Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Introduction: The power of status
- Part I How status differences are legitimated
- Part II The influence of status on markets
- Part III The role of status in new industries and ventures
- 6 The cultural context of status
- 7 Venture launch and growth as a status-building process
- Part IV When ascriptive status trumps achieved status in teams
- Part V Status in the workplace
- Part VI Developing status and management knowledge
- Index
- References
7 - Venture launch and growth as a status-building process
from Part III - The role of status in new industries and ventures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Introduction: The power of status
- Part I How status differences are legitimated
- Part II The influence of status on markets
- Part III The role of status in new industries and ventures
- 6 The cultural context of status
- 7 Venture launch and growth as a status-building process
- Part IV When ascriptive status trumps achieved status in teams
- Part V Status in the workplace
- Part VI Developing status and management knowledge
- Index
- References
Summary
“Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.” This old adage sums up the advantage large established firms have in securing customers and sustaining their business. As a prototypical institution, IBM epitomizes the established organization that through longevity, size, and reputation is beyond reproach. New firms, in contrast, are status-challenged. They have no history, little name recognition, an unknown brand, and a lack of established resources to leverage. So how do new firms go about establishing legitimacy and securing status to go from being an unknown to a viable, growing entity?
New ventures face intimidating odds in the development phase. New venture research consistently documents high venture failure rates, even approaching eighty percent (Baum, Locke, and Smith, 2001; Cooper, Dunkelberg, and Woo, 1988). Founders often struggle with scarce resources including time, human capital, the physical and strategic resources required to turn ideas into commercialized products, and financial capital to develop and launch the emerging enterprise (Acs and Audretsch, 2003).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Status in Management and Organizations , pp. 191 - 212Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
2003 Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and IntroductionNew YorkSpringerGoogle Scholar
2003 Innovation, market structure and firm sizeReview of Economics and Statistics 71 567Google Scholar
1986 Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implicationsResearch in Organizational Behaviour 8 165Google Scholar
2009
2001 A multidimensional model of venture growthAcademy of Management Journal 44 292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1991 Institutional linkages and organizational mortalityAdministrative Science Quarterly 36 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002 The Economics of Choice, Change and Organization: Essays in Honour of Richard M. CyertCheltenhamEdward ElgarGoogle Scholar
1990 Organizational mortality: The liabilities of newness and adolescenceAdministrative Science Quarterly 35 530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000 How a VC does it; Bob Davoli is a hands-on investor, and so far he hasn’t picked a loser. Can he keep it up?BusinessWeek 96Google Scholar
2009 Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentation: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisionsAcademy of Management Journal 52 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1983 The new product process: An empirically-based classification schemeR&D Management 13 1Google Scholar
1990 Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new productsBusiness Horizons 33 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005 An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputationJournal of Management Studies 42 329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997 The effect of reputation on the decision to joint ventureStrategic Management Journal 18 1273.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1975 Organisational legitimacy: Social values and organisational behaviorPacific Sociological Review 18 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003 Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgmentsAcademy of Management Journal 46 283Google Scholar
2009
1991 Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: A new perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationshipsAcademy of Management Review 16 442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1994 The Fortune corporate ‘reputation’ index: Reputation for what?Journal of Management 20 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003 Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and IntroductionNew YorkSpringerGoogle Scholar
1991 Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigmAcademy of Management Review 16 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1985 Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddednessAmerican Journal of Sociology 91 481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1992 The strategic analysis of intangible resourcesStrategic Management Journal 13 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989 Structural inertia and organizational changeAmerican Sociological Review 49 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2009 Structure! Agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organizationAcademy of Management Journal 52 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2009
2008 Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy: A social actor conceptualizationCorporate Reputation Review 11 192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2009 Form or substance: The role of business plans in venture capital decision makingStrategic Management Journal 30 487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2009 Alliance partners and firm performance: Resource complementarity and status associationStrategic Management Journal 30 921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1987 Criteria distinguishing successful ventures in the venture screening processJournal of Business Venturing 2 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1986 Relying on the information of interested partiesRand Journal of Economics 17 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2001 Leadership and the pursuit of status: Effects of globalization and economic transformationAdvances in Global Leadership II 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1993 A status-based model of market competitionAmerican Journal of Sociology 98 829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996 Networks, knowledge, and niches: Competition in the worldwide semiconductor industry, 1984–1991American Journal of Sociology 102 659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999 Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactionsStrategic Management Journal 20 6913.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997 The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomesAcademy of Management Journal 40 443Google Scholar
2009
1986 Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newnessAdministrative Science Quarterly 31 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000 The potential of actuarial decision models: Can they improve the venture capital investment decision?Journal of Business Venturing 15 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008 A contingent model of network utilization in early financing of technology venturesEntrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 32 593Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by