4.3 Article

External Interfaces or Internal Processes? Market Positioning and Divergent Professionalization Paths in Young Ventures

期刊

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

INFORMS
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1561

关键词

entrepreneurship; organizational structure; organizational evolution and change; new venture professionalization; scaling up; organizational design; entrepreneurial strategy

资金

  1. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores how the initial market positioning of entrepreneurial ventures affects their professionalization over time, finding that ventures pursue different professionalization paths based on their initial market positioning, contrary to existing literature assumptions.
We explore how the initial market positioning of entrepreneurial ventures shapes how they professionalize over time, focusing specifically on the development of functional roles. In contrast to existing literature, which presumes a uniform march toward professionalization as ventures scale and complete developmental milestones, we advance a contingent perspective, distinguishing between the development of external interface functions (marketing & sales and customer development) and internal process functions (accounting, human resources, and finance). Specifically, we argue that positioning in an unconventional market space raises demand for external engagement that focuses ventures' attention and resources toward developing external interface roles. At the same time, such unconventional ventures are less apt to elaborate their internal process roles relative to more conventional peers. We test these predictions using a novel longitudinal data set on the internal organizations of 3,748 U.S.-based entrepreneurial ventures. In contrast to common assumptions of convergent professionalization, our theory and findings advance the perspective that ventures pursue divergent professionalization paths based on their initial market positioning as they scale up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据