Search results1 – 10 of over 1000
There is progress in entrepreneurship research. Important works in entrepreneurship increasingly appear in highly respected, mainstream journals (see Busenitz et al., 2003…
There is progress in entrepreneurship research. Important works in entrepreneurship increasingly appear in highly respected, mainstream journals (see Busenitz et al., 2003; Davidsson, Low & Wright, 2001). There is conceptual development that attracts attention (e.g. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and handbooks are compiled, providing the field with more of a common body of knowledge (Acs & Audretsch, 2003a; Shane, 2000a; Westhead & Wright, 2000). Further, there is evidence of methodological improvements (Chandler & Lyon, 2001) and accumulation of meaningful findings on various levels of analysis (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001). Moreover, due to time lags in publication the reported improvements are likely to be underestimated. This author’s experience as organizer, reviewer and participant in core entrepreneurship conferences on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g. Babson; RENT) suggests that much of the lower end of the quality distribution has either disappeared from the submissions or is screened out in the review process. Much more than used to be the case a few years back we find among the presented papers research that is truly theory-driven; research on the earliest stages of business development, and research that employs methods suitable for causal inference, i.e. experiments and longitudinal designs.
This chapter is a reflection of how Venkataraman’s “The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research” has influenced the field of entrepreneurship. The theory underlying the original chapter provided the first true theoretical basis for the discipline of entrepreneurship, grounded in Kirzner and Schumpeter. Its two discrete components, opportunity, and role of the individual became the basis for new approaches in empirical research and new conceptualizations of entrepreneurship theory. These components led to new approaches to concepts such as motivation, perception, and information’s role in the entrepreneurial process. The chapter revisits the three core questions raised by “The Distinctive Domain”: how opportunities arise, why do only some recognize and pursue opportunities, and what are the consequences of the pursuit of opportunities. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the impact of the original chapter in practice and academia.
In “The next wave of entrepreneurship research,” Schoonhoven and Romanelli (hereafter S&R, this volume) set forth a broad-gauge review of recent work in entrepreneurship…
In “The next wave of entrepreneurship research,” Schoonhoven and Romanelli (hereafter S&R, this volume) set forth a broad-gauge review of recent work in entrepreneurship. They challenge standard debates and focus on arguments and research that explore large-scale contextual variation in complex ecologies of entrepreneurship over time. Further, their review puts networks and teams, communities of expertise and knowledge, and collective activity at the center of new directions for entrepreneurial research. They contend, in this paper and elsewhere, that the important questions going forward “concern the mass effects of entrepreneurial activity on the creation of new firms and industries, the pioneering of emerging markets, the evolution of existing industries, the development of regional economies, and even … the competitiveness of nations” (Schoonhoven & Romanelli, 2001, p. 383).
This study explains the international opportunity development of SMEs from emerging economies during institutional transition. This research enriches our understanding of…
This study explains the international opportunity development of SMEs from emerging economies during institutional transition. This research enriches our understanding of how these firms adopt different approaches to developing international opportunities when they confront the turbulent institutional environment. We develop a phase-based framework for the evolution of transitional institution for SMEs’ internationalization and the SMEs’ internationalization process in that framework. By providing an empirical case study of a privately owned SME from China, the main finding is that SMEs from emerging economies become more entrepreneurial and proactive in developing the international opportunity during the institutional transition.
“Suitable for MBA, Executive MBA, GEMBA, and executive education programs, this case uses CEMEX, a global cement producer based in Mexico, to set the stage for unfolding…
“Suitable for MBA, Executive MBA, GEMBA, and executive education programs, this case uses CEMEX, a global cement producer based in Mexico, to set the stage for unfolding an analysis of a growth through acquisition strategy. It offers a discussion about the firm's overall strategy to acquire on a global scale instead of growing organically and provides an opportunity to introduce basic financial, marketing, and operational terms that can be explored in subsequent classes. The material includes a PMI process that further allows discussion on that technique.
The case opens with a conference call and another barrage of questions for CEO Lorenzo Zambrano about his bid to buy the Australia-based Rinker Group in October 2006. Until this point, CEMEX has had a long-standing habit of buying businesses in emerging markets; this acquisition would be a departure from that strategy. If the deal goes through, it would be the single largest acquisition in CEMEX's history, and it would be among its few forays into a developed market other than the neighboring United States. The company has grown exponentially and successfully. Why would this effort be any different? Was the acquisition a good idea or not? And if it was, how would Zambrano and his leadership team convince Wall Street and others of that?”
This corporate strategy case shows how PepsiCo stopped worrying about competing with Coca-Cola, figured out what its real business was, and decided how to build its…
This corporate strategy case shows how PepsiCo stopped worrying about competing with Coca-Cola, figured out what its real business was, and decided how to build its future. Redefining itself as a beverage and snack business, PepsiCo sheds its restaurant business and acquires Quaker and Tropicana. By rethinking the synergistic relationship between the complementary, combined strengths of the merged companies, it strategizes to develop innovative products that will compete in a changing demographic, cultural, and geographical world. Will this strategy work in an increasingly competitive environment?
Entrepreneurial and strategic actions are crucial for wealth creation, and the business opportunity is a critical factor in this process. The purpose of this paper is to…
Entrepreneurial and strategic actions are crucial for wealth creation, and the business opportunity is a critical factor in this process. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of the firm’s strategic posture in the relationship between individual alertness and opportunity identification within an existing firm. This approach contributes to entrepreneurship theory building through a multilevel study.
The quantitative research focuses on understanding the mediating role of an organization’s strategic posture in the opportunity identification process. Using a sample of 276 firms, this study tests a two-level model to explain opportunity identification.
The findings provide empirical evidence that a firm’s strategic posture mediates the relationship between individual alertness and opportunity identification. Furthermore, this study finds differences in the mediating role of a firm’s strategic posture through which entrepreneurs and managers affect opportunity identification. Years after the creation of startup, the entrepreneurs still exhibit entrepreneurial characteristics that affect opportunity identification. The findings provide evidence that entrepreneurs foster an internal culture and set of values that are more favorable to radical innovation, compared to managers who favor incremental and less risky projects.
The findings suggest the possibility for new theory building that can improve the fields of entrepreneurship and management research. Moreover, the proposed model constitutes a new approach to analyze the mediating role of an organization’s strategic posture in the opportunity identification process.
This paper provides an original approach to literature in exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial alertness and firm’s strategic posture in explaining the opportunity identification process. This work will help expand the theory building that explores differences between managers and entrepreneurs in organizations.
The purpose of this paper is to review the recent critique of the discovery view of opportunities and by implication the current state of the so‐called creation view of…
The purpose of this paper is to review the recent critique of the discovery view of opportunities and by implication the current state of the so‐called creation view of opportunities.
A systematic review of articles published from 2000‐2010 which feature a critique of the discovery view of opportunities. The review uses an open coding approach to identify central themes in the critique. Four central themes are identified, and from within‐theme patterns three distinct groups within the literature are identified.
The four themes suggest that the discovery view is incomplete, that social and relational interactions are more pervading and important than the discovery view suggests, that opportunities are created and that the role of individuality and subjectivity needs to be emphasized more. Three distinct groups within the literature are identified, each presenting different critiques of the discovery view, theoretical foci and implications for method and practice. Furthermore, the discussion suggests that the opportunity concept is a focal point for important debates in the entrepreneurship field, that the creation view is diverse and should not be referred to in the singular and that seeking reconciliation between the discovery and creation views is a problematic strategy. Finally, it is suggested that a continued dialog exploring differences both between the discovery and creation views as well as between the creation views is a fruitful strategy for the development of the field.
The article presents a review of both the critique of the discovery view and the so‐called creation view, thereby supplementing and advancing from existing reviews of the opportunity concept in entrepreneurship. This furthers our understanding of the role of opportunities in entrepreneurial processes.