Endure, escape or engage: how and when misaligned institutional logics and entrepreneurial agency contribute to the maturing of entrepreneurial ecosystems

Korber, Stefan; Swail, Janine; Krishanasamy, Rishi

doi:10.1080/08985626.2022.2045633

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…EEs are asserted to be dynamic and evolving in nature (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Cantner et al, 2021; Cavallo et al, 2019; Mack & Mayer, 2016; O’Connor & Audretsch, 2022) and the interactions between actors and resources are key processes of the system. Engagement is shaped by both the distributed structure (Autio et al, 2018) and agency native to the ecosystem itself (Korber et al, 2022), and the activity emerging from the nexus of the two. These interactions may result in formal and/or informal social networks.…”

Section: Sees and Ees: Same Different Or Both?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing a Contextualized, Community-Centric Understanding of Social Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate what distinguishes social entrepreneurial ecosystems (SEEs) from entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) through appreciation of the importance of context—the multiplex of intertwined social, spatial, temporal, historical, cultural, and political influences. Community is incorporated as a key variable and hitherto overlooked dimension of the structure and influence of SEEs. We draw on extant literature and examples of a variety of SEEs to support our propositions and demonstrate why considerations of both context and community are critical to advance understanding of SEEs. We contribute to the study of SEEs by presenting a new conceptual framework and theorizing SEE as an evolving composite of interdependent actors who interact and collaborate across multiple levels to collectively generate positive externalities and drive sustainable solutions to social problems.

show abstract

Section: Sees and Ees: Same Different Or Both?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing a Contextualized, Community-Centric Understanding of Social Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, although some descriptions of entrepreneurial ecosystems may lead to a static vision of the phenomenon, as complex systems , entrepreneurial ecosystems do change along the time. Thus, a central tenet for understanding entrepreneurial ecosystems functioning is to focus on their dynamics (Korber et al, 2022). Spigel (2017) brought up the idea of looking at entrepreneurial ecosystems as networks of relationships.…”

Section: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems As Citizen Collectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, Korber et al, (2022) have investigated how entrepreneurs can show agency and help to change their entrepreneurial ecosystem. Based on a qualitative investigation of the behavioral strategies of a maturing entrepreneurial ecosystem, their results revealed three strategies applied by entrepreneurs while dealing with specific conditions of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.…”

Section: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems As Citizen Collectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on a qualitative investigation of the behavioral strategies of a maturing entrepreneurial ecosystem, their results revealed three strategies applied by entrepreneurs while dealing with specific conditions of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Korber et al, (2022) challenged the deterministic views of a passive role by entrepreneurs in adapting to contextual forces, giving evidence that they can also be agents of the entrepreneurial ecosystem change, contributing to its sustainable growth and maturity. This is precisely one of the aims that citizen collectives try to achieve, i.e., how to change institutional forces that may be prejudicial to people's multiple interests into a more inclusive society.…”

Section: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems As Citizen Collectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reflections on entrepreneurial ecosystems, citizen collectives and basic income

Gimenez

2022

IBJESB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To propose entrepreneurial ecosystems could evolve into citizen collectives that, besides creating a favorable environment for entrepreneurial activities, would also be capable of providing a basic income for every citizen in its context. Methodology/design: The text is an essay based on extant literature about entrepreneurial ecosystems, universal basic income, and citizen collectives. Main results: I argue that entrepreneurial ecosystems may be seen as citizen collectives. As such, based on the leadership of a region’s entrepreneurial community, they can foster society’s sustainable development. I propose that basic income initiatives should be included as an expected output of a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. Theorethical/Methodological contributions: I propose that this view of entrepreneurial ecosystem is relevant for a better understanding of the dynamics of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems and their creation of value for society. Relevance/originality: This is a gap in the literature, since no previous papers have approached entrepreneurial ecosystems under this theoretical lens. Entrepreneurial ecosystems, in the form modern citizen collectives, can be an alternative to and complement government and market actions. Social/management contributions: Entrepreneurial ecosystems, as collective of entrepreneurs, would enhance the survival of enterprises and, at the same time, help build a more inclusive society. From the expected positive benefits of basic income initiative could emerge better prepared potential entrepreneurs focused on innovative entrepreneurship, and an increase in the number of traditional small-firms and self-employed people whose entrepreneurial initiatives would emerge from a safer financial situation that allows riskier behavior.

show abstract

“…Perceived value congruence holds essential benefits, such as effective relationships and the intention to stay in them (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Conversely, value incongruence denotes a mismatch between the values of different people (Jiang et al, 2022;Korber et al, 2022). When values conflict with each other-actions that promote one of them are likely to impede the attainment of the other (Schwartz, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Nirvana to Shiva in Impact Investing: Value (In)congruence in Investor–Investee Relationships

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the rapidly emerging field of impact investing, investors and investees collaborate to generate financial returns while addressing social and environmental challenges. This article conceptualizes impact investing as a value-based activity whereby value (in)congruence shapes relationships between investors and investees. Based on Schwartz’s basic values theory and the concept of value congruence, we examine 18 investor–investee dyads and identify four types of dynamic value–(in)congruent relationships: Nirvana, Yin and Yang, Soul-Searching, and Shiva. We capture these dynamic relationship types in the proposed impact-investing value (in)congruence model, showing the complexity of value (in)congruence in such relationships, as both congruence and incongruence have positive and negative outcomes. The article provides the implications for practice and directions for further research.

show abstract

Endure, escape or engage: how and when misaligned institutional logics and entrepreneurial agency contribute to the maturing of entrepreneurial ecosystems

Cited by 20 publications

References 57 publications

Advancing a Contextualized, Community-Centric Understanding of Social Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Advancing a Contextualized, Community-Centric Understanding of Social Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Reflections on entrepreneurial ecosystems, citizen collectives and basic income

From Nirvana to Shiva in Impact Investing: Value (In)congruence in Investor–Investee Relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About