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.

The case of Alpha, a group of small subsidiaries, confronted with a strong crisis following the implementation of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) in a context of financial crisis (Spanish subsidiaries) allows the authors to illustrate the dynamics of collective bricolage, from individual bricolage to intra-subsidiary bricolage and then inter-subsidiary bricolage, network and more globally a strategy of bricolage within the group. Would multi-level bricolage be a new way for companies facing more and more crises, scarcity of resources and uncertain environments?

The action research (AR) conducted by the ERP project manager – researcher – during two years (2012–2014) shows a dynamic that increases tenfold the potential of discovering at low-cost tinkered solutions that work, adapted to the specificities of the group. Bricolage includes the constitution of the repertoire of resources (material and immaterial resources and intimate knowledge of resources) and the art of bringing the different elements of the repertoire into dialogue (tests, permutations and substitutions) in order to find an arrangement that works despite limited resources (Lévi-Strauss, 1966). In order to combine the advantages of an ERP designed according to an engineer approach and the advantages of small subsidiaries (flexibility, reactivity and local adaptations) accustomed to “bricolage,” to make do with the means at hand, the group is gradually developing a “strategic bricolage” approach. This approach contributes to enriching the repertoires of resources and developing the capacity for dialogue between the elements of the different repertoires (individuals, subsidiaries, countries, activities, external network and group), which encourages the discovery of bricolage solutions that are difficult to imitate. The evaluation of the tinkered solutions at both the local and global levels allows the group to improve, enhance and disseminate them to all subsidiaries.

Social entrepreneurship is primarily concerned with the development of innovative solutions to society's most challenging problems. Since social entrepreneurship flourishes in resource-constrained environments, social innovation may depend on the extent to which social entrepreneurs can combine and apply the resources at hand in creative and useful ways to solve problems – “bricolage.” Moreover, innovating for social impact relies on a set of institutional and structural supports – “innovation ecology,' which can facilitate or impede innovation. Our research empirically examines these variables as drivers of systemic social change through scaling and replication – “catalytic innovation” (i.e., the development of products and services targeted to unserved markets). Results of a survey conducted with 113 social entrepreneurs indicate that, while innovation ecology is associated with the degree of catalytic innovation, it is mediated by the role and degree of bricolage that social entrepreneurs bring to solving problems. These findings reinforce the role of entrepreneurs as the indispensable agents of social change.

Entrepreneurial bricolage has been proposed as a method of alleviating resource constraints of entrepreneurial firms. However, the outcomes of bricolage for a firm may vary greatly. One of the most pressing issues is to clarify how bricolage may enhance firm growth. Based on case studies, Baker and Nelson (2005) propose that applying bricolage in limited areas (“selective bricolage”) may enable firms to grow, whereas excessive (“parallel”) bricolage may lead to the opposite outcome. However, the process of testing the generalizability of this relationship using quantitative methods has just begun. In this chapter, we describe our efforts to develop a scale that measures bricolage manifestation in firms by using the “environmental domains” of Baker and Nelson (2005) to facilitate quantitative testing of the bricolage–growth relationship.

This chapter explores how network bricolage, as a form of collective entrepreneurship, develops over time and influences the shape and form of an organization. Using a historical organization study of SEUR, a Spanish courier company founded in 1942, the authors show how network bricolage is implemented as a dynamic process of collaborative efforts between bricoleurs who draw on their historical experience to build and develop an organization. Our study offers two main contributions. In combining network bricolage with ideas of collective entrepreneurship, the authors first extend knowledge about the practice of bricolage and the role of the bricoleur in the entrepreneurial context beyond start-up. Second, the authors show that, while entrepreneurs’ decisions are historically contingent, it is how entrepreneurs wed past experience with current context which informs their actions in the present, shaping the enterprise for the future.

How do organizations manage multiple logics in response to institutional complexity? In this paper, we explore how intraorganizational problems related to multiple logics may be addressed via the mechanism of institutional bricolage – where actors inside an organization act as “bricoleurs” to creatively combine elements from different logics into newly designed artifacts. An illustrative case study of a global brewery group’s development of such an artifact – a Responsible Drinking Guide Book – is outlined. We argue that intraorganizational institutional bricolage first requires the problematization of organizational identity followed by a social process involving efforts to renegotiate the organization’s identity in relation to the logics being integrated. We show that in response to growing pressures to be more “responsible,” a group of organizational actors creatively tinkered with and combined elements from social responsibility and market logics by drawing upon extant organizational resources from different times and spaces in an effort to reconstitute their collective organizational identity.

How do organizations manage multiple logics in response to institutional complexity? In this paper, we explore how intraorganizational problems related to multiple logics may be addressed via the mechanism of institutional bricolage – where actors inside an organization act as “bricoleurs” to creatively combine elements from different logics into newly designed artifacts. An illustrative case study of a global brewery group’s development of such an artifact – a Responsible Drinking Guide Book – is outlined. We argue that intraorganizational institutional bricolage first requires the problematization of organizational identity followed by a social process involving efforts to renegotiate the organization’s identity in relation to the logics being integrated. We show that in response to growing pressures to be more “responsible,” a group of organizational actors creatively tinkered with and combined elements from social responsibility and market logics by drawing upon extant organizational resources from different times and spaces in an effort to reconstitute their collective organizational identity.

Critical race theory (CRT) seems to face a never-ending baptism by fire. When the Trump administration sought to ban CRT from American federal training courses in 2020, this may have come as a shock to few (Lang, 2020). Perhaps of greater surprise was that mutual sentiments resonated with the UK Minister for Equalities Kemi Badenoch, a black female, who appears to oppose the teaching of CRT in principle (Thrilling, 2020). The resurgence of such denunciations is problematic in a Western world which is primed for social activism, particularly for scholars in higher education institutions, where CRT has been gaining traction as a guiding framework for research into antiracism, fairness and affirmative action. This chapter suggests that the condemnation of CRT is neither unexpected nor is it altogether absurd. Nevertheless, it aims to provide a balanced metatheoretical ‘criticism’ of CRT and offer a view on the suitability of, and prospects for, its activist research agenda in higher education. Quite often, criticisms of CRT reflect issues with its origin as a troubled bricolage of conveniently assembled ‘tenets’, which do not lend themselves easily to the burden of evidentiary production required in higher education research and practice. In this review, I analyse CRT, through its bricolage-style characteristics, as primarily an explanatory theory, with respect to its application against racialised issues in higher education policy. It is hoped this chapter offers academic and activist researchers a way past the shadow of CRT's bricolage, by defusing some of the misgivings towards its inherent limitations.

The goal of this work is to include the new economic-based approaches related to entrepreneurship that have been published in the literature. Based on the neoclassical and Austrian schools, some sociological, psychological and economic theories about entrepreneurship. In this work, some unknown economic-based approaches related to entrepreneurship will be summarized, as they are included in the work of Saiz-Alvarez and García-Vaquero (2017). These approaches are: (1) The Jack-of-all-trades Theory, (2) The Mezzanine Theory, (3) The O-Ring Theory, (4) The Theory of Resources and Capabilities, (5) Entrepreneurial Bricolage, (6) The Processes’ School, (7) The Feedback Loop Theory, (8) The Theory of Effectuation, and (9) The Theory of the Optimal Triangle. All these theories will be summarized in this chapter.