Institutional theory is employed for examining how and to what extent external pressure leads to changes in the venture idea during the start-up and early life of new, knowledge-intensive ventures. From a population of 321 young, knowledge-intensive firms that underwent a training program at Linkping University, Sweden, structured telephone interview data were obtained from 167 firms. The results confirmed that the venture idea had undergone more change in ventures that had more external owners, a dominant customer, and an incubator location. The results imply that institutional theory is a meaningful tool for understanding why and how venture ideas change over time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, H. E. (1999) Organizations Evolving. London: Sage .
2.
Aldrich, H. E. and Fiol, M. C. (1994) ‘Fools Rush In? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation’ , Academy of Management Review19(4): 645–670 .
3.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003) ‘A Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification and Development’ , Journal of Business Venturing18(1): 105–123 .
4.
Barley, S. and Tolbert, P. (1997) ‘Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution’ , Organization Studies18(1): 93–117 .
5.
Bhave, M. (1994) ‘A Process Model of Entrepreneurial Creation’ , Journal of Business Venturing9(3): 223–242 .
6.
Bruyat, C. and Julien, P.-A. (2000) ‘Defining the Field of Entrepreneurship’ , Journal of Business Venturing16: 165–180 .
7.
Brytting, T. (1991) ‘Organizing in the Small Growing Firm: A Grounded Theory Approach’. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden .
8.
Davidsson, P. (2004) Researching Entrepreneurship. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
9.
De Koning, A. (2003) ‘Opportunity Development: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective’, in J. Katz and D. Shepherd Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 6, pp. 265–314. Oxford: JAI Press/Elsevier .
10.
Delmar, F. and Davidsson, P. (1999) ‘Firm Size Expectations of Nascent Entrepreneurs’, in P. D. Reynolds, W. D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, C. Mason, G. D. Meyer, H. J. Sapienza and K. G. Shaver (eds) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1999(Vol. 19), pp. 90–104. Wellesley, MA: Babson College .
11.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’ , American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160 .
12.
Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. H. (1977) ‘The Population Ecology of Organizations’ , American Journal of Sociology82(5): 929–964 .
13.
Hills, G. (1995) ‘Opportunity Recognition by Successful Entrepreneurs: A Pilot Study’, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 105–117. Wellesley, MA: Babson College .
14.
Honig, B. and Karlsson, T. (2004) ‘Institutional Forces and the Written Business Plan’ , Journal of Management30(1): 29–48 .
15.
Karlsson, T. (2003) ‘The Institutionalization Process of Business Plans in Young Organizations’. Unpublished manuscript, Jönköping International Business School, Sweden.
16.
Karnoe, P. (1995) Institutional Interpretations and Explanations of Differences in American and Danish Approaches to Innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
17.
Katz, J. and Gartner, W. (1988) ‘Properties of Emerging Organizations’ , Academy of Management Review13(3): 429–441 .
18.
Kirzner, I. M. (1973) Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
19.
Klofsten, M. (2005) ‘New Venture Ideas: An Analysis of their Origin and Early Development’ , Journal of Technology Analysis and Strategic Management17(1): 105–119 .
20.
Landstrm, H. and Winborg. J. (1995) ‘Small Business Managers’ Attitudes Towards and Use of Financial Sources’, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 172–186. Wellesley, MA: Babson College .
21.
Larkin, G. (1983) Occupational Monopoly and Modern Medicine. London: Tavistock .
22.
Long, W. and McMullan, W. E. (1984) ‘Mapping the New Venture Opportunity Identifi-cation Process’, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 567–591. Wellesley, MA: Babson College .
23.
Mansfield, E. (1979) Microeconomics: Theory and Applications. New York: Norton .
24.
McKelvie, A. and Wiklund, J. (2004) ‘How Knowledge Affects Opportunity Discovery and Exploitation Among New Ventures in Dynamic Markets’, in J. Butler (ed.) Research in Entrepreneurship and Management(Vol. 4), pp. 219–240. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing .
25.
Oliver, C. (1991) ‘Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes’ , Academy of Management Review16(1): 145–179 .
26.
Pavia, T. (1991) ‘The Early Stages of New Product Development in Entrepreneurial Hightech Firms’ , Journal of Product Innovation Management8(1): 18–31 .
27.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001) ‘Causation and Effectuation: Towards a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency’ , Academy of Management Review26(2): 243–288 .
28.
Scott, W. (2000) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
29.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) ‘The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research’ , Academy of Management Review25(1): 217–226 .
30.
Venkataraman, S. (1997) ‘The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor's Perspective’, in J. Katz and R. Brockhaus (eds) Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth(Vol. 3), pp. 119–138. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press .
31.
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P. and Delmar, F. (2003) ‘What Do They Think and Feel about Growth? An Expectancy-Value Approach to Small Business Managers’ Attitudes Toward Growth’ , Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice27(3): 247–269 .
32.
Williamson, O. E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: The Free Press .
33.
Willmott, H. (1986) ‘Organizing the Profession: A Theoretical and Historical Examination of the Development of the Major Accountancy Bodies in the UK’ , Accounting Organizations and Society11(6): 555–580 .
