Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Entrepreneurship Research Journal

Ed. by Labaki, Rania / Lyons, Thomas / Zachary, Ramona K. / Mishra, Chandra


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.250

CiteScore 2017: 1.26

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.412
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.189

Online
ISSN
2157-5665
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Complexity Ingredients Required For Entrepreneurial Success

Bill McKelvey
Published Online: 2015-12-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2015-0053

Abstract

This “comment” begins with a summary of the various complexity concepts (ingredients) that relate to the creation and development of effective startup companies. No single complexity concept is sufficient to create an effective entrepreneurial startup, but a random mix of organizational components and behaviors is also ineffective. As the competitive environments of entrepreneurial firms change, they also need to continually change their mix of complexity ingredients to remain competitive. In moving from biology to digital business, the most dominant evolutionary difference for companies is the much higher speed at which complexity dynamics – emergence, self-organization, and the creation of new order – occur. In a dynamic business ecosystem, firms will quickly disappear that don’t recognize digital-business effects and adapt to the high speed of coevolution amongst competitors.

Keywords: complexity ingredients

References

  • Anderson, P. W. 1999. “Complexity Theory and Organization Science.” Organization Science 10 (3):216–32.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Anderson, C. 2006. The Long Tail. London: Random House Business Books.Google Scholar

  • Andriani, P., and B. McKelvey. 2007. “Beyond Gaussian Averages: Extending Organization Science to Extreme Events and Power Laws.” Journal of International Business Studies 38 (7):1212–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Andriani, P., and B. McKelvey. 2009. “From Gaussian to Paretian Thinking: Causes and Implications of Power Laws in Organizations.” Organization Science 20 (6):1053–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Argyris, C., and D. Schön. 1978. Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

  • Arthur, W. B. 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

  • Auerbach, F. 1913. “Das Gesetz Der Bevolkerungskoncentration.” Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 59:74–6.Google Scholar

  • Axtell, R. L. 2001. “Zipf Distribution of U.S. Firm Sizes.” Science 293 (5536):1818–20.Google Scholar

  • Bak, P. 1996. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality. New York: Copernicus.Google Scholar

  • Bak, P., C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld. 1987. “Self-Organized Criticality: An Explanation of 1/F Noise.” Physical Review Letters 59 (4):381–4.Google Scholar

  • Barabási, A.-L. 2002. Linked: The New Science of Networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar

  • Barabási, A.-L. 2005. “The Origin of Bursts and Heavy Tails in Human Dynamics.” Nature 435 (7039):207–11.Google Scholar

  • Barabási, A.-L., and E. Bonabeau. 2003. “Scale-Free Networks.” Scientific American 288 (May):60–9.Google Scholar

  • Barnard, C. I. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Barry, B., and G. L. Stewart. 1997. “Composition, Process, and Performance in Self- Managed Groups: The Role of Personality.” Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1):62–78.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Battiston, S., and M. Catanzaro. 2004. “Statistical Properties of Corporate Board and Director Networks.” European Physical Journal B 38 (2):345–52.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baum, J. A. C., and B. McKelvey. 2006. “Analysis of Extremes in Management Studies.” In Research Methods in Strategy and Management, edited by D. J. Ketchen and D. D. Bergh, vol. 3, 123–97. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Beinhocker, E. D. 1997. “Strategy at the Edge of Chaos.” McKinsey Quarterly 1 (Winter):24–39.Google Scholar

  • Bénard, H. 1901. “Les Tourbillons Cellulaires Dans Une Nappe Liquide Transportant De La Chaleur Par Convection En Régime Permanent.” Annales De Chimie Et De Physique 23:62–144.Google Scholar

  • Benbya, H., and B. McKelvey. 2006. “Using Coevolutionary and Complexity Theories to Improve IS Alignment: A Multi-Level Approach.” Journal of Information Technology 21 (4):284–98.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bettis, R. A., and M. A. Hitt. 1995. “The New Competitive Landscape.” Strategic Management Journal 16 (S1):7–19.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bradford, D. L., and W. Burke (Eds.). 2005. Reinventing Organization Development: New Approaches to Change in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar

  • Brown, S. L., and K. M. Eisenhardt. 1997. “The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1):1–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Burgelman, R. A. 2015. “Prigogine’s Theory of the Dynamics of Far-From-Equilibrium Systems: Application to Strategic Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Organizational Evolution.” In: The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, edited by C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, and J. Zhou, 433–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Casti, J. L. 1994. Complexification. Abacus: London.Google Scholar

  • Chatterjee, A., and B. K. Chakrabarti. 2006. Econophysics of Stock and Other Markets. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Italia.Google Scholar

  • Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

  • Chmiel, A. M., J. Sienkiewicz, K. Suchecki, and J. A. Holyst. 2007. “Networks of Companies and Branches in Poland.” Physica A 383 (1):134–8.Google Scholar

  • Chou, L., and C. Keane. 2009. “How the Internet works☺: Inspired by Per Bak.” Research paper, UCLAAnderson School of Management, Los Angeles, CA.

  • Corallo, A., G. Passiante, and A. Prencipe (Eds.). 2007. The Digital Business Ecosystem. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Coupey, E. 2004. Digital Business: Concepts and Strategy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

  • Cowan, G. A., D. Pines, and D. Meltzer (Eds. 1994. Complexity: Metaphors, Models, and Reality. vol. XIX. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

  • Crawford, G. C., H. Aguinis, B. B. Lichtenstein, P. Davidsson, and B. McKelvey. 2015. “Power Law Distributions in Entrepreneurship: Implications for Theory and Research.” Journal of Business Venturing 30 (5):696–713.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Vany, A. 2003. Hollywood Economics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Dodds, P., D. Watts, and C. Sabel. 2003. “Information Exchange and the Robustness of Organizational Networks.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (21):12516–21.Google Scholar

  • Dooley, K. J., and A. H. Van de Ven. 1999. “Explaining Complex Organizational Dynamics.” Organization Science 10 (3):358–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Feldman, M. P., and J. L. Francis. 2004. “Homegrown Solutions: Fostering Cluster Formation.” Economic Development Quarterly 18 (2):127–37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frank, K. A., and K. Fahrbach. 1999. “Organization Culture as a Complex System: Balance and Information in Models of Influence and Selection.” Organization Science 10 (3):253–77.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Galbraith, J. R. 1982. Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

  • Gay, B., and B. Dousset. 2005. “Innovation and Network Structural Dynamics Study of the Alliance Network of a Major Sector of the Biotechnology Industry.” Research Policy 34 (10):1457–75.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gell-Mann, M. 2002. “What Is Complexity?” In Complexity and Industrial Clusters, edited by A. Q. Curzio and M. Fortis, 13–24. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Gladwell, M. 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

  • Granovetter, M. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (6):1360–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Griffith, E. 2014. “Why Startups Fail, According to Their Founders.” Fortune Magazine, September 25. http://fortune.com/2014/09/25/why-startups-fail-according-to-their-founders/.

  • Haken, H. 1983. Synergetics, an Introduction, 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Hamel, G. 1998. “Path Breaking.” Executive Excellence 15 (1):3–4.Google Scholar

  • Herdon, M., L. Várallyai, and Á. Péntek. 2012. “Digital Business Ecosystem Prototyping for SMEs.” Journal of Systems and Information Technology 14 (4):286–301.Google Scholar

  • Holland, J. H. 1988. “The Global Economy as an Adaptive System.” In The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, edited by P. W. Anderson, K. J. Arrow, and D. Pines, vol. 5, 117–24. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

  • Holland, J. H. 2002. “Complex Adaptive Systems and Spontaneous Emergence.” In Complexity and Industrial Clusters, edited by A. Q. Curzio and M. Fortis, 25–34. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Hu, P., J. Qi, and B. Wang. 2013. “The Characteristics Analysis of the Stock Network Based on Weighted Relative Values: An Example of Information Service Industry.” 2nd International Conference on Science and Social Research (ICSSR 2013). Atlantis Press.

  • Iansiti, M., and R. Levien. 2004. “Strategy as Ecology.” Harvard Business Review March 82 (3):68–78.Google Scholar

  • Illinitch, A. Y., R. A. D’Aveni, and A. Y. Lewin. 1996. “New Organizational Forms and Strategies for Managing in Hypercompetitive Environments.” Organization Science 7 (3):211–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ishikawa, A. 2006. “Pareto Index Induced From the Scale of Companies.” Physica A 363 (2):367–76.Google Scholar

  • Jones, C. 2005. “The Shape of Production Functions and the Direction of Technical Change.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (2):517–49.Google Scholar

  • Kandjani, H., M. Tavana, P. Bernus, and S. Nielsen. 2014. “Co-Evolution Path Model (CePM): Sustaining Enterprises as Complex Systems on the Edge of Chaos.” Cybernetics and Systems 45 (7):547–67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kauffman, S. A. 1993. The Origins of Order. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Laudon, K. C., and J. P. Laudon. 2013. Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm, 13th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

  • Lawler, E. J. 2013. “Being on the Edge of Chaos Social Psychology and the Problem of Social Order.” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 42 (3):340–9.Google Scholar

  • Lewin, R. 1992. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Lichtenstein, B. B. 2014. Generative Emergence: A New Discipline of Organizational, Entrepreneurial, and Social Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lorenz, E. N. 1972. “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?” Paper presented at the 1972 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC.

