Mark D Packard | University of Nevada, Reno (original) (raw)

Papers by Mark D Packard

Mises Journal, 2019

In this paper, we reconsider the various states of rest within Austrian market process theory. Wh... more In this paper, we reconsider the various states of rest within Austrian market process theory. While this theory certainly embodies a superior representation of market processes to the neoclassical general equilibrium theory, it falls short of producing a holistic theory of human action. The analysis left out those human actions that produce changes to the so-called 'final state of rest,' which have so far been taken as exogenous to the market process. These exogenous shocks include knowledge generation and preference shifting. However, I argue that these can and ought to be understood as market phenomena, and so belong within the scope of praxeological analysis. To capture these types of human action, I propose that a new and truly 'final' state of rest be introduced, which we term the 'nirvana state of rest.' This new state represents a 'true' final state, in which human action ceases because all needs, and thus all motivation to act, are completely and perpetually assuaged. Introducing this state into the analysis, we can break free from myopic analyses of mere present states of knowledge and values to observe and explain general tendencies in market processes, prices, and entrepreneurship. I also show how quarrels within Austrian circles might be resolved through this expanded, macroscopic lens.

Management Decision, 2020

Purpose-The purpose of this article is to extend effectuation theory at the front end by building... more Purpose-The purpose of this article is to extend effectuation theory at the front end by building cognitive foundations for the effectual design process. Design/methodology/approach-We adopt an integrative conceptual approach drawing on design cognition theory to explain entrepreneurial cognition. Findings-We find a significant gap in the entrepreneurial cognition literature with respect to effectuation processes. We thus integrate the Situated Function-Behavior-Structure framework from design theory to elaborate on the cognitive processes of effectuation, specifically with regard to the opportunity development process. This framework describes the cognitive subprocesses by which entrepreneurs means and ends are cyclically (re)formulated over time until a viable "opportunity" emerges, and the venture is formalized, or else, the entrepreneur abandons the venture and exits." Practical implications-Unravelling this entrepreneurial design process may facilitate more appropriate and effective design work by entrepreneurs, leading to more successful product designs. It also should facilitate the development of better design techniques and instruction. Originality/value-This research contributes to new cognitive foundations for effectuation theory and entrepreneurial process research. It better explains how means are transformed into valuable goods over time through an iterative reconsideration of means-ends frameworks. This theoretical elaboration will expectedly facilitate additional research into the iterative cognitive processes of design and enable more formulaic design thinking.

Academy of Management Review, 2020

In response to Hokyu Hwang & Jeannette Colyvas: Ontology, Levels of Society, and Degrees of Gener... more In response to Hokyu Hwang & Jeannette Colyvas: Ontology, Levels of Society, and Degrees of Generality: Theorizing Actors as Abstractions in Institutional Theory. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0266

Academy of Management Review

Response to Richard J. Arend, On the Irony of Being Certain on How to Deal with Uncertainty, http... more Response to Richard J. Arend, On the Irony of Being Certain on How to Deal with Uncertainty, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0395

On the Mitigability of Uncertainty and the Choice between Predictive and Non-Predictive Strategy, 2019

Managers face a critical issue in deciding when to employ a predictive planning approach versus a... more Managers face a critical issue in deciding when to employ a predictive planning approach versus a more adaptive and flexible strategic approach. We suggest that determining which approach is ideal for a given context hangs on the extent to which uncertainty is, or might be, mitigable within that context. To date, however, the mitigability of uncertainty has not been adequately distilled. Here we take on this issue, distinguishing mitigable ignorance of pertinent but knowable information (i.e. epistemic uncertainty) from immitigable indeterminacy (i.e. aleatory uncertainty). We review the current state of the debate on the existence of free will because the acceptance or rejection of conscious agents as a true first cause has fundamental implications. A critical examination of the arguments for and against the free will hypothesis land us on the side of voluntarism, which implies immitigable indeterminacy (but not complete unpredictability) wherever conscious actors are involved. Accepting the existence of immitigable or aleatory uncertainty, then, we revisit the determination of strategic logics and produce important theoretical nuance and key boundary conditions in the normative choice between predictive and non-predictive strategies.

We reexamine and explore the modern view of inequality against entrepreneurial market process the... more We reexamine and explore the modern view of inequality against entrepreneurial market process theories, which leads us to three key assertions. First, we question the validity of income inequality as a proxy for true inequality (i.e., inequality of individual well-being), observing nonlinearity between the two constructs. Second, we explore the entrepreneurial microfoundations of growing and shrinking inequality in market societies, arguing that individual inequality is primarily the outcome of abnormal gains from disequilibrating creative destructive processes. These shifts are temporary, however, as equilibrating (arbitraging) entrepreneur-ship competes away monopoly profits. Growing inequality trends, then, are seen primarily as the result of increasingly large, but also shorter, waves of creative destruction. Finally, we reconsider the issue of the injustice of inequality through this market process lens. Managerial summary: We contribute three arguments to the debate over economic inequality. We are (or ought to be) concerned over differences in individual well-being, not income. Studies of income inequality can be misleading. We argue that a key and so far overlooked source of economic inequality is entrepre-neurship. Disruptive entrepreneurship (via innovation) redistributes economic resources away from the present industry, reallocating them in a more unequal redistribution, with the successful disrup-tor capturing an unequal share of resources. Imitative entrepre-neurship, however, tends to mitigate this inequality, competing away abnormal profits while expanding new products' diffusion among consumers. Finally, we observe that economic inequality may not be as unjust as previously thought, and we caution against corrective policy that might inhibit entrepreneurship.

A response to performativity's critique of interpretivism as a foundation of entrepreneurship.

While judgment has hitherto typically been viewed as a discrete decision process, we propose that... more While judgment has hitherto typically been viewed as a discrete decision process, we propose that it be conceptualized instead as a continuous and dynamic process of reassessment and revision. Adopting this approach, we revisit the nature of entrepreneurial decision making under uncertainty. We begin with a novel typology of uncertainty that defines and delineates different types of uncertain contexts. We then examine
the nature of decision making within these distinct contexts, highlighting differences in how entrepreneurs make decisions within different types of uncertainty. We build these insights into a theory of the entrepreneurial process that highlights the transitory nature of uncertainty as entrepreneurs make certain judgments and revise those judgments over time. We discuss how uncertainty transitions throughout the judgment process, how the judgment process continues dynamically even after a judgment is made, and how the nature of uncertainty shifts over time due to endogenous and exogenous change.

I argue that an interpretivist philosophic approach has been neglected in modern entrepre-neurshi... more I argue that an interpretivist philosophic approach has been neglected in modern entrepre-neurship research, but that such an approach may be most appropriate to the individualist nature of entrepreneurship. Realist meta-theories suffer from issues of paradigm incommensurability that may be at the heart of the present difficulties in defining and delin-eating the field of entrepreneurship. Interpretivism offers a potentially groundbreaking philosophical alternative that highlights the source of entrepreneurship in individuals rather than in abstract markets, emphasizing emergence rather than presuming opportunity existence. In this paper I defend interpretivism against its critics and revisit the nature of entrepreneurship through this lens. I show that process theories of entrepreneurship are aligned with interpretivist meta-theory, and that their explicit adoption of an interpretivist foundation may better facilitate theoretical progress. Interpretivism is the scientific philosophy that social order—including markets and the entrepreneurial processes within them—emerges from intentional action and interaction at the individual level. This view has been overlooked as management scientists continue to try to employ natural scientific philosophy to social concepts. These predominant functionalist approaches have so far been fruitless in producing a robust general theory—a framework that captures all types of entrepreneurship. Theories such as the IO nexus have afforded a way forward, but they continue to run into challenges concerning foundational definitions, underlying assumptions, and their implications. Without an assumptionally strong and coherent foundation, theoretical development in this still-nascent field of research has been hindered. The very definition of entrepreneurship, for example, remains remarkably elusive, with some postulating that an adequate definition may be unattainable. Resolution to these issues is not likely to come from a faithful adherence to the predominant meta-theories. A paradigm shift may be required. Here I put forth interpretivism as, perhaps, a more appropriate meta-theoretical foundation for the study of entrepreneurship, pointing to their alignment along individualist lines. Interpretivist meta-theoretical frameworks hold to assumptions of nominal-ism, rationalism, and voluntarism, and generally favor more ideographic methods of research. They accept abstract concepts such as economies, organizations, social groups and structures as concepts only, and reject them as ontologically 'real' entities. While epistemologies vary within the broad classification, interpretivists typically presume that knowledge emerges from both experi-ential (exogenous) and imaginative (endogenous) sources. Interpretivist approaches highlight human intentionality as a key determinant of behavior, in addition to other internal and external causal factors, whereas entrepreneurship's dominant functionalist paradigm often ignores or rejects intentions in favor of deterministic causes alone. In short, interpretivism sees the social world

While judgment has hitherto typically been viewed as a discrete decision process, we propose that... more While judgment has hitherto typically been viewed as a discrete decision process, we propose that it be conceptualized instead as a continuous and dynamic process of reassessment and revision. Adopting this approach, we revisit the nature of entrepreneurial decision making under uncertainty. We begin with a novel typology of uncertainty that defines and delineates different types of uncertain contexts. We then examine
the nature of decision making within these distinct contexts, highlighting differences in how entrepreneurs make decisions within different types of uncertainty. We build these insights into a theory of the entrepreneurial process that highlights the transitory nature of uncertainty as entrepreneurs make certain judgments and revise those judgments over time. We discuss how uncertainty transitions throughout the judgment process, how the judgment process continues dynamically even after a judgment is made, and how the nature of uncertainty shifts over time due to endogenous and exogenous change.

Mises Journal, 2019

In this paper, we reconsider the various states of rest within Austrian market process theory. Wh... more In this paper, we reconsider the various states of rest within Austrian market process theory. While this theory certainly embodies a superior representation of market processes to the neoclassical general equilibrium theory, it falls short of producing a holistic theory of human action. The analysis left out those human actions that produce changes to the so-called 'final state of rest,' which have so far been taken as exogenous to the market process. These exogenous shocks include knowledge generation and preference shifting. However, I argue that these can and ought to be understood as market phenomena, and so belong within the scope of praxeological analysis. To capture these types of human action, I propose that a new and truly 'final' state of rest be introduced, which we term the 'nirvana state of rest.' This new state represents a 'true' final state, in which human action ceases because all needs, and thus all motivation to act, are completely and perpetually assuaged. Introducing this state into the analysis, we can break free from myopic analyses of mere present states of knowledge and values to observe and explain general tendencies in market processes, prices, and entrepreneurship. I also show how quarrels within Austrian circles might be resolved through this expanded, macroscopic lens.

Management Decision, 2020

Purpose-The purpose of this article is to extend effectuation theory at the front end by building... more Purpose-The purpose of this article is to extend effectuation theory at the front end by building cognitive foundations for the effectual design process. Design/methodology/approach-We adopt an integrative conceptual approach drawing on design cognition theory to explain entrepreneurial cognition. Findings-We find a significant gap in the entrepreneurial cognition literature with respect to effectuation processes. We thus integrate the Situated Function-Behavior-Structure framework from design theory to elaborate on the cognitive processes of effectuation, specifically with regard to the opportunity development process. This framework describes the cognitive subprocesses by which entrepreneurs means and ends are cyclically (re)formulated over time until a viable "opportunity" emerges, and the venture is formalized, or else, the entrepreneur abandons the venture and exits." Practical implications-Unravelling this entrepreneurial design process may facilitate more appropriate and effective design work by entrepreneurs, leading to more successful product designs. It also should facilitate the development of better design techniques and instruction. Originality/value-This research contributes to new cognitive foundations for effectuation theory and entrepreneurial process research. It better explains how means are transformed into valuable goods over time through an iterative reconsideration of means-ends frameworks. This theoretical elaboration will expectedly facilitate additional research into the iterative cognitive processes of design and enable more formulaic design thinking.

Academy of Management Review, 2020

In response to Hokyu Hwang & Jeannette Colyvas: Ontology, Levels of Society, and Degrees of Gener... more In response to Hokyu Hwang & Jeannette Colyvas: Ontology, Levels of Society, and Degrees of Generality: Theorizing Actors as Abstractions in Institutional Theory. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0266

Academy of Management Review

Response to Richard J. Arend, On the Irony of Being Certain on How to Deal with Uncertainty, http... more Response to Richard J. Arend, On the Irony of Being Certain on How to Deal with Uncertainty, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0395

On the Mitigability of Uncertainty and the Choice between Predictive and Non-Predictive Strategy, 2019

Managers face a critical issue in deciding when to employ a predictive planning approach versus a... more Managers face a critical issue in deciding when to employ a predictive planning approach versus a more adaptive and flexible strategic approach. We suggest that determining which approach is ideal for a given context hangs on the extent to which uncertainty is, or might be, mitigable within that context. To date, however, the mitigability of uncertainty has not been adequately distilled. Here we take on this issue, distinguishing mitigable ignorance of pertinent but knowable information (i.e. epistemic uncertainty) from immitigable indeterminacy (i.e. aleatory uncertainty). We review the current state of the debate on the existence of free will because the acceptance or rejection of conscious agents as a true first cause has fundamental implications. A critical examination of the arguments for and against the free will hypothesis land us on the side of voluntarism, which implies immitigable indeterminacy (but not complete unpredictability) wherever conscious actors are involved. Accepting the existence of immitigable or aleatory uncertainty, then, we revisit the determination of strategic logics and produce important theoretical nuance and key boundary conditions in the normative choice between predictive and non-predictive strategies.

We reexamine and explore the modern view of inequality against entrepreneurial market process the... more We reexamine and explore the modern view of inequality against entrepreneurial market process theories, which leads us to three key assertions. First, we question the validity of income inequality as a proxy for true inequality (i.e., inequality of individual well-being), observing nonlinearity between the two constructs. Second, we explore the entrepreneurial microfoundations of growing and shrinking inequality in market societies, arguing that individual inequality is primarily the outcome of abnormal gains from disequilibrating creative destructive processes. These shifts are temporary, however, as equilibrating (arbitraging) entrepreneur-ship competes away monopoly profits. Growing inequality trends, then, are seen primarily as the result of increasingly large, but also shorter, waves of creative destruction. Finally, we reconsider the issue of the injustice of inequality through this market process lens. Managerial summary: We contribute three arguments to the debate over economic inequality. We are (or ought to be) concerned over differences in individual well-being, not income. Studies of income inequality can be misleading. We argue that a key and so far overlooked source of economic inequality is entrepre-neurship. Disruptive entrepreneurship (via innovation) redistributes economic resources away from the present industry, reallocating them in a more unequal redistribution, with the successful disrup-tor capturing an unequal share of resources. Imitative entrepre-neurship, however, tends to mitigate this inequality, competing away abnormal profits while expanding new products' diffusion among consumers. Finally, we observe that economic inequality may not be as unjust as previously thought, and we caution against corrective policy that might inhibit entrepreneurship.

A response to performativity's critique of interpretivism as a foundation of entrepreneurship.

While judgment has hitherto typically been viewed as a discrete decision process, we propose that... more While judgment has hitherto typically been viewed as a discrete decision process, we propose that it be conceptualized instead as a continuous and dynamic process of reassessment and revision. Adopting this approach, we revisit the nature of entrepreneurial decision making under uncertainty. We begin with a novel typology of uncertainty that defines and delineates different types of uncertain contexts. We then examine
the nature of decision making within these distinct contexts, highlighting differences in how entrepreneurs make decisions within different types of uncertainty. We build these insights into a theory of the entrepreneurial process that highlights the transitory nature of uncertainty as entrepreneurs make certain judgments and revise those judgments over time. We discuss how uncertainty transitions throughout the judgment process, how the judgment process continues dynamically even after a judgment is made, and how the nature of uncertainty shifts over time due to endogenous and exogenous change.

I argue that an interpretivist philosophic approach has been neglected in modern entrepre-neurshi... more I argue that an interpretivist philosophic approach has been neglected in modern entrepre-neurship research, but that such an approach may be most appropriate to the individualist nature of entrepreneurship. Realist meta-theories suffer from issues of paradigm incommensurability that may be at the heart of the present difficulties in defining and delin-eating the field of entrepreneurship. Interpretivism offers a potentially groundbreaking philosophical alternative that highlights the source of entrepreneurship in individuals rather than in abstract markets, emphasizing emergence rather than presuming opportunity existence. In this paper I defend interpretivism against its critics and revisit the nature of entrepreneurship through this lens. I show that process theories of entrepreneurship are aligned with interpretivist meta-theory, and that their explicit adoption of an interpretivist foundation may better facilitate theoretical progress. Interpretivism is the scientific philosophy that social order—including markets and the entrepreneurial processes within them—emerges from intentional action and interaction at the individual level. This view has been overlooked as management scientists continue to try to employ natural scientific philosophy to social concepts. These predominant functionalist approaches have so far been fruitless in producing a robust general theory—a framework that captures all types of entrepreneurship. Theories such as the IO nexus have afforded a way forward, but they continue to run into challenges concerning foundational definitions, underlying assumptions, and their implications. Without an assumptionally strong and coherent foundation, theoretical development in this still-nascent field of research has been hindered. The very definition of entrepreneurship, for example, remains remarkably elusive, with some postulating that an adequate definition may be unattainable. Resolution to these issues is not likely to come from a faithful adherence to the predominant meta-theories. A paradigm shift may be required. Here I put forth interpretivism as, perhaps, a more appropriate meta-theoretical foundation for the study of entrepreneurship, pointing to their alignment along individualist lines. Interpretivist meta-theoretical frameworks hold to assumptions of nominal-ism, rationalism, and voluntarism, and generally favor more ideographic methods of research. They accept abstract concepts such as economies, organizations, social groups and structures as concepts only, and reject them as ontologically 'real' entities. While epistemologies vary within the broad classification, interpretivists typically presume that knowledge emerges from both experi-ential (exogenous) and imaginative (endogenous) sources. Interpretivist approaches highlight human intentionality as a key determinant of behavior, in addition to other internal and external causal factors, whereas entrepreneurship's dominant functionalist paradigm often ignores or rejects intentions in favor of deterministic causes alone. In short, interpretivism sees the social world

While judgment has hitherto typically been viewed as a discrete decision process, we propose that... more While judgment has hitherto typically been viewed as a discrete decision process, we propose that it be conceptualized instead as a continuous and dynamic process of reassessment and revision. Adopting this approach, we revisit the nature of entrepreneurial decision making under uncertainty. We begin with a novel typology of uncertainty that defines and delineates different types of uncertain contexts. We then examine
the nature of decision making within these distinct contexts, highlighting differences in how entrepreneurs make decisions within different types of uncertainty. We build these insights into a theory of the entrepreneurial process that highlights the transitory nature of uncertainty as entrepreneurs make certain judgments and revise those judgments over time. We discuss how uncertainty transitions throughout the judgment process, how the judgment process continues dynamically even after a judgment is made, and how the nature of uncertainty shifts over time due to endogenous and exogenous change.