Entrepreneurial Place Leadership: Negotiating the Entrepreneurial Landscape: Volume 15

In a world where we recognize entrepreneurial means, ends and values in terms of geographies of meaning, this book explores the phenomenon of Entrepreneurial Place Leadership. This book identifies that a place-led perspective of entrepreneurial development is becoming increasingly important, given narratives around entrepreneurial ecosystems, spatial and temporal contexts, and the active design of entrepreneurial institutions. This introductory chapter outlines the rationale for the book, explores the entrepreneurial landscape and then highlights the chapter contributions. It concludes by drawing together policy and practice recommendations and suggesting directions for future research.

This chapter brings the recent sociology of entrepreneurship, sociologies and geographies of responsibility, and critical reflections on place and space together to ask why entrepreneurs show leadership in a place, and where they might want to lead it. Drawing on a set of qualitative interviews conducted from 2018 to 2020 with small business operators in rural Nova Scotia, Canada, the chapter explores how interviewees frame their business ideas, decisions, practices and aspirations not (just) in terms of conventional business objectives like profit or market share, but in terms of something I term responsibility to place. Responsibility to place emerges through the interviews as a feeling that one’s business should make a positive impact on place – inclusive of its people, environment, culture, history, and future. This feeling exists in tension with the objectives of Nova Scotia’s entrepreneurial ecosystem managers, as is seen in the discrepancies between interviewees’ narratives and the discourses propagated by the province’s economic development agencies, focused as they are on export-led growth. The findings from this sample indicate that understanding the “geographies of responsibility” (Massey, 2004) in entrepreneurs’ narratives is critical to a fuller appreciation of entrepreneurial Place leadership.

This interpretive ethnographic research explores the relationship between leadership and masculinities in an entrepreneurial team context. The team is situated in a higher education (HE) environment in the northeast of England, where its members develop startups while studying for a degree in entrepreneurial business management. The chapter contributes to entrepreneurship and leadership literature with a conceptual basis for understanding the links between gender and leadership in an entrepreneurial team in a way that transcends binaries, by focusing on masculinities as plural and nuanced, and on leadership as shared and mutual. The 13 young male entrepreneurs’ performances of gender and leadership are captured through nine audio-recorded observations. The thematic analysis of the data using a Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) framework reveals that young male entrepreneurs lead and relate to each other in assertive, supportive, and participative ways with assertive leadership behaviors linked to hegemonic masculinities and the latter two ways to inclusive masculinities. Those gender and leadership constructions are embodied, nuanced, plural, and shared in the situated entrepreneurial community. We recommend that new educational programs, developing leadership and/or entrepreneurship, need to be sensitive to local contexts, and should take account of plurality and nuances of doing gender and leadership in particular localities.

This chapter seeks to provide an overview of the role that culture plays in the effective governance and sustainability of an entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE). In particular, the authors draw upon their own experience at “Marina de Empresas” (MdE), an EE located in Valencia (Spain). MdE is an emerging and exciting EE that provides a unique context. Within the same complex, an entrepreneurial university, an incubator and accelerator (Lanzadera), and an entrepreneurial financing company (Angels) are all co-located. Thus, in one locality, the complete cycle of entrepreneurship is covered. Through an embedded case study methodology and using semi-structured interviews carried out with multiple key stakeholder’s insights are generated into the distinctive culture that the ecosystem holds. In so doing, the impact of entrepreneurial values, entrepreneurial spaces, and entrepreneurial practices, are considered in relation to how they can influence ecosystem functioning. The aim is to provide comprehension toward the transcending value that culture emits across an entrepreneurial community. The findings are relevant to entrepreneurs, incubators, accelerators, and the policy makers.

Drawing on current development practice and literature on Entrepreneurial support organizations (ESO), such as accelerators, incubators, and labs, this chapter explores how refugees in Uganda are supported through entrepreneurial approaches. Following an exploratory method, interviews were conducted with proprietors and managers of ESO in Kampala, the capital city of Uganda. The findings show that while the majority of these organizations purport to follow an innovation discourse, in reality, they support refugees through a mixture of inclusion, resilience, and innovation-led approaches. Inclusion-led approaches focus on basic language skills, establishing peer relationships, and access to survival essentials. Resilience-led approaches nurture livelihood skills, building community ties, and access to seed-corn grants. Innovation-led approaches develop entrepreneurial skills, establishing extra-local connectivity and access to micro-finance. This chapter highlights the critical importance of inclusion and resilience-led approaches in developing supportive ESO for refugees.