  • Maguire, S., B. McKelvey, L. Mirabeau, and N. Öztas. 2006. “Organizational Complexity Science.” In Handbook of Organizational Studies, edited by S. Clegg, C. Hardy, W. Nord, and T. Lawrence, 165–214. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Google Scholar

  • Mainzer, K. 1994. Thinking in Complexity. New York: Springer-Verlag. [5th ed. published in 2007.].Google Scholar

  • Malecki, E. J., and B. Moriset. 2007. The Digital Economy: Business Organization, Production Processes and Regional Developments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Mandelbrot, B. B. 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature, 2nd ed. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar

  • Mandelbrot, B. B. 1997. Fractals and Scaling in Finance: Discontinuity, Concentration, Risk. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Mandelbrot, B. B., and R. L. Hudson. 2004. The (Mis)Behavior of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin, and Reward. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Mantegna, R. N., and H. E. Stanley. 2000. An Introduction to Econophysics: Correlations and Complexity in Finance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • McKelvey, B. 1999. “Avoiding Complexity Catastrophe in Coevolutionary Pockets: Strategies for Rugged Landscapes.” Organization Science 10 (3):294–321.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McKelvey, B. (Ed.). 2013. Complexity: Critical Concepts. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Routledge Great Works Series Book Vol. 5: Power-Law Distributions in Society and Business.Google Scholar

  • McKelvey, B., B. B. Lichtenstein, and P. Andriani. 2010. “When Systems and Ecosystems Collide: Is There a Law of Requisite Fractality Imposing on Firms?” In Chaos and Complexity in Organizations and Society, edited by M. J. Lopez Moreno, 153–91. Madrid, Spain: UNESA.Google Scholar

  • McKelvey, B., and M. P. Salmador Sanchez. 2011. “Explaining the 2007 bank liquidity crisis: Lessons from complexity science and econophysics.” Working paper. Spain: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

  • McKelvey, B., M. P. Salmador Sanchez, P. Morcillo, and J. M. Rodríguez-Antón. 2013. “Toward an Econophysics View of Intellectual Capital Dynamics: From Self-Organized Criticality to the Stochastic Frontier.” Journal of Knowledge Management Research and Practice 11 (2):142–61.Google Scholar

  • Mcquivey, J. 2013. Digital Disruption: Unleashing the Next Wave of Innovation. Las Vegas: Amazon Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Mintzberg, H., and McHugh. 1985. “Strategy Formation in an Adhocracy.” Administrative Science Quarterly 30 (2):160–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mintzberg, H., and H. A. Waters. 1985. “Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent.” Strategic Management Journal 6 (3):257–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mizuno, T., W. Souma, and T. Watanabe. 2014. “The Structure and Evolution of Buyer-Supplier Networks.” PLoS ONE 9 (7):e100712.Google Scholar

  • Morel, B., and R. Ramanujam. 1999. “Through the Looking Glass of Complexity: The Dynamics of Organizations as Adaptive and Evolving Systems.” Organization Science 10 (3):278–93.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Newman, M. E. J. 2005. “Power Laws, Pareto Distributions and Zipf’s Law.” Contemporary Physics 46 (5):323–51.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nobi, A., S. Maeng, G. Ha, and J. Lee. 2013. “Network Topologies of Financial Market During the Global Financial Crisis.” ArXiv Preprint arXiv 1307:6974.Google Scholar

  • Nonaka, I. 1988. “Creating Organizational Order Out Of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms.” California Management Review 30 (3):57–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Odling-Smee, F. J., K. N. Laland, and M. W. Feldman. 2003. Niche Construction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Oliver, D., and J. Roos. 2000. Striking a Balance: Complexity and Knowledge Landscapes. London: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar

  • Oster, G. 2009. “Building Innovation Capacity in Emerging Markets.” Effective Executive 13 (1):10–16.Google Scholar

  • Park, J. W., B. Morel, and R. Madhavan. 2009. “Riding the wave: Self-organized criticality in merger and acquisition waves.” Best paper proceedings. Montreal, CA: Acad. of Management Annual Meeting.

  • Pascale, R. T., M. Milleman, and L. Gioja. 1999. “Surfing the Edge of Chaos.” Sloan Management Review 40 (3):83–94.Google Scholar

  • Podobnik, B., D. Fu, T. Jagric, I. Grosse, and H. E. Stanley. 2006. “Fractionally Integrated Process for Transition Economics.” Physica A 362 (2):465–70.Google Scholar

  • Powell, W., D. White, K. Koput, and J. Owen-Smith. 2005. “Network Dynamics and Field Evolution.” American Journal of Sociology 110 (4):1132–205.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Prigogine, I. 1955. An Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar

  • Prigogine, I. 1962. Non-Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar

  • Prigogine, I., and I. Stengers. 1984. Order Out Of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar

  • Ramalingam, B. 2013. Aid on the Edge of Chaos: Rethinking International Cooperation in a Complex World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ravasz, E., and A.-L. Barabási. 2003. “Hierarchical Organization in Complex Networks.” Physical Review, E 67 (2):026112–1–7.Google Scholar

  • Saito, Y., T. Watanabe, and M. Iwamura. 2007. “Do Larger Firms Have More Interfirm Relationships?” Physica A 383 (1):158–63.Google Scholar

  • Santiago, A., and R. M. Benito. 2008. “Connectivity Degrees in the Threshold Preferential Attachment Model.” Physica A 387 (10):2365–76.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, E., and J. Cohen. 2013. The New Digital Age: Transforming Nations, Businesses, and Our Lives. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

  • Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday Currency.Google Scholar

  • Song, D.-M., Z.-Q. Jiang, and W.-X. Zhou. 2009. “Statistical Properties of World Investment Networks.” Physica A 388 (12):2450–60.Google Scholar

  • Souma, W., H. Aoyama, Y. Fujiwara, Y. Ikeda, H. Iyetomi, and T. Kaizoji. 2006. “Correlation in Business Networks.” Physica A 370 (1):151–5.Google Scholar

  • Stanley, H. E., L. A. N. Amaral, and V. Plerou. 2000. “Scale Invariance and Universality of Economic Fluctuations.” Physica A 283 (1–2):31–41.Google Scholar

  • Stanley, M. H. R., L. A. N. Amaral, S. V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, H. Leschhorn, P. Maass, M. A. Salinger, and H. E. Stanley. 1996. “Scaling Behaviour in the Growth of Companies.” Nature 379 (6568):804–6.Google Scholar

  • Strader, T. J. 2010. Digital Product Management, Technology and Practice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar

  • Swenson, R. 1989. “Emergent Attractors and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production: Foundations to a Theory of General Evolution.” Systems Research 6 (3):187–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Takeuchi, H., and I. Nonaka. 1986. “The New Product Development Game.” Harvard Business Review 64 (1):137–46.Google Scholar

  • Tapscott, D. 1996. The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

  • Tapscott, D. 2015. The Digital Economy: Rethinking Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence, 20th Anniversary Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar

  • Thomas, C., R. Kaminska-Labbé, and B. McKelvey. 2005. “Managing the MNC and Exploitation/Exploration Dilemma: From Static Balance to Dynamic Oscillation.” In Advances in Strategic Management: Expanding Perspectives on the Strategy Process, edited by G. Szulanski, Y. Doz, and J. Porac, vol. 22, 213–47. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar

  • Thomas, C., R. Kaminska, and B. McKelvey. 2012. “Building Ambidexterity Into a Firm: The Control/Autonomy Dilemma Revisited.” In Management in the Knowledge Economy: New Managerial Models for Success, edited by L. Dibiaggio, and P.-X. Meschi, 139–73. Paris: Pearson.Google Scholar

  • Thompson, D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

  • Tsai, W. C. 2014. “Application of Complexity Science Perspective on New Business Development: A Case Study of VISA Organization.” Journal of International Management Studies 9 (2):152–63.Google Scholar

  • von Krogh, G., J. Roos, and K. Slocum. 1994. “An Essay on Corporate Epistemology.” Strategic Management Journal 15 (Summer Special Issue):53–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Watts, D. 2003. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

  • Westerman, G., D. Bonnet, and A. McAfee. 2014. Leading Digital: Turning Technology Into Business Transformation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar

  • Zanini, M. 2008. “Using Power Curves to Assess Industry Dynamics.” McKinsey Quarterly (November):1–6.Google Scholar

  • Zhai, L., S. Yan, and G. Zhang. 2013. “A Centrality Measure for Communication Agility in Weighted Network.” Physica A 392 (23):6107–17.Google Scholar

  • Zipf, G. K. 1929. “Relative Frequency as a Determinant O F Phonetic Change.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 40:1–95.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-12-08

Published in Print: 2016-01-01


Citation Information: Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 53–73, ISSN (Online) 2157-5665, ISSN (Print) 2194-6175, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2015-0053.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in