Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:21:22.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

They look while they leap: Generative co-occurrence of enactment and effectuation in entrepreneurial action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

Sanjay Bhowmick
Sanjay Bhowmick*
Affiliation:
Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, CCE1 City Campus, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
*
Corresponding author: sanjay.bhowmick@northumbria.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been said that entrepreneurs plan in order to deal with market uncertainty. It has also been argued that entrepreneurs act spontaneously and with insufficient planning, as time is of the essence and as market uncertainty seldom yields to planning. Theoretically, in uncertain market conditions, the concept of effectuation posits that entrepreneurs control their resources enhancing them through likeminded stakeholder buy-ins towards creating an opportunity. Alternatively, the first prospective action steps under uncertainty are argued to be taken regardless of resources position, reflecting enactment before sensemaking. Thus, enactment embodies resource-independent action-embracing ambiguity, whereas effectuation, i.e., controlling resources and enhancing stakeholder buy-ins, represents resource-dependent action that mitigates ambiguity and risk. This paper proposes that prospective enactment action and effectuation control action are analytically distinct, complementary and simultaneous aspects of entrepreneurial action. It further proposes that successful outcomes of entrepreneurial action may be anticipated by a high and matching combination of enactment and effectual action in a generative co-occurrence. The paper illustrates the propositions using cases that exhibit diverse action outcomes. It also potentially reconciles the ambiguity-embracing or risk-taking approach and the ambiguity-reducing or risk-mitigating control approach in understanding entrepreneurial action seeking opportunity in an uncertain and dynamic market.

Keywords

enactmenteffectuationstart-upentrepreneurial leapentrepreneurial sensemaking
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 515 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, H. E. (2001). Who wants to be an evolutionary theorist? Remarks on the occasion of the year 2000 OMT distinguished scholarly career award presentation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(2), 115–127.Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31(5), 776–793.Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2013). Epistemology, opportunities, and entrepreneurship: Comments on Venkataraman et al. (2012) and Shane (2012). Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 154–157.Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities: The implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization Science, 24(1), 301–317.Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Young, S. L. (2010). Debates in entrepreneurship: Opportunity formation and implications for the field of entrepreneurship. In Z. L. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 23–45). London: Springer.Google Scholar
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhide, A. (1994). How entrepreneurs craft strategies that work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2).Google Scholar
Bhowmick, S. (2011). Effectuation and the dialectic of control. Small Enterprise Research, 18(1), 51–62.Google Scholar
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
de Koning, A. (2003). Opportunity development: A socio-cognitive perspective. In J. A. Katz & D. A. Shepherd (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to entrepreneurship research (advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth), vol. 6 (pp. 265–314). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: Differences between experts and novices. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 287–309.Google Scholar
Dimov, D. (2007). Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(5), 713–731.Google Scholar
Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57–81.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2013). Response to the commentaries: The individual-opportunity (IO) nexus integrates objective and subjective aspects of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 160–163.Google Scholar
Galvin, P., Rice, J., & Liao, T. S. (2014). Applying a Darwinian model to the dynamic capabilities view: Insights and issues. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(2), 250–263.Google Scholar
Gartner, W. B., Carter, N. M., & Hills, G. E. (2003). The language of opportunity. In C. S. D. Hjorth (Ed.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 103–124). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 213–232). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Holmquist, C. (2003). Is the medium really the messenger? Moving perspective from the entrepreneurial actor to the entrepreneurial action. In C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 73–85). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Klein, P. G. (2008). Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 175–190.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, MA and New York, NY, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA, London and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Low, M. B., & Abrahamson, E. (1997). Movements, bandwagons and clones: Industry evolution and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 435–458.Google Scholar
McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512.Google Scholar
McMullen, J. S., Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2007). What is an entrepreneurial opportunity? Small Business Economics, 28(4), 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA, London and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1982). Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm. Academy of Management Journal, 25(3), 465–499.Google Scholar
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S. D., & Read, S. (2005). Entrepreneurial Expertise. In M. A. Hitt & R. D. Ireland (Eds), Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management: Entrepreneurship (Vol. III, pp. 77–80). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S. D., & Dew, N. (2005). Entrepreneurial logics for a technology of foolishness. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21(4), 385–406.Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S. D., Venkataraman, S., Dew, N., & Velamuri, R. (2003). Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction, vol. 1 (pp. 141–160). Boston, MA and London: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Scott, M., & Rosa, P. (1997). New businesses from old: The role of portfolio entrepreneurs in the start-up and growth of small businesses. In M. Ram, D. Deakins, & D. Smallbone (Eds.), Small firms: Enterprising futures (pp. 33–46). London: Paul Chapman Publishing on behalf of the Institute for Small Business Affairs.Google Scholar
Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
Stevenson, H. H., & Gumpert, D. E. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 85–94.Google Scholar
Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, (Special Issue: Corporate Entrepreneurship) 17–27.Google Scholar
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. In J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, vol. 3 (pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT, USA and London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Forster, W. R. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 21–33.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Massachusetts and California: Addison-Wesley Publication Company.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (2007). The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.Google Scholar
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.Google Scholar
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The future of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 67–83.Google Scholar