How to Pivot: The Process of Entrepreneurial Pivoting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Symposium explores the emerging concept of pivoting: “a structured course correction designed to test a new fundamental hypothesis” about the venture that leads to a major overhaul of new ventures (Ries, 2011:149). While pivoting is ubiquitously used by entrepreneurs and widely featured in the business press, scholars have devoted minimal attention to it. This Symposium intends to shed light on the process of pivoting to enable rigorous theorizing of this fundamental organizational process. To this end, the Symposium brings together four research papers that explore different critical aspects of the process of pivoting: its determinants, identity dynamics, leader justifications for successive pivots, and the management of stakeholder challenges during pivots. This Symposium intends to spur the development of pivoting into a coherent and useful construct for management theorists. With an introduction to pivoting at the beginning and discussant comments as well as a Q&A about the potential for the construct, the Symposium will discuss the core elements of the pivoting process and identify what scope there is for pivoting in management scholarship. Sowing the Seed of Failure: Organizational Identity Dynamics in New Venture Evolution Presenter: Yuliya Snihur; Toulouse Business School Presenter: Bart Clarysse; Imperial College Business School Stay the Course or Pivot? Antecedents of Cognitive Refinements in the Business Models of Young Firms Presenter: Michael Leatherbee; Pontificia U. Católica de Chile Pivoting: Managing the Liabilities of Successive Change Presenter: Matthew Grimes; Cambridge Judge Business School Presenter: Joel Gehman; U. of Alberta From Pivot to Protest: How New Ventures Pivot and Manage Identification Challenges with Stakeholders Presenter: Christian E. Hampel; Imperial College Business School Presenter: Paul Tracey; U. of Cambridge
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".