What happens to gazelles? The importance of dynamic management strategy

Parker, Simon C.; Storey, David; Witteloostuijn, A. van

doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9250-2

Cited by 205 publications

(171 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

154

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This echoes other recent empirical work, which found that HGFs tend not to be disruptive innovators, but rather modifiers of existing technologies (Hinton and Hamilton 2013;Mason and Brown 2013). Similarly, Parker et al (2010) found that product innovation was negatively associated with becoming a HGF, but an "active use of marketing" was positively linked. Another recent dimension to this debate is the observation that innovation by HGFs is heavily mediated by the nature of the competitive environment within which individual firms operate (Mazzucato and Parris 2015).…”

Section: Myth #2 Hgfs Are Predominantly High Techsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The authors of the study speculated that UK entrepreneurs whose firms have good growth prospects avoid VC to prevent dilution of their ownership and control, at the cost of limiting their resource base and growth potential. This has been empirically substantiated in another UK study, which found that rapidly growing firms do not necessarily wish to relinquish ownership to VCs (Parker et al 2010).…”

Section: Myth #4 Hgfs Are Mostly Vc-backedmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Another recent UK-based study labelled them 'Icarus firms' on account of their susceptibility to liquidate following a period of rapid growth (Lee et al 2016). While there is little research on the unique managerial challenges confronting HGFs (Wennberg 2013), one study found that firms are unlikely to be successful if they draw lessons from previous growth experiences and try to apply them to different points in time (Parker et al 2010). Another found that larger TMTs with industry experience in relevant sectors appear to be more capable of coping with the turbulence and unpredictability resulting from rapid growth (Barringer et al 2005).…”

Section: Myth #5 Hgfs Undertake Steady Linear Growthmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms

Brown

Mawson

Mason

2017

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Promoting high growth firms (HGFs) has become a strong fixation within enterprise policy. This is a debate article seeking to examine and challenge the mythology perpetuated by policy makers and embedded within high growth entrepreneurship policy frameworks. Within the article we argue that a number of distinctive 'myths' have become deeply embedded within these policy frameworks. Such myths have been built on misconceived preconceptions of HGFs, which has resulted in policy-makers taking a myopic view of these firms. A key aim of the paper is to highlight how false perceptions of HGFs translate into inappropriate policy interventions. The paper challenges some of the most commonly held myths about these firms (that they are predominantly young, small, high-tech, VC-backed, university spin-outs, who grow in an orderly organic fashion, operating similarly irrespective of location) and identifies a clear mismatch between how policy makers perceive HGFs and what they actually look like in reality. Suggestions for the design of future policy approaches are forwarded.

show abstract

Section: Myth #2 Hgfs Are Predominantly High Techsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Myth #4 Hgfs Are Mostly Vc-backedmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Myth #5 Hgfs Undertake Steady Linear Growthmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms

Brown

Mawson

Mason

2017

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We use three measures of high-growth firms: ambitious entrepreneurs, high-growth businesses, and gazelles. The academic literature also proposes other measures (see : Stam 2007;Bos and Stam 2013;Parker et al 2010;Daunfeldt et al 2014), but these are not readily available for regions within the Netherlands in recent years.…”

Section: Entrepreneurship Outputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Stam

2017

International Studies in Entrepreneurship

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How can entrepreneurial ecosystems and productive entrepreneurship can be traced empirically and how is entrepreneurship related to entrepreneurial ecosystems. The analyses in this chapter show the value of taking a systems view on the context of entrepreneurship. We measure entrepreneurial ecosystem elements and use these to compose an entrepreneurial ecosystem index. Next, we measure the output of entrepreneurial ecosystems with different indicators of high-growth firms. We use the 12 provinces of the Netherlands as a test case for measuring the entrepreneurial ecosystem elements, composing an entrepreneurial ecosystem index and relate this to entrepreneurial outputs. The prevalence of high-growth firms relates to the overall value of the entrepreneurial ecosystem index, but not to individual elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The model fit increases once we introduce a multiplicative index and a non-linear model. By measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems and their outputs in this way we move from the ecosystem metaphor to a complex system model of the entrepreneurial economy.

show abstract

“…While the classical strand within the scholarship on HGFs has unanimously demonstrated their heterogeneous nature (HGFs are not concentrated in high-technology sectors, nor are they necessarily new or small firms -see reviews by Coad et al, 2014;Delmar et al, 2003;Henreksson-Johansson, 2010], management and entrepreneurship scholars have highlighted the homogeneity of factors that explain high growth performance [Chan et al 2006;Colombelli et al, 2014;Parker et al, 2010;Smallbone et al, 1995;Sadler-Smith et al, 2003]. These latter scholars posit that behavioral features, such as founder profiles and entrepreneurial vision, management style and managerial skills need to be examined in the context that these attributes are leveraged: the mechanism by which entrepreneurs overcome the recurring managerial challenges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective of High-Growth Firms: Organizational Aspects

Szalavetz

2015

International Journal of Management and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on interviews conducted at five Hungarian high-growth firms (HGFs), this paper discusses how dynamic capabilities shape the outcome of HGFs’ efforts to meet the managerial challenges posed by rapid growth. HGFs are investigated in the context of a relatively under-researched country: Hungary. The research demonstrates that dynamic capabilities have strong explanatory power for the surveyed companies’ achievements, in a similar manner to what is established in the literature on HGFs in advanced economies. The micro-mechanisms of DC’ deployment is explored by investigating the organizational solutions implemented at the surveyed firms in response to emerging growth-related problems. These responses were found to be similar across the sample. The recurrent growth-related reconfiguration of organizational structures and introduction of various organizational innovations were the result of systematically developed DC and non-abating organizational learning.

show abstract

What happens to gazelles? The importance of dynamic management strategy

Abstract: Firm growth, Gazelles, Gibrat’s Law, Strategic management theory, Strategy variables,

Cited by 205 publications

References 48 publications

Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms

Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms

Measuring Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective of High-Growth Firms: Organizational Aspects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About