组织惰性的生成与克服研究
|
摘要
在不确定的环境下,组织惰性日益成为制约企业发展的主要因素。本文从组织与环境互动研究出发,在综合组织演化理论和动态能力理论等相关研究成果的基础上,尝试建立组织惰性研究的理论框架。
从表象看,企业组织惰性表现为组织模式的固化,但深入分析便会发现,组织惰性是企业在适应和改变环境的过程中因路径依赖所导致的“双重锁定”。“双重锁定”首先是指技术环境、制度环境和文化环境对企业环境选择的锁定,企业生存的前提是适应环境的要求,这是企业获得“合法性”的条件,但环境变迁导致这一前提发生变化；其次是指企业技术、制度和观念耦合所导致的锁定,企业发展的前提是在适应环境的基础上有所创新,这是企业获得竞争优势的条件,但基于创新的高度耦合的组织模式最终束缚了组织适应环境变化的能力。本文第3-5章分别从技术、制度和文化三个方面探讨了“双重锁定”的形成。
在技术方面,产业技术周期性特征决定特定产业内的企业不可避免地随着产业的衰退而失去生存条件；适应特定技术环境的组织种群同样会因技术环境的变迁而集体走向衰亡。这种基于技术环境变迁的组织惰性具有不可控性。在特定的产业技术周期内存在多样化的企业技术周期。虽然企业努力采取措施延长企业技术周期,但技术“自增强机制”决定企业在进行技术选择后很难摆脱技术路径依赖。技术路径依赖有利于企业技术创新的产生,但也会导致企业技术路径的锁定,从而形成企业的技术惰性。企业技术突破的方式有两种,一种是渐进式突破,即企业对现有技术体系的完善和改进；一种是破坏式突破,即打破企业现有的技术路径、建立新的技术体系。企业能否有效实现技术突破取决于技术突破的成本。技术突破的成本包括直接技术成本、心理成本和沉没成本。按照企业技术突破的主动程度,技术突破中的组织定位可分为主导式与跟进式。主导式组织定位强调“创新”的重要性,追求技术突破中的“先发优势”；跟进式组织定位强调“模仿”的重要性,追求技术突破中的“后发优势”。
在制度方面,制度环境为企业的生存与发展设定了基本的约束条件,具有合法性、稳定性、可解释性和可复制性等特征是企业组织适应制度环境的表现,但这些特征也是导致企业在制度环境变迁时不能迅速适应环境变化的组织惰性产生的根源。企业在适应制度环境的过程中会不断打破制度环境的束缚进而改变制度环境或推动制度环境变迁,但现实中只有少数企业能够主动做到这一点。企业在与制度环境互动的过程中实现了与制度环境的耦合，这一方面体现为组织“合法性”的获得，另一方面体现为企业组织惯例的形成。企业制度发展同样具有路径依赖的特征，当企业现有的制度发展路径不能为企业带来绩效时，企业便进入了制度路径锁定状态。
在文化方面，就制度与文化的关系而言，制度源自于文化，文化反制于制度，制度与文化具有内在一致性。管理同样植根于文化，文化模式的价值定向性决定管理模式的价值取向；文化模式的排他性决定管理模式的可移植性及移植程度：文化模式的多样性决定了管理模式的多样性。文化模式的移植必须遵循文化融合的一般规律，管理模式的移植也必须遵循文化模式与管理模式内在一致性的要求。组织文化发挥作用的前提是组织价值观与组织成员内在价值追求的一致性。组织文化与组织战略都是企业家价值观的产物，二者具有内在一致性：组织战略的转变客观上要求组织文化进行相应的调整；组织文化一旦形成，往往会束缚企业家的战略认知能力，并从组织层面阻碍组织战略的转变。组织文化的发展顺次经历形成期、惯性期、惰性期和衰退期四个阶段，组织文化惯性期的长短取决于组织所处环境的稳定程度，长期处于稳定环境中的组织的文化惰性具有不易克服的特征。组织文化惰性是组织追求理想的文化状态的客观结果。
为了系统分析企业组织惰性的成因，在企业生命周期理论的基础上，本文提出组织适应周期模型(第6章)，认为企业的形成和发展过程本质上是不断地因应环境的变化进行组织战略、技术和结构调整或创新的过程，每一次调整或创新都会为企业带来一段时间的稳定发展，也即组织适应期。组织适应的有效性取决于企业战略选择、技术选择和组织方式选择的内在一致性，单纯某一层面的改变并不能有效解决组织适应问题。借助于系统动力模型，本文认为，在既定的组织适应周期内，组织战略、技术和结构的耦合所形成的组织能力是企业竞争优势的来源，但也是导致组织惰性生成的根源。借助于新古典经济学的边际分析方法，本文提出了组织边际收益递减规律，企业基于组织创新的收益在企业运营过程中会逐渐降低。当组织文化成熟、组织运作标准化程序出现时，组织进入“惯性”阶段；当组织在技术方面无突破和相对垄断同时出现时，组织便进入“惰性”阶段。克服组织惰性的方式有渐进式和革命式两种，何种方式被选择往往取决于变革成本与变革收益的比较，而变革成本与收益差的大小取决于组织环境变化的程度。本文在第7章探讨了组织惰性的克服机制。
克服组织惰性的有效性取决于企业家精神的延续以及在企业家精神引导下的企业动态能力的生成。综合传统组织能力、核心能力和动态能力理论的相关研究成果,本文根据环境的变化程度和组织能力“动态性”程度不同,把动态能力划分为初级、高级和中级三个层次,并以此为基础分析了企业动态能力的构成,认为敏锐地感知环境变化、发现市场机会,及时地学习和吸收存在于组织内外的相关知识和技能,迅速地协调和整合相关的知识、技术和资源,从而在最短的时间内建立起竞争优势,这是动态能力的基本要求。
本文认为,有利于动态能力生成的组织与管理过程强调隐藏于高度柔性的组织方式背后的组织机制的构建。适应动态环境的组织机制并不依附或局限于某一特定的组织方式,其发挥作用的动力来自以权变思想和创新精神为基础的共性的组织观念与企业家认知相结合所形成的组织文化。以此为基础,本文提出了一个动态能力生成的系统模型：“权变思想和创新精神→+组织学习和灵活应变→+市场响应能力和连续创新能力→+不断自我超越和连续抛弃政策→+经验激励→+权变思想和创新精神”。本文还指出,在动态能力生成的组织机制中尤其需要构建一种效率学习与效能学习的转换机制。效能学习与能力的破坏和创造相联系,效率学习与能力的开发相呼应。然而,效能学习过程与效率学习过程是相对立的：为加强既有优势,必须沿着常规路线前进,因而强化了核心能力固有的稳定性；而着眼于未来优势的能力的重新构造,需要忘却现有能力,对常规程序、规则中占支配地位的逻辑提出挑战。在效率学习与效能学习过程中,企业家精神是将效能学习与效率学习进行下去并实现转换的动力。在动态能力生成的组织机制中还需要包含一种有利于吸收组织外部知识、技能和资源的协调机制,其中独立部门试点机制有利于新的组织能力的生成,而具有外部导向且旨在进行企业间合作的组织间网络机制,能够挑战制约构建新竞争优势的刚性和路径依赖性。
In the uncertain environment, the organizational inertia has been gradually become the main factor conditioning the enterprise's development. Based on research results synthesizing organizational evolution theory and dynamic capabilities theory, this essay, going from the interaction of organizations and environment, tries to establish the theoretical framework of researching organizational inertia.
Superficially, enterprises'organizational inertia shows the solidifying of the organization model. Analyzing deeply, however, it will present that organizational inertia is an "lock-in" which is due to enterprises adapting to and changing the environment. Firstly, the "lock-in" is the lock-in of the technical environment, institutional environment and cultural environment choosing the environmental legitimacy. Fitting for the demands of the environment is the survival premise of the enterprise, which is the basis of the enterprise obtaining the "legitimacy", while the environmental change causes this premise's change. Secondly, the "lock-in" is due to the combination of the enterprise's technology, systems and concept. The premise of the enterprise's development is the innovation based on adapting to the environment, as is the condition of the enterprise getting completive advantages. But the organization model depending on the innovation's combination finally confines the capability of the organization suiting environmental changes. From Chapter 3 to Chapter 5, this paper discusses how the "lock-in" forms from the technical, systems and cultures respectively.
On the aspect of the technology, the characteristics of the industrial technology life cycle makes that enterprises in the specific industry inevitably loses their survival condition along with the industry's decline. Organizational populations adapting to the specific technical environment simultaneously trends to decline collectively. It is uncontrolled for this organizational inertia based on technical environment's changes. Diversity enterprise's technology life cycles exist in the technology life cycle of the specific industry. Although the enterprise endeavors to hold up its technology life cycle, technological "self-enhancing" decides that the enterprise hardly gets rid of relying on technological route after its technology choose. Though depending on technological route does good to enterprise's technology innovation, it also causes the solidification of the enterprise's technological organizational model, then which leads to the enterprise's technology inertia. There are two methods for enterprises' technological breakthrough. One is the progressive breakthrough, namely the enterprise perfecting and improving its present technology systems; the other is the disruptive breakthrough, namely breaking the enterprise's present technology path and establishing new technology systems. Whether the enterprise can implement the technological breakthrough effectively lies in its cost, which includes the direct technical cost, psychological cost and sunk cost. In the light of initiative degree of the enterprise's technological breakthrough, the organization position in the technological breakthrough can be divided into the dominance and follow-up. The dominant organization position emphasizes the importance of the "innovation", seeking the "priority advantage" in the technological breakthrough. While the follow-up organization position stresses the importance of the "imitation", pursuing the "late advantage" during the technological breakthrough.
In terms of systems, the institutional environment sets a basic set of constraints for enterprises' survival and development with the legitimacy, reliability, interpretability and other characteristics, which are the performance of business organizations adapting to the institutional environment. But these features are the root causes which lead to companies not adapting quickly to environmental changes during that of the institutional environment as well. In the process of enterprises fitting for the institutional environment, they can break the shackles of the institutional environment and thus change the system environment or promote the institutional environment changes. However, in reality, only a few companies can take the initiative to do this. Enterprises achieve the coupling with the institutional environment in the process of interaction with the system environment, on the one hand, which reflects the acquisition for the organization of "legitimacy"; on the other hand, which expresses the formation of the business routines. The enterprise system similarly has the characteristic of the path-dependent. When the developing path of will be locked into the system path.
In the cultural field, the system, in the term of the relation between the system and the culture, is based on the culture and the culture counters in the system. They both have internal consistencies. Management also roots in the culture, and the value orientation of cultural patterns determines that of management patterns; the exclusive of the cultural patterns decides the portability and migration management level of the management; the diversity of cultural patterns determines that of the management patterns. The migration of cultural patterns must follow the general laws the cultural integration. Meanwhile, the migration of management patterns also must obey the requirement of the internal consistency between cultural patterns and management patterns. The pursuit of the organizational intrinsic value is consistent with that of the organizational members, which is the premise of the organizational culture playing a role. The value of entrepreneurs produces the organizational culture and strategy, both them having the internal consistency. Objectively, the organizational tragedy' change requires the organizational culture's corresponding adjustments. Once the organizational culture formed, it will bound entrepreneurs' strategic cognitive ability and prevents the organizational strategy from shifting. In the developing process of the organizational culture, there are four stages-formation, active inertia, inactive inertia and recession. The length of the active inertia depends on the stability of the environment where the organization locates. The organizational culture, existing in the stable environment in the long-term, is not easy to overcome. Therefore, the inertia of the organizational culture is the objective results that the organization pursuits the ideal culture state.
For analyzing systematically causes of the organizational inertia in enterprise, this paper, based on the theory of the life cycle, puts forward to the model of organizational adaptation cycle (Chapter 6), which proposes that factually the formation and development of the enterprise is the process that the organization owing to environmental changes constantly adjusts or innovates organizational strategies, technology and structures. Each adjustment or innovation will bring a period of steady development, namely organizational adaptation period. The adaptation effectiveness of the organization depends on the internal consistency of chooses for strategies, technology and organizational ways. Only simple changes in one level can not effectively solve the adaptability of the organization. With the systemic dynamic model, this paper believes ,in the established cycle, that organizational capabilities formed by coupling the organizational strategies, technology and structure is the source of the enterprise's competitive advantage, but also lead to the organizational inertia. With neo-classical economics' marginal analysis, in this paper, the organization proposes progressive decrease law of marginal revenue, namely the enterprise's receipts based on innovation will be gradually reduced in the process of the business' operations. When the organizational culture has become mature and the organization has operated standard, the organization starts entering into the "inertia" stage. Oppositely, when the organization has no breakthroughs in technology and the degree of monopoly is relatively high at the same time, the organization will enter into the "inert" stage. There are two ways on overcoming the organizational inertia, namely progressive and disruptive. Which way will be selected depends on the compare between the cost and revenue for the change, while the size of that depends on the degree of the organizational environment changes. In this essay, Chapter 7 discusses the dynamic mechanism to overcome the organizational inertia.
The continuation of the entrepreneurship and the enterprise's dynamic capabilities under its guidance decide to overcome the organizational inertia. Integration of the relevant research on traditional organizational capabilities, core capabilities and dynamic capabilities, this paper, according to the environment changes and the "dynamics" of organization capabilities in varying degrees, divides dynamic capabilities into three levels—junior, senior and middle, and analyses composition of the enterprise's dynamic capabilities on basis of this. It also holds that sharp awareness of the environmental change, identification of market opportunities, learning and absorption of relevant knowledge and skills existing in or out of the organization, and the rapid co-ordination and integration of related knowledge, skills and resources will establish the competitive advantages in the shortest time, which are the basic requirements of the dynamic capabilities.
This paper argues that the organization and management process, which are beneficial for the formation of the dynamic capabilities, emphasize the construction organizational mechanism adapting to the dynamic environment is not dependent on or limited to a particular kind of organization. Its impetus for role comes from the organizational culture formed by combining the common organizational concepts, based on the contingent thought and innovative sprit, and the specific entrepreneurs cognitive. Based on this, this paper presents the systemic dynamic model generated by a dynamic ability:"the contingent thought and the innovative sprit→organizational learning and changing with circumstance→the responsive capability and the innovation abilities→personal mastery and abandon polices→experience incentives→the contingent thought and the innovative sprit". This article also points out that it is particularly necessary to build a kind of transformation mechanism for efficiency learning and efficacy study in the organizational mechanism formed by the dynamic capabilities. Efficacy study and abilities'destroy are linked with innovation, and efficiency learning is correspond with the capacity development. However, the efficacy learning process is the antithesis of the efficiency learning process. In order to strengthen the existing advantages, we must move forward along the normal route, which strengthens the core capabilities' inherent reliability, focus on the reconstruction about advantage capabilities in the need to forget the existing capacity, and takes challenge for logics dominating in the conventional procedure and rules. In the process of the efficacy study and efficient learning, the entrepreneurship is the power carrying on and shifting them. In the organization mechanism formed by the dynamic capabilities it also needs to include a coordination mechanism which takes advantages to absorb in knowledge, skills and resources outside the organization. Among them, the independent department's experimental mechanism is beneficial for the new organization capability's formation, while the network with external-oriented and aiming at inter-firm cooperation can change or constraint the rigidity and path dependence for building new competitive advantages.
从表象看,企业组织惰性表现为组织模式的固化,但深入分析便会发现,组织惰性是企业在适应和改变环境的过程中因路径依赖所导致的“双重锁定”。“双重锁定”首先是指技术环境、制度环境和文化环境对企业环境选择的锁定,企业生存的前提是适应环境的要求,这是企业获得“合法性”的条件,但环境变迁导致这一前提发生变化；其次是指企业技术、制度和观念耦合所导致的锁定,企业发展的前提是在适应环境的基础上有所创新,这是企业获得竞争优势的条件,但基于创新的高度耦合的组织模式最终束缚了组织适应环境变化的能力。本文第3-5章分别从技术、制度和文化三个方面探讨了“双重锁定”的形成。
在技术方面,产业技术周期性特征决定特定产业内的企业不可避免地随着产业的衰退而失去生存条件；适应特定技术环境的组织种群同样会因技术环境的变迁而集体走向衰亡。这种基于技术环境变迁的组织惰性具有不可控性。在特定的产业技术周期内存在多样化的企业技术周期。虽然企业努力采取措施延长企业技术周期,但技术“自增强机制”决定企业在进行技术选择后很难摆脱技术路径依赖。技术路径依赖有利于企业技术创新的产生,但也会导致企业技术路径的锁定,从而形成企业的技术惰性。企业技术突破的方式有两种,一种是渐进式突破,即企业对现有技术体系的完善和改进；一种是破坏式突破,即打破企业现有的技术路径、建立新的技术体系。企业能否有效实现技术突破取决于技术突破的成本。技术突破的成本包括直接技术成本、心理成本和沉没成本。按照企业技术突破的主动程度,技术突破中的组织定位可分为主导式与跟进式。主导式组织定位强调“创新”的重要性,追求技术突破中的“先发优势”；跟进式组织定位强调“模仿”的重要性,追求技术突破中的“后发优势”。
在制度方面,制度环境为企业的生存与发展设定了基本的约束条件,具有合法性、稳定性、可解释性和可复制性等特征是企业组织适应制度环境的表现,但这些特征也是导致企业在制度环境变迁时不能迅速适应环境变化的组织惰性产生的根源。企业在适应制度环境的过程中会不断打破制度环境的束缚进而改变制度环境或推动制度环境变迁,但现实中只有少数企业能够主动做到这一点。企业在与制度环境互动的过程中实现了与制度环境的耦合，这一方面体现为组织“合法性”的获得，另一方面体现为企业组织惯例的形成。企业制度发展同样具有路径依赖的特征，当企业现有的制度发展路径不能为企业带来绩效时，企业便进入了制度路径锁定状态。
在文化方面，就制度与文化的关系而言，制度源自于文化，文化反制于制度，制度与文化具有内在一致性。管理同样植根于文化，文化模式的价值定向性决定管理模式的价值取向；文化模式的排他性决定管理模式的可移植性及移植程度：文化模式的多样性决定了管理模式的多样性。文化模式的移植必须遵循文化融合的一般规律，管理模式的移植也必须遵循文化模式与管理模式内在一致性的要求。组织文化发挥作用的前提是组织价值观与组织成员内在价值追求的一致性。组织文化与组织战略都是企业家价值观的产物，二者具有内在一致性：组织战略的转变客观上要求组织文化进行相应的调整；组织文化一旦形成，往往会束缚企业家的战略认知能力，并从组织层面阻碍组织战略的转变。组织文化的发展顺次经历形成期、惯性期、惰性期和衰退期四个阶段，组织文化惯性期的长短取决于组织所处环境的稳定程度，长期处于稳定环境中的组织的文化惰性具有不易克服的特征。组织文化惰性是组织追求理想的文化状态的客观结果。
为了系统分析企业组织惰性的成因，在企业生命周期理论的基础上，本文提出组织适应周期模型(第6章)，认为企业的形成和发展过程本质上是不断地因应环境的变化进行组织战略、技术和结构调整或创新的过程，每一次调整或创新都会为企业带来一段时间的稳定发展，也即组织适应期。组织适应的有效性取决于企业战略选择、技术选择和组织方式选择的内在一致性，单纯某一层面的改变并不能有效解决组织适应问题。借助于系统动力模型，本文认为，在既定的组织适应周期内，组织战略、技术和结构的耦合所形成的组织能力是企业竞争优势的来源，但也是导致组织惰性生成的根源。借助于新古典经济学的边际分析方法，本文提出了组织边际收益递减规律，企业基于组织创新的收益在企业运营过程中会逐渐降低。当组织文化成熟、组织运作标准化程序出现时，组织进入“惯性”阶段；当组织在技术方面无突破和相对垄断同时出现时，组织便进入“惰性”阶段。克服组织惰性的方式有渐进式和革命式两种，何种方式被选择往往取决于变革成本与变革收益的比较，而变革成本与收益差的大小取决于组织环境变化的程度。本文在第7章探讨了组织惰性的克服机制。
克服组织惰性的有效性取决于企业家精神的延续以及在企业家精神引导下的企业动态能力的生成。综合传统组织能力、核心能力和动态能力理论的相关研究成果,本文根据环境的变化程度和组织能力“动态性”程度不同,把动态能力划分为初级、高级和中级三个层次,并以此为基础分析了企业动态能力的构成,认为敏锐地感知环境变化、发现市场机会,及时地学习和吸收存在于组织内外的相关知识和技能,迅速地协调和整合相关的知识、技术和资源,从而在最短的时间内建立起竞争优势,这是动态能力的基本要求。
本文认为,有利于动态能力生成的组织与管理过程强调隐藏于高度柔性的组织方式背后的组织机制的构建。适应动态环境的组织机制并不依附或局限于某一特定的组织方式,其发挥作用的动力来自以权变思想和创新精神为基础的共性的组织观念与企业家认知相结合所形成的组织文化。以此为基础,本文提出了一个动态能力生成的系统模型：“权变思想和创新精神→+组织学习和灵活应变→+市场响应能力和连续创新能力→+不断自我超越和连续抛弃政策→+经验激励→+权变思想和创新精神”。本文还指出,在动态能力生成的组织机制中尤其需要构建一种效率学习与效能学习的转换机制。效能学习与能力的破坏和创造相联系,效率学习与能力的开发相呼应。然而,效能学习过程与效率学习过程是相对立的：为加强既有优势,必须沿着常规路线前进,因而强化了核心能力固有的稳定性；而着眼于未来优势的能力的重新构造,需要忘却现有能力,对常规程序、规则中占支配地位的逻辑提出挑战。在效率学习与效能学习过程中,企业家精神是将效能学习与效率学习进行下去并实现转换的动力。在动态能力生成的组织机制中还需要包含一种有利于吸收组织外部知识、技能和资源的协调机制,其中独立部门试点机制有利于新的组织能力的生成,而具有外部导向且旨在进行企业间合作的组织间网络机制,能够挑战制约构建新竞争优势的刚性和路径依赖性。
In the uncertain environment, the organizational inertia has been gradually become the main factor conditioning the enterprise's development. Based on research results synthesizing organizational evolution theory and dynamic capabilities theory, this essay, going from the interaction of organizations and environment, tries to establish the theoretical framework of researching organizational inertia.
Superficially, enterprises'organizational inertia shows the solidifying of the organization model. Analyzing deeply, however, it will present that organizational inertia is an "lock-in" which is due to enterprises adapting to and changing the environment. Firstly, the "lock-in" is the lock-in of the technical environment, institutional environment and cultural environment choosing the environmental legitimacy. Fitting for the demands of the environment is the survival premise of the enterprise, which is the basis of the enterprise obtaining the "legitimacy", while the environmental change causes this premise's change. Secondly, the "lock-in" is due to the combination of the enterprise's technology, systems and concept. The premise of the enterprise's development is the innovation based on adapting to the environment, as is the condition of the enterprise getting completive advantages. But the organization model depending on the innovation's combination finally confines the capability of the organization suiting environmental changes. From Chapter 3 to Chapter 5, this paper discusses how the "lock-in" forms from the technical, systems and cultures respectively.
On the aspect of the technology, the characteristics of the industrial technology life cycle makes that enterprises in the specific industry inevitably loses their survival condition along with the industry's decline. Organizational populations adapting to the specific technical environment simultaneously trends to decline collectively. It is uncontrolled for this organizational inertia based on technical environment's changes. Diversity enterprise's technology life cycles exist in the technology life cycle of the specific industry. Although the enterprise endeavors to hold up its technology life cycle, technological "self-enhancing" decides that the enterprise hardly gets rid of relying on technological route after its technology choose. Though depending on technological route does good to enterprise's technology innovation, it also causes the solidification of the enterprise's technological organizational model, then which leads to the enterprise's technology inertia. There are two methods for enterprises' technological breakthrough. One is the progressive breakthrough, namely the enterprise perfecting and improving its present technology systems; the other is the disruptive breakthrough, namely breaking the enterprise's present technology path and establishing new technology systems. Whether the enterprise can implement the technological breakthrough effectively lies in its cost, which includes the direct technical cost, psychological cost and sunk cost. In the light of initiative degree of the enterprise's technological breakthrough, the organization position in the technological breakthrough can be divided into the dominance and follow-up. The dominant organization position emphasizes the importance of the "innovation", seeking the "priority advantage" in the technological breakthrough. While the follow-up organization position stresses the importance of the "imitation", pursuing the "late advantage" during the technological breakthrough.
In terms of systems, the institutional environment sets a basic set of constraints for enterprises' survival and development with the legitimacy, reliability, interpretability and other characteristics, which are the performance of business organizations adapting to the institutional environment. But these features are the root causes which lead to companies not adapting quickly to environmental changes during that of the institutional environment as well. In the process of enterprises fitting for the institutional environment, they can break the shackles of the institutional environment and thus change the system environment or promote the institutional environment changes. However, in reality, only a few companies can take the initiative to do this. Enterprises achieve the coupling with the institutional environment in the process of interaction with the system environment, on the one hand, which reflects the acquisition for the organization of "legitimacy"; on the other hand, which expresses the formation of the business routines. The enterprise system similarly has the characteristic of the path-dependent. When the developing path of will be locked into the system path.
In the cultural field, the system, in the term of the relation between the system and the culture, is based on the culture and the culture counters in the system. They both have internal consistencies. Management also roots in the culture, and the value orientation of cultural patterns determines that of management patterns; the exclusive of the cultural patterns decides the portability and migration management level of the management; the diversity of cultural patterns determines that of the management patterns. The migration of cultural patterns must follow the general laws the cultural integration. Meanwhile, the migration of management patterns also must obey the requirement of the internal consistency between cultural patterns and management patterns. The pursuit of the organizational intrinsic value is consistent with that of the organizational members, which is the premise of the organizational culture playing a role. The value of entrepreneurs produces the organizational culture and strategy, both them having the internal consistency. Objectively, the organizational tragedy' change requires the organizational culture's corresponding adjustments. Once the organizational culture formed, it will bound entrepreneurs' strategic cognitive ability and prevents the organizational strategy from shifting. In the developing process of the organizational culture, there are four stages-formation, active inertia, inactive inertia and recession. The length of the active inertia depends on the stability of the environment where the organization locates. The organizational culture, existing in the stable environment in the long-term, is not easy to overcome. Therefore, the inertia of the organizational culture is the objective results that the organization pursuits the ideal culture state.
For analyzing systematically causes of the organizational inertia in enterprise, this paper, based on the theory of the life cycle, puts forward to the model of organizational adaptation cycle (Chapter 6), which proposes that factually the formation and development of the enterprise is the process that the organization owing to environmental changes constantly adjusts or innovates organizational strategies, technology and structures. Each adjustment or innovation will bring a period of steady development, namely organizational adaptation period. The adaptation effectiveness of the organization depends on the internal consistency of chooses for strategies, technology and organizational ways. Only simple changes in one level can not effectively solve the adaptability of the organization. With the systemic dynamic model, this paper believes ,in the established cycle, that organizational capabilities formed by coupling the organizational strategies, technology and structure is the source of the enterprise's competitive advantage, but also lead to the organizational inertia. With neo-classical economics' marginal analysis, in this paper, the organization proposes progressive decrease law of marginal revenue, namely the enterprise's receipts based on innovation will be gradually reduced in the process of the business' operations. When the organizational culture has become mature and the organization has operated standard, the organization starts entering into the "inertia" stage. Oppositely, when the organization has no breakthroughs in technology and the degree of monopoly is relatively high at the same time, the organization will enter into the "inert" stage. There are two ways on overcoming the organizational inertia, namely progressive and disruptive. Which way will be selected depends on the compare between the cost and revenue for the change, while the size of that depends on the degree of the organizational environment changes. In this essay, Chapter 7 discusses the dynamic mechanism to overcome the organizational inertia.
The continuation of the entrepreneurship and the enterprise's dynamic capabilities under its guidance decide to overcome the organizational inertia. Integration of the relevant research on traditional organizational capabilities, core capabilities and dynamic capabilities, this paper, according to the environment changes and the "dynamics" of organization capabilities in varying degrees, divides dynamic capabilities into three levels—junior, senior and middle, and analyses composition of the enterprise's dynamic capabilities on basis of this. It also holds that sharp awareness of the environmental change, identification of market opportunities, learning and absorption of relevant knowledge and skills existing in or out of the organization, and the rapid co-ordination and integration of related knowledge, skills and resources will establish the competitive advantages in the shortest time, which are the basic requirements of the dynamic capabilities.
This paper argues that the organization and management process, which are beneficial for the formation of the dynamic capabilities, emphasize the construction organizational mechanism adapting to the dynamic environment is not dependent on or limited to a particular kind of organization. Its impetus for role comes from the organizational culture formed by combining the common organizational concepts, based on the contingent thought and innovative sprit, and the specific entrepreneurs cognitive. Based on this, this paper presents the systemic dynamic model generated by a dynamic ability:"the contingent thought and the innovative sprit→organizational learning and changing with circumstance→the responsive capability and the innovation abilities→personal mastery and abandon polices→experience incentives→the contingent thought and the innovative sprit". This article also points out that it is particularly necessary to build a kind of transformation mechanism for efficiency learning and efficacy study in the organizational mechanism formed by the dynamic capabilities. Efficacy study and abilities'destroy are linked with innovation, and efficiency learning is correspond with the capacity development. However, the efficacy learning process is the antithesis of the efficiency learning process. In order to strengthen the existing advantages, we must move forward along the normal route, which strengthens the core capabilities' inherent reliability, focus on the reconstruction about advantage capabilities in the need to forget the existing capacity, and takes challenge for logics dominating in the conventional procedure and rules. In the process of the efficacy study and efficient learning, the entrepreneurship is the power carrying on and shifting them. In the organization mechanism formed by the dynamic capabilities it also needs to include a coordination mechanism which takes advantages to absorb in knowledge, skills and resources outside the organization. Among them, the independent department's experimental mechanism is beneficial for the new organization capability's formation, while the network with external-oriented and aiming at inter-firm cooperation can change or constraint the rigidity and path dependence for building new competitive advantages.
引文
①数据来源：阿里·德赫思著,刘昊、王晓霞译.长寿公司——商业“竞争风暴”中的生存方式[M].经济日报出版社,1998，p2.
①彼得·德鲁克著,孙耀君译.管理：任务、责任、实践[M].中国社会科学出版社,1987,p5.
① Harris, P.R.(1978), Managing Cultural Difference, Gulf Publishing Company,pp24-25.
①露丝·本尼迪克特著.文化模式[M].华夏出版社,1986,p17.
①特伦斯·迪尔、艾伦·肯尼迪著,李原、孙健敏译.企业文化——公司生活的礼节和仪式[M].中国人民大学出版社,2008,p4.
①资料来源：斯蒂芬·罗宾斯等著.管理学[M].中国人民大学出版社,2004,p65.
[1]蔡继荣.企业组织演化及其机理分析[J].经济问题,2007,(9)：57-59.
[2]曹瑄玮、席西民、陈雪莲.路径依赖研究综述[J].经济社会体制比较,2008,(3)：185-191.
[3]崔瑜、焦豪.企业家学习对动态能力的影响机制研究：基于企业家能力理论的视角[J].科学学研究,2009,(S2)：403-410.
[4]陈佳贵.关于企业生命周期与企业蜕变的探讨[J].中国工业经济,1995,(11)：5-13.
[5]邓锁.开放组织的权力与合法性[J].华中科技大学学报,2004,(4)：51-55.
[6]丁云龙.技术创新对产业结构的影响分析[J].东北大学学报,2000,(4)：264-266.
[7]董俊武、黄江圳等.动态能力演化的知识模型与一个中国企业的案例分析[J].管理世界,2004,(4)：117-127.
[8]费显政.新制度学派组织与环境关系观述评[J].外国经济与管理,2006,(8)：10-18.
[9]傅沂.路径依赖经济学分析框架的演变——从新制度经济学到演化经济学的转变[J].江苏社会科学,2008,(3)：63-70.
[10]高怀、徐二明.企业演化理论及其启示[J].东北大学学报,2004,(4)：270-272.
[11]高玉荣、尹柳营.组织结构对企业技术创新的影响[J].科学学研究,2004(s)：157-161.
[12]顾卫平、薛求知.论跨国并购中的文化整合[J].外国经济与管理,2004,(4)：2-7.
[13]韩德昌、王菁娜.基于技术变化周期的企业能力重置机制选择研究[J].南开管理评论,2008,(11)：101-106.
[14]贺小刚.组织能力的源泉：企业家能力与个体特征分析[J].经济管理,2005,(1)：6-13.
[15]胡红梅、陈咏梅.技术进步与西方产业组织理论演进[J].科技进步与对策,2006,(12)：54-57.
[16]黄凯南.现代企业演化理论：方法、核心概念及其解释逻辑[J].江海学刊, 2006,(5)：72-76.
[17]简兆权.战略转换中的组织惯性形成及其经济学分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2001,(5)：55-58.
[18]姜晨、刘汉民.组织演化理论研究进展[J].经济学动态,2005,(7)：88-92.
[19]蒋峦、谢卫红、蓝海林.组织柔性结构的演进及其演进的理论诠释[J].中国软科学,2005,(3)：84-88.
[20]蒋勤峰、殷龙、田晓明.企业动态能力对组织内部创新机制作用理论阐释[J].上海管理科学,2008,(4)：44-47.
[21]焦连志.内生性变迁与外生性变迁[J].晋阳学刊,2005,(3)：36-40.
[22]金志奇.美国信息技术革命和宏观经济目标[J].新东方,1999,(2)：29-32.
[23]靳云汇、贾昌杰.惯性与并购战略选择[J].金融研究,2003,(12)：90-96.
[24]可星.组织进化的路径依赖分析[J].科技进步与对策,2006,(2)：163-166.
[25]孔继红、茅宁.吸收能力与组织探索性：开发性创新的形成及惯性[J].南京师大学报,2007,(5)：63-67.
[26]梁磊、邢欣.论组织生态学研究对象的层次结构[J].科学学研究,2003,(S)38-45.
[27]李怀.制度变迁：文化转型的内在动力机制[J].甘肃理论学刊,2003,(1)：61-65.
[28]李建设、王行佳.基于路径依赖理论的企业文化变革[J].大连海事大学学报,2009,(3)：49-52.
[29]李京文.创新——当代经济发展的动力[J].社会科学战线,1999,(5)：34-41.
[30]刘刚.动态能力与企业组织的创新和演进[J].南开学报,2006,(6)：69-79.
[31]刘海建.企业组织结构的惰性特征研究[J].南京师大学报,2007,(1)：55-59.
[32]刘建军、张祥建.体制变迁路径与传统文化背景的逻辑一致性解释[J].上海经济研究,2004,(9)：32-37.
[33]刘黎明.社会现代化与人的现代化的关系[J].河南大学学报,1998,(5)：78-80.
[34]刘和旺.诺思制度变迁的路径依赖理论新发展[J].经济评论,2006,(2)：64-68.
[35]吕子剑、王志伟等.动态环境下协同演化的企业可持续成长[J].工业工程与管理,2008,(4)：38-42.
[36]罗珉.组织理论的新发展：种群生态学理论的贡献[J].外国经济与管理,2001,(10)：34-37.
[37]罗珉、刘永俊.企业动态能力的理论架构与构成要素[J].中国工业经济, 2009,(1)75-86.
[38]马强、远德玉.技术创新与产业结构的演化[J].社会科学辑刊,2004,(2)：27-31.
[39]孟庆伟、胡丹丹.持续创新与企业惯例形成的认知根源[J].科学学研究,2005,(3)：428-432.
[40]齐庆祝、杜纲.企业能力系统构建与关键维度分析[J].统计与决策,2006,(11)：153-155.
[41]齐延信、吴祈宗.突破性技术创新网络组织及组织能力研究[J].中国软科学,2006,(7)：147-150.
[42]钱富新.制度变迁过程中的文化因素分析[J].中共中央党校学报,2004(4)：92-95.
[43]邱国栋.基于系统动力视角的企业动态能力研究[J].财经问题研究,2008,(4)：98-104.
[44]饶志明、郑丕谔.东亚华人家族企业制度的协同演化分析[J].亚太经济,2008,(5)：57-60.
[45]任力、王宁宁.演化经济学的形成与发展[J].西南师范大学学报,2006,(1)：111-116.
[46]任佩瑜、张莉、宋勇.基于复杂性科学的管理熵、管理耗散结构理论及其在企业组织与决策中的作用[J].管理世界,2001,(6)：142-147.
[47]芮明杰、余东华.西方产业组织理论中技术创新思想的演进与发展[J].研究与发展管理,2006,(4)：1-7.
[48]尚会永.技术变迁与企业演化——一种基于企业史向度的解读[J].当代经济研究,2008,(9)：17-21.
[49]石磊.技术与组织结构关系研究述评[J].外国经济与管理,2007,(9)：1-9.
[50]宋华岭、王今、翟从敏.广义与狭义管理熵理论[J].河北工业大学学报,1999,(3)：11-15.
[51]宋清华.文化传统视野中的制度变迁[J].兰州学刊,2008,(3)：138-142.
[52]童勋、周艳：企业家认知惰性的管理学思考[J].科技和产业,2008,(12)：102-104.
[53]王立宏.文化演化与经济制度变迁[J].黑龙江社会科学,2005,(1)：46-48.
[54]王龙伟、李垣、王刊良.组织惯性的动因与管理研究[J].预测，2004,(6)：1-4.
[55]王学秀.文化传统与中国式管理价值观选择[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2006,(2)：156-160.
[56]韦惠兰、黄家飞.企业自主创新：路径依赖与突破[J].青海社会科学,2008,(1)：41-44.
[57]韦森.文化精神、制度变迁与经济增长[J].云南大学学报,2004,(3)：50-55.
[58]魏江、焦豪.基于企业家学习的中小企业动态能力作用机理研究[J],商业经济与管理,2007,(10)：27-31.
[59]吴广谋.“积极惰性”的成因分析及其对策[J].东南大学学报,2003,(4)：46-49.
[60]吴敬琏.路径依赖与中国改革——对诺斯教授演讲的评论[J].改革,1995,(3)：57-59.
[61]吴炜峰.组织演化观点下的产业经济学[J].山东行政学院山东省经济管理干部学院学报,2006,(3)：34-36.
[62]吴子稳、胡长深.企业家心智模式形成及其对企业发展的影响[J].华东经济管理,2007,(1)：111-114.
[63]肖海林.企业衰退成因的战略性思考[J].商业研究,2002,(11)：7-11.
[64]邢以群、叶王海.企业文化演化过程及其影响因素分析[J].浙江大学学报,2006,(2)：5-11.
[65]徐莉.增强企业持续创新能力的对策研究：从克服技术创新核心刚性视角[J].江西社会科学,2007,(2)：140-142.
[66]徐耀强.企业文化变革的归因与方式选择[J].中国电力企业管理,2009,(7)：72-74.
[67]许萍、陈锐.演化视角下的组织学习与惯例变异[J].科技进步与对策,2009,(12)：85-88.
[68]许庆瑞、吴晓波.技术创新、劳动生产率与产业结构[J].中国工业经济,1991,(12)：9-15.
[69]许小东.组织惰性行为初研[J].科研管理,2000,(4)：56-60.
[70]严家明.企业发展中的惯性分析[D].复旦大学,2004.
[71]晏双生、章仁俊、尹豪.变革时代企业文化创新的必要性及其路径研究[J].科技进步与对策,2004,(4)：69-71.
[72]杨蕙馨、刘明宇.技术变迁与企业组织演进[J].外加经济与管理,2002,(10)：8-12,17.
[73]弋亚群、刘益、李垣.企业家的战略创新与群体创新——克服组织惯性的途径[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2005,(6)：142-146.
[74]於芳、韩永进.企业技术创新中的组织结构模式研究[J].科学管理研究,2006,(1)：17-20.
[75]张钢、许庆瑞.文化类型、组织结构与企业技术创新[J].科研管理,1996,(5)：26-31.
[76]张敏.企业文化刚性对战略调整影响的内在作用机理分析[J].财贸研究,2008,(5)：104-108.
[77]张宁辉、胡振华.技术创新特征及其对企业组织结构选择的要求分析[J].当代财经,2007,(11)：73-77.
[78]张涛、余仁桥.产业生命周期中企业组织结构的选择[J].科技进步与对策,2006,(1)：89-91.
[79]张肖虎、杨桂红.组织能力与战略管理研究：一个理论综述[J].云南财经大学学报,2007,(2)：49-54.
[80]张雪江.技术变迁对企业组织结构的影响[J].井冈山学院学报,2007,(5)：109-112.
[81]张燕.论技术对产品、企业及产业生命周期的影响[J].科技管理研究,2002,(5)：62-65.
[82]张永耀、越永乐.企业家认知模式刚性化的防止[J],现代经济探讨,2004,(2)：47-49.
[83]张勇、古明明.文化变迁、制度演进与改革和发展[J].北方论丛,2008,(5)：143-147.
[84]张莹.企业的文化路径依赖及其超越[J].生产力研究,2004,(2)：150-151,156.
[85]赵晓男、刘霄：制度路径依赖理论的发展、逻辑基础和分析框架[J].当代财经,2007,(7)：118-122.
[86]赵祥：新制度主义路径依赖理论的发展[J].人文杂志,2004,(6)：54-60.
[87]周霞、王仁强、王健.企业家精神及其发展模式研究[J].山东农业大学学报,2003,(3)：52-56.
[88]胡军.跨文化管理[M].暨南大学出版社,1995.
[89]刘延平主编.多维审视下的组织理论[M].清华大学出版社,2007.
[90]邱国栋.当代企业组织研究[M].经济科学出版社,2003.
[91]邱国栋.公司发展战略[M].人民出版社,2005.
[92]司春林编著.企业创新空间与技术管理[M].清华大学出版社,2005.
[93]司马云杰.文化价值论[M].山东人民出版社,1992.
[94]韦森.评诺思的制度变迁理论——难得糊涂的经济学家[M].天津人民出版社，2002.
[95]G.霍夫斯坦德著,尹毅夫等译.跨越合作的障碍——多元文化与管理[M].科学出版社,1996.
[96]J.马奇、H.西蒙著,邵冲译.组织[M].机械工业出版社,2008.
[97]R.西尔特、J.马奇著,李强译.企业行为理论(第二版)[M].中国人民大学出版社，2008.
[98]阿里·德赫思著,刘昊、王晓霞译.长寿公司——商业“竞争风暴”中的生存方式[M].经济日报出版社,1998.
[99]爱德华·霍尔著,侯勇译.无声的语言[M].中国对外翻译出版公司,1995.
[100]爱德华·泰勒著,连树声译.原始文化[M].上海文艺出版社出版,1992.
[101]奥利弗·E.威廉姆森著,段毅才、王伟译.资本主义经济制度[M].商务印书馆，2007.
[102]彼得·德鲁克著,孙耀君译.管理：任务、责任、实践[M].中国社会科学出版社，1987.
[103]彼得·德鲁克著,《世界经济科技》周刊编辑室译.创新和企业家精神[M].企业管理出版社,1989.
[104]彼得·杜拉克著,苏伟伦编译.杜拉克管理思想全书[M].九州出版社,2001.
[105]彼得·圣吉著,郭进隆译.第五项修炼——学习型艺术与实务[M].上海三联书店，1998.
[106]道格拉斯·C.诺思著,陈郁、罗华平等译.经济史中的结构与变迁[M].上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,1994,序言.
[107]道格拉斯·C.诺思著,刘守英译.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M].上海三联书店,1994.
[108]菲佛、萨兰基克著,闫蕊译.组织的外部控制[M].东方出版社,2006.
[109]弗朗西斯·高哈特、詹姆斯·凯利著,宋伟航译.企业蜕变[M].中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[110]福斯特、梅特卡夫著,贾根良、刘刚译,演化经济学前沿[M].高等教育出版社，2005.
[111]哈耶克著,邓正来选编／译.哈耶克论文集[M].首都经济贸易大学出版社,2001.
[112]赫伯特·A.西蒙著,詹正茂译.管理行为(原书第4版)[M].机械工业出版社，2007.
[113]赫尔雷格尔、斯洛克姆、伍德曼著,俞文钊等译.组织行为学[M].华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[114]吉姆·柯林斯、杰里·波勒斯著,真如译.基业长青[M].中信出版社,2006.
[115]雷蒙德·迈尔斯、查尔斯·斯诺著,方洁译.组织的战略、结构和过程[M].东方出版社,2006.
[116]露丝·本尼迪克特.文化模式[M].华夏出版社,1986.
[117]迈克·库伯著,王珏译.创造卓越——公司学习过程[M].云南大学出版社,2001.
[118]迈克尔·波特著,陈小悦译.竞争战略[M].华夏出版社,1997.
[119]迈克尔·波特著,陈小悦译.竞争优势[M].华夏出版社,1997.
[120]彭罗斯著,赵晓译.企业成长理论[M].上海人民出版社,2007.
[121]青木昌彦著,周黎安译.比较制度分析[M].上海远东出版社,2001.
[122]青木昌彦、奥野正宽著,魏加宁等译.经济体制的比较制度分析[M].中国发展出版社,1999.
[123]塞特斯·杜玛、海因·斯赖德著,原磊、王磊译.组织经济学[M].华夏出版社，2006.
[124]斯蒂芬·罗宾斯著,郑晓周译.组织行为学精要[M].机械工业出版社,2000.
[125]斯蒂芬·罗宾斯著.管理学(第四版)[M].中国人民大学出版社,1997.
[126]汤姆·彼得斯、罗伯特·沃特曼著,胡玮珊译.追求卓越[M].中信出版社,2007.
[127]特伦斯·迪尔、艾伦·肯尼迪著,李原、孙健敏译.企业文化——公司生活的礼节和仪式[M].中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[128]土司曼等著,孙连勇等译.创新制胜——领导组织的变革与振兴实践指南[M].清华大学出版社,1998.
[129]威廉·大内著,朱雁斌译.Z理论[M].机械工业出版社,2007.
[130]沃纳·伯克著,燕清联合译.组织变革理论与实践[M].中国劳动社会保障出版社，2005.
[131]小艾尔弗雷德·D.钱德勒著,重武译.看得见的手——美国企业的管理革命[M].商务印书馆,1987.
[132]约瑟夫·熊彼特著,吴良健译.资本主义、社会主义与民主[M].商务印书馆，1999.
[133]詹姆斯·钱匹著，闫正茂译.企业X再造[M].中信出版社,2002.
[134]Abernathy, W. J.,& Utterback, J., Patterns of Industrial Innovations[J]. Technology Review,1978,80(7):40-47.
[135]Arthur, W., Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns and Lock-in by Historical Events[J]. The Economic Journal,1989,99(5):116-131.
[136]Arthur. W., Positive Feedbacks in the Economy[J]. Scientific American,1990, 262(2):92-99.
[137]Arthur, W., Increasing Returns and the New World of Business[J]. Harvard Business Review,1996,74 (4):100 109.
[138]Barnett, W., Burgelman, R., Evolutionary Perspectives on Strategy [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(s):5-19.
[139]Baum, J. A. C. Companion to Organizations[C]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002.
[140]Burgelman, R. A. Fading Memories:a Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1994, 39(1):24-56.
[141]Child, J., Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance:the Role of Strategic Choice[J]. Sociology,1972,6(1):1-22.
[142]Coase, R., The Nature of the Firm[J]. Economica,1937,16(4):386-405.
[143]David, P., Clio and the Economics of QWERTY[J]. American Economic Review,1985,75(2):332-337.
[144]Cowan, R.& Gunby, P., Sprayed to Death:Path Dependence, Lock-in and Pest Control Strategies [J]. The Economic Journal,1996,106(436):521-542.
[145]Di Maggio P.& Powell, W., The Iron Cage Revisited:Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization field[J]. American Sociological Review,1983,48(2):147-160.
[146]Dosi, G., Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories [J]. Research Policy,1982,11(3):147 162.
[147]Drucker, P., The Theory of the Business[J]. Harvard Business Review,1994, 72(5):95-104.
[148]Greiner, L., Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow[J]. Harvard Business Review,1972,50(4):37-46.
[149]Grief, A., Cultural Beliefs and the Organization of Society:a Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist societies [J]. The Journal of Political Economy,1994,102(5):912-950.
[150]Hannan, M.& Freeman, J., The Population Ecology of Organizations [J]. American Journal of Sociology,1977,82(5):929-964.
[151]Hannan, M.& Freeman, J., Structural Inertia and Organizational Change[J]. American Sociological Review,1984,49(2):149-164.
[152]Heffernan G M. Path Dependence, Behavioral Rules, and the Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic Change:the Case of the Automobile Industry [J]. the Review of Austrian Economics,2003,16(1):45-62.
[153]Helfat, C.& Raubitschek, R., Product sequencing Co-evolution of Knowledge, Capabilities and Products [J]. Strategic management Journal,2000,21(10): 961-979.
[154]Hodgkinson, G., Cognitive Inertia in a Turbulent Market:the Case of UK Residential Estate Agents[J]. Journal of Management Studies,1997, 34(6):921-945.
[155]Iansiti M,& West J., Technology Integration:Turning Great Research into Great Products[J]. Harvard Business Review,1997,75(3),69-79.
[156]Kondra, M.& Hinings, C., Organizational Diversity and Change in Institutional Theory [J]. Organization Studies,1998,19(5):743-767.
[157]Liebowitz, S.& Margolis, S., Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History[J]. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,1995, 11(1):205-226.
[158]Leonard-Barton D., Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities:a Paradox in Managing New Product Development [J]. Strategic management Journal,1992, 13(S1):111-125.
[159]Lewin, A. Y.& Volberda, H. W. Prolegomena on Co-evolution:a Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms [J], Organization Science,1999,10(3):519-534.
[160]Meyer, W.& Rowen, B., Institutionalized Organizations:Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony[J]. American Journal of Sociology.1977,83(2):340-363.
[161]Miller, D.& Chen Ming-Jer, Sources and Consequences of Competitive Inertia: a Study of the U. S. Airline Industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1994,39(1):1-23.
[162]Miner, S.& Robinson, F. Organizational and Population Level Learning as Engines for Career Transitions [J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior,1994, 15(4):345-364.
[163]Mintzberg, H., The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning[J]. Harvard. Business Review,1994,72(1):107-114.
[164]Nelson, R., Recent Evolutionary Theorizing about Economic Change[J]. Journal of Economic Literature,1995,33(1):48-90.
[165]Nelson, R.& Winter, S., The Schumpeterian Trade off Revisited. American Economic Review,1982,72(1):114-133
[166]Nelson, R., Why do Firms Differ, and How does It Matter? [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(s):61-74.
[167]North, D., Economic Performance through Time[J]. American Economic Review,1994,84(3):359-368.
[168]Olive, C., Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes[J]. Academy of Management Review,1991,16 (1):145-179.
[169]Pierson, P., Increasing Returns, Path Dependence and the Study of Politics[J]. American Political Science Review,2000,94(2):252-267.
[170]Prahalad, C.& Hamel, G., The Core Competence of the Corporation[J]. Harvard Business Review,1990,68(3):79-91.
[171]Schein, E., Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture[J]. Sloan Management Review,1984,25(2):3-16.
[172]Stark, D., Path Dependence and Privatization Strategies in East Central Europe[J]. East European Politics and Societies,1992,6(1):17-54.
[173]Sull, D., Why Good Companies Go Bad[J]. Harvard Business Review.1999, 77(4):42-52.
[174]Teece, D., Pisano, G.,& Shuen, A., Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[175]Tushman, M.& Anderson, P., Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986, 31(3):439-465.
[176]Wernerfelt, B., The Resource-based View of the Firm[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1984,5(2):171 180.
[177]Windrum, P.& Birchenhall, C., Structural Change in the Presence of Network Externalities:a Co-evolutionary Model of Technological Successions[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2005,15(2):123-148.
[178]Winter, S., Toward a Neo-Schumpeterian Theory of the Firm [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2006,15(1):125-141.
[179]Zott, C. Dynamic Capabilities and the Emergence of Intra-industry Differential Firm Performance:Insights From a Simulation Study [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(2):97-125.
[180]Zollo, M.& Winter, S., Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities [J]. Organization Science,2002,13(3):339-351.
[181]Campell, J., Mechanisms of Evolutionary Change in Economic Governance: Interaction, Interpretation and Bricolage[A]. in Magnusson, L., Ottoson, J., eds., Evolutionary Economics and Path Dependence[C]. Elgar, Aldershot, 1997.
[182]Dosi, G.& Metcalfe, J., On Some Notions of Irreversibility in Economics [A]. in Saviotti, P., Metcalfe, J. S. eds., Evolutionary Theories of Economic and Technological Change:Present[C]. Harwood Publishers,1991.
[183]Egidi, M., Routines, Hierarchies of Problems, Procedural Behavior:Some Evidence from Experiments [A]. in Arrow, E.& Schmidt, C., eds., The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour[C]. London:Macmillan,1996.
[184]Galunic, D.& Weeks, J. Intra-organizational Ecology[A]. in Baum, J., Companion to Organizations[C]. Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishers Ltd,2002, 75-79.
[185]Kluckhohn, C.& Kelly, W. H., The Concept of Culture[A]. in R. Linton (ed.), The Science of Man in World Crisis[C]. New York:Columbia University Press, 1945.
[186]Tushman, M. and Romanelli, E. Organizational Evolution:A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation[A]., in L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw, et al., Research in Organizational Behavior[C]. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press,1985.
[187]Woerdman, E. The Institutional Economics of Market-based Climate Policy[R]. Amsterdam:Boston:Elsevier,2004.
[188]Adizes, I., Management Corporate Life Cycles[M]. Prentice Hall,1999.
[189]Alfrad D. Chandler, A., Scale and Scope:the Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism[M]. Harvard University Press,1990.
[190]Argyris, C.& Schon, D., Organizational Learning:a Theory of Action Perspective [M]. Addison Wesley,1978.
[191]Arthur, W., Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy[M]. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1994.
[192]Campell, J., Hollingsworth, J.& Lindberg, L., Governance of the American Economy[M]. Cambridge University Press,1991.
[193]Campell, J., Pedersen, O., et al., Legacies of Change:Transformations of Post-Communist European Economies[M]. Aldine de Gruyter,1996.
[194]Chandler A. D. Strategy and Structure [M]. MA:MIT Press,1962.
[195]Chandler, A., Scale and Scope:the Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism[M]. Harvard University Press,1990.
[196]Christensen, C. M. The Innovator's Dilemma[M]. Harper Collins Publishers, 1997.
[197]Hammer, M.& Champy, J. Reengineering the Corporation[M]. Nicholas Brearly Publishing,1993.
[198]Hannan, M.& Carroll, G., Dynamics of Organizational Populations:Density, Legitimation, and Competition[M]. Oxford University Press,1992.
[199]Hannan, M.& Freeman, J., Organizational Ecology[M]. Harvard University Press,1989.
[200]Harris, P., Managing Cultural Difference [M]. Gulf Publishing Company,1978.
[201]Kotter, J.& Heskett, J., Corporate Culture and Performance[M]. New York: Free Press,1992
[202]Nelson, R.& Winter, S., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change[M]. Harvard University press,1982.
[203]North, D., Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance[M]. Cambridge University Press,1990.
[204]North, D., Understanding the Process of Economic Change[M]. Princeton University Press,2005.
[205]Osgood, C.& Sebeok, T., et al., Psycholinguistics:a Survey of Theory and Research Problems[M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1954.
[206]Pfeffer, J.& Salancik, G. The External Control of Organizations:A Resource Dependence Perspective [M]. Harper and Row,1978.
[207]Pierson, P., Politics in Time:History, Institutions, and Social Analysis[M]. Princeton University Press,2004.
[208]Schumpeter, J. The Theory of Economic Development [M]. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,1934.
[209]Scott, W. R., Institutions and Organizations [M]. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 1995.
[210]Sisk, H., Principles of Management:a Systems Approach to the Management Process[M]. Cincinnati:South-western Publications,1969.
[211]Veblen, T., The Instinct of Workmanship:and the State of the Industrial Arts[M]. New York:Augustus M. Kelley,1964/1914.
[212]White, L., The Science of Culture[M]. New York:Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1949.
①彼得·德鲁克著,孙耀君译.管理：任务、责任、实践[M].中国社会科学出版社,1987,p5.
① Harris, P.R.(1978), Managing Cultural Difference, Gulf Publishing Company,pp24-25.
①露丝·本尼迪克特著.文化模式[M].华夏出版社,1986,p17.
①特伦斯·迪尔、艾伦·肯尼迪著,李原、孙健敏译.企业文化——公司生活的礼节和仪式[M].中国人民大学出版社,2008,p4.
①资料来源：斯蒂芬·罗宾斯等著.管理学[M].中国人民大学出版社,2004,p65.
[1]蔡继荣.企业组织演化及其机理分析[J].经济问题,2007,(9)：57-59.
[2]曹瑄玮、席西民、陈雪莲.路径依赖研究综述[J].经济社会体制比较,2008,(3)：185-191.
[3]崔瑜、焦豪.企业家学习对动态能力的影响机制研究：基于企业家能力理论的视角[J].科学学研究,2009,(S2)：403-410.
[4]陈佳贵.关于企业生命周期与企业蜕变的探讨[J].中国工业经济,1995,(11)：5-13.
[5]邓锁.开放组织的权力与合法性[J].华中科技大学学报,2004,(4)：51-55.
[6]丁云龙.技术创新对产业结构的影响分析[J].东北大学学报,2000,(4)：264-266.
[7]董俊武、黄江圳等.动态能力演化的知识模型与一个中国企业的案例分析[J].管理世界,2004,(4)：117-127.
[8]费显政.新制度学派组织与环境关系观述评[J].外国经济与管理,2006,(8)：10-18.
[9]傅沂.路径依赖经济学分析框架的演变——从新制度经济学到演化经济学的转变[J].江苏社会科学,2008,(3)：63-70.
[10]高怀、徐二明.企业演化理论及其启示[J].东北大学学报,2004,(4)：270-272.
[11]高玉荣、尹柳营.组织结构对企业技术创新的影响[J].科学学研究,2004(s)：157-161.
[12]顾卫平、薛求知.论跨国并购中的文化整合[J].外国经济与管理,2004,(4)：2-7.
[13]韩德昌、王菁娜.基于技术变化周期的企业能力重置机制选择研究[J].南开管理评论,2008,(11)：101-106.
[14]贺小刚.组织能力的源泉：企业家能力与个体特征分析[J].经济管理,2005,(1)：6-13.
[15]胡红梅、陈咏梅.技术进步与西方产业组织理论演进[J].科技进步与对策,2006,(12)：54-57.
[16]黄凯南.现代企业演化理论：方法、核心概念及其解释逻辑[J].江海学刊, 2006,(5)：72-76.
[17]简兆权.战略转换中的组织惯性形成及其经济学分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2001,(5)：55-58.
[18]姜晨、刘汉民.组织演化理论研究进展[J].经济学动态,2005,(7)：88-92.
[19]蒋峦、谢卫红、蓝海林.组织柔性结构的演进及其演进的理论诠释[J].中国软科学,2005,(3)：84-88.
[20]蒋勤峰、殷龙、田晓明.企业动态能力对组织内部创新机制作用理论阐释[J].上海管理科学,2008,(4)：44-47.
[21]焦连志.内生性变迁与外生性变迁[J].晋阳学刊,2005,(3)：36-40.
[22]金志奇.美国信息技术革命和宏观经济目标[J].新东方,1999,(2)：29-32.
[23]靳云汇、贾昌杰.惯性与并购战略选择[J].金融研究,2003,(12)：90-96.
[24]可星.组织进化的路径依赖分析[J].科技进步与对策,2006,(2)：163-166.
[25]孔继红、茅宁.吸收能力与组织探索性：开发性创新的形成及惯性[J].南京师大学报,2007,(5)：63-67.
[26]梁磊、邢欣.论组织生态学研究对象的层次结构[J].科学学研究,2003,(S)38-45.
[27]李怀.制度变迁：文化转型的内在动力机制[J].甘肃理论学刊,2003,(1)：61-65.
[28]李建设、王行佳.基于路径依赖理论的企业文化变革[J].大连海事大学学报,2009,(3)：49-52.
[29]李京文.创新——当代经济发展的动力[J].社会科学战线,1999,(5)：34-41.
[30]刘刚.动态能力与企业组织的创新和演进[J].南开学报,2006,(6)：69-79.
[31]刘海建.企业组织结构的惰性特征研究[J].南京师大学报,2007,(1)：55-59.
[32]刘建军、张祥建.体制变迁路径与传统文化背景的逻辑一致性解释[J].上海经济研究,2004,(9)：32-37.
[33]刘黎明.社会现代化与人的现代化的关系[J].河南大学学报,1998,(5)：78-80.
[34]刘和旺.诺思制度变迁的路径依赖理论新发展[J].经济评论,2006,(2)：64-68.
[35]吕子剑、王志伟等.动态环境下协同演化的企业可持续成长[J].工业工程与管理,2008,(4)：38-42.
[36]罗珉.组织理论的新发展：种群生态学理论的贡献[J].外国经济与管理,2001,(10)：34-37.
[37]罗珉、刘永俊.企业动态能力的理论架构与构成要素[J].中国工业经济, 2009,(1)75-86.
[38]马强、远德玉.技术创新与产业结构的演化[J].社会科学辑刊,2004,(2)：27-31.
[39]孟庆伟、胡丹丹.持续创新与企业惯例形成的认知根源[J].科学学研究,2005,(3)：428-432.
[40]齐庆祝、杜纲.企业能力系统构建与关键维度分析[J].统计与决策,2006,(11)：153-155.
[41]齐延信、吴祈宗.突破性技术创新网络组织及组织能力研究[J].中国软科学,2006,(7)：147-150.
[42]钱富新.制度变迁过程中的文化因素分析[J].中共中央党校学报,2004(4)：92-95.
[43]邱国栋.基于系统动力视角的企业动态能力研究[J].财经问题研究,2008,(4)：98-104.
[44]饶志明、郑丕谔.东亚华人家族企业制度的协同演化分析[J].亚太经济,2008,(5)：57-60.
[45]任力、王宁宁.演化经济学的形成与发展[J].西南师范大学学报,2006,(1)：111-116.
[46]任佩瑜、张莉、宋勇.基于复杂性科学的管理熵、管理耗散结构理论及其在企业组织与决策中的作用[J].管理世界,2001,(6)：142-147.
[47]芮明杰、余东华.西方产业组织理论中技术创新思想的演进与发展[J].研究与发展管理,2006,(4)：1-7.
[48]尚会永.技术变迁与企业演化——一种基于企业史向度的解读[J].当代经济研究,2008,(9)：17-21.
[49]石磊.技术与组织结构关系研究述评[J].外国经济与管理,2007,(9)：1-9.
[50]宋华岭、王今、翟从敏.广义与狭义管理熵理论[J].河北工业大学学报,1999,(3)：11-15.
[51]宋清华.文化传统视野中的制度变迁[J].兰州学刊,2008,(3)：138-142.
[52]童勋、周艳：企业家认知惰性的管理学思考[J].科技和产业,2008,(12)：102-104.
[53]王立宏.文化演化与经济制度变迁[J].黑龙江社会科学,2005,(1)：46-48.
[54]王龙伟、李垣、王刊良.组织惯性的动因与管理研究[J].预测，2004,(6)：1-4.
[55]王学秀.文化传统与中国式管理价值观选择[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2006,(2)：156-160.
[56]韦惠兰、黄家飞.企业自主创新：路径依赖与突破[J].青海社会科学,2008,(1)：41-44.
[57]韦森.文化精神、制度变迁与经济增长[J].云南大学学报,2004,(3)：50-55.
[58]魏江、焦豪.基于企业家学习的中小企业动态能力作用机理研究[J],商业经济与管理,2007,(10)：27-31.
[59]吴广谋.“积极惰性”的成因分析及其对策[J].东南大学学报,2003,(4)：46-49.
[60]吴敬琏.路径依赖与中国改革——对诺斯教授演讲的评论[J].改革,1995,(3)：57-59.
[61]吴炜峰.组织演化观点下的产业经济学[J].山东行政学院山东省经济管理干部学院学报,2006,(3)：34-36.
[62]吴子稳、胡长深.企业家心智模式形成及其对企业发展的影响[J].华东经济管理,2007,(1)：111-114.
[63]肖海林.企业衰退成因的战略性思考[J].商业研究,2002,(11)：7-11.
[64]邢以群、叶王海.企业文化演化过程及其影响因素分析[J].浙江大学学报,2006,(2)：5-11.
[65]徐莉.增强企业持续创新能力的对策研究：从克服技术创新核心刚性视角[J].江西社会科学,2007,(2)：140-142.
[66]徐耀强.企业文化变革的归因与方式选择[J].中国电力企业管理,2009,(7)：72-74.
[67]许萍、陈锐.演化视角下的组织学习与惯例变异[J].科技进步与对策,2009,(12)：85-88.
[68]许庆瑞、吴晓波.技术创新、劳动生产率与产业结构[J].中国工业经济,1991,(12)：9-15.
[69]许小东.组织惰性行为初研[J].科研管理,2000,(4)：56-60.
[70]严家明.企业发展中的惯性分析[D].复旦大学,2004.
[71]晏双生、章仁俊、尹豪.变革时代企业文化创新的必要性及其路径研究[J].科技进步与对策,2004,(4)：69-71.
[72]杨蕙馨、刘明宇.技术变迁与企业组织演进[J].外加经济与管理,2002,(10)：8-12,17.
[73]弋亚群、刘益、李垣.企业家的战略创新与群体创新——克服组织惯性的途径[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2005,(6)：142-146.
[74]於芳、韩永进.企业技术创新中的组织结构模式研究[J].科学管理研究,2006,(1)：17-20.
[75]张钢、许庆瑞.文化类型、组织结构与企业技术创新[J].科研管理,1996,(5)：26-31.
[76]张敏.企业文化刚性对战略调整影响的内在作用机理分析[J].财贸研究,2008,(5)：104-108.
[77]张宁辉、胡振华.技术创新特征及其对企业组织结构选择的要求分析[J].当代财经,2007,(11)：73-77.
[78]张涛、余仁桥.产业生命周期中企业组织结构的选择[J].科技进步与对策,2006,(1)：89-91.
[79]张肖虎、杨桂红.组织能力与战略管理研究：一个理论综述[J].云南财经大学学报,2007,(2)：49-54.
[80]张雪江.技术变迁对企业组织结构的影响[J].井冈山学院学报,2007,(5)：109-112.
[81]张燕.论技术对产品、企业及产业生命周期的影响[J].科技管理研究,2002,(5)：62-65.
[82]张永耀、越永乐.企业家认知模式刚性化的防止[J],现代经济探讨,2004,(2)：47-49.
[83]张勇、古明明.文化变迁、制度演进与改革和发展[J].北方论丛,2008,(5)：143-147.
[84]张莹.企业的文化路径依赖及其超越[J].生产力研究,2004,(2)：150-151,156.
[85]赵晓男、刘霄：制度路径依赖理论的发展、逻辑基础和分析框架[J].当代财经,2007,(7)：118-122.
[86]赵祥：新制度主义路径依赖理论的发展[J].人文杂志,2004,(6)：54-60.
[87]周霞、王仁强、王健.企业家精神及其发展模式研究[J].山东农业大学学报,2003,(3)：52-56.
[88]胡军.跨文化管理[M].暨南大学出版社,1995.
[89]刘延平主编.多维审视下的组织理论[M].清华大学出版社,2007.
[90]邱国栋.当代企业组织研究[M].经济科学出版社,2003.
[91]邱国栋.公司发展战略[M].人民出版社,2005.
[92]司春林编著.企业创新空间与技术管理[M].清华大学出版社,2005.
[93]司马云杰.文化价值论[M].山东人民出版社,1992.
[94]韦森.评诺思的制度变迁理论——难得糊涂的经济学家[M].天津人民出版社，2002.
[95]G.霍夫斯坦德著,尹毅夫等译.跨越合作的障碍——多元文化与管理[M].科学出版社,1996.
[96]J.马奇、H.西蒙著,邵冲译.组织[M].机械工业出版社,2008.
[97]R.西尔特、J.马奇著,李强译.企业行为理论(第二版)[M].中国人民大学出版社，2008.
[98]阿里·德赫思著,刘昊、王晓霞译.长寿公司——商业“竞争风暴”中的生存方式[M].经济日报出版社,1998.
[99]爱德华·霍尔著,侯勇译.无声的语言[M].中国对外翻译出版公司,1995.
[100]爱德华·泰勒著,连树声译.原始文化[M].上海文艺出版社出版,1992.
[101]奥利弗·E.威廉姆森著,段毅才、王伟译.资本主义经济制度[M].商务印书馆，2007.
[102]彼得·德鲁克著,孙耀君译.管理：任务、责任、实践[M].中国社会科学出版社，1987.
[103]彼得·德鲁克著,《世界经济科技》周刊编辑室译.创新和企业家精神[M].企业管理出版社,1989.
[104]彼得·杜拉克著,苏伟伦编译.杜拉克管理思想全书[M].九州出版社,2001.
[105]彼得·圣吉著,郭进隆译.第五项修炼——学习型艺术与实务[M].上海三联书店，1998.
[106]道格拉斯·C.诺思著,陈郁、罗华平等译.经济史中的结构与变迁[M].上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,1994,序言.
[107]道格拉斯·C.诺思著,刘守英译.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M].上海三联书店,1994.
[108]菲佛、萨兰基克著,闫蕊译.组织的外部控制[M].东方出版社,2006.
[109]弗朗西斯·高哈特、詹姆斯·凯利著,宋伟航译.企业蜕变[M].中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[110]福斯特、梅特卡夫著,贾根良、刘刚译,演化经济学前沿[M].高等教育出版社，2005.
[111]哈耶克著,邓正来选编／译.哈耶克论文集[M].首都经济贸易大学出版社,2001.
[112]赫伯特·A.西蒙著,詹正茂译.管理行为(原书第4版)[M].机械工业出版社，2007.
[113]赫尔雷格尔、斯洛克姆、伍德曼著,俞文钊等译.组织行为学[M].华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[114]吉姆·柯林斯、杰里·波勒斯著,真如译.基业长青[M].中信出版社,2006.
[115]雷蒙德·迈尔斯、查尔斯·斯诺著,方洁译.组织的战略、结构和过程[M].东方出版社,2006.
[116]露丝·本尼迪克特.文化模式[M].华夏出版社,1986.
[117]迈克·库伯著,王珏译.创造卓越——公司学习过程[M].云南大学出版社,2001.
[118]迈克尔·波特著,陈小悦译.竞争战略[M].华夏出版社,1997.
[119]迈克尔·波特著,陈小悦译.竞争优势[M].华夏出版社,1997.
[120]彭罗斯著,赵晓译.企业成长理论[M].上海人民出版社,2007.
[121]青木昌彦著,周黎安译.比较制度分析[M].上海远东出版社,2001.
[122]青木昌彦、奥野正宽著,魏加宁等译.经济体制的比较制度分析[M].中国发展出版社,1999.
[123]塞特斯·杜玛、海因·斯赖德著,原磊、王磊译.组织经济学[M].华夏出版社，2006.
[124]斯蒂芬·罗宾斯著,郑晓周译.组织行为学精要[M].机械工业出版社,2000.
[125]斯蒂芬·罗宾斯著.管理学(第四版)[M].中国人民大学出版社,1997.
[126]汤姆·彼得斯、罗伯特·沃特曼著,胡玮珊译.追求卓越[M].中信出版社,2007.
[127]特伦斯·迪尔、艾伦·肯尼迪著,李原、孙健敏译.企业文化——公司生活的礼节和仪式[M].中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[128]土司曼等著,孙连勇等译.创新制胜——领导组织的变革与振兴实践指南[M].清华大学出版社,1998.
[129]威廉·大内著,朱雁斌译.Z理论[M].机械工业出版社,2007.
[130]沃纳·伯克著,燕清联合译.组织变革理论与实践[M].中国劳动社会保障出版社，2005.
[131]小艾尔弗雷德·D.钱德勒著,重武译.看得见的手——美国企业的管理革命[M].商务印书馆,1987.
[132]约瑟夫·熊彼特著,吴良健译.资本主义、社会主义与民主[M].商务印书馆，1999.
[133]詹姆斯·钱匹著，闫正茂译.企业X再造[M].中信出版社,2002.
[134]Abernathy, W. J.,& Utterback, J., Patterns of Industrial Innovations[J]. Technology Review,1978,80(7):40-47.
[135]Arthur, W., Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns and Lock-in by Historical Events[J]. The Economic Journal,1989,99(5):116-131.
[136]Arthur. W., Positive Feedbacks in the Economy[J]. Scientific American,1990, 262(2):92-99.
[137]Arthur, W., Increasing Returns and the New World of Business[J]. Harvard Business Review,1996,74 (4):100 109.
[138]Barnett, W., Burgelman, R., Evolutionary Perspectives on Strategy [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(s):5-19.
[139]Baum, J. A. C. Companion to Organizations[C]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002.
[140]Burgelman, R. A. Fading Memories:a Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1994, 39(1):24-56.
[141]Child, J., Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance:the Role of Strategic Choice[J]. Sociology,1972,6(1):1-22.
[142]Coase, R., The Nature of the Firm[J]. Economica,1937,16(4):386-405.
[143]David, P., Clio and the Economics of QWERTY[J]. American Economic Review,1985,75(2):332-337.
[144]Cowan, R.& Gunby, P., Sprayed to Death:Path Dependence, Lock-in and Pest Control Strategies [J]. The Economic Journal,1996,106(436):521-542.
[145]Di Maggio P.& Powell, W., The Iron Cage Revisited:Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization field[J]. American Sociological Review,1983,48(2):147-160.
[146]Dosi, G., Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories [J]. Research Policy,1982,11(3):147 162.
[147]Drucker, P., The Theory of the Business[J]. Harvard Business Review,1994, 72(5):95-104.
[148]Greiner, L., Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow[J]. Harvard Business Review,1972,50(4):37-46.
[149]Grief, A., Cultural Beliefs and the Organization of Society:a Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist societies [J]. The Journal of Political Economy,1994,102(5):912-950.
[150]Hannan, M.& Freeman, J., The Population Ecology of Organizations [J]. American Journal of Sociology,1977,82(5):929-964.
[151]Hannan, M.& Freeman, J., Structural Inertia and Organizational Change[J]. American Sociological Review,1984,49(2):149-164.
[152]Heffernan G M. Path Dependence, Behavioral Rules, and the Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic Change:the Case of the Automobile Industry [J]. the Review of Austrian Economics,2003,16(1):45-62.
[153]Helfat, C.& Raubitschek, R., Product sequencing Co-evolution of Knowledge, Capabilities and Products [J]. Strategic management Journal,2000,21(10): 961-979.
[154]Hodgkinson, G., Cognitive Inertia in a Turbulent Market:the Case of UK Residential Estate Agents[J]. Journal of Management Studies,1997, 34(6):921-945.
[155]Iansiti M,& West J., Technology Integration:Turning Great Research into Great Products[J]. Harvard Business Review,1997,75(3),69-79.
[156]Kondra, M.& Hinings, C., Organizational Diversity and Change in Institutional Theory [J]. Organization Studies,1998,19(5):743-767.
[157]Liebowitz, S.& Margolis, S., Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History[J]. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,1995, 11(1):205-226.
[158]Leonard-Barton D., Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities:a Paradox in Managing New Product Development [J]. Strategic management Journal,1992, 13(S1):111-125.
[159]Lewin, A. Y.& Volberda, H. W. Prolegomena on Co-evolution:a Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms [J], Organization Science,1999,10(3):519-534.
[160]Meyer, W.& Rowen, B., Institutionalized Organizations:Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony[J]. American Journal of Sociology.1977,83(2):340-363.
[161]Miller, D.& Chen Ming-Jer, Sources and Consequences of Competitive Inertia: a Study of the U. S. Airline Industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1994,39(1):1-23.
[162]Miner, S.& Robinson, F. Organizational and Population Level Learning as Engines for Career Transitions [J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior,1994, 15(4):345-364.
[163]Mintzberg, H., The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning[J]. Harvard. Business Review,1994,72(1):107-114.
[164]Nelson, R., Recent Evolutionary Theorizing about Economic Change[J]. Journal of Economic Literature,1995,33(1):48-90.
[165]Nelson, R.& Winter, S., The Schumpeterian Trade off Revisited. American Economic Review,1982,72(1):114-133
[166]Nelson, R., Why do Firms Differ, and How does It Matter? [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(s):61-74.
[167]North, D., Economic Performance through Time[J]. American Economic Review,1994,84(3):359-368.
[168]Olive, C., Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes[J]. Academy of Management Review,1991,16 (1):145-179.
[169]Pierson, P., Increasing Returns, Path Dependence and the Study of Politics[J]. American Political Science Review,2000,94(2):252-267.
[170]Prahalad, C.& Hamel, G., The Core Competence of the Corporation[J]. Harvard Business Review,1990,68(3):79-91.
[171]Schein, E., Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture[J]. Sloan Management Review,1984,25(2):3-16.
[172]Stark, D., Path Dependence and Privatization Strategies in East Central Europe[J]. East European Politics and Societies,1992,6(1):17-54.
[173]Sull, D., Why Good Companies Go Bad[J]. Harvard Business Review.1999, 77(4):42-52.
[174]Teece, D., Pisano, G.,& Shuen, A., Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[175]Tushman, M.& Anderson, P., Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986, 31(3):439-465.
[176]Wernerfelt, B., The Resource-based View of the Firm[J]. Strategic Management Journal,1984,5(2):171 180.
[177]Windrum, P.& Birchenhall, C., Structural Change in the Presence of Network Externalities:a Co-evolutionary Model of Technological Successions[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2005,15(2):123-148.
[178]Winter, S., Toward a Neo-Schumpeterian Theory of the Firm [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2006,15(1):125-141.
[179]Zott, C. Dynamic Capabilities and the Emergence of Intra-industry Differential Firm Performance:Insights From a Simulation Study [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(2):97-125.
[180]Zollo, M.& Winter, S., Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities [J]. Organization Science,2002,13(3):339-351.
[181]Campell, J., Mechanisms of Evolutionary Change in Economic Governance: Interaction, Interpretation and Bricolage[A]. in Magnusson, L., Ottoson, J., eds., Evolutionary Economics and Path Dependence[C]. Elgar, Aldershot, 1997.
[182]Dosi, G.& Metcalfe, J., On Some Notions of Irreversibility in Economics [A]. in Saviotti, P., Metcalfe, J. S. eds., Evolutionary Theories of Economic and Technological Change:Present[C]. Harwood Publishers,1991.
[183]Egidi, M., Routines, Hierarchies of Problems, Procedural Behavior:Some Evidence from Experiments [A]. in Arrow, E.& Schmidt, C., eds., The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour[C]. London:Macmillan,1996.
[184]Galunic, D.& Weeks, J. Intra-organizational Ecology[A]. in Baum, J., Companion to Organizations[C]. Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishers Ltd,2002, 75-79.
[185]Kluckhohn, C.& Kelly, W. H., The Concept of Culture[A]. in R. Linton (ed.), The Science of Man in World Crisis[C]. New York:Columbia University Press, 1945.
[186]Tushman, M. and Romanelli, E. Organizational Evolution:A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation[A]., in L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw, et al., Research in Organizational Behavior[C]. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press,1985.
[187]Woerdman, E. The Institutional Economics of Market-based Climate Policy[R]. Amsterdam:Boston:Elsevier,2004.
[188]Adizes, I., Management Corporate Life Cycles[M]. Prentice Hall,1999.
[189]Alfrad D. Chandler, A., Scale and Scope:the Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism[M]. Harvard University Press,1990.
[190]Argyris, C.& Schon, D., Organizational Learning:a Theory of Action Perspective [M]. Addison Wesley,1978.
[191]Arthur, W., Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy[M]. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1994.
[192]Campell, J., Hollingsworth, J.& Lindberg, L., Governance of the American Economy[M]. Cambridge University Press,1991.
[193]Campell, J., Pedersen, O., et al., Legacies of Change:Transformations of Post-Communist European Economies[M]. Aldine de Gruyter,1996.
[194]Chandler A. D. Strategy and Structure [M]. MA:MIT Press,1962.
[195]Chandler, A., Scale and Scope:the Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism[M]. Harvard University Press,1990.
[196]Christensen, C. M. The Innovator's Dilemma[M]. Harper Collins Publishers, 1997.
[197]Hammer, M.& Champy, J. Reengineering the Corporation[M]. Nicholas Brearly Publishing,1993.
[198]Hannan, M.& Carroll, G., Dynamics of Organizational Populations:Density, Legitimation, and Competition[M]. Oxford University Press,1992.
[199]Hannan, M.& Freeman, J., Organizational Ecology[M]. Harvard University Press,1989.
[200]Harris, P., Managing Cultural Difference [M]. Gulf Publishing Company,1978.
[201]Kotter, J.& Heskett, J., Corporate Culture and Performance[M]. New York: Free Press,1992
[202]Nelson, R.& Winter, S., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change[M]. Harvard University press,1982.
[203]North, D., Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance[M]. Cambridge University Press,1990.
[204]North, D., Understanding the Process of Economic Change[M]. Princeton University Press,2005.
[205]Osgood, C.& Sebeok, T., et al., Psycholinguistics:a Survey of Theory and Research Problems[M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1954.
[206]Pfeffer, J.& Salancik, G. The External Control of Organizations:A Resource Dependence Perspective [M]. Harper and Row,1978.
[207]Pierson, P., Politics in Time:History, Institutions, and Social Analysis[M]. Princeton University Press,2004.
[208]Schumpeter, J. The Theory of Economic Development [M]. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,1934.
[209]Scott, W. R., Institutions and Organizations [M]. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 1995.
[210]Sisk, H., Principles of Management:a Systems Approach to the Management Process[M]. Cincinnati:South-western Publications,1969.
[211]Veblen, T., The Instinct of Workmanship:and the State of the Industrial Arts[M]. New York:Augustus M. Kelley,1964/1914.
[212]White, L., The Science of Culture[M]. New York:Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1949.