Unseen Disruptions and the Emergence of New ... - Wiley Online Library

Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Unseen Disruptions and the Emergence of New Organizations Matthew S. Weber School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

This article develops the theoretical process of organizational speciation to explain how certain new organizations are able to emerge and subsequently disrupt the organizational ecosystem by leveraging the blind spots of existing organizations. The process of organizational speciation addresses the means by which new organizations develop, compete for resources, and survive over time. As a theory of organizational communication, organizational speciation is particularly useful for understanding how rapid disruptions emerge. Changes in a number of industries are utilized to illustrate the process of speciation. This article lays a foundation for research examining how organizations understand and respond to rapid change. Keywords: Organizational Change, Evolution, News Media, Transformation. doi:10.1111/comt.12105

The emergence of new organizations is a process driven by disruptions that arise from a multitude of sources. Examples include disruptions created by new legislation, new business practices, legal rulings, and the entrance of new competitors. In considering the emergence of new organizations, scholars have framed disruptions: as significant events that disrupt existing industries (Schumpeter, 2013; Tushman & Anderson, 1986); as innovations that force organizations to evolve (Christensen, 2011); as triggering mechanisms for forming new organizational entities (Bimber, Flanagin, & Stohl, 2005; Stohl, 2014); and as opportunities for driving strategic change (Lewis, 2011). The bulk of prior work, however, tends to focus on change driven from within a single organization, for instance, examining issues such as how organizations within a single population compete against one another for survival (Christensen & Rosenbloom, 1995; Christensen, Suarez, & Utterback, 1998), or within a single industry, examining issues such as the impact of new legal regimes in the banking industry (Wiseman & Catanach, 1997), or how new technological standards impacted the radio industry (Leblebici, Salancik, Copay, & King, 1991).

Corresponding author: Matthew S. Weber; e-mail: [email protected] 92

Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

M. S. Weber

Organizational Emergence as Speciation

In contrast to existing approaches, an ecological view of change as a communicative process has been proposed to provide a more accurate understanding of organizational emergence by expanding the scope of examination (Monge, Heiss, & Margolin, 2008; Monge et al., 2011). An ecological view encapsulates the broad ecosystem of organizational interaction, and brings into focus the role of adjacent organizations and industries. Moreover, a focus on the ecosystem provides context for considering the source of disruptions that emerge external to the organization. Although many disruptions come from innovation within organizations (Christensen & Raynor, 2004), or from known sources such as legal rulings and legislation (Ruef, 2000), other disruptions come from unexpected sources both within organizations and external to the organization, and can be particularly disruptive. Recently, scholars have called for new theories to better explain the ripple effect of such unexpected organizational disruptions that drive change both within organizations and across industries (Abatecola, Belussi, Breslin, & Filatotchev, 2015; Breslin, 2008). In this context, a number of scholars have proposed organizational speciation as an explanatory mechanism for better understanding organizational emergence and significant disruptions (McKelvey, 1980; Monge et al., 2011; Padgett, 2001; Padgett & Powell, 2012; Ulrich & McKelvey, 1990), but the concept remains relatively undeveloped. Padgett and Powell (2012) define speciation as the process by which one organization emerges from another. Similarly, Romanelli (1991, p. 93) observes that an organizational view of speciation treats organizations as “producers” of new types of organizations that occurs by a process of fragmentation or splitting. In this way, organizational speciation frames new organizations as emerging from the branching or splitting of stable existing industries, leading to the formation of new forms of organizations. This article thus explicates a process of organizational speciation, rooted in community ecology, as a means of explaining why certain disruptions are unseen by incumbents, resulting in the emergence of new organizations in the blind spots of existing organizations. Information communication technology (ICT) is used as an exemplar disruption in the following sections. Many different types of disruptions may occur; however, communication scholarship has recently emphasized technological disruptions, and understanding and communicating about processes of technological adaptation (Leonardi, 2012). Indeed, in the current organizational landscape, new ICTs are viewed as a key driver of innovation and organizational change (Bimber, 1994; Leonardi, 2012). Therefore, ICTs provide a useful context for developing a theory of organizational speciation. The following sections first introduce the concept of organizational speciation as a communicative process of organizational emergence and change. A brief overview of community ecology is given as a basis for understanding how unseen disruptions create competitive threats. Subsequently, the stages of speciation are explicated, using change in the news media industry as an example. Finally, an agenda is established for future explorations of organizational change through the lens of organizational speciation. Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

93


M. S. Weber

Explicating organizational speciation

Organizational speciation explains the development of new types of organizations outside of traditional processes of organizational change. Organizational change traditionally progresses through a process of gradualism, whereby unsuccessful entrants fade out over time, and successful organizations are slowly mimicked by others, and eventually grow more popular (Levinthal, 1998). Organizational speciation is a process, however, whereby a branching occurs when existing organizations are disrupted by a major competitive threat such as a new innovation (Padgett & Powell, 2012). In the wake of the disruption, the relative lack of early understanding and communication about the innovation leads existing organizations to ignore the innovation. The failure of existing organizations to respond to an innovation creates opportunities for new types of organizations to emerge; this is the branching that occurs as part of the organizational speciation process. The growth of the new type of organization has the potential to eventually lead to a critical juncture in the evolution of the industry, potentially disrupting the entire ecosystem. More specifically, the new type of organization can continue to grow over time with unfettered access to the resources freed by the disruption. If enough new organizations emerge, they will eventually re-enter into competition with the original set of organizations, creating a significant period of turbulence in the industry. Thus, the process of organizational speciation focuses research on the manner in which new organizational forms emerge when existing organizations fail to recognize disruptions, and subsequently explains how those new organizations may significantly disrupt an entire industry. From fruit flies to new ICT

Padgett (Padgett, 2001; Padgett & McLean, 2006) notes that there is a strong biological analogy between the speciation of organizations and concepts such as genetic mutation and variation. Indeed, the concept of speciation was first developed by biologists to explain the evolutionary phenomena of new species developing as branches of existing species and the subsequent development of new lineages. In practice, speciation has been used to explain a variety of processes, ranging from the evolution of the Pacific robin, to the reproduction habits of Drosophila fruit flies found in tropical regions around the world. The disruption of existing populations is emphasized in biological speciation, as this disruption leads to create a rift that separates the new species from its source. Biologically, this happens most often through geographic separation, although other types of separation may occur (Coyne & Orr, 2004). In turn, there are a number of different variations of speciation that occur in biology. For instance, sympatric speciation refers to a point when a new variation occurs within a given population and remains isolated within that population, developing over time into a new species (Bush, 1975). The various paths of speciation point to the nuances of this process; speciation is a process of degrees, with some speciation processes occurring in distinct patterns, whereas other variations are subtler (Coyne & Orr, 2004). 94


M. S. Weber


Biological studies focus on speciation as a result of randomized events; however, it is recognized that strategic choice and agency may affect the evolutionary course of organizations (Miner, 1991). Where Darwin focused on evolution occurring through random and blind mutations in existing species, an organizational view takes into account Lamarckian processes, recognizing that research and development, and other conscious attempts to evolve, may affect an organization’s trajectory. In practice, evolutionary perspectives are most often a combination of the two processes (Usher & Evans, 1996). The biological roots of speciation offer a starting point for understanding organizational form emergence following unseen disruptions; community ecology, however, provides a framework for applying this process to organizational communication. Community ecology

The process of organizational speciation examines organizational change across levels of interaction; disruptions originate from organizations within and outside an industry, and impact the broad organizational ecosystem. The formation of new organization types starts with a single organization, or small group of organizations, and builds to create entirely new industries. Community ecology is thus useful in framing this process, in that it situates processes of organizational change within a broader organizational ecosystem. A community is defined as a set of populations joined by common ties that exist based on their “orientation to a common technology, normative order, or legal-regulatory regime” (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006, p. 301). A community is thus a synonym for the space within which different industries interact with each other (e.g., advertising agencies, television studios, and television stations, each operate within the same common space). Populations of organizations are, in turn, “bounded sets of organizations with a common form” (Carroll & Hannan, 2000, p. 74). A population is thus synonymous with the notion of an industry, but focuses specifically on groups of organizations that have a common type (e.g., advertising agencies and television studios are distinct organization types). Communities exist within a broad environment of resources, such as capital, raw resources, employees (human capital), and technology. The community ecology perspective emphasizes the formation and dissolution of populations in the broader contexts of their interactions within the community (Astley, 1985). The overall process of change is framed as occurring through episodic periods of stability, interrupted by disruptions that interrupt the stability. A punctuated equilibrium is thus defined as a period of stability interrupted by a significant disruption that drives change within a community, leading organizational populations to adapt and transform, and subsequently to return to either the original or a new equilibrium (Gould, 2001; Romanelli & Tushman, 1994). Recent models of organizational evolution reinforce the importance of a punctuated equilibrium, but add that change is an ongoing process, with significant events driving ongoing processes of gradual change (Breslin, 2008). Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

95


M. S. Weber

Organizational forms

Evolutionary processes are marked by the emergence and the decline of organizational forms (Carroll & Hannan, 2000). Organizational forms are synonymous with the ecological concept of species; forms are the blueprint of the organization, accounting for its unique structure and the rules, processes, and normative order that create the organization (Hannan & Freeman, 1977). Forms are also represented through an organization’s communication of its identity to external stakeholders (Hsu & Hannan, 2005). Romanelli (1991) defines a form as the characteristics that provide an organization with a unique identity, and simultaneously classifying it as a member of a larger population. Organizational forms are further defined by their features. Core features include the goals of the organization, the means by which an organization conducts business with similar organizations, the core technology, and skills of the organization and the organization’s market strategy. Organizations that share common core features thus collectively constitute a population. Peripheral features are secondary aspects of an organization that may further divide a population; these features include aspects such as the number of subunits in an organization, and an organization’s strategic alliances (Hannan & Freeman, 1977). From an evolutionary perspective, organizations are limited in their capacity to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Changes in resource availability, the age of existing organizations, the number of organizations within an industry, and the size of existing organizations are all key variables the influence both the survival of existing organizations, and the likelihood that new organizational forms will emerge (Carroll & Hannan, 2000). New organizational forms generally emerge when disruptions interrupt the continuity of existing populations or communities (Haveman, 1992). New forms then develop as entrepreneurs and innovators seek to take advantage of new opportunities, and as existing organizations seek to adapt to changing environmental conditions (Reschke & Kraus, 2009). Furthermore, communication is central to the notion of an organizational form; organizational actors engage in a discourse of organizational identity and legitimacy, and to seek to understand what is and is not accepted as an organizational form in a given population (Bryant & Monge, 2008; Dimmick, Chen, & Li, 2004). Moreover, as change occurs, organizations communicate with one another to understand change processes. Scholars have focused on understanding how organizations within a community utilize communicative ties between organizations to access resources, to form partnerships, and to gain foresight into new innovations and disruptions. Moreover, communication within a community serves as a resource; greater access to communicated information enables an organization to adapt more rapidly to disruptions, thus increasing the likelihood that exiting organizations will survive periods of disruption (Monge et al., 2008). Organizational speciation

Grounded community ecology, the process of organizational speciation is proposed as occurring in five stages. First, a significant disruption impacts an existing population; 96


M. S. Weber


second, a splitting occurs that fragments the population; third, a new organizational form emerges; fourth, a new organizational form grows over time; and fifth, renewed competition occurs between the new and existing forms. To explicate this process, the following discussion first outlines the conditions for speciation, and then details each stage, drawing on examples from the newspaper industry. The overall model is presented in Table 1, and is used as a guide in outlining the specific stages of the model. Conditions for speciation

Organizational speciation occurs under specific circumstances that set the stage for form emergence, and subsequent competition. First and foremost, a stable population must exist within a given community. Second, that population must have a certain amount of inertia creating blind spots with regards to emergent competition. Third, human actors within organizations must seek opportunities to adapt and to respond to new disruptions. As previously noted, ICTs are used herein as an example of disruptions that can drive speciation. Stable populations

Speciation aims to explain the process by which disruptions drive the emergence of new organizational forms whilst existing competitors turn a blind eye to ongoing change. Thus, the existence of a stable population is a precondition for speciation; if a population is unstable, change is already occurring. Stable populations exist when a population of organizations has reached a period of stability due, in large part, to the existence of stable resources and existing routines. In other words, a common organizational form exists as taken-for-granted within a population, and relies on a common and stable labor pool with a strong customer base. This notion echoes resource dependency theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), which posits that the development and emergence of new forms, and the stability of existing forms, are driven by resource availability. For example, nonprofit organizations are an example of an organization type that has reached a state of stability. In particular, nonprofits dedicated to the preservation of open land and protection of the environment have been well served by a stable population of concerned publics. The Sierra Club, for instance, was founded in 1892, and The Nature Conservancy was founded in 1951. Despite changes in the political climate, and change focal issues (e.g., greenhouse gases and auto emission), these organizations have continued to thrive. In the context of resource dependence, competition between existing organizational forms fighting for resources leads organizations to develop strategies for protecting resources; some organizations will focus broadly on wide swathes of resources (generalists), while others will stake a claim to isolated pockets of resources (specialists; Swaminathan, 2001). Generalists tend to compete with other generalists, while specialists compete with other specialists; the organizations that adapt best to their environmental conditions, and choose the most appropriate strategy, will survive over time. Where generalists and specialists overlap, the specialists will face direct competition for resources or be forced to further concentrate on a specific niche for which Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

97

98

Stable and inertial population interrupted by unseen disruption (e.g., by new ICT)

Existing resources split, creating new pools of unused resources; existing organizations fail to take advantage Communication as search; existing organizations fail to identify new resources

2. Splitting

Communication is strategically absent; new entrants intentionally avoid communication

New organizational forms emerge in the new resource spaces

3. Emergence

Communication is strategically absent; new entrants intentionally avoid communication

Early success of the new organizational form draws others into the new resource space

4. Growth

Growth leads to a need for additional resources; the old and new populations enter into competition Communication for legitimacy; new organizations actively seek recognition

5. Competition

Note: Black = new population; black arrow = disruption; ICT = information communication technology; empty circle = new resource space; light gray = existing population.

Role of communication Communication as search (e.g.,, entrepreneurs seek new opportunities)

Summary

Illustration

1. Disruptions

Table 1 The Stages of the Speciation Process as a Model of Organizational Emergence

Organizational Emergence as Speciation M. S. Weber


M. S. Weber


there is less competition. Niche organizations that target resource spaces toward the fringe of the market will generally have a greater likelihood of survival and will ultimately develop as specialist organizations (Carroll, Dobrev, & Swaminathan, 2002; Carroll & Hannan, 2000). By identifying the right set of resources, and choosing an appropriate strategy, an organizational form will be able to reach a state of relative stability, curtailing the need to adapt. The newspaper industry, for example, has embodied a stable and recognizable organizational form dating back to the late 1800s. Despite numerous technological innovations in the 20th century—the mass adoption of radio and television, and the introduction of cable television—the newspaper industry remained robust. Within this context, most large daily newspapers function as generalists, drawing on large pockets of consumers in major metropolitan markets. Simultaneously, however, many niche products compete for smaller groups of consumers. For instance, the San Francisco Bay Guardian thrived for many years in the competitive San Francisco news market by targeting fringe groups that other newspapers did not serve. As was the case with the newspaper industry, and as noted in resource dependency theory, stable populations focus on a set pool of resources; in turn, there is reduced emphasis on searching for new resources. Moreover, stability has an insulating effect, as there is no need to search for new resources; therefore, communication from competitors and entrepreneurs about new opportunities may be overlooked given the relative stability of the population, setting a stage for speciation. The role of inertia

A second key precondition for speciation is a high degree of inertia within existing populations. Stability and inertia are closely related to one another. Stability refers to an organizational form that does not need to change because a stable pool of resources exists. However, existing organizations within a population develop a degree of organizational inertia the longer they remain stable. As stable organizational populations mature, organizations within a stable population develop routines and established processes—referred to as inertia. The longer a population remains stable, the more routinized an organization within that population becomes. Over time, organizations begin to develop set routines for changing and innovating, and as a result these organizations are less likely to detect or adapt to new competitive forces that differ from what has previously been encountered (Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett, 1993). For example, as a result of the ongoing stability of the newspaper industry, built upon a reliable consumer base and stable advertising revenue, newspaper organizations developed static routines for producing news, and for adapting to new communication technology. In turn, inertia creates barriers to change. In other words, existing organizations may not be able to adapt because existing adaptive processes are hindered; established and entrenched organizations will thus resist attempts from within to adapt to new ICTs (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). In this way, the combined impact of high degrees of population stability and organizational inertia creates a vacuum of innovation and adaptation from which a process of speciation may occur. Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

99


M. S. Weber

Actors and search

Finally, it is assumed that organizations are constructed through communicative human interaction (Taylor, Cooren, Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996). As organizations within a population become more entrenched and established, individuals within those organizations coordinate communicative acts and develop routinized schemas for transferring knowledge and information between disparate units (March & Simon, 1993). The development of these communicative routines is central to the development of stability and inertia. A part of the process of speciation, disruptions create an opportunity to take advantage of new resources (e.g., employees leave an organization to form a startup, or organizations in other populations see an opportunity to develop a competitive business model), but organizations must first recognize that an opportunity exists. In this way, the assumption of human agency is critical within the broader ecological process; individual actors seeking to adapt and to engage with new ICTs help to shift resources and spur the formation of new organizational forms, igniting the process of speciation. Stages of speciation

Stability, inertia, and agency within organizations each set the stage for a process of organizational speciation to initiate. The process of organizational speciation occurs in stages, starting with a disruption and ending with renewed competition. In aggregate, the model of speciation describes cases where new variations of organizational forms emerge, building on new ICTs and evolving from existing populations. The central stages of this process are detailed in the following sections, and are again illustrated in Table 1. Disruption

At its heart, the process of speciation is a branching; a significant disruption interrupts an existing stable population, creating pockets of available resources. This branching, as shown in the table, is the starting point of the process, and is central to organizational speciation. This framing is useful for understanding why unseen disruptions may occur, ending in a return to equilibrium. The existence of a stable population with a high degree of inertia leads existing organizations to shy way from searching for new innovations; the result is that new disruptions occur without existing organizations detecting the emergence of the disruption. Even though a disruption has occurred (e.g., the introduction of a new technology standard), existing organizations do not notice the disruption because the internal organizational focus is on the processes that are already in place. Even though existing organizational routines are becoming obsolete in the wake of the disruption (Romanelli & Tushman, 1994), existing organizations remain stagnant and fail to adapt because of their inertia. As a result, new organizations are able to emerge and to take advantage of resources ignored by existing organizations. The introduction of a disruption thus creates opportunities for new entrepreneurs, who are actively searching for new opportunities. For instance, investors may seek 100


M. S. Weber


to divert resources to new opportunities, and entrepreneurial employees may seek to engage in new ventures. Disruptions such as technological innovations, changes in norms and values, and the implementation of new regulatory systems can thus spur the emergence of new organizational forms and drive change that cuts across populations (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). These disruptions can emerge from within an existing population; for instance, an organization within a population may develop a new technology that disruptions the overall population. Alternatively, disruptions may come from the broader community; for instance, new regulations established by a governing body may disrupt a population, even through the governing body is not part of a given population of organizations. The types and sources of disruptions vary widely, and do not occur instantaneously. Case in point, Internet technology was introduced into the newspaper industry over the course of a decade, but the introduction of Internet technology was a major disruption because (a) Internet technology represents a dramatic shift in technological standards and (b) 10 years is a relatively short period of time in the context of the overall lifetime of the newspaper industry. Moreover, the nature of disruptions is such that early attempts to innovate may be overlooked, further contributing to the unseen nature of some disruptions. Consider, for example, the newspaper industry in the 1980s. In 1980, CompuServe, an early Internet Service Provider, created a dial-up online news service that allowed customers to access news via early computers. The company partnered with the Associated Press to test the product. A newspaper article announcing a test of the product in Columbus, Ohio, notes that in a market with more than 200,000 newspaper subscribers, only 250 had computers at home (Press, 1980). From the perspective of newspaper organizations, there was no need to focus on computer technology. Thus, early forays pairing news with new ICTs tended to fail miserably, as was the case with the CompuServe experiment. Thus, the process of speciation may start slowly with incremental variation, but as the disruption gains momentum, the growth of the new ICT will amplify the splitting of the industry, creating space for innovation. Of course, many innovations fail to ever reach the stage of disruption (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). Splitting

The initial disruption caused by a new ICT subsequently leads to a splitting of available resources. Separation occurs through mechanisms as simple as communicative barriers that exist when new startups and entrepreneurs isolate themselves through communicative silence to incubate new products and new ideas. Physical separation can also occur as innovators and entrepreneurs move organizations to physical locations away from competition (even moving to the other side of a city can create a physical barrier preventing communication). For example, in recent years technology entrepreneurs have been drawn away from Silicon Valley to cities such as Detroit, Michigan, where there is less competition for resources such as office space, as well as less competition for human resources such as computer programmers (Sprinkle, 2015). These barriers protect a new variation and allow it to mature (Gavrilets, Li, & Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

101


M. S. Weber

Vose, 1998). Isolated resource spaces created by splitting allow new organizations to develop in protected isolated pockets with relatively less competition. From a communicative perspective, the splitting of resources and the isolation of innovative organizations translate into an inability of existing populations to locate information about new forms, adding further protection. New entrants can also force a branching. For instance, Levinthal (1998) showed that when ICT innovations are applied from outside a given industry, the potential exists for the ICT to spark the development of new forms. Indeed, the transfer of technology horizontally between populations of organizations lays the groundwork for organizational change and for the emergence of new organizational forms, but these new ICTs are easily overlooked by entrenched organizations. Consider, for example, the advent of digital publishing. In the 1990s, traditional print newspapers largely discounted initial competition from digital publishers, and yet by 2010 the majority of traditional print media had prioritized digital media (Weber & Monge, 2014). The evolutionary time frame varies from case-to-case, but the history of industry is rife with examples of entrenched organizational populations ignoring the emergence of new disruptions. The introduction of a new ICT may spur a barrier based on understanding and expertise; entrepreneurs and organizations with spare resources will engage with a new technology and innovate, whereas inertial organizations are slower to adapt. In turn, as the technology grows, innovators are able to take advantage of the resources associated with that technology (e.g., venture capital, new human capital, and media attention). Protected pockets of resources allow forms to replicate through new organizations, and to re-enter into competition with existing populations once a critical mass is reached. For example, returning to CompuServe’s development of online news services (e.g., CompuServe’s CP BusinessInfo Wire), the disruption brought about by the Internet in the 1970s gave rise to an entirely new resource space for organizational development; technical barriers to entry protected this resource space, and ultimately the Internet gave rise to a host of new organizational forms. Traditional news organizations did not have the capacity to develop expertise in digital technology; at the time, organizational inertia kept the focus on printed journalism (e.g., as the organizational core). CompuServe, however, took advantage of these barriers, and created a new form with technology and news at the core of its central identity. The CompuServe news experiment is typical of the isolated experimentation that organizations are able to undertake within protected resource spaces. Emergence

Disruption and subsequent splitting create protected pockets of resources that support form emergence. Resources in open spaces often come from adjacent populations; for instance, many professionals working in online news today previously worked for traditional print newspapers. As new organizational forms developed, professionals from one population shifted to another. Thus, speciated forms are new branches, and new forms are rarely borne of nothing; rather, they are based on assemblages of previously 102


M. S. Weber


successful forms (Coyne & Orr, 2004). The new organizational form is thus likely to reflect the original population to a certain degree, based on the types of resources the new form acquires (Rao & Singh, 1999). For instance, a form that differs in only one of 10 core features, such as primary market served, would be weakly speciated from existing forms. The process of speciation thus does not always lead to radical changes in organizational forms; the new organizational form is just as likely to be a blending and modification of existing forms (Hannan & Freeman, 1989; Rao & Singh, 1999). As new forms emerge through the process of speciation, they are relatively isolated from competition. The nature of the emerging organization will depend on the degree to which it is separated from the existing population. Total isolation is a fallacy; rather, in the course of natural development, communication and commingling is expected, even if rarely. Thus, the emergent form will have new characteristics, but may carry certain traits forward from the originating form (Coyne & Orr, 2004; Gavrilets et al., 1998). Thus, the disruption and splitting initiates the process of speciation, but the nature of emergent forms depends on the type of resources that are available, and the amount of communication with existing populations. In this way, resources are critical to the survival of existing organizations, but also provide the basis for the formation of new organizational forms. For example, the advent of social networking sites (SNSs) created a new platform for media companies to sell advertising to advertising agencies, but many incumbent advertising agencies were reluctant to engage with SNSs, and as a result, many smaller advertising agencies experienced rapid growth by selling advertising space on SNSs. Moreover, disruptions may change resource availability, bringing in new resources and rendering others obsolete; resources vary in nature, ranging from capital to raw material to human resources, including employees. For example, in the 1950s, the growth of television created competition to movie theaters for viewers and advertisers, and initiated major changes in the motion picture industry (Waterman, 2005). The growth of television as a standard form of distribution introduced a technological change that initiated the emergence of new organizations in the television industry; managers within the motion picture industry, however, were slow to understand and to adapt to the new technology. The advent of new standards in media production spurred the creation of a vast body of new resources (knowledge, talent, funding, etc.), and new organizations. In the newspaper industry, the rapid growth of participatory media as a form of news was a shock to the industry, starting in the late 1990s. In general, however, participatory media, such as blogs, were not commonly recognized until the early 2000s, and even then it was unclear what impact they would have in the long run. Early experimental efforts by newspapers were intended to appropriate the new technology, rather than to drive evolution. According to one commentary, “[blogging] will drive a powerful new form of amateur journalism . . . . It won’t happen overnight, and we’re now seeing only version 1.0” (Lasica, 2002). The development of participatory media as a new form occurred outside of the newspaper industry, in a speciated space, but drew upon resources and connections within the newspaper industry. Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

103


M. S. Weber

For example, the rise of HuffingtonPost.com was enabled through the combined efforts of Arianna Huffington, a political activist and public figure, and Jonah Peretti, a former executive from America Online. In 2005, the two collaborated to launch the new website; success, however, was fueled in part through their hiring a number of former print journalists who helped to guide the editorial development of the news blog (Perlmutter, 2008). More recently, ProPublica was launched as an online venture to help develop investigative reporting. Two independent billionaires funded the venture, and hired a former Wall Street Journal editor to bring in knowledge from the newspaper industry and guide the effort (Schaffer, 2012; Schudson, 2010). In each case, both HuffingtonPost and ProPublica sought to occupy untapped resource spaces overlooked by competitors, but did so by drawing on a mix of existing knowledge and ties to existing populations. Moreover, it is clear that over time a new organizational form was emerging; the “online news form” could be identified by core features such as a digital-only product, production cycles that were significantly faster than printed counterparts, a distinctly flat, distributed organizational structure, and a workforce comprised of both programmers and journalists (Weber & Monge, 2014). Growth

In early stages of emergence, a new organizational form benefits from the protection of an isolated resource space. As others enter into the resource space, the organizational form continues to evolve and mature, illustrated by the developing population in Table 1. Over time, others will replicate forms viewed as most successful, and the new form will grow in density. In the case of blogs, growth was slow at first, but by the mid-2000s, the population experienced rapid growth. By 2009, roughly 2.3 million news blogs existed on the Internet, according to the blog tracker Technorati, and while many of these blogs are inconsequentially small, the collective whole represents a sizeable population (Green, 2009). An exact count of blogs focused on news is not possible, but some estimates suggest that as much as 50% of the overall community of online news consisted of blogs by 2007 (Weber, 2012). As the new form grows over time, new entrants create increased competition for the previously protected resources. In turn, organizational actors will begin to actively search out slack resources in order to continue to fuel growth; if the new organizations continue to grow, they will inevitably mature and re-enter into competition with the original population. Moreover, actors in speciated organizations may engage in limited competition outside of the isolated niche, particularly as organizations in the new population grow in number. Competition

If the new organizational form continues to develop, and the number of organizations continues to grow in number, it matures to a point at which it is likely to come into competition with the original population (Coyne & Orr, 2004; Mayr, 1982). The process of speciation typically culminates with the new organizational form entering into full competition with the existing community, communicating its established 104


M. S. Weber


legitimacy, and engaging in open competition; the new form will generally become numerous enough that competition for resources is inevitable. In other words, this is the point at which the new organizations emerge out of existing “blind spots”; this is illustrated in the merging of the two populations, shown in Table 1. When the speciated form re-enters competition with an existing population, a process of creative destruction occurs whereby older technologies or older organizations will tend to become obsolete in the battle for scare resources. At this point, it is possible that the new technology will fail to be accepted, and as a result, the speciation process could fail. This stage in the speciation process marks a punctuated point of renewed competition. As opposed to other models of organizational change, the existing stability and inertia of the original population meant that the disruption led to organizations developing in adjacent spaces. At this point in the model, however, the new organization re-enters into competition with the original population, The juncture whereupon the new organizational form re-enters into competition occurs as a significant disruption to the existing balance of an organizational population. Existing organizational models of punctuated equilibria focus on change over a short duration. In a speciated process of organizational change, a significant disruption occurs and interrupts the existing status quo after a period of time has passed. In the model of speciation, the stability and inertia of existing populations allows new organizations to emerge in the resource space opened up by the disruption. Once a critical mass has been reached, and a new organizational form exists, competition between the new and existing populations is imitated, creating a punctuated equilibrium, whereby change occurs across the ecosystem through a period of marked turbulence. This is akin to the Schumpeterian process of creative destruction, through which existing economic structures are revolutionized in the wake of disruption (Schumpeter, 2013), although here there is a specific emphasis on the incubation of a new organizational form that occurs in the time between the disruption and renewed competition. The history of news blogs follows this type of trajectory, with bloggers initially focusing on gaps unoccupied and uncontested by the dominant organizational form at the time (newspapers). The branching that resulted from the disruption caused by Internet technology in news media resulted in a small group of individuals focusing on the incubation of blogs and participatory media as the basis for new organizations. Once reaching critical mass, however, blogs gained traction. Bloggers gained popularity, and have, in many cases, been incorporated into the structure of newspapers. In addition, although bloggers were protected early on, the rapid growth of resources in this space further eroded the isolated niche, and allowed for open competition. As previously noted, consumers rapidly adopted Web technology, and in turn, blogs grew exponentially (2.9 million blogs by 2009). Having developed in an open resource space—separate and distinct from existing competition—new forms of news media had a marked competitive advantage in a unique resource space. The launch of HuffingtonPost is one example of a new form of news media that launched early and established a clear advantage. Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

105


M. S. Weber

Existing news organizations were firmly entrenched in existing routines of production, and thus not attuned to new routines, or the availability of new resources in the form of users-as-producers. Granted, newspapers were aware of the potential competition posed by new innovations. Newspapers even worked to develop new modes of production and distribution in the 1990s, experimenting with e-paper formats and electronic delivery. Boczkowski (2004) points to New Jersey Online’s Community Connection, a joint venture of the Newark Star-Ledger, Trenton Times, Jersey Journal, and News12 New Jersey, as one of the earliest online community ventures driven by a newspaper company (Advance Publications). Community Connection launched in 1998, and by 1999 it had a full-time staff of more than 30 employees. However, the degree of the disruption was not fully understood, and early efforts were hindered by the inertia that existed with the population of newspaper organizations. A key challenge of speciation, particularly for existing organizational populations, is that the point of renewed competition is not reached until the emergent organizational population has grown significantly. Thus, emergent forms benefit from isolation, and are able to build toward stability prior to competition with existing populations. The renewed competition that occurs at the end of the speciation process can thus be particularly problematic for existing populations. Although this marks an end point for the process of speciation, it may also initiate new processes. The point of renewed competition marks the point at which existing and emergent populations compete for survival; one form may win out, or a new variation—perhaps a comingling of the two forms—may develop. For example, in the evolution of online news, blogs developed as a new form of news production; in turn, online news sites incorporated features of blogs. Over time, SNSs emerged as a new disruption, arising from the disruption of a new genre of Web technology (Web 2.0), and initiating a new process of speciation for the news industry. Today, as a result, many blogs and online news sites incorporate elements of SNSs, and now SNSs are a key provider of news to consumers. In this way, there is always that possibility of the speciation process ending through the initiation of new evolutionary processes. Speciation, communication, and organizational change

The preceding discussion establishes a new view of organizational emergence, building upon existing research on organizational communication and change. Existing research often focuses on organizational forms emerging in short burst of disruption during critical periods of turmoil; the process of speciation presents a more nuanced view, explicating a process where the disruption significantly predates the ultimate act of transformation. Notably, time is relative as both the disruption and the speciation process can last for some time. Returning to Table 1, both the presence of and absence of communication are keys to the overall trajectory of the speciation process, as summarized in the last row of the table. Prior thinking has often focused on need for new organizations to communicate externally in order to garner attention from others and to gain acceptance as legitimate through external recognition (Kennedy, 2008). In the speciation 106


M. S. Weber


process, however, emerging organizations have an advantage in the protection afforded by being in the blind spot of established populations. Much as entrepreneurs may intentionally avoid talking about new innovations in order to protect their competitive advantage (Morris & Webb, 2015), new organizational forms may shun traditional processes of communicating for legitimacy in order to protect their resources. Thus, it follows that as new organizational forms emerge, actors within new organizations are likely to communicate with other forms of the same type; communication with other populations will be far less likely to occur. More to the point, communication by actors within emergent organizational forms with actors in the dominant populations will essentially be nonexistent in order to protect their niche resources. Although communicative linkages are generally viewed as helping organizations gain access to resources and reduce mortality rates (Baum & Oliver, 1991), in the context of speciation, the communicative isolation and open environmental resource spaces contribute to survival—the absence of communication is thus converted to an advantage (Weber, 2012; Weber & Monge, 2014). Once the speciation process enters into the competition stage, successful emergent organizational forms will garner legitimacy through communication and relationships with established organizations, and through traditional mechanisms of media, legal, and professional recognition (Weber & Monge, 2014). Online organizations, in particular, appear susceptible to this type of speciation process, as they can emerge rapidly. In turn, it is increasingly critical for established organizations to better understand when a new form represents a legitimate competitive threat. In the face of new technology and increased competition from the development of new populations of organizations, existing organizations must either adapt and transform, or fade away into obsolescence. There is also the possibility that the emergence organizational form may fail to progress at any stage in the model, and thus, the overall process will fail. In the final stage of the model, actors within the community as a whole attempt to return to a period of stability in which the new population is able to coexist in a new equilibrium established with other populations. An endpoint

As competition between the existing and new organizations moves toward a state of equilibrium, the community as a whole will move toward a period of stability. The focal populations become stable, and a new normal is established. Alternatively, as noted, the point of disruption may further spark the generation of new branches, and new speciation processes. The point of disruption may also prove destructive, leading to failure and collapse of the industry as a whole (Haveman, 1992). Whichever pattern emerges, a single process of speciation can be framed through a focus on the initial disruption, and the subsequent process of transformation. Thus, as a model of organizational change, the process of speciation provides a clear lens for examining a specific type of change process. Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

107


M. S. Weber

Future research

Speciation presents an innovative approach to understanding the emergence of new organizations in the wake of disruptions, and provides a nuanced approach to understanding how new organizations develop and gain traction over time. Future research can build on the established tenets presented in this article to develop new streams of research. Notably, the duration of the process has not been discussed. It is possible that the early stages of the speciation process may occur over a substantial duration (e.g., blogs developed over a number of years). The period of renewed competition, however, could be quite brief. Various factors, including inertia, organizational size, age, and degree of communication, are all likely to impact the timeframe, and present a fertile opportunity for future work. Qualitatively and quantitatively, there is much to be learned about how new organizations and entrepreneurial endeavors determine opportunities for incorporation and seek out new resources. Focusing on small clusters of organizations, scholars should examine the processes by which new organizational forms and key stakeholders identify resource spaces and drive long-term success. Speciation has the potential to explain a host of organizational processes, and to shed light on rapid changes ongoing in today’s technologically enabled organizational environment. Moreover, although my focus is on ICTs, not all disruptions are technological; for instance, legal rulings that impact industry standards of operation can have a dramatic impact on the stability of a population, as occurred in the savings and loan industry when new regulations were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s (Wiseman & Catanach, 1997). Thus, scholars should also focus on other drivers of change, which may trigger similar processes of organizational speciation. Methodologically, speciation research points to mixed methods studies for better understanding of organization change. The focus of speciation stretches across levels of organizational analysis. At the individual level, qualitative research such as observations and interviews has proven useful for understanding decisions regarding strategy and the formation of interorganizational relationships. At the population level, qualitative work can help to further develop a comprehensive understanding, but quantitative methods such as event history analysis are useful for analyzing changes in organizational emergence and survival. At the community level, summary statistics and event history analysis can further help to understand broad trends. Across levels, hierarchical linear models are useful, and social network analysis is a particularly useful tool for multilevel analysis of organizations (Monge & Contractor, 2003). An absence of communication

A theory of speciation suggests that an absence of interorganizational communication may help new organizational forms to grow. This calls attention to an understudied aspect of organizational communication research, and communication more broadly—a strategic absence of communication. In one notable exception, Huber (1991) suggested that a lack of communication in organizations would have a negative impact on organizational learning processes. Echoing this, others have found that a 108


M. S. Weber


lack of communicative ties may hinder knowledge sharing (Yang & Maxwell, 2011). Yet a strategic absence of communication has not been emphasized as a feature of organizations; speciation suggests that this may be an important avenue for research seeking to better understand organizational emergence and change. Conclusion

Speciation has not been well represented as a process for understanding organizational communication of change, but represents a promising mechanism for understanding the different maturation processes through which new forms emerge. Although Astley (1985) suggests speciation as a potential mechanism for understanding the emergence of new organizations, the process explicated here illustrates the depth of explanatory power and the utility of speciation for understanding a wider array of transformative mechanisms. Change and evolution is inevitable in organizations; survival requires adaptation over time in response to new technology and changes to the broader competitive environment. This theoretical article has introduced a new perspective for better understanding the processes by which competition may appear to emerge suddenly. Speciation is likely a process by which significant organizational change occurs, and warrants further study as a critical organizational process. Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge Peter Monge, Mark Kennedy, Manuel Castells, Allie Kosterich, Teis Kristensen, Wei Shi, and Marya Doerfel for their comments on prior versions of this article. In addition, the author thanks the two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback. References Abatecola, G., Belussi, F., Breslin, D., & Filatotchev, I. (2015). Darwinism, organizational evolution and survival: Key challenges for future research. Journal of Management & Governance, 20(1), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10997-015-9310-8. Aldrich, H., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving (Vol. ,2nd ed.). London, England: Sage. Amburgey, T. L., Kelly, D., & Barnett, W. (1993). Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1), 51–73. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1990.4978494. Astley, W. (1985). The two ecologies: Populations and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2), 224–242. doi:10.2307/2393106. Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 32. doi:10.2307/2393353. Bimber, B. (1994). Three faces of technological determinism. In R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 79–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

