Objectives: Dynamic capabilities studies have emphasised how firms determine, integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external resources to adapt to rapidly changing business environment (Teece et al., 1997). Dynamic capabilities are described as routines to learn routines, resource integration consists of product development routines and strategic decision making, resource reconfiguration, and resource gain and release which include knowledge creation, alliance and acquisition routines (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Lee et al. (2002), Zahra et al. (2006), Salunke et al. (2011) and Weerawardena et al. (2015) have proved that dynamic capabilities sustain competitive advantage, which in turn improves the performance of a new venture. However, our understanding of how a new venture builds and shapes dynamic capabilities is limited. This paper addresses the knowledge gap by empirically studying the contributions made by the bricolage and social capital of a management team on the dynamic capabilities of a start-up based upon data collected from new ventures in the UK. Prior work: In the study of Teece (2007), dynamic capabilities were disaggregated into the capability to sense and shape opportunities and threats, to seize opportunities, and to maintain competitiveness through enhancing, combining, protecting, and reconfiguring the business enterprise’s assets. To identify and shape opportunities, firms must constantly scan, search, and explore across technologies and markets through differential access to existing information and new knowledge. When the opportunity is ripe, firms will seize them by investing heavily in the particular technologies and designs most likely to achieve marketplace acceptance; the enterprises must identify when, where, and how much to invest, and select or create a particular business model implicating processes, incentives, and its alignment with the physical technologies with a commercialisation strategy and investment priorities. The dynamic capabilities of a new venture are determined by the firm’s abilities to identify, assimilate and exploit resources (Zahra and George, 2002; Lane et al., 2006). Various existing or ‘at hand’ resources will be effectively used and combined to find workable approaches to problems and opportunities through the process of bricolage (Baker, 2007). To facilitate those resource acquisitions, social capital promotes the flow of information and knowledge from diverse resources within the networks (Blyler and Coff, 2003). Thus, bricolage and social capital are respectively considered as method and catalyst to shape the dynamic capabilities of a new venture. The link between social capital and dynamic capabilities has been proposed by Blyler and Coff (2003), but has not been empirically tested by any scholar in both business and management fields. Furthermore, no study has considered bricolage as a method to exploit the existing resources in shaping the dynamic capabilities of a new venture. To address these knowledge gaps, this study will explore the British start-ups to construct a model in which bricolage and social capital shape dynamic capabilities, which in turn improve the performance of a new venture. Approach: By utilising an internet-based survey and quantitative data analysis method, this paper explores the bricolage, social capital and dynamic capabilities of management teams in British start-ups. Based upon the dynamic capability theory of Teece et al. (1997) and Teece (2007) this research constructs a new measurement to evaluate the dynamic capabilities of a new venture through sensing, seizing and sustaining dimensions. To study the social capital of a management team, this paper employs the studies of Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) to construct a new measurement for three components of social capital: Rational, structural and cognitive capital. Beside creating new measurements, this paper also employs instruments in the studies of Senyard et al. (2014) and Chandler and Hanks (1993) to measure the bricolage and performance of a new venture. To reduce common method bias, previously validated measurements were employed (Spector, 1987) and a pilot test on 38 new venture in the Dorset County undertaken which resulted in the survey being to avoid potential question confusion by respondents. Furthermore, to avoid measurement errors, the study conducted proper survey measures and used a construct validation test (the empirical indicators actually measure the construct) for validity (convergent and discriminant) and reliability. The results prove that research’s measurements are both valid and reliable. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is used to construct the research indicators. However, the EFA is not considered as a sufficient method to evaluate the dimensions because it cannot test the models with higher-order factors (Rubio et al., 2001). Therefore, in this study, we will utilize first-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to construct the lower-order factors, and the second-order CFA to construct the higher-order factors by applying the AMOS program. By using structural equation modelling, this study constructs a robust model which shows how social capital, bricolage and dynamic capabilities influence the performance of a new venture. Results and implications: The results from an examination of the British new ventures empirically demonstrate that by using bricolage to exploit social capital a management team can improve dynamic capabilities which, in turn, enhance a new venture’s performance. This study addresses some fundamental questions to contribute to the theory-based understanding of start-ups: How do the dynamic capabilities influence the performance of a new venture? How do social capital and bricolage contribute to the process of shaping the dynamic capabilities of a new venture?
[1]
Catherine L. Wang,et al.
Dynamic Capabilities: A Review and Research Agenda
,
2007
.
[2]
Andrej Polajnar,et al.
Evolutionary perspectives on the capability accumulation process
,
2003
.
[3]
Paul Hansen,et al.
Innovation in start-ups: Ideas filling the void or ideas devoid of resources and capabilities?
,
2015
.
[4]
S. Winter.
Understanding dynamic capabilities
,
2003
.
[5]
P. Corner,et al.
Dynamic capability emergence in the venture creation process
,
2012
.
[6]
E. Autio,et al.
Effects of Age at Entry, Knowledge Intensity, and Imitability on International Growth
,
2000
.
[7]
Maurizio Zollo,et al.
Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities
,
2002
.
[8]
Koen H. Heimeriks,et al.
Concurrent learning: How firms develop multiple dynamic capabilities in parallel
,
2015
.
[9]
D. Teece,et al.
DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
,
1997
.
[10]
M. Feldman,et al.
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
,
2003
.
[11]
Christopher B. Bingham.
Oscillating improvisation: how entrepreneurial firms create success in foreign market entries over time
,
2009
.
[12]
J. Innes,et al.
Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: Toward a Theory of Collaborative Planning
,
1999
.
[13]
Véronique Ambrosini,et al.
What are Dynamic Capabilities and are They a Useful Construct in Strategic Management?
,
2009
.
[14]
Yuqing Ren,et al.
Transactive Memory Systems
,
2012
.
[15]
B. Kogut,et al.
Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology
,
1992
.
[16]
Sidney G. Winter,et al.
The satisficing principle in capability learning
,
2000
.
[17]
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.
DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY?
,
2000
.
[18]
William D. Bygrave,et al.
A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Learning
,
2001
.
[19]
G. Knight,et al.
Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm
,
2004
.
[20]
D. Teece.
Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance
,
2007
.
[21]
Michael S. Cole,et al.
A Measure of Variations in Internal Social Capital among Family Firms
,
2011
.
[22]
S. Ghoshal,et al.
Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks
,
1998
.
[23]
Harbir Singh.
Building firm capabilities through learning: the role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success
,
2007
.
[24]
Anne S. Miner,et al.
Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A Field Study
,
2001
.
[25]
S. Zahra,et al.
Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda
,
2006
.
[26]
M. Feldman.
Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change
,
2000
.
[27]
Elena Karahanna,et al.
The Effect of Social Capital of the Relationship Between the CIO and Top Management Team on Firm Performance
,
2013,
J. Manag. Inf. Syst..
[28]
S. Zahra.
A theory of international new ventures: a decade of research
,
2005
.
[29]
U. Lichtenthaler.
Absorptive Capacity, Environmental Turbulence, and the Complementarity of Organizational Learning Processes
,
2009
.
[30]
D. Teece.
A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise
,
2014
.
[31]
Mary J. Benner,et al.
Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited
,
2003
.
[32]
Gerardo Haces Atondo,et al.
Towards a Theory for Strategic Posture in New Technology Based Firms
,
2014
.
[33]
Abraham Carmeli,et al.
How relational capital and knowledge combination capability enhance the performance of work units in a high technology industry
,
2009
.
[34]
C. Prahalad,et al.
The Core Competence of the Corporation
,
1990
.
[35]
S. Zahra,et al.
A Capabilities Perspective on the Effects of Early Internationalization on Firm Survival and Growth
,
2006
.
[36]
David C. Mowery,et al.
Measuring Dynamic Capabilities: Practices and Performance in Semiconductor Manufacturing
,
2009
.
[37]
Anne S. Miner,et al.
Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process
,
2003
.
[38]
Lei-Yu Wu,et al.
Entrepreneurial resources, dynamic capabilities and start-up performance of Taiwan's high-tech firms
,
2007
.
[39]
Anne S. Miner,et al.
Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory
,
1998
.
[40]
P. Davidsson,et al.
Bricolage as a Path to Innovativeness for Resource-Constrained New Firms†
,
2014
.
[41]
K. Weick.
Organizational redesign as improvisation
,
1993
.
[42]
Paul E. Spector.
Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem?
,
1987
.
[43]
S. Winter,et al.
The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited
,
1982
.
[44]
Curba Morris Lampert,et al.
Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions
,
2001
.
[45]
S. Floyd,et al.
Routine microprocesses and capability learning in international new ventures
,
2012
.
[46]
Janet R. McColl-Kennedy,et al.
Towards a model of dynamic capabilities in innovation-based competitive strategy : insights from project-oriented service firms
,
2011
.