Search results

This paper aims to explore how the owners of less competitive micro-firms (MFs) perceive the “crisis–innovation–change management” triangle. It examines whether their understanding of these overarching entrepreneurship theory principles is inadequate compared to the relevant scientific literature.

This qualitative analysis follows principles based on the inductive method and grounded theory, thickly describing the results from research conducted in a sample of 38 tertiary-sector MFs in the Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region – one of the least developed and competitive areas across Europe. It triangulates the data with 11 respective small firms.

MF owners perceive the crisis as an ostensibly exogenous phenomenon, innovation as something quasi-unattainable – although vaguely significant – and change management as a relatively unknown process. This understanding lies somewhat distant from the extant literature that examines the structural nature of crises, the innovational power to exit profound restructurings and the rebalancing requisite for building new overall organizational methods to survive this internal–external transformation. In essence, the triangle crisis–innovation–change management is a blind spot for the examined MF owners as they ignore its significance as an adaptation mechanism – contrary to several direct competitors.

Based on the reluctance of these individuals to cultivate their systematic business knowledge, it seems unrealistic that they would seek to pay the necessary high price for business consulting in the future. An ideal solution would be to build public entrepreneurship clinics to provide these less dynamic and adaptable organizations with free preliminary or in-depth counseling. The Institute of Local Development-Innovation could aim to provide free consulting services to reinforce organizational physiology by coordinating different socioeconomic actors.

To the best of our knowledge, this empirical research is one of the first to test the comprehension of weaker MFs – less competitive and developed in organizational terms – to the triangle crisis–innovation–change management.

Teleworking, working from home and flexible work have gained popularity over the last few years. A shift in policies and practices in the workplace is required owing to the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating current trends in work-from-everywhere (WFE) research. This article presents a systematic literature review of WFE research from 1990 to early 2023 to understand the transformation of the field.

The Web of Science database was used to conduct this review based on rigorous bibliometric and network analysis techniques. The prominence of the research studied using SPAR-4-SLR and a collection of bibliometric techniques on selected journal articles, reviews and early access articles. Performance and keyword co-occurrence analysis form the premise of cluster analysis. The content analysis of recently published papers revealed the driving and restraining forces that help define and operationalize the concept of WFE.

The major findings indicate that the five established and accelerated trends from cluster analysis are COVID-19 and the pandemic, telework(ing), remote working, work from home and well-being and productivity. Driving and restraining forces identified through content analysis include technological breakthroughs, work–life integration challenges, inequality in the distribution of jobs, gender, shifts in industry and sector preferences, upskilling and reskilling and many more have been published post-COVID in the restraining forces category of WFE.

A key contribution of this pioneering study of “work from everywhere” is the linking of the bibliometric trends of the past three decades to the influencing and restraining factors during the pandemic. This study illustrates how WFE could be perceived differently post-COVID, which is of great concern to practitioners and future researchers.

A wide range of publications on WFE and multiple synonyms can create confusion if a systematic and effective system does not classify and associate them. This study uses both bibliometric and scientometric analyses in the context of WFE using systematic literature review (SLR) methods.