INTRODUCTION

In 2001, Saras D. Sarasvathy published her seminal work entitled “Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency”, defining the decision-making logic of effectuation and its opposite causation, the prevailing logic. Over 20 years and 28,000 citations later (considering all her works on the subject), the topic continues to be live (over 5,400 citations over the last two years, as per Google Scholar).

Most theoretical discussions in the literature, however, have focused on the dichotomy of the two decision-making logics and on whether one should be preferable to the other, even though most authors would agree that they are not opposite constructs, but rather dialectical and unified (Zhang et al., 2019). It has long been known that the entrepreneurial process “is not a smooth, continuous, orderly process, but a disjointed, discontinuous, unique event” (Bygrave, 1989). As a result, numerous managers apply both logics either in combination or in sequence. This paper gathers and reviews published empirical or theoretical papers in which the two approaches as well as their combinations are discussed to answer the research question “Under what circumstances do firms combine effectuation with causation?” We do so through a detailed systematic literature review (SLR) of top-tier journals (ranked SCImago Journal Rank greater than 1.0) covering over twenty years (from 2001 to 2022). Our research thus answers to Sarasvathy’s call for further studies to determine which circumstances of the different types of logic—effectuation or causation—provide specific advantages or disadvantages (Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 249).

As a result, we deliver a compiled, synthesized, and contrasted set of past work for future researchers to build upon and a preliminary conceptual matrix for further testing and refinement, not to mention an in-depth discussion at the micro, meso and macro level of interest to academics and practitioners. Our search variation of results regarding the decision logic choice of entrepreneurial firms confirms the importance of such a SLR, of our research question and our resulting matrix. Challenging the dichotomy of effectuation versus causation, which focuses on the implicit effectuation theory assumption of the “pilot in the plane” only, at the micro level (the entrepreneur), to focus on the circumstances that allow both logics to co-exist, at all three levels (micro, meso and macro) is what make this research interesting and novel.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the theoretical background necessary to understand decision-making logics; Section 3 explains the methodology; Section 4 synthesizes and reports our findings. Section 5 discusses those findings and proposes a preliminary concept matrix. Finally, we conclude by listing future research opportunities, limitations and contributions of this work.

THEORETICAL REFERENCE

Decision-making has been intensively studied, generating various theories to explain the process adequately in the strategy and organizations fields and, more recently, in the International Business (IB) literature. Sarasvathy (2001), before contributing to the field with her own theory of effectuation, presents a remarkable acknowledgment of the contributions of several important authors in these fields from whom she learned and was inspired by.

Causation versus effectuation

When Sarasvathy started defining the logic of effectuation in 2001, she contrasted it with what she considered to be the previously prevailing logic, which she referred to as causation (Sarasvathy, 2001). Whereas with causation one may “take a particular effect as given and focus on selecting between means to create that effect” (Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 245), with effectuation, the opposite occurs; thus, one takes “a set of means as given and focuses on selecting between possible effects that can be created with that set of means” (Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 245).

According to effectuation logic, decision-makers neither present their plans in full nor focus on previously defined goals, such as maximizing expected returns, as assumed by causation logic. Instead, they calculate affordable losses they (as entrepreneurs and/or as a company) can handle and identify partners that create mutually beneficial business relationships to let the feasible effects emerge (Sarasvathy, 2001). The effectuator leverages contingencies while exploring their available means, which they identify by answering three questions: “Who am I?”; “What do I know?”; and “Whom do I know?” (Sarasvathy, 2001). Hence, the decision-maker chooses between effects that they can achieve by leveraging their available means (Sarasvathy, 2001).

In another work, Sarasvathy (2008) tested the decision-making habits of 27 expert entrepreneurs. It turned out that 24 of them applied effectuation logic in at least one of the five later conceptualized effectuation principles (Sarasvathy, 2008):

• Bird-In-Hand: meaning that decision-makers leverage whatever they already have.

• Affordable Loss: indicating that instead of accurately calculating potential profits, decision-makers should consider what they can afford to lose.

• Crazy Quilt: to restrict risks and affordable losses, this principle uses partnerships as a fundamental resource expansion method, forming networks that resemble quilts.

• Lemonade: this principle promotes leveraging contingencies and trying to benefit from embracing unforeseen circumstances.

• Pilot-In-The-Plane: the pilot symbolizes the effectuator, highlighting the importance of the individual making the decisions.

Causation, on the other hand, assumes that the environment is predictable, leading to another major difference between the two logics: the possibility of making plans and forecasts.

Table 1 below highlights the main differences between causation and effectuation logics.

Table 1
Main Differences between the causal and effectuation logics
Note: Elaborated by the authors based on Dew et al. (2009, p. 290); Harms and Schiele (2012, p. 98); Fisher (2012, p. 1022).

Effectuation and causation

The two models may differ in several dimensions but are not opposite constructs nor mutually exclusive. As explained by Sarasvathy herself, both are an “integral part of human reasoning that can occur simultaneously, overlapping or intertwining over different contexts of decisions and actions” (Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 245).

In a later work, Sarasvathy expanded on this important issue: "Empirically, entrepreneurs use both causal and effectual approaches, in a variety of combinations. Use of and preference for particular modes is related to the entrepreneur’s level of expertise and where the firm is in its life cycle. Theoretically, however, it makes sense to analyze causal and effectual approaches as a strict dichotomy" (Sarasvathy, 2008).

From both quotes of Sarasvathy seminal articles, we infer that we combined use of both logics may depend on the entrepreneur, on the company or on the decision context. In other words, on a micro, meso or macro level. But has research really evolved towards exploring those three levels of analysis to understand ‘Under what circumstances do firms combine effectuation with causation?’, or has it been stuck in the original “pilot in the plane” implicit assumption of the model, at a micro level?

In the following sections, we organize (section 4) and discuss (section 5) several studies that have investigated this issue.

METHOD

Following Kraus et al. (2020) and Tranfield el al. (2003), we have structured our systematic literature review (SLR) in three main stages:

Planning the research

The first thing was to determine the need of the research. Over 20 years after Sarasvathy’s seminal work, most literature investigating decision-making still focuses on contrasting the logics of causation or effectuation, not fully understanding the conditions under which each prevails or when they are combined, although much has been published. The aim of this paper is to understand the circumstances under which firms apply both logics – effectuation and causation, in combination or alternately - rather than one exclusively. These were determined as the study’s conceptual boundaries, following the example of Karami et al. (2020).

The method chosen for the analysis of the selected literature was a systematic literature review, that is, a structured, transparent, comprehensive, and reproducible method (Bearman et al., 2012; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) that attempts to “identify, appraise and synthesize all relevant studies (of whatever design) to answer a particular question (…)” (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006, p. 27). The SLR technique aims to reduce systematic errors, such as personal biases, predominantly by attempting to assess and summarize all relevant studies to answer a specific question (Bearman et al., 2012). To achieve such unbiased result, a simple but detailed search protocol was developed (details in the next section).

Conducting the research: identifying the studies

The articles selected were a result of a systematic search in academic databases (PROQUEST and EBSCO). The search used as keywords: ‘effectuation,’ AND ‘Causation’ in the papers’ abstracts. To ensure higher validity for the research, some exclusion criteria were also determined. First, only peer-reviewed articles from respected academic journals were considered in this work. This criterion was satisfied by including only articles from papers with an SJR score of at least 1.0 (see Scimago Journal & Country Rank: https://www.scimagojr.com/). Additionally, a 21-year period (from 2001 to 2022) filter was added. This specific time span is due to the date of publication of the original effectuation logic paper, published in 2001 (Sarasvathy, 2001), which represents a fundamental part of this work. Finally, only articles written in English and published in IB and IE fields were considered.

After the above filters were used, the authors read every resulting paper’s abstract and scope as a qualitative filter to ensure that all were related to the research problem. Sometimes the use of causation and/or effectuation logics were not central to the paper; on others the paper did not adopt the same unit of analysis (the firm) for example. When needed, the co-authors revised and validated the decisions. In addition to the systematic search, the authors also engaged in a manual references-checking process to avoid missing any important paper. So, we included some articles derived from citations and references in our review due to their significance and relevance to the theme.

Organizing and reporting the results

Only 38 articles remained after the peer review, date, language, repetition, and qualitative examination, which are analyzed and discussed in the sections to follow. The papers were fully read, with data extracted and synthesized in Table 2 (a, b, c, d and e). To facilitate analyzing and reporting, papers were initially separated and later analyzed under two main categories: (1) seminal and theoretical articles (mostly summarized at theoretical background section); and (2) empirical papers investigating decision-making logics. The second category was then subdivided into (2a) decision-making logics applied exclusively (either causation or effectuation); and (2b) decision-making logics applied in combination or in alternating sequences. We then further explored the categories in our analysis section (aided by some of the other theoretical articles) to answer our research question, “under what circumstances do firms combine the logics of effectuation and causation?”

Each paper was analyzed in terms of its context (geographical, institutional, and situational) as well as considering the characteristics of the companies under analysis (life cycle stage mainly) and individual entrepreneurs. As a result, we could understand the phenomena from macro, meso, and micro perspectives, respectively.

It is worth noting that this paper followed a systematic procedure of searching; however, the discussion is structured as a narrative review rather than a meta-analysis. “This involves systematically extracting, checking, and narratively summarizing information on their methods and results” (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006, p. 57).

RESULTS

Our systematic literature review identified theoretical papers (8, to be precise) as well as empirical ones (30) describing real-life entrepreneurial business situations in which effectual decision-making logic prevailed (20) and some in which causation could be the preferred logic (12). However, most described or even argued for combined decision-making logics, deployed concurrently (20) or with one replacing the other through time (19)¹.The empirical articles were based on case studies (12), in-depth interviews (4), surveys (10) and others (3), but the research method does not seem to have an influence on the results. They mostly investigated companies in their entrepreneurial stage² (24 exclusively on entrepreneurial stage while 8 investigated companies on all stages and 5 did not disclose that information) and non-routine decision-making in complex and/or uncertain context.

In Table 2 (a, b, c, d and e), we compile, review, and briefly describe the literature found. By thoroughly analyzing the articles found, we also identified several patterns and gained insights, thus enabling us to respond to our research question concerning the circumstances and results of combining effectual and causal logics. Specifically, by cross referencing and analyzing the detected decision logics to explanations, we find that decision logic choice is related to the level of analysis. This will be discussed in detail in the next section.

Table 2a
Summary of search
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

Table 2b
Summary of search
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

Table 2c
Summary of search
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

Table 2d
Summary of search
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

Table 2e
Summary of search
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

DISCUSSION

Pure causation or effectuation logics: A micro level issue on a defined context

Based on our search, the most important determinant for a pure decision logic appears to be the decision-maker. Personality and personal background traits appear to influence how one thinks and makes decisions (Coudonaris & Arvindsson, 2021). A person with a more entrepreneurial or adventurous profile tends to opt for an effectual approach, (Alsos et al., 2016; Sarasvathy, 2001; 2008; Dew et al., 2009), while someone with an analytic or planning profile would tend to adopt a causal approach to making decisions (Sarasvathy, 2001; 2008; Dew et al., 2009). Other psychological traits such as self-efficacy and perspective-taking also appear to be antecedents of effectual logic (Zhang et al., 2019). Research also shows that previous knowledge (experiential or formal) on business/entrepreneurship (Andersson, 2011; Chang & Rieple, 2018; Dew et al., 2009; Dutta et al., 2015; Harms & Schiele, 2012; Shirokova et al., 2017) or a strong network (Galkina & Chetty, 2015) shape preferences for logics, with experienced entrepreneurs tending to effectuation and those with less experience but a strong formal education tending towards causation, at least during the initial years of the enterprise (Chang & Rieple, 2018; Pattinson et al., 2020). A change in top management/decision makers can thus influence a company’s decision-making logic (Nummela et al., 2014; Pattinson et al., 2020).

Additionally, and not very surprising, applying causation logic alone does not appear to be recommended in complex and/or uncertain markets (Sarasvathy, 2001; Kaufmann, 2013; Crick & Crick, 2014; Sitoh et al., 2014; Nummela et al., 2014; Berends et al., 2015; Dutta et al., 2015; Maine et al., 2015; Reymen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2016; Urban, 2018; Nyoni & Moos, 2022) and is better suited for contexts involving lower levels of innovation or changes (Sarasvathy, 2001; Brettel et al., 2012) or, in other words, more predictable and stable markets. But even with more predictable and less complex contexts, uncertain and complex situations /decisions to be made may surface, requiring the entrepreneur to adopt fewer causal approaches (Chetty et al., 2015; Chang & Rieple, 2018). This shows us that context (geographical, institutional, and situational) appears to be an important determinant or influencing factor of the decision-logic.

Alternating between the two logics: a life cycle issue (meso or micro level)

Seventeen out of the nineteen studies in our search that describe, or advocate for, the alternate use of both effectuation and causation logics, mention the life-cycle stage of the enterprise as an important determinant of decision-making logic. According to most of the papers, effectuation appears to be more effective in the early stages and more associated with search and opportunity creation behaviors, while causation slowly takes place as the company matures and progresses to execution phases (Sitoh et al., 2014; Berends et al., 2015; Maine et al., 2015; Reymen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2016; Servantie & Rispal, 2018; Yang et al., 2019). “While effectual approaches open up and create new markets at low costs of failure, causal approaches can help stabilize and establish leadership in those markets” (Sarasvathy et al., 2014, p. 83). This finding supports Proposition 3 of Sarasvathy’s seminal paper:

Successful firms, in their early stages, are more likely to have focused on forming alliances and partnerships than on other types of competitive strategies, such as sophisticated market research and competitive analyses, long-term planning and forecasting, and formal management practices in recruitment and training of employees. (Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 261)

These practices, however, might be necessary as companies mature because the financial stakeholders that secure funding for growth and formal regulators have begun to require them (Maine et al., 2015). Also, as companies grow, decisions become less dependent on a single individual (and their style and experience) and more on a collection of individuals, who need to be ruled by norms and most probably adopt a causal logic. Despite all the above, it is worth noting that effectuation theory is not limited to SMEs but is applicable to companies of any size (Galkina & Chetty, 2015; Read et al., 2016; Karami et al., 2020).

Simões et al. (2012) state that born-global companies do change as they become older, and that change happens for reasons that are both internal and external to the companies “framed by top management mental models” (Simões et al., 2012, p. 1). Although the authors do not discuss effectuation and causation decision logics specifically (thus the paper is not included in Table 2), their discussion is pertinent to ours. Simões et al. (2012) believe firms’ growth and adaptation to new realities usually require new configurations and structures from the organization, but pre-foundation characteristics remain deeply entrenched. Ambos and Birkinshaw (2010) also discuss the changes that entrepreneurial firms experience in the process of growth, stating that they can either (a) transition smoothly to a next phase of development, sustaining most of the characteristics they had before; or (b) disruptively, with the abandonment of some or most of their prior characteristics, capabilities, and achievements. A change of top management as the company matures and requires new leadership might lead to an alternance of decision logics for example (Pattinson et al., 2020; Sarasvathy et al., 2014; Nummela et al., 2014).

A few studies in our survey (Harms & Schiele, 2012; Chang & Rieple, 2018, Pattinson et al., 2020), however, found evidence to support that early ventures may use causal logics and move towards effectuation as they mature. These cases discuss the evolution or change in decision logic, analyzing the time frame/life cycle of the entrepreneurs (a micro issue in this case), already discussed above, with entrepreneurial experience of the decision maker determining the change in decision logic. Sarasvathy (Sarasvathy, 2008) reinforces the importance of experiential knowledge, highlighting that “Sustained performance over long periods of time requires that experts outlive failures, cumulate successes, and learn from both” (p.20). Another one (Khurana et al., 2022) found evidence of combinations of both logics but in alternating magnitutes, with a higher proportion of causation first and of effectuation later in the specific context of opportunity exploitation.

Combining both logics: A macro level issue or a matter of joined forces

As in the case of Khurana et al. (2022) the use of combined logics is usually a macro level decision, in other words, when context is complex and variable, requiring the decision logic to follow. It is not necessarily dependent on the entrepreneur/decision maker or on the age/life cycle of the enterprise, the decision logic depends on the situation/decision at hand, needing to be analyzed and decided on a case-by-case basis (Fisher, 2012; Kaufmann, 2013; Crick & Crick, 2014; Sitoh et al., 2014; Nummela et al., 2014; Dutta et al., 2015; Maine et al., 2015). It is worth noting though that being an experienced entrepreneur/decision-maker is considered essential in this case, as it is not easy to combine two logics (Chang & Rieple, 2018; Dutta et al., 2015; Pattinson et al., 2020; Sarasvathy et al., 2014). When dealing with a management team – instead of a sole entrepreneur – multiple profiles (Zhang et al., 2019) or perceptions (Crick & Crick, 2016) might determine adopting a combined decision logic.

Analysis on more than one level (micro, meso and macro)

Only a few papers (Sarasvathy, 2001; 2008; Karami et al., 2020; Servantie & Hlady-Rispal, 2022) reported all three levels (micro, meso and macro) in determining decision logics, and because most were theoretical papers or literature reviews. Most relied more heavily on one or two levels, as already discussed. But in practice, it is impossible to separate one from another; moreover, “an entrepreneurs’ emphasis on these logics shifts, often repeatedly, over time” (Reymen et al., 2015).

So, resulting from our findings, a preliminary conceptual matrix that tries to synthesize the circumstances under which firms use the logics of effectuation and causation was created (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Conceptual matrix on the combination of causation and effectuation logics
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

As previously discussed, and by inspecting Figure 1, a novice, analytical, and planning-centered decision-maker tends to adopt a causation logic (Sarasvathy, 2001; 2008; Dew et al., 2009), especially with simpler and more mature contexts for which outcomes are more predictable. But even in less predictable environments, the decision-maker will tend to adopt a causal approach—at least initially—as it is their first instinct. Indeed, an analytic decision-maker may always want to start working with plans and forecasts, trying to predict the unpredictable to find some comfort. However, a complex and uncertain environment will probably demand more flexibility and thus a more effectual approach in the process (Pattinson et al., 2020; Sarasvathy et al., 2014). As time passes, the decision-maker gathers experience, reviewing their approach along the way and gradually shifting to a more effectual stance (Harms & Schiele, 2012; Chang & Rieple, 2018; Pattinson et al., 2020), culminating at a point at which, as an expert, they can combine both approaches, adopting one or another depending on the decision at hand (Chang & Rieple, 2018; Dutta et al., 2015; Pattinson et al., 2020; Sarasvathy et al., 2014).

On the other end of the of a decision-maker profile spectrum, we have what we could call a ‘typical entrepreneur’: someone with a more entrepreneurial profile either according to psychological traits (Alsos et al., 2016; Sarasvathy, 2001; 2008; Dew et al., 2009) or entrepreneurial experiential knowledge and expertise (Andersson, 2011; Chang & Rieple, 2018; Dutta et al., 2015; Shirokova et al., 2017), who tends to adopt a more effectual approach, especially if working in complex and uncertain contexts. Even in simple, mature, and predictable contexts, those ‘typical entrepreneurs’ tend to start with effectuation logic. But eventually later, at some point, must adopt a causation approach (Sitoh et al., 2014; Berends et al., 2015; Maine et al., 2015; Reymen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2016; Servantie & Rispal, 2018; Yang et al., 2019). Larger and more mature companies need more planning, control and forecasting tools in place, even if only for satisfying financial stakeholders and regulators (Maine et al., 2015; Servantie & Hlady-Rispal, 2022). But, again, expert entrepreneurs usually can, and should, be able to manage both approaches (Chang & Rieple, 2018; Dutta et al., 2015; Pattinson et al., 2020; Sarasvathy et al., 2014).

The above matrix is obviously a simplification of research and consequently of reality. It is intended to shed light on such an important debate. There can be many possible combinations, especially in the process of changing from one to the other; but most authors would agree that the ideal situation would involve decision-makers having the best of both logics and using a combined version during the process since there is apparently “no exclusive approach that is more appropriate than any other” (Servantie & Rispal, 2018).

CONCLUSION

This study performed a systematic literature review to uncover “Under what circumstances do firms combine effectuation with causation?”. Even though “theoretically […] it makes sense to analyze causal and effectual approaches as a strict dichotomy" (Sarasvathy, 2008, p. 83), a careful analysis of the literature resulting from our search confirms that causation and effectuation logics can be applied simultaneously or in sequence, providing the decision-maker with distinct advantages. Moreover, “considering the dual relationship […] provides a more realistic explanation of SMEs’[internationalization] efforts” (Karami et al., 2020, p. 26).

Our systematic literature review indicates that decision making logic is defined based on circumstances at the micro (the entrepreneur), meso (the firm – life stage mainly), and macro levels (business context—institutional and situational). Our framework (Figure 1) complies all three levels of analysis, something to the best of our knowledge not yet done in literature. As our SLR reveals, most research tackles one, or at most two levels at a time, not gathering therefore the full picture.

This work therefore contributes to the academic literature not only by compiling, synthesizing, and contrasting past work for future researchers to build upon, but also suggesting a preliminary conceptual matrix to be further tested and refined, and indicating additional avenues for further research in the field. For practice, we offer contributions to the micro, meso, and macro levels. At the micro level, we believe the cases, theoretical papers, and preliminary systematization will help entrepreneurs better understand their profile and the benefits of considering both effectual and causal logics throughout their decision-making process. At the meso level, we believe companies can benefit from understanding how logics relate to and can help growth at each life stage. And finally, at the macro level, policymakers and educators can help entrepreneurs navigate uncertain and turbulent environments if different decision logics and circumstances to adopt them are more broadly acknowledged. As Sarasvathy in her original study sought to understand and identify the teachable and learnable elements of entrepreneurship, it is only fair that now those elements are more broadly taught and learned.

Despite the already discussed limitation of the proposed matrix, we would like to add the limitation of (1) having mostly cases from companies in the entrepreneurial stage, for which we suggest further studies with more mature companies, as well as (2) limitations of our systematic search (chosen parameters – search bases and languages, for example), for which we strove for reliability and replicability by entirely revealing our selection parameters.

For future research, we would also like to focus on the business environment slightly more and how it influences the adoption of one logic over the other. For example, do companies starting out in different business environments where culture, language, and policies clearly differ from one another adopt different decision logics? Is the industry or country/institutional environment more important in determining which logic(s) to adopt? Studies contrasting emerging markets and developing economies and different industries would be welcome. Does the type of product/service being offered and how it is produced influence the decision logic (standardized vs customized)? We would also like to welcome more studies encompassing larger and more mature companies, and obviously studies involving the three levels of analysis. Lastly, we believe that further studies, both qualitative and quantitative, are necessary to test and refine our preliminary conceptual matrix.

Authors’ statement of individual contributions

Note: Acc. CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy): https://credit.niso.org/

REFERENCES

Alsos, G.A., Clausen, T.H., Hytti, U., Solvoll, S. (2016). Entrepreneurs’ social identity and the preference of causal and effectual behaviours in start-up processes. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28:3-4, 234-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1155742

Ambos, T. C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). How Do New Ventures Evolve? An Inductive Study of Archetype Changes in Science-Based Ventures. Organization Science, 21(6), 1125–1140. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0504

Andersson, S. (2011). International entrepreneurship, born globals and the theory of effectuation. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev., 18(3), 627-643. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001111155745

Bearman, M., Smith, C. D., Carbone, A., Slade, S., Baik, C., Hughes-Warrington, M., & Neumann, D. L. (2012). Systematic review methodology in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(5), 625–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.702735

Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Reymen, I., & Stultieens, R. (2015). Product innovation processes in small firms: combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 616-635. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12117

Brettel, M., Mauer, R., Engelen, A., & Küpper, D. (2012). Corporate effectuation: entrepreneurial action and its impact on R&D project performance. Journal of Business Venture, 27(2), 167-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.01.001

Bygrave, W. D. (1989). The entrepreneurship paradigm (I). A philosophical look at its research methodologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878901400102

Chang, J., & Rieple, A. (2018). Entrepreneurial decision-making in a microcosm. Management Learning, 49(4), 471- 497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507618777929

Chetty, S., Ojala, A., & Leppäaho, T. (2015). Effectuation and foreign market entry of entrepreneurial firms. European Journal of Marketing, 49(9/10), 1436-1459. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2013-0630

Coudounaris, D. N., & Arvidsson, H. G. (2021). How effectuation, causation and bricolage influence the international performance of firms via internationalisation strategy: a literature review. Review of International Business and Strategy, 32(2), 149-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-08-2020-0092

Crick, D., & Crick, J. (2016). An appreciative inquiry into the first export order. Qualitative Market Research, 19(1), 84-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-01-2015-0001

Crick, D., & Crick, J. (2014). The internationalization strategies of rapidly internationalizing high-tech UK SMEs: planned and unplanned activities. European Business Review, 26(5), 448-421. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-12-2012-0073

Dew, N., Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: differences between experts and novices. Journal of Business Venture, 24(4), 287-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.02.002

Dutta, D. K., Gwebu, K. L., Wang, J. (2015). Personal innovativeness in technology, related knowledge and experience, and entrepreneurial intentions in emerging technology industries: a process of causation or effectuation? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3), 529-555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0287-y

Fisher, G. (2012). Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: a behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 1019-1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00537.x

Galkina, T., & Chetty, S. (2015). Effectuation and networking of internationalizing SMEs. Management International Review, 55(5), 647-676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0251-x

Guo, R., Cai, L., & Zhang, W. (2016). Effectuation and causation in new internet venture growth: the mediating effect of resource bundling strategy. Internet Research, 26(2), 460-483. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-01-2015-0003

Harms, R., & Schiele, H. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of effectuation and causation in the international new venture creation process. J. Int. Entrep., 10(2), 95-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-012-0089-2

Hubner, S.V., & Baum, M. (2018). Entrepreneurs' human resources development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29: 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21328

Karami, M., Wooliscroft, B., & McNeill, L. (2020). Effectuation and internationalisation: a review and agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 55: 777–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00183-4

Kaufmann, D. (2013). The influence of causation and effectuation logics on targeted policies: the cases of Singapore and Israel. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag., 25(7), 853-890. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.815714

Kerr, J., & Coviello, N. (2019), Formation and Constitution of Effectual Networks: A Systematic Review and Synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21: 370-397. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12194

Khurana, I., Dutta, D. K., & Schenkel, M. T. (2022). Crisis and arbitrage opportunities: The role of causation, effectuation and entrepreneurial learning. International Small Business Journal, 40(2), 236-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426211061679

Kraus, S., Breier, M. & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int. Entrep. Manag. J., 16, 1023–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4

Maine, E., Soh, P.-H., & Santos, N. (2015). The role of entrepreneurial decision-making in opportunity creation and recognition. Technovation, 39/40, 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.02.007

Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S., Jokela, P., & Loane, S. (2014). Strategic decision-making of a born global: a comparative study from three small open economies. Management International Review, 54(4), 527-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-014-0211-x

Nyoni, M., & Moos, M. (2022). The relationship between small business owners’ practice of effectuation and business growth in gauteng townships. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajesbm.v14i1.453

Pattinson, S., Ciesielska, M., Preece, D., Nicholson, J. D., & Alexandersson, A. (2020). The “Tango Argentino”: A Metaphor for Understanding Effectuation Processes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(3), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618776102

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ranabahu, N., & Barrett, M. (2020). Does practice make micro-entrepreneurs perfect? An investigation of expertise acquisition using effectuation and causation. Small Business Economics, 54(3), 883-905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00157-6

Randerson, K. (2016) Entrepreneurial Orientation: do we actually know as much as we think we do? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28:7-8, 580-600. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1221230

Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Wiltbank, R. (2016). Response to Arend, Sarooghi, and Burkemper (2015): Cocreating Effectual Entrepreneurship Research. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 528–536. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0180

Reymen, I., Andries, P., Berends, H., Mauer, R., Stephan, U., & van Burg, E. (2015). Understanding dynamics of strategic decision making in venture creation: a process study of effectuation and causation. Strategic Entrepreneurship. J., 9(4), 351-379. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1201

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-263. https://doi.org/10.2307/259121

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848440197

Sarasvathy, S. D., Kumar, K., York, J. G., & Bhagavatula, S. (2014). An effectual approach to international entrepreneurship: overlaps, challenges, and provocative possibilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12088

Schweizer, R., Vahlne, J.-E., & Johanson, J. (2010). Internationalization as an entrepreneurial process. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 343-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-010-0064-8

Servantie, V., & Rispal, M. H. (2018). Bricolage, effectuation, and causation shifts over time in the context of social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3-4), 310-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1413774

Servantie, V., & Hlady-Rispal, M. (2022). Born globals’ decision-making logics during their entrepreneurial process. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 20, 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-021-00301-y

Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., Morris, M. H., & Bogatyreva, K. (2017) Expertise, university infrastructure and approaches to new venture creation: assessing students who start businesses. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(9-10), 912-944. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1376516

Simões, V. C., Antunes, J., & Laranjeira, L. (2012). Born Globals: Evolution and revolution as organization grows. Proceedings of the BALAS Annual Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Sitoh, M. K., Pan, S. L., & Yu, C. Y. (2014). Business models and tactics in new product creation: the interplay of effectuation and causation processes. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 61(2), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2013.2293731

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Urban, B. (2018). Effectuation And Opportunity Recognition in The Renewable Energy Sector in South Africa: A Focus On Environmental Dynamism And Hostility. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 23(02),1850010. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946718500103

Yang, X., Sun, S.L., & Zhao, X. Search and execution: examining the entrepreneurial cognitions behind the lean startup model. Small Business Economics, 52, 667–679 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9978-z

Zhang, Y., Cui, L., Zhang, G., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Anusha. R. (2019). An Exploratory Study of Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Logics: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Optimism, and Perspective Taking. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 55(4), 781-794. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2018.1478283

Notes

Notas de autor

Corresponding author: csecches@gmail.com

Información adicional

Article ID: 2226

JEL classification: F20, F23, L26, L20, M16

Editor-in-Chef 1 or Adjunct 2: ¹ Dr. Edmundo Inácio Júnior, Univ. Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP

Associate Editor: Dra. Rose Mary Almeida Lopes, ANEGEPE

Executive 1 or Assistant 2 Editor: ¹ M. Eng. Patrícia Trindade de Araújo

Translation / Proofreading: The authors

Conflit of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

How to cite: Kogut, C. S., Mello, R. D. C. de, & Skorupski, R. (2023). Combining effectuation and causation in entrepreneurship: A 20+ years review. REGEPE Entrepreneurship and Small Business Journal. 12(3), e2226. https://regepe.org.br/regepe/article/view/2226