couple qualitative studies examined the processe leading to the formation of breakaway organizations.

couple qualitative studies examined the processe leading to the formation of breakaway organizations, which deduction when groups leave existing organizations to form strange organizations. In the first close attention analysis of interviews at 11 organizations in which form into groups exit occurred revealed that the proces make cleared in six stages: relative harmony, idea unravelling change, resistance, intense conflict, and exit. Five trigger events--introduction of conflicting ideas, legitimizing them, alarm, polarization of views, and justification--moved the participants by means of the group exit process. application of mind 2, conducted in three organizations in which clump exit was avoided, revealed a trigger harmonizing issue instead of a polarization end and a final dissonant harmony stage, instead of exit. Implications for the exit/voice/loyalty/neglect paradigm, the collection studies literature, and organization theory in general are discussed. [*]

A breakaway organization forms when a assign places to of organizational members, frustrated by means of their inability to implement change in their parent organization, leave it and start up a recent organization in which they are exempt to implement their ideas. Although empirical investigations of breakaway organizations are scarce, the phenomenon may actually be quite habitual (Davis, 1990; Worchel, 1998). For example, three different advertising agencies experienced assign places to exit when several executives left to form just discovered agencies (Heitzman, 1993; Tyrer, 1993; O'Leary and Warneford, 1995) The most numerous high-profile of these occurred at Saatchi & Saatchi co the fifth largest advertising agency in the world, when cofounder Maurice Saatchi and several other solution executives left the company to form the just discovered Saatchi Agency (now M&C Saatchi). Another example occurr at 3Com Corp., where the inventors of the popular Palm Pilot hand-held computer left 3Com and formed Handspring Inc. after they were unable to convince 3Com to spin opposite to the Palm Pi lot division (Avery, 1999) the same recent study that examined organizations in the two the profit and not-for-profit sectors set that about 20 percent of existing organizations were started according to groups of people who left their parent organization (Dyck 1997a). Moreover, given the increasing emphasis in succession teams in organizations, group exit may become equal more prevalent in the coming (e.g., Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Lau and Murnighan, 1998; Lembke and Wilson, 1998) and the los to these organizations uniform greater.

The importance of studying arrange exit is evident in at least three general streams of literature. First, and perhaps mostly well known, is Hirschman's (1970) original formulation of what has lay opened into the exit/voice/loyalty/neglect (EVLN) paradigm (eg Rusbult, Zembrodt and Gunn 1982; Farrell, 1983; Rusbult et al., 1988; Withey and Cooper 1989) Hirschman was particularly interested in the defection of substantial numbers of clan who were frustrated by their inability to implement what they saw as necessary organizational changes. Scholars within the EVLN paradigm have called for longitudinal research to examine whether there is an identifiable proces leading up to exit behavior (Rusbult et al., 1988; Withey and Cooper 1989)

secondary attention to the processes and stages leading up to cluster exit behavior is evident in the cluster studies literature. Both Pondy (1967) and Worchel (1998) perform the operations indicated ined stage models that posited an observable following of stages leading up to arrange exit, and both drew attention to the ne for researchers to identify trigger consequences that explain the movement of arranges through the various stages (see also Worchel, Coutant-Sassic, and Grossman, 1992) Lau and Murnighan (1998) while describing "group faultlines" that can exhibit between subgroups in organizations, identified factors that may activate and strengthen faultlines and increase the probability of a split. Similarly, Lembke and Wilson (1998) drew upon social identity theory to describe factors that affect the formation and progressive growth of groups within organizations. Social identity theory (eg Tajfel, 1982; gymnast 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1985; Ashforth and Mael, 1989) is particularly relevant for understanding form into groups exit because it focuses onward self-forming groups that do not face externally imposed deadlines.

Third, the contemplation of group exit and the formation of breakaway organizations is of interest to scholars who have called for an approach to the formation of novel organizations that counterbalances the myth of the unmarried entrepreneur (Kamm et al., 1990) In addition to representing a conceptually distinct alternative to focusing onward the lone entrepreneur, the reflection of the formation of breakaway organizations is also of practical and economic importance. Breakaway organizations have four characteristics that previous research has rest to be predictive of success: (1) they have been started by dint of a group rather than on an individual; (2) the founding assemblage members have had previous experience working together; (3) the founding assemblage comes from a parent (incubator) organization in the same industry; and (4) the ideas for the fresh organization are based on ideas perform the operations indicated ined in the founders' previous organization (Cooper and Gascon, 1992)