Comprobar la integridad de paquetes con sumas de verificación MD5 o

Structural inertia theory has motivated numerous researchers to explore the effect of organisational change. There are four types of process delays impeding organisational changes (Hannan et al., 2003a). Inertia theory addresses the structural processes and pertains to changes to the core features of organizations.

Structural inertia first states that the condition at the time of founding must shape an organisation (Hannan and Freeman, 1984). Secondly it suggests that the organisation is more likely adhere to current routines, because strong inertial forces keep organizations from change and the resistance to change lengthens the time necessary to make a change. Organizations are likely to behave according to the previous routine and experience, which is called a good first approximation (Nelson and Winter, 1982). Structural inertia develops a mechanism to explain why many types of organizations are not willing to initiate change in their core feature and are thus unlikely to change. Theorists who adopt an inertia view of strategy argue that an organisation is constrained and better able to preserve its existing strategy than it is to change radically. Architectural change is generally deleterious because reorganizations impose costs, reduce fitness levels, take attention away from operations, and thus reduce performance. Haveman (1992) comments that reorientation periods from operating to restructuring lowers the efficiency of operations, leads to poor performance in the short term and might lower a firm¶s chances of survival in the long term.

organisational operating routines, but also to modification routines, which are the procedures for creating and changing operating routines (Amburgey et al., 1993). The more experience organizations have in changing operating routines, the more likely a modification routine is to be developed. In momentum ± like fashion, type of change made in the past is especially likely to be repeated in the future. The early occurrence of a given type of change increases the probability of subsequent similar types of changes (Amburgey et al., 1993). Organizations have momentum to repeat previous changes, reinforce and extend their past structure and practices adhering pervious evolution direction (Miller and Friesen, 1984：P28). Furthermore, the more experience a company has of a particular type of change, the more likely it is that this type of change will be applied to a broader set of problems. Historical actions have powerful influences on both the possibility and content of change (Kelly and Amburgey, 1991). However, it is pointed out that this paucity of experience causes managers to limit the scope of their market activity and miss opportunities (Miller and Chen, 1994).

Although inertia is often viewed as dangerous, potential benefits have been noted (Nelson and Winter, 1982, Hannan and Freeman, 1984, Amburgey and Miner, 1992). Potential benefits of inertia are that it can minimize the cost of blunders coming from change decisions made with incomplete information (Hannan and Freeman, 1984); Because the cost of change effort decreases, the prospective benefits of change offered is at a lower level to catch, hence it is more attractive to be carried out (Amburgey & Miner, 1992; Kelly & Amburgey, 1991). Indeed, Hannan and Freeman (1984) argue that inertia is a by-product of success. Inertia can also generate greater reliability in delivering a sound product and efficiency routine (Miller, 1992). Sorensen & Stuart (2000) add that experience with a set of routines leads to gain the efficiency which are executed before. µThe experiential learning translates to a survival advantages when implementing a change consistent with past experience is warranted¶ (Dobrev et al., 2003：P277). However, they also argue that whether or not it is beneficial depends on the mechanisms by which firms interpret and respond to the environment.

Moreover, inertia implies that the search process for solutions begins with the most recently used routines. As the elapsed time since the last change of the same type increases, the probability of a given type of organisational change decreases (Cyert and March, 1963). Elapsed time is a better indicator of accumulated experience than age, because change resets the DQRUJDQLVDWLRQ¶Vexperience clock. Amburgey et al., (1993) argue that changes occurring later in the life cycle take longer to produce an adaptive outcome. In addition, the occurrence of change makes an organisation temporarily more malleable. Once the inertial forces inhibiting change have been overcome, momentum means that an organisation in motion tends to keep in motion (Amburgey et al., 1993).

Furthermore, since culture is strongly influenced by previous experiences and reflects the imprinting of the firm¶s early history, once established and taken for granted, culture is difficult to change (Stinchcombe, 1965). Thus organisational culture also has inertial tendencies (Hannan and Freeman, 1984, Schein, 1991). Changes which break codes

generally encounter cultural opposition, so such changes are usually problematic4. The

GHJUHHWRZKLFKDQRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VFXOWXUHUHVWULFWVLWVDUFKLWHFWXUDOFKRLFHis defined as asperity (Hannan et al., 2007). The cultural code is restricted in that it only allows a limited range of possible rules and structures, so many possible alternatives are not morally acceptable; and the membership understands and embraces the culture and becomes willing to enforce sanctions when any violations are detected (Jacobs et al., 2008), while likely not opposing changes that are similar to those made previously. Amburgey et al. (1993: P71) add that µif the goals are changed early, they are more likely to change again later, if they are not changed early, they are less likely to change again.¶ The argument above leads to the following proposition:

Proposition 1: The more experience an organisation has with a type of change previously implemented, the greater the likelihood of adopting the same type of change in the future.