Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Properties of emerging organizations: empirical evidence from Norway

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The process of new venture creation is of central importance to entrepreneurship. The effects of initial organizing have a direct effect on survival, yet empirical examination of the dimensions of emerging organizations is limited. Using longitudinal data on 203 nascent entrepreneurs from Norway over the course of four years (1996–1999), this paper empirically tests four properties of emerging organizations—intentionality, resources, boundary, and exchange—and their effect on the likelihood of continuing the organizing effort (Katz and Gartner, Acad Manage Rev 13(3):429–441, 1988). Consistent with previous research, our results suggest that organizations which engage in a greater number of organizing activities are more likely to continue the organizing effort. In addition, intentionality, boundary, and exchange are positively associated with organizational emergence, whereas resources are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for organizations to continue organizing. The concentration of organizing activities is also positively associated with the likelihood of continuing the organizing effort.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These studies and their findings have been reviewed by Brush et al. (2008).

  2. In the natural sciences, this argument is often referred to as “the edge of chaos” (Langton 1990).

  3. The unemployment rate is calculated as [(numbers of unemployed/number of people in the labour force) × 100] at the beginning of each year.

  4. The National Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) is a longitudinal study of nascent entrepreneurs in the US, started in 1998 and continued through three follow-up waves of data collection through telephone interviews and mail questionnaires. In the PSED data set, attrition is reported to be 26%, because of initial respondents who later could not be located, did not respond, or were deceased.

  5. The correlation table is not included here because of space constraints and is available from the authors on request.

  6. To account for the different number of items representing each of the four categories, we ran a series of analyses (not reported here because of space constraints) in which we measured the four properties using dichotomous variables, which took a value of “1” if at least one element of the property was present and “0” otherwise. Our results were consistent with the results reported above in that “intentionality”, “boundary”, and “exchange” significantly increased the odds of continuing the organizing effort whereas “resources” were not significant. We concluded that our results are robust to alternative operationalizations of the property categories. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the robustness test. Results are available from the authors on request.

  7. In an alternative regression specification, suggested by an anonymous reviewer and not reported here because of space constraints, we operationalized property completeness by use of a dichotomous variable which took a value of “1” if all four property categories were present and “0” otherwise. The results (available from the authors on request) are consistent with the results reported above in that property completeness significantly increased the odds of a nascent venture continuing the organizing effort.

  8. The methodology is presented in detail in Gartner et al. (2004).

  9. We are indebted to B. Lichtenstein for suggesting this line of reasoning.

References

  • Aces, Z. J., Desai, S., & Klapper, L. F. (2008). What does “entrepreneurship” data really show? Small Business Economics, 31(3), 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (1984). Event history analysis, regression analysis for longitudinal event data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., & Nelson, R. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(2), 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. (2000). Counterfactual thinking and venture formation: The potential effects of thinking about “What might have been”. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S. W., & Gordon, G. (1966). An entrepreneurial theory of formal organizations part I: Patterns of formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(3), 315–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhave, M. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, B. J. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., Jones, K., Autio, E., & Levie, J. (2008). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2007 executive report. Babson Park, MA: Babson College and London: London Business School.

  • Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 64–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, C. G., Manolova, T. S., & Edelman, L. F. (2008). Properties of emerging organizations: An empirical test. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 547–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Reynolds, P. D. (1996). Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G., & Hanks, S. (1994). Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities, venture strategies and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(4), 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. (1999). The influence of outsider-generated knowledge resources on venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(4), 42–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2003). Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 24(12), 1165–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimizing first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 385–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., & Manolova, T. S. (2005). Co-alignment in the resource-performance relationship: strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 359–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. (1999). Cognitive approaches to new venture creation. International Journal of Management Review, 1(4), 415–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. (2001). Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship: Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 57–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B., Carter, N. M., & Reynolds, P. D. (2004). Business start-up activities. In W .B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, N. M. Carter, & P. D. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of organization creation (pp. 285–299). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L. (1997). Organizational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(3), 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L. (2000). Entreprenørskap i Norge. Magma, 1, 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langton, C. G. (1990). Computation at the edge of chaos. Physica D, 42, 12–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Learned, K. (1992). What happened before the organization? A model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, B. B., Carter, N. M., Dooley, K., & Gartner, W. B. (2007). Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 236–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, B. B., Dooley, K. J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2006). Measuring emergence in the dynamics of new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 153–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, M., & Abramson, M. (1997). Movements, bandwagons and clones: Industry evolution and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 435–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manolova, T. S., Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., & Shaver, K. (2010). One size doesn’t fit all: Entrepreneurial expectancies and growth intentions of US women and men nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (forthcoming).

  • McKelvey, W., & Aldrich, H. (1983). Populations, natural selection and applied organizational science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullan, W. E., & Long, W. (1990). Developing new ventures. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2000). Education at a glance: OECD indicators 2000 edition. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1957). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Rice, M. (2010). Models of government support to promote the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Norway. In C. Brush, L. Kolvereid, R. Sorheim, & O. Widding (Eds.), The life cycle of new ventures. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D., & Miller, B. (1992). New firm gestation: Conception, birth and implications for research. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D., & White, S. B. (1997). The entrepreneurial process: Economic growth, men, women and minorities. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotefoss, B., & Kolvereid, L. (2005). Aspiring, nascent and fledgling entrepreneurs: An investigation of the business start-up process. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 17(2), 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotefoss, B., & Nyvoid, C. E. (2008). Entrepreneurship and innovation policy in European countries: The case of Norway. Innovative Policy Research for Economic Growth.

  • Scott, R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. (2003). Venture creation and the enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29(3), 379–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. (2007). STATA survival analysis and epidemiological table reference manual: release 10. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistical Yearbook of Norway. (1999). Statistisk Årbok 1999. Oslo: Statistisk Sentralbyrå.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social Structure and Organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyre, M., & Orlikowski, W. (1994). Window of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1), 98–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne, T. M., & Andrews, A. O. (1996). Predicting the performance of initial public offerings: Should human resource management be in the equation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 891–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants of the 2008 PSED Symposium in Greenville, SC for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, Benyamin Lichtenstein and K. Dooley for their insightful suggestions on the application of complexity theory, and Bayar “Tumen” Tumennasan for his invaluable assistance in the statistical analysis of the data. All remaining errors and omissions are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Bentley University, 319 Adamian Academic Center, 175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA, 02452-4705, USA

    Tatiana S. Manolova & Linda F. Edelman

  2. Babson College, Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship, Wellesley, MA, 02457, USA

    Candida G. Brush

  3. Bodo Graduate School of Business, 8049, Bodo, Norway

    Beate Rotefoss

Authors
  1. Tatiana S. Manolova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda F. Edelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Candida G. Brush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Beate Rotefoss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatiana S. Manolova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manolova, T.S., Edelman, L.F., Brush, C.G. et al. Properties of emerging organizations: empirical evidence from Norway. Small Bus Econ 39, 763–781 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9360-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9360-5

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation