The possible diffusion of divergent change : differences in the visions and the mobilization of allies of multiple institutional entrepreneurs active in the same organizational field

(1)

1

Picture obtained by moneycontrol.com

Thesis

The Possible diffusion of Divergent change

Differences in the Visions and the Mobilization of Allies of Multiple Institutional

Entrepreneurs Active in the Same Organizational Field

Written by Raimund Johannes Veeken Student number: 11208880

Supervisor: Marten Stienstra

Executive Programme in Management Studies – Strategy Track University of Amsterdam / Amsterdam Business School

Word count: 17.250

Date of Submission: 31-8-2018 Final version

(2)

2

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Raimund Johannes Veeken who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Signature

(3)

3

Abstract

This research focusses on multiple institutional entrepreneurs active in the same organizational field as it is believed that this hasn’t been researched before. Many studies tried to uncover the

institutional entrepreneurial process to provoke divergent change. But little is known about how multiple institutional entrepreneurs create their vision and mobilizes allies in order to provoke a divergent change. In order to close the gap a grounded theory approach is chosen as it is unknown which results to expect. A preliminary conceptual model will be assembled by using existing literature to provide direction to research. Within case analysis of 7 successful institutional entrepreneurs active in the cryptocurrency market will be compared by the use of a cross case comparison. This will be achieved by doing desk research by executing a document analysis. 284 visions were obtained from the institutional entrepreneurs Bitcoin, Ripple, Verge, Stellar, Monero, Ethereum and IOTA to explain differences in their vision. 120 successfully mobilized allies were obtained of the institutional entrepreneurs Ripple, Verge, Stellar, Monero, Ethereum and IOTA on how they have successfully mobilized their allies focusing on their social status and the speed of mobilization. Institutional entrepreneurs differ from each other when operating in the same organizational field actively trying to provoke divergent change. For instance, following institutional entrepreneurs create their vision based on established institutions and the first mover by highlighting the errors trying to improve their product or service using framing. To achieve a high speed of

mobilizing allies’ institutional entrepreneurs shouldn’t focus on mobilizing allies that are considered having a low social status to achieve this speed as the opposite is possible. New insights are added to improve existent literature on institutional theory by focusing the process of institutional

entrepreneurship to increase the probability to the possible diffusion of divergent change. This research focuses on multiple institutional entrepreneurs active in the same organizational field trying to provoke divergent change. Future research should focus on how established institutions try to counteract institutional entrepreneurs obstructing divergent change as new insights could improve the process of institutional entrepreneurship.

(4)

4

List of tables and figures

Table 1: Overview of initial releases of cryptocurrencies in years ... 24

Table 2: Thematic coding of the framed vision ... 28

Table 3: Example of thematic coding ... 28

Table 4: Categories regarding firm status ... 30

Table 5: Vision of Bitcoin ... 33

Table 6: Number of obtained visions of Ripple ... 33

Table 7: Successfully mobilized allies of Ripple ... 33

Table 8: Mobilized allies by Ripple……… ... 34

Table 9: Division of allies of Ripple regarding their social status ... 34

Table 10: Number of visions obtained by Verge ... 34

Table 11: Successfully mobilized allies of Verge ... 35

Table 12: Mobilized allies by Verge………... ... 35

Table 13: Division of allies of Verge regarding their social status ... 36

Table 14: Number of obtained visions of Stellar ... 36

Table 15: Successfully mobilized allies by Stellar ... 36

Table 16: Mobilized allies by Stellar………..…. ... 37

Table 17: Division of allies of Stellar regarding their social status ... 37

Table 18: Number of obtained visions of Monero ... 38

Table 19: Successfully mobilized allies of Monero ... 38

Table 20: Mobilized allies by Monero……….………. ... 39

Table 21: Division of allies of Monero regarding their social status ... 39

Table 22: Number of obtained visions of Ethereum ... 40

Table 23: Successfully mobilized allies of Ethereum ... 40

Table 24: Mobilized allies by Ethereum……….………. ... 40

Table 25: Division of allies of Ethereum regarding their social status. ... 41

Table 26: Number of obtained visions IOTA ... 41

Table 27: Successfully mobilized allies of IOTA ... 41

Table 28: Mobilized allies by IOTA……….………. ... 42

Table 29: Division of allies of IOTA regarding their social status ... 42

Table 30: All types of framing of the institutional entrepreneurs in the sample ... 43

Table 31: The division of successfully mobilized allies by the institutional entrepreneurs ... 46

Table32: Average speed of the successfully mobilized allies of the institutional entrepreneurs ... 47

Table 33: The average speed vs. the social position of the successfully mobilized allies ... 48

Table 34: Possible relation between the vision and the mobilization of allies ... 49

Table 35: Overview of the preliminary propositions ... 50

Table 36: Propositions of the revised conceptual model ... 50

Figure 1: Model of Battilana et al. (2009) ... 15

Figure 2: Preliminary conceptual codel ... 20

Figure 3: How a cryptocurrency/blockchain works……. ... 22

Figure 4: Example of institutional entrepreneurs with market capacity. ... 24

Figure 5: Timeline of mobilized allies of Ripple………..….………...34

Figure 6: Timeline of mobilized allies of Verge ………. ... ………...35

Figure 7: Timeline of mobilized allies of Stellar ……….37

Figure 8: Timeline of the mobilized allies of Monero………. ... ………..39

Figure 9: Timeline of the mobilized allies of Ethereum ……….. ... 40

(7)

7

1 Introduction

According to Adam Smit (1776) actors behave self-interested and have the tendency to be better off than other actors. Firms will try to innovate and outperform competitors by creating a competitive advantage. This could be achieved by relational rents (Dyer & Singh, 1998), through the resource based view (Barney, 1991) or it is possible to make competitors obsolete by creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942). These types of innovations have the tendency to outperform competitors by creating heterogeneity between firms. Contrary to this perspective institutional theory suggests that due to regulative, normative and cognitive pressures companies have the tendency to become more homogenous in their processes and structures (Liang, Saraf, Hu, & Xue, 2007). (Disruptive)

innovations are often created by (Institutional) entrepreneurs and could have the power to maintain or to disrupt and tear down existing companies and/or established institutions (Greenwood et al., 2008). Institutional entrepreneurs could disturb equilibria between regulators, industries and consumers but eventually could or will embed the innovation in the current institutional logic which is currently taken for granted (Reinhardt & Gurtner, 2015; King & He, 2006; Cortez, 2014; Lee, Kozar, & Larsen, 2003). According to Strang & Sine (2002) current institutions are resistant to change as they imply permanence and stability over time although the innovation could increase wealth. New battles for legitimacy will be spawned as diverse social groups will be affected and try to maintain their current position (Zucker, 1989). Institutional entrepreneurs attempt to shape paths by setting a process into motion that eventually may or may not result in the creation of a new technological field.

Many studies investigated the institutional entrepreneurial process of becoming an institutional entrepreneur and highlight the importance of bridging institutional entrepreneurs and institutions (Romanelli, 1991; Daft & Lewin, 1993; Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007). But despite their importance still a lot could be added to this theory as it develops over time (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum (2009). Battilana et al. (2009) did a literature study trying to close the gap by creating a model which should contribute to the possible diffusion to divergent change. But as

(8)

8

mentioned by Battilana et al. (2009) still a lot could be added to improve the process. Most studies, in their literature review, are process analysis of institutional entrepreneurs which are based on single, in-depth longitudinal case studies that occurred in different organizational fields. Rarely comparisons were made between multiple institutional entrepreneurs operating the same organizational field trying to provoke divergent change.

Little is known about the actual differences between institutional entrepreneurs acting in the same organizational field trying to break the same institutional logic with a similar disruptive innovation. Former studies highlight the importance of acting as a collective but at the same time explain that firms should differ from each other as they need to be heterogeneous in order to create a

competitive advantage (Rumelt, 2003; Conner, 1991).

This thesis focuses on process of institutional entrepreneurship by contributing to institutional theory literature in several ways. Firstly it focuses on multiple institutional entrepreneurs active in the same organizational field, as others studies focused on single institutional entrepreneurs regarding

different organizational fields. Secondly, it focuses on how institutional entrepreneurs create and differ in creating their vision, how institutional entrepreneurs differ in mobilizing their allies and to investigate if the vision and the mobilization of allies are intertwined which is mentioned by Battilana et al. (2009). Thirdly, speed is added as a variable regarding the mobilization of allies as speed wasn’t incorporated in the current model of Battilana et al. (2009). The following research question is formulated:

How do multiple institutional entrepreneurs create a vision and mobilize allies in the context of the coevolution between field characteristics and actors’ social position?

In order to answer the research question three sub questions should be answered. Firstly, how do institutional entrepreneurs create a vision and differ from each other in order to provoke divergent change? Secondly, how do institutional entrepreneurs mobilize allies and differ from each other in

(9)

9

order to provoke divergent change? Thirdly, is there an intertwined nature between the framed vision and the mobilization of allies?

In order to answer the research question a qualitative research design is chosen as institutional entrepreneurship is considered to be a complex phenomenon (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2015). As it is unknown what results to expect a grounded theory approach will be executed (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Anselm, 1967). Multiple institutional entrepreneurs will be compared by the use of a cross case comparison. A within case analysis will be executed on an individual level focusing on the institutional entrepreneurs Bitcoin, Ripple, Verge, Stellar Monero, Ethereum and IOTA. Comparisons between institutional entrepreneurs will be analyzed in the cryptocurrency market. Data will be collected by executing a document analysis based on desk research by the use a thematic analysis. This research is structured as followed. In chapter 2 a literature review will be described to review existing literature. In chapter 3 a preliminary conceptual model will be preassembled by using existing literature to provide direction in this research. In chapter 4 the research design will be elaborated which consists of the type of research, the research setting, data collection,

measurements and to address the quality of the research. In chapter 5 a within case analysis will be executed of multiple institutional entrepreneurs. In chapter 6 the within cases of the multiple institutional entrepreneurs will be compared by executing a cross-case comparison. In chapter 7 there is room for discussion regarding the findings, limitations, future research and contributions. Chapter 8 contains the conclusion of this research.

2 Literature review

Before the research question could be answered current literature will be reviewed explaining the foundations of institutional entrepreneurship. In the first paragraph innovations will be elaborated as innovations could be a reason to improve wealth but could be obstructed by established institutions. In the second paragraph the foundations and constructs of entrepreneurship will be reviewed. In the third paragraph the foundations of institutions are explained as they play a role in institutional

(10)

10

entrepreneurship. In the fourth paragraph entrepreneurs meet institutions and should act as catalysts for structural change becoming institutional entrepreneurs. In the last paragraph the current model of Battilana et al. (2009) will be explained which will serve as the foundation for this thesis. Provoking divergent change will serve as the dependent variable for this thesis.

2.1 Innovation as a driver

According to Garud & Karnøe (2001) change is associated with entrepreneurship which implies deviations from the norm. Garud & Karnøe (2001) also argues that it is unlikely that the

entrepreneurial outcomes and the processes will directly fit our environment. Diverse social groups will be affected and possibly be mobilized which spawns new battles for legitimacy (Zucker, 1989). Legitimacy is referred to the right to exist and to perform an activity in a certain way (Suchman, 1995). Different disruptive innovations follow similar phases to innovation and are proven to be a powerful manner of thinking about innovation-driven growth (Christensen, Raynor, & McDoland, 2015). Many authors build on this theory by giving it new extensions (Prahalad, 2011; Zeng & Williamson, 2007; Christensen & Hart, 2002; Immelt, Govendarajan, & Trimble, 2009). A disruptive innovation refers to an innovation that has the potential to create a new market and value network. It could also disrupt existing markets and value networks which is referred to environments

(Christensen et al., 2015). According to Richard A. D’ Avani (1999) environments can be changed to the advantage of an incumbent by understanding the interaction between the strategy and the environment. Richard A. D’ Avani (1999) also mentions that old industry leaders do not want to change easily. This gives new entrants often the opportunity to create a disruptive innovation and try to change the rules of the game. Incumbent leaders try to create barriers for new entrants that try to prevent new entrants from capturing their profits. According to Conner (1991) the firm than acts as an output restrainer were a firm tries to restrain productive output through exercise of monopoly power. Not only incumbents try to prevent new entrants from entering the market, also established institutions with their pressures could inhibit innovations and counteract innovations (Garud et al., 2007). These innovations are often initiated by entrepreneurs and are referred to entrepreneurship.

(11)

11

2.2 Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is a term which exists for several years. It is the process of designing, launching and running new businesses. It can be described as the “capacity and willingness to develop, organize and manage a business venture along with any of its risks in order to make profit” (Dictionary, 2018). They can be a person, group or even organizations. Entrepreneurs are necessary as they try to innovate by risk-taking and its ability to succeed in an ever changing and increasingly competitive global marketplace. As mentioned earlier, in order to innovate, entrepreneurs must try to deviate from the norm (Garud & Karnøe, 2001). Deviations from the norm can be created through the neo classical model of perfect competition (Conner, 1991). The starting point of this model is that all firms are equal and there is no room for competitive advantage. This results into an equilibrium as there will be no differences in performance (Conner, 1991). Entrepreneurs will try different ways to outperform others and create the risk that their outcomes and processes will be counteracted by other actors active in the same environment, obstructing success (Garud et al., 2007). In order for entrepreneurs to be successful legitimacy should be enhanced. Earning legitimacy can be difficult as social groups are also involved having disparate interests as they could behave self-interested (Garud et al., 2007; Smith, 1776). Disruptive innovations can happen in several settings or environments meeting competitors or existing incumbents. But some entrepreneurs meet the barriers of the established institutions.

2.3 Institutions

Institutions are social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience (Scott, 1995). Institutions can be commonly defined as ‘rules, norms, and beliefs that describe reality for the organization (Hoffman, 1999). It involves social processes, actualities or obligations focusing on rule-like status in social thought or action (Meyer & Rowan, 1977. They are the basic building blocks of social, political and organizational life as they shape behavior, perception and choices. They govern the behavior of a set of individuals within a given community and could be identified with a social purpose (Miller, 2007). Institutions are necessary to create boundaries or else there will be a lack of

(12)

12

control. This is achieved by creating barriers. Any deviations from these rules and norms could be counteracted by sanctions (Jepperson, 1991). As mentioned by Garud et al. (2007) institutional entrepreneurs feel constrained by instructional pressures which reduce envision of new practices. This is also known as the paradox of embedded agency (Garud et. al., 2007; Leca, Battilana, & Boxenbaum, 2008). In institutional theory, power is a powerful asset to change the current institutional logic which is the ability or capacity to do something or act in a certain way (Clegg, 2010). Power can also be exerted by established institutions. An example of the power exerted by established institutions is forbidding the fusion between AT&T and Time Warner (Hijnk, 2017). AT&T is believed to be one of the biggest telecom companies, during writing this thesis, and Time Warner is believed to be one of the biggest media companies. Fusing these companies will increase their power which affects the overall competition by creating a monopoly power (Conner, 1991). The established institutional order is against these large fusions as they earlier also prevent organizations from fusing ‘Sprint’ and ‘T-Mobile’ but also ‘Pfizer’ and ‘Allergan’. According to Scott (1995)

institutions could constrain behavior as a result of processes which are associated with three pillars that organizations should follow in order to be legitimate (Suchman, 1995). The first pillar Scott (1995) discusses is regulative. It operates by coercive isomorphism and pushes compliance by expedience and represents a rational actor model which is based on sanctions and conformity. Organizations must act between these boundaries of regulations. Any deviations from these regulations could result in a sanction (Jepperson, 1991). The second pillar is normative. It acts through the normative isomorphism as it pushes compliance by social obligations. Indicators are certifications and accreditations and give specific responsibilities that enable actors to make

decisions. Normative conformity occurs because of the desire to be liked and accepted. Its legitimacy is moral and ethical systems. The third pillar is cultural-cognitive. It works through mimetic

isomorphism. It pushes compliance as what is taking for granted. Its legitimacy is cultural systems such as believes, values and assumptions. Legitimacy is according to Scott, 2001) an important aspect in institutional theory as it could be used to change the current institutional logic. In order to break

(13)

13

the current institutional logic an entrepreneur must actively try to provoke divergent change which is referred to institutional entrepreneurship.

2.4 Institutional entrepreneurship

Institutions and entrepreneurship seem contradictions of each other but the juxtaposing of these concepts creates a new concept which is referred to institutional entrepreneurship (Garud et al., 2007). Institutional entrepreneurship offers considerable premise for understanding how and why certain novel organizing solutions become well established over time. Institutional entrepreneurship has a paradoxical nature which is referred to the paradox of embedded agency (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Due to the regulative, normative and cognitive pressures, also mentioned by Scott (2001), organizations have the tendency to become more homogenous in their processes and structures (Liang et al., 2007). They are constrained by the possible sanctions they could receive (Jepperson, 1991). Organizations or individuals cannot innovate if their actions are determined by the

institutional environment (Leca, Battilana, & Boxenbaum, 2008).This reduces exploration as it could be costly to diverge. As a result, organizations mimic others companies that are considered to be legitimate and already have proven to be successful (Haunschild & Miner, 1997). By mimicking other actors that are considered to be legitimate could reduce the probability to receive sanctions by institutions. Institutional entrepreneurship refers to the activities of actors who have interest in particular institutional arrangements and could create new institutions or change existing ones (Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004). They should serve as catalysts for structural change by taking the lead and by giving direction to change (Eisenstadt, 1980). This is further elaborated by DiMaggio (1988) who argued that new institutions arise when these actors have sufficient resources and see an opportunity to realize interests of high value. These actors can create new systems of meaning that doesn’t fit our current institutional logic (Garud, Jain, & Kumaraswamy, 2002). New organizational forms emerge through the process of bridging institutional entrepreneurship with institutions (Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, 2011). According to Strang & Sine (2002) key characteristics of institutions are that they are resistant to change as they imply permanence and stability over time because

(14)

14

models become “taking for granted” through repeated usage. Due to regulative, normative and cognitive pressures institutional forces enforce members to become similar to each other over time which could be the result of mimetic behavior (Liang et al., 2007). Members that are forced to become similar over time have been criticized by as they create the inability to explain organization transformation to the social world. According to Garud et al. (2007) each body of literature of institutions and entrepreneurs both face limitations associated with the structure-agency debate. These limitations can ensure that certain types of “disruptive innovations” are inhibited and can make it possible to prevent technological progress. Only change agents who implement divergent change within an institutional environment can qualify as institutional entrepreneurs (Battilana et al., 2009).

2.5 Possible diffusion of divergent change

To resolve the paradox of embedded agency Battilana et al. (2009) introduced a model that could increase the probability of success regarding the possible diffusion of divergent change. This model is a step by step process of institutional entrepreneurship. Also see figure 1. Before divergent change can occur several steps should be taken in order to provoke divergent change. Battilana et al. (2009) reviewed existing literature in order to explain how actors can actually become institutional

entrepreneurs despite the regulative, normative and cognitive pressures (Strang & Sine, 2002; Garud et al., (2007). In the first phase of their conceptual model they discuss two enabling conditions for institutional entrepreneurship which are field characteristics and the actor’s social position. Field characteristics are likely to influence actors actually becoming an institutional entrepreneur. It involves the field around the actors’ social position. In order to be an institutional entrepreneur, actors must initiate divergent change but also actively participate in the implementation phase to provoke divergent change. The institutional logic is the shared understanding which is based on the goals that have to be pursued and what is believed to be pursued (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). This depends on how actors perceive field conditions differently as this also depends on their social position. Heterogeneity of institutional arrangements could be an enabling condition of institutional

(15)

15

entrepreneurship which is the variance in the characteristics of the different institutional

arrangements. The second part of their model is the divergent change implementation phase which relates to a change agent as it tries to break the current institutional logic which is currently taken for granted. There are two key variables in this phase that could drive divergent change implementation which are according to Battilana et al. (2009) intertwined. The creation of a vision for divergent change is the first step of divergent change implementation phase and is related to the enabling conditions phase for becoming an institutional entrepreneur. The next step in the divergent change implementation phase is to mobilize allies behind their framed vision to provoke divergent change. Change can seldom be implemented without support of allies (Battilana et al., 2009). The divergent change implementation phase will be treated as a black box as it is unexpected which outcomes will appear. The divergent implementation phase will be explained more in depth in the next chapter as this phase will be used as the foundation for this research when preassembling the preliminary conceptual model.

3 Preliminary conceptual model

In this chapter the preliminary conceptual model will be assembled.

3.1 Creating a vision for divergent change

According to Battilana et al. (2009) the success of the possible diffusion of divergent change could be increased when institutional entrepreneurs actively act in two processes. The first process of

(16)

16

initiating change is that institutional entrepreneurs should develop a vision which is also elaborated by David, Sine, & Haveman (2013). According to Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum (2009, pp. 78) “Developing a vision encompasses activities undertaken to make the case for change including sharing the vision and need to change with followers”. Visions are used by leaders in order to identify which way actors should be heading. It provides a focus, a meaning and gives a purpose (Liang et al., 2007). Several studies highlighted having a vision as it is one of the important aspects for getting things done (Levy & Scully, 2007; Eyerman & Jamison, 1991). Not only in institutional theory but also in other theories, visions are highlighted as they are the desired future a company wants to achieve (Raynor, 1998). In order to create a vision, framing can be used Battilana et al. (2009). Framing can be achieved through three dimensions and can be used in order to enhance legitimacy. These dimensions are diagnostic framing, prognostic framing and motivational framing (Wilson, 1973). Snow & Benford (1988) refer these types of framing to be core framing tasks and threat them as collective action frames. Diagnostic framing (problem identification and attributions) can be used to highlight the errors of current institutions which are currently taken for granted by society (Snow & Benford, 1988). By displaying current problems and assigning the blame institutional entrepreneurs try to convince other actors by exposing current problems active. They should create a sense of urgency, assign blame and also show failures in the institutional logic (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). With prognostic framing an institutional entrepreneurs tries to legitimize existing institutional arrangements by resonating with the values, interests and problems of potential allies in order to enhance legitimacy Battilana et al. (2009). It involves the articulation of a proposed solution or problem but can also be seen as a plan of action (Benford & Snow, 2000). They try to create compromises with potential stakeholders or try to show that their product or service is more superior to what is currently taken for granted (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Fligstein, 2001). The last dimension of framing is motivational framing. In this dimension compelling reasons are created in order to support the new vision (Battilana et al., 2009). It highlights the collective action for sustaining and improving the new initiative which could be achieved by the help of communities

(17)

17

(Wang & Swanson, 2007). Institutional entrepreneurs try to persuade other actor’s trough the help of discourse which could be seen as motivations to buy the product or service (Battilana et al., 2009; Benford & Snow, 2000). Motivation is also associated with belief and positivity which is mentioned by Berhenkea et al. (2011). The institutional entrepreneur compels reasons to support the new initiative or shows future benefits of the product or service as contributing as a collective. As these so called core framing tasks are important steps to provoke divergent change, it is expected that each institutional entrepreneur will use all three dimensions of framing in their vision to provoke divergent change.

Preliminary proposition 1: In order to provoke divergent change, each institutional entrepreneur will use diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing in their vision.

As mentioned by Agarwal & Helfat (2009) incremental or continuous changes are easier to execute than discontinuous or radical changes because they can pose great difficulty due to the extent of change required. A way for an implementation to succeed is by the use of the boiling frog principle. When a frog is thrown in to a hot boiling pan, the frog will jump out of the boiling pan because it recognizes the danger causing the plan to fail. But when putting the frog in indifferent water and slightly heat up the water, the frog will not perceive the danger and will be cooked alive. This

metaphor is often used for the inability or unwillingness to change (Offerman & Veen, 2010) which is present in established institutions that face a strong power of inertia (Battilana et al., 2009). This could be compared with the prognostic type of framing. With prognostic framing institutional entrepreneurs should incorporate other (potential) institutions or actors interests, values and behaviors as they are more likely to provide legitimacy (Battilana et al., 2009). Especially established institutions and multinational firms as they already enhanced legitimacy. As mentioned by Fligstein (1997) in order to gain legitimacy institutional entrepreneurs must act as neutral brokers mediating on behalf of the mutual best interest of different groups. In order for a firm to survive it must seek legitimacy for their liabilities of newness which is critical for institutional entrepreneurs to increase

(18)

18

their chance of survival (Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Li (2010). Projects that depart from existing institutions should be less radical as it might inhibit potential allies from changing their perspective. Therefore it is expected that institutional entrepreneurs will more likely use prognostic framing than diagnostic framing and or motivational framing in order to provoke divergent change.

Preliminary proposition 2: Institutional entrepreneurs are more likely to use prognostic framing in their vision than diagnostic and motivational framing in order to provoke divergent change.

3.2 Mobilizing allies behind a vision

Divergent change can seldom be implemented without support of allies as allies should be mobilized in order to provoke divergent change (Battilana et al., 2009). Many studies argue different

characteristics and different strategies regarding institutional entrepreneurs in order to enhance legitimacy by mobilizing allies (Fligstein, 1997; Levy & Scully, 2007; Garud et al., 2002). According to Fligstein (1997) actors need to rely on their so called social skills such as bargaining, framing and alliance building to gain legitimacy. Institutional entrepreneurs will try to enhance legitimacy by convincing powerful stakeholders who have the power or influence to break the current institutional logic and seek appropriate allies that fit their vision to provoke divergent change. In order to mobilize these allies’ institutional entrepreneurs should try to promote their visions which are aligned with the interest of their potential allies. Institutional entrepreneurs who are not embedded in the center of the field should find actors that are (Battilana et al., 2009). This could be achieved by gaining legitimacy by mobilizing allies that are considered having a high social status and use their power to force institutions to change (Fligstein, 2001; Battilana et al., 2009). When mobilizing actors that are considered to have a high social position, the institutional entrepreneur faces a higher rate of success to provoke divergent change. As mentioned by Sherer & Lee (2002) high status organizations can leverage their status in order to impose divergent change lifting on others successes. Think of firms like Shell, KPMG or Rabobank as these firms exist for several years and have their political contacts for getting things done. Podolny & Philips (1996) also show that associating with low status firms may

(19)

19

lead to a loss of status. Therefor it is more likely expected that institutional entrepreneurs mobilize allies that are considered having a high social position rather than allies that are considered having low or medium social status.

Preliminary proposition 3: In order to enhance legitimacy institutional entrepreneurs are more likely to mobilize high status allies than low or medium status allies in order to provoke divergent change.

Besides mobilizing high status allies also speed could be an important indicator for success (D’Aveni, 1994). D’Aveni (1994) emphasis that success is often tied to speed. The faster allies are mobilized the more speed the innovation could enhance (Volberda & Lewin, 2003) which could contribute to the possible diffusion of divergent change. Entrepreneurs that are actively trying to provoke divergent change are to be considered as institutional entrepreneurs. Speeding up co-evolutionary process could prevent counteractions from current institutions due to mass adoption. When an ally is mobilized by an institutional entrepreneur it decreases the opportunity for other institutional entrepreneurs to mobilize the same ally as the ally has already been mobilized. This reduces the chance to mobilize the same allies which should create heterogeneity between firms. Therefor it is expected that firms differ from each other regarding their speed of mobilization.

Preliminary proposition 4: Institutional entrepreneurs differ from each other regarding the speed of successfully mobilizing allies in order to provoke divergent change.

The speed of mobilizing allies and mobilizing allies that are considered having a high social status are both variables that could both play an important role to contributing in the process to provoke divergent change. Firms that are considered having a high social status could be harder to mobilize due to their bureaucratic and stiff nature (Mintzberg, 1989). The level of structural inertia also increases with the size of each class of organization (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). It is expected that the higher the speed of mobilizing allies the more likely it could be an ally that is considered having a low social status.

(20)

20

Preliminary proposition 5: The higher the speed of mobilizing allies the more likely it would be an ally who is considered having a low social position.

3.3 Vision and the mobilization of allies

According to Battilana et al. (2009) creating a vision and the mobilization of allies are intertwined activities. They mention that mobilizing allies are related to the vision they entail. Allies should be mobilized in accordance with their vision. Visions framed could change over the years as new allies were mobilized. As speed was not mentioned as an indicator to provoke divergent change, according to Battilana et al. (2009), it doesn’t necessarily mean that these are also intertwined as others in their literature mention that this is a step by step process. Is there for example a relationship between the type of framing and their speed of mobilizing allies? It is assumed there is some relation between creating a vision and mobilizing allies as this is mentioned by Battilana et al. (2009). In figure 2 the preliminary conceptual model is previewed which serves as the foundation of this research. The divergent change implementation phase will be treated as a black box.

Figure 2: Preliminary conceptual model

4 Research design

In order to answer the research question the preliminary propositions should be illustrated and if not, modified. In the first paragraph the type of research will be explained. In the second paragraph the research setting will be provided. In the third paragraph the sample will be identified containing

(21)

21

multiple institutional entrepreneurs that will be analyzed. The fourth paragraph shows how data will be collected. In the last paragraph the quality of the research will be addressed.

4.1 Type of research

Institutional entrepreneurship is to be considered as a complex phenomenon from an ontological view (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012). They are created by social actors and are socially

constructed trough culture and language as it depends on the environmental context. The aim is to uncover the interpretations and subjective experiences of institutional entrepreneurs which fit the interpretivist philosophy (Saunders et al., 2012). This could lead to multiple interpretations, realities and meanings regarding institutional entrepreneurs which make it a complex phenomenon. From an epistemological view theories and concepts about institutional entrepreneurs are in this case too simplistic which fits the interpretivist philosophy (Saunders et al., 2015). According to Saunders et al. (2012) an interpretivist philosophy is best associated with a qualitative research design because of the need to make sense of the subjective and socially constructed meanings which are expressed about the phenomena being studied. Battilana et al. (2009) already investigated that visions and the mobilization of allies are important variables to provoke divergent change but they were based on single, in depth longitudinal cases and not focusing on multiple institutional entrepreneurs active in the same field present. A grounded theory building approach is used in order to answer the research question as the expected results are unclear (Saunders et al., (2015). Data will be collected through desk research as data is already available regarding visions and mobilization of allies of the

institutional entrepreneurs scattered through the internet. Secondary data, which is also referred to archival data (Bowen, 2009), will be collected by executing a document analysis. These documents are not reactive as data can be reviewed several times and remains unchanged by the researcher’s influence of the process. In order to build a theory a within case analysis will be executed by observing multiple institutional entrepreneurs active in the same organizational field (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Anselm, 1967). After executing the within case analysis a cross case comparison will be executed in order to compare multiple institutional entrepreneurs as it could be used to identify

(22)

22

patterns, relations or similarities and differences between them (Eisenhardt, 1989). Comparative analysis can be used to make comparisons between large social units, institutions, particularly organizations but also large regions which make it an interesting method to answer the research question (Glaser & Anselm, 1967).

4.2 Research setting

As mentioned by Strang & Sine (2002) institutions are resistant to change as they imply permanence and stability over time. This implicates that it could only be harder to change established institutions.

In order to answer the research question an active subject is chosen to be explored which currently isn’t embedded in the institutional logic. These are referred as cryptocurrencies1. A cryptocurrency is digital money and has to power to replace financial institutions as there is no need for a third party. These are for example banks. Because of the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies third parties become obsolete as payments happen directly without interference of a third party which reduces costs for the end user. This is what Porter (1997) refers to the threat of substitute products or

1

Cryptocurrency is: “a digital currency in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of funds, operating independently of a central bank” (oxforddictionaries.com, 2018)

(23)

23

services as banks could be replaced regarding financial payments. When transferring money with cryptocurrencies, every transaction will be made public in the public ledger which refers to the blockchain2. Cryptocurrencies are part of the so called “blockchain” and are inseparable from each other. Cryptocurrencies are in this case referred to institutional entrepreneurs and are considered being competitors of each other. Everybody with a smartphone can make a transaction directly without the high costs that are associated when sending payments international. In figure 3 the process of sending a payment (in cryptocurrency) in combination with the blockchain is displayed (Blockgeeks.com, 2018). When an actor makes a transaction this transaction will be processed through a decentralized computer network of nodes which are also referred as “miners”. The network of nodes validates the transaction by the help of using algorithms. Each node could be placed on a different location depending on the type of cryptocurrency/blockchain. Every transaction comes with a fee which depends on the bustle of the blockchain (Blockgeeks.com, 2018). The miners get the fee for validating the transactions and are the substitutes for the central network of financial institutions. The transaction is than combined with others transactions to create a new block which will be coupled with the existing blocks which are tied to a chain giving it the name blockchain. Some advantages of cryptocurrencies are that they are independent of governments and financial

institutions. They also allow fast national and international transactions, low fees, and anonymity due to encryption techniques but also prevent double spending3. Double spending reduces inflation created by banks as most of the cryptocurrencies have a fixed amount of coins/tokens in their system and cannot be replicated or copied. This problem is present digital currency. Cryptocurrencies also come with disadvantages. Think of the volatility of the price which is very unstable, money

laundering by criminals but also avoiding tax payments due to anonymity possibilities. These

2 “A blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that forms a “chain of blocks.” Each block includes information and data that are bundled together and verified. These blocks are then validated and strung onto the chain of transactions and information in previous blocks. These blocks of transactions are permanently recorded in the distributed ledger that is the blockchain. Blockchain is a chain of information, held over a distributed network, with a timestamp that cannot be altered once it’s been recorded.”

3

Double-spending is a potential flaw in a digital cash scheme. It allows for a single digital token to be spend several times as this digital file can be replicated or falsified which in time leads to inflation as this money previously didn’t exist before devaluating the currency to other monetary units.

(24)

24

disadvantages clash with current institutions and governments as they could lose control about the current system and claim to protect others.

4.3 Sample

On the first of April in 2018 there are currently more than 1500 cryptocurrencies active on www.coinmarketcap.com. This website collects data regarding cryptocurrencies. On the first of April 2017 there were over 750 cryptocurrencies active al to be considered institutional entrepreneurs as they try to provoke divergent change. During writing this thesis cryptocurrencies divergent change did not occur. Also regulative pressures are possible giving

sanctions to these institutional entrepreneurs. In 2016 there were 534 cryptocurrencies active. This implicates an increase of 40%. www.coinmarketcap.com ranks the market capitalization of these cryptocurrencies and shows how many coins there are in circulation and which price is coupled to a single coin. Market capitalization is calculated by the circulating supply multiplied by the current price of the cryptocurrency. This implicates that the cryptocurrency with the highest market capacity is to be considered market leader. See figure 4. In the case selection phase institutional

entrepreneurs must fulfill a few criteria. Firstly, an institutional entrepreneur must be active at least 2 years and should be in the top 30 as these institutional entrepreneurs are considered to be successful compared as they are likely to outperform other institutional entrepreneurs due to a market capitalization.

Table 1: Overview of initial releases of cryptocurrencies in years

Cryptocurrency Year of emergence

Bitcoin 2009 Ripple 2012 IOTA 2014 Stellar 2014 Monero 2014 Verge 2014 Ethereum 2015

Figure 4: Example of institutional entrepreneurs with market capacity. (Picture obtained from

www.coinmarketcap.com)

(25)

25

Table 1 presents a list of institutional entrepreneurs that will be analyzed. In figure 5 the institutional entrepreneurs are made visible in a timeline which provides an overview of the time of their

emergence. Additional data, regarding the cryptocurrencies is elaborated in Appendix H.

4.4 Data collection

Framing a vision 4.4.1

To explore the vision of the institutional entrepreneur the whitepaper4 is obtained as this document provides information regarding the product or service. It is a method to let actors present themselves to society. The whitepaper is a fixed document that has been created at a given time and doesn’t change during the years as it is the first introduction of the institutional entrepreneur presenting them to the world. Additional data will be obtained on the official website of the institutional entrepreneurs if not yet mentioned in their whitepaper. In this research visions framed by other actors, which aren’t directly related to the institutional entrepreneurs themselves are left out of the sample as they are not relevant in this research. Think of independent news articles for example. The interest is regarding how institutional entrepreneurs frame their visions and not how others create vision for them. Every type of framing found will be taken into consideration and added to the sample. If similar instances have been seen over and over again, then it is assumed that saturation arises (Saunders et al., 2015). Data regarding the vision will be collected from Bitcoin, Ripple, Verge, Stellar, Monero, Ethereum and IOTA.

Mobilizing allies 4.4.2

Data regarding the successfully mobilized allies of the institutional entrepreneurs will be collected through the official website of the institutional entrepreneurs that will be analyzed. Each institutional entrepreneur provides a list of already successfully mobilized allies. Additional successfully mobilized allies that were found on the internet are also added to the sample giving a large pool of the total

4

A whitepaper is a concise report that informs readers about a complex issue, often used to convey an organization's philosophy and persuade potential customers. This type of document contains proposals for the specific policy area suggested during the consultation process initiated with the publication of a green paper (businessdictionary.com, 2018)

(26)

26

population. This is achieved by the use of search engines like www.google.nl. Searches were achieved by “Name of institutional entrepreneur” in combination with “partnerships” and other synonyms for partnership. If similar instances have been seen over and over again, then it is assumed that

saturation arises (Saunders et al., 2015). This increases the sample of the total population. In order to increase reliability partnerships should be confirmed first in order to be considered as an actual successfully mobilized ally. Conformations will be done by the allies’ official website or social media. But this works one sided. For example: if JP Morgan mention on their website that they have partnered with Ripple it is considered to be valid. But if Ripple mentions that they partnered with JP Morgan and JP Morgan doesn’t confirm this actual partnership than it will be considered as not true. If no confirmation is found on the allies’ official website, other sources will be collected trying to confirm the actual partnership. These should be independent articles published by, for example, www.fortune.com or www.ccn.com to increase reliability. Institutional entrepreneurs could not easily affect this independent data source as they are independent. The first case examining the mobilization of allies is Ripple as Bitcoin is removed from the sample as there is too much different data regarding their partnerships from different institutional entrepreneurs. This caused as Bitcoin is overhyped and doesn’t have one particular institutional entrepreneur anymore as this person of group is rather unknown5. They now have multiple institutional entrepreneurs active. Ripple will be used as a framework in order to provide as an example to other institutional entrepreneurs which will later be used to compare other institutional entrepreneurs (Glaser & Anselm, 1967). In order to eliminate selection biases a random sample is taken from the total collected population (Saunders et al., 2015). This will be achieved by random sampling by the help of Excel.

5

The owner/creator of Bitcoin (Satoshi Nakamoto) vanishes in April 2011 without leaving a trace moving on to “something” else (economist, 2015). Satoshi Nakamoto was the inventor of Bitcoin and was the first ever creating a system that prevents double spending and could make transactions with a central authority.

(27)

27

Intertwined nature of creating a vision and the mobilization of allies 4.4.3

No data will be collected regarding the relation between vision and mobilization. This data will become available after the within case analysis by comparing multiple institutional entrepreneurs through the help of a cross case comparison (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Anselm, 1967).

4.5 Measurement

Framing a vision 4.5.1

To compare how multiple institutional entrepreneurs differ in creating their vision texts need to be transformed in to codes as codes could make it easier comparing institutional entrepreneurs (Glaser & Anselm, 1967). By comparing multiple institutional entrepreneurs’ reliability is automatically increased as differences could be easier obtained. This also increases confidence as multiple cases were identified which should actually say something about the phenomenon. Thematic analysis will be based on open coding which is a way to express data in the form of concepts (Boyatzis, 1998). Data can be segmented and be linked to a unit of meaning. Normally a theory is built by using coding to identify the themes using an inductive approach (Glaser & Anselm, 1967). But this also works the other way around as some themes were already identified and provide direction during analyzing. As this study is qualitative, different interpretations could be possible which could increase biases (Saunders et al, 2012). To reduce these biases a priori theory codebook will be created. The theme that will be studied is vision which will serve as the primary code. Visions are than divided in the secondary code which is diagnostic, prognostic and motivational of kind. Texts will be identified by using indicators which are mentioned in table 2 and are derived from existing literature which was reviewed in chapter 3 and build on empirical evidence. This should increase the reliability and validity as these are already grounded in theory (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2015). The theory driven codebook will be kept in mind when linking analyzed texts to its indicators which could make it easier to identify units of text that are going to be analyzed. The theory driven codebook in this thesis has to basic functions. The first function is identifying texts faster and easier in relation to visions. Also new additional obtained themes could be identified and could emerge into new insights as these are not located in the theory driven codebook. Only coding with the existing codes reduces exploration

(28)

28

which could limit the research. Secondly, the amount of secondary (see table 2) codes collected will be used to compare multiple institutional entrepreneurs with each other by making their visions quantitative. Qualitative data can become more reliable when making it quantitative through thematic coding (Glaser & Anselm, 1967). Every text will be scanned, analyzed and coupled with a code which could be #VD, #VP or #VM and will be coupled based on the researcher’s interpretation.

Table 2: Thematic coding of the framed vision

Table 3: Example of thematic coding

How is the main code called? How is the main code divided?

How will the data be recognized? Which label

will be assigned to the analyzed text?

Primary code. Secondary code Indicators (obtained from existing literature) Code Vision Diagnostic (1) Failing of the existing organization or broader field #VD

(2) Focuses on problems that should be solved.

(3) Assign blame to existing institutions

(4) Creating a sense of urgency that change is necessary

(5) Expose problems with current institutionalized practices

Prognostic (1) Participation / legitimating of potential stakeholders #VP

(2) De-legitimating existing institutional arrangements

(3) Resonate with values, interests and problems of potential allies

(4) Show that their product is superior compared to current institutions

(5) Provide less radical changes to create legitimacy

Motivational (1) Compelling reasons to support new concept #VM

(2) Provides motivations to buy product/service (3) Positivity, belief

(4) Community

(5) Future benefits of the product/service (6) Provides motivations to buy product/service

Analyzed Text (obtained from the whitepaper of Ripple) Amount of diagnostic framing identified Amount of diagnostic framing identified Amount of diagnostic framing identified Think about the last time you sent an international payment, in

particular. Did it take days #VD? Did you understand the fees and foreign exchange rate #VD? Was it expensive #VD? Were you worried it wouldn’t get there #VD?

4 0 0

Ripple offers, for the first time in history, the ability to transact directly #VP, instantly #VP and with end to- end visibility and certainty of settlement #VP. These unique characteristics present new business opportunities for banks to compete with upstarts #VP

0 4 0

With clear and validated benefits to bring both supply and demand actors to the table, Ripple’s marketplace is already developing #VM: large banks are joining to improve processing efficiency #VM, and small to mid-sized banks are joining to leverage third-party liquidity providers for cross-border payment services #VM

0 0 4

(29)

29

Every diagnostic, prognostic and motivational type of framing is counted in a quantitative manner to see if there are preferences regarding the type of framing used which should answer preliminary proposition 1 and 2. In table 3 a few examples are displayed which provides an indication how thematic coding is executed.

Mobilizing allies 4.5.2

In order to answer preliminary proposition 3, speed will be measured by the average number of successfully mobilized allies in a time period mobilized by the institutional entrepreneur. This method of measuring was earlier used by Volberda, Bosch, & Flier (2001) but in a slightly different research setting. By measuring the average speed per time period, comparisons could be made to see if firms differ regarding their speed of mobilizing allies. Allies that not have been confirmed are not placed on the timeline as it is unclear when the ally was actually mobilized which could affect the results creating biases. Confirmed allies are then categorized and placed on a timeline so

comparisons can be made.

In order to enhance legitimacy institutional entrepreneurs should mobilize allies that are considered having a high social status. Studies highlight the importance to mobilize high status organizations but do not mention the boundaries of actually being an actor that is considered having a high social status (Garud & Karnøe, 2001; Greenwood et al., 2002). This could be explained due to the complexity as status is a complex construct (Saunders et al., 2015). Many studies highlight measurements like the amount of employees as indicators but others have incorporated other variables like total assets, sales, market capitalization, firm age, success, social media or performance (Kumar, Rajan, & Zingales, 2001; Podolny & Philips, 1996; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Besides these measurements it also depends on the origin of the country as countries give their own definitions to the size of companies but also revenue (Axtell, 2001; stats.oecd.org, 2018). In this research firm size through employees are used as the main indicator to categorize firm status which could be related to the success of a firm (Haunschild & Miner, 1997). Firm size will be categorized based on the

(30)

30

will be used trying to illustrate preliminary proposition 4. Red is associated with small firms, orange with medium firms and green with large firms with which will later be used to visualize firm status in an overview during the within case analysis.

Table 4: Categories regarding firm status. Obtained from https://stats.oecd.org

In order trying to illustrate preliminary proposition 5, preliminary proposition 4 and 5 will be combined in a mixed table to see if there is some interrelatedness between these two variables.

Intertwined nature of creating a vision and the mobilization of allies 4.5.3

The intertwined nature, according to Battilana et al. (2009), will be explored after processing the within case analysis phase which is according to Eisenhardt (1989) a way to search for patterns, similarities and differences and can be obtained by trial and error. This will be achieved by doing a cross case comparison (Glaser & Anselm, 1967). By simply selecting dimensions or pairs possible patterns, similarities, or differences could be obtained in the within case analysis. This could either be small firm or large firm size, high vs. low status organizations or highs vs. low speed (Eisenhardt, 1989). In order to compare cases every case should be processed the same.

4.6 Reliability and validity

In order to provide a high quality research it is necessary to meet several research criteria to ensure a qualitative research (Saunders et al., 2012). Reliability refers to the consistency or repeatability of the employed analytical procedures (Saunders et al., 2012). Qualitative data can become more reliable when making it quantitative through thematic coding (Glaser & Anselm, 1967). By comparing multiple cases with each other, instead of only one case study should increase reliability as more data is obtained. The only danger is the researches bias Eisenhardt (1989) as the phenomena institutional entrepreneur is rather complex (Saunders et al., 2015). It could be possible that when another researcher executes this research that the researcher could collect different data and results. It could also be possible that, as times passes, a mobilized ally shifts from one institutional entrepreneur to another as this could evolve over time. A way to increase the reliability is to describe

Firm status Low (small) Med (medium) High (large)

(31)

31

the steps taken as clearly as possible so that the researcher can follow the steps that are taken which allow repeatability.

Partnership dates should be confirmed regarding the successfully mobilized allies of the institutional entrepreneur’s to increase reliability and credibility of the research (Bowen, 2009) because these conformations were validated reducing errors. Besides conformation, successfully mobilized allies will be selected by using random sampling which ensures that the samples are free from biases which could affect results (Saunders et al., 2015).

Another way to provide a high quality research is achieved by validity. Validity can be achieved in several ways. These are construct validity, internal validity and external validity.

Construct validity is the degree to which interferences can be made from the

operationalization in the study to the theoretical constructs on which that operationalization was based (Saunders et al., 2015). It makes sense that construct validity is high as operationalization is achieved by using existing literature mentioned in chapter 3 which is built on empirical evidence. The obtained data when using a document analysis is rather static and has no emotions which could affect the results. It eliminates guessing and evaluation apprehension as no interviews were taken which could affect outcomes. Construct validity is high for the speed of mobilizing allies as this method was earlier used by Volberda et al. (2001) but in a different research setting. There are some doubts with the construct validity regarding the operationalization of the mobilized allies. Many studies highlight the importance of mobilizing high status allies but little is known regarding the boundaries in order to be considered a high status ally. As there are different measurements regarding legitimacy, multiple outcomes are possible. It depends on the boundaries used. As mentioned in chapter 4.5, SME guidelines regarding the amount of employees is used in order to categorize the allies mobilized by the institutional entrepreneurs.

Internal validity is the approximate truth regarding variables measured. Many highlight that the vision and the mobilization of allies are main drivers to the possible diffusion of divergent change

(32)

32

(Wilson, 1973; Snow & Benford, 1988; Battilana et a., 2009). It’s assumed that internal validity is high as this is stated in the literature. Internal validity, regarding the speed of mobilization of allies, is also considered to be high as speed could be applied in a different setting as well. There are some doubts regarding the internal validity regarding the mobilization of allies in the context of social status. Firm size is used to measure status although there are many other variables that could determine firm status.

External validity refers to the transferability of a finding from one context to one context or unit to another as valid (Glaser & Hon, 2006). External validity is high as constructs are used which are earlier empirical proven to be true and is earlier achieved by Battilana et al. (2009). Vision are common (Nanus, 1992) and can often be applied to a wide range of industries or settings. Speed and social status are also variables which can be used in different settings or industries as well as this were earlier presented by Volberda et al. (2001) and Battilana et al. (2009).

5 Within case analysis

This chapter aims to explore the individual institutional entrepreneurs by executing a within case analysis.

5.1 Bitcoin

Bitcoin is referred as a first mover regarding cryptocurrencies (Roger, Kerin, Varadarajan, & Robert, 1992) as they were the first cryptocurrency hitting the market and benefit from the first movers’ advantage. In the whitepaper of Bitcoin 22 types of framing were obtained which are made visible in table 5. On their official website an additional of 8 framings were found giving a total of 30 types of framing in order to present the vision of Bitcoin. The obtained types of framing regarding the vision of Bitcoin is displayed in Appendix A.

(33)

33 Table 5: Vision of Bitcoin

5.2 Ripple

In the whitepaper 88 types of framing were found and only one additional framing was found on Ripple’s official website. This gives a total of 89 types of framing which are made visible in table 6. The obtained types of framing regarding the vision of Ripple is displayed in Appendix B.

Table 6: Number of obtained visions of Ripple

Ripple has been active in successfully mobilizing allies. On their website 40 allies are displayed that have been mobilized. On the internet another 60 allies were found which results in 100 successfully mobilized allies. In table 7 the division of the successfully mobilized allies of Ripple is displayed with each containing the amount of allies that were found in a particular year. Most allies were obtained in 2017. In 2018 only data from January 2018 to April 2018 was collected as the future is yet to come.

Table 7: Successfully mobilized allies of Ripple

Each of the successfully mobilized allies by Ripple is displayed in figure 6. Table 8 represents the conformation dates of the actual partnership.

Bitcoin Whitepaper Website Total

Vision 22 8 30

Diagnostic 10 0 10

Prognostic 5 6 11

Motivational 7 2 9

Ripple Whitepaper Website Total

Vision 88 1 89

Diagnostic 24 0 24

Prognostic 31 1 32

Motivational 33 0 33

Year Amount of allies (sample) Share Total amount of allies of Ripple (total population) 2015 2 10% 10 2016 5 25% 25 2017 7 35% 35 Early 2018 6 30% 30 Total 20 100 % Total of 100

(34)

34

Figure 6: Timeline of the mobilized allies of Ripple Table 8: Mobilized allies by Ripple

In table 9, the division of the social position regarding the successfully mobilized allies by Ripple is displayed. 75 % of these allies are considered as having a high social status, 25% is considered having a medium social position and no allies were found that are considered having a low social status.

Table 9: Division of allies of Ripple regarding their social status

5.3 Verge

In the whitepaper of Verge 13 types of framing were found. On the website an additional 12 types of framing were also obtained giving a total of 25 types of framing. The types of framings are displayed in table 10. The obtained types of framing regarding the vision of Verge is displayed in Appendix C.

Table 10: Number of visions obtained by Verge

Partners of Ripple Partnership started

Unicredit nov-17

Akbank dec-17

BBVA apr-17

Lian lian pay feb-18

Axis bank nov-17

Moneygram jan-18

Instarem mrt-18

Credit Agricol jan-18

Airwallex dec-17

MUFG sep-16

IDT jan-18

Rakbank nov-17

Standard Chartered sep-16

TranfserGO jan-18

ezforex apr-17

Earthport aug-15

Royal Bank of Canada feb-16 Canadian Imperial

Bank of Commerce

jun-16

Bank of Montreal sep-16

Westpac dec-15

Social Position Amount of allies (sample)

Share Total amount of allies of Ripple when generalized (total population)

Low 0 0% 0

Med 5 25% 25

High 15 75% 70

Total 20 100% 100

Verge Whitepaper Website Total

Vision 13 12 25

Diagnostic 6 0 6

Prognostic 2 6 8

The possible diffusion of divergent change : differences in the visions and the mobilization of allies of multiple institutional entrepreneurs active in the same organizational field

Thesis

The Possible diffusion of Divergent change

Differences in the Visions and the Mobilization of Allies of Multiple Institutional

Entrepreneurs Active in the Same Organizational Field

Statement of Originality

Abstract

Table of Contents

List of tables and figures

1

Introduction

2

Literature review

2.1

Innovation as a driver

2.2

Entrepreneurship

2.3

Institutions

2.4

Institutional entrepreneurship

2.5

Possible diffusion of divergent change

3

Preliminary conceptual model

3.1

Creating a vision for divergent change

3.2

Mobilizing allies behind a vision

3.3

Vision and the mobilization of allies

4

Research design

4.1

Type of research

4.2

Research setting

4.3

Sample

4.4

Data collection

4.5

Measurement

4.6

Reliability and validity

5

Within case analysis

5.1

Bitcoin

5.2

Ripple

5.3

Verge