Limitations of the current model
Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) stated that the SE constructs focuses on how opportunity and advantage-seeking behaviours to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. However, studies have failed to consider time and spatial considerations associated with “balance”. Consequently, Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) stated that SE as a process may need iteration and adaption to restore its effectiveness when different systems or complementary processes change.
An alternate model of SE
Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) explained their mission of an improved and practical model of SE by retain the main structure of Ireland et al.’s (2003) stages as the logic bears resemblance to the eight core components of SE discussed previously. Furthermore, as Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) discussion has outlined, we do not see the stages themselves as its chief weakness but rather the architecture within these stages take place and the manner of their deployment.
Non-linearity, iteration and dynamic capability
Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) argued that their suggested practical model contains a from of quasi-linearity as it adopts at its core the initial Ireland et al (2003) process albeit we have added bidirectionality to account for the fact that firms do need to carry out these stages in an iterative ways so as to refine decisions and prevent escalation of commitment.
Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) argue that the development of such dynamic capabilities is dependent on accumulating experience across, within and from business process (Sundbo, 2001), the integration of iterative learning practices into the SE process overcomes its static limitation and better conceptualizes how firms might sustain wealth creation over the long term through this process.
Internal environment and SE
Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) justified there are two key areas of concern regarding an internal environment conducive to SE (people that must ultimately carry out the process of SE and part based on our efforts to move away from linear structure). And one of the reasons that SE remains an elusive ideal because regardless of whether a linear and non-linear process is in place, the effectiveness of the process depends on the internal environment od the firm and the perception of employees regarding how things are meant to be done.
Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) also justified there are two key alternatives path to such ambidexterity. First, firms can separate both activities into different units, which reflect structural ambidexterity, or they can use organizational levers to achieve contextual ambidexterity inside one unit.
Conclusion, implication and future research
Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) sought to examine the literature on entrepreneurship, strategic management and SE to ascertain the roots of the SE concept. Kyrgidou & Hughes (2010) intention was to use the observations from this review to identify fruitful areas for investigation to broaden authors understanding of how SE operates and how it might contribute values to firms. And the author’s still remains lots of research question for future research to the different configuration of SE to achieve superior performance of an organizations.
Kyrgidou, L. P, & Hughes, M. (2010), Strategic Entrepreneurship: origins, core elements and research directions. European Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 1.
Published at :