An organisational perspective on the cluster paradox: Exploring how members of a cluster manage the tension between continuity and renewal

Clusters face what has been referred to as a ‘cluster paradox’; a situation in which a collective identity breeds cohesion and efficiency in inter-organisational collaboration, yet it hinders the variety needed to adapt to disruptive change and prevent lock-in situations. Accordingly, a recurring theme in the literature on cluster evolution and cluster life-cycles is the need for constant renewal to allow clusters to adapt to a changing environment. However, how individual firms enact a process of cluster renewal and consider possible response options is not well understood. Using a French energy cluster as empirical setting, this paper investigates individual members’ enactment of the renewal in terms of how it could affect their current position, both structurally and relationally, and to what extent members felt that they had agency to steer the process to safeguard their position. The findings show that members’ enactment of the proposed change does not only depend on the perceived impact of cluster renewal on the member itself but also on the impact the renewal might have on other members in the firm’s network. The analysis also suggests that cluster renewal leads to a leadership vacuum where it is not clear who, if anyone, will lead the renewal process.

[1]  Andrea Morrison,et al.  Gatekeepers of Knowledge within Industrial Districts: Who They Are, How They Interact , 2008 .

[2]  Udo Staber,et al.  Who Are We, and Do We Need to Change? Cluster Identity and Life Cycle , 2011 .

[3]  C. Huxham,et al.  A Silent Cry for Leadership: Organizing for Leading (in) Clusters , 2010 .

[4]  J. Hervás-Oliver,et al.  Are technology gatekeepers renewing clusters? Understanding gatekeepers and their dynamics across cluster life cycles , 2014 .

[5]  Tichy Gunther,et al.  Regionale Kompetenzzyklen – Zur Bedeutung von Produktlebenszyklus- und Clusteransätzen im regionalen Kontext , 2001 .

[6]  Peter Maskell,et al.  Towards a Knowledge‐based Theory of the Geographical Cluster , 2001 .

[7]  K. Weick ENACTED SENSEMAKING IN CRISIS SITUATIONS[1] , 1988 .

[8]  R. Martin,et al.  Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? , 2003 .

[9]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[10]  D. Newlands Competition and Cooperation in Industrial Clusters: The Implications for Public Policy , 2003 .

[11]  Udo Staber,et al.  Imitation without Interaction: How Firms Identify with Clusters , 2010 .

[12]  Ron Martin,et al.  Conceptualizing Cluster Evolution: Beyond the Life Cycle Model? , 2011 .

[13]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Innovation, Learning and Cluster Dynamics , 2004 .

[14]  Moshe Farjoun Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change As a Duality , 2010 .

[15]  Arvind Parkhe,et al.  Orchestrating Innovation Networks , 2006 .

[16]  Mark S. Granovetter Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  Kathleen M. Sutcliffe,et al.  Special Issue: Frontiers of Organization Science, Part 1 of 2: Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[18]  Max-Peter Menzel,et al.  Cluster life cycles—dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution , 2010 .

[19]  Maria Cristina Cinici,et al.  Rejuvenating clusters with ‘sleeping anchors’: The case of nanoclusters , 2012 .

[20]  P. Morosini Industrial Clusters, Knowledge Integration and Performance , 2004 .

[21]  Richard W. Pouder,et al.  Technology Clusters Versus Industry Clusters: Resources, Networks, and Regional Advantages , 2006 .

[22]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[23]  C. Østergaard,et al.  What Makes Clusters Decline? A Study on Disruption and Evolution of a High-Tech Cluster in Denmark , 2015 .

[24]  Elke Schüssler,et al.  Networks of Clusters: A Governance Perspective , 2013 .

[25]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[26]  Karen Locke Grounded Theory in Management Research , 2000 .

[27]  B MilesMatthew,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis , 2009, Approaches and Processes of Social Science Research.

[28]  A. Markusen Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts* , 1996 .

[29]  Andreas B. Eisingerich,et al.  How can clusters sustain performance? The role of network strength, network openness, and environmental uncertainty , 2010 .

[30]  M. Kenney,et al.  Identity creation and cluster construction: the case of the Paso Robles wine region , 2013 .

[31]  J. Hervás-Oliver,et al.  Radical innovation in Marshallian industrial districts , 2018 .

[32]  Johanna L. Francis,et al.  Creating a Cluster While Building a Firm: Entrepreneurs and the Formation of Industrial Clusters , 2005 .

[33]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity , 2007 .

[34]  Raphaël Suire,et al.  Clusters for life or life cycles of clusters: in search of the critical factors of clusters' resilience , 2014 .

[35]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  Desperately Seeking Spillovers?: Increasing Returns, Industrial Organization and the Location of New Entrants in Geographic and Technological Space , 2006 .

[36]  A. Morrison,et al.  Another cluster premium: Innovation subsidies and R&D collaboration networks , 2015 .

[37]  R. Martin,et al.  Path dependence and regional economic evolution , 2006 .

[38]  Christos N. Pitelis,et al.  Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: A conceptual framework , 2012 .

[39]  C. Oliver STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[40]  K. Provan,et al.  Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness , 2007 .

[41]  J. Barney Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .