Pivoting Isn’t Enough? Managing Strategic Reorientation in New Ventures

Abstract

New ventures often experience deviations from their plans that oblige them to reorient in pursuit of a better fit between their evolving products and their target customers. Yet, research is largely silent on how managers explain such changes and justify their ventures in the wake of fundamental redirections in strategy. Ventures initially attain legitimacy and amass resources on the strength of aims that audiences find compelling; later, those early claims can complicate course corrections. To shed light on how ventures manage strategic reorientations, we conducted an inductive, comparative case study of ventures in a nascent financial-technology sector. The ventures pursued parallel reorientations and produced comparable end products but diverged conspicuously in managing audiences during transitions. Our process model, inspired by these differences, proposes a sequence of stratagems that may enable entrepreneurs to alter strategy while portraying faithfulness to enduring aims. Our theoretical framework posits that, for ventures, reorientation without penalty may depend on how they anticipate, justify, and stage changes to various audiences.

From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent U.S. biodiesel market

“…By exploring competing frames from three stakeholder groups, we answer scholarly calls to take a “more agency‐motivated approach” to category research (Durand & Khaire, , p. 89) and begin to identify the underlying mechanisms whereby multiple stakeholders can influence new market emergence and evolution. In related terms, the findings extend research on strategic framing (Harmon, ; McDonald & Gao, ; Raffaelli, ). Although prior studies have emphasized the dynamics between movement frames and changing political opportunity structures (Benford & Snow, ), we theorize and examine how stakeholder frames can alter entrepreneurial opportunity structures and, hence, the choices surrounding market entry and technology adoption, and we call for future studies on this phenomenon.…”

Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms

“…For instance, at the closing of industry standards or at the initiation of nonincremental technical change, the ability to develop a flexible frame relative to the innovation permits TMTs to more accurately understand strategic options and permits members of the firm and external constituents to better understand and execute strategic shifts. When such junctures occur, the TMT's ability to flexibly reframe the firm's existing capabilities, organizational identity, and boundaries is particularly important because it helps those in the organization conceptualize and emotionally resonate with technological shifts as connected with opportunities (as opposed to threats) (e.g., Gilbert, ; McDonald & Gao, in press; Sull, ).…”

The Complexities of New Venture Legitimacy

“…Pivoting and new venture legitimacy. The concept of pivoting has come to prominence in entrepreneurship practice (Blank, 2013;Ries, 2011) and more recently in entrepreneurship research (Grimes, 2018;Hampel, Tracey, & Weber, 2019;McDonald & Gao, 2019). Pivoting entails deviating from existing venture plans and reorienting a venture in pursuit of a better fit between evolving products and target customers (Hampel et al, 2019;McDonald & Gao, 2019).…”