Understanding regional start-up success: A lily not yet guilded

This paper illustrates an evolutionary process that is consistent with the primary domains of evolutionary theorising, namely ecology and biology. In doing so, this paper presents an alternative explanation of how certain type of regional start-ups have managed to survive where others have failed. This account challenges the validity of many accepted ways of accounting for internal and external factors assumed to be responsible for success or failure. This paper goes beyond the current practice of accepting an interrelated process between environmental selection and firm adaptation. This is achieved through the importation of key ecological concepts such as niche construction, selective environmental neighbourhoods and kin selection. As a result, this paper challenges key terms used in organizational studies literature, specifically, selection and environment. The paper's empirical context is a case study of the Hobart Pizza Industry from 1969 till the present. Both quantitative and qualitative data is discussed from the perspective of preliminary findings. The quantitative data is analysed using SPSS Survival Analysis and the qualitative data is used to identify motives related to strategic change through the life history of each firm. This paper highlights the frequent unimportance of perceived fitness in regional pizza shops. Evidence is provided to demonstrate a process of survival dependent upon location, resource partitioning and kin selection. A general proposition that franchised pizza firms have altered the survivability of regional pizza shops through the transferring of demand for pizza. This proposition is discussed through the presentation of four testable postulates. Through a constant focus on Geoffrey Hodgson's Principle of Consistency, this paper unravels many arguments that continue to prevent the development of an evolutionary approach to entrepreneurship. It returns a focus to the minimal requirements of conducting research employing an evolutionary approach. In summary, this paper introduces a focus many old concepts that should not be ignored when conducting research employing an evolutionary approach.

[1]  M. Feldman,et al.  Cultural niche construction and human evolution , 2001, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[2]  R. B. Root The Niche Exploitation Pattern of the Blue‐Gray Gnatcatcher , 1967 .

[3]  R. C. Young,et al.  Is Population Ecology a Useful Paradigm for the Study of Organizations? , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[4]  G. Bell,et al.  The evolution of evolution. , 2005, Heredity.

[5]  K. Popper Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach , 1972 .

[6]  J. Lawton,et al.  POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ORGANISMS AS PHYSICAL ECOSYSTEM ENGINEERS , 1997 .

[7]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  Concentration and Specialization: Dynamics of Niche Width in Populations of Organizations , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  Colin Jones,et al.  Firm transformation: advancing a Darwinian perspective , 2004 .

[9]  J. Lawton,et al.  Organisms as ecosystem engineers , 1994 .

[10]  G. Hodgson Is Social Evolution Lamarckian or Darwinian , 2001 .

[11]  P. Luksha NICHE CONSTRUCTION: THE PROPOSAL FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORGANIZATION-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION , 2005 .

[12]  Charles Darwin,et al.  The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms with Observations on Their Habits , 1881 .

[13]  W. P. Barnett,et al.  Resetting the Clock: The Dynamics of Organizational Change and Failure. , 1990 .

[14]  H. Tsoukas The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations , 1989 .

[15]  Erhard Bruderer,et al.  Organizational Evolution, Learning, and Selection: A Genetic-Algorithm-Based Model , 1996 .

[16]  J. Usher,et al.  LIFE AND DEATH ALONG GASOLINE ALLEY: DARWINIAN AND LAMARCKIAN PROCESSES IN A DIFFERENTIATING POPULATION , 1996 .

[17]  Michael T. Hannan,et al.  Niche Width and the Dynamics of Organizational Populations , 1983, American Journal of Sociology.

[18]  A. Pettigrew WHAT IS A PROCESSUAL ANALYSIS. , 1997 .

[19]  R. Bhaskar A realist theory of science , 1976 .

[20]  A. Gray,et al.  I. THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION , 1963 .

[21]  E. Mayr This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World , 1997 .

[22]  G. Bell,et al.  Evolutionary genetics: The evolution of evolution , 2005, Heredity.

[23]  Kenneth W. Koput,et al.  Density Dependence in Organizational Mortality: Legitimacy or Unobserved Heterogeneity? , 1991 .

[24]  J. Gerring A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES , 2005 .

[25]  C. Perry,et al.  Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm , 2000 .

[26]  Daniel A. Levinthal Organizational Adaptation and Environmental Selection-Interrelated Processes of Change , 1991 .

[27]  J. Lawton,et al.  Linking Species and Ecosystems , 1996 .

[28]  C. Darwin The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , 1859 .

[29]  Jitendra V. Singh Density Dependence Theory-Current Issues, Future Promise , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  F. J. Odling-Smee,et al.  Evolutionary consequences of niche construction and their implications for ecology. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  F. J. Odling-Smee,et al.  Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution , 2003 .

[32]  N. Denzin The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods , 1977 .

[33]  F. J. Odling-Smee,et al.  The evolutionary consequences of niche construction: a theoretical investigation using two‐locus theory , 1996 .

[34]  Robert N. Brandon,et al.  Adaptation and Environment , 1995 .

[35]  Colin Jones,et al.  Using old concepts to gain new insights: Addressing the issue of consistency , 2007 .

[36]  Heather A. Haveman Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation , 1992 .