Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global

Economy
Dynamic capabilities of institutional entrepreneurship
Kevin McKague
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kevin McKague, (2011),"Dynamic capabilities of institutional entrepreneurship", Journal of Enterprising
Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 11 - 28
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506201111119572
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

Downloaded on: 21 January 2015, At: 20:04 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 39 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 796 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lidija Breznik, Robert D. Hisrich, (2014),"Dynamic capabilities vs. innovation capability: are they related?",
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 368-384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JSBED-02-2014-0018
Silvia Martelo Landroguez, Carmen Barroso Castro, Gabriel Cepeda-Carrión, (2011),"Creating dynamic
capabilities to increase customer value", Management Decision, Vol. 49 Iss 7 pp. 1141-1159 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111151181
Shih-Yi Chien, Ching-Han Tsai, (2012),"Dynamic capability, knowledge, learning, and firm
performance", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 25 Iss 3 pp. 434-444 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534811211228148

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 485088 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6204.htm

Dynamic
Dynamic capabilities of capabilities
institutional entrepreneurship
Kevin McKague
Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada 11
Abstract
Purpose – Although the concept of institutional entrepreneurship has been developed in the
institutional theory literature to explain change in the normative context of organizations, little attention
has been given to understanding what institutional entrepreneurs actually do to create change. The
purpose of this paper is to begin to address this gap in the literature by drawing on the process,
challenges, successes and lessons learned when a large multilateral organization (the United Nations
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

Development Program) launched a new international multi-stakeholder initiative to facilitate inclusive

business development.
Design/methodology/approach – This case study gathered qualitative data through key informant
interviews, participant observation and a review of project documents and e-mail correspondence.
Findings – Drawing on institutional theory and the literature on dynamic capabilities, the research
found that highly institutionalized organizations acting as institutional entrepreneurs need to manage
two key tensions – legitimacy management and change process management – in order to influence
change in their institutional fields.
Originality/value – This paper is the first to combine institutional theory and the dynamic
capabilities literatures to understand the question What capabilities are required by organizations to
succeed in changing their institutional fields?
Keywords Organizational development, Organizational change, Entrepreneurialism
Paper type Case study

Introduction
Although institutional theory has traditionally focused on explaining organizational
behavior based on conformance to the institutionalized “rules, norms, and ideologies of
the wider society” (Meyer and Rowan, 1983, p. 84), the last 20 years have seen the
emergence of a new approach in institutional studies that emphasizes understanding
how actors can impact and change institutions and their related fields (Greenwood et al.,
2008; Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006; Oliver, 1991, 1992). This new field of “institutional
entrepreneurship” focuses on the agency of individuals and organizations to influence
their institutional context (DiMaggio, 1988).
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, institutional theorists began to draw attention to the
need to expand institutional theory’s existing focus on conformity to social rules,
“rationalized myths” and belief systems (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) to incorporate the
reality of agency and “purposive, interest-driven behavior” (DiMaggio, 1988, p. 5).
DiMaggio (1988) argued that without the further development of the concepts of
institutional entrepreneurship, agency and change, institutional theory could not
Journal of Enterprising Communities:
explain the reality of change in organizations and organizational fields. To prompt the People and Places in the Global
development of institutional theory in this direction, DiMaggio (1988) posed a series of Economy
Vol. 5 No. 1, 2011
essential questions, succinctly summarized by Greenwood et al. (2008, p. 13): “How are pp. 11-28
new organizational forms created and legitimated? Who has the power to legitimate a q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6204
novel form? Who are the ‘institutional entrepreneurs’? How are ‘core institutions’ DOI 10.1108/17506201111119572
 JEC delegitimized?” (emphasis in original). In response to this challenges, many institutional
theorists drew on the sociological traditions of Bourdieu (1977) and Giddens (1984).
5,1 An important culmination of this work was the Academy of Management special issue
on institutional entrepreneurship (Dacin et al., 2002). The result, as Greenwood et al.
(2008, pp. 18-9) identify, is that “institutional entrepreneurship emerged as a key term
and became almost synonymous with institutional change”.
12 But, how do institutional entrepreneurs enact changes in their institutional fields? In
their review of the institutional entrepreneurship literature, Lawrence and Suddaby
(2006) identified three broad categories of what they termed “institutional work” –
creating institutions, maintaining institutions and disrupting institutions. For each of
these broad categories, they described three sub-categories of forms of institutional
entrepreneurship work. However, despite the many contributions to the institutional
entrepreneurship discourse to date, Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) noted an important
limit to the extant literature. Specifically, they stated that:
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

The primary focus of much of this research, however, has been to elaborate the characteristics
of, and the conditions that produce, institutional entrepreneurs. Somewhat less evident in
these accounts are detailed descriptions of precisely what it is that institutional entrepreneurs
do (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006, p. 220).
“What institutional entrepreneurs do,” whether they be individuals, business units or
organizations, is a question that is currently receiving significant attention in the
literature on dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Helfat et al., 2007;
Teece et al., 1997). The concept of dynamic capabilities draws on the resource-based
view of the firm (Barney, 1991). Dynamic capabilities are resources that an organization
has access to, either through direct ownership or through its network of relationships
(Helfat et al., 2007) and which an organization can draw upon to perform a particular task
or accomplish its objectives. More static operational capabilities describe the ability to
perform tasks in the present, while dynamic capabilities are fundamentally about
enacting change in the future (Winter, 2003; Teece et al., 1997). Examples of dynamic
capabilities described in the literature include learning (Zollo and Winter, 2002), alliance
formation (Kale et al., 2002) and political management (Oliver and Holzinger, 2008).
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000, p. 1107) have further expanded the understanding of
dynamic capabilities in a way similar to institutional entrepreneurship when they
defined dynamic capabilities as “the firm’s processes that use resources to match and
even create market change”.
Somewhat surprisingly, however, given that both the institutional entrepreneurship
and dynamic capabilities literatures share an interest in the dynamic interaction between
organizational practices and organizational contexts, no one has yet combined
institutional theory and the dynamic capabilities framework (Greenwood et al., 2008).
Given this gap, the purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical model to explain the
dynamic capabilities required by organizations seeking to change their institutional fields.
I am primarily interested in the research question: What dynamic capabilities are required
by institutionalized organizations to succeed in changing their institutional fields?
An examination of how the dynamic capabilities literature can contribute to our
understanding of “what institutional entrepreneurs do” is important for a number of
reasons. First, as described by Greenwood et al. (2008), analyses combining these two
prominent approaches in organizational and strategy theory are currently absent from
the literature. Developing theory by combining these literatures may allow important
 further extensions to both approaches. Second, a greater understanding of the Dynamic
capabilities of institutional entrepreneurs can suggest ways that practitioners can capabilities
achieve greater success in their institutional change efforts.
In the next section, I describe the setting for the empirical research that provided data to
address the research question. This is followed by a description of the research methods
used. I then introduce a dynamic capabilities model of institutional entrepreneurship
based on the data, which illustrates two key tensions for undertaking institutional 13
disruption and change. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the
findings and possibilities for future research.

Research setting
To explore the dynamic capabilities which may be important for the disruption and
change of institutional fields, I selected a single case study of a business unit within a
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

major international organization; a recent high-profile project at the United Nations

Development Program (UNDP) known as the growing inclusive markets (GIM)
initiative. The GIM initiative is described by the UNDP (2008) as:
[. . .] a new multi-stakeholder initiative that strives to study, understand and share with the
broader development and business communities ways in which the pursuits of profit and
human progress can work to mutual advantage.
This concept that “profit and human progress can work to mutual advantage” is a
significant departure from historical assumptions of the UNDP and many other
organizations in the business community and the development community. Before the
1990s, business was typically seen as a major contributor to the problems of human
development rather than a source of solutions and the UN’s work on “Transnational
Corporations” sought to limit the unchecked power of large companies operating across
international boundaries (United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations, 2008).
Many organizations within the business community continue to hold the view that
engaging in socially or environmentally related activities with the poor is something
best understood through the lens of charity or corporate social responsibility
((The) Economist, 2005). At the same time, many organizations within the development
and civil society communities continue to strongly hold the view that business is a major
problem of underdevelopment and not part of a solution (Bakan, 2005; Klein, 2007).
Contrary to these “common understandings” and entrenched “ideologies” (Zucker, 1983),
the UNDP’s GIM initiative sought to fundamentally change these views towards an
understanding that the private sector can be an important part of the solution to
underdevelopment and that engaging with the poor as suppliers or customers can be
fundamentally good for business.
The UNDP itself can be seen as an important organization in the development
community. The GIM initiative sits within the private sector division of the UNDP,
which in turn is one of the major divisions of the United Nations (UN). The existing
norms within the UNDP and the broader UN system towards business can be further
understood through the founding and early mandate of the UN. The UN was founded in
1946 by a group of national governments with a mandate to promote peace, security and
human development after two devastating world wars. For decades, the UN’s key
stakeholders were the governments of the member states that comprised the
organization, and this relationship strongly shaped the taken-for-granted norms,
 JEC assumptions and operating procedures of the organization. Then, in the late 1990s,
5,1 a combination of exogenous pressures and endogenous shifts began a process of change
within the UNDP regarding the potential positive interrelationship between business
and development that ultimately culminated with the current GIM initiative.
Externally to the UN, the end of the cold war in the early 1990s opened up
international trade as many developing and emerging countries adopted market-based
14 economies. Private sector-led foreign direct investment eclipsed flows of official
development assistance to most developing countries. Globally, the private sector was
playing an increasingly important role in economies and societies. During the 1990s,
other organizations such as the International Business Leaders Forum (Nelson, 1996)
were beginning to advocate for a reassessment of the role of business in development
and started to describe the business case for involvement with the poor as well as
describing the important contributions business could make to development with the
cooperation of governments, development agencies and other actors.
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

