Search results
1 – 10 of 32Golshan Javadian, Anil Nair, David Ahlstrom, Kaveh Moghaddam, Li-Wei Chen and Younggeun Lee
Ali Aslan Gümüsay and Michael Smets
Much recent work on hybrids has focused on the strategies and practices these organizations develop to manage the institutional contradictions associated with straddling competing…
Abstract
Much recent work on hybrids has focused on the strategies and practices these organizations develop to manage the institutional contradictions associated with straddling competing logics. Less attention has been paid to what we call the liability of novelty, defined as the heightened institutional challenges new hybrid forms face both internally and externally. These, we argue, go beyond the liability of newness commonly associated with new venture formation. In this chapter, we use the case of Incubate, a Muslim social incubator in Germany. This case is particularly instructive insofar as Incubate is a hybrid in both substance and mode of organizing: Its mission integrated domains of religion, commerce, and community, and its mode of organizing straddled the digital–analog divide. Neither Incubate’s members, nor its external stakeholders could rely on existing institutional templates to make sense of it. It was not only organizationally new, but also institutionally novel. As a consequence, it experienced what we distinguish as descriptive and evaluative challenges. It was both “not understood” and “not accepted.” This chapter outlines four practices to address these challenges: codifying, crafting, conforming, and configuring, and categorizes them along internal versus external as well as forming versus transforming dimensions.
Details
Keywords
Jianwen Liao, Harold P. Welsch and David Pistrui
Entrepreneurship and the development of new business continue to be the forefront of socioeconomic development in virtually all economies today. Despite evidence of increasing…
Abstract
Entrepreneurship and the development of new business continue to be the forefront of socioeconomic development in virtually all economies today. Despite evidence of increasing research into entrepreneurial growth, the existing research is limited by the fact that most studies define entrepreneurial growth as a unidimensional construct and operationalize it as “realized” growth relying on financially based measures. Consequently, this article has two objectives: (1) to develop a set of accurate and comprehensive entrepreneurial growth measures; and (2) to test a series of hypotheses regarding precursors of growth intentions‐more specifically, to what extent, infrastructure factors affect entrepreneurial growth intentions. These two questions were examined using Entrepreneurial Profile Questionnaire (EPQ) in the context of Romania.
Results from factor analysis revealed refined patterns of entrepreneurial growth, including resource aggregation, market expansion, and technological improvement. The relationships between infrastructure and entrepreneurial growth were tested using a multiple regression model. Overall, it was posited that infrastructure is positively related to entrepreneurial growth. However, in most of the cases, the opposite proved to be true. These findings suggest that the Romanian entrepreneurs would pursue expansion plans in spite of the obstacles thrown into their path. Perhaps they have already developed strategies about overcoming those obstacles and in that process have developed the strength, ingenuity, and confidence to grow their new business ventures. Perhaps the many years that Romanians were confronted with numerous political and economical obstacles have prepared them to be much more flexible and adaptive.These counter-intuitive findings reflect on the hardiness and perseverance of the Romanian entrepreneurs.
Ottó Csiki, Krisztina Demeter and Dávid Losonci
In the multilayered capability framework the authors integrate two layers, namely functional level production capabilities and shop floor-level production routines (PRs). The…
Abstract
Purpose
In the multilayered capability framework the authors integrate two layers, namely functional level production capabilities and shop floor-level production routines (PRs). The authors examine how these two layers are interlinked, and additionally, they explore how these layers contribute to firm performance.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors tested the hypotheses using structural equation modeling (SEM) on a sample of manufacturing firms.
Findings
Regarding the capability layers, the authors found that at the functional level, production dynamic capabilities (PDCs) drive the renewal of production ordinary capabilities (POCs), and that at the shop floor level, deployment of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is influenced by lean production. Regarding the direct links between capability layers, the authors showed that PDCs and POCs have different roles in shaping shop floor PRs: PDCs is linked to I4.0, and lean methods is impacted by POCs. Concerning performance implications, only PDC and POC have significant impact on firm performance (the latter is negative), while PRs do not.
Research limitations/implications
Although, contextual factors (e.g. technology intensity, size) do not influence our findings, the potential country-effect and the dominance of medium-sized firms offer future research directions.
Practical implications
If production managers want to contribute to business performance, they should be more susceptible to resource renewal (PDCs) than to their general (POCs) or specific (PRs) exploitation efforts. As they exploit current resource stocks, they face a trade-off: they must consider that beyond their positive impacts on operational performance, their implications on business performance will be controversial.
Originality/value
Scholars usually examine one layer of capabilities, either capabilities or routines, and associate that with one dimension of performance, either financial and market measures or operational indicators. The authors propose a multilayered capability framework with a complex view on performance implications.
Details