Skip to main content

Table 3 Supplementary analysis on substitution effects

From: Comparing the configured causal antecedents of exploration and exploitation: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis

Configurations Outcome = Exploration Consistency Coverage
2* Stage*~Unit Interdependence* Entrepreneurial Bricolage 0.93 0.44
3* ~Stage* Environmental Uncertainty*~Unit Interdependence* Entrepreneurial Bricolage 0.90 0.42
2* + 3* ~Unit Interdependence* Entrepreneurial Bricolage*
(Stage + ~Stage* Environmental Uncertainty)
0.90 0.58
1* + 2* + 3* ~Unit Interdependence* Entrepreneurial Bricolage*
(1 + Stage + ~Stage* Environmental Uncertainty)
0.90 0.62
4* Stage* Environmental Uncertainty*Unit Interdependence* ~Entrepreneurial Bricolage 0.87 0.35
  1. Notes. The “~” marked conditions in an italic font represent conditions or antecedents that are artificially added into corresponding solutions (configurations 2, 3 and 4) and therefore form more complex configurations (configurations 2*, 3* and 4*) than those in Table 2. Because “stage” is a multi-value variable, we convert it to a fuzzy set when manually calculating the configurations’ consistency and coverage. We use the indirect calibration method proposed by Ragin (2008) and assigned 0, 0.33, 0.67, and 1 to the seed, start-up, development and maturity stage, respectively. “0” means “fully out” of the set of maturity stage; “1” means “fully in” the set of maturity stage; “0.33” signifies more “out” than “in”; “0.67” denotes more “in” than “out”
\