Research Framework: Creative Innovative Firms and Linkage Competence

  • Young Won ParkEmail author
  • Paul Hong


According to Innosight’s report (1965) based on almost a century’s worth of market data, the tenure of corporations in the S&P 500 Index remained on an average of 33 years. But by 1990, the average tenure in the S&P 500 had decreased to 20 years, in 2012 fell to 18 years, and is predicted to shrink to 14 years by 2026. Furthermore, the report states that approximately half of the S&P 500 firms will be replaced over the next 10 years because of organizational inertia and lack of long-term vision (Anthony et al. in Innosight:1–9, 2016).


  1. Agarwal, Rajshree, Raj Echambadi, April M. Franco, and Mitrabarun B. Sarkar. 2004. Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal 47: 501–522.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, Scott D., S. Patrick Viguerie, and Andrew Waldeck. 2016. Corporate longevity: Turbulence ahead for large organizations. Innosight: 1–9.Google Scholar
  3. Audia, Pino G., Edwin A. Locke, and Ken G. Smith. 2000. The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Academy of Management Journal 43: 837–853.Google Scholar
  4. Benner, Mary J., and Michael L. Tushman. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review 28: 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brüderl, Josef, and Peter Preisendörfer. 1998. Network support and the success of newly founded business. Small Business Economics 10: 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Geus, A. 1997. The living company: Habits for survival in a turbulent business environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gatignon, Hubert, Michael L. Tushman, Wendy Smith, and Philip Anderson. 2002. A structural approach to assessing innovation: Construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Management Science 48: 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gittleson, Kim. 2012. Can a company live forever? BBC, Accessed February 2016, 2017.
  9. Harada, Nobuyuki. 2003. Who succeeds as an entrepreneur? An analysis of the post-entry performance of new firms in Japan. Japan and the World Economy 15: 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. He, Zi-Lin, and Poh-Kam Wong. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science 15: 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hong, Paul, and Young Won Park. 2014. Building network capabilities in turbulent competitive environments: Practices of global firms from Korea and Japan. CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Company). ISBN-13: 978-1466515758.Google Scholar
  12. Hope, Karen. 2017. Annual report on European SMEs 2016/2017. European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. Khanna, Tarun, Jaeyong Song, and Kyungmook Lee. 2011. The paradox of Samsung’s rise. Harvard Business Review 89: 142–147.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, Joo-hoon, Dongseok Kim, Yong-Seok Choi, Sanghoon Ahn, Joonghae Suh, Dongsoo Kang, Jinha Jeong, Suil Lee, and Yoongyu Yoon. 2005. Role of SMEs in transition to an innovation-led economy. In Research Monograph 2005-05, 1-642. Korea: Korea Development Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Korea Small and Medium Venture Enterprise Division. 2007. Longevity SMEs mechanism research.Google Scholar
  16. March, James G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2: 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Hara, William T. 2004. Centuries of success: Lessons from the world’s most enduring family businesses. Adams Media.Google Scholar
  18. O’Reilly III, Charles A., and Michael L. Tushman. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28: 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Park, Young Won, and Paul Hong. 2012. Building network capabilities in turbulent competitive environments: Practices of global firms from Korea and Japan. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  20. Perry, Mark J. 2016. Fortune 500 firms 1955 v. 2016: Only 12% remain, thanks to the creative destruction that fuels economic prosperity. AEI, Accessed January 02, 2018.
  21. Raisch, Sebastian, Julian Birkinshaw, Gilbert Probst, and Michael L. Tushman. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science 20: 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shimizu, T. 2001. Corporate mergers and firm vitality: New approach of corporate behavior. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, Wendy K., and Michael L. Tushman. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science 16: 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tamkin, Emily. 2014. Keeping it in the family: Why are so many of the world’s oldest companies in Japan? Slate.
  25. Tripsas, Mary, and Giovanni Gavetti. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal 21: 1147–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tushman, M.L., and C.A. O’Reilly. 1997. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to managing organizational change and renewal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. White, Chris. 2015. The world’s oldest companies. Atlas Obscura, Accessed February 20, 2017.
  28. Yoon, B. 2017. Long-living prestigious firms is the source of our economy’s sustainable growth. Korea Economy, December 20 (In Korean). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsSaitama UniversitySaitamaJapan
  2. 2.College of Business InnovationUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations