Search results

This chapter explores authentic leadership at the ‘edge of chaos’ – a transitional period from one kind of stability to another triggered by the emergence and implementation of newness. The authors argue that continuous, abrupt or unpredictable change at the edge of chaos impacts authentic leadership, resulting in the development of new values, new perspectives on legitimacy and new identities. Kinyanjui and Turcan identify four leader legitimation strategies, when introducing newness at the edge of chaos: feedback loop; conformance; familiar cues; and consistency and repetition. Kinyanjui and Turcan call for future research into the co-emergence of newness at the edge of chaos to equip decision-makers and policy-makers with a better understanding of legitimation strategies in the implementation of newness.

This chapter focuses on the newness of neighbour relations and new scenarios of neighbouring that have emerged in the recently built residential districts of large Russian cities – Moscow and St Petersburg. In the last decades, the scenarios of neighbouring in Russia have undergone significant changes due to the collapse of the Soviet system and the formation of a new sociality. In this situation, new urban districts have become a testing ground where new scenarios of neighbouring have been developed in everyday communication. The study finds that the emerging scenario of neighbouring differs from lifelong Soviet neighbouring with its close personal contacts, as well as from the isolationism of the 1990–2000s, and is based on the management and flexible reconfiguration of neighbour relations. This chapter argues that the newness of urban settings is a special state that influences neighbour relations and leads to enthusiasm for, and intensification of, interaction between neighbours; the invention of new forms of neighbour relations; and the actualisation of neighbour solidarity in a space that is still deficient in other ways. While newness is a state that allows creative forms of sociality to flourish, it is also a limiting state in the way it imposes absence and deficiencies upon residents that requires them to create new, compensatory structures and solidarities.

This chapter explores the advantages of newness and positive aspects of resource constraints, critically departing from assumptions of resource constraints and liabilities of newness. The chapter is based on a multiple case study consisting of nascent entrepreneurial processes from inexperienced entrepreneurs with severely constrained access to resources. Six theoretical concepts (legitimacy, fashion, flexibility, networks, bootstrapping, and motivation) are developed in the frame of reference. Empirical data is collected on a rich variety of sources, including longitudinal data in the form of weekly logbooks, business plans, theoretical reflections, and additional collected data during the process. Based on this data, the analysis shows that while these entrepreneurs face resource constraints and liabilities of newness, they also use strategies to leverage their constraints and novelty as an advantage in advancing their venturing efforts.

International new ventures have been argued to seek foreign markets from inception in response to the external environment and/or motivations internal to the firm. For example, a new venture that exists in an industry that is more globally integrated is more likely to have a need to internationalize in order to remain competitive (Shrader, Oviatt, & McDougall, 2000). Similarly, those new ventures that have limited domestic growth due to the size of their home country may look elsewhere in order to gain a sufficient level of sales to survive (Zahra & George, 2002). Some of the many firm-specific motivations to internationalize might include the desire to fully exploit a unique product (Burgel & Murray, 2000; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994, 1995), capitalize on the learning advantage of newness (Autio, Sapienza, & Almeida, 2000) or take advantage of networking opportunities (Reuber & Fischer, 1997).

Despite an increase in businesses started by celebrities, we have limited understanding as to how celebrity entrepreneurs benefit new ventures. Drawing on a reputational capital perspective, we develop the notion of celebrity capital and show how it can be used to uniquely differentiate the venture and to overcome liabilities of newness. We discuss how celebrity capital can negatively influence the venture when negative information about the celebrity surfaces and in terms of limiting the scope of the venture. We discuss the different strategic implications of celebrity capital for ventures using celebrity entrepreneurs versus endorsers.

Internationalizing new firms face the dual challenge of overcoming the liabilities of newness and liabilities of foreignness (Stinchcombe, 1965; Dunning, 1981; Zaheer, 1995). Because of their newness, new firms are constrained in their ability to access external resources required for survival and growth. Because of their foreignness relative to the foreign target market, internationalizing firms are disadvantaged relative to domestic firms when establishing business relationships. These disadvantages are exacerbated by the additional knowledge inputs required by the internationalization process itself: internationalizing firms face the dual challenge of both learning how to do business in a new national and institutional environment while also learning to manage the inherently complex international business organization (Johanson & Vahlne, 1990).

The stratification of firms was a key component of Stinchcombe's (1965) pioneering essay and of other organizational sociologists in the 1960s. Since then, organizational theory has de-emphasized its focus on stratification in favor of more structural approaches that neglect the unequal distribution of resources within an industry. In this paper, I argue for the reintegration of the two traditions to better understand the dynamics of markets. Specifically, I focus on Stinchcombe's (1965) concept of the “liability of newness” and apply principles of stratification to theory about entrepreneurship. I analyze how social, financial and reputational capital produce a differential liability of newness for the firms within an industry. In other words, not all new organizations experience the liability of newness equally. Rather, disparities in social network access, finances, and reputational capital create advantages for some new firms over others. I study funding patterns in the venture capital industry to highlight the theoretical advantages of reintegrating the study of stratification into organizational sociology.

This chapter follows two previous chapters on the nature of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship scholarship that have been presented in this book series (Davidsson, 2003; Venkataraman, 1997). Both of these chapters are key works in the field, and they both provide critical contributions to our understanding of what entrepreneurship is, as a focus of scholarship, and how entrepreneurship should be studied. My intention for this chapter, therefore, is to offer some thoughts that, I believe, are complementary to the insights offered by my colleagues. My approach to considering the questions of “What is entrepreneurship?” and “How might entrepreneurship be studied?” is to offer some thoughts about the “community of practice” (Latour, 1987, 1999; Sargent, 1997; Wenger, 1998) that currently exists in the academic field of entrepreneurship, and to propose some suggestions for how academics might practice different ways of entrepreneurship scholarship. (This will beg the question of whether a “community of practice” can remain a community, if the practice, itself, changes).

Traditionally, organizational theory has been a receptacle of methods and mechanisms from network theory. In this paper, we argue that organizational theory can also be an active contributor to network theory’s conceptual development. To that end, we make explicit a theoretical strategy that has only been used informally by network theorists so far, which – following Vaughan (2002) – we refer to as analogical theorizing. Using the basic correspondence between dyadic relationships as the most minimal form of “organization,” we show that processes and mechanisms extracted from various theoretical strands of organizational theory can be mapped onto the dynamics of social relationships. This allows us to build novel theoretical insight as it pertains to issue of relationship emergence, maintenance, and decay in social networks.