Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship: Investigating Issues and Debates with New Lenses 3031279743, 9783031279744

Citation preview

Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship

Investigating Issues and Debates with New Lenses Diego Matricano

Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship

Diego Matricano

Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship Investigating Issues and Debates with New Lenses

Diego Matricano Department of Management Università degli Studi della Campania “L. Vanvitelli” Capua (CE), Italy

ISBN 978-3-031-27974-4    ISBN 978-3-031-27975-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Daria, Simone, Matteo, and Alba To the new beginnings in life

Preface

When we investigate the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, may we add something new to our previous knowledge? For sure, scholars know that entrepreneurship takes place and becomes empirically evident in various contexts and in different shapes: the recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities, the creation of new firms, the development of corporate entrepreneurship, and the promotion of internal venturing activity. While these detections of entrepreneurship phenomenon may vary because of several aspects, it is the process—the entrepreneurial process—that keeps them unified and allows investigating them under a unique umbrella. Invariably the process unleashes its effects when entrepreneurship is in place. Vast previous research on entrepreneurship has underlined the relevance of the process that fuels the release of the entrepreneurial phenomenon. However, previous research has given a picture of the entrepreneurial process that—somehow—tends to fray or break down. This is manifest in the biased capability of previous approaches to identify the basic aspects of the process that takes place when the entrepreneurship effort becomes evident. The book authored by Diego Matricano aims to detect and sequence five basic aspects of entrepreneurship processes (the origin of the process, its purpose, the entrepreneurial decision-making, entrepreneurial vii

viii Preface

networks, and ecosystems) and remarks the limits that emerge when scholars deal with the impetus of entrepreneurship, the purpose to achieve, and how decisions are made, which is the contribution of entrepreneurial networks and ecosystems. Indeed, the book authored by Diego Matricano goes far beyond the detection of the basic aspects of entrepreneurship processes—this detection is actually provided in the very beginning of his work. Actually, for each of these aspects, the book provides new lenses in the aim to shed new light. These new lenses go beyond a multidisciplinary approach, in which knowledge from different disciplines stays within their boundaries, and are based on an interdisciplinary approach. In fact, the book analyzes, synthesizes, and harmonizes the links between these disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole. Where do these new lenses derive from? These new lenses are borrowed from other disciplines or fields of knowledge, such as mythology, philosophy, mathematics, chemistry, and biology. In particular, mythology is evoked to shed light on the origin of entrepreneurship. The birth of Zeus’s children is investigated and a matrix linking the role of individuals (thinking of and developing entrepreneurial ideas) and the level of maturity of ideas is generated. Philosophy, and in particular rationalism, is proposed not only to detect the reasons affecting the choice to pursue an entrepreneurial purpose but also to reinterpret and frame the relationship between entrepreneurial purposes in a new and more pragmatic way. Boolean algebra is recalled to figure out—if possible—a mental scheme or approach that entrepreneurs may leverage to interpret an event or a phenomenon and make their decisions along the entrepreneurial process. Chemistry is called to mind in order to hypothesize which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties between involved subjects. Eventually, biology is carefully analyzed to speculate on how entrepreneurial ecosystems should work. The reference to new and unexplored disciplines has the potential to exert positive effects both for new entrepreneurs and for entrepreneurship scholars.

 Preface 

ix

First, this book can encourage new entrepreneurs to face in a different way the hurdles of the entrepreneurial process they are willing to undertake. Principles of the selected disciplines may induce to carry a different and unconventional attitude toward entrepreneurship—empirical experience has shown that success in entrepreneurship is frequently associated with outliers and not to average entrepreneurial behaviors and actions. Second, building on the proposed interdisciplinary approach, entrepreneurship scholars are offered the possibility to include frameworks and variables deriving from the disciplines used in this book in their research efforts and this inclusion may enrich the quality of our knowledge on entrepreneurship processes. The interdisciplinary approach proposed by Diego Matricano may really help to reinterpret and overcome some critical issues and, hopefully, to reduce the unexplained variance of empirical studies on entrepreneurship processes. University of Campania “L. Vanvitelli,” Italy

Mario Sorrentino

Acknowledgments

This volume was possible thanks to the contribution and support of many people whom I would like to thank. The first and most significant thanks goes to Prof. Mario Sorrentino. I would also like to thank all the colleagues in the Department of Management at Università degli Studi della Campania “L.  Vanvitelli.” The daily comparison with them is for me a reason for scientific growth and human enrichment. In particular, I would like to thank Laura Castaldi for her scientific and personal support. An individual thanks goes to Prof. Piero Formica. He is a stable point of reference to me. I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Lou Marino and William E. Gartner III, from Culverhouse College of Business at the University of Alabama, for their time, their advice, and their continuous stimuli. They give me the opportunity to explore always-new aspects related to the theme of entrepreneurship. I would like to thank all the members of the Entrepreneurship S.I.G.— Strategic Interest Group at EURAM conference. In particular, I would like to thank Prof. Luca Gnan—the chair of S.I.G. Ent—for his support and his friendship. A special thanks goes to Dr. Pasquale Pagano for his availability and his “forced” interest in the study of entrepreneurship. xi

xii Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my friends Alfonso, Antonio, Gaetana, Maria, Raffaella, and Rita e Rosaria for joining the chat “uniti si vince” for their spontaneous support in the most difficult moments. A special thanks goes to Andrea, Azzurra, Gisella, Imma and Renato, Pamela, and Francesco who endure my recurring absences and, despite this, we are still friends. A final thanks goes to all my family who have always and unconditionally supported me. In particular, I would like to thank Daria, Simone, Matteo, and Alba (my nephews) who taught me that there are always new beginnings in life.

Contents

1 I ntroduction  1 2 Entrepreneurship  Processes: Some Critical Issues and the Need for New Lenses  7 2.1 Approaching Entrepreneurship Studies   8 2.2 Selecting the Approach to Investigate Entrepreneurship Processes 10 2.3 The Main Issues Concerning Entrepreneurship Processes  13 2.4 Looking for New Lenses  17 References 18 3 The  Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 25 3.1 Drawing the Boundaries of Research  26 3.2 The State-of-the-Art of the Origin of Entrepreneurship  28 3.2.1 The Origin of Entrepreneurship According to the Principles of Economics and Management  28 3.2.2 The Origin of Entrepreneurship According to the Principles of Entrepreneurship  32 3.3 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation into the Origin of Entrepreneurship  37 xiii

xiv Contents

3.4 Leveraging the Lens of Mythology to Investigate the Origin of Entrepreneurship  40 3.4.1 The Birth of Zeus’s Children  40 3.4.2 Framing the Birth of Zeus’s Children  43 3.4.3 The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Greek Mythology  44 3.5 Concluding Remarks  48 References 49 4 Entrepreneurial  Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 59 4.1 Entrepreneurial Purposes: Drawing the Borders  60 4.2 Exploring New Areas of Research  62 4.2.1 The Creation of New Businesses  64 4.2.2 The Perceiving of Entrepreneurial Opportunities  67 4.3 Defining Preliminary, Optional, and Leading Purposes  71 4.4 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation of Entrepreneurial Purposes  76 4.5 Leveraging the Lens of Philosophy to Investigate Entrepreneurial Purposes  79 4.5.1 The Principles of Rationalism  79 4.5.2 Entrepreneurship Purposes Through the Lens of Rationalism 83 4.6 Concluding Remarks  85 References 86 5 Entrepreneurial  Decision-Making Through the Lens of Mathematics 95 5.1 The Area of Research  96 5.2 The Identification of Entrepreneurial Opportunities  99 5.2.1 The Neoclassical View 100 5.2.2 The Austrian View 102 5.2.3 The Contemporary View 104 5.2.4 Reflections 106 5.3 The Selection Phase 107

 Contents 

xv

5.3.1 External and Internal Variables Affecting the Selection Phase 109 5.3.2 Reflections 112 5.4 The Exploitation Phase 113 5.4.1 Opportunity Costs, Transaction Costs, and Benefits114 5.4.2 Reflections 117 5.5 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation of Entrepreneurial Decision-Making 118 5.6 Leveraging the Lens of Mathematics to Investigate Entrepreneurial Decision-Making 121 5.6.1 Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens of Boolean Algebra 124 5.7 Concluding Remarks 125 References126 6 Entrepreneurial  Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry135 6.1 Approaching the Study of Networks 136 6.2 Focusing Attention on Entrepreneurial Networks 138 6.2.1 Defining the Boundaries of Research About Entrepreneurial Networks 139 6.2.2 The Subjects Involved in Entrepreneurial Networks142 6.2.3 The Ties Created and Managed Within Entrepreneurial Networks 146 6.3 Reflections on Entrepreneurial Networks 149 6.4 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation of Entrepreneurial Networks 150 6.5 Leveraging the Lens of Chemistry to Investigate Entrepreneurial Networks 152 6.5.1 Entrepreneurial Networks Through Chemical Reactions153 6.6 Concluding Remarks 155 References156

xvi Contents

7 Entrepreneurial  Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology165 7.1 Differentiating Entrepreneurial Ecosystems from Entrepreneurial Networks 166 7.2 Defining Entrepreneurial Ecosystems 169 7.3 A Review of Theoretical Frameworks and Backgrounds Useful for Studying Entrepreneurial Ecosystems 172 7.4 Investigating the Functional Aspects of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems175 7.5 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems 178 7.6 Leveraging the Lens of Biology to Study Entrepreneurial Ecosystems180 7.6.1 Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through Biological Flows and Movements 182 7.7 Concluding Remarks 184 References186 8 Final  Remarks and Conclusions195 References204 I ndex205

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 The structure of the volume. Source: Author’s personal elaboration6 Fig. 8.1 The results of the volume. Source: Author’s personal elaboration201

xvii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 A synthesis of the approaches that may be used to study entrepreneurship12 Table 2.2 A review of contributions focused on entrepreneurship processes14 Table 2.3 The main issues concerning a standard entrepreneurship process16 Table 2.4 The fields of knowledge where scholars may seek new lenses 17 Table 3.1 Individual characteristics of inborn versus nurtured entrepreneurs37 Table 3.2 An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate the origin of entrepreneurship 39 Table 3.3 A possible classification of Zeus’s children based on their conception and their state at birth 44 Table 3.4 A more specific classification of Zeus’s children based on their conception and their state at birth 44 Table 3.5 A complete classification of Zeus’s children based on their conception and their state at birth 45 Table 3.6 A transposition of the above classification to the field of entrepreneurship46 Table 4.1 Results about the creation of new businesses 66 Table 4.2 Results about the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities 70

xix

xx 

List of Tables

Table 4.3 The perception of entrepreneurial opportunities and the creation of new businesses in the light of the input-output model73 Table 4.4 The perception of entrepreneurial opportunities and the creation of new businesses in the light of the rate of entrepreneurship74 Table 4.5 An overall assessment of entrepreneurial purposes 74 Table 4.6 A comprehensive view of entrepreneurial purposes 77 Table 4.7 An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate the purpose of entrepreneurship 78 Table 5.1 The main characteristics of the neoclassical view 101 Table 5.2 The main characteristics of the Austrian view 104 Table 5.3 The main characteristics of the contemporary view 106 Table 5.4 Possible outcomes of the selection phase 108 Table 5.5 An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate decision-­making in entrepreneurship 121 Table 6.1 The main theoretical aspects of entrepreneurial networks 141 Table 6.2 The main aspects concerning the subjects involved within entrepreneurial networks 145 Table 6.3 A synthesis of the possible ties created and managed within entrepreneurial networks 148 Table 6.4 An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate entrepreneurial networks 152 Table 7.1 Some elements characterizing entrepreneurial ecosystems 170 Table 7.2 A synthesis of theoretical backgrounds and frameworks referable to entrepreneurial ecosystems 175 Table 7.3 An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate entrepreneurial ecosystems 180 Table 7.4 Transposing the concept of ecosystems from biology to entrepreneurship184

1 Introduction

This volume was thought with the aim of entering, joining, and contributing to the international scientific debate on entrepreneurship. The choice is due to the pathway that entrepreneurial studies have been addressing, especially in recent years. Economic and financial crises, wars and consequent geopolitical changes, as well as pandemics have caused the failure of many big companies, thus reaffirming the relevance of entrepreneurship. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, several entrepreneurial opportunities have been brought to light. This has reaffirmed the idea that entrepreneurship may generate a positive economic and social impact. Consequently, worldwide scholars have restarted to investigate the causes and the effects of entrepreneurship, but with greater involvement and attention. Immediately, the complexity of the new setting (economic and financial crises, wars and geopolitical changes, as well as pandemics) has remarked the limits of one-dimensional approaches, focused on a single research area. Scholars have been feeling the need to adopt new, different approaches able to investigate entrepreneurship in a more comprehensive way and disclose the phenomenon as it is.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Matricano, Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1_1

