Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
The Response Strategies of Dominant
US Firms to Japanese Challengers
H. Donald Hopkins∗
Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University,
362 Speakman Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
Received 5 March 2000; received in revised form 12 September 2001; accepted 18 January 2002
Six case studies are used to examine the response strategies of dominant US firms to the entry
of Japanese challengers into their domestic industries. This study examines the question of
whether it is better to respond quickly with individual competitive responses or wait until
a broad strategic reorientation is possible. The results suggest that the US firms that had a
slower but more concentrated and aggressive response lost less market share than firms that
responded quickly.
© 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Writers and researchers have shown an intense interest in the successful penetration
of the American market by Japanese firms. Much of this interest has centered on seeking explanations for this success from the strategies, methods, or attributes of Japanese
business or Japanese culture (e.g., Abegglen & Stalk, 1985; Keys & Miller, 1984; Ouchi,
1981; Smothers, 1990). Less interest has been demonstrated, however, regarding the role
American firms played in the Japanese successes. Much of what has been written has focused
on American competitive weaknesses in areas such as quality, long-term orientation, and
manufacturing approach that became apparent when compared to the Japanese strengths in
these same areas (e.g., Cusumano, 1988; Haynes & Abernathy, 1980; Nonaka & Johansson,
1985; Schonberger, 1982). Little, however, has been written regarding the actual responses
or response strategies of American firms reacting to a radical change in their immediate
environment, the entry of Japanese challengers.
Yet, examination of the responses of these American firms on a longitudinal basis is likely
to provide a vital clue that a static perspective of strengths and weaknesses cannot provide.
Examining the process of change over time helps provide a clearer picture of the way firms
∗
Tel.: +1-215-204-8146; fax: +1-215-204-8029.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. D. Hopkins).
0149-2063/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 9 - 2 0 6 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 1 9 - 2
6
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
make transitions (Ginsberg & Grant, 1985). Taking such a perspective promises not only to
provide new insights on a critical period of American business experience but also to have
wider implications concerning the management of change.
This paper reports on a study to compare two possible models for explaining the relative
success or lack of success of American firms’ responses. These models are competitive
dynamics (CD) and punctuated equilibrium (PE). CD holds that fast responses are better
than slow responses. PE holds that a change process that involves a period of resistance
followed by a period of intense and concentrated change will lead to better performance.
The general research question is: Is it better to respond quickly with individual competitive
responses or to wait until a broad strategic reorientation is possible?
What is it that warrants research about the response strategies of dominant American firms
to the entry of Japanese competitors, as opposed to the entry of firms from other countries
or even the appearance of new domestic competitors? There are two central reasons. First,
Japanese entry into the US market has been extraordinarily successful. In a relatively short
period since WWII the Japanese have won significant market share in industries previously
thought dominated by impregnable American giants. Second, prior to this success American
firms did not view Japanese firms as important competitors. This changed dramatically
during the 1980s. It should, therefore, be particularly revealing to examine how leading
American firms responded to this new perception of Japanese competitors.
In spite of reports in the business press suggesting a reduced competitive challenge
from the Japanese, indications are that they have major market share positions in many
global industries and that these positions are getting bigger. For example, data presented
by Franko (1996) on 15 major industries show that the Japanese have the greatest market
share, compared to other countries, in six of these (compared to seven for the US and two for
Germany). In each of these six industries the market share of the Japanese increased between
1990 and 1993. More recent work suggests that in spite of the lengthy recession Japanese
competitive strength in key industries continues to grow (Council on Competitiveness, 1999;
Czinkota & Kotabe, 2000).
Thus, Japanese entry into the US is an interesting and important event. It has permanently
changed the competitive landscape and has on-going implications. But it has rarely been
examined in terms of a rigorous longitudinal analysis of the American response.
Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Justification
There are various ways to characterize organizational change. These include its magnitude, speed, number of stages, comprehensiveness, substance, and the extent to which it fits
the organization’s circumstances.
In a recent review of approaches to change, Newman and Nollen (1998) distinguish
between approaches that focus on change at the organization level vs. the population. In the
latter category they placed population ecology and institutional theory. At the organization
level they point to five approaches: transaction cost theory, contingency theory, resource
dependence, life cycle, and strategic choice.
These authors also distinguish approaches to change in terms of magnitude of change.
On the one hand, most change theories, according to these authors are concerned with
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
7
incremental change. They note that the main exception to the incremental approach is the
PE model of change. PE leads to radical change because initial resistance to change causes
change forces to build until the pressure is so great that when the resistance collapses
discontinuous change occurs very quickly.
In addition to the extreme positions on these two dimensions it is worth considering
the positions that fall in between. For example, in between change at the organizational
level and population level is change that occurs among multiple organizations. In this case,
change may be tied to a strategic group, strategic network, or the CD between a pair of
firms.
In between incremental and discontinuous change is mid-range change that may be
more successful than either incremental or radical change (Reger, Gustafson, DeMarie &
Mullane, 1994). Mid-range change has the advantage of overcoming cognitive inertia but
is also modest enough to be accepted by organization members.
CD represents an example of incremental change among multiple organizations. PE, on
the other hand, represents an example of discontinuous change. Even though PE initially
was developed to explain evolution at the population level, when applied to organizations
it has been used to explain the change inside individual organizations (Van de Ven & Pool,
1995). Both models, however, are used here to examine changes that take place within
individual organizations, i.e., dominant American firms responding to the entry of new
Japanese competitors into their home markets.
CD is largely concerned with the individual competitive moves and countermoves taken
by rivals. Though it would be a mistake to suggest that there is a unified body of research
on which a consensus exists, there are a growing number of studies on this topic. CD
emphasizes the importance of timing—who moves first, who is second, who is third, and
the amount of time between moves. CD also emphasizes intentions. Competitive moves are
generally seen as either competitive actions or responses to the competitive actions of rivals.
One model of CD, based on the work of Smith, Grimm and Gannon (1992), is grounded
in communication–information theory. According to this model moves and countermoves
will be influenced by the characteristics of the actor, the action, the industry competitive
environment, the responder, and the response(s). The principal premise is that firms gain
an advantage by taking actions where rivals do not respond or are slow to respond.
Another model developed by Chen (1996) and adapted by Hitt, Ireland and Hoskisson
(2001) is broader in scope. This model suggests that broad market, competitive, and evolutionary outcomes are influenced by characteristics of firms (awareness, motivation, market
commonality and resource similarity), interfirm rivalry (first-mover incentives, type of action, actor’s reputation, dependence on the market, and resource availability), ability for
action (size), and nature of response (speed, innovation, and quality). This model is notable
for the broad outcomes it suggests are influenced by CD.
Research findings have been summarized by several authors (e.g., Chen, 1996; Connors,
1995; Hitt et al., 2001; Smith et al., 1992). Research most relevant to this study has shown
that competitive moves and responses have an effect on performance (Chen, 1996; Chen &
Hambrick, 1995). Early responders and first-movers have been found to take market share
away from late responders (Chen & MacMillan, 1992). Leaders are more likely to lose
market share if they are less aggressive and slower (Ferrier, Smith & Grimm, 1999). The
more likely a firm is to respond, the better its performance (Smith et al., 1991). The more
8
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
moves a firm initiates the better its performance (Young, Smith & Grimm, 1996), but the
more responses its moves stimulate, the poorer its performance (Chen & Miller, 1994).
A central consideration suggested by CD models and supported by research is the importance of how quickly the responder reacts (Chen & MacMillan, 1992; Ferrier et al., 1999). A
slow response to the competitive action of a rival has several disadvantages for the responder: (1) it allows the first-mover a longer period to reap benefits without being challenged;
(2) it allows the first-mover to solidify any gains; and (3) it indicates the responder’s lack of
commitment to the product or market. Chen and MacMillan (1992) found a link between
response speed and market share in their study of the airline industry. Ferrier et al. (1999),
in their study of industry leaders from various industries, also found support for this link.
This prompted the first research question: Will a lag in a firm’s response to new competition
be associated with a greater loss of market share compared to a firm that shows no lag?
Another consideration is whether the responses match the actor’s competitive move or
lead to the initiation of new moves (i.e., non-matching responses). For example, if a new
entrant introduces a new product at the bottom of the market an incumbent might simply
match them by introducing a product for the same segment, or do this as well as reduce
prices on the incumbent’s entire product line. Reducing prices would be a non-matching
response. A matching response sends a signal that the responder is merely concerned with
maintaining the status quo. A non-matching response sends the signal that the responder is
intent on defending its position. Such an escalation by the responder is expected to reduce
the future aggressiveness of the entrant. This prompted the second research question: Will a
firm with a greater number of responses that are non-matching be associated with a smaller
loss of market share than for a firm with a smaller number of responses?
An alternative perspective is concerned with radical environmental change. One such
theory that has received support and attention in recent years is the PE model. The PE model
combines the view that organizations resist change with the belief that they can change.
According to PE, organizations resist changes in the environment until they exceed a certain
threshold. Then, after this initial delay, the organization changes quickly and dramatically.
The theoretical underpinnings of this approach are based on the work of paleontologists.
They found evidence suggesting that evolution proceeded via short periods of dramatic
change punctuating long periods in which species were unchanged. This theory seemed
to provide a possible answer to a major debate among organizational theorists. One group
of organizational theorists has stressed the rarity and difficulty of organizational change
(e.g., Aldrich, 1979; Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Lieberson & O’Connor, 1972). A second
group argued that management could direct organizations to make important changes that
would keep them aligned with the environment (e.g., Barnard, 1938; Child, 1972; Miles &
Cameron, 1982). While empirically-based studies seem to offer support to both sides of the
debate (Gersick, 1994), applying PE to organizations provides a possible solution.
The PE model holds that organizations evolve during “convergent periods” during which
they fine-tune their current strategy or make incremental adjustments to minor shifts in
the environment (Tushman, Newman & Romanelli, 1986). During this period of stability
organizations resist major changes in strategy. This is “punctuated” by short periods of
strategic reorientation (Tushman, Newman & Romanelli, 1985).
This pattern of change is not merely descriptive. It distinguishes between highly successful and less successful firms. Research suggests that firms that follow a PE pattern are more
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
9
successful (Grinyer, Mayes & McKiernan, 1988; Miller & Friesen, 1984; Sherman, 1995;
Virany, Tushman & Romanelli, 1992). According to this perspective, strategic reorientation
is more likely to be successful than slower forms of change for several reasons. First, change
is delayed until it is clear that change is necessary. Second, change is delayed until there is
agreement on what the new strategy should be. Third, the forces encouraging change have
gotten stronger because of the delay.
One indication that change is consistent with a strategic reorientation rather just fine-tuning
would seem to be the breadth of the change. Changing many aspects of a firm’s operation
rather than just a few would be more likely to qualify as strategic reorientation. In some
previous studies change was classified as strategic reorientation when change in strategy,
structure, and systems all had occurred (e.g., Virany et al., 1992). In the present case, a broad
change was defined as having occurred when a firm responded to the new competition with
many different types of responses. Third research question: Will broad change be associated
with less loss of market share than narrow change?
Method
In recent years, case study methodology has generated substantial interest, discussion,
and acceptance (e.g., Dyer & Wilkins, 1991; Eisenhardt, 1991). Use of such “fine-grained”
methodologies have the advantage of high relevance to business practice, appeal to the
human desire for concreteness, provide in-depth attention to detail, and allow the possibility
of multiple viewpoints (Harrigan, 1983). In recent years, many excellent case study articles
have been published (e.g., Burgelman, 1994; Collis, 1991; Garud & Kumaraswamy, 1993;
Gersick, 1994; Hall, 1993; Ross & Staw, 1993).
One advantage of case studies is that they include a wealth of contextual variables. In
the event that a thesis is not supported or an initial research question not probing enough,
these contextual variables help the researcher to go several steps beyond. Also, it allows the
researcher to notice any particularly important variables in the data that may have been left
out of the initial model.
Cases were selected that had certain common characteristics in order to have them represent conceptual categories instead of populations. In particular, where a dominant American
firm in a mature industry faced a serious threat from the entry of Japanese challengers into the
US market. The entry by the Japanese must have included both exports and foreign direct investment. Such common features allow for what Yin calls “literal replication” (1994, p. 46).
Based on a list of 20–25 industries/markets/segments where Japanese competitors accounted
for at least 5% of market sales (e.g., semiconductors, electronic calculators, autos, etc.) eight
cases were selected. Two cases—CF Martin Guitar Company (producer of acoustic guitars)
and IBM’s mainframe computer business—were dropped because it was decided that the
Japanese challengers did not represent a serious enough threat to these particular firms.
The six remaining cases were selected to achieve what Yin calls “theoretical replication”
(1994, p. 46). While with literal replication cases are predicted to produce similar results,
theoretical replication is expected to produce contrasting results for predictable reasons.
Theoretical replication was expected for one variable: time of entry. Time of entry refers to
the date of first entry into the US market by the Japanese challenger. Cases were selected
10
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
Table 1
Identification of case studies
Industry
Leader
Challengers
Years
Market sharea
Sewing machines
Heavy-weight
motorcycles
Color TV
Singer
Harley-Davidson
Brother, Janome, Riccar, Maruzen
Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki
1947–1986
1959–1990
66/20/34
5/2.4/13.9
RCA
1960–1985
34/18
Film
Copiers
Kodak
Xerox
1964–1993
1975–1990
85/80
95/12/19
Small engines
Briggs & Stratton
Matsushita, Sony, Sharp, Sanyo,
Toshiba, Hitachi
Fuji film
Canon, R. Ricoh, Mita, Sharp,
Minolta, Toshiba, Matsushita
Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha, Fuji,
Mitsubishi
1977–1992
46/43/61
a
Figures are for market shares in units for beginning and end of period; if three numbers are given the middle
one is lowest share prior to turn-around.
where initial entry took place across several decades to allow the detection of any “learning
effect.” That is, it was expected that as the American firms became more knowledgeable
about Japanese competitors they would see them as more of a threat and thus respond more
appropriately. One case involved entry in the 1940s, one in the 1950s, two cases in the
1960s, and finally, two cases in the 1970s.
Information was collected from various secondary sources. The companies varied in
terms of the extent to which they have been the subject of interest in the business press,
textbooks, and non-fiction books. On the other hand, some of the firms have had relatively
little coverage. Individual, in-depth cases were written to provide the rigor to allow for documentation of the raw data and verification by others. This resulted in six case write-ups of
approximately 30–50 pages in length with each including a time-line specifying when specific responses were made (all case write-ups and references are available from the author).
A response was defined as a “discrete event” on the part of the incumbent firms in reaction
to the Japanese challengers. The judgment that certain competitive actions were primarily
responses to the actions of Japanese competitors was based on: (1) the identification of
key words or phrases such as “reacting to,” “responding to,” “as a result of,” found in
the business press or industry trade journals; (2) statements by company executives; or (3)
instances where responses closely followed the same moves by the competition or which
targeted the Japanese competitors.
Determination of what was a response involved two raters with substantial field experience. In all cases, the raters were able to agree. This data was then used to calculate several
variables defined below. The values on these variables were compared for high performing
and low performing firms based on splitting firms into two groups of three each. Table 1
shows both the leader and challenger companies on which the cases were written.
Variables
To try and overcome the subjectivity of a case approach, many of the variables were
calculated based on quantitative data. The choice of variables is based on the research
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
11
questions. Lag and average response time help examine the delay expected from a PE
pattern. Span and response concentration help identify the degree of concentration expected
to distinguish CD from PE. Measuring the type of responses allow for examination of
whether greater breadth leads to better performance. The case approach also allowed for
the examination of contextual variables not specifically required by the research questions.
These contextual variables may help to explain any inconsistent cases.
Lag
The number of years between the entry of the first Japanese challenger into the American
firm’s industry and that firm’s first response.
Average Response Time
Each of the firm’s responses was assessed in terms of the number of years between it
and the Japanese entry. These year measurements were then summed and divided by the
number of responses.
Span
The number of years between the American firm’s first and last response. Data were
collected on all dominant firms for a period of at least 10 years after their last response.
This precluded the use of relatively recent cases of Japanese entry. The requirement of 10
years was used to avoid any kind of “ceiling effect.” Ceiling effect refers to the possible
loss of data due to limiting the period over which data is collected.
Average Responses Per Year
This is the total number of responses divided by the span.
Total Responses
Total number of responses made by the American firm.
Types
The responses were classified into the following categories by two coders: outsourcing (of products or components), marketing (increasing marketing, changing market message or advertising), manufacturing (redesigning or moving manufacturing plants), joint
venture, organizational restructuring (downsizing or downscoping), geographic expansion,
price reduction, offshore manufacturing, new technology (utilizing new product or manufacturing technology), new product/features, new distribution method (changing how
the products are wholesaled or retailed), and government/legal (lobbying the government for legislative changes). The number of different types was calculated for each
firm.
12
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
Response Concentration
This variable was calculated as one minus the ratio of span divided by the number of years
between the year of the entrant’s entry and the year of the dominant firm’s last response.
Non-matching Responses
Using the categories listed above as types, the number of types of responses that had not
been preceded by an action of the same type by the Japanese challenger was counted as a
non-matching response.
Pattern
A CD pattern was considered to exist when responses were distributed over the time
period. A PE pattern was considered to exist when responses showed a time-lag followed
by a concentrated period of responses.
Market Share
Market share figures were based on unit sales in the US and come from various comparable
sources such as trade association data.
Analysis
The first step of the analysis was to order the case studies accord to the relative performance of the American leader over the period of study. This was calculated in terms of
% change in market share over the period of the case study. Beginning and ending figures
were calculated. Interim figures were not considered to be relevant to the research questions.
Market share was based on units sold in the US market in the focal industry. This gave the
following result: HD gained 178.0%, Briggs gained 32.6%, Kodak lost 5.9%, RCA lost
47.1%, Singer lost 48.5%, and Xerox lost 80.0%. All the tables that follow show the firms
in the above order so it will be easy to identify patterns associated with market share change.
