Search results

In this study we examine how resource-constrained organizations can maneuver for competitive advantage in highly institutionalized fields. Unlike studies of institutional entrepreneurship, we investigate competitive maneuvering by an organization that is unable to alter either the regulative or normative institutions that characterize its field. Using the “Moneyball” phenomenon and recent changes in Major League Baseball as the basis for an intensive case study of entrepreneurial actions taken by the Oakland A’s, we found that the A’s were able to maneuver for advantage by using bricolage and refusing to enact baseball’s cognitive institutions, and that they continued succeeding despite ongoing resource constraints and rapid copying of their actions by other teams. These results contribute to our understanding of competitive maneuvering and change in institutionalized fields. Our findings expand the positioning of bricolage beyond its prior characterization as a tool used primarily by peripheral organizations in less institutionalized fields; our study suggests that bricolage may aid resource constrained participants (including the majority of entrepreneurial firms) to survive in a wider range of circumstances than previously believed.

In this chapter we examine the process by which new firms become central actors within their industry networks. We focus, in particular, on how relatively new venture capital (VC) firms become more central within investment syndication networks. We present a model that captures the relationships among (1) the social capital and status of the new VC firm's founders, (2) the VC firm's resource endowments, (3) the VC firm's ability to forge relationships with other prestigious and central venture capital firms, (4) the visibility-enhancing performance of portfolio firms, and (5) the urgency and effort exhibited by the new VC as it pursues these opportunities. These factors combine to shape a new VC's journey from the periphery to the center of its industry network. To illustrate these processes, we develop in-depth case studies of Benchmark Capital and August Capital, two VC firms founded in 1995. We then elaborate upon the enacted nature of resource and opportunity constraints and conclude with a discussion of how new firms create their own self-fulfilling prophecies.

This chapter addresses the behavioral problems and conflicts observed in multidisciplinary university commercialization teams. We examined 59 commercialization projects at one U.S. university, supplemented by a similar number of projects at other universities in the United States and Europe. We applied well-established ideas about distinctive “thought worlds,” including both cognitive and motivational factors to understand patterns of selective perception and issue prioritization. The resulting analysis allows us to draw tentative conclusions regarding improved management practices aimed at managing the conflicts and improving university commercialization initiatives. We discuss the generalizability of the results.

Successful technology commercialization requires the integration of multiple perspectives and collaboration of experts from very different backgrounds. More often than not, key individuals in the process reside in different organizational units – each with their own mission, agenda, and culture. In large corporations, successful commercialization ultimately depends on coordination of marketing, legal, and research and development (R&D) personnel distributed across the firm. And, as innovation systems become more open, large and small companies alike increasingly collaborate with nonprofit institutions, either for technological expertise or as a source of inventions themselves (Chesbrough, 2003; Thursby, Thursby, & Fuller, 2009).

Two core assumptions set network theory apart from other perspectives and direct research into specific strategic and organizational topics.