2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.09.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The pressure cooker: When crisis stimulates explorative business model change intentions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
55
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
3
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the impact of the crisis in the external environment on particular firms is not homogenous, with firm-level peculiarities determining the degree of impact and threat (Paunov, 2012). The studies of SMEs in crisis contexts corroborate this general view about the differential effect of macro-level adversity on incumbent firms (Osiyevskyy & Dewald, 2018;Peric & Vitezic, 2016;Smallbone et al, 2012). While some SMEs find themselves in major misfit with the environment and suffer major revenue decline and losses, the other part of firms thrive amidst the adversity.…”
Section: Performance Implications Of Exploration and Exploitation Durmentioning
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the impact of the crisis in the external environment on particular firms is not homogenous, with firm-level peculiarities determining the degree of impact and threat (Paunov, 2012). The studies of SMEs in crisis contexts corroborate this general view about the differential effect of macro-level adversity on incumbent firms (Osiyevskyy & Dewald, 2018;Peric & Vitezic, 2016;Smallbone et al, 2012). While some SMEs find themselves in major misfit with the environment and suffer major revenue decline and losses, the other part of firms thrive amidst the adversity.…”
Section: Performance Implications Of Exploration and Exploitation Durmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…A well-developed literature on strategic adaptation suggests threat perception can be considered as a catalyst for a strategic response (e.g., Gilbert, 2005;Laskovaia, Marino, Shirokova, & Wales, 2019). Furthermore, threat rigidity theory predicts the reactions top managers have when they are faced with external threat (Osiyevskyy & Dewald, 2018;Staw et al, 1981) and suggests that decision-makers tend to employ existing schemas under threat, thereby exhibiting rigidity-inability to recognize innovative responses (Barnett & Pratt, 2000). The performance implications of such strategic behaviors depend on the firm's operating environment and in crisis contexts, defensive strategies can protect firm survival (Håkonsson, Klaas, & Carroll, 2013).…”
Section: Economic Downturn Organizational Decline and Smes Strategimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, crises have a strategic impact upon entrepreneurial decision-making, since they have a major effect on the company's internal and external stakeholders (Fiksel et al, 2015;Netz et al, n.d.). In addition, during crises, the critical external threat can force entrepreneurial decision-making to concentrate on prospective losses (Osiyevskyy & Dewald, 2018). According to prospect theory, this loss framing will provide a less risk adverse decision-making that may lead to structural and organisational changes (Holmes et al, 2011;Saebi et al, 2017).…”
Section: Please Insert Table 5 Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The threat rigidity thesis suggests that, ceteris paribus, organizations tend to constrain their strategic actions when faced with threatening operational environments (Staw et al, 1981). The logic is that firms begin restricting their information processing as environmental threats increase, restricting the range of options under consideration, and thereby increasing rigidity and inaction (Osiyevskyy & Dewald, 2018; Slyngstad, 2016). Research further suggests that firms in these environments emphasize capital management and conservation of resources (Chattopadhyay et al, 2001; Osiyevskyy & Dewald, 2015; Sarkar & Osiyevskyy, 2018; Shimizu, 2007), which in extreme cases leads to organizational paralysis (George et al, 2006).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%