Since the interest is in the responses of the American leaders, it was first necessary to
examine the entry methods or techniques of the challengers. One obvious threat to internal
validity would be if this research did not address possible differences in method of entry by
the challengers.
Table 2 shows entry methods based on different types of exporting and foreign direct
investment that were used by the challenger upon entry as well as after entry. Table 3 shows
types of competitive actions by challenger and leader.
In examining these tables, the author attempted to find differences associated with varying
levels of performance. Table 2 shows a pattern in that the greater the number of entry methods
used by the challengers in a particular case the poorer the performance of the American
leader. This pattern could suggest that challengers that used more methods gained more
experience and became stronger competitors as a result. Or, that challengers that entered in
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
13
Table 2
Entry methods
Cases
Heavy-weight motorcycles
Small engines
Film
Color TV
Sewing machines
Copiers
Export
Foreign direct investment
No
Brand
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
JV
M&A
X
X
X
X
Start-up
Total
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
3
3
4
4
4
No: exported using store brand or non-corporate name; Brand: exported using company or brand name; JV: joint
venture; M&A: merger or acquisition; Start-up: built own production plant in US; Total: total number of methods
used.
a very gradual way reduced the level of threat perceived by the American leader. Finally,
it might be that the use of many methods by the Japanese challengers overwhelmed the
American firms. In any case, this pattern will need to be kept in mind while interpreting the
role of the leaders’ response strategies.
Table 3 shows some evidence that the leaders frequently chose different responses than
those of the challengers. Some of these differences may be natural and predictable. For
example, lobbying the government is perhaps a natural response to be expected by a threatened leader but not for a challenger. Another example, geographic expansion, by definition,
will automatically be associated with the challengers. However, there is a pattern in terms
of the number of matching responses in relation to performance. The better performing
leaders made fewer matching responses. This may suggest innovation rather than imitation
made a difference in performance.
Next, responses were placed on a time-line listing the occurrence of competitive actions,
competitive responses, or other events in the case. These time-lines were then translated
to bar charts showing when responses were made in relation to the entry of the Japanese.
Based on this information on each firm’s response strategy: (1) the firms were designated
as showing either a pattern for CD, or a pattern for PE and (2) values were calculated for
the previously defined variables.
Findings
Table 4 presents the data split between the three “high performers” and three “low
performers” of the six cases. In examining the variables in Table 4, there seem to be
non-trivial differences between the high performance and low performance groups for all
the variables except for the number of types (TYPES), average responses per year (PY) and
the total number of responses (#).
Research question one asked if a slower change would lead to a greater loss of market
share. Instead, the opposite seems to be true. The lag for the higher performers was 13 years
compared to 7.7 years for the low performers. The longer lag is consistent with PE.
An advantage of cases is the ability to answer “why” questions (Yin, 1994). So why did
the firms show such long lag times? One reason is that in some cases the Japanese entry, at
14
Industry
Firm
GT
Motorcycle
Leader
Challenger
Leader
Challenger
Leader
Challenger
Leader
Challenger
Leader
Challenger
Leader
Challenger
X
Small engines
Film
Color TV
Sewing machines
Copiers
OS
MK
MF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
JV
OR
GE
PR
OF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DS
X
X
X
X
X
TO
MATCH
5
6
7
3
6
5
6
6
7
6
8
8
2
2
4
5
5
5
Geographic expansion and offshore manufacturing were used as sample selection criteria for challengers. Government (GT), outsourcing (OS), marketing (MK),
manufacturing (MF), joint venture (JV), organizational restructuring (OR), geographic expansion (GE), price reduction (PR), offshore manufacturing (OF), new technology
(TE), new products/features (NP), new distribution method (DS), total (TO), matching actions (MATCH).
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
Table 3
Types of actions/responses by leader and challengers
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
15
Table 4
Results summary table
PR leader
LAG
RT
SPAN
CON
PY
TYPES
#
NMR
PAT
MSC%
High performers group
Harley-Davidson 17
Briggs
9
Kodak
13
Mean
13
21.5
13.4
19.7
18.2
8
10
11
9.67
.67
.44
.52
.54
1.00
1.40
.64
1.01
5
7
6
6
8
14
7
9.6
3
5
2
3.3
PE
PE
PE
178.0
32.6
−5.9
68.2
Low performers group
RCA
Singer
Xerox
Mean
Difference
14.6
16.9
11.8
14.4
3.8
14
22
10
15.3
−5.6
.33
.19
.44
.32
.22
.86
.36
1.00
.74
.27
5
6
8
6.3
.3
12
8
10
10
−.4
0
2
3
1.67
1.73
CD
CD
PE
−47.0
−48.5
−80.0
−58.5
122.8
8
6
9
7.7
5.3
Performance rank (PR), average response time (RT), response concentration (CON), average responses per year
(PY), total number of responses (#), non-matching responses (NMR), pattern (PAT), market share change in %
(MSC%).
least initially, may have been seen as being beneficial to the industry. HD may have seen
them as providing entry level machines allowing customers to trade up to the bigger bikes
made by HD. For RCA, the Japanese may have initially been seen as helping satisfy a
shortage in color TVs as well as helping establish a new industry.
Research question two asked if a greater number of non-matching responses would result
in less loss of market share. The higher the number of non-matching responses the more
aggressive the dominant firm was in its response. The high performers group in Table 4
shows 3.3 for non-matching responses vs. 1.67 for the low performers group. Thus, a greater
number of non-matching responses does seem to be associated with less loss of market share.
Research question three asked whether firms showing a pattern of broad change would
show less loss of market share than firms showing a pattern of narrow change. The results
in Table 4 do not support this. All the firms averaged about six different types of responses.
Measuring the breadth of responses may not be capturing the amount of change. Perhaps
the magnitude of each response would have done a better job. Unfortunately, the magnitude
of each response with assumed to be the same. But this is clearly not the case.
Briggs, HD, Xerox, and Kodak were designated as PE, and RCA and Singer were designated as CD. Confirming the classification of the firms are the measures for response
concentration. The two CD firms, RCA and Singer, have the lowest values for response
concentration. CD firms were expected to distribute their responses rather than concentrate
them.
