Dismantling Lock-ins and Tragedies of the Commons

Most of us are affected by “thought models” that lock us into mindsets and behaviors that create inertia for change. We may remain for long periods of time in this state without any need for significant changes. But the lock-in can become a threat to the individual, the organization or the society that is locked-in when the context in which one “operates” changes faster than one can unlock. The inertia to change inhibits sufficiently rapid adaptation. From an evolutionary perspective, such inhibitions can be life-threatening. Many examples can be given where individuals, companies and societies die off because of inabilities to adapt caused by lock-ins in mental models unsuitable for the contextual changes they experience (cf. Diamond, 2006). This lock-in effect may be one important explanation for why society, despite our knowledge regarding human-caused environmental degradation, climate change and the extinction rate of other life forms, seems so reluctant to do something about it. It may also be one important explanation for why companies seem reluctant to change their product offerings despite the insight that those who do – in directions that solve the environmental challenges in ways appreciated and valued by their customers – will experience “one of the biggest business opportunities in the history of commerce” (Hart and Milstein, 1999:25). Lock-in can appear at all three system levels of society: the individual level, the organizational level and the societal level. Each of these three levels’ lock-ins pose threats and opportunities for the entrepreneur. This article tries to dismantle these lock-ins and the tragedies of the commons that seem to be consequences of these lock-ins. The focus is the entrepreneur and it is discussed how the threats can be addressed and opportunities exploited in ways that will benefit the entrepreneur’s business.

[1]  Mikael Hård,et al.  Alternative cars: The contrasting stories of steam and diesel automotive engines , 1997 .

[2]  Michael E. Porter,et al.  Green and Competitive : Ending the Stalemate , 1996 .

[3]  R. Verganti Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a Research Agenda* , 2008 .

[4]  Stuart L. Hart,et al.  Global Sustainability and the Creative Destruction of Industries , 1999 .

[5]  J. Diamond Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed , 2005 .

[6]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Competing for the Future , 1994 .

[7]  O. Davidson,et al.  Climate change 2001 : mitigation , 2001 .

[8]  Tim Newton,et al.  Creating the New Ecological Order? Elias and Actor-Network Theory , 2002 .

[9]  M. Tushman,et al.  Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings , 1996 .

[10]  Andreas Diekmann,et al.  Green and Greenback , 2003 .

[11]  Sverker Alänge,et al.  Sustainable Business Development: Frameworks for Idea Evaluation and Cases of Realized Ideas , 2014 .

[12]  Chialin Chen,et al.  Design for the Environment: A Quality-Based Model for Green Product Development , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[13]  Vicki Norberg-Bohm,et al.  Stimulating ‘green’ technological innovation: An analysis of alternative policy mechanisms , 1999 .

[14]  Peter Dobers,et al.  Design, lifestyles and sustainability. Aesthetic consumption in a world of abundance , 2005 .

[15]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Defensive Denial and High Cost Prosocial Behavior , 1982 .

[16]  G. Wittwer Book review: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, Jared Diamond, Penguin Group, Camberwell, Australia, (2005) , 2006 .

[17]  C. Dell’Era,et al.  Mastering Technologies in Design-Driven Innovation , 2010 .

[18]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier , 2000 .

[19]  Kathryn Graziano The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail , 1998 .

[20]  Clayton M. Christensen The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , 2013 .

[21]  R. Grant Chapter 8 – Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration , 1999 .

[22]  A. Schäfer,et al.  The future mobility of the world population , 2000 .

[23]  R. Belk Possessions and the Extended Self , 1988 .

[24]  J. Schot,et al.  Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation : the approach of strategic niche management , 1998 .

[25]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[26]  J. Kohnen,et al.  Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant , 2006 .

[27]  R. Grant,et al.  A KNOWLEDGE-BASED THEORY OF INTER-FIRM COLLABORATION. , 1995 .

[28]  John Holmberg,et al.  Backcasting: A Natural Step in Operationalising Sustainable Development(*) , 1998 .

[29]  A. Ahuvia,et al.  Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers' Identity Narratives , 2005 .

[30]  Mats Williander,et al.  Absorptive capacity and interpretation system's impact when ‘going green’: an empirical study of ford, volvo cars and toyota , 2007 .

[31]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[32]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology , 1989 .

[33]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.