Internally to the UN, the formulation of targets and timelines for achieving
development outcomes were codified in the launch of the UN’s Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) in 2000. Under the leadership of then Secretary-General Kofi Annan and
senior managers at the UNDP, including Mark Malloch Brown and Bruce Jenks, it was
understood that achieving the MDG targets would require the broad participation of the
private sector in addition to governments and civil society organizations. To this end, Kofi
Annan launched the Global Compact in 2000 as a broad-based, values-driven platform of
engaging business with the priorities of UN and the MDGs. The Secretary General also
made engaging with the private sector an important part of the UN World summit on
sustainable development in 2002. Subsequent to this, the Secretary-General commissioned
a high-level report on the private sector and development which was delivered in 2005
under the title: Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business Work for the Poor (UNDP,
2004). This report was an advocacy-based “call to action” focusing on the contribution of
local entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises to development as well as a
business case for companies of all sizes to include the poor into their value chains as
producers or consumers. The GIM initiative was subsequently conceived in 2006 as an
important follow-up initiative to the unleashing entrepreneurship report and one of the key
activities of the UNDP’s newly minted private sector strategy.
The GIM initiative, as a business unit within the UNDP’s private sector division, faced
three simultaneous institutional entrepreneurship challenges. The first related to its
mandate to influence the beliefs and assumptions of private sector actors in developing
countries to understand that there are important commercial reasons to do business with
the poor in low-income markets. The second institutional entrepreneurship challenge for
the GIM initiative was to convince the broader development community that business can
be good for development. The third and primarily unstated institutional entrepreneurship
mandate for the GIM business unit, was to continue to work within the UNDP and the
broader UN system itself to convince internal stakeholders that that engaging business as
a agent for development was consistent with their mandate and mission.
During 2006 and 2007, the GIM initiative began its work by convening an advisory
committee composed of leading practitioners from all of the other major organizations
working in the “business and development” field. The steering committee also included
leading academic researchers with expertise in this area. The GIM initiative was
structured into three working groups. The first was a case study working group,
 which created a network of 16 academics and researchers from the developing world to Dynamic
research and write 50 cases of sustainable, inclusive businesses initiatives. The second capabilities
was a group focused on quantitative research to determine the extent of the market
opportunity for business to serve currently underserved markets in the developing
world. The third working group was focused on communicating and “institutionalizing”
the key messages of the initiative. This work led to the release of the Creating Value for
All: Strategies for Doing Business with the Poor report in the summer of 2008. The GIM 15
business unit then used the momentum from the report launch to initiate a process of
country-level roundtable dialogues between the business community, development
agencies and government representatives. These gatherings shared innovative
approaches from the existing case studies and quantitative data, and more
importantly, drew the business communities, development communities and
government representatives together to work to develop local initiatives. With initial
favorable internal and external stakeholder feedback, an additional 40 case writers from
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America were recruited in the summer of 2009 to
research and write an additional 50 cases.
Entering the GIM project, the UNDP was knowledgeable that the UN system has had
mixed results with initiatives that sought to change the norms and mindsets of the way
development was understood and practiced. Some past initiatives had not succeeded in
creating the desired changes; others, however, had been widely considered successful,
such as the human development index (which had changed the way most development
agencies and governments thought about measuring development) and the MDGs
(which had been unanimously adopted by UN Member States and established specific
quantitative global targets for development).

Methods and data analysis

Given the context of the GIM initiative, it offered a valuable site for studying the process
of institutional entrepreneurship for a number of reasons. First, a case study would allow
for an inductive approach to theory building based on qualitative data in an area that has
not been previously explored in the literature. Second, the GIM initiative’s mandate was
explicitly directed at changing norms and assumptions in an institutional field. Third, in
the past, the organization has experienced both successful and unsuccessful
institutional entrepreneurship initiatives, suggesting that they have experience with
the dynamic capabilities necessary for successfully changing existing institutions.
Fourth, following the principles of action learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Revans,
1980; Pedler, 1991), the GIM initiative was chosen for further theoretical development so
that the resultant theoretical findings, as well as other practical insights, could
contribute to the learning and success of the ongoing GIM initiative itself.
A case study of the GIM initiative was developed drawing on the approach described
by Eisenhardt (1989). The case study was informed by the critical action learning
approach (Pedler, 2005), as the author worked closely with the GIM initiative as a
consultant over the course of 18 months to assist in the achievement of the initiative’s
objectives. This allowed for access to the day-to-day operations of the business unit
including verbal and e-mail communications, meetings and internal drafts of
organizational reports. In addition to this data, the case study was developed based on
semi-structured interviews with six key informants selected for theoretical reasons due
to their detailed knowledge of GIM’s current and planned actions. Interviewees included
 JEC two of the directors of the UN’s private sector business unit, two managers of the GIM
5,1 initiative and two GIM advisory committee members. Interviews lasted between 27 and
67 minutes each and were conducted via telephone. All interviews were recorded and
transcribed, resulting in 82 double-spaced pages of transcript text. Table I lists the
sources of data included in the study. Triangulation among these various sources of data
allowed for the iterative development of the case (Yin, 2003).
16 Interviews were coded using a combination of descriptive, interpretive and pattern
codes (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Initial analysis of transcripts also included the
writing of marginal notes to point to possible themes, tensions, capabilities and issues
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). After reading transcripts and during the interpretation
process, memoing (Miles and Huberman, 1994) was used to capture reflections and
emerging interpretations and relationships. Analysis proceeded with iteration back and
forth between the interview transcripts and the emerging themes and constructs
(Glasser and Strauss, 1967) until a model was developed that reflected the data.
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

Findings
Analysis of the data confirmed that the GIM business unit was indeed acting as an
institutional entrepreneur according to the forms of institutional entrepreneurship “work”
described by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006). Columns one and two in Table II synthesize
and adapt Lawrence and Suddaby’s (2006) forms of institutional entrepreneurship work.
Institutional entrepreneurship work can be characterized into three broad categories:
political actions, reconfiguring belief systems and altering categories and boundaries
(column one, Table II). Each of these three broad categories is sub-divided into three
sub-categories (column two, Table II). Column three in Table II provides examples of each
type of institutional work undertaken by the GIM business unit.

Political actions
Under the broad category of political actions, the GIM initiative mobilized political
support for its message of the mutually beneficial potential relationship between
business and development through leveraging the support of the UNDP’s long-standing
contacts with governments around the world. The GIM initiative sought the backing of
the senior leadership within the UNDP and the broader UN system. The GIM initiative
also worked to confer status and a positive identity on existing businesses that
implemented innovative inclusive business models by developing case studies and
highlighting their work in the Creating Value for All report. In this way, the often
negative stigma of the private sector was replaced with a positive identity. The GIM
initiative was also conscious of the political work of conferring rights to property

Data source Number

Interviews of GIM project managers 2

Interviews of UNDP senior managers 2
Interviews of GIM advisory committee members 2
Meeting observations 2
Project e-mails 250 þ
Table I. Draft project reports 3
Data sources GIM initiative case studies 50
 Dynamic
Broad categories of Examples of institutional
institutional Sub-categories of institutional entrepreneurship work undertaken capabilities
entrepreneurship work entrepreneurship work by the GIM initiative

Political actions Mobilize political support Leveraged long-standing

Confer status and identity
Confer property rights
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)
relationships with governments
around the world as well as 17
internally within the UNDP and UN
Being part of the GIM process is
good for business reputation and
business. The GIM initiative is
removing stigma previously
associated with business and
replacing it with a positive identity
Work with governments to create a

positive legal and regulatory

environment for business
Reconfiguring belief Redefine the relationship between the GIM seeking to increase legitimacy
systems institutional entrepreneur and the with the business community while
institutional field maintaining legitimacy with
traditional actors in the institutional
field such as governments and civil
society
Reconfigure moral and cultural Business not morally wrong to be
foundations of practices operating in the developing world
but can genuinely contribute to
human development
Construct interorganizational Form network of business and
networks of peers that share new development actors on steering
views and assumptions committee, seeking to create broader
network including academics and
country level processes/networks
Altering categories and Associating new practices with Case studies of pro-poor, for-profit
boundaries existing taken-for-granted practices business across countries, sectors
and business size
Theorizing through development of Academic research to identify
abstract categories and elaboration innovations to overcome obstacles. Table II.
of chains of cause and effect Disconfirming previous theories Institutional
Educating actors in skills and Ongoing process of convening and entrepreneurship work
knowledge necessary to support the the GIM report itself undertaken by the GIM
new institutional norms business unit

as it advocated for developing country governments to create a legal and regulatory

enabling environment for private sector development.

Reconfiguring belief systems

Under the broad category of reconfiguring belief systems, institutional
entrepreneurship work can be subdivided into three areas. The first sub-category is
redefining the relationship between the institutional entrepreneur and the institutional
field. The GIM initiative is aiming to accomplish this by increasing its legitimacy with
the business community while not losing credibility from its existing government and
civil society stakeholders. The GIM business unit and initiative are using tools such
 JEC as quantitative analysis of market opportunities, rigorously developed qualitative case
5,1 studies and communications using business language to gain legitimacy with private
sector actors. The second sub-category is reconfiguring the moral and cultural
foundations of practices. In the past, the UNDP, the civil society community and some
governments have viewed private sector activity in the developing world as morally
questionable given concerns for environmental and human rights issues associated
18 with certain industries and practices. The GIM initiative is seeking to focus attention
on the wide variety of private sector activities (from local entrepreneurship and SME
development to beneficial foreign investment and public-private partnerships) that can
have a significant net positive impact on poverty alleviation and sustainable
development. The third sub-category of the institutional work of reconfiguring belief
systems is constructing interorganizational networks of peers that share the new views
and assumptions promoted by the institutional entrepreneur. GIM is actively doing
this through conceptualizing GIM as a network builder and convener.
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

Altering categories and boundaries

The third major category of institutional entrepreneurship work is altering categories
and boundaries of assumptions and taken-for-granted ways of thinking. The first
sub-category is associating new practices with existing practices and a major tool for the
GIM initiative to achieve this was through the 50 case studies of innovative for-profit,
inclusive business models. These cases are drawn from a wide range of countries,
sectors and sizes of company to be as representative as possible. The second
sub-category of altering categories and boundaries of thinking and practice is theorizing
through development of abstract categories and elaboration of chains of cause and
effect. The GIM initiative is doing this in two ways. They are doing it through an
academic analysis of their 50 case studies to identify common innovations that are used
to overcome obstacles to GIM. They are also subtly doing this by disconfirming previous
theories of the role of business in development that are only focused on one type of
business in a certain type of industry (i.e. multinational consumer products companies
for example). The third sub-category of institutional work that alters categories and
boundaries is educating actors in skills and knowledge necessary to support the new
institutional norms. This is an important component of the GIM initiative, as one of the
three activity areas is dissemination and communication of the messages of the report to
the key audiences. When the report was launched, the GIM business unit engaged in a
process of convening businesses, government representatives and development
agencies at a country level to share innovative practices that could reduce poverty while
simultaneously providing opportunities for business.

Managing key tensions in institutional entrepreneurship work

According to a synthesis and adaptation of the forms of institutional entrepreneurship
work described by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006), the GIM business unit can be
considered an institutional entrepreneur. But how did the GIM business unit go about
undertaking political actions, reconfiguring belief systems and altering categories and
boundaries to influence change in its institutional field? Analysis of the data identified
two key tensions that needed to be managed in order for the GIM business unit to
successfully act as an institutional entrepreneur. The first tension is creating legitimacy
with new stakeholders and alliance partners necessary to support the institutional
 change while maintaining legitimacy with existing organizations in the institutional Dynamic
field. The second tension concerns managing the process of institutional change. capabilities
Institutional entrepreneurs need to find a balance in the change process between taking
too much control over the process (and not creating ownership amongst other
organizations) with not demonstrating enough leadership and commitment (resulting in
a lack of focus and commitment from important partners). The management of these two
key tensions is shown in Figure 1. 19
If an institutional entrepreneur is able to optimally balance these legitimacy
management and process management tensions, they will be more likely to succeed at
influencing change in the institutional field. If management of either or both tensions is
unbalanced, sub-optimal outcomes result, as shown in the four boxes in Figure 1.
Managing the tension of each dimension is described in the sections below.

Legitimacy management capability

Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

Legitimacy is an important concept in institutional theory and in the literature on

institutional entrepreneurship. To gain legitimacy from important constituents and
stakeholders, institutional theory predicts that organizations will conform to their
institutional context, including “the rules, norms and ideologies of the wider society”
(Zucker, 1983). The case study data suggested that for the GIM business unit to be

Legitimacy management

Legitimacy with NEW Legitimacy with OLD

stakeholders at the stakeholders at the
expense of OLD expense of NEW
Legitimacy
with ALL
stakeholders
leadership control
Too much

“Suboptimal “Business
prescriptions” as usual”
Process management

leadership
Balanced

Optimized
activity for
institutionalized
entrepreneur
leadership control

“Hijacked by
“Watiting for
Too little

opportunistic
opportunities”
interests”
Figure 1.
Managing key tensions
in institutional
entrepreneurship work
 JEC successful as an institutional entrepreneur, it must be seen as legitimate from the
5,1 perspective of the most important and relevant constituents of the institutional field –
the business community and the development community. Given that the rules, norms and
ideologies of the private sector are markedly different from its existing government and
civil society stakeholders, the UNDP faces legitimacy challenges from both of these new
and old constituencies. On the one hand, the UNDP, and the GIM business unit in particular,
20 needs to seek legitimacy from the private sector for its message that development can be
good for business. To do this, GIM and the broader UNDP system may need to further
understand the organizational logics and norms of business and communicate important
messages in ways that can be understood by business audiences. At the same time, this
potential shift in language and assumptions must not alienate existing government and
civil society stakeholders who have been the source of the UNDP’s legitimacy for decades.
Therefore, given the importance of legitimacy management in the institutional
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

entrepreneurship process and the need to build legitimacy with new stakeholders while
simultaneously maintaining existing legitimacy with existing stakeholders, I propose:
P1. The greater the institutional entrepreneur is able to balance gaining
legitimacy with important new stakeholders while maintaining legitimacy
with existing important stakeholders, the more successful its institutional
entrepreneurship activity will be.

Process management capability

The GIM business unit, although it has the backing of the brand of the UN system, is still
only one player in a large and diverse institutional field. In this context, the GIM business
unit’s various actions to institute a norm that “development is good for business and
business is good for development” rely heavily on a process-oriented approach to
convene businesses, development organizations, governments and all relevant
stakeholders in a process to influence their thinking, assumptions and practices.
After the launch of the GIM report, the UNDP engaged in a process of convening
country level roundtables including the local business community, development
community and government representatives to discuss how markets and businesses
could be grown more inclusively in their region or country. The capability of effectively
managing the institutional entrepreneurship process with multiple stakeholder groups
is essential for an established institutional entrepreneur such as the UNDP.
The data suggested that one of the most important tensions to manage within the
process of convening GIM stakeholders would be the tension between too much control
and leadership and too little control and leadership. Too much control and leadership
was associated with having “an agenda” and not allowing other participants and
stakeholders to become fully involved and take ownership of adopting new norms and
assumptions and promoting these to others. Too little control and leadership was
associated with not being fully committed to making real change in the institutional field
and not making sufficient effort to fulfill the mission of the GIM initiative. Therefore,
I propose:
P2. The more the institutional entrepreneur is able to balance taking too much
leadership and control with not demonstrating enough leadership and control,
the more successful the institutional entrepreneurship activity will be.
 Sub-optimal institutional entrepreneurship management outcomes Dynamic
Balancing these two tensions will lead to the greatest likelihood of success of capabilities
institutional entrepreneurship activity by an established organization such as the UNDP
GIM business unit. The consequences of sub-optimal management of legitimacy and
stakeholder processes are shown in Figure 1. If the institutional entrepreneur builds
legitimacy with new stakeholders at the expense of existing stakeholders and at the
same time takes too much control over the process, a situation of “suboptimal 21
prescriptions” results as there remains insufficient buy-in from a critical mass of
stakeholders. If legitimacy with new stakeholders is built at the expense of existing
stakeholders and the institutional entrepreneur takes too little control or leadership of
the institutional change process, the new stakeholders may be very open to adopting
new norms and assumptions, but generally lack the momentum of an organized process
to help them follow through and fully integrate the new institutional norms and
assumptions into their thinking and practice. This situation can be characterized as
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

stakeholders in the institutional filed continuing to “wait for opportunities.” If the

institutional entrepreneur maintains legitimacy with existing stakeholders at the
expense of building legitimacy with important new stakeholders while at the same time
takes too much control of the institutional entrepreneurship process, little change will
result and the situation can be described as “business as usual.” If the institutional
entrepreneur maintains legitimacy with existing stakeholders and does not succeed in
building enough legitimacy with important new stakeholders while at the same time
takes too little control of the change process, the initiative risks being “hijacked by
opportunistic interests” who lead the process in a direction in their own interest. The
data suggest that an institutional entrepreneurship activity by an established actor
would be optimized when legitimacy with all stakeholders can be achieved while the
process of change is managed with a balanced amount of control and leadership.

Dynamic capabilities and institutional entrepreneurship

The findings from the data indicate that if an institutional entrepreneur is successful at
managing the legitimacy and process management tensions, they have the greatest
chance of being successful in their attempt to change the assumptions and practices in
their institutional field. The research also found that there were a three dynamic
capabilities that contributed to the success of the institutional entrepreneur’s ability to
manage the tensions of each dimension. These dynamic capabilities are summarized in
Figure 2 and the next section provides evidence from the data for the dynamic
capabilities required to manage each key tension.

Dynamic capabilities for gaining and maintaining legitimacy with new and
old stakeholders
Communicating across organizational cultures
To effectively generate legitimacy with both new and old stakeholders, an important
dynamic capability is the ability to understand the different logics of sectoral groups
(i.e. private sector, development organization and government) and to communicate
with each organization with language, signals and signs that they will notice and
understand. Legitimacy for the GIM business unit will be increased if their key
messages effectively speak to the interests of their most important stakeholder groups.
The importance of language in communicating to stakeholders (and the simultaneous
capability of changing old language patters) was recognized by one respondent:
 JEC Legitimacy management dynamic capabilities
5,1
Communicating
Emphasizing
across Demonstrating
rational
organizational commitment
evidence
cultures
22

Legitimacy
with ALL
Promoting
Process management dynamic capabilities

stakeholders
local
ownership
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

leadership
Ensuring an Optimized
inclusive Balanced activity for
and unbiased institutionalized
approach entrepreneur

Figure 2. Building
Dynamic capabilities networks
of institutional and brokering
entrepreneurship relationships

I think [the GIM business unit] learnt themselves a new language and learning that new language
they’ve learnt to exclude old languages, and hopefully helped them to achieve their mandate.
Institutional entrepreneurs also need to be skilled at appraising how their actions will
likely disrupt institutions and proactively anticipate resistance or misunderstandings
that may arise because of their attempts to change often deeply held assumptions and
ways of understanding the world. Skilled institutional entrepreneurs will need the
cross-cultural knowledge to appraise the likely reception of their communications and
actions and preemptively position their messages and actions to be understood as
much as possible. Therefore, I propose:
P3. The greater the dynamic capability of understanding and communicating
across organizational cultures, the greater the institutional entrepreneur will
be able to balance legitimacy between stakeholders (old and new).

Emphasizing rational evidence

A second important dynamic capability for creating and maintaining legitimacy with new
and old stakeholders suggested by the data is that of signaling that the institutional
entrepreneur is “rational” in its arguments for changing the norms and values of its
institutional field. By rational, I follow the understanding in the institutional theory
literature that takes “rational” to mean conforming to the widely held norms in
post-enlightenment Western society for arguments to appeal to reason and logic. Many
interview informants make reference to the academic rigor of the evidence and analysis of
 GIM’s 50 case studies as an argument to support the validity and legitimacy of GIM’s key Dynamic
messages. The research that GIM commissioned is being framed as highly empirical and capabilities
theoretical to differentiate it from the majority of reports on this topic that tend to be
advocacy based with anecdotal case studies. Since the nature of institutional
entrepreneurship work is to shift norms, values and assumptions, the mobilization of
what is perceived as sound rational evidence is essential to legitimate the messages of the
institutional entrepreneur and to help actors adopt new assumptions and practices. 23
Therefore, I propose:
P4. The greater the capability of signaling that its data and stories are rational
and rigorous, the greater the institutional entrepreneur will be able to secure
legitimacy from stakeholders (old and new).

Demonstrating commitment
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

An important dynamic capability for institutional entrepreneurs to build and maintain

legitimacy among both new and old stakeholders is to effectively convey commitment to
the institutional changes it proposes. This is sometimes referred to as “walking the talk”
or “staying the course.” That this dynamic capability would be important for
institutional entrepreneurs is suggested by the data and also by institutional theory.
Institutional theory predicts that organizations will respond to pressures of conformity
generated by the norms and cognitive belief systems in society and in institutional fields
(Greenwood et al., 2008). However, if actions to conform to institutional norms conflict
with other deeply held beliefs such as technical efficiency, for example (Meyer and
Rowan, 1977), a disconnect will emerge between espoused norms and practices.
Also known as “ceremonial conformity” (Pfeffer, 1982, p. 246) or “surface isomorphism”
(Zucker, 1987, p. 672), this surface adherence to institutional norms is not uncommon in
organizations. Experienced stakeholders realize this and look for signs and signals to
discern if the institutional entrepreneur is genuinely committed to the changes
it proposes or if its espoused changes are primarily ceremonial. Therefore, the dynamic
capability of an institutional entrepreneur to demonstrate commitment to the changes it
proposes is essential for managing legitimacy among stakeholders in the institutional
field. I therefore propose:
P5. The greater the capability of demonstrating commitment to institutional
change, the greater the institutional entrepreneur will be able to generate
legitimacy among all stakeholders (old and new).

Dynamic capabilities for managing institutional change process

In addition to the dynamic capabilities for managing legitimacy given above, the data
from the GIM case study and interviews also identified three dynamic capabilities for
managing the tensions in the institutional entrepreneurship process. As mentioned, after
the GIM business unit launched the major report from their research, it initiated a
multi-sectoral engagement process at the country level to influence local thinking and
action around inclusive business models. The data identified that the dynamic
capabilities of fostering local ownership, inclusiveness and network building were
important in effectively managing the tensions in the institutional entrepreneurship
process. Each of these three important process-oriented dynamic capabilities is
described below.
 JEC Promoting local ownership
5,1 The key tension identified in managing the institutional entrepreneurship process is
between taking too much control over the process (leaving little ownership for other
stakeholders) and not taking enough leadership in the process (leaving other
stakeholders without direction and questioning the institutional entrepreneur’s
commitment). The alternative to these extremes is a process that encourages local
24 ownership of the change once stakeholders begin to share the newly advocated norms
and assumptions. The capability of creating local ownership for a change in the
institutional field amongst other stakeholders is important as the institutional
entrepreneur usually has only limited resources and must rely on others to carry the new
norms and values forward. The dynamic capability of encouraging local ownership of
the new institutional norms and beliefs amongst other stakeholders is crucial for
success. Therefore:
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

P6. The greater the capability of encouraging local ownership among stakeholders
in the institutional field, the greater the ability of the institutional entrepreneur
to manage a process that will lead to the desired changes in the institutional
field.

