(Meta-)framing strategic entrepreneurship

Abstract

In this essay, we seek to focus scholarly discourse on the conceptual identity, boundaries, and precision of strategic entrepreneurship as an organizational construct. To give a "face" to a construct, lines must be drawn, marking off what it encompasses and what it does not. We, thus, first frame and assess prior conceptualizations from a construct clarity perspective. Our intent here is not to exhaustively catalogue all the varied conceptualizations available, but rather to map the content domain of strategic entrepreneurship as a theoretical construct, illuminate points of convergence and divergence, and reveal potential blind spots and ambiguities in extant definitions. Then, we advance a meta-framework for stimulating discourse around the key construct parameters. We say "meta-framework" because we do not seek to offer a "silver bullet" but rather advance a core set of questions to view strategic entrepreneurship with greater clarity and precision. We conclude with a set of suggestions for guiding and stimulating future research.

The architecture of coopetition: Strategic intent, ambidextrous managers, and knowledge sharing

“…Knowledge resources allow reconfiguration of processes inherent to dynamic capabilities and assist to develop the future paths/directions for firms (Teece, 2007). Similarly, activities that are central to a firm's strategic intent, a dynamic capability, represent strategic behaviours of the firms (Hamel andPrahalad, 1989, Simsek et al, 2017), which generally seek resource requirements (Simsek et al, 2017) such as knowledge. This knowledge requirement is attributed to the firm's need for an accurate assessment of costs and benefits of entering into a strategic alliance.…”

The Performance of High-Growers and Regional Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Research Framework

“…The study responds to the heterogeneous nature of regional environments by offering the profiling approach rather than one ideal model of the entrepreneurial ecosystem Simsek et al, 2017;Law et al, 1998). By capturing a variety of possible solutions, we avoid the "one-size fits all" approach (Mason & Brown, 2013;Martin & Sunley, 2003;Capozza et al, 2018).…”

“…The cause might be unique characteristics of each territory Mason & Brown, 2013;Martin & Sunley, 2003), while extant methodologies tested sets of factors expected to bring similar effects in heterogeneous locations. Following the recommendation by Acs et al (2017) as well as , we adopted extant models of regional governance as canvas to identify various profiles of regional EEs (Markusen, 1996;Sturgeon, 2003;Guerrieri & Pietrobelli, 2004;Simsek, Heavey, & Fox, 2017;Law et al, 1998). The models were revisited and evaluated based on the advancements in the regional development literature.…”

Strategic entrepreneurship behaviour and the innovation ambidexterity of young technology-based firms in incubators

“…It is this general tendency and preponderance that we see as critical to determining why, as a component of strategic entrepreneurship, EO rests as a form of opportunity-seeking behaviour. As Simsek et al (2017) (Covin and Wales, 2019). We thank anonymous Reviewer 2 for encouraging this clarification.…”

“…These set essential new building blocks for further scholarly research into the antecedents of innovation ambidexterity as called for by Birkinshaw and Gupta (2013), Kassotaki et al (2019) and O'Reilly and Tushman (2013). Third, we advance the conceptualisation of strategic entrepreneurship to resolve the ambiguity that surrounds exactly what represents opportunity-and advantage-seeking behaviour as lamented by Simsek et al (2017). To entrepreneurs and managers, we offer a set of behavioural prescriptions for innovation ambidexterity in incubating technology-based firms.…”