Theory Building in the Presence of ‘Randomness’: The Case of Venture Creation and Performance

Woo, Carolyn Y.; Daellenbach, Urs; Nicholls‐Nixon, Charlene L.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00628.x

Cited by 96 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Precursors to the defining dimensions of effectuation also exist, such as available means as being prior knowledge (e.g., Shane, 2000) and social networks (Uzzi, 1997), the prescription to leverage surprise (e.g., Manis & Meltzer, 1994;Spinosa, Flores, & Dreyfus, 1997) in emergent (Mintzberg, 1978) or non-predictive strategies (Lachmann, 1976), the consideration of affordable loss (e.g., Argote, 1999;Shackle, 1966;Sitkin, 1992), and the prescription to leverage partnerships (e.g., as in structuration [Giddens, 1979[Giddens, , 1982 or exploration [Spinosa, Flores, Dreyfus, Fernando, & Dreyfus, 1999]). And similar descriptions of observed entrepreneurial processes existed prior to effectuation, including bricolage (e.g., Hull, 1991;Lanzara, 1998;Levi-Strauss, 1966), improvisation (e.g., Miner, Bassoff, & Moorman, 2001), and experimentation in the face of a context dominated by random events, aka contingencies (Block & MacMillan, 1985;Woo, Daellenbach, & Nicholls-Nixon, 1994). In that vein, experimentation is described as "groping along" (Dimov, 2010) …”

Section: Assessment Along Criteria Building On the Previous Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even if events in the landscape are unpredictable, effectuation can progress by analyzing the unpredictable ex post, for example, by specifying the general types of shocks that do occur (e.g., typing along the differences of their effects; Woo et al, 1994) and how the effectual approach does and does not work with such shocks. Effectuation scholars are also challenged to specify the temporal dimension in their landscape, which seems to be similar to that in improvisationthat is, being urgent and of the immediate present (Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectuation As Ineffectual? Applying the 3E Theory-Assessment Framework to a Proposed New Theory of Entrepreneurship

Arend

Sarooghi

Burkemper

2015

AMR

229

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectuation is a proposed new theory of entrepreneurship, with insufficient empirical testing and critical analysis. Drawing on a new, comprehensive set of theory-building criteria-sourced from and complementing those of Robert Dubin and others-we provide the first formal assessment of effectuation as a theory. We highlight its strengths and weaknesses, leveraging the former to address the latter in five different directions that would build on the existing work to improve this theory. The assessment exercise also displays the value of our assessment framework in guiding the evaluation and development of other existing and future theories in entrepreneurship and management.Effectuation, as a new proposed theory of entrepreneurship (Sarasvathy, 2001), appears to be at a crossroads: many scholars consider it a viable theory while many do not. Supporters include Fisher (2012), who believes effectuation is one of the few viable alternative theoretical perspectives describing entrepreneurial action, and Coviello and Joseph (2012), who find value in effectuation as an explanation of success in new product development. Detractors include Chiles, Bluedorn, and Gupta (2007), who find effectuation under-defined and unoriginal; Baron (2009), who argues that the focal agents described in it cannot actually exist; and Perry, Chandler, and Markova (2012), who conclude that effectuation has yet to be properly tested. We believe that any proposed theory of entrepreneurship is worthy of detailed assessment, especially one that has survived over a dozen years and continues to divide its audience. Given that "an awareness of the actions and behaviors of entrepreneurs is critical to understanding an entrepreneurial economy" (Chandler, DeTienne, McKelvie, & Mumford, 2011: 375), then studies of such actions are important, and if such studies are important, then the critical analysis of any new conceptualizations of such actions-like effectuation-is also important. We conduct that critical analysis based on a new, comprehensive set of theory-assessment criteria organized in an intuitive framework.We contribute to the entrepreneurship literature in two ways: (1) by providing critical analysis of effectuation as a theory and (2) by suggesting alternatives and directions for improving on and extending the effectual approach, based on our assessment as well as on recent developments in related entrepreneurship research. To that end, in this article we address the question of whether effectuation is good social science theory and, specifically, whether it is good entrepreneurship ! 1 theory. By providing a formal assessment of this proposed entrepreneurship theory, we define a clear standard for other proposed theories, of the present and future, in our field and others.Thus, a related contribution is the introduction of a new, comprehensive theory-assessment framework that is fair, objective, and applicable to any general business theory because it effectively summarizes the main criteria grounded in general normative and pragmat...

show abstract

Section: Assessment Along Criteria Building On the Previous Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectuation As Ineffectual? Applying the 3E Theory-Assessment Framework to a Proposed New Theory of Entrepreneurship

Arend

Sarooghi

Burkemper

2015

AMR

229

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Having a strong and diverse knowledge base, well developed business and social networks and an ability to identify opportunities also contribute to successful entrepreneurial behaviour (Harryson 2008 Entrepreneurial creativity has been defined as the generation and implementation of novel, appropriate ideas to establish a new venture (Amabile 1997). This definition sits alongside much entrepreneurship literature on new venture formation (Hisrich 1992;Woo and Daellenbach 1994), but fails to follow the growth of the business over time. Entrepreneurial creativity, however, exists before, during and after the lifetime of a particular business since it is shaped in part by the social world and by the individual decision maker (Fillis and Rentschler 2006).…”

Section: Much Entrepreneurship Research Concentrates On New Venture Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Creativity in Entrepreneurship

Fillis

Rentschler

2010

J. Enterprising Culture

238

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:This paper evaluates the contribution of creativity to entrepreneurship theory and practice in terms of building an holistic and transdisciplinary understanding of its impact. Acknowledgement is made of the subjectivist theory of entrepreneurship which embraces randomness, uncertainty and ambiguity but these factors should then be embedded in wider business and social contexts. The analysis is synthesised into a number of themes, from consideration of its definition, its link with personality and cognitive style, creativity as a process and the use of biography in uncovering data on creative entrepreneurial behaviour. Other relevant areas of discussion include creativity's link with motivation, actualisation and innovation, as well as the interrogation of entrepreneurial artists as owner/managers. These factors are embedded in a critical evaluation of how creativity contributes to successful entrepreneurship practice. Modelling, measuring and testing entrepreneurial creativity are also considered and the paper includes detailed consideration of several models of creativity in entrepreneurship. Recommendations for future theory and practice are also made. Introduction:

show abstract

“…One interpretation of this relationship is that as the management and employees of the SME interact with the founder they recognize the importance of the founder's knowledge acquisition and creation strategies and seek to emulate them. To the extent to which we assert, following Woo et al (1994), that the entrepreneurial process is governed by experimentation and learning, an awareness of this developed through interaction with the founder increases the likelihood that managers and employees will adopt similar approaches to knowledge creation and implementation. Additional research is, however, necessary to delineate the extent to which particular entrepreneur leadership behaviors are drivers rather than outcomes of knowledge transfer processes (Forbes, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%