The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy:Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process[J].Academy of Management Review,2015, 40(1):49-75.
[4]Bitektine A. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations:The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status[J]. Academy of Management Review,2011, 36(1):151-179.
[5]Bunduchi R. Legitimacy-seeking mechanisms in product innovation:A qualitative study[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2017, 34(3):315-342.
[6]Geels F W, Verhees B. Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation journeys:A cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear energy(1945-1986)[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2011, 78(6):910-930.
[7]Govindarajan V, Kopalle P K, Danneels E. The effects of mainstream and emerging customer orientations on radical and disruptive innovations[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2011, 28(S1):121-132.
[8]Hall J, Matos S V, Martin M J C. Innovation pathways at the Base of the Pyramid:Establishing technological legitimacy through social attributes[J]. Technovation,2014, 34(5-6):284-294.
[9]Hall J K, Martin M J C. Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain:A framework for evaluating radical technology development[J]. R&D Management,2005, 35(3):273-284.
[10]Hynes N, Elwell A D. The role of inter-organizational networks in enabling or delaying disruptive innovation:A case study of m VoIP[J]. Journal of Business&Industrial Marketing,2016, 31(6):722-731.
[11]Jiao H, Zhao G Z. When will employees embrace managers’ technological innovations? The mediating effects of employees’perceptions of fairness on their willingness to accept change and its legitimacy[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2014, 31(4):780-798.
[12]Klenner P, Hüsig S, Dowling M. Ex-ante evaluation of disruptive susceptibility in established value networks—When are markets ready for disruptive innovations?[J]. Research Policy,2013, 42(4):914-927.
[13]Lankoski L, Smith N C, van Wassenhove L. Stakeholder judgments of value[J]. Business Ethics Quarterly,2016, 26(2):227-256.
[14]Mittlefehldt S. Seeing forests as fuel:How conflicting narratives have shaped woody biomass energy development in the United States since the 1970s[J]. Energy Research&Social Science,2016, 14:13-21.
[15]Navis C, Glynn M A. Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity:Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility[J]. Academy of Management Review,2011, 36(3):479-499.
[16]Osiyevskyy O, Dewald J. Explorative versus exploitative business model change:The cognitive antecedents of firm‐level responses to disruptive innovation[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,2015, 9(1):58-78.
[17]Parry M E, Kawakami T. The encroachment speed of potentially disruptive innovations with indirect network externalities:The case of E-readers[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2017, 34(2):141-158.
[18]Pérez L, Dos Santos Paulino V, Cambra-Fierro J. Taking advantage of disruptive innovation through changes in value networks:Insights from the space industry[J]. Supply Chain Management:An International Journal,2017, 22(2):97-106.
[19]Roy R. Role of relevant lead users of mainstream product in the emergence of disruptive innovation[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2018, 129:314-322.
[20]Scherer A G, Palazzo G, Seidl D. Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments:Sustainable development in a globalized world[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2013, 50(2):259-284.
[21]Sood A, Tellis G J. Demystifying disruption:A new model for understanding and predicting disruptive technologies[J].Marketing Science,2011, 30(2):339-354.
[22]Tost L P. An integrative model of legitimacy judgments[J]. Academy of Management Review,2011, 36(4):686-710.
[23]Tripsas M, Gavetti G. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia:Evidence from digital imaging[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000, 21(10-11):1147-1161.
[24]überbacher F. Legitimation of new ventures:A review and research programme[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2014,51(4):667-698.
[25]Von Pechmann F, Midler C, Maniak R, et al. Managing systemic and disruptive innovation:Lessons from the Renault Zero Emission Initiative[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2015, 24(3):677-695.
[26]Voronov M, de Clercq D, Hinings C R. Conformity and distinctiveness in a global institutional framework:The legitimation of Ontario fine wine[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2013, 50(4):607-645.
[27]Wallin A. Building legitimacy for entrepreneurial innovations in health service ecosystem:An institutional approach[J].What’s Ahead in Service Research? New Perspectives for Business and Society,2016:76-83.
[28]Wan F, Williamson P J, Yin E D. Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation:Evidence from China[J].Technovation,2015, 39-40:94-104.
[29]Wood D J. Measuring corporate social performance:A review[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews,2010, 12(1):50-84.
[30]Yu D, Hang C C. A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews,2010,12(4):435-452.
[31]Zhang W, White S. Overcoming the liability of newness:Entrepreneurial action and the emergence of China’s private solar photovoltaic firms[J]. Research Policy,2016, 45(3):604-617.
[32]Zimmerman M A, Zeitz G J. Beyond survival:Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy[J]. Academy of Management Review,2002, 27(3):414-431.