Author:
Millie Yun Su- Assistant Professor (Education) in Singapore Management
University. Research topics on
innovation management, qualitative research, knowledge boundaries.
“Entrepreneurship
through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/ or discovery of
entrepreneurial opportunity” by Roy Suddaby, Garry Bruton, and Steven X. Si
(2015)
Summary of the paper: Entrepreneurship scholarship has been
straddled between two views with regards to entrepreneurial opportunities- Are
opportunities created or discovered? Suddaby
et al. argue that entrepreneurship research cannot move forward unless scholars
seek to understand the crux of the debate.
Therefore, the authors intend to resolve this persistent puzzle by
asking “Where entrepreneurial opportunities come from.” Using grounded theory
approach to analyze 9 papers in the special edition of Journal of Business
Venturing (JBV), the author identified two mechanisms underlie entrepreneurial
opportunities- reflexivity (self-awareness of entrepreneurs to constraints) and
imprinting (enduring influence of constraints and opportunities embedded in the
entrepreneurial context). The authors
conclude that the opposing views on whether opportunities are discovered or
created actually complement rather than contradict each other.
I
will first summarize the debate on the discovery view vs. the creation view of
entrepreneurial opportunities, and then discuss reflexivity and imprinting. The memo ends with a reflection on where
bricolage literature is positioned in the debate, the gap in bricolage
literature, and possible dialogue between bricolage and opportunity.
Key puzzle in entrepreneurial research –
“Are entrepreneurial opportunities created or discovered?”
Without
an opportunity, there is no entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial opportunities are defined as “circumstances or
situations where new goods, services, markets and organizations can be
introduced through the formation of new means” (Eckhardt and Shane 2003). However, where do opportunities come from? Entrepreneurship
research has struggled to reach a consensus on whether entrepreneurial
opportunities are created or discovered.
Entrepreneurial opportunities are
discovered: Scholars who view entrepreneurial
opportunities being discovered mostly study unique elements of the individual
entrepreneurs that give them the ability to see opportunities that others may
overlook. For example, entrepreneurial
actors being alert, and prone to risks are more likely to discover
opportunities. Individuals’ sensitivity
to market needs or problems also attribute to their recognition to
entrepreneurial opportunities. Essentially,
discovery theorists view ‘opportunity’ as something waiting to be discovered,
like Newton discovered gravity from a falling apple.
Entrepreneurial opportunities are
created: Rather than seeing opportunities as an object,
scholars who view opportunities as created study how entrepreneurs construct
circumstances for their advantages in a given context. Opportunities, rather than resembles an
object (apples falling from a tree), are more like The Old Man and the Sea, where fisherman Santiago using sharks,
fish, ocean, and whatever at hand to construct situations to ensure his
survival. Essentially, theorists of this view see opportunities embedded in a
social or cultural context, and successful opportunity creation as a process of
‘creative imagination’ through a collection of people involving in resource
mobilization and narrative construction.
Reflexivity and Imprinting- two
underlying mechanisms of opportunities
Despite
of the two opposing views, Suddaby et al. attempt to reconcile the debate. In
order to do so, the authors used grounded theory building approach to analyze 9
articles in the special edition, and found two mechanisms underpinning the
debate on whether opportunities are created or discovered. In short, they argue
that the two views of opportunity discovery and creation actually complement
each other.
Reflexivity: Ongoing self-awareness to
reflect on constraints and possibilities. Reflexivity refers to self-awareness of
the entrepreneurial actor to constraints. Entrepreneurial actors are reflexive
to their surroundings, which allow them to not only identify constraints but
also envision possibilities to change those constraints. For example, Advantech engineers are
reflexive (being self-aware) of the constraints that the company faces in
technology, sales and marketing, and product offerings when facing Kontron and
the local dealers. Entrepreneurs are
sensitive and aware of the surrounding and being mindful of what can or cannot
be done in the context.
Reflexivity
mechanism is aligned with the creation theorists’ view that entrepreneurs
reflect their surroundings and work with existing institutional arrangements to
change a constraining situation. For
example, the Colonel from the English Cricket Club used different tactics
(i.e., narratives, bricolage the product boundaries, propaganda) to convince
the Cricket Commission the need of a championship to save the sport (Wright and
Zammuto 2013).
Imprinting- the ebb and flow of influence
calling for entrepreneurial actions. Another
mechanism of opportunity is imprinting, which refers to the sustaining
influences of constraints and opportunities embedded in a social context. There are influences in the context that
allow an opportunity or constraint to enact itself. For example, with the Advantech case,
imprinting takes place when local venders had their own considerations that
make them reluctant to partner with Advantech, or the state-owned-enterprises
had their hesitation to adopt quasi-military standard products. Another form of imprinting is that Advantech
engineers understood the cultural expectation from the SOE clients, who
expected prompt and cost efficient customer service. Imprinting has to do with influences
(such as cultural expectation, social ties, or taken-for-granted norms)
allowing or hindering opportunities to manifest themselves.
The
discovery theorists would agree with the imprinting mechanism, that it is the
environment prompting individuals to “discover” opportunity. For example, the Colonel from the English
Cricket Club already saw the declining popularity of English cricket and called
for a new business model to revamp the sport (Wright and Zammuto 2013). Or Edison already saw the inefficient utility
in gas system, which called for his intention to promote electric light bulbs.
Through
reflexivity and imprinting, opportunities are both discovered and created. For an opportunity to successfully take
place, environment offers signals calling for actions, while entrepreneurs
reflect on the limitation and possibilities embedded in the social context and
formulate actions to respond to the environment.
Where is bricolage positioned in terms of
imprinting and reflexivity?
Bricolage and reflexivity:
Baker and
Nelson (2005) established a set of patterns of bricolage, such as making-do with
resources, re-purposing resources, and recombining resources. Bricolage
emphasizes the notion that entrepreneurs refuse to accept limits but work with
the resources at hand and the conditions they face to overcome constraints.
Looking
at bricolage through the lens of reflexivity (self-awareness) and imprinting (persistent
contextual influence), we can infer that opportunities described in bricolage follow
the reflexivity mechanism. Put simply,
bricolage view would agree that opportunities are created from an
entrepreneur’s self-awareness to the constraints and possibilities in the
context. In Baker and Nelson’s words, “the
bricoleurs in our study did not view opportunities as objective and external to
the resources and activities of the firm….Our results are more consistent with
the claim that many or most entrepreneurial opportunities are more enacted as
they are discovered” (2005: p. 358- 359). Baker and Nelson would also acknowledge the
importance of alertness to opportunities; however, they see that alertness
comes from the entrepreneur’s deep understanding of the resources, not because
of their personality traits.
In
the following, I will discuss further how opportunities in bricolage follow the
reflexivity mechanism, and then derive possible theoretical gaps where the two
streams of literature can speak to each other.
While
environment is malleable, how does bricolage change dynamics in the
environment?
Bricolage and malleable environment:
A major premise of bricolage is that bricoleurs
work with the environment to overcome constraints. As Baker and Nelson argue that opportunities
are constructed, they also see that opportunities are constructed as the
bricoleurs work with the resources at hand.
This argument essentially suggests that the environment is malleable and
permeable. To Baker and Nelson, the
resource environment is open; anyone can access it, develop it and change
it. For example, Compton can transform
unwanted trailers into hotels. Greyson
farmer transformed a discarded mine into a tomato and fish farm. In a sense,
bricoleurs are embedded in the environment, as they are also a part of the
environment themselves.
Bricolage for changing power relations or
dynamics among firms?
Even though bricolage suggests environment
as malleable and that actors can overcome constraints within the environment, this
view has not adequately considered contextualized factors, such as power
relation or dynamics among firms in a competitive environment. This is mainly
because bricolage view mainly treats environment as a part of bricolage process
and thus overlooks to account for specific factors that enable or discourage
bricolage. If bricolage could be a
process to overcome constraints, can firms use bricolage to change power
relations, if so how?
No time is a
good time, but when is the right time for bricolage?
Bricolage and time: In bricolage, timing is not a distinctive factor and
surprise events are ordinary, because it is a constant state that the bricoleur
works with the environment to develop solutions. The notion of time is not idiosyncratic. For example, technical engineers and machinery
engineers didn’t think that it was a big deal that they did not have formal
training in wind-turbine technology.
They saw building wind turbine technology similar to problems they have
encountered in agricultural industry (Garud and Kanoe 2003). Bricoleurs treat setback and challenges as
ordinary. In a similar vein, Grayson discovered
toxic methane and used diesel generator to burn it for heat generation, which
was sold to utility company. He also
used the heat for growing tomatoes and tilapia.
Again, Baker and Nelson didn’t capture the unordinary incidents of
discoveries. However, as the imprinting
mechanism would argue, the series of events were in fact path-dependent. Had Greyson didn’t find the toxic methane,
and had the toxic gas didn’t explode; Grayson would not have been able to grow
a fish farm. However, because bricolage view sees opportunity as constructed,
scholars have not given much account to critical incidents.
Finding the right timing for bricolage: The time dimension has been under addressed
in bricolage studies, which maybe because bricolage sees critical incidents as
mundane and ordinary. This is
essentially a dilemma in Baker and Nelson’s argument as they argued that
entrepreneurial actors rejecting limitations as a constant state. However, they also found that parallel and
selective bricolage are suitable for different conditions temporarily. The
question is when should firms engage in bricolage, what type and for how long? While future research does not need to delve
into parallel and selective bricolage per se, further theorization of critical
incidents that prompt entrepreneurial actors to recognize opportunities for
bricolage may help to develop a set of conditions or patterns to further understand
of when firms can employ bricolage.
From subjective
interpretation to collective imagination
Bricolage and interpretation: Under the bricolage view, opportunities
are constructed, yet most of the interpretative work depends on one or few
people. According the reflexivity mechanism, entrepreneurial actors construct
opportunities in their subjective and
interpretative inner world, meaning that they mostly envision solutions in
their inner world. This is evident in the
stories we saw in Baker and Nelson, where the bricoleurs went about bricolage
on their own. Hargadon and Douglas’
(2001) account on Edison’s strategy to displace gas industry was also mostly on
an individual basis.
Diffusing subjective interpretation to
collective imagination to conduct bricolage: The question is, how do subjective
interpretation of a constrained situation become recognized as a crisis calling
for action? And how does a group of people envision solutions together to enact
the opportunity? Bricolage is not a mechanism on the individual level, and it
can be engaged in groups of actors (Garud and Kanoe 2003; Bechky and Okhuysen
2001). However, how does a group of
actors collectively recognize the opportunity and be able to use whatever they
have at hand to enact the opportunity?
In the Danish wind turbine industry, different groups, such as the
technicians, engineers, producers and users, were involved; however, do they
envision solutions together or do they each go about figure out solutions in
their own ways. Therefore, this will be
another area that needs to be addressed in bricolage studies in the
future.
In
short, reflexivity and imprinting mechanisms help to identify gaps in bricolage
and can possibly carve out a dialogue between two literature streams in
bricolage and opportunity.
**************
References
Baker,
Ted, and Reed E. Nelson. "Creating something from nothing: Resource
construction through entrepreneurial bricolage." Administrative science
quarterly 50.3 (2005): 329-366.
Bechky,
Beth A., and Gerardo A. Okhuysen. "Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT
officers and film crews handle surprises." Academy of Management
Journal 54.2 (2011): 239-261.
Eckhardt,
Jonathan T., and Scott A. Shane. "Opportunities and
entrepreneurship." Journal of management 29.3 (2003): 333-349.
Garud,
Raghu, and Peter Karnøe. "Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and
embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship." Research policy
32.2 (2003): 277-300.
Suddaby,
Roy, Garry D. Bruton, and Steven X. Si. "Entrepreneurship through a
qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of
entrepreneurial opportunity." Journal of Business Venturing 30.1
(2015): 1-10.
Wright,
April L., and Raymond F. Zammuto. "Creating opportunities for
institutional entrepreneurship: The Colonel and the Cup in English County
Cricket." Journal of Business Venturing 28.1 (2013): 51-68.
沒有留言:
張貼留言