Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Business planning, idea change, flexibility and performance: the best of both worlds?
Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Jönköping University, Jönköping International Business School, JIBS, ESOL (Entrepreneurship, Strategy, Organization, Leadership).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6363-1382
2011 (English)In: Proceedings of the thirty-first annual entrepreneurship research conference / [ed] Zacharakis, A., Carter, S., Gruber, M., leleux, B., Corbett, A., Honig, B., Lumpkin, T., Delmar, F., Kelley, D., Marino, L., Edelman, L., Kickul, J., and Schindehutte, M., 2011Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The relationships between business planning and performance have divided the entrepreneurship research community for decades (Brinckmann et al, 2010). One side of this debate is the assumption that business plans may lock the firm in a specific direction early on, impede the firm to adapt to the changing market conditions (Dencker et al., 2009) and eventually, cause escalation of commitments by introducing rigidity (Vesper, 1993). Conversely, feedback received from the production and presentation of business plans may also lead the firm to take corrective actions. However, the mechanisms underlying the relationships between changes in business ideas, business plans and the performance of nascent firms are still largely unknown. While too many business idea changes may confuse stakeholders, exhaust the firm’s resources and hinder the undergoing legitimization process, some flexibility during the early stages of the venture may be beneficial to cope with the uncertainties surrounding new venture creation (Knight, 1921; March, 1982; Stinchcombe, 1965; Weick, 1979). Previous research has emphasized adaptability and flexibility as key success factors through effectual logic and interaction with the market (Sarasvathy, 2001; 2007) or improvisation and trial-and-error (Miner et al, 2001). However, those studies did not specifically investigate the role of business planning. Our objective is to reconcile those seemingly opposing views (flexibility versus rigidity) by undertaking a more fine-grained analysis at the relationships between business planning and changes in business ideas on a large longitudinal sample of nascent firms.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011.
Series
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 31, issue 12, article 18
National Category
Business Administration
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-20480ISBN: 0-910897-34-4 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-20480DiVA: diva2:600761
Conference
The 31st Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC), Syracuse, New York, USA - June 8-11, 2011
Available from: 2013-01-25 Created: 2013-01-25 Last updated: 2015-12-22Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Fulltext

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Davidsson, Per
By organisation
JIBS, ESOL (Entrepreneurship, Strategy, Organization, Leadership)
Business Administration

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 126 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf