Lock-in requires self-reinforcing escalation, not mere fit

Evidence

In a similar vein, Pierson (2000) raises the issue of whether increasing returns or other selfreinforcing processes should be made a necessary element of path theory. Among others, he highlights pure complementarities as being likely to bring about persistency. From our point of view, this argument refers to a different type of rigidity. Pure complementarities without selfreinforcing processes characterize a stable situation of fitting resources, but not a process that eventually leads to a lock-in. If there is no escalating self-reinforcing process, switching to new and better opportunities may be difficult but not increasingly impossible. — Jörg Sydow, Georg Schreyögg, and Jochen Koch, Organizational Path Dependence, 63

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharply distinguishes two kinds of rigidity: a stable fit of complementary resources versus an escalating process that makes exit progressively harder.
• SEED: Article angle: ‘Difficult Is Not Impossible’—why conflating friction with lock-in leads organizations to over-diagnose their own captivity.