Shared Identity Schemas Shape Incumbent Responses to New Entrants

An outstanding question in research on competitive strategy is what determines the strength and type of strategic response that incumbents deploy against new entrants. We argue that strategists’ assessment of threat from new entrants and their choice of strategic reactions depend on the shared identity schema in their field. Position of new entrants across identity categories indicate whether they pose a competitive threat within the same identity-based niche or outside it and whether they threaten to erode the incumbent’s category’s social value relative to other categories. Potential reactions to these threats can also be classified according to whether they protect or enhance the value that incumbents create and capture through their membership in their identity category. Matching identity-relevant strategic actions to the type of threat that new entries pose, we argue that incumbents (1) employ identity-deepening tactics in response to competition in their identity-based niche; (2) use identity-extending tactics in response to competition outside their niche; (3) respond to categorical identity threats by affirming their identities; and (4) are less likely to respond to either competitive or identity threats that originate from new entrants that do not clearly fit in the shared identity schema. We find support for our predictions in analyses using data on the population of Turkish universities over a 30-year period. We discuss theoretical implications for ecological and socio-cognitive studies of markets and practical implications for predicting patterns of strategic interaction and disruptive potential of new entrants.

Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0179 .

Imagining beyond nature-culture dualism: An exploration of ecological justice

In the face of rising sustainability issues, increasing numbers of organisations are trying to build compromises between their economic purpose and ecological objectives. Organisational studies focus on the analysis of such compromise processes but most studies do not seek to grasp the substantial changes advocated by ecological critiques. Our research is aimed at addressing that gap by clarifying the radical view sustained by ecological imaginary beyond conventional compromise processes. We engage in a qualitative study of biodynamics – an agricultural method based on a radical ecological imaginary – to evaluate its moral underpinnings through Boltanski and Thévenot’s Economies of Worth framework. Our findings help us to grasp the radical moral substance of ecological critique and to extend that framework beyond its dualist assumption. By highlighting antagonisms between meta-conceptions of justice rather than analysing compromises, our research provides insights into the radical organisational changes advocated by ecological critiques.

Specialists, Generalists, or Both? Founders’ Multidimensional Breadth of Experience and Entrepreneurial Ventures’ Fundraising at IPO

Different streams of research have led to contradictory conclusions about the venture performance implications of founders’ breadth of experience. Although extant empirical studies have explored the performance implications of founders’ breadth of experience at the start-up stage, we focus on the later stage of the initial public offering (IPO). We theorize that investors categorize venture founders based on two salient dimensions—their industry and functional background—and we relate this categorization to resource acquisition at IPO. To test our model, we use a hand-collected data set of 175 entrepreneurial IPOs in the Alternative Investment Market in London (2002–2013) and two randomized experiments. We theorize and find that compared with entrepreneurial ventures with a lead founder specializing in one industry or one function, investors generally devalue those with a category-spanning lead founder (a generalist). However, devaluation is less severe when a lead founder is a generalist in one dimension (e.g., industry) but a specialist in the other dimension (e.g., function). We also theorize and empirically test trust as a mechanism for the generalist penalty. Specifically, audience members (investors) have low trust in a generalist producer (founder) in contexts where the two parties consider entering into a partnership (equity investment at IPO), and so that generalist producer is devalued. Finally, we show that an external expert endorsement—in our case, from intensive venture capital affiliations—offsets the generalist penalty, especially when category spanning occurs in multiple category dimensions.

Praised from birth: social approval assets in the creation of a new university

Purpose

The authors explore how social approval assets, namely status and reputation, are used to legitimate and categorise a new national university. They argue that in the course of the legitimation process, status and reputation work as stakeholder-oriented value-creating benefits. The authors specifically analyse the discursive constructions and labels used in the process and how the process enables nationwide university reform.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors’ longitudinal case study utilises critical discourse analysis and analyses media and policy discourses regarding the birth of Aalto University.

Findings

The findings suggest that the legitimation of the new university was accomplished through the use of two distinct discourses: one on higher education and another on the market economy. These discourses not only sought to legitimise the new university as categorically different from existing Finnish universities, but also rationalised the merger using the expected reputation and status benefits that were claimed would accrue for supporters.

Practical implications

This study elaborates on the role of various social approval assets and labels in legitimation processes and explores how policy enforcement can take place in arenas that are not necessarily perceived as policymaking. For managers, it is crucial to understand how a chosen label (name) can result in both stakeholder support and resistance, and how important it is to anticipate the changes a label can invoke.

Originality/value

The authors propose that the use of several labels regarding a new organisation is strategically beneficial to attracting multiple audiences who may hold conflicting interests in terms of what the organisation and its offerings should embody. They propose that even though status and reputation have traditionally been defined as possessions of an organisation, they should be further understood as concepts used to disseminate and justify the interests, norms, structures and values in a stakeholder network.

TMI

One of the enduring insights about early-stage creative efforts is that their prospects for success depend on their ability to overcome a variety of liabilities of newness. In our study, we address one aspect of such liabilities: the ability to communicate credible claims about the merits of an idea when raising the funds required for execution. The narratives employed during fundraising are both a vehicle for assembling details about nascent ideas and a structure for communicating them to a wider audience. With this communication, entrepreneurs signal information that potential backers use to evaluate the claims. We argue that using language to differentiate new creative projects from the status quo is beneficial because of signal clarity, but employing a language of accountability that discloses too much information (TMI) may actually backfire when raising funds in open settings. We test this argument by analyzing a sample of crowdfunding campaign texts and find evidence supportive of our predictions. These results advance the literature on entrepreneurial narratives and signaling, establish some baseline characteristics of donation- and reward-based crowdfunding sites, and reinvigorate the application of Stinchcombe’s arguments about the liabilities of newness within a contemporary context.