本研究探討企業在過去累積的資源與經驗，如何在增強型與挑戰型身份認同之下影響其創新表現。本研究分析2011年至2019年北美電動汽車市場中18家汽車廠商，如何利用累積的資源與經驗來應對電動汽車的技術變化。燃油車的開發資源被視為企業過去累積的資源，而油電混合車的累積銷售量則被視為企業過去累積的市場經驗。研究發現，汽車廠商如果援用燃油車的設計來開發電動汽車，會導致產品市占率的降低。特別是相較於油電混合車，純電動汽車的市占率下降更為顯著。此外，汽車廠商在油電混合車上的銷售經驗越豐富，其持續就可以享有較高的電動汽車市占率。然而，相較於油電混合車，純電動汽車的市占率反而沒有受到正面影響。整體而言，本研究結果顯示，汽車廠商活用累積的資源與經驗，對於建立增強型身份認同是一個具有合理性的策略決策。然而，這樣的策略在面對純電動汽車新市場類別時，可能難以轉化為更佳的市場市占率。本研究加深了我們對企業身份認同與技術變化之間關係的理解。過去研究較少將身份認同與技術變化結合探討，且對於身份認同的雙元性缺乏實證研究。本研究補足了這一不足之處，特別是在技術變化的情境下，釐清企業如何利用過去累積的資源與經驗，並驗證了企業在產品市場中的表現。

This study investigates how firms' accumulated resources and experiences influence their innovation performance under identity-enhancing and identity-challenging. This study analyzes how 18 automotive manufacturers in the North American electric vehicle market from 2011 to 2019 utilized their accumulated resources and experiences to respond to technological changes in electric vehicles. The development resources for fuel vehicles are considered as the firms' accumulated resources, while the accumulated sales of hybrid vehicles are regarded as their accumulated sales experience. The study finds that when automotive manufacturers use fuel vehicle designs to develop electric vehicles, it leads to a decrease in product market share. This decrease is particularly pronounced in battery electric vehicles compared to hybrid vehicles. Furthermore, the more sales experience automotive manufacturers have with hybrid electric vehicles, the higher their continued market share of electric vehicles. However, compared to hybrid electric vehicles, the market share of battery electric vehicles is not positively affected. Overall, the results of this study indicate that leveraging accumulated resources and experiences is a rational strategic decision for firms aiming to establish identity-enhancing. However, such strategies may struggle to translate into better market shares when facing the new market category of battery electric vehicles. This research enhances our understanding of the relationship between corporate identity and technological change. Previous studies have rarely combined identity with technological change and have lacked empirical research on the identity ambidexterity. This study fills this gap, especially by using the context of technological change to clarify how firms utilize their accumulated resources and experiences, and verifying their performance in the product market.

Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3-22.
Abernathy, W. J., Clark, K. B., & Kantrow, A. M. (1983). Industrial renaissance: Producing a competitive future for America. Basic Books (AZ).
Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 40-47.
Adner, R. (2006). Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation Ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98–107.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39-58.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306-333.
Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501-522.
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6‐7), 521-543.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in organizational behavior, 7, 263-295.
Altman, E. J., & Tripsas, M. (2015). Product to platform transitions: Implications of organizational identity. In C. Shalley, M. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship: Multilevel linkages. Oxford University Press.
Ansari, S. S., & Krop, P. (2012). Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics. Research Policy, 41(8), 1357-1374.
Anthony, C., & Tripsas, M. (2016). Organizational identity and innovation. In M. G. Pratt, M. Schultz, B. E. Ashforth, & D. Ravasi (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational identity (pp. 417-435). Oxford University Press.
Argote, L. (2013). Organization learning: A theoretical framework. In L. Argote (Ed.), Organizational learning creating, retaining and transferring knowledge (pp. 31-56). Springer.
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. (2007). Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15(2), 1-29.
Barlow, M. A., Verhaal, J. C., & Angus, R. W. (2019). Optimal distinctiveness, strategic categorization, and product market entry on the Google Play app platform. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1219-1242.
Benner, M., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676-707.
Benner, M. J. (2007). The incumbent discount: Stock market categories and response to radical technological change. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 703-720.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676-707.
Bergek, A., Berggren, C., Magnusson, T., & Hobday, M. (2013). Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation? Research Policy, 42(6-7), 1210-1224.
Besharov, M. L., & Brickson, S. L. (2016). Organizational identity and institutional forces: Toward
an integrative framework. In M. G. Pratt, M. Schultz, B. E. Ashforth, & D. Ravasi (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational identity (pp. 396-416). Oxford University Press.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (2012). The social construction of technological systems, anniversary edition: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press.
Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325-357.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
Carnabuci, G., Operti, E., & Kovács, B. (2015). The categorical imperative and structural reproduction: Dynamics of technological entry in the semiconductor industry. Organization Science, 26(6), 1734-1751.
Carroll, G. R., Bigelow, L. S., Seidel, M. D. L., & Tsai, L. B. (1996). The fates of de novo and de alio producers in the American automobile industry 1885–1981. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 117-137.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197-218.
Cohen, S. L., & Tripsas, M. (2018). Managing technological transitions by building bridges. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2319-2342.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128-152.
Corley, K. G. (2003). Breaking away: An empirical examination of how organizational identity changes during a spin-off. Academy of Management Proceedings,
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173-208.
Cozzolino, A., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2018). Discontinuities, competition, and cooperation: Coopetitive dynamics between incumbents and entrants. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3053-3085.
Cozzolino, A., & Verona, G. (2022). Responding to complementary-asset discontinuities: a multilevel adaptation framework of resources, demand, and ecosystems. Organization Science, 33(5), 1990-2017.
Cozzolino, A., Verona, G., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2018). Unpacking the disruption process: New technology, business models, and incumbent adaptation. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1166-1202.
Danneels, E., Verona, G., & Provera, B. (2018). Overcoming the inertia of organizational competence: Olivetti’s transition from mechanical to electronic technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(3), 595-618.
Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’sa question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147-166.
Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood (Ed.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49-77). SAGE.
DeJordy, R., & Creed, W. E. D. (2016). Institutional pluralism, inhabitants, and the construction
of organizational and personal identities. In M. G. Pratt, M. Schultz, B. E. Ashforth, & D. Ravasi (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational identity (pp. 374-395). Oxford University Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 147-160.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517-554.
Eggers, J., & Park, K. F. (2018). Incumbent adaptation to technological change: The past, present, and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent response. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 357-389.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019-1039.
Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333-350.
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.
Glynn, M. A., Lockwood, C., & Raffaelli, R. (2015). Staying the same while changing: Organizational identity in the face of environmental challenges. In R. Henderson, R. Gulati, & M. Tushman (Eds.), Leading sustainable change: An organizational perspective (pp. 143-170). Oxford University Press.
Goldenstein, J., Hunoldt, M., & Oertel, S. (2019). How optimal distinctiveness affects new ventures' failure risk: A contingency perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(3), 477-495.
Greve, H. R. (2011). Positional rigidity: Low performance and resource acquisition in large and small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 32(1), 103-114.
Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, competition and legitimation. Oxford University Press.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 149-164.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476-501.
Haveman, H. A. (1992). Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48-75.
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
Hekkert, M., & Van den Hoed, R. (2004). Competing technologies and the struggle towards a new dominant design: the emergence of the hybrid vehicle at the expense of the fuel cell vehicle? Greener Management International(47), 29-43.
Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know‐how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 339-360.
Hill, C. W., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257-274.
Hsu, G., & Hannan, M. T. (2005). Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 16(5), 474-490.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research Policy, 35(8), 1200-1221.
Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the de novo category “modern architecture,” 1870–1975. Organization Science, 23(6), 1523-1545.
Kaplan, S., & Tripsas, M. (2008). Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Research Policy, 37(5), 790-805.
Kapoor, R., & Agarwal, S. (2017). Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the iOS and Android smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science, 28(3), 531-551.
Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2013). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 274-296.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183-1194.
Kennedy, M. T. (2008). Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 270-295.
Khessina, O. M., & Carroll, G. R. (2008). Product demography of de novo and de alio firms in the optical disk drive industry, 1983–1999. Organization Science, 19(1), 25-38.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1982). Managerial response to changing environments: Perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 548-570.
Kim, N., & Atuahene‐Gima, K. (2010). Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(4), 519-536.
Klepper, S., & Graddy, E. (1990). The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure. RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 27-44.
Klepper, S., & Simons, K. L. (2000). Dominance by birthright: Entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the US television receiver industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10‐11), 997-1016.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.
Kotha, R., Zheng, Y., & George, G. (2011). Entry into new niches: The effects of firm age and the expansion of technological capabilities on innovative output and impact. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 1011-1024.
Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). How organizational resources affect strategic change and performance in turbulent environments: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(5), 632-657.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155.
Lee, C. H., Venkatraman, N., Tanriverdi, H., & Iyer, B. (2010). Complementarity‐based Hypercompetition in the Software Industry: Theory and Empirical test, 1990–2002. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13), 1431-1456.
Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111-125.
Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Random walks and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 397-420.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95-112.
Livengood, R. S., & Reger, R. K. (2010). That's our turf! Identity domains and competitive dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 48-66.
