That's Our Turf! Identity Domains and Competitive Dynamics

By R. Livengood, R. Reger. 2010

218 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/27910a6aa2b6d08b7c78d08a2b150afa8494431f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Identity in Organizations: Exploring Cross-Level Dynamics (2011, background): “…multilevel theorizing, identity tends to represent a “composition” (rather than “compilation”) form of emergence in that identity is typically similar across levels of analysis, resulting in “shared unit properties” (i.e., the identity is more or less common to the members of a given collective).”
Microfoundations for Strategy: A Goal-Framing Perspective on the Drivers of Value Creation (2013, background): “…decision-making emerge from experience (Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011), or how firm-level identification processes influence competitive dynamics (Livengood & Reger, 2010), are difficult to analyze on a deep level solely from an economics perspective (which is not to say that such insights…”
Transitional Identity as a Facilitator of Organizational Identity Change during a Merger (2010, background): “398/ASQ, September 2010 and Rao, 1997), organizational culture (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006), strategic change (Nag, Corley, and Gioia, 2007), and competitive rivalry (Livengood and Reger, 2010), among others.”
Flexing the Frame: TMT Framing and the Adoption of Non-Incremental Innovations in Incumbent Firms (2017, unknown): “Our theorization and application of cognitive flexibility attends to calls within the strategy literature to more fully account for how cognitive frames influence the competitive dynamics of strategic decision making within the firm (Helfat & Peteraf, 2015; Livengood & Reger, 2010).”
The Family Innovator's Dilemma: How Family Influence Affects the Adoption of Discontinuous Technologies by Incumbent Firms (2013, background): “…and more rigid with increasing family influence, then organizational actors in highly family-influenced firms are less likely to search outside their traditional, narrow cognitive templates (their mental “home turf” [Livengood & Reger, 2010]) or to radically and flexibly adapt search routines.”
Foreignness and exit over the life cycle of firms (2012, background): “Livengood and Reger (2010) observed that divestment from firms’ “home” business, such as Singer’s sewing machines, Greyhound’s bus lines, and GE’s light bulbs, was delayed long after what was economically sound because of the emotional attachment of executives to these lines of business.”
Reconceptualizing competitive dynamics: : A multidimensional framework (2015, background): “…of most conventional competitive dynamics scholars is that the ultimate aim of competition is to appropriate value from rivals—to disrupt, “outcompete” or “dethrone” (Ferrier et al., 1999) them, to augment market share (Chen and MacMillan, 1992), or to defend one’s turf (Livengood and Reger, 2010).”
CEO Narcissism, Audience Engagement, and Organizational Adoption of Technological Discontinuities (2013, background): “In some cases, managers may have developed emotional attachments to the current profiles of their firms, in the form of ‘‘identities,’’ which cause them to overlook or downplay the merits of new approaches (Tripsas, 2009; Livengood and Reger, 2010).”