February 25, 2013 Sonia Bashir Kabir on GP presents The Naveed Mahbub Show

Рет қаралды 22,384

The Naveed Mahbub Show

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 10

@nadiaahmed8185 3 жыл бұрын

It was the nice show I've ever seen.

@হতাশা-ঙ৪ঘ 3 жыл бұрын

Best speech mam thank you ❤️

@notredamian005 4 жыл бұрын

Another entrepreneurship theory that has come to the fore in the recent past is the theory of entrepreneurial bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005). The term “bricolage” can be defined as “making do by applying combinations of resources at hand to new problems and opportunities” (Baker & Nelson, p. 33). The concept was originally introduced by the anthropologist Levi-Strauss (1966) to distinguish between the actions of an engineer and the actions of a “bricoleur” or handyman. While the engineer focuses on gathering tools and materials for an intended design, the bricoleur chooses instead to make do with whatever material is at hand. For example, to design a table, the engineer might draw out a plan and requisition supplies-wooden boards, wood screws, sandpaper, and varnish-to achieve an intended design. In contrast, the bricoleur would choose to look around the workshop and create a table from a discarded wooden block. He or she might improvise table legs from metal poles and use leftover paint to achieve the desired object. While the end state in each case is similar-a table-the mechanism used to achieve that state is quite different for the engineer and the bricoleur (Levi-Strauss). Since its original conception, bricolage has been applied in a range of different domains and to a variety of phenomena, including explanations of the formative processes in teaching (Hatton, 1989), lawmaking (Hull, 1991), and institution building (Lanzara, 1998). In the entrepreneurship literature, bricolage has been used to conceptually explain market creation (Baker & Nelson, 2005) and nascent firm growth (Baker et al., 2003). In the innovation literature, bricolage describes how robust designs can be created in uncertain environments (Ciborra, 1996; Garud & Karnoe, 2003). What Factors Form Part of the Explanation? Bricolage may be considered as the development of an action-orientated or “hands-on” approach (Senyard, Baker, & Davidsson, 2009). Through a refusal to enact limitations on known existing resources and their uses (Phillips & Tracey, 2007), bricoleurs use resources in ways for which they were not originally designed (Baker & Nelson, 2005). This resource repackaging, transposing, and recombining can be considered forms of “creative reinvention” (Rice & Rogers, 1980). In an entrepreneurial context, bricolage is creating something from nothing by making do with what is at hand to solve problems and uncover opportunities (Baker & Nelson). 1026 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE How Are the Factors Identified Related to Outcomes of Interest? Baker and Nelson (2005) inductively derived the foundations of a theory of entrepreneurial bricolage. They proposed that when entrepreneurs are confronted with penurious environments- environments that present new challenges without providing new resources-they have three options: (1) to seek resources from domains external to the firm; (2) to avoid new challenges by remaining inert, downsizing, or disbanding; or (3) to enact bricolage by making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities. Those who adopt the third approach have the choice to enact bricolage in five domains: (1) physical inputs-imbuing forgotten, discarded, worn, or presumed single-application materials with new use-value; (2) labor inputs-involving customers, suppliers, and hangers-on in providing work on projects; (3) skills inputs- permitting and encouraging the use of amateur and self-taught skills that would otherwise go unapplied; (4) customers/markets-providing products or services that would otherwise be unavailable; and (5) institutional and regulatory environment-refusing to enact limitations with regard to many “standards” and regulations, and by actively trying things in a variety of areas in which entrepreneurs either do not know the rules or do not see them as constraining. Baker and Nelson proposed that entrepreneurs vary in their enactment of bricolage, and this variation affects firm outcomes over time: Bricolage across multiple domains generates mutually reinforcing patterns and, in some cases, a firm identity and community of practice that cements firms into the practice of parallel bricolage and stalled growth . . . In contrast, firms that engaged in selective bricolage created something from nothing in fewer domains. Evidently because they escaped the self-reinforcing dynamics of the parallel bricolage identity and organizational form, these firms often preserved the ability to leverage the unique services created through bricolage to generate growth. (Baker & Nelson, p. 354) The theory of entrepreneurial bricolage suggests that the patterns that an entrepreneur adopts with respect to enacting or testing and counteracting limitations will shape the relationship between bricolage activities and firm growth. Bricolage activities can enable entrepreneurs to overcome resource constraints, but they can also lock the firm into a self-reinforcing cycle of activities that limit growth. Why Do the Proposed Relationships Exist? The theory of entrepreneurial bricolage rests on the concept of the social construction of resources. Penrose (1959) outlines how the resource environment is idiosyncratic to the uses firms make of it. This leads to differences in how entrepreneurs interpret their environment and in the ability of their firms to survive and prosper given ostensibly similar resource constraints. Resource environments are therefore socially constructed, which allows for specific social and organization mechanisms to facilitate the creation of something from nothing (Baker & Nelson, 2005). Boundary Conditions. In order for the theory of entrepreneurial bricolage to be relevant, entrepreneurs need to confront an environment that is resource constrained while still having access to some resources that can be used to “make do.” The theory is therefore most relevant to entrepreneurs operating in penurious environments. Process. The process of entrepreneurial bricolage, as described by Baker and Nelson (2005), is reflected in Figure 3. This process captures the options available to entrepreneurs in penurious environments: avoid challenge, seek resources, or make do with what is on hand. By making do with what is on hand, an entrepreneur can leverage physical, institutional, or human resources in novel ways. Extensive bricolage in multiple domains