A Scientific Method for Startups

IF 9.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Management Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1177/01492063231226136
Teppo Felin, Alfonso Gambardella, Elena Novelli, Todd Zenger
{"title":"A Scientific Method for Startups","authors":"Teppo Felin, Alfonso Gambardella, Elena Novelli, Todd Zenger","doi":"10.1177/01492063231226136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent scholarship has sought to develop a “scientific method” for startups. In this paper we contrast two approaches: lean startup and the theory-based view of startups. The lean startup movement has served an important function in calling for a normative and scientific approach to startups and venture creation. The theory-based view shares this agenda. But there are differences in the underlying theoretical mechanisms and practical prescriptions suggested by each approach. We highlight these differences and their implications for both research and practice. For example, we contrast lean startup’s emphasis on bounded rationality and entrepreneur–customer information asymmetry with the theory-based view’s emphasis on generative rationality and belief asymmetry. The theory-based view focuses on contrarian beliefs, associated problem formulation, and the development of a startup-specific causal logic for experimentation, resource acquisition, and problem solving. The right mix of entrepreneurial actions is contingent and startup-specific—guided by a startup’s unique theory. After pointing out differences between the lean and theory-based view of startups, we discuss opportunities for partial reconciliation, as well as opportunities for empirically comparing perspectives. Overall, we emphasize that a scientific method for startups needs to recognize the importance of contingent, discriminating alignment between entrepreneurial theories and the actions they prescribe (including different types of experimentation and validation, search, and forms of organization).","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231226136","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent scholarship has sought to develop a “scientific method” for startups. In this paper we contrast two approaches: lean startup and the theory-based view of startups. The lean startup movement has served an important function in calling for a normative and scientific approach to startups and venture creation. The theory-based view shares this agenda. But there are differences in the underlying theoretical mechanisms and practical prescriptions suggested by each approach. We highlight these differences and their implications for both research and practice. For example, we contrast lean startup’s emphasis on bounded rationality and entrepreneur–customer information asymmetry with the theory-based view’s emphasis on generative rationality and belief asymmetry. The theory-based view focuses on contrarian beliefs, associated problem formulation, and the development of a startup-specific causal logic for experimentation, resource acquisition, and problem solving. The right mix of entrepreneurial actions is contingent and startup-specific—guided by a startup’s unique theory. After pointing out differences between the lean and theory-based view of startups, we discuss opportunities for partial reconciliation, as well as opportunities for empirically comparing perspectives. Overall, we emphasize that a scientific method for startups needs to recognize the importance of contingent, discriminating alignment between entrepreneurial theories and the actions they prescribe (including different types of experimentation and validation, search, and forms of organization).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
初创企业的科学方法
最近有学者试图为初创企业制定一种 "科学方法"。在本文中,我们将对比两种方法:精益创业和基于理论的初创企业观点。精益创业运动在呼吁以规范和科学的方法对待初创企业和风险投资方面发挥了重要作用。基于理论的观点赞同这一议程。但每种方法所建议的基本理论机制和实践处方存在差异。我们将强调这些差异及其对研究和实践的影响。例如,精益创业强调有界理性和创业者与客户之间的信息不对称,而基于理论的观点则强调生成理性和信念不对称。基于理论的观点侧重于逆向信念、相关问题的提出,以及为实验、资源获取和问题解决制定创业公司特有的因果逻辑。创业行动的正确组合是由创业公司的独特理论指导的,具有偶然性和创业公司的特殊性。在指出精益创业观与基于理论的创业观之间的差异之后,我们讨论了部分调和的机会,以及对各种观点进行实证比较的机会。总之,我们强调,针对初创企业的科学方法需要认识到创业理论与它们所规定的行动(包括不同类型的实验和验证、搜索和组织形式)之间的或然性和辨别一致性的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.40
自引率
5.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management (JOM) aims to publish rigorous empirical and theoretical research articles that significantly contribute to the field of management. It is particularly interested in papers that have a strong impact on the overall management discipline. JOM also encourages the submission of novel ideas and fresh perspectives on existing research. The journal covers a wide range of areas, including business strategy and policy, organizational behavior, human resource management, organizational theory, entrepreneurship, and research methods. It provides a platform for scholars to present their work on these topics and fosters intellectual discussion and exchange in these areas.
期刊最新文献
Dare to Fight? How Activist Hedge Funds’ Hostile Tactics Influence Target Firm Resistance We Are (Not) on the Same Team: Understanding Asian Americans’ Unique Navigation of Workplace Discrimination Developing Problem Representations in Organizations: A Synthesis across Literatures and an Integrative Framework A Roadmap for Navigating Phenomenon-Based Research in Management Old Habits Die Hard: A Review and Assessment of the Threat-Rigidity Literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1