Search results

Scholars have studied how entrepreneurs acquire resources but have not examined how resources may be bundled with constraints, which can threaten entrepreneurial autonomy. Organizational sponsors, such as incubators and accelerators, provide entrepreneurs with resources, but how do entrepreneurs sustain autonomy while seeking resources and support? We studied five entrepreneurial firms in a business incubator over a six-month period. While benefitting from incubator resources, entrepreneurs also experienced unexpected constraints, including mentor role conflict, gatekeeper control, and affiliation dissonance. By showing how entrepreneurs unbundled the incubator’s resources from constraints, we explain how entrepreneurs manage the tension between acquiring resources and preserving autonomy.

Many factors influence entrepreneurs, some of which influence the level of innovation (i.e. innovative or imitative) of new products or services pursued. The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of the psychological motivations of the entrepreneurs and their institutional setting on the innovativeness of the new venture they pursue. Through this exploration, we can gain a better understanding of how innovative new ventures still occur in varying institutional environments.

In order to deliver the authors’ propositions as they pertain to innovation, the authors review the literature on entrepreneurs’ default regulatory focus (i.e. promotion or prevention seeking) and the strength of the institutions in which they are operating.

The authors theorize that promotion focus enhances innovativeness of ventures while prevention focus enhances imitativeness of ventures. The authors also provide a conceptual framework for the interplay among institutions and regulatory focus and provide a typology for how these varying combinations impact innovativeness or imitativeness of venture type.

In this study, the authors discuss and unpack the entrepreneurial mindset in order to bridge gaps between institutions and cognitive motivations of entrepreneurs as they pertain to innovativeness of venture type. By synthesizing several areas of research, the authors shed light on entrepreneurs’ innovativeness by proposing how these factors work together in determining whether an entrepreneur’s venture is more or less innovative based on regulatory disposition and in different institutional settings.

This chapter provides a review of the language, key examples, and an analysis of social justice practices in higher education philanthropy. By describing how American higher education is supported by philanthropy, the authors articulate the need to have collective approaches that create an equitable distribution of resources. The authors utilize research centered on equity, inclusion, and diversity to encourage leaders to consider applying additional perspectives when analyzing philanthropy in higher education. This combination of multidisciplinary scholarship offers a synthesis of research to show readers how social justice advances and improves philanthropy within higher education. Social justice in the age of philanthropy concludes with key recommendations for advancement offices across campuses and organizations.

In a highly globalized, interconnected and interdependent world, universities can no longer survive in isolation. The educational, research and social actions have an impact on the community where the university works as a change agent to promote society’s fundamental values of democratic participation and social justice. Sustainability education and awareness about social responsibility (SR) are becoming crucial mainly for students, so that they are aware of concepts such as economic prosperity, resource equity, energy sustainability and environmental health concerns (Sengupta, Blessinger, & Yamin, 2019). The SR of a university is to strengthen its ties with the community through promotion of active citizenship, volunteerism and developing a sense of civic and ethical responsibility among students and staff. Universities can have a great influence on achieving social and economic progress of a country as well as protecting the environment and addressing complex issues that plague society. The role of universities is not only restricted to exchange of knowledge but also in playing a leading role as an active member of society. Universities have come out of their isolation to accommodate and be a part of social change by actively engaging in community life and not being confined to only classroom and laboratory activities (Sengupta et al., 2019). This book provides empirical evidence on how universities have considered SRs as their prime focus and have engaged with civil society to enhance their values. Case studies from Indonesia to the United Kingdom enrich the book through their experience, interventions and narrations, which can be replicated in other parts of the world to create a better society and a more sustainable planet.

Under the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), subjective norms are important antecedents of entrepreneurial intent. But little is known about the forces that shape these. Hofstede’s national culture has implicated, but the conceptual distance between it and subjective norms is wide. The purpose of this paper is to explore an intermediate level to propose a mechanism by which national cultures give rise to individual beliefs about entrepreneurship.

Uses Q methodology with data from seven countries to discover patterns of beliefs in diverse cultures. Hierarchical clustering characterises an intermediate-level mechanism.

In each country, a small number of patterns emerge, two of which are found in every country studied – despite the large cultural differences. Drawing on the institutional logics perspective, a model of individual sensemaking is developed to bridge between monolithic national culture and idiosyncratic subjective norms of individuals, and to explain the commonality of belief patterns observed. Several propositions are suggested for testing the model.

Reports cultural attitudes towards entrepreneurship at a more granular level than previous research, and thereby discovers the existence of cross-cultural patterns. Proposes a novel model that connects macro forces of national culture with individual precursors of TPB through cultural entrepreneurship.

There has been a significant rise in the number of patents originating from academic environments. However, current conceptualizations of academic patents provide a largely homogenous approach to define this entrepreneurial form of technology transfer. In this study we develop a novel categorization framework that identifies three subsets of academic patents which are conceptually distinct from each other. By applying the categorization framework on a unique database of Swedish patents we furthermore find support for its usefulness in detecting underlying differences in technology, opportunity, and commercialization characteristics among the three subsets of academic patents.

An important precondition for resource redeployment is that firms are aware of the commercial applications for which their resources can be used. We take an inventing-firm perspective and ask: how many new commercial applications will a firm associate with an existing technological invention? We note that both technological and organizational characteristics determine the number of distinct applications firms consider feasible for a given technological invention. In particular, we suggest that inherently fungible technologies, that is, technologies that have a broad impact on other technological fields (highly general technologies), will be associated with a larger set of commercial applications. We also suggest that linking applications to an inherently general technology can be challenging when the technology is already embedded in organizational (commercial) routines. Proprietary data from an online marketplace allow us to investigate the applications firms consider feasible for their technological inventions. In line with extant work, a firm assigns a greater number of applications to more general technologies. As expected, however, this relationship is shaped by how the technology is embedded within the organization. Our results have implications for redeployment as firms may face challenges in the initial step of redeployment when fungible resources need to be linked to emerging market opportunities.

We offer a theoretical account of how two types of bricolage influence the entrepreneurial process. The first type involves social relationships or physical or functional assets, and thus pertains to an entrepreneurʼs external resources used in the instantiation of operations of a new venture. The second type pertains to an entrepreneurʼs internal resources‐experiences, credentials, knowledge, and certifications‐which the entrepreneur appropriates, assembles, modifies and deploys in the presentation of a narrative about the entrepreneurial process. We argue that both types of bricolage are essential to the success of a venturing attempt.