Samenvatting
I&EC: Summary of all articles
This is a summary of all articles of I&EC
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 39 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 39 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Articles Innovation and Creativity in ContextEntrepreneurship ............................................................................................................................................ 3
De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. 2009. The Role of Cultural and Symbolic Capital in Entrepreneurs’ Ability to Meet
Expectations about Conformity and Innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3): 398-420.
(6a/6b)................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. 2007. Networking by entrepreneurs: Patterns of tie—Formation in emerging
organizations, Organization Studies, 28 (12): 1849-1872. (5a/5b). .................................................................... 5
Essers, C. & Benschop, Y. 2007. “Enterprising Identities: Female Entrepreneurs of Moroccan or Turkish Origin
in the Netherlands”, Organization Studies, 28(1), pp. 49-69. (4a/4b). ................................................................ 7
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. S. 2002. The dynamics of organizational identity. Human Relations, 55: 989–1018.
(6a/6b)................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Peverelli, P., Song, L. J., Sun, Z., & Jianfeng, Y. 2011. Extending network analysis with social inclusions: A
Chinese entrepreneur building social capital. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 5(1): 121-143. (5a/5b) 11
Santandreu-Mascarell, C. & Garzon, D., 2013. Entrepreneurial and innovative competences, are they the
same?, Management Decision, 51(5):1084 – 1095. (4a/4b) ............................................................................. 13
Innovation management ............................................................................................................................... 15
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science
review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333. ......... 15
Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. Academy of
Management Annals, 7(1): 775-819. à Eventueel nog een keer checken ........................................................ 16
Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. 1992. Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard
Business Review, 70(April): 70-82. (2a/2b) ........................................................................................................ 18
Cooper, R.G. (2008) Perspective: The Stage-Gates Idea-to-Launch Process—Update, What’s New, and NexGen
Systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25:213–232 ................................................................. 20
Kester, L., Griffin, A., Hultink, E.J. & Lauche, K. (2011) Exploring Portfolio Decision-Making Processes. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 28:641–661 ............................................................................................ 22
Intrapreneurship: overcoming illegitimacy, issue selling ................................................................................ 24
Dougherty, D., & Heller, T. 1994. The Illegitimacy of Successful Product Innovation in Established Firms.
Organization Science, 5(2): 200-218.(4a/4b)..................................................................................................... 24
Obstfeld, D. 2012. Creative projects: a less routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization
Science, 23(6): 1571-1592. (7a) ......................................................................................................................... 26
Howard-Grenville, J. A. 2007. Developing issue-selling effectiveness over time: Issue selling as resourcing.
Organization Science, 18(4): 560-577. (7a) ....................................................................................................... 28
Lu, S., Bartol, K.M., Venkatarmani, V., Zheng, X. & Liu, X. (2019) Pitching novel ideas to the boss: the
interactive effects of employees’ idea enactment and influence tactics on creativity assessment and
implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 62 (2), 579-606. .............................................................. 30
Creativity, individual level innovation ........................................................................................................... 32
Amabile, T.M. (1996) The Social Psychology of Creativity. In Amabile, T. M., ed. (1996) Creativity in Context,
Oxford: Westview Press. Chapter 1.................................................................................................................... 32
Additional/optional reading:......................................................................................................................... 33
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level
innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 5(1), p.90-105 ......... 33
1
,Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, September -October .......................... 35
Chikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The Domain of Creativity. in Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (Eds.). (1990). Theories
of creativity (Vol. 990). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chapter 9 ............................................................................. 37
Amabile , Terese M. - A model of creativity and innovation in organizations, 1998.......................................... 38
2
,Entrepreneurship
De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. 2009. The Role of Cultural and Symbolic Capital in Entrepreneurs’
Ability to Meet Expectations about Conformity and Innovation. Journal of Small Business
Management, 47(3): 398-420. (6a/6b)
Drawing from Bourdieu’s theory of practice, we specifically discuss entrepreneur’s ability, when entering a business
field, to simultaneously conform to existing field arrangements (to fit in) and to be perceived as innovators (to
stand out). A paradoxical relationship marks entrepreneurs’ ability to meet both of these expectations: we discuss
the role of entrepreneurs’ cultural and symbolic capital in this process. In addition, two contingency factors may
influence how entrepreneurs’’ ability to fit in and stand out affects their resource acquisition. First, the contribution
of the two facets of legitimacy to resource acquisition is influenced by the maturity of the field the entrepreneur
enters. Second, entrepreneurs’ resource acquisition may be enhanced by their ability to artfully navigate the
possible conflicting demands to fit in versus stand out in through impression management.
A primary challenge for entrepreneurs who develop new technology is to gain legitimacy for their activities: their
products should fit within a socially constructed system of norms and values of what is desirable and acceptable
technology.
In this paper, we develop the argument that entrepreneurs’ resource acquisition, in important ways, is driven by
their ability to gain legitimacy by meeting field incumbents’ expectations about both conformity and innovation,
and we highlight the critical role of power in this interplay between entrepreneurs’ actions and field incumbents’
expectations.
Legitimate entrepreneurial behavior: the ability to gain potentially contradicting demands, that is: conforming with
and challenging existing field arrangements.
3 contributions of this paper:
1. We focus on the ability of entrepreneurs to acquire resources as influenced by their ability to comply with
field incumbents’ expectations, which pertain both stability (fitting in) and change (standing out).
2. We highlight how entrepreneurs’ ability to meet the expectations held by field incumbents depends on
two types of capital that have received limited attention: cultural and symbolic capital.
a. Cultural capital: the ability to access and mobilize the institutions and cultural products of society
b. Symbolic capital; the ability to impose definitions of phenomena on other field participants
The more of such capital an entrepreneur possesses, the more dominant he/she will be when
entering the field à this dominance will influence the ability to gain legitimacy and to acquire
necessary resources.
3. We suggest two contingency factors that may moderate the relationship between entrepreneurs’ ability
to gain a specific facet of entrepreneurial legitimacy and their subsequent resource acquisition. 2 factors
are: maturity level and impression management.
A field = network of social relations in which actors struggle to hold varying levels of power.
Entrepreneurial legitimacy as an enactment of Habitus: the cognitive and somatic (lichamelijke) structures people
use to make sense of and enact their positions in the field. à 2 demands of legitimacy: fitting in and standing out
Fitting in: The expectation ‘to fit’ in refers to the acclaimed need for field participants to comply with existing
‘templates for organizing’. The ability to fit in convinces field incumbents that the entrepreneur is someone who is
to be taken seriously and understands the field’s rules, and consequently would be a trustworthy recipient of
resources.
Standing out: the expectation that entrepreneurs challenge the status quo and bring something novel to the field,
thereby ‘standing out’ in comparison with incumbent field participants. The ability to stand out demonstrates that
the entrepreneur is offering something novel and previously unexploited in the particular business field, and
therefore that resources provided will likely generate superior returns.
The ultimate challenge for entrepreneurs is to cope with the simultaneous demands to use methods, procedures,
3
, or technology that are somewhat consistent with existing practices and produce outcomes that are innovative
enough to warrant the generation of unexploited economic profit in their domain or activity.
Ability to fit in à depends on cultural
capital à positive relation because
cultural capital and previous experience
make you look trustworthy.
Ability to stand out à depends on
symbolic capital à positive relation
because symbolic capital increases the
ability to stand out, because it enables
entrepreneurs to steer the perception
that they effectively infuse new
combinations.
The contribution of entrepreneur’s ability
to fit in and stand out to their success in
acquiring resources depends on the
maturity of the particular business field
they enter and the extent to which they
navigate the possible conflicting demands
of fitting in and standing out through
impression management.
Cultural capital: entrepreneurs’ ability to access and mobilize institutions and cultural product of a society. It differs
from human capital because it is more related to values, norms and beliefs.
There are 3 forms:
1. Objectified: material goods (buildings)
2. Institutionalized: certifications and credentials that signal trustworthiness (work experience)
3. Embodied: an entrepreneurs’ automatic ‘knowing’ how to present herself according to the field’s
arrangements.
P1: to the extent that an entrepreneur entering a business field holds high levels of field-specific cultural capital, he
or she will be more likely to be able to fit in with existing field arrangements.
Symbolic capital: the ability to use and manipulate symbolic resources, such as language, writing and myth.
Symbolic capital aligns with entrepreneurs’ reputation and their ability to engender beliefs that their venture will
deliver excellent performance.
P2: to the extent that an entrepreneur entering a business field holds high levels of field specific symbolic capital,
he or she will be more likely to be able to stand out compared with existing field arrangements.
P3a: the relationship between an entrepreneurs’ ability to fit in and his or her success in resource acquisition is
moderated by the maturity level of the field being entered, such that the relationship is stronger in more mature
fields.
P3b: the relationship between an entrepreneurs’ ability to stand out and his or her success in resources acquisition
is moderated by the maturity level of the field being entered, such that the relationships is stronger in less mature
fields.
P4: the relationship between entrepreneurs’ ability to fit in and stand out and their success in resource acquisition
is moderated by their reliance on impression management, such that the relationship is stronger to the extent that
they are able to artfully navigate the possible conflicting demands of conformity and innovation.
This article highlights the importance of entrepreneurs’ specific actions to comply with the demands for both
stability (fitting in) and change (standing out), while also noting the importance of factors outside their control
(field maturity) and under their control (impression management).
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper dominiqueverp. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 77254 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen