Path Dependence of Power Relations, Path-Breaking Change and Technological Adaptation

Abstract

We study path-dependence of technological systems and power relations inside companies. While existing literature suggests power relations and technology to be path-dependent and influenced by each other, interactions across these evolutionary processes remain poorly understood. We studied the history of four retail firms over forty years, applying event structure analysis to explicate key dynamics. Companies exhibited two episodes of converging path dependency, where power relations further increased technological inertia. In each case, power initially concentrated outside the central headquarters. Path-breaking change led all firms to centralize power and implement networked IT systems supporting central control. We discuss the ability of converging technological and organizational path dependencies to create competitive disadvantage. Widely available technological advances create advantage even when competitors have similar existing systems, when power structures are strongly path-dependent, impeding technological change. Thus, company owners ought to create path-breaking disruptions in power relations when technological adoption provides value.

Trademark or patent? The effects of market concentration, customer type and venture capital financing on start-ups’ initial IP applications

“…A start-up's initial IP decision and its first activities represent the starting point of a path-dependent process in the evolution of a new venture strategy. Innovation, entrepreneurship and business model-related activities are characterised by path dependency (Redding 2002;Garnsey, Stam, and Heffernan 2006;Thrane, Blaabjerg, and Møller 2010;Valorinta, Schildt, and Lamberg 2011;Greve and Seidel 2015): past events or decisions influence future events and decisions (i.e. future decisions are conditioned by historical events) (Coombs and Hull 1998;Sydow, Schreyögg, and Koch 2009).…”

Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation

“…Working with complex problems requires approaches that can work with both biophysical and social understanding of systems at interrelated scales (Folke et al 2010); engage diverse individuals and institutions (Voß et al 2007); distinguish between and link incremental and transformative change (Wise et al 2014b); make issues of power and competing values open and amenable to discussion and resolution (Voß et al 2007, Valorinta et al 2011; and work effectively through learning, invention, and innovation to help purposely move toward uncertain futures (Voß et al 2007, Wilkinson 2008:274 in Ramirez et al 2008. While much progress has been made in understanding complexity (Newell 2012, McGowan et al 2014) and the different values held by different stakeholders (Christie et al 2012, Kenter et al 2015, there are still major practical challenges in working with multiple perspectives and norms (Frame and Brown 2008, Holman 2011, McGowan et al 2014).…”

Path constitution analysis

“…Level interrelatedness, though, is produced and reproduced by knowledgeable and powerful agents who refer in their activities recursively, but not necessarily reflexively to contextual or institutional features in their strategic behavior (Windeler 2003). This so-called 'focus level' of analysis relates to the level on which the path under scrutiny develops, no matter whether this is of a technological, institutional or organizational nature, or -as in the case of technologyintensive firms (Valorinta, Schildt, and Lamberg 2011) or regional clusters (Sydow, Lerch, and Staber 2010) -a mixture of these. By contrast, the 'surrounding levels' of analysis are those that are relevant for understanding the development of the focal path because of possible interference from processes from 'above' (termed 'upper boundary level') as well as from 'below' (entitled 'lower boundary level') the focal level of analysis.…”