Ensuring an inclusive and unbiased approach

Another important dynamic capability for institutional entrepreneurs is to manage the
change process in a way that is perceived as broad based and unbiased. To ease the
building of coalitions and to increase participation of actors embedded in institutions that
may be disrupted and changed, the dynamic capability of making stakeholders perceive
that they are participating in a broad coalition of actors that are not being driven by a
particular individual agenda is important. This view was emphasized by one of the
respondents who stated:
The beauty of the whole process was I thought, was there was a lot of respect for each other’s
point of view. I think we just listened to each other even though our view points were different
of course, at many times. The beauty of the UNDP project is, it is driven by the process.
Stakeholders that perceive a process to be broad based and not driven by a particular
narrow agenda are more likely to listen to messages and information delivered by an
institutional entrepreneur. I therefore propose:
P7. The greater the capability of creating a process that is perceived as
broad-based and unbiased, the greater the ability of the institutional
entrepreneur to manage the process to lead to the desired changes in the
institutional field.

Building networks and brokering relationships

A third dynamic capability for managing the process of changing the taken-for-granted
norms and assumptions of the institutional field is building a network of partners that
can contribute resources to support the work of the institutional entrepreneur. With
limited resources, an institutional entrepreneur requires the dynamic capability to
identify existing resources that can help in the change process, such as organizations
that already conform to the new institutional norms, and recruit them to help in the
process of spreading the norm and influencing others. Possessing the capability to build
 networks and broker mutually beneficial relationships will also help an institutional Dynamic
entrepreneur build up a critical mass of organizations and individuals who conform to capabilities
the new institutional norms. I, therefore, propose:
P8. The greater the capability to build a network and broker relationships, the
greater the ability of the institutional entrepreneur to manage a process that
will lead to the desired change in the institutional field.
25
Discussion and conclusion
The case of the GIM initiative being led by the GIM business unit of the UNDP has
provided data to answer the question, “What dynamic capabilities are required by
institutionalized organizations to succeed in changing their institutional fields?” The
case study of the GIM initiative and related interviews identified two key tensions that
an organization like the UNDP must manage to successfully influence its institutional
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

context. The first key tension was generating legitimacy with important new
stakeholders while making sure to maintain legitimacy with existing stakeholders. The
second key tension was managing the institutional change process with leadership that
was “not too tight and not too loose” in order to ensure local ownership and inclusiveness
in a process that can build a network of actors who share the new institutional norms
being promoted by the institutional entrepreneur.
Three separate dynamic capabilities were found to be important in managing each
of the two key tensions. Managing legitimacy amongst new and old stakeholders was
found to require the dynamic capabilities of understanding and communicating with
organizations with different institutional logics, mobilizing rational evidence to frame
arguments and demonstrating commitment to the proposed institutional change.
Managing the institutional entrepreneurship process effectively was found to require
the dynamic capabilities of encouraging local ownership, facilitating an inclusive and
unbiased stakeholder engagement process and building a network of actors who share
the new institutional norms.
Although Oliver (1997) combined institutional theory with the resource based view,
the management literature has not yet combined institutional entrepreneurship with
the dynamic capabilities perspective (Greenwood et al., 2008). To my knowledge, this
has been the first integration of the institutional entrepreneurship and dynamic
capabilities literatures and the findings of this study make potential contributions to
both literatures.
The institutional entrepreneurship literature has often explored the antecedents to
institutional entrepreneurship, but has not focused significant attention on “precisely
what it is that institutional entrepreneurs do” (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006, p. 220).
In identifying six dynamic capabilities that allow institutional entrepreneurs to manage
tensions around legitimacy and process, the current study begins to answer the question
of “what institutional entrepreneurs do” by drawing on the dynamic capabilities
literature (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Helfat et al., 2007; Teece et al., 1997).
The dynamic capabilities literature, drawing on the resource based view of the firm
(Barney, 1991), understands capabilities as resources that allow an organization to
achieve its objectives. Empirical studies drawing on the resource-based view primarily
take measures of firm financial performance as dependent variables. The current study
takes the change in an organization’s institutional field as the ultimate dependent
variable on which future empirical studies could measure success. As such, the dynamic
 JEC capabilities identified for managing legitimacy and stakeholder processes can help
5,1 augment the dynamic capabilities literature on mobilizing intangible resources.
As an exploratory study focused on theory building and based on a single case, the
current research is limited in a number of ways that are important to note. First, further
research in additional contexts will be necessary to validate the current findings. Second,
the current study is based on institutional entrepreneurship by a “highly
26 institutionalized organization” (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Institutional entrepreneurs
are more commonly “outsiders” or organizations not subject to institutional pressures,
thus making the UNDP GIM initiative a more unique and atypical institutional
entrepreneur (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Further research on the dynamic
capabilities of institutional entrepreneurs could explore potential differences in the
capabilities required for more or less institutionalized organizations. Third, the UNDP
GIM initiative and business unit has adopted a process-oriented approach to institutional
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

entrepreneurship designed to convene businesses, government representatives and

development sector organizations into a learning and mutual problem solving process to
change the assumptions, practices and norms in the field of “business and development.”
Further research on institutional entrepreneurs using other process to achieve their
institutional change objectives would be necessary to further develop the theoretical
findings from the existing case.
Although the current study has a number of limitations, this single case is valuable
for theory building in a currently unexplored area. Institutional entrepreneurship
practitioners in highly institutionalized contexts like the UNDP GIM initiative can
benefit from the current study’s identification of the key legitimacy and process tensions
that need to be managed and the dynamic capabilities that are important to manage
them. The GIM process itself, as it moves from the launch of its report to actively
communicating its key messages to various stakeholder audiences and convening
country-level multistakeholder roundtables, may benefit from keeping in mind the
capabilities suggested by the research.

References
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bakan, J. (2005), The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dacin, T., Goldstein, J. and Scott, W.R. (2002), “Institutional theory and institutional change:
introduction to the special research forum”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45,
pp. 45-56.
DiMaggio, P.J. (1988), “Interest and agency in institutional theory”, in Zucker, L.G. (Ed.),
Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 3-22.
(The) Economist (2005), “The good company”, The Economist, January 20.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
 Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic Dynamic
Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 1105-21 (special issue).
capabilities
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Glasser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (2008), The Sage Handbook of
Organizational Institutionalism, Sage, London. 27
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J. and Winter, S.G.
(2007), Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations,
Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.
Kale, P., Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (2002), “Alliance capability, stock market response and long
term alliance success: the role of the alliance function”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 747-67.
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

Klein, N. (2007), The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Metropolitan Books,
New York, NY.
Lawrence, T.B. and Suddaby, R. (2006), “Institutions and institutional work”, in Clegg, S.R.,
Hardy, C., Nord, W.R. and Lawrence, T. (Eds), Handbook of Organization Studies,
Sage, London.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 440-63.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1983), “The structure of educational organizations”, in Meyer, J.W.
and Scott, W.R. (Eds), Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994), “Early steps in data analysis”, Qualitative Data Analysis:
An Expanded Source Book, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (Chp. 4).
Nelson, J. (1996), Business as Partners in Development, The Prince of Wales International
Business Leaders Forum, London.
Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 145-79.
Oliver, C. (1992), “The antecedents of deinstitutionalization”, Organization Studies, Vol. 13,
pp. 563-88.
Oliver, C. (1997), “Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource
based views”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 697-713.
Oliver, C. and Holzinger, I. (2008), “The effectiveness of strategic political management: a dynamic
capabilities framework”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 496-520.
Pedler, M. (1991), Action Learning in Practice, Gower, Aldershot.
Pedler, M. (2005), “Critical action learning”, Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 2, pp. 1-6.
Pfeffer, J. (1982), “Organizational demography”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds),
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Revans, R. (1980), Action Learning: New Techniques for Management, Blond & Briggs, London.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
UNDP (2004), Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business Work for the Poor, United Nations
Development Program, New York, NY.
 JEC UNDP (2008), Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business with the Poor, United Nations
Development Program, New York, NY.
5,1 United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations (2008), United Nations Centre on
Transnational Corporations, available at: http://unctc.unctad.org/aspx/index.aspx
(accessed January 15, 2010).
Winter, S.G. (2003), “Understanding dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal,
28 Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 991-5.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13, pp. 339-51.
Zucker, L.G. (1983), “Organizations as institutions”, Research in the Sociology of Organizations,
Vol. 2, pp. 1-47.
Zucker, L.G. (1987), “Institutional theories of organization”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13,
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

pp. 443-64.

Further reading
Greenwood, R. and Suddaby, R. (2006), “Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big
five accounting firms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 27-48.
Wheeler, D., McKague, K., Thomson, J., Davies, R., Medalye, J. and Prada, M. (2005), “Creating
sustainable local enterprise networks”, MIT/Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1.

About the author

Kevin McKague is a Senior Research Fellow at York University’s Institute for Research and
Innovation in Sustainability and PhD candidate at the Schulich School of Business. His research
interests are market-based, enterprise-led approaches to poverty alleviation. Kevin McKague
served as a Consultant and Case Study Reviewer for the UNDP’s Growing Inclusive Markets
initiative from 2006 to 2009. Kevin McKague can be contacted at: kmckague@schuilch.yorku.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Tomi Ovaska, Louw Van der Walt, Robert B. Anderson. 2014. The development experiences of two small
African and Northern European communities under globalisation. Journal of Enterprising Communities:
People and Places in the Global Economy 8:4, 234-260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Nor Azlina Ab Rahman, Aliza Ramli. 2014. Entrepreneurship Management, Competitive Advantage and
Firm Performances in the Craft Industry: Concepts and Framework. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 145, 129-137. [CrossRef]
3. Bedman Narteh. 2013. SME bank selection and patronage behaviour in the Ghanaian banking industry.
Management Research Review 36:11, 1061-1080. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Sanatcha Theerachun, Mark Speece, Willi Zimmermann. 2013. Relationship Marketing and Micro-
Retailer Brand in Traditional Markets. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 25, 242-266.
[CrossRef]
5. I. Cahyadi, J. Zeleznikow. 2013. Case Studies of Enterprise Resource Planning System Implementation
Downloaded by University of Phoenix At 20:04 21 January 2015 (PT)

in Indonesian Small and Medium Enterprises: The Knowledge Transfer Evaluation. Journal of Advanced
Management Science 1:10.12720/joams.1.1, 136-141. [CrossRef]
6. Alizah Ali, Roha Mohamed Noah, Shaherah Abd Malik. 2012. Legal Implications on Sales and Purchase,
Uses and Misuses of Agro Chemicals in Smallholders’ Agro Production in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 68, 156-163. [CrossRef]
7. Kevin McKague, Sarah Tinsley. 2012. Bangladesh's Rural Sales Program. Social Enterprise Journal 8:1,
16-30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Petter Gottschalk, Robert Smith. 2011. Criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality, and
neutralization theory. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 5:4,
300-308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]