This chapter discusses the evolution of business accelerators in Egypt, as a developing country, and how they may be seen as a totally different means for promoting entrepreneurship and not just an extension of the business incubator model. Through exploring the perspectives of six entrepreneurs who were sponsored by the first business accelerator in Egypt and exploring the institutional perspectives of the CEO of the business accelerator and the chairman of a non-governmental organization that supports entrepreneurship, the author will demonstrate the advantages of the business accelerator as an entrepreneurial place. Furthermore, the author will be able to suggest recommendations for policy makers and business accelerators to further develop the model of the business accelerator.

Policy entrepreneurs often experience thorny dilemmas, finding themselves between the “rock and a hard place” or, as the Italian equivalent idiom would have it, between the “hammer and the anvil.” Crisis and the associated problems that arise often bring changes in politics and policy in its wake, and this begs the question of what are the resources and assets required to operate successfully as a place-based public policy entrepreneur. The role of policy entrepreneurs has been studied over many years with one of the most influential theories being the multiple streams approach (MSA) originally devised in the 1980s which sought to counter perceptions of the random or “garbage can” nature of policymaking and implementation. MSA describes a more rational process where policy entrepreneurs shape “windows” of opportunity where streams of problem, policy, and politics are brought together to create innovative responses to situations in society. The authors explore these ideas through the lens of a longitudinal case study of Labor Market policy interventions (including the role of a personal budget system for education and training called “Dote”) in the Lombardy Region, Italy, using MSA as an analytical framework. This case suggests that the pressing need to move away from short-term structural responses to complex social issues is potentially addressed by an emerging approach for the parallel deployment of sociotechnical platform infrastructure resources and superstructure. Adoption of the approaches outlined here afford streaming opportunities on which policy entrepreneurs can dynamically bring the multiple streams of problem–policy–politics together across political cycles in a more persistent and sustainable way.

In the UK regions that are structurally more vulnerable are less able to respond to economic shocks (McCann, 2017). An economic downturn for a poorer region like the North East of England (Jenkins, Pike, & Tomaney, 2019) will mean it enters recession earlier and emerges from recession later than significantly wealthier regions like London and South East region in England or Amsterdam City region in the Netherlands. We ask, what can be done to improve the impact of policy interventions that support and develop weaker regional economies? Behind this chapter sit two elements of research study: a question, which asks, what if you develop a “great” policy, that is well researched and designed; however, it fails because the people who deliver it don’t have the right culture, values, or knowledge? The second element is that the authors are interested in a range of factors that affect not only policy implementation including entrepreneurship but also economic culture and social capital, looking at the problem from different disciplinary viewpoints (Baker & Welter, 2018). This chapter makes a comparative study between the North East of England and the Amsterdam City region to explore how policy implementation might be improved as other factors of place cannot be easily altered, these factors include major infrastructure, political systems, and budgetary control as well as overall economic wealth. What this means is that practical research and studies have to find factors that can be improved in order to achieve change and a greater economic impact on Places in this context, the North East of England.

This chapter addresses two identified weaknesses in entrepreneurial ecosystem studies: there is a lack of focus on the relationships between the components of entrepreneurial ecosystems and little understanding of the underlying processes that determine how entrepreneurial ecosystems change over time. Both entrepreneurial ecosystems and solutions ecosystems from social entrepreneurship studies are place-based complex adaptive systems that are emergent in nature. While neither of these ecosystem types can be controlled, they can be influenced and guided to follow a direction by designing conditions for emergence and transitions. In this chapter, the proposition that an online tool, that is used to strengthen solution ecosystems and support their emergence and transition, could also be used to strengthen entrepreneurial ecosystems and guide their emergence and transition is examined. Two cases are used to investigate this proposition: a food security solution ecosystem case study that demonstrates how the online tool is used for solution ecosystems, and an impact economy entrepreneurial ecosystem case study that highlights how the online tool could be used for an entrepreneurial ecosystem. It is demonstrated in this chapter that the online tool can be used to address the current weaknesses of entrepreneurial ecosystem studies. In addition, it is suggested that by combining solution ecosystems with an impact economy entrepreneurial ecosystem, the online tool can be used to support the creation of conditions for social entrepreneurial places to emerge that are capable of addressing the most pressing problems that places face including the sustainable development goals.