A fresh look at patterns and assumptions in the field of entrepreneurship: What can we learn?

Self Cite

What is a crisis? According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary (n.d.), the concept refers to "an unstable or crucial time in which a decisive change is impending, especially with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome." The COVID-19 pandemic that is sweeping across the globe certainly qualifies as a crisis, even a mega one. It has already caused vast economic and social instability, sent shock waves through national health systems and global supply chains, and upended people's lives abruptly and in unprecedented ways, causing hardship and misery. As we are writing this article, more than 1 million people have already lost their lives to the pandemic, and countless others have suffered its dire consequences. What is the interplay between entrepreneurship and crisis? Entrepreneurship can be viewed as the pursuit of opportunities irrespective of the context: startup or corporate, for-profit or non-for-profit, public or private, discovery or creation (Alvarez & Barney, 2007). It typically plays out for entrepreneurs under conditions of high uncertainty and acute resource scarcity (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Stinchcombe, 1967) and involves a high probability of failure. As we have seen above, these very same conditions are also characteristic of crises. They make entrepreneurial projects particularly vulnerable to crises, which explains in part their low survival prospects and poor financial performance (Gimeno, Folta, Cooper, & Woo, 1997). However, every crisis also carries the seeds of renewal. As Schumpeter (1934, p. 64) observed, "it is spontaneous and discontinuous change…which forever alters and displaces the equilibrium state previously existing" and gives rise to opportunities for innovative goods, novel markets, transformed methods of production, new sources of supply, and "new organization of any industry" (p. 66). These tenets undergird Schumpeter's famous Theory of Creative Destruction, which postulates that entrepreneurs are key actors in establishing a new equilibrium, creating prosperity and social wealth from the ashes of the old, destroyed equilibrium. They also suggest that crises and opportunities, from an entrepreneur's point of view, are two sides of the same coin. Building on these arguments, we can see that entrepreneurs are exposed to a theoretically as well as empirically interesting tension between extreme vulnerability to economic volatility on the one hand and a focus on (and almost obsession with) the opportunities that accompany crises on the other hand. This tension seems particularly salient during a time of crisis like the one we are currently witnessing. The good and the bad, the bright and the dark sides are inextricably linked and clearly visible under the prism of entrepreneurship. They are often experienced in rapid succession and give rise to a rollercoaster of emotions for everyone involved: entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial team members, employees, investors, and partners (Huy & Zott, 2019). In light of these considerations, the COVID-19 pandemic brings into sharp f...

Section: Where Do We Go From Here?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Where Do We Go From Here?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Where Do We Go From Here?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Entrepreneurial responses to crisis

Dushnitsky

Graebner

Zott

2020

Self Cite

“…Second, Toms et al demonstrate how historical cases may be used to develop systems-level entrepreneurship theories. Strategic entrepreneurship research is by its charter a field that engages with practice and hence with novel trends (e.g., big data, artificial intelligence), taken-for-granted structural forms (e.g., startups, venture capital), and constructs (e.g., entrepreneurial ecosystems, rapid prototyping) that constitute contemporary practice (Autio et al, 2018;Dushnitsky & Matusik, 2019;Nambisan, Siegel, & Kenney, 2018). Historical cases that illustrate variations in these practices can help researchers generalize about the theoretical categories by which to understand emerging practices.…”

Section: Historical Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historical research on entrepreneurship originated over a century ago in order to grapple with explaining the dynamic and seemingly unprecedented ways in which new technologies, new forms of organizing, new markets, new social arrangements, and new business models were transforming the world (Hebert & Link, 2006). The business practices, technologies, and seemingly intractable problems entrepreneurs encounter today seem equally unprecedented (Dushnitsky & Matusik, 2019). The study of the past has often gained more urgency during such moments of transition and acceleration.…”

Section: Looking Back To Look Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context, time, and change: Historical approaches to entrepreneurship research

Wadhwani

Kirsch

Welter

et al. 2020

136

Research Summary We articulate the value of historical methods and reasoning in strategic entrepreneurship research and theory. We begin by introducing the papers in the special issue, contextualizing each within one of five broader methodological approaches, and elaborating on the applicability of each to other topics in entrepreneurship research. Next, we use the papers to induce a framework for integrating history into entrepreneurship theory. The framework demonstrates how historical assumptions play a formative role in operationalizing time and context in entrepreneurship research. We then show how variations in these treatments of time and context shape theoretical claims about entrepreneurial opportunities, actions, and processes of change. We conclude by discussing why this may be a particularly opportune time for strategic entrepreneurship research to develop a deeper historical sensibility. Managerial Summary History can serve as an especially important guide to understanding entrepreneurship during moments of change. We draw on articles from the special issue on “Historical Approaches to Entrepreneurship Research” to illustrate different forms of historical reasoning and research about entrepreneurship. Moreover, we use the articles to develop a framework for understanding how historical context and time shape entrepreneurial opportunities, actions, and processes of change. We emphasize, in particular, the value of history in understanding variations in entrepreneurial practices.

Entrepreneurial space and the freedom for entrepreneurship: Institutional settings, policy, and action in the space industry

Lamine

Anderson

Jack

et al. 2021

Research Summary Anticipating that innovation nurtures entrepreneurship, we began an extended case study of an innovative start‐up in the space industry. We quickly saw that institutions imposed formidable barriers to implementing entrepreneurship from innovation. Curious about how, why and the extent of this situation, we widened our study to other start‐ups, CEOs of existing businesses, an incubator, a technology transfer office and key influencers in large space companies and agencies. We found that institutions and policies had, in effect, shrunk the entrepreneurial field, leaving little room for enterprise. Conceptualizing from this, we propose the institutions create an “entrepreneurial space.” Theoretically, we explain how this concept of an entrepreneurial space can be usefully applied in other contexts. Managerial Summary The space industry is extremely innovative. It is also dominated by two powerful incumbent firms and a third that is highly regulated. This research examines how entrepreneurship in the space industry is shaped by institutions, and what this implies for the freedom to be entrepreneurial. We investigate this question in the French European context. We find that while the industrial context and institutions had completely pushed entrepreneurship out of the upstream segments it flourished in the margins of this industry. The upstream segment is not at all entrepreneurial; downstream is the entrepreneurial milieu of the space industry. We recommend that policymakers (a) strengthen private‐public‐partnership arrangements; (b) implement policies to attract venture capitalists to transform and reinvigorate the upstream segment; and (c) design specific incubation mechanisms for space start‐ups.