A classical approach to collecting and elaborating information to make entrepreneurial decisions combines search heuristics, such as trial and error, effectuation, and confirmatory search. This paper develops a framework for exploring the implications of a more scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision making. The panel sample of our randomized control trial includes 116 Italian startups and 16 data points over a period of about one year. Both the treatment and control groups receive 10 sessions of general training on how to obtain feedback from the market and gauge the feasibility of their idea. We teach the treated startups to develop frameworks for predicting the performance of their idea and conduct rigorous tests of their hypotheses, very much as scientists do in their research. We let the firms in the control group instead follow their intuitions about how to assess their idea, which has typically produced fairly standard search heuristics. We find that entrepreneurs who behave like scientists perform better, are more likely to pivot to a different idea, and are not more likely to drop out than the control group in the early stages of the startup. These results are consistent with the main prediction of our theory: a scientific approach improves precision—it reduces the odds of pursuing projects with false positive returns and increases the odds of pursuing projects with false negative returns. This paper was accepted by Marie Thursby, entrepreneurship and innovation.

During the last decade, modularity has attracted the attention of numerous management scholars, and both theoretical and empirical studies on this topic have flourished. However, this broad-based appeal has generated some controversies and ambiguities on how modularity should be defined, measured and used in managerially meaningful ways. This paper reviews the concept of modularity as a design principle of complex systems in management studies. Applying this criterion, 125 studies were selected and classified, grouped according to their prevalent unit of analysis: products, production systems and organizations. Although all these studies are based on Simon's seminal work on the hierarchical and nearly decomposable nature of complex systems (Simon, H.A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467-482), this paper shows that they offer different definitions, measures and applications of the modularity concept. This review reveals the implicit structure of meanings underlying this literature and emphasizes that ambiguity in definitions and measures impedes rigorous empirical studies capable of understanding the relationship between modularity in product, in production and in organization design. Cautions and directions for future research are discussed.i jmr_260 259..283

This study explores whether, to what extent, and under which conditions modular products are associated with modular organizations (the “mirroring” hypothesis). We analyze the product and organizational architectures of three firms in the air conditioning industry through an original data set of 100 components and supply relationships. Applying a variety of regression methods, we show that, under the condition of product architecture stability at the component level, supplier relations for loosely coupled components are characterized by less information sharing, which implies that the degree of coupling of product components varies directly with the degree of coupling of organizations (the “mirroring” hypothesis). Also, the performance of supply relationships depends on the amount of buyer–supplier information sharing but not on the degree of component modularity, which supports the relational view and confirms that product modularity does not have unambiguous effects on organizational performance. Moreover, the degree of component modularity negatively moderates the impact of buyer–supplier information sharing on supplier-relationship performance, which confirms that component modularity works as an ex ante, embedded substitute for high-powered interorganizational integration mechanisms. Finally, contingent on firms' strategies, organizational structures, and capabilities, we argue that at the firm level, higher product modularity may be associated either with less information sharing with suppliers, which implies that the mirroring effect might hold also at the firm level, or with more information sharing with suppliers, which implies that there may be increasing returns to modularity in design efforts because of interorganizational integration (the “complementarity” hypothesis).

Although research on human and social sustainability has flourished in the past decade, the role that human resource management departments play (or should play) in facilitating more socially responsible and sustainable organizations remains unclear. In practice, this lack of clarity is due to the multiple features and dimensions of potential HR contributions to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability (CS), as well as widespread failure to integrate HR and CSR functions. Theoretically, the absence of a framework that articulates the HR role in CSR and CS and the substantial separation between HRM and CSR/CS studies among academics act as a reinforcing mechanism. The present study contributes to the growing research on this topic, presenting a framework and a typology to classify the potential HR roles in CSR and CS and comprehensively reviewing the literature at the intersection of HR with CSR and CS. The results of the review provide a broader perspective on the role HR might play in CSR and CS as well as its impact beyond organizational boundaries.

No abstract