Lo, J. Y., Nag, R., Xu, L., & Agung, S. D. (2020). Organizational innovation efforts in multiple emerging market categories: Exploring the interplay of opportunity, ambiguity, and socio-cognitive contexts. Research Policy, 49(3), 103911.
Luz, A. R. S., Garrido, I., & Faccin, K. (2022). Organizing ambidexterity to foster technological transition process. Academy of Management Proceedings,
Magnusson, T., & Berggren, C. (2011). Entering an era of ferment–radical vs incrementalist strategies in automotive power train development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(3), 313-330.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
McKendrick, D. G., & Carroll, G. R. (2001). On the genesis of organizational forms: Evidence from the market for disk arrays. Organization Science, 12(6), 661-682.
McKendrick, D. G., Jaffee, J., Carroll, G. R., & Khessina, O. M. (2003). In the bud? Disk array producers as a (possibly) emergent organizational form. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 60-93.
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 89-115.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1986). Organizations: New concepts for new forms. California management review, 28(3), 62-73.
Mitchell, W. (1991). Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 85-100.
Mitchell, W. (1994). The dynamics of evolving markets: The effects of business sales and age on dissolutions and divestitures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 575-602.
Mitchell, W., & Singh, K. (1996). Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 169–195.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2010). How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 439-471.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479-499.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. W. H. Freeman.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic changeBelknap Press of Harvard University. Cambridge, MA.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74-83.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206.
Paolella, L., & Durand, R. (2016). Category spanning, evaluation, and performance: Revised theory and test on the corporate law market. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 330-351.
Pedersen, J. S., & Dobbin, F. (2006). In search of identity and legitimation: Bridging organizational culture and neoinstitutionalism. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 897-907.
Pólos, L., Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (2002). Foundations of a theory of social forms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 85-115.
Pratt, M. G. (2016). Hybrid and multiple organizational identities. In M. G. Pratt, M. Schultz, B. E. Ashforth, & D. Ravasi (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational identity (pp. 106-122). Oxford University Press.
Raffaelli, R. (2014). Identity Ambidexterity During Periods of Technology Change and Instability: Swiss Watchmaking. Academy of Management Proceedings,
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695.
Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 29-44.
Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. Journal of marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 64-77.
Rothaermel, F. T. (2001). Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent’s advantage: An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 30(8), 1235-1251.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Hill, C. W. (2005). Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: A longitudinal study of industry and firm performance. Organization Science, 16(1), 52-70.
Sandström, C., Magnusson, M., & Jörnmark, J. (2009). Exploring factors influencing incumbents' response to disruptive innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(1), 8-15.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and organizing boundaries: Entrepreneurial action in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643-671.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper Brothers.
Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18(1), 20-38.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2), 171-193.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
Snihur, Y. (2019). Developing optimal distinctiveness- organizational identity processes in new ventures engaged in business model innovation. In M. Claire & R. H. Leitch (Eds.), Entrepreneurial identity and identity work (pp. 83-109). Routledge.
Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy, 35(7), 994-1017.
Suarez, F. F., Grodal, S., & Gotsopoulos, A. (2015). Perfect timing? Dominant category, dominant design, and the window of opportunity for firm entry. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 437-448.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “profiting from innovation”. Research Policy, 35(8), 1131-1146.
Teece, D. J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy, 47(8), 1367-1387.
Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 119-142.
Tripsas, M. (2009). Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “The Digital Photography Company”. Organization Science, 20(2), 441-460.
Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1147-1161.
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 439-465.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38, 8-30.
Uotila, J., Maula, M., & Keil, T. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231.
Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard Business School.
Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639-656.
Utterback, J. M., & Suarez, F. (1993). Innovation, competition and industry structure. Research Policy, 22(1), 1-21.
Van den Hoed, R. (2007). Sources of radical technological innovation: the emergence of fuel cell technology in the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11-12), 1014-1021.
Wang, Z., Huang, J., & Tan, B. (2013). Managing organizational identity in the e-commerce industry: An ambidexterity perspective. Information & management, 50(8), 673-683.
Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2), 333-362.
York, J. G., & Lenox, M. J. (2014). Exploring the sociocultural determinants of de novo versus de alio entry in emerging industries. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13), 1930-1951.
Zhao, E. Y., Ishihara, M., Jennings, P. D., & Lounsbury, M. (2018). Optimal distinctiveness in the console video game industry: An exemplar-based model of proto-category evolution. Organization Science, 29(4), 588-611.
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398-1438.
Zuckerman, E. W. (2016). Optimal distinctiveness revisited: An integrative framework for understanding the balance between differentiation and conformity in individual and organizational identities. In M. G. Pratt, M. Schultz, B. E. Ashforth, & D. Ravasi (Eds.), Handbook of organizational identity. Oxford University Press.