هدف گرایی، امکان گرایی و عملکرد کسب و کارهای کارآفرینانه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 مربی، گروه مدیریت، دانشگاه فنی و حرفه ای، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه کسب‌وکار، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف ­گرایی (علیت) و امکان­ گرایی (اثرسازی) دو منطق تصمیم گیری است که کارآفرینان در انجام فعالیت ­هایشان بکار می ­گیرند. در طول دو دهه گذشته، توجهات فزاینده ای به دو منطق رفتاری که کارآفرینان در راه اندازی و توسعه شرکت­های جدید بکار می ­گیرند شده است. پژوهش­ های موجود حاکی از آن است عملکرد کسب و کار با هدف گرایی و امکان گرایی رابطه دارد. هدف این مقاله بررسی هدف ­گرایی و امکان ­گرایی (با چهار بعدآزمایش ­گری، زیان قابل تحمل، انعطاف پذیری و پیش تعهدات) بر عملکرد کسب و کار با استفاده از مدل سازی معادلات ساختاری است. این پژوهش از منظر هدف کاربردی است و داده­ها به روش، توصیفی-همبستگی گردآوری شده است. جامعه آماری پژوهش، کسب ­و­کار های فعال در صنعت فناوری اطلاعات است. نمونه آماری از طریق فرمول کوکران، شامل 175 کارآفرین فعال در این حوزه است که به روش نمونه گیری تصادفی انتخاب شده­اند. داده­ های گردآوری شده، با نرم‌افزارهایSPSS26 و SmartPLS3 تجزیه و تحلیل شده است. یافته­ های تحقیق نشان می دهد که انعطاف پذیری، هدف گرایی، آزمایش گری با عملکرد کارآفرینانه رابطه ای مثبت و معنی دار دارد؛ و زیان قابل تحمل و پیش تعهدات با عملکرد رابطه ای منفی و معنی دار دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effectuation, Causation and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Businesses

نویسندگان [English]

  • Vajihe Baghersad 1
  • Ali Davari 2
  • Taraneh Farrokhmanesh 3
1 Instructor, Department of Management, Technical and Vocational University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Business, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD Student, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Purposefulness, feasibility and performance of entrepreneurial businesses
Abstract
Purposefulness (causality) and possibilityism (effectiveness) are two decision logics that entrepreneurs use in doing activities. Over the past two decades, much attention has been paid to these two behavioral logics that entrepreneurs use to start and develop new companies. Existing research suggests that business performance is associated with purposefulness and feasibility. The purpose of this paper is to examine the purposefulness and feasibility (with four dimensions of experimentation, tolerable loss, flexibility and pre-commitment) on business performance using structural equation modeling. This research is applied from the perspective of purpose and the data are collected by descriptive-correlation method. The statistical population of the study is businesses active in the information technology industry. The statistical sample through Cochran's formula includes 175 entrepreneurs active in this field who have been selected by random sampling method. The collected data were analyzed by SPSS26 and SmartPLS3 software. Research findings show that flexibility, goal orientation, experimentation have a positive and significant relationship with entrepreneurial performance; And tolerable losses and pre-commitments have a negative and significant relationship with performance. In other words, the relationship between tolerable losses and pre-commitments is inversely related to performance, and with the increase of either of these, the performance of the business decreases. The reason for this discrepancy may be explained in the results due to differences, and finally some suggestions for research are provided.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Causation
  • Decision-making logic
  • Effectuation
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Business Performance

مراجع

[1]        Wiltbank, R., Read, S., Dew, N., & Sarasvathy, S., Prediction and control under uncertainty: Outcomes in angel investing. Journal of Business Venturing, 2009. 24, 116–133.
[2]        Ruiz-Jiménez, J. M., Ruiz-Arroyo, M., & del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M., The impact of effectuation, causation, and resources on new venture performance: novice versus expert entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 2020.1-21.
[3]        Sarasvathy, S., Kumar, K., York, J. G., & Bhagavatula, S.,An effectual approach to international entrepreneurship: Overlaps, challenges, and provocative possibilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2014. 38(1), 71-93.
[4]        Sarasvathy, S. D., & Dew, N., New market creation through transformation. Journal of evolutionary economics, 2005. 15(5), 533-565.
[5]    [5]    Brettel, M., Bendig, D., Keller, M., Friederichsen, N., & Rosenberg, M., Effectuation in manufacturing: how entrepreneurial decision-making techniques can be used to deal with uncertainty in manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 2014.  17, 611-616.
[6]        Reymen, I. M., Andries, P., Berends, H., Mauer, R., Stephan, U., & Van Burg, E., Understanding dynamics of strategic decision making in venture creation: a process study of effectuation and causation. Strategic entrepreneurship journal, 2015. 9(4), 351-379.
[7]        Sarasvathy, S., & Dew, N., Effectuation and over–trust: Debating Goel and Karri. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2008. 32(4), 727-737..
[8]        Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., & Kapsa, D., Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning–performance relationship in small firms. Journal of business Venturing, 2010. 25(1), 24-40.
[9]        Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Wiltbank, R., Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: Differences between experts and novices. Journal of Business Venturing, 2009. 24(4), 287–309. 
[10]        Yu, X., Tao, Y., Tao, X., Xia, F., & Li, Y., Managing uncertainty in emerging economies: The interaction effects between causation and effectuation on firm performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2018. 135, 121-131.
[11]        Peng, X. B., Liu, Y. L., Jiao, Q. Q., Feng, X. B., & Zheng, B., The nonlinear effect of effectuation and causation on new venture performance: The moderating effect of environmental uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 2020. 117, 112-123.
[12]        Cai, L., Guo, R., Fei, Y., & Liu, Z., Effectuation, exploratory learning and new venture performance: evidence from China. Journal of Small Business Management, 2017. 55(3), 388-403.
[13]        Blank, S., Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard business review, 2013. 91(5), 63-72.
[14]        Blank, S., The four steps to the epiphany: successful strategies for products that win. John Wiley & Sons. 2020
[15]        Laskovaia, A., Shirokova, G., & Morris, M. H., National culture, effectuation, and new venture performance: global evidence from student entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 2017. 49(3), 687-709.
[16]        Mirvahedi, S., An Investigation of Iranian Entrepreneurs’ Decision Making Logic Based On Effectuation Theory. Modern Research in Decision Making, 2018. 2(4), 229-254.
[17]        Khaje Naieni, A., Mohammadi Kangarani, H., Ashtarian, K., Network Analysis of Decision Making in Irans Nanotechnology Policy Making; Case Study of Nanotechnology Plan. Management Research in Iran, 2021 18(2), 25–54
[18]        Smolka, K. M., Verheul, I., Burmeister–Lamp, K., & Heugens, P. P., Get it together! Synergistic effects of causal and effectual decision–making logics on venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2018. 42(4), 571-604.
[19]        Smolka, K. M., Verheul, I., Burmeister–Lamp, K., & Heugens, P. P., Get it together! Synergistic effects of causal and effectual decision–making logics on venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2018. 42(4), 571-604.
[20]        Kristinsson, K., Candi, M., & Sæmundsson, R. J., The relationship between founder team diversity and innovation performance: The moderating role of causation logic. Long Range Planning, 2016. 49(4), 464-476.
[21]        Fisher, G., Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 2012. 36(5), 1019-1051.
[22]        Chandler, G. N., DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Mumford, T. V., Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study. Journal of business venturing, 2011. 26(3), 375-390.
[23]        Jahanizadeh, F., Moshabaki, A., Kord Naeij, A., & Khodadad Hosseini, S. H., Explaining the basic principles of business ecosystem approach. Management Research in Iran, 2015. 19(2), 139-160.
[24]        Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V., Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of management review, 1986. 11(4), 801-814.
[25]        Karacaoğlu, K., Bayrakdaroğlu, A., & San, F. B., The impact of corporate entrepreneurship on firms’ financial performance: evidence from Istanbul stock exchange firm, 2013.
[26]           Adams, B., & Sykes, V., Performance measures and profitability factors of successful     African-American entrepreneurs: An exploratory study. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2003. 2(2), 418–424.
[27]        Webb, J. W., Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Kistruck, G. M., & Tihanyi, L., Where is the opportunity without the customer? An integration of marketing activities, the entrepreneurship process, and institutional theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2011. 39(4), 537-554.
[28]        Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C., Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research. Journal of business research, 1996. 36(1), 15-23.
[29]        Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K., Multiple perspectives of performance measures. European management journal, 2007. 25(4), 266-282.
[30]        Mayer-Haug, K., Read, S., Brinckmann, J., Dew, N., & Grichnik, D., Entrepreneurial talent and venture performance: A meta-analytic investigation of SMEs. Research Policy, 2013. 42(6-7), 1251-1273. 
[31]        Read, S., Song, M., & Smit, W., A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture performance. Journal of business venturing, 2009. 24(6), 573-587.
[32]        Teece, D. J., Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 2007. 28(13), 1319–1350.
[33]        DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Chandler, G. N., Making sense of entrepreneurial exit strategies: A typology and test. Journal of Business Venturing, 2015. 30(2), 255-272.
[34]        Brettel, M., Mauer, R., Engelen, A., & Küpper, D., Corporate effectuation: Entrepreneurial action and its impact on R&D project performance. Journal of business venturing, 2012. 27(2), 167-184.
[35]        Frese, T., Geiger, I., & Dost, F., An empirical investigation of determinants of effectual and causal decision logics in online and high-tech start-up firms. Small Business Economics, 2020. 54(3).
[36]        Urban, B., & Heydenrych, J., Technology orientation and effectuation-links to firm performance in the renewable energy sector of South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2015. 26(3), 125-136.
[37]        Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., Laskovaia, A., & MahdaviMazdeh, H., Navigating the emerging market context: Performance implications of effectuation and causation for small and medium enterprises during adverse economic conditions in Russia. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2020. 14(3), 470-500.
[38]        Taghvaee, S., & Hejazi, S. R. H., The Effect of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Strategic Learning: Defining the Role of Effectuation Strategy. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 2018. 11(2), 301–320
[39]        Mirvahedi, S., An Investigation of Iranian Entrepreneurs’ Decision Making Logic Based On Effectuation Theory. Modern Research in Decision Making, 2018. 2(4), 229-254.
[40]        Deligianni, I., Voudouris, I., & Lioukas, S., Do effectuation processes shape the relationship between product diversification and performance in new ventures?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2017. 41(3), 349-377.
[41]        Sarasvathy, S. D., Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of management Review, 2001. 26(2), 243-263.
[42]        Davari, A., & Rezazadeh, A. Structural Equation Modeling with PLS Software. In 4. Jihad Daneshgahi Publishing Organization, Tehran, Iran, 2016
پژوهش های مدیریت در ایران
دوره 26، شماره 1
فروردین 1401
صفحه 88-110

فایل ها

اشتراک گذاری

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار