Search results

We advance entrepreneurship research by developing a theoretical model of how founding teams form. Our neo-Carnegie model situates nascent founders in particular network-structural milieus, engaging in aspiration-driven search for and evaluation of prospective co-founders. The formation of co-founding ties between nascent founders can be divided into four theoretical steps, which we label activation, evaluation, approach, and reciprocation. Successful founding team formation is a consequence of mutually favorable evaluations by nascent founders in a multi-sided matching process. Nascent founders with higher and less flexible aspirations are more likely to undertake distant search for co-founders by seeking referrals, forming ties with strangers, and forming new ties to social foci where they might meet potential co-founders. Churn in newly formed founding teams emerges as a consequence of shifting dominant coalition dynamics in the founding team caused by organic venture evolution and intentional changes in strategic direction. Our theoretical model provides new insights on the formation pathways of founding teams, their initial task and relational resource endowments, and initial team dynamics.

How general can a “general” theory of entrepreneurship be? Abstraction is a necessity but is it possible to include venture opportunity variation in a general theory of entrepreneurship building on two contrasting perspectives such as equilibrium economics and disequilibrium economics. Two important boundaries need to be explicated. First, defining entrepreneurship as the creation of new economic activity includes both the creation of new means – ends (cf. Schumpeter, 1934) – as well as optimizing within known means – ends frameworks (cf. Kirzner, 1997). Second, such a theory includes an opportunity – actor nexus because it is the first tangible or intangible evidence of existing venture opportunities. Formal models of entrepreneurship often start with a person and at some point in time an exchange of persons with firms take place which is confusing because both levels of analysis and outcome are mixed with each other. Apparently, there is no such thing as entrepreneurship without actors, but if we want to create knowledge about the creation of economic activity, we need to frame our boundary around the nascent initiative instead of single actors and/or teams of actors because value can only be assessed in relation to the costs of services withdrawn. Analogous to this is, for example, the theory of firm and the theory of organizations with boundaries well beyond single actors or groups of actors. Another factor behind a venture-based theory of entrepreneurship comes from empirical evidence from the Swedish PSED, which suggests that approximately 16% (n=97) nascent entrepreneurs are exchanged during the start-up process. Formal models of entrepreneurship could therefore start with the nexus of venture opportunities and enterprising actors as suggested by Shane (2003) or with resources as suggested by Davidsson (2000) and progress forward in the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurship models built around the economic activity itself needs to be dynamic allowing different outcomes and feedback loops because resource combinations alter our perception of value and diffuses information, which may lead to additional resource combinations (Hayek, 1945).

High technology entrepreneurs have received increased attention over the past decade as it is now recognized that these entrepreneurs are able to build companies that generate high wage employment and high levels of wealth. While much anecdotal evidence has been offered as to who these entrepreneurs are, little is known about their early efforts to launch a high technology company. Based on the most recent data that specifically profiles nascent entrepreneurs throughout the United States, we extrapolate and discuss implications of our findings. Specifically, we identify who, where, when, and why these entrepreneurs are engaged in this important form of business launch. We conclude by suggesting how decision-makers and institutions can better facilitate and nurture the launch of high technology firms.

Whether or not nascent entrepreneurs should spend time developing a business plan is still an issue of debate for both scholars and practitioners. This chapter contributes to a better understanding on the uses and expectations of planning among business start-ups by taking a deeper and more granular approach than previous research. The chapter examines not only if planning is used but also how it is used and how this changes over time. Contrary to current thinking, the research suggests that for most firms the issue of planning may be a question of choice more than a request from institutional pressure. The insights developed in this chapter provide a foundation for future theorizing about the antecedents and effects of business planning for start-ups.

Entrepreneurs frequently tout how their ideas and innovations will become the “next big thing.” Yet, many such innovations – after the initial excitement and an upsurge in expectations – may experience a bust following the initial boom. We develop a conceptual framework to theorize how entrepreneurs may attract attention and garner support from wider stakeholders through the use of framing strategies. Yet, these framing activities will also invite more diverse participants and lead to an increasingly incoherent and imbalanced frame at the collective level, making it challenging to maintain resonance among key stakeholders, in turn hampering the healthy development of the nascent market in the long run. Looking beyond just the positive and short-term effects of cultural entrepreneurship on market emergence, we offer a more balanced view by examining the potential downsides of entrepreneurial legitimacy-building strategies.

In this chapter, we examine two theorized approaches to entrepreneurial activity: experiential versus prediction based strategies. We empirically assess the comparative performance of several commonly recommended approaches – researching customer needs, researching the competitive landscape, writing a business plan, conceptually adapting the business plan or experimentally adapting the primary business activity. We found that the majority of nascent entrepreneurs began with a business plan, but only about a third adapted their plan in later stages. We also found that talking with customers and examining the competitive landscape were normative activities. Those who started a plan were more likely to create a venture, although the effects much stronger for those who changed their plan later on, as well as for those who researched customer needs.

Our results show that the selection of these activities is both ubiquitous and driven by pre-start-up experience and new venture characteristics. The activities themselves do not robustly link with successful new venture foundation. Hence, pre-start-up experiences, venture characteristics, and the institutional environment are more important in explaining successful performance than recommended activities. Implications for research, practice, and pedagogy are discussed.

This study examined the effect that venture creation action has on the outcomes of nascent entrepreneurship. A conceptual model was developed which proposes action as a fundamental mechanism in venture creation. Thus, action should rightly be considered as a means which transmits the effects of venture resource endowments on to venture creation outcomes. This conceptual model was empirically supported in a random sample of nascent ventures. Ventures with higher levels of human or social capital were found to be more active in venture creation. In turn, more active venture attempts were more likely to achieve improved venture creation outcomes. Further, human and social capital, on their own, exhibit little direct influence on the venture outcomes achieved. These findings confirm action's central place in the venture creation process.

This chapter explores the advantages of newness and positive aspects of resource constraints, critically departing from assumptions of resource constraints and liabilities of newness. The chapter is based on a multiple case study consisting of nascent entrepreneurial processes from inexperienced entrepreneurs with severely constrained access to resources. Six theoretical concepts (legitimacy, fashion, flexibility, networks, bootstrapping, and motivation) are developed in the frame of reference. Empirical data is collected on a rich variety of sources, including longitudinal data in the form of weekly logbooks, business plans, theoretical reflections, and additional collected data during the process. Based on this data, the analysis shows that while these entrepreneurs face resource constraints and liabilities of newness, they also use strategies to leverage their constraints and novelty as an advantage in advancing their venturing efforts.

This chapter draws its findings from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data set for 2016 to 2019 to provide a comprehensive albeit concise overview of the evolution of entrepreneurship activities in Qatar.

The results indicate that Qatar experienced an increase in the entrepreneurship activities with a significant percentage of adults starting or running new businesses. Data also revealed that, despite an equal proportion of women and men involved in early-stage entrepreneurial activities, women experience a lower transformation rate into established business ownership. In addition, to the gender gap, this study revealed that transforming new businesses into established business ownership is one of the main challenge to be addressed to develop the impact of entrepreneurship in the country further. Finally, the chapter shows that Qatar has created an entrepreneurial ecosystem of very high quality as demonstrated by its third place in the National Entrepreneurship Context Index and by having secured the first place in the MENA region.

This chapter concludes by outlining a number of recommendations for policymakers to further foster the entrepreneurial activities in Qatar especially among the younger population.

Social entrepreneurs who use market mechanisms to solve wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) may benefit from practices based on design thinking. Design thinking offers approaches to work iteratively on both problem and solution spaces collaboratively with multiple diverse stakeholders, which is characteristic of innovating for social change. This research conceptualizes designing as a construct formed by three practices: making improvements, generating creative leaps, and problem-solving. Using Boland and Collopy’s (2004) conception of a sense-making manager, it proposes “how” nascent social entrepreneurs take actions and also proposes “what” specific activities they undertake for the development of the venture. A conceptual model proposing “what” it is that social entrepreneurs do and “how” they go about their activities affecting new venture development is tested using structural equation modeling. Preliminary support for the predictive capability of the model is encouraging, suggesting that practices based on design thinking may be further developed in order to advance theoretical understanding of the application of design thinking for social entrepreneurship.