e-Commerce Company (Essay Sample)

E-commerce Name: Institution: E-commerce E-commerce is useful for companys’ symbolic management of the stakeholder relation vis-à-vis lay audiences. By leveraging the existing e-commerce ongoing market associations, this strategy facilitates audience legitimating around the new business area through legitimacy spillover (Koontz, 2012). However, e-commerce can be detrimental for industry experts’ creativity evaluation of the parent firm several reasons. Such e-commerce to the demands of lay audiences is crucial for any given business, as the general audience’s perception of the firm is directly related to future profitability. E-commerce can be implemented easily given the legitimacy imperatives in the market, and thus not novel. Maintaining e-commerce is a function of firms’ internal “routine rigidity,” or failure to change how a firm processes its resources at the time of resource recombination. There are more frequent entrepreneur engages in e-commerce within a set period. Just as excessive e-commerce can bring about category ambiguity to lay audiences; it can bring industry experts to question the core market presence of the firm (Hassard, 2013). This can further exacerbate the negative effect of using the same name repeatedly across multiple sub-categories. Bringing legitimacy and creativity arguments together, the implication may be that moderate amount of e-commerce. Despite the fact that it is detrimental to perceive creativity at the firm level, it could still be useful for gaining legitimacy in new business areas. Once category ambiguity starts to set in past a certain point vis-à-vis lay audiencese-commerce needs to be halted, for it can neither attract legitimacy nor creativity. E-commerce enhances a focal diversifier’s creativity evaluation, but too much of it leads to the loss of initial creative appeal. Since industry experts have full knowledge of the industry, one can expect that their creativity and evaluation of mono diversifiers will also be affected by each firm’s social and financial standing in the market. For social standing, one can consider the reputation, as measured by the firm’s extent and frequency of media coverage. For financial standing, the ownership structure is necessary, as measured by the firm’s affiliation to a business group. Firms with high reputation tend to show strong market prominence by embracing e-commerce. This forms a causal feedback loop between their existing social standing and the amount of social scrutiny they are bound to receive from other market participants. Consequently, high-reputation firm’s plans to diversify are more likely to fall subject to immediate and extensive e-commerce exposure even before the plans’ field implementation (Hassard, 2013). This may facilitate the knowledge spread about the new venture, and subsequently, its cognitive legitimating when the business starts to operate in the market. However, the novelty appeal with its swift and exclusive nature is largely gone by this point. Lay audiences take institutional cues from the relatively high availability of information about the new venture, and engage in a passive acceptance of the new product offerings as prototypical of the category. Whether intended or not intended by a focal diversifier, such passive process of legitimating creates a perception among industry experts that the firm is not very original in its innovation process (Koontz, 2012). By the same logic, low-reputation firms with not so visible market presence can surprise the market much more easily when they diversify into new sub-categories. Industry experts are, therefore, more likely to assign higher creativity to firms with low reputation than for firms with high market prominence. In conclusion, e-commerce is necessary when it comes to firm ownership structure. It comes in various forms and shapes. From a focal entrepreneurs point of view, there are pros and cons attached to being affiliated to a larger business group: While such affiliation allows for a larger pool of material and symbolic resources to be mobilized, it can also constrain the firm’s market behavior to align with the business group’s overall corporate strategy. References Hassard, J. (2013). Sociology and Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koontz, P. (2012). Essentials of Management, New York McGraw-Hill