Figure 1 shows the responses each firm made over time. Briggs shows 8 years of no
response followed by 9 years of concentrated responses fitting the PE pattern.
For Singer Sewing Machine there is a striking 9-year pause between Singer’s two groups
of responses. The method used to identify responses ensures that these are not responses to
different events. Furthermore, the definition of PE (i.e., long periods of stability punctuated
by brief but radical change) makes it hard to interpret Singer’s responses as two PE periods.
Singer seems to be consistent with the CD pattern. It further suggests that little learning may
16
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
Figure 1. Responses by years after entry.
have taken place on Singer’s part, either as a result of feedback from their early responses
or from learning about Japanese competitors’ successes in other industries (since they did
not increase or intensify their responses in an appropriate way).
Kodak shows no responses until year 13. Then most of their responses are concentrated
in years 19 through 23. This concentration suggests a PE pattern. Harley-Davidson’s responses are concentrated in years 17 through 24. Xerox’s responses are concentrated in
years 9 through 12. Finally, RCA shows a CD pattern that is spread over a relatively wide
13-year period.
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
17
The top three performers in Table 4 all show a PE pattern. The bottom three performers
all show a CD pattern except for Xerox.
The case of Xerox, however, is exceptional in more ways than one. It was the only case
where the dominant American firm had a virtual monopoly and then had to contend with a
dramatic loss of the monopoly for multiple reasons. In addition to the challenge from the
Japanese, Xerox had to contend with new American competitors (Kodak and IBM) as well
as government anti-trust actions and other law suits. Xerox experienced a well-publicized
comeback that only partly regained what was lost.
Discussion
For many of the firms there may have been a key “learning shock” that precipitated a PE
approach to change. These learning events may have provided a demonstration of the need
to change. In some cases a series of events seemed to prime the firm and make it receptive.
This was followed by a “strategic inflection point” where the firm had an epiphany (Grove,
1996). For Kodak it was the loss of sponsorship of the 1984 Olympics to Fuji, for Xerox it
was a series of events leading up to a consultant’s report, for Briggs it was the complaints
of several major long-term customers, and for HD it was a series of events leading up to the
establishment of a Japanese motorcycle factory in the US.
Where there was no key learning shock, such as with RCA and Singer, the Japanese entry
seemed to be characterized by an incremental build-up and incremental American responses.
Table 2 shows that the Japanese entry into color TV and sewing machines involved a greater
number of entry methods than all but copiers.
The Xerox case seemed to show a convergence of events. Fuji Xerox’s success with its
Total Quality Control Program led to increases in sales and profit and caught the attention of
David Kearns. Fuji Xerox’s program became the model for the Leadership Though Quality
Program at Xerox. The failure of the Xerox 3330 copier that was intended as an answer to
the flood of Japanese copiers was a public disaster for Xerox. Introduced in 1979, this copier
was so unreliable that it had to be recalled. It helped Xerox realize that simply introducing
a “Japanese fighter” was not enough. Instead, a company-wide effort was needed. A trip to
Japan by a group of Xerox engineers in 1980 helped the company realize that it was taking
Xerox twice as long and costing twice as much as the Japanese to develop a new product.
IBM’s faltering effort in copiers led to a “lost decade” for Xerox. Until it became clear in
the late 1970s that IBM would not be a major force in the market, Xerox concentrated on
the elephant rather than the mosquitoes. Finally, a report prepared by McKinsey & Co. led
to restructuring the firm. Xerox went from being a large, highly centralized bureaucracy to
a smaller collection of entrepreneurial business units.
New Propositions
We propose the following relationship: Firms that experience a learning shock respond
with more intensity and higher performance. There is also the question of what causes a
learning shock. Taking Xerox as an example, change seemed to require several stages. First,
there was a long period of denial where Xerox resisted the signals from the marketplace.
18
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
After denial came recognition that something was wrong and the search for a solution.
Finally, there was a lengthy period where the solution—a program called “Leadership
Through Quality”—was implemented through the entire organization.
If we take the year of entry and add to it each firm’s average response time we get a year
that represents the centroid of their response. What is very interesting is that all the high
performers have a centroid falling in the 1980s, while the low performers fall in the 1960s
and 1970s. This suggests a “learning effect” of some type.
For example, if we look at the high performers we see the following: Harley-Davidson’s
US market was entered by Honda in 1959 and the American firm’s average response time
was 21.5 years (see Table 4) resulting in a centroid of 1980; Briggs and Stratton’s US market
was entered by Kawasaki in 1974 and the average response time was 13.4 years for a centroid
of 1987; and finally Kodak’s US market was entered by Fuji in 1964 and Kodak’s average
response time was 19.7 years for a centroid of 1983. For the low performers: RCA’s US
market was entered by Sony in 1961 and the average response time was 14.6 for a centroid
of 1975; Singer’s US market was entered by the Japanese in 1947 and Singer’s average
response time was 16.9 for a centroid of 1963; and finally, Xerox’s US market was entered
by Canon in 1968 and the average response time was 11.8 years for a centroid of 1979.
What this suggests is the basis for another proposition: The later the entry and response
the greater the opportunity for vicarious learning. This learning might have been from the
experience of other American firms and from the writings of various authors. For example,
several of the firms showing a PE pattern describe a three-stage process including a period of
resistance and denial, the search for a solution, and finally, implementation of the strategic
reorientation. During the second stage, some firms describe researching possible solutions.
For example, one manager at Harley-Davidson describes the company’s decision to develop
a three-part change strategy—consisting of just-in-time methods, employee involvement,
and statistical operator control as being based on a literature search (Reid, 1990).
The early 1980s was a period when business articles about the value of Japanese management started to gain traction. American managers started to gain respect for several Japanese
management techniques such as just-in-time inventory management and quality circles. For
example, the value of Japanese management skills was highlighted in publications such as
Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge (Ouchi, 1981) and The
art of Japanese management (Pascale & Athos, 1981). Academic journal articles analyzing
Japanese management started becoming more common in the early 1980s (e.g., Keys &
Miller, 1984; Munchus, 1983; Nonaka & Johansson, 1985; Schonberger, 1982). This growing emphasis may have increased the likelihood that American managers would see the
challengers as a non-routine threat requiring a major, rather than minor, change in strategy.
