I. J. of Business & Management Research
Research Article | 
Capabilities of Entrepreneurial Ventures that Successfully Navigate Regime Change: A Research Agenda
Author(s) : Julia Ivy
Publisher : FOREX Publication
Published : 25 September 2020
e-ISSN : 2347-4696
Page(s) : 73-83
Abstract
The study provides a framework and research agenda for investigating factors that contribute to the sustainability and growth of entrepreneurial ventures operating in environments of regime change. The suggested framework builds on Herbert Simon’s [1] science of design, as later extended to concepts of entrepreneurship as creation [2] and effectuation [3], in order to describe the nature of entrepreneurial actions in an environment of regime change. The framework integrates theory on organizational capabilities [4] to locate mechanisms behind entrepreneurs’ successful efforts to equip their ventures with capabilities for sustainability and growth. The study offers a pragmatism-driven methodology for studying ventures as artifacts created by entrepreneurs that practice the even-if principle of non-predictable control when navigating the challenges of regime change.
Keywords: Regime change , Science of design , Entrepreneurship creation , Effectuation , Dynamic capabilities , Ordinary capabilities , Pragmatism .
Julia Ivy,Executive Professor, D'Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, Boston, USA , Email: j.ivy@northeastern.edu
[1] Simon, H. A. (1969/1996). The architecture of complexity. Sciences of the artificial (3rd ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[2] Alvares, S. and Barney, J.A. (2007). Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1 (1-2), 11-26.
[3] Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-263.
[4] Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21. 1105-1121.
[5] Karbalevich, V. (2002). The Belarusian model of transformation: Alaksandr Lukashenka's regime and the nostalgia for the Soviet past. International Journal of Sociology, 31(4), 7-21.
[6] Ivanova, Y.V. (2004). Belarus: Entrepreneurial activities in an unfriendly environment. Journal of East-West Business, 10(4), 29–54.
[7] Ivy, J. and Perenei, A. (2020). Entrepreneurial networks as informal institutions in transitional economies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 05-05, 1-31.
[8] Ivanova, Y.V. (2006). Ethics in an unethical environment or absence of ethics? The International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(1), 84-92.
[9] Beswick, E. (2020). Tens of thousands of protesters flood Belarus streets putting pressure on Lukashenko. Euronews.
[10] BBC News (2020). Belarus unrest: Lukashenko steps up efforts to reassert control. BBC News. August 19, 2020.
[11] Wijen, F., and Ansari, S. (2007). Overcoming Inaction through Collective Institutional Entrepreneurship: Insights from Regime Theory. Organization Studies 28 (7), 1079-100.
[12] Ciarli, T., Lorentz, A., Valente, M., and Savona, M. (2018). Structural changes and growth regimes. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 29 (1), 119-76.
[13] Van Aken. J.E and Romme, A.G.L. (2009). Reinventing the future: adding design science to the repertoire of organization and management studies. Innovation Technology Entrepreneurship & Marketing. 6(1), 5-12.
[14] Van Aken, J.E., Chandrasekaran, A., Halman, J. (2016). Conducting and publishing design science research. Journal of Operations Management, 47-48, 1-8.
[15] Winter, S.G. (2000). The satisficing principle in capability learning. Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue 21 (10-11), 981-996.
[16] Winter, S.G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (10), 991-995.
[17] Van Aken, J.E. (2004). Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field‐Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Journal of Management Studies. 41(2), 219-246.
[18] Van Aken, J.E. (2005). Management Research as a design science. Articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management 16, 19-36.
[19] Engel, Y., Kaandorp, M, and Elfring, T (2017). A dynamic process model of entrepreneurial networking under uncertainty. Journal of Business Venturing, 32: 35-51.
[20] Schreyögg, G., and Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization." Strategic Management Journal 28 (9), 913-33.
[21] Teece, D.J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies 49 (8), 1395-401.
[22] Kodithuwakku, S. (1997). Entrepreneurial process in an apparently uniform context: a study of rural farmers in Sri Lanka; PhD thesis. University of Sterling, Department of Management and Organization.
[23] McMullen, and Shepherd, (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
[24] Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25(1), 217–226.
[25] Galkina, T., and Chetty, S. (2015). Effectuation and Networking of Internationalizing SMEs. Management International Review 55 (5), 647-76.
[26] Sarasvathy, S.D. (2008). Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Edward Elgar, New. Horizons in Entrepreneurship Series.
[27] Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
[28] Romme, A.G. (2003). Making a Difference: Organization as Design. Organizational Science, 14 (5), 558-573.
[29] Selden, P.D. and Fletcher D.E. (2015). The entrepreneurial journey as an emergent hierarchical system of artifact-creating processes. Journal of Business Venturing, 30 (4), 603-615.
[30] Hallen, B.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2012). Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation: How entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties, Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 35-70.
[31] Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (3rd ed.) Free Press.
[32] Knight, F. H., (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit University. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
[33] Downing, S. (2005). The social construction of entrepreneurship: narrative and dramatic processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 185-204.
[34] Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-33.
[35] Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J., and Davidson, P. (2006) Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A Review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (4), 917-955.
[36] Autio, E., George, G. and O.Alexy (2011). International entrepreneurship and capability development – Qualitative evidence and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, January, 11-37.
[37] Churchill, V.C and Lewis, V.L. (1983). The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30-50.
[38] Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities: progress along a developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 91-102.
[39] Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press.
[40] George, A., and Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. The MIT Press.
[41] Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy Set Social Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[42] Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, New York: Cornell University Press.
[43] Druckman, D. (2005). Doing Research. Methods of Inquiry for Conflict Analysis. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, London, Delhi.
[44] Ivy, J., Larty, J. and S. Jack. (2014). Social capital and venture development in a low-trust environment. 2014 Academy of Management Annual Meeting Best Paper Proceedings.
[45] Copi, I.M. and Cohen, C. (2001). Introduction to Logic. Pearson Publisher.
[46] Bruton, G.D. and Ahlstrom, D. (2003). An institutional view of China's venture capital industry: Explaining the differences between China and the West. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 233-259.
[47] McKeever, E., Jack, S. and Anderson, A. (2015). Embedded entrepreneurship in the creative re-construction of place. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 50-65.
[48] Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Marketing under Uncertainty: The Logic of an Effectual Approach. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 1–18.
[49] Hambrick, D. C. (1994). What if the Academy Actually Mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19 (1), 11-16.
[50] Hitt, M.A. (1998). Presidential address – Twenty-first century organizations: Business firms, business schools, and the Academy. Academy of Management Review, 23, 218-224.
[51] Petticrew, M. (2001). Systematic view from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions. British Medical Journal 322, 98-101.
[52] Nan de Ven, A.H. (2002). Presidential address – Strategic directions for the Academy of Management: This Academy is for you! Academy of Management Review, 27, 171-184.
[53] Tsui, A.S. (2013). Presidential address – on compassion in scholarship: Why should we care? Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 167-181.
[54] Cardon, M.S., Stevens, C.E., and Potter, D.R. (2011). Misfortunes or mistakes? Cultural sensemaking of entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing 26, 79-92.
[55] Grossman, E.B., Yli-Renko, H. and Janakiraman, R. (2012). Resource search, interpersonal similarity, and network tie valuation in nascent entrepreneurs' emerging networks. Journal of Management 38: 1760-1787.
[56] Jack, S.L. (2010). Approaches in studying networks: Implications and outcomes. Journal of Business Ventures 25 (1), 120-137.
[57] Gedajlovic, E., Honig, B., Moore, C.B., Payne, G.T., and Wright, M. (2013). Social capital and entrepreneurship: A schema and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 37 (3): 455-478.
[58] Hoang, H. and Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: a critical review. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (2), 165-187.
[59] Shepherd, D.A. and Haynie, J.M. (2011). Venture failure, stigma, and impression management: A self‐verification, self‐determination view. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(2), 178-197.
[60] Aslund, A. (2002). Building Capitalism. The Transformation of the Former Soviet Bloc. Cambridge University Press.
[61] Puffer, S.M., McCarthy, D.J. and Boisot, M.H. (2010). Entrepreneurship in Russia and China: The Impact of Formal Institutional Voids. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 441-467.
[62] Weick, K.E. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 301-314.
[63] Rasche, A. & Behnam, M. (2009). As if it were relevant. A system of theoretical perspective on the relation between science and practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(3), 243-255.
[64] Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12, S3-26.
Julia Ivy (2020), Capabilities of Entrepreneurial Ventures that Successfully Navigate Regime Change: A Research Agenda. IJBMR 8(3), 73-83. DOI: 10.37391/IJBMR.080303.