Success and Failure of Blockchain Technology Providers: Founders' Power, Beyond-Blockchain Exploration and Centralized Decision-Making

19Citations
Citations of this article
80Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Despite a growing focus on blockchain adoption within operations and supply chains, these initiatives exhibit an exceedingly high failure rate, with many failing to achieve sustainable success. Why are enterprise blockchain adoptions highly susceptible to failure? In our inductive case study of five technology providers offering blockchain services for operations and supply chains, we examine how founders' power (i.e., expert, prestige, and ownership) shapes management behaviors that build blockchain perceptions and influence stakeholders toward strategic adoption. Our findings reveal that high-performing cases actively seek inspiration beyond the blockchain ecosystem for service designs and adopt a centralized decision-making approach where key strategic decisions are made internally. In contrast, low-performing cases struggle due to within-blockchain exploration and decentralized decision-making, leading to slower implementation and limited scalability. Furthermore, we find that founders' behaviors in blockchain adoption are embraced by firm members through performance evaluation and interactions, shaping organizational practices and culture, ultimately determining the success or failure of blockchain technology providers. This study extends previous research at the intersection of founders' power and blockchain literature by developing propositions about how different sources of founders' power lead to distinct management behaviors, influencing the success or failure of blockchain adoption outcomes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhan, Y., Yeung, A. C. L., Tan, K. H., Xiong, Y., Xing, X., & Ye, F. (2025). Success and Failure of Blockchain Technology Providers: Founders’ Power, Beyond-Blockchain Exploration and Centralized Decision-Making. Journal of Operations Management, 71(7), 893–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1364

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free