Discontinuities and senior management: assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology

By Sarah Kaplan, Fiona E. Murray, Rebecca Henderson. 2003

259 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1358161ff1a9fb24f1a849e7f8dcc49829ab9744

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Can They Take It With Them? The Portability of Star Knowledge Workers' Performance (2004, background): “Furthermore, such organizational practices as promotion criteria, the system of resource allocation (Henderson and Cockburn 1994), and managerial practices (Castanias and Helfat 1991, Kaplan et al. 2003) can all have an effect on productivity.”
Incumbent Adaptation to Technological Change: The Past, Present, and Future of Research on Heterogeneous Incumbent Response (2018, unknown): “They built on the finding that managerial attention directs the technological direction of a firm (Eggers & Kaplan, 2009; Kaplan 2008a; Kaplan et al., 2003), and they further showed that the effect of CEO narcissism on technology adoption is mediated by CEO attention.”
Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty (2008, background): “More to the point of this paper, research in this tradition has suggested that strategic change involves cognitive reorientations (Barr 1998; Barr et al. 1992; Kaplan, Murray and Henderson 2003; Szulanski, Doz and Ovetzky 2004).”
CEO Narcissism, Audience Engagement, and Organizational Adoption of Technological Discontinuities (2013, methodology): “Whereas Kaplan, Murray, and Henderson (2003) described their similar measure as capturing ‘‘CEO attention,’’ we see it as more accurately reflecting overall ‘‘managerial attention.’’”
Thinking About Technology: Applying a Cognitive Lens to Technical Change (2008, background): “Similar effects have been found in the shift from print to online newspapers (Gilbert, 2006), in pharmaceutical firms’ responses to the emergence of biotechnology (Kaplan et al., 2003), and in communications technology firms’ responses to fiber optics (Kaplan, in press-a).”
Strategic management of business model transformation: lessons from Nokia (2011, background): “…of firm-related material structures and processes that exist objectively “in the world”, on the one hand – and intangible, cognitive meaning structures that exist in the minds of people at different levels of the organization, on the other (Tripsas and Gavetti, 2000; Kaplan et al., 2003).”
Research in Cognition and Strategy: Reflections on Two Decades of Progress and a Look to the Future (2011, unknown): “To address these concerns, I, along with Rebecca Henderson and Fiona Murray, examined the response of 15 pharmaceutical firms to the emergence of biotechnology over a period of 20 years using biotechnology-related words in the Letter to Shareholders to proxy for managerial attention to this new tech”
Technology, Identity, and Inertia Through the Lens of "The Digital Photography Company" (2009, result): “…identity, they have also been shown in prior research to represent what management considers most salient to the ﬁrm and as such provide a reasonable gauge of managerial attention and beliefs about key issues (Abrahamson and Hambrick 1997, Kaplan 2008, Kaplan et al. 2003, Osborne et al. 2001).”
The Family Innovator's Dilemma: How Family Influence Affects the Adoption of Discontinuous Technologies by Incumbent Firms (2013, background): “…which denotes the swiftness with which organizations (1) recognize a discontinuous technology and interpret it as a relevant strategic issue (Kaplan et al., 2003; Ocasio, 1997), (2) decide to adopt it and how to do so (Christensen, 1997), and (3) implement the adoption decision by…”