Finally, the proposition most central to this study is: Firms that have a slower but more
concentrated and aggressive response to new competition will lose less market share than
those firms that respond quickly but with a series of less concentrated responses.
Intrepretation of Results
Why did each firm respond the way they did? An examination of one firm of each type
(i.e., PE and CD) might be instructive. Fitting the PE category we find Harley-Davidson.
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
19
Initially HD and the British motorcycle companies saw the Japanese as non-threaten and
actually as a benefit to the industry because they had expanded the overall market. They
initially felt that small and inexpensive Japanese bikes would attract new riders who would
later trade up. This is supported by several press statements made by executives in the
mid-1960s and cited in the Harvard Business School case study, Note on the Motorcycle
Industry-1975 (Jackson, 1978).
HD had little success with smaller size bikes in earlier years so they resisted following
the Japanese. HD was owned by American Machine and Foundry (AMF) from 1969–1981.
AMF precipitated a crisis by trying to change HD from a niche to a mass market firm. AMF
learned that the condition of HD’s product (i.e., old and complex designs) and plants (i.e.,
outdated) made this very difficult (Sucher, 1990). They tried anyway and one result was
that their quality declined.
After very limited responses in the mid-1960s and mid-1970s, they were primed for
dramatic change in the early 1980s. The conservative family owners were gone, AMF was
out of the picture, and their early responses to the Japanese were seen as clearly inadequate.
The key learning event was when they saw Honda set up production in Ohio and produce high
quality machines using American workers. Several statements made by Harley executives
capture the importance of this event. It is also reflected in a quote from Peter C. Reid’s
book, “Well Made in America”:
Here was a plant right in the smokestack belt of the United States—with American
employees—that was demonstrating that Japanese superiority could not be attributed to
its culture or to any other exclusively Japanese factor. This fact brought it all home . . .
(p. 15)
Following a CD pattern throughout is RCA. The Japanese entered the US color TV
market in the mid-1960s during a time of shortage in sets and tubes as color broadcasting
in America took off. The Japanese, by 1975, had gained the lead in labor productivity
by utilizing solid-state designs and automated manufacturing. The result was dramatically
lower cost and higher quality. American producers like RCA followed suit by rushing to
produce offshore. The move offshore reduced wage rates but it did not contribute to either
higher productivity or higher quality.
Next, the Japanese flooded the US market at a time of recession while RCA and other
American producers were pulling back. Imported color sets went from 1.21 million in 1975
to 2.83 million in 1976 increasing the Japanese share of the US market from 17 to 38%.
American producers started to follow the Japanese lead down the experience curve and
by 1980, they had adopted the same manufacturing techniques as the Japanese and cut their
disadvantage in half in their domestic plants. But then the Japanese started to develop other
advantages stemming from new Japanese plants in the US and the introduction of the VCR.
Ultimately RCA also fell behind the Japanese in new product development when they
introduced their doomed VideoDisc machine years after the Japanese had already introduced
a “mass-market” VCR. RCA’s loss of competitiveness throughout the 1960s, 1970s and
1980s may have been affected by several factors. For example, their attention may have been
diverted by their diversification into mainframe computers. Some critics also suggested that
RCA had been slow in making the change to solid-state because they had been vertically
integrated with a large vacuum tube business. Another reason for RCA’s slow conversion
20
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
to solid-state may have been their commitment to their established network of servicemen.
The RCA Service Company consisted of about 2000 TV servicemen who felt threatened
by the conversion to solid-state. Solid-state diminished the importance of service.
Finally, another factor that may have worked against RCA was an apparent lack of
leadership at the top. Whereas most of the companies that implemented radical change
seemed to have a dominating leader at the top—HD had Vaughn Beals, Briggs had Fred
Stratton, Xerox had David Kearns—RCA had a vacuum at the top ever since the departure
in 1966 of General David Sarnoff after 45 years.
Implications for Theory
In terms of theory, this research gives added support to the PE model. Even though
the ability to generalize from six cases is limited, the study adds weight to the limited
findings that have found a link between performance and frame-breaking change (Grinyer
et al., 1988; Miller & Friesen, 1984; Sherman, 1995; Virany et al., 1992). It seems that
responding quickly may be important in regard to “normal” or routine competition. But
when the competition is “abnormal” or non-routine speed is less important and concentrating
or marshalling ones forces is more important. Thus, the answer to the first research question
of whether a slower change of strategy leads to a greater loss of market share seems to be
a resounding “NO.” The better performers in this study had response strategies that were
slower, more concentrated and aggressive.
This research is inconsistent with findings that early responders and first-movers take
market share away from late responders (Chen & MacMillan, 1992) and that leaders are
more likely to lose market share if they are slower (Ferrier et al., 1999).
Why might this be the case? First, change is delayed until it is clear that change is necessary and thus resistance is minimized. For example, at Harley-Davidson it was important
that the union be convinced that change was necessary in order for the firm’s formula for
change—employee involvement, statistical operator control, just-in-time inventory—to be
successful. Second, change is delayed until there is agreement on what the new strategy
should be. For example, at Xerox a long period of resistance and denial was followed
by a stage where the company searched for the right strategy. Harley-Davidson also went
through a period where they finally realized there was a problem and had to search for the
solution. Third, the forces encouraging change have time to get stronger because of the
delay. When change finally comes it is more dramatic. The resistance to change crumbles
and the pent-up pressures for change are released. If the firm dissipates the pressure for
change through early partial responses, as suggested by CD theory, the potential for broad
change will be reduced. Fourth, the change does not have time to get mired in politics since
it happens so quickly. In fact, some resourceful managers use the evidence of a clear shift in
the competitive environment as the opportunity to bring about changes that may go beyond
those that relate to the new challenger. An example of this is Briggs’ justification of closing
a unionized plant in a northern state and replacing it with a non-union plant in a southern
state by citing the new Japanese competition.