109


M. S. Weber

Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 365–388. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00340.x. Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in online newspapers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Breslin, D. (2008). A review of the evolutionary approach to the study of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 399–423. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370. 2008.00234.x. Bryant, J. A., & Monge, P. (2008). The evolution of the children’s television community: 1953–2003. International Journal of Communication, 2, 160–192. Bush, G. (1975). Modes of animal speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systemics, 6, 339–364. Carroll, G., Dobrev, S., & Swaminathan, A. (2002). Organizational processes of resource partitioning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 1–40. doi:10.1016/S01913085(02)24002-2. Carroll, G., & Hannan, M. (2000). The demography of corporations and industries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. (2004). Seeing what’s next: Using the theories of innovation to predict industry change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker’s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24(2), 233–257. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(93)00764-K. Christensen, C. M., Suarez, F. F., & Utterback, J. M. (1998). Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries. Management Science, 44(12), S207–S220. Coyne, J. A., & Orr, H. A. (2004). Speciation. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215–236. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x. Dimmick, J. W., Chen, Y., & Li, Z. (2004). Competition between the internet and traditional news media: The gratification-opportunities niche dimension. Journal of Media Economics, 17(1), 19–33. doi:10.1207/s15327736me1701_2. Gavrilets, S., Li, H., & Vose, M. D. (1998). Rapid parapatric speciation on holey adaptive landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 263, 1483–1489. doi:10.1098/rspb. 1998.0461. Gould, S. J. (2001). The interrelationship of speciation and punctuated equilibrium. In J. B. C. Jackson, S. Lidgard & F. K. McKinney (Eds.), Evolutionary patterns: Growth, form and tempo in the fossil record. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Green, H. (2009). With 15.5 million active blogs, new technorati data shows that blogging growth seems to be peaking. Retrieved from http://businessweek.com/the_thread/ blogspotting/archives/2007/04/blogging_growth.html Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. H. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 26. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. H. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 16. 110


M. S. Weber


Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. H. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haveman, H. A. (1992). Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 48–75. doi:10.2307/2393533. Hsu, G., & Hannan, M. (2005). Identities, genres and organizational forms. Organization Science, 16(5), 474–490. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0151. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88. Kennedy, M. T. (2008). Getting counted: Markets, media and reality. American Sociological Review, 73, 270–295. doi:10.1177/000312240807300205. Lasica, J. D. (2002). Blogging as a form of journalism. Online Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/lasica/1019166956.php Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 333–363. doi:10.2307/2393200. Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Car crashes without cars: Lessons about simulation technology and organizational change from automotive design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levinthal, D. A. (1998). The slow pace of rapid technological change: Gradualism and punctuation in technological change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(2), 1998. doi:10.1093/icc/7.2.217. Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication (Vol. 4). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1993). Organizations (Vol. ,2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Mayr, E. (1982). Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution, 36(6), 1119–1132. doi:10.2307/2408147. McKelvey, B. (1980). Organizational speciation. In C. C. Pinder & L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle range theory and the study of organizations. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing. Miner, A. S. (1991). Organizational evolution and the social ecology of jobs. American Sociological Review, 56, 772–785. Monge, P., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Monge, P., Heiss, B., & Margolin, D. (2008). Communication network evolution in organizational communities. Communication Theory, 18(4), 449–555. doi:10.1111/ j.1468-2885.2008.00330.x. Monge, P., Lee, S., Fulk, J., Weber, M., Shen, C., Schultz, C., … Frank, L. (2011). Research methods for studying evolutionary and ecological processes in organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(2), 211–252. Morris, M. H., & Webb, J. W. (2015). Entrepreneurship as emergence. In C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt & J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 457–476). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Padgett, J. F. (2001). Organizational genesis, identity, and control: The transformation of banking in renaissance Florence. In J. E. Raush & A. Casella (Eds.), Networks and markets. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Communication Theory 27 (2017) 92–113 © 2016 International Communication Association

111


M. S. Weber

Padgett, J. F., & McLean, P. D. (2006). Transformation: The birth of partnership systems in renaissance Florence. American Journal of Sociology, 111(5), 1463–1568. Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Perlmutter, D. D. (2008). Blog wars. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Press, A. (1980, May 28). Dial-a-paper test starts soon in Ohio. The Miami News, 2A. Rao, H., & Singh, J. V. (1999). Types of variation in organizational populations: The speciation of new organizational forms. In J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science (pp. 63–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reschke, C. H., & Kraus, S. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on the management of stability and change. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 5(2), 259–278. doi:10.14441/eier.5.259. Romanelli, E. (1991). The evolution of new organizational forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1), 79–103. Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141–1166. doi:10.2307/256669. Ruef, M. (2000). The emergence of organizational forms: A community ecology approach. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 57. doi:10.1086/318963. Schaffer, J. (2012). Innovations in the delivery of online local news. A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 8, 543. Schudson, M. (2010). Political observatories, databases & news in the emerging ecology of public information. Daedalus, 139(2), 100–109. Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge. Sprinkle, T. (2015). Screw the valley: A coast-to-coast tour of America’s new tech startup culture—New York, Boulder, Austin, Raleigh, Detroit, Las Vegas, Kansas City. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books. Stohl, C. (2014). Crowds, clouds, and community. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 1–19. doi:10.1111/jcom.12075. Swaminathan, A. (2001). Resource partitioning and the evolution of specialist organizations: The role of location and identity in the U.S. wine industry. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1169–1185. doi:10.2307/3069395. Taylor, J. R., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D. (1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6(1), 1–39. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00118.x. Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–463. doi:10.2307/2392832. Ulrich, D., & McKelvey, B. (1990). General organizational classification: An empirical test using the United States and Japanese electronics industries. Organization Science, 1(1), 98–118. doi:10.1287/orsc.1.1.99. Usher, J. M., & Evans, M. G. (1996). Life and death along gasoline alley: Darwinian and Lamarckian processes in a differentiating population. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1428–1466. doi:10.2307/257004. Waterman, D. (2005). Hollywood’s road to riches. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press. 112


M. S. Weber


Weber, M. S. (2012). Newspapers and the long-term implications of hyperlinking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(2), 187–201. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101. 2011.01563.x. Weber, M. S., & Monge, P. (2014). Industries in turmoil: Driving transformation during periods of disruption. Communication Research, 1–30. doi:10.1177/0093650 213514601. Wiseman, R. M., & Catanach, C. (1997). A longitudinal disaggregation of operational risk under changing regulations: Evidence from the savings and loan industry. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 799–830. doi:10.2307/256949. Yang, T.-M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164–175. doi:10.1016/j.giq. 2010.06.008.


113