Different expectations: A comparative history of structure, experience, and strategic alliances in the U.S. and U.K. poultry sectors, 1920–1990

• Published date: 01 March 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1334
• Author: Andrew C. Godley,Shane Hamilton
• Date: 01 March 2020

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Different expectations: A comparative history of

structure, experience, and strategic alliances in

the U.S. and U.K. poultry sectors, 1920–1990

Andrew C. Godley

1

| Shane Hamilton

2

1

Henley Business School, University of

Reading, Reading, UK

2

The York Management School, University of

York, York, UK

Correspondence

Shane Hamilton, The York Management

School, University of York, 229 LMB, Freboys

Lane, Heslington, York YO10 5GD, UK.

Email: shane.hamilton@york.ac.uk

Abstract

Research Summary:This comparative historical analysis

demonstrates how memory and reflexive interpretations of

the past can shape entrepreneurial willingness to collabo-

rate with larger firms in an industry. Emphasizing the impor-

tance of spatial metaphors and periodization for developing

historical knowledge, the paper focuses on how the histori-

cal space of experience explains how entrepreneurs make

strategic choices regarding collaboration under conditions

of complexity and uncertainty. Comparing the U.S. and

U.K. emerging poultry sectors offers a methodologically

novel analysis of an important but little-studied agribusiness

sector, offering a dual reading that compares two versions

of historical reasoning both theoretically and empirically.

Managerial Summary:Historical experience matters to

entrepreneurs, shaping their expectations about markets

and opportunities, including possibilities for strategic alli-

ances with larger firms. Rather than assuming that the

events of the past structurally determine entrepreneurial

expectations for the future, we demonstrate how experi-

ence, interpretation, and memory shape the nature of com-

petition and collaboration in emerging industries. Our

approach relies on the comparative method, suggesting a

new way to consider how uses of the past might shape

entrepreneurship in industries other than the U.S. and

U.K. poultry industries that serve as our empirical focus.

Received: 12 July 2016 Revised: 16 April 2019 Accepted: 1 July 2019 Published on: 12 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/sej.1334

© 2019 Strategic Management Society

Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2020;14:89–104. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sej 89

KEYWORDS

agribusiness, comparative history, entrepreneurial partnering,

periodization, poultry farming, strategic alliances, temporal

structuring

1|INTRODUCTION

History matters to entrepreneurs. Historical experience shapes their expectations about markets and opportunities

(Popp & Holt, 2013; Wadhwani & Jones, 2014; Welter & Gartner, 2016a). In moving from expectation to exploita-

tion, entrepreneurs are typically constrained by significant resource gaps (Teng, 2007), and access to essential com-

plementary resources often comes through strategic alliances. Yet, scholars know little about whether or how

history influences the propensity of entrepreneurs to develop or reject such partnerships.

Our research question is to explore whether and how historical experience impacts entrepreneurs' pursuit of

strategic alliances. A lack of consensus among entrepreneurship scholars on how to explain the success or failure of

strategic alliances suggests the need for more contextual analyses, including historical approaches. Yet recent

research in strategic management has exposed the need for careful consideration of how history serves as both a

structuring and a sensemaking element of strategy (Foster, Coraiola, Suddaby, Kroezen, & Chandler, 2017; Hatch &

Schultz, 2017; Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010). For entrepreneurs, as with

other organizational actors, the past is not an inert given but an experience, the interpretation of which shapes the

present and sets expectations for the future (Wadhwani, Mordhorst, Suddaby, & Popp, 2018). How entrepreneurs

perceive historical time thus becomes crucial for understanding the impact of the past on expectations for the pre-

sent and future, including those regarding alliances.

We propose twoconstructs—structureand space of experience—andargue that differences in theirtemporal dimen-

sions canprovide divergentexplanations for entrepreneurialbehavior. In doing so,we build upon Koselleck's(2004: 235)

proposition that “time, as it isknown, can only be expressed in spatial metaphors.”What makes strategic sense in one

spatial metaphor may not make sense in the other. As we demonstrate below, the structural historical approach most

often deployed in strategy and entrepreneurship studies does not always explain why entrepreneurs make the choices

they do. Uniting Koselleck's spatial metaphors for time with existing research in strategic uses of history, we call for

increased attention to the ways in which entrepreneurs constitutively experience historical time (Kirsch, Moeen, &

Wadhwani,2014; Lippmann & Aldrich, 2016a;Suddaby & Foster, 2017;Vaara & Lamberg,2016; Wadhwani, 2016a).

We articulate our argument by drawing on tools familiar to historians but uncommon in entrepreneurship stud-

ies: comparative history and periodization. We explain how attention to entrepreneurs' spaces of experience solves

a puzzle, presented in a comparative case study, which is not fully answerable by a structural understanding of

change over time. The case study explores the emergence and rapid growth of the modern poultry sector in the

U.S. and the U.K. from 1920 to 1990, highlighting the similarities in technology and market structures in both

national settings, but revealing a crucial difference in entrepreneurs' approaches to alliance formation. Different

expectations, conditioned not by structures of the past but by interpreted experiences of the past, led to divergent

approaches to alliances for the two groups of entrepreneurs.

2|STRATEGIC ALLIANCES AND ENTREPRENEURIAL COLLABORATION

Alliances present partners with opportunities to benefit from complementary assets. The potential benefits are par-

ticularly acute in those settings with the greatest uncertainty—for instance, where entrepreneurial judgment is most

90 GODLEY AND HAMILTON