A second contribution to theory is related the to the second research question. A greater
number of non-matching responses was found to be associated with a better outcome.
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
21
There are several possible explanations. One is that non-matching responses show more
innovation. Rather than simply imitating the challenger the dominant firms that innovated
had better outcomes. Second, non-matching responses are more likely to occur when a firm
responds with a strategic reorientation rather than just a narrow and limited response. Third,
non-matching responses may signal a more aggressive response from the leader and this
may affect the challenger’s future actions.
The third contribution to theory is the finding of a learning effect. These cases may point
to a period of time where firms become receptive to changing their “mind-sets” after a
period of denial. The period of denial may prepare the firm to throw out its assumptions
and accept a radical strategic reorientation. Without this preparation time only mid-range
or incremental change may be possible.
Directions for Future Research
First, this research needs to be expanded by examining a broader sample. For example,
do these findings hold true for the automobile industry or for electronic calculators? Do
these findings hold for firms facing challengers from other regions of the world?
Second, is it possible to model the implications of this study in a way that allows for
integration of the CD and PE models? For example, Oliva, Day and MacMillan (1988)
develop a model that essentially incorporates both CD and PE. This model includes a
measure of industry inertia. Thus, it might be reasonable to expect that in mature industries
with high inertia a PE strategy would show the better outcome while in embryonic industries
a CD approach would be better. This would suggest the need for researchers to extend the
present study by including both types of industries. It is interesting to note, that the Japanese
generally have a tendency to enter mature industries (Smothers, 1990) and that most of
the industries included in the present study could be labeled as mature (with perhaps the
exception of color TV and copiers).
Finally, this study did not examine some logical possibilities such as middle range approaches as suggested by Reger et al. (1994). Are there certain situations where mid-range
strategies are better? This would seem to be an area worth researching.
Limitations
A weakness of the present study is that no attempt was made to confirm the conclusions
and conjectures about the case studies with company executives. However, many of the
executives involved in these cases are no longer involved in company affairs having left or
retired.
Another weakness is the lack of an adequate measure of intensity. The magnitude of each
response was assumed to be the same. Making a distinction in intensity would have allowed
a more accurate measure of differences between CD and PE. For example, some research
studies of CD make the distinction between tactical responses, such as price changes, and
strategic responses, such a new product introductions (e.g., Smith et al., 1992).
22
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
A third possible criticism of this study is that it may not be relevant to conditions today
given that it based on cases from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Though US firms may never
again face a group of foreign competitors that they initially regarded so lightly and later
become such major competitors, the key findings are likely to be relevant today. That is,
when a new competitor arrives on the “scene” that fundamentally weakens the strategic
position of a dominant firm, a strategic reorientation, rather than a series of incremental
moves, is probably the better course of action. This is supported by recent research on
successful corporate turnarounds that found that the extent of strategic change initiated in a
successful turnaround increased systematically with the extent to which the firm’s decline
was due to a weakened strategic position (Barker & Duhaime, 1997).
Implications for Managers
What does this study suggest today’s managers should do when faced with new competitors? It seems reasonable for an established competitor to take a “wait and see”
attitude toward an unfamiliar competitor or to respond in a limited way instead of committing to a major effort to respond given that many other issues are probably pressing
for management’s attention. This would be especially true if the competitor’s initial product was “uncompetitive,” targeted a niche that the company was not interested in, or was
actually helping an embryonic industry become established.
Once the threatened firm realizes that this new competition is not “routine,” they then
need to focus their attention and make an all out effort. The change needs to be revolutionary instead of evolutionary. The key will be to distinguish “routine” competition from
“non-routine” competition. As difficult as it may be to anticipate our rivals, there are some
steps a firm can take to improve its chances. For example, Hamel and Prahalad (1989)
advocate paying less attention to a rival’s current resources and position and more to its
“resourcefulness.” Zahra and Chaples (1993) advocate being on guard against common
blind spots of competitor analysis such as analyzing the wrong competitor or making faulty
assumptions about competitors (e.g., stereotyping or underestimating competitors). Also,
an awareness of a rival’s actions in other industries may be very helpful. Help in all these
areas could come from a well-developed competitive intelligence system. Competitor intelligence has been the subject of a number of recent books (e.g., Fuld, 1995; Kahaner,
1997).
Finally, it may be useful for firms to exploit the arrival of new competition. The leader’s
ability to respond may be delayed by a closed managerial mind-set, delusions of superiority,
ingrained strategies, rigid assumptions about the industry or the competition, entrenched
culture, or rigid structure and systems. These sources of resistance to change may actually
serve a good purpose in that they allow the forces for radical change to build. When the
resistance collapses the pressure to change is so strong that the opportunities for change are
much greater than would otherwise have been possible.
Given this series of events, it may actually be in the firm’s interest to allow the pressures
to build by avoiding partial responses. If the firm can buy time by using its slack financial
resources, relying on a loyal customer following, or by selling or liquidating unprofitable
businesses, this time can be used to allow the pressure to build.
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
23
This scenario can be seen at Harley-Davidson. Harley prepared for the coming revolution
by first buying time. The implications of the shift in the motorcycle industry were accepted
only after Vaughn Beals took charge. To stay in the game until the best strategy was decided
on by management and accepted by employees, the company appealed to the banks and
relied on its traditional base of customers. RCA, on the other hand, never allowed the
pressure for revolution to build because they were always busy copying each individual
move that their Japanese competitors took.
Conclusion
This research suggests that managers should be less concerned with speed of response
and more concerned with focusing their response. Non-routine competitive challenges require revolutionary change. Future research needs to be done so that these findings can be
generalized to other companies and different types of environmental change.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the assistance of Stephanie Hughes and Andrew Mongar on
earlier versions of this paper.
References
Abegglen, J., & Stalk, G. 1985. Kaisha: The Japanese corporation. NY: Basic Books.
Aldrich, H. E. 1979. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barker, V. L., & DuHaime, I. M. 1997. Strategic change in the turnaround process: Theory and empirical evidence.
Strategic Management Journal, 18: 13–38.
Barnard, C. 1938. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burgelman, R. 1994. Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1): 24–56.
Child, J. 1972. Organizational structure. Sociology, 6: 1–22.
Chen, M. J. 1996. Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of
Management Review, 21(1): 100–134.
Chen, M. J., & Hambrick, D. C. 1995. Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms
in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 453–482.
Chen, M. J., & MacMillan, I. 1992. Non-response and delayed response to competitive moves. Academy of
Management Journal, 35: 539–570.
Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. 1994. Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: An expectancy-valence
framework. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 85–102.
Collis, D. J. 1991. A resource-based analysis of global competition: The case of the bearings industry. Strategic
Management Journal, 1/2: 49–68.
Connors, L. 1995. Competitive moves, stage of the product life cycle, and firm performance. Doctoral dissertation,
Temple University.
Council on Competitiveness. 1999. The new challenge to America’s prosperity. Washington, DC.
Cusumano, M. A. 1988. Manufacturing innovation: Lessons from the Japanese auto industry, Sloan Management
Review: 29–39.
Czinkota, M. R., & Kotabe, M. 2000. Japanese distribution strategy. London: Business Press.
24
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
Dyer, W. G., & Wilkins, A. 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoiner to
Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 613–619.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1991. Better stories and better constructs. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 620–627.
Ferrier, W. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. 1999. The role of competitive action in market share erosion and
industry dethronement: A study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4):
372–388.
Franko, L. G. 1996. Opinion: The Japanese juggernaut rolls on. Sloan Management Review, 37(2): 103–109.
Fuld, L. M. 1995. The new competitor intelligence. New York: Wiley.
Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. 1993. Changing competitive dynamics in network industries. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(8): 607–618.
Gersick, C. 1994. Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 9–45.
Ginsberg, A., & Grant, J. H. 1985. Research on strategic change: Theoretical and methodological issues. Academy
of Management Proceedings: 11–15. San Diego, CA.
Grinyer, P. H., Mayes D. G., & McKiernan, P. 1988. Sharpbenders: The secrets of unleashing corporate potential.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Grove, A. S. 1996. Only the paranoid survive: How to exploit the crisis points that challenge every company and
career. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Hall, R. 1993. A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 14(8): 607–618.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. 1989. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67(3): 63–76.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review,
49: 149–164.
Harrigan, K. R. 1983. Research methodologies for contingency approaches to business strategy. Academy of
Management Review, 8(3): 398–405.
Haynes, R. H., & Abernathy, W. J. 1980. Managing our way to economic decline. Harvard Business Review, 58(4):
67–77.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. H. 2001. Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization
(4th ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western.
Jackson, N. 1978. Note on the motorcycle industry-1975. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Kahaner, L. 1997. Competitive intelligence. New York: Touchstone.
Keys, J. B., & Miller, T. R. 1984. The Japanese management theory jungle. Academy of Management Review,
9(2): 342–353.
Lieberson, S., & O’Connor, J. G. 1972. Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations.
American Sociological Review, 37: 117–130.
Miles, R. H., & Cameron, K. 1982. Coffin nails and corporate strategy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. 1984. Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Munchus, G. 1983. Employer–employee-based quality circles in Japan: Human resource policy implications for
American firms. Academy of Management Review, 8: 255–261.
Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. 1998. Managing radical organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nonaka, I., & Johansson, J. K. 1985. Japanese management: What about ‘hard’ skills? Academy of Management
Review, 10(2): 181–191.
Oliva, T. A., Day, D. L., & MacMillan, I. C. 1988. A generic model of competitive dynamics. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3): 374–389.
Ouchi, W. G. 1981. Organizational paradigms. Organizational Dynamics, 9(4): 36–43.
Pascale, R., & Athos, A. 1981. The art of Japanese management. New York: Warner Books.
Reid, P. C. 1990. Well made in America: Lessons from Harley-Davidson on being the best. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., DeMarie, S. M., & Mullane, J. V. 1994. Reframing the organization: Why
implementing total quality is easier said than done. Academy of Management Review, 19(3): 565–584.
Ross, J., & Staw, B. M. 1993. Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the Shoreham Nuclear Power
Plant. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4): 701–732.
Schonberger, R. J. 1982. The transfer of Japanese manufacturing management approaches to US industry. Academy
of Management Review, 7(3): 479–487.
Sherman, H. D. 1995. Determinants of the extent of corporate change and the speed of reorientation. Doctoral
dissertation, Temple University.
H. D. Hopkins / Journal of Management 2003 29(1) 5–25
25
Smith, K. G., Grimm, C. M., & Gannon, M. J. 1992. Dynamics of competitive strategy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Smith, K. G., Grimm, C. M., Gannon, M. J., & Chen, M. J. 1991. Organizational information processing,
competitive responses and performance in the US domestic airline industry. Academy of Management Journal,
34(1): 60–85.
Smothers, N. P. 1990. Patterns of Japanese strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 11(7): 521–534.
Sucher, H. V. 1990. Harley-Davidson: The Milwaukee marvel (4th ed.). Sparksford, England: Haynes Publishing.
Tushman, M. L., Newman, W. H., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational evolution. In L. L. Cummings & B. M.
Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, 171–222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tushman, M. L., Newman, W. H., & Romanelli, E. 1986. Convergence and upheaval. California Management
Review, 29(1): 29–44.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 20: 510–540.
Virany, B., Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1992. Executive succession and organization outcomes in turbulent
environments. Organization Science, 3(1): 72–91.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Young, G., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. 1996. Austrian and industrial organization perspectives on firm-level
competitive activity and performance. Organization Science, 7: 243–254.
Zahra, S. A., & Chaples, S. S. 1993. Blind spots in competitive analysis. Academy of Management Executive, 7(2):
7–28.
H. Donald Hopkins is an Associate Professor and Chair of the General and Strategic Management Department at the Fox School of Business and Management at Temple University
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has published articles in Strategic Management Journal,
Academy of Management Review, Journal of International Management, Global Focus, and
Human Relations, among others. His research interests are primarily in the area of mergers
and acquisitions.