1

2 

D. Matricano

As a result multidisciplinarity (drawing on knowledge from different disciplines that stay within their boundaries) and interdisciplinarity (analyzing, synthesizing, and harmonizing links between two disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole) approaches are mandatory to investigate entrepreneurship in a proper way. In this volume, an interdisciplinary approach is adopted, that is the reference to other sciences, disciplines, or fields of knowledge in order to draw inspiration from theories, principles, approaches, schemes, or concepts that may be useful to support and enrich entrepreneurship research. Of course, useful insights are not selected ex ante, that is, in a deterministic way, since they are expected to synthesize and harmonize with entrepreneurship. For this reason, they strictly depend on the state-of-­ the-art of entrepreneurship studies, on the criticalities and limits that emerge within those studies, as well as on the usefulness that may potentially derive by looking at entrepreneurship issues through new lenses. This is the process of theory building adopted herein. In order to adopt an interdisciplinary approach and investigate entrepreneurship through new lenses, it is appropriate to start with a review of the main contributions focused on entrepreneurship (Chap. 2), according to which entrepreneurship is clearly intended as a process starting when individuals (nascent or experienced entrepreneurs acting alone, in teams, or in networks) identify entrepreneurial opportunities and act on them. Then they move in order to select the opportunity that can best fit with market needs and they collect resources (both tangible and intangible ones) to exploit the selected opportunity on the market. When entrepreneurs carry out entrepreneurship processes, several critical issues may arise, five of which seem to be highly relevant and require in-depth investigations. They are as follows: 1 . the origin of entrepreneurship, 2. the purpose to achieve, 3. the way decisions are made, 4. entrepreneurial networks, and 5. entrepreneurial ecosystems.

1 Introduction 

3

The attention in Chap. 3 is focused on the origin of entrepreneurship or, more specifically, on the origin or the locus (internal to the individual or external, referable to the context) from which the impetus, the force to start entrepreneurship processes, derives. In the past, entrepreneurship scholars used to propose different approaches to investigate this topic (demand for entrepreneurship vs. supply of entrepreneurship; pull vs. push factors; the role of nature or nurture in entrepreneurship) and—in point of fact—some advances in entrepreneurship studies have been achieved. Indeed, by leveraging the approaches above, entrepreneurship scholars have ended up with addressing their attention toward factors affecting the internal or external locus of entrepreneurship, rather than the locus itself. For this reason, studies about this topic are far from offering satisfying results, and new avenues of research need to be opened up. Although several alternatives (concerning cosmology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology) are evaluated, they do not seem to fit perfectly with the investigated topic. By recalling some assumptions rooted in the field of mythology—and, in particular, to the genesis of Greek gods—the origin of entrepreneurship may be interpreted and read with new lenses. Mutual references and feasible overlaps between mythology and entrepreneurship reveal intriguing insights and allow scholars to overcome the existing limits and proceed with studies about the origin of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial purposes are considered in Chap. 4. The most common entrepreneurial purposes (the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities, the creation of new business, and the bringing of innovation to the market) are recalled and revised, but this is done just to explore the probable reasons why entrepreneurs put their interest and efforts toward one purpose rather than another, as well as to hypothesize the implications due to the emerging reasons. Actually, by exclusively referring to the field of entrepreneurship, the above questions are unanswered and this does not help to advance entrepreneurial studies. The disciplines of design thinking, philosophy, psychology, and sociology are recalled and evaluated. In particular,

4 

D. Matricano

rationalism—in the field of philosophy—may be transposed to the field of entrepreneurship and this may help to detect the reasons affecting the choice to pursue a specific entrepreneurial purpose. Contemporarily, this allows reinterpreting and framing the relationship among entrepreneurial purposes in a new and more pragmatic way. Unmistakably, after clarifying the purposes that entrepreneurs aim to achieve, it is crucial to investigate the process of decision-making addressed by entrepreneurs (Chap. 5). Particular attention is paid to the identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, which currently do not offer largely agreed responses. Thus, new and different lenses are needed. Among several fields of knowledge that might be useful, cognitive psychology; theories about psychological, economic, personal, and social needs; Bayesian analysis; and Boolean algebra are evaluated. The latter may be of support since entrepreneurs seem to proceed by classifying options as 1 or 0, yes or no. Of course, the key point in this chapter is not to determine how selection procedures work (each entrepreneur is expected to adopt their procedure), but to figure out—if possible—a mental scheme or approach that entrepreneurs may leverage to interpret an event or a phenomenon and make decisions along the entrepreneurial process. After investigating the origin of entrepreneurship, the purpose to achieve, and the way decisions are made, attention can be moved toward entrepreneurial networks and ecosystems. Networks (Chap. 6) have assumed a prominent role in the field of entrepreneurship since they provide both tangible and intangible resources to entrepreneurs and can positively affect performance. Previous studies have deeply investigated several issues about networks. From a theoretical point of view, scholars have investigated and defined the theoretical background, the level of analysis, the possible configurations, and the scope of entrepreneurial networks. From a practical point of view, instead, they have examined the subjects involved and the ties created and handled within entrepreneurial

1 Introduction 

5

networks. Without questioning the relevance of the above contributions and the results achieved, it is of crucial importance to investigate what lies behind the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks or, to put it simply, which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties among involved subjects. Possible explanations may be sought in different fields of knowledge, such as mathematics and neuroscience, but they may be found in the field of chemistry. Studies on the speed of reaction among chemical reactants and on the enthalpy of reaction (the release of energy) may help to understand what might be behind the creation of entrepreneurial networks and can support entrepreneurs to make more informed choices about implementing and managing their entrepreneurial networks. Also entrepreneurial ecosystems (Chap. 7) are assuming a prominent role in the agenda of researchers and policymakers since they positively affect entrepreneurial results. Despite the growing interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems, it is not yet clear how entrepreneurial ecosystems exert their positive influence. The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has become a buzzword, an umbrella under which several topics are included and investigated that still lacks a specific and clear definition. The concept is rooted in the field of biology, but—surprisingly—very often scholars miss its essence and look at entrepreneurial ecosystems in a different way. In fact, according to the principles of biology, the co-living in a space is of crucial importance for partners to survive, especially because of the food chain and of the related energy flow, as well as the circular movement of matter that occurs within it. The way natural ecosystems work is carefully analyzed to speculate on how entrepreneurial ecosystems should work. Final remarks and conclusions are presented in Chap. 8. The structure of the volume is depicted in Fig. 1.1.

6 

D. Matricano Chapter 3



The origin of entrepreneurship through the lens of mythology

Chapter 4



Entrepreneurial purpose through the lens of philosophy

Chapter 2 Entrepreneurship processes: some critical issues and

Chapter 5



Entrepreneurial decision-making through the lens of mathematics

the need for new lenses

Chapter 6



Entrepreneurial networks through the lens of chemistry

Chapter 7



Entrepreneurial ecosystems through the lenses of biology

 Chapter 8 Final remarks and conclusions

Fig. 1.1  The structure of the volume. Source: Author’s personal elaboration

2 Entrepreneurship Processes: Some Critical Issues and the Need for New Lenses

This chapter lays the foundations for a comprehensive analysis of entrepreneurship. What we know so far is that entrepreneurship has bright and dark sides (although some concepts have become milestones, there is not always total agreement on all their aspects). To shed some light and try to advance entrepreneurship studies, the aim of this chapter is threefold. Firstly, it aims to corroborate the idea that entrepreneurship is a process made up of several and different phases. Accordingly, a processual perspective is evoked. Secondly, it intends to select an appropriate approach to investigate it. This is expected to fit with the idea of entrepreneurship as a process. The choice is among a single, multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary approach. Lastly, it strives for revealing and investigating some critical issues that emerge when entrepreneurship processes are implemented and conducted. The origin of entrepreneurship, the purpose to achieve, the way decisions are made, the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks, and the way entrepreneurial ecosystems should work are well-known and largely investigated topics, but—at the same time—they reveal some critical issues that scholars have not solved in a proper way yet. For this reason, they are questioned, revised, and rebuilt by relaying on new sciences, disciplines, or fields of knowledge that may offer new lenses and—hopefully—be useful to solve some criticalities as well as advance entrepreneurship studies. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Matricano, Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1_2

