دانلود رایگان مقاله بررسی مسیر رشد شرکت و پاسخ به رشد شرکت و توهم تصادفی

1. Introduction

We much appreciate the interest in our paper shown by Derbyshire and Garnsey. The latter authors' work, based on a deep knowledge of individual businesses over a long period of time, is an example to all wishing to understand temporal volatility of new and small enterprises. Indeed, we view the paper by Garnsey and Heffernan (2005), which demonstrated the scale, nature and diversity of temporal volatility, as a key intellectual building-block for our 2013 paper.

4. Responding to Derbyshire and Garnsey

1. What looks like randomness actually reflects the methods used – specifically the binary distinction between growth and decline. The inclusion of the more nuanced concept of stasis or stability produces very different results. All organizations change over time but perhaps nowhere is that change so radical or rapid as in the NV. We are therefore not comfortable with concept of stasis for two reasons. The first is that it uses metrics that are too “clunky” to identify the scale of change that is actually occurring. So surely the results presented by D&G for “S-S-S-S”, that 56.40% of NVs do not change over five years is counterintuitive? The second is a measurement problem. Using their methods, D&G could easily increase the number of firms in the ‘stasis’ category by grouping firms into size categories of 1–9, 10–49 and 50þ employees. Movement between the categories would then be minimal. Alternatively they could reduce the number of ‘stasis’ firms by using the number of work tasks, or hours worked as shown on employee timesheets as a metric that would show a negligible number of firms are in ‘stasis’.