Skip to main content

Competency Trap

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
  • 125 Accesses

Abstract

It is frequently observed that many firms, especially those that are successful in the current environment, fail to change quickly enough when the environment changes significantly. One potent explanation for these observations is a phenomenon of learning called a ‘competency trap’. In this article we briefly describe what competency traps are, the factors that lead to them, the consequences for the firm, including reduced adaptability and missed opportunities, and, finally, the various means through which a firm can avoid falling into the competency traps.

This entry was originally published on Palgrave Connect under ISBN 978-1-137-49190-9. The content has not been changed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Ahuja, G., and R. Katila. 2004. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal 25: 887–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., and C.M. Lampert. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal 22: 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, W.P., and M.T. Hansen. 1996. The Red Queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal 17: 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, W.P., and E.G. Pontikes. 2008. The Red Queen, success bias, and organizational inertia. Management Science 54: 1237–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R.A. 1983. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushee, B.J. 1998. The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review 73: 305–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C.M., and J.L. Bower. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal 17: 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dushnitsky, G., and M.J. Lenox. 2005. When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures? Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates. Research Policy 34: 615–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fosfuri, A., and T. Rønde. 2009. Leveraging resistance to change and the skunk works model of innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 72: 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R.M., and K.B. Clark. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D.A., and J.G. March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal 14: 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., and J.G. March. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14: 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2: 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.R., and S.G. Winter. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. 1998. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 18: 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N., and D.A. Levinthal. 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science 14: 650–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, J., P. Almeida, and G. Wu. 2003. Learning-by-hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science 49: 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. 2010. The next generation: Technology adoption and integration through internal competition in new product development. Organization Science 21: 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzabbar, D. 2009. When does scientist recruitment affect technological repositioning? Academy of Management Journal 52: 873–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S.G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24: 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vivek Tandon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Ahuja, G., Tandon, V. (2018). Competency Trap. In: Augier, M., Teece, D. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_385-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_385-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-94848-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-94848-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Competency Trap
    Published:
    24 March 2018

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_385-2

  2. Original

    Competency Trap
    Published:
    01 July 2016

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_385-1