7

8 

D. Matricano

2.1 Approaching Entrepreneurship Studies It was 1911 when Schumpeter consecrated the terms “entrepreneur” and “entrepreneurship” in the field of economics.1 Since then, the two terms have been the focus of countless researches and reflections that pursue the same goal: to clarify their meanings (Acs & Audretsch, 2003; Audretsch, 2002, 2003; Audretsch, 2012; Casson, 1982; Gartner, 1990; Landström, 2020; MacMillan, 1993; Shane, 2000; Westhead & Wright, 2000; Wiklund et al., 2019). Indeed, entrepreneurship scholars have proceeded by addressing multiple research trajectories. Some have tried to enrich and complete pre-­ existing definitions, which might sound incomplete or to be improved; others have proposed new contributions that are in open contrast with previous ones, thus offering innovative research schemes and broadening the horizons of research. Expectedly, entrepreneurial studies have ended up by becoming a hodgepodge2 (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, p. 217), a mixture of theories, concepts, and definitions that can be in line with each other, overlap, or even be in contrast.3 This result seems to confuse, rather than facilitate, scholars approaching the study of entrepreneurship. Despite uncertain results, entrepreneurship scholars—as remarked by Bygrave (1989a, 1989b)—agree on the idea that entrepreneurship is an autonomous field of research and—as such—it needs its own theories.

 The history of the term entrepreneur is linked to Schumpeter (1911), who was the first scholar to propose a modern definition of entrepreneurs (Bygrave, 1989a, 1989b). According to Schumpeter (1911), in fact, entrepreneurs destroy the economic status of equilibrium already existing in the market by introducing new products, new production methods, new ways of organizing, and new materials. 2  Shane and Venkataraman (2000, p.  217) write: “[E]ntrepreneurship has become a broad label under which a hodgepodge of research is housed.” 3  In this vein, it is relevant to cite several reviews that have been proposed. The main ones have been authored by: Gartner (1990); Shane (2000); Westhead and Wright (2000); Acs and Audretsch (2003); Audretsch (2002, 2003); Casson (1982); Phan (2004); Simpeh (2011); Henry and Foss (2015), Doern et al. (2019); Bacq et al. (2022); Vedula et al. (2022). 1

2  Entrepreneurship Processes: Some Critical Issues… 

9

Some of the best-known attempts4 to construct an entrepreneurship theory (Gartner, 1985; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Rumelt, 1987; Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985) start from the idea that entrepreneurship, just like other sciences, needs its own research schemes and paradigms. This, in fact, would allow researchers to advance their studies and accomplish shareable results (Bygrave, 1989a, 1989b, 1993). In truth, it is not easy at all to define research schemes or paradigms and propose new theories about entrepreneurship.5 Several sciences, disciplines, or fields of knowledge6—such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, organizational behavior, and strategic management (Herron et al., 1991, 1992)—affect entrepreneurship. If, on the one hand, these fields of knowledge enrich and complete entrepreneurship, then, on the other, they set hurdles to the development of an entrepreneurship theory (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001). Such disciplines, in fact, may influence entrepreneurship theories but they cannot lend their own

 Although it is generally believed that the contribution authored by Low and MacMillan (1988) is the first to be interested in the topic of entrepreneurial theories, some previous contributions can be traced back in entrepreneurship literature. Gartner (1985) authored a contribution titled “A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation,” Stevenson and Gumpert (1985) proposed a contribution titled “The Heart of Entrepreneurship,” and Rumelt (1987) published the contribution “Theory Strategy and Entrepreneurship.” From the reading of these seminal works about entrepreneurship theories, it comes out that scholars’ interest is not formalized yet in a proper way. Gartner (1985, p.704), for example, argues: “This paper does not purport to answer specific questions about how new ventures are started or provide specific developmental models for new venture creation. No claim is made that the framework or the list of variables is comprehensive; the claim is only that the description of new ventures needs to be more comprehensive than it is at present.” 5  Several scholars (Gartner, 2001; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Van De Ven, 1989; Whetten, 1989) have remarked the difficulties about the achievement of this goal. 6  According to Bygrave (1989a), several sciences, fields of knowledge affect entrepreneurial paradigm. Mathematics provides variables and methodologies for analyzing data; biology explains the ecological model of populations; psychology helps to understand the behavior of individuals; sociology helps to understand relationships with other subjects; pure economics is useful for understanding the resource allocation process; and, finally, management offers notions related to the strategic choices to be made. 4

10 

D. Matricano

theories. Thus, it is mandatory to find the right relationship7 among entrepreneurship and other fields of knowledge affecting entrepreneurship. At this stage, before investigating the critical issues about entrepreneurship, it is mandatory to define how entrepreneurship should be viewed and approached. The view embraced hereinafter looks at entrepreneurship as a process.

2.2 Selecting the Approach to Investigate Entrepreneurship Processes Over the decades, most entrepreneurship scholars have first explored and then embraced the view of entrepreneurship as a process (Bhave, 1994; Brixy et  al., 2012; Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2021; Dimov, 2020; Johannisson, 2011; Leyden & Link, 2015; McMullen & Dimov, 2013; Morris et al., 1994; Pryor et al., 2016; Stevenson et al., 1999; Stewart, 1992; Steyaert, 2007), although there is still no agreement on all the aspects and characteristics of these processes. Despite the agreement on the idea of entrepreneurship as a process, in fact, scholars have proposed several approaches and offered numerous definitions so that entrepreneurship processes cannot be easily framed. For example, Bygrave (1989a, 1989b) considers entrepreneurship as an ongoing process over which stability fades away and relevant changes take place. Steyaert (1997) evokes the flux metaphor to explain the concept of entrepreneurship-in-motion. Hjorth et  al. (2015) present it as a flow characterized by five aspects: time and temporality, wholeness, openness, force, and potentiality. Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and Shane  Two contributions, one authored by Okhuysen and Bonardi (2011) and another by Corley and Gioia (2011), are relevant to look for the right relationship between different fields of knowledge. In the first contribution, the concepts of proximity and compatibility, which could be useful in combining the different research perspectives, are introduced. In particular, by proximity the scholars (Okhuysen & Bonardi, 2011, p.7) mean: “the conceptual distance that exists between the phenomena that the lenses address in their original conception” and by compatibility, they mean: “the degree to which theories that are bought together rely on similar or dissimilar individual decision-making processes, organizational mechanisms, or other properties in the development of their explanations.” In the second contribution (Corley & Gioia, 2011), instead, the concepts of sensemaking and sensegiving are introduced. These processes, of sensemaking and sensegiving, do affect the possibility to refer theories existing in different fields of research to entrepreneurship. 7

2  Entrepreneurship Processes: Some Critical Issues… 

11

(2003) remark that entrepreneurship is a systematic process that does not work simply and straightforwardly. According to the above contributions, it is rather manifest that entrepreneurship processes are multifaceted phenomena, not easy to frame. Dimov (2018, 2020) clarifies this point by arguing that according to a processual perspective, entrepreneurship is about getting from A to B— that is, passing over stages to move on and get to the final goal of entrepreneurship processes. The basic question that arises is how entrepreneurs get from A to B. In an attempt to suggest a suitable way to investigate entrepreneurship processes, Steyaert (2007) recalls and lists thirteen approaches that scholars could use to frame such processes.8 Of course, not all the scholars agree on the use of specific approaches since these might be of limited utility (Matricano, 2015). According to Bygrave and Hofer (1992), for example, entrepreneurship processes involve all the functions, activities, and actions associated with the perception of opportunities and the creation of organizations to pursue them; therefore, the selection and the reference to one, single approach may be of limited value. From the above, two main results come out. First, entrepreneurship processes are a complex topic of research, whose key elements necessarily remain black boxes or opaque bundles (Dimov, 2020). Second, scholars may benefit from different approaches to investigate entrepreneurship processes (Steyaert, 2007) even if they need to be aware of the advantages and limits that may emerge when they select one approach or another. With the above findings in mind and with the aim of selecting an appropriate approach that could fit with the nature of entrepreneurship, broader approaches are needed. In particular, two options may be considered. On the one hand, a multidisciplinary approach may be adopted. Since multidisciplinarity draws on knowledge from different disciplines, but stays within their boundaries, several fields of knowledge may be recalled and used to investigate entrepreneurship processes. Even if they are not mixed with entrepreneurship principles, different fields of  According to Steyaert (2007), the approaches that could be used are as follows: (1) developmental, (2) evolutionary, (3) referred to complexity and chaos theory, (4) interpretive, (5) phenomenological, (6) narrative, (7) dramaturgical, (8) discursive, (9) social constructionist, (10) pragmatist, (11) practice-based, (12) referred to actor-network theory, or (13) radical processual. 8

12 

D. Matricano

Table 2.1 A synthesis of the approaches that may be used to study entrepreneurship According to Steyaert (2007), thirteen approaches can be used to study entrepreneurship. They are as follows: (1) developmental, (2) evolutionary, (3) referred to complexity and chaos theory, (4) interpretive, (5) phenomenological, (6) narrative, (7) dramaturgical, (8) discursive, (9) social constructionist, (10) pragmatist, (11) practice-based, (12) referred to actor-network theory, or (13) radical processual. Scholars can decide whether to adopt: