Small Business Economics

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 403–423 | Cite as

Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: extending the integrative framework through the lens of complexity science

  • G. Christopher CrawfordEmail author
  • Patrick M. Kreiser


Whereas our understanding of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) and corporate entrepreneurship strategy (CES) continues to expand, there has been little theoretical development to support the most extensive framework to date: the integrative model of CES as proposed by Ireland et al. (Entrep Theory Pract 33(1):19–46, 2009). According to the model, CES is built upon the “three foundational elements of an entrepreneurial strategic vision, a pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture, and entrepreneurial processes and behaviors as exhibited throughout the organization” (Ireland et al. 2009, p. 38). The purpose of this study is to present a broad, overarching theory—complexity science—to examine the key elements and propositions of the CES model. Complexity science—founded on assumptions of interdependent heterogeneous agents and nonlinear interactions, as well as non-deterministic and potentially extreme outcomes—offers established multi-level concepts, theoretical boundary conditions, and methodological guidance for scholars to build and test future studies on CE and CES. Though our complexity perspective draws extensively from conceptual work on complex adaptive systems and agent-based models, we ground our arguments on the empirical ubiquity of power law distributions in all constructs and levels of analysis within the CES model. We conclude with a detailed research agenda, as well as a prescriptive discussion related to theory development, quantitative analysis, and practical applications to guide future studies on CE.


Complexity science Corporate entrepreneurship strategy Entrepreneurship Growth expectations Power law distributions Schemata 

JEL Classifications

L22 L26 


  1. Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301.Google Scholar
  2. Aguinis, H., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first-century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 313–350.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations Evolving. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1), 11–27.Google Scholar
  5. Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6), 755–775.Google Scholar
  6. Amburgey, T. L., & Rao, H. (1996). Organizational ecology: Past, present, and future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1265–1286.Google Scholar
  7. Amit, R., Brander, J., & Zott, C. (2000). Venture capital financing of entrepreneurship: Theory, empirical evidence, and a research agenda. In D. Sexton & H. Landstrom (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp. 259–281). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. (1990). Entrepreneurial ability, venture investments, and risk sharing. Management Science, 36(10), 1232–1245.Google Scholar
  9. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.Google Scholar
  10. Andriani, P., & McKelvey, B. (2009). From Gaussian to Paretian thinking: Causes and implications of power laws in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 1053–1071.Google Scholar
  11. Ansoff, H. I. (1987). The emerging paradigm of strategic behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 8(6), 501–515.Google Scholar
  12. Axtell, R. J. (1999). The emergence of firms in a population of agents: Local increasing returns, unstable Nash equilibria, and power law size distribution. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  13. Barabási, A.-L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288(May), 60–69.Google Scholar
  14. Barabási, A.-L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(3), 590–614.Google Scholar
  15. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
  16. Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331–1344.Google Scholar
  17. Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems (Vol. 213). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303.Google Scholar
  19. Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Strumsky, D., & West, G. (2010). Urban scaling and its deviations: Revealing the structure of wealth, innovation, and crime across cities. PLoS One, 5(11), 1–9.Google Scholar
  20. Bettis, R. A., & Wong, S.-S. (2003). Dominant logic, knowledge creation, and managerial choice. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 343–355). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Boisot, M., & McKelvey, B. (2010). Integrating modernist and postmodernist perspectives on organizations: A complexity science bridge. The Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 415–433.Google Scholar
  22. Brock, W. A. (2000). Some Santa Fe scenery. In D. Colander (Ed.), The complexity vision and the teaching of economics (pp. 29–49). Cheltanham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. Buldyrev, S. V., Dokholyan, N. V., Erramilli, S., Hong, M., Kim, J. Y., Malescio, G., & Stanley, H. E. (2003). Hierarchy in social organization. Physica A, 330(3), 653–659.Google Scholar
  24. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244.Google Scholar
  25. Burgelman, R. A. (1984). Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms. California Management Review, 26(3), 154–166.Google Scholar
  26. Chiles, T. H., Vultee, D. M., Gupta, V. K., Greening, D. W., & Tuggle, C. S. (2010). The philosophical foundations of a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(2), 138–164.Google Scholar
  27. Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51(4), 661–703.Google Scholar
  28. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.Google Scholar
  29. Cornelissen, J. P., & Durand, R. (2013). More than just novelty: Conceptual blending and causality. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 152–154.Google Scholar
  30. Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63.Google Scholar
  31. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 1(10), 75–87.Google Scholar
  32. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
  33. Crawford, G. C. (2012a). Emerging scalability and extreme outcomes in new ventures: Power-law analyses of three studies. In L. A. Toombs (Ed.), Proceedings of the seventy-second annual meeting of the academy of management. ISSN 1543-8643.Google Scholar
  34. Crawford, G. C. (2012b). Disobeying power-laws: Perils for theory and method. Journal of Organization Design, 1(2), 75–81.Google Scholar
  35. Crawford, G. C., & McKelvey, B. (2012). Strategic implications of power-law distributions in the creation and emergence of new ventures: Power-law analyses in three panel studies. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 32(12), 1. (Wellesley: Babson College).Google Scholar
  36. Crawford, G. C., McKelvey, B., & Lichtenstein, B. (2014). The empirical reality of entrepreneurship: How power law distributed outcomes call for new theory and method. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 1(1–2), 3–7.Google Scholar
  37. Crawford, G. C., Aguinis, H., Lichtenstein, B., Davidsson, P., & McKelvey, B. (2015). Power law distributions in entrepreneurship: Implications for theory and research. Journal of Business Venturing. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.001.
  38. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  39. DeKinder, J. S., & Kohli, A. K. (2008). Flow signals: How patterns over time affect the acceptance of start-up firms. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 84–97.Google Scholar
  40. Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 385–410.Google Scholar
  41. Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., & Lane, P. J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 351–378.Google Scholar
  42. DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287.Google Scholar
  43. Drazin, R., & Sandelands, L. (1992). Autogenesis: A perspective on the process of organizing. Organization Science, 3(2), 230–249.Google Scholar
  44. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.Google Scholar
  45. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  46. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  47. Eisenhardt, K., Furr, N., & Bingham, C. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263.Google Scholar
  48. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., & Sobrero, M. (2012). The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 387–414.Google Scholar
  49. Fioretti, G. (2013). Agent-based simulation models in organization science. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 227–242.Google Scholar
  50. Fleming, L. (2007). Breakthroughs and the ‘long tail’ of innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 68–74.Google Scholar
  51. Florin, J., Lubatkin, M., & Schulze, W. (2003). A social capital model of high-growth ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 374.Google Scholar
  52. Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 253–260.Google Scholar
  53. Gartner, W. B., Bird, B., & Starr, J. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3), 13–30.Google Scholar
  54. Gell-Mann, M. (1988). The concept of the Institute. In D. Pines (Ed.), Emerging synthesis in science (pp. 1–15). Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  55. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  56. Grégoire, D., Barr, P., & Shepherd, D. (2010). Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21(2), 413.Google Scholar
  57. Haynie, M., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). A measure of adaptive cognition for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 695–714.Google Scholar
  58. Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  59. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., & Bott, J. P. (2009). Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 236–247.Google Scholar
  60. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.Google Scholar
  61. Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46.Google Scholar
  62. Khanin, D., Baum, J. R., Turel, O., & Mahto, R. V. (2009). Are some venture capitalists more likely than others to replace founder-CEOs? The Journal of Private Equity, 12(2), 19–29.Google Scholar
  63. Kohli, R., & Sah, R. (2006). Some empirical regularities in market shares. Management Science, 52(11), 1792–1798.Google Scholar
  64. Komolgorov, A. (1933). Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge di distribuzione. Giornale dell’Istituto Italiano degli Attuari, 4, 83–91.Google Scholar
  65. Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Weaver, K. M. (2013). Disaggregating entrepreneurial orientation: The non-linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking on SME performance. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 273–291.Google Scholar
  66. Kuratko, D. F. (2009). The entrepreneurial imperative of the 21st century. Business Horizons, 52(5), 421–428.Google Scholar
  67. Labianca, G., Moon, H., & Watt, I. (2005). When is an hour not 60 minutes? Deadlines, temporal schemata, and individual and task group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 677–694.Google Scholar
  68. Leitch, C., Hill, F., & Neergaard, H. (2010). Entrepreneurial business Growth and the quest for a “comprehensive theory”: Tilting at windmills? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 249–260.Google Scholar
  69. Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535–550.Google Scholar
  70. Lichtenstein, B. (2011). Complexity science contributions to the field of entrepreneurship. In S. Maguire, P. Allen, & B. McKelvey (Eds.), SAGE handbook of complexity and management (pp. 473–495). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  71. Lichtenstein, B. (2014). Generative emergence: A new discipline of organizational, entrepreneurial, and social innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Lichtenstein, B., Carter, N., Dooley, K., & Gartner, W. (2007). Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 236–261.Google Scholar
  73. Lomi, A., Larsen, E., & Wezel, F. (2010). Getting there: Exploring the role of expectations and preproduction delays in processes of organizational founding. Organization Science, 21(1), 132–149.Google Scholar
  74. Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363–380.Google Scholar
  75. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1963). New methods in statistical economics. Journal of Political Economy, 71, 421–440.Google Scholar
  76. March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  77. McGraw, A. P., Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Mick, D. G., & Johnson, M. D. (2003). The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 219–229.Google Scholar
  78. McKelvey, B. (2004a). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 313–341.Google Scholar
  79. McKelvey, B. (2004b). Toward a 0th law of thermodynamics: Order-creation complexity dynamics from physics and biology to bioeconomics. Journal of Bioeconomics, 6(1), 65–96.Google Scholar
  80. McMullen, J. S., Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2007). What is an entrepreneurial opportunity? Small Business Economics, 28(4), 273–283.Google Scholar
  81. McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. S. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. The Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.Google Scholar
  82. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.Google Scholar
  83. Miller, K. D., & Lin, S.-J. (2010). Different truths in different worlds. Organization Science, 21(1), 97–114.Google Scholar
  84. Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. S. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 93–104.Google Scholar
  85. Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: Cengage/SouthWestern Publishers.Google Scholar
  86. Ndofor, H. A., Sirmon, D. G., & He, X. (2011). Firm resources, competitive actions and performance: Investigating a mediated model with evidence from the in vitro diagnostics industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32(6), 640–657.Google Scholar
  87. O’Boyle, E. H., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79–119.Google Scholar
  88. Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. M. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Powell, T. C. (2003). Varieties of competitive parity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 61–81.Google Scholar
  90. Rahmandad, H., & Sterman, J. (2008). Heterogeneity and network structure in the dynamics of diffusion: Comparing agent-based and differential equation models. Management Science, 54(5), 998–1014.Google Scholar
  91. Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2007). Patterned interactions in complex systems: Implications for exploration. Management Science, 53(7), 1068–1085.Google Scholar
  92. Ronstadt, R. (1988). The corridor principle. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
  93. Rosenbusch, N., Rauch, A., & Bausch, A. (2013). The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in the task environment–performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(3), 633–659.Google Scholar
  94. Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.Google Scholar
  95. Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. (2009). Advancing strategic entrepreneurship research: The role of complexity science in shifting the paradigm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 241–276.Google Scholar
  96. Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). Regulatory focus in a demanding world. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 291–314). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  97. Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency “theory”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3), 349–377.Google Scholar
  98. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  99. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.Google Scholar
  100. Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.Google Scholar
  101. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  102. Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Multilevel entrepreneurship research: Opportunities for studying entrepreneurial decision making. Journal of Management, 37(2), 412–420.Google Scholar
  103. Shinkle, G. A. (2012). Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: Building on the past and aiming for the future. Journal of Management, 38(1), 415–455.Google Scholar
  104. Short, J., Broberg, J., Cogliser, C., & Brigham, K. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA): An illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320–347.Google Scholar
  105. Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16(2), 101–122.Google Scholar
  106. Simon, H. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika, 42(3/4), 425–440.Google Scholar
  107. Simon, H. A. (1968). On judging the plausibility of theories. In B. van Rootselaar, & F. Staal (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of sciences III (pp. 439–459). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  108. Singh, J., & Fleming, L. (2010). Lone inventors as sources of technological breakthroughs: Myth or reality? Management Science, 56(1), 41–56.Google Scholar
  109. Song, C., Qu, Z., Blumm, N., & Barabási, A.-L. (2010). Limits of predictability in human mobility. Science, 327(5968), 1018–1021.Google Scholar
  110. Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495.Google Scholar
  111. Stanley, M., Amaral, L. A. N., Buldyrev, S. V., Havlin, S., Leschhorn, H., Maass, P., et al. (1996). Scaling behavior in the growth of companies. Nature, 379(6568), 804–806.Google Scholar
  112. Starbuck, W. H., & Nystrom, P. C. (1981). Why the world needs organizational design. Journal of General Management, 6(3), 3–16.Google Scholar
  113. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. March (Ed.), The handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
  114. Suddaby, R. (2014). Editor’s comments: Why theory? Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 407–411.Google Scholar
  115. Sutton, J. (2002). The variance of firm growth rates: the ‘scaling’puzzle. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 312(3), 577–590.Google Scholar
  116. Toegel, G., Kilduff, M., & Anand, N. (2013). Emotion helping by managers: An emergent understanding of discrepant role expectations and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 334–357.Google Scholar
  117. Uy, M. A., Foo, M. D., & Aguinis, H. (2010). Using experience sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 31–54.Google Scholar
  118. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  119. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.Google Scholar
  120. West, B. J., & Deering, B. (1995). The lure of modern science: Fractal thinking. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  121. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 1911–1941.Google Scholar
  122. Winter, S., Cattani, G., & Dorsch, A. (2007). The value of moderate obsession: Insights from a new model of organizational search. Organization Science, 18(3), 403–419.Google Scholar
  123. Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.Google Scholar
  124. Zanini, M. (2008) Using power curves to assess industry dynamics. McKinsey Quarterly, November, 1–5.Google Scholar
  125. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Eastford: Martino-Fine.Google Scholar
  126. Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of BusinessOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  2. 2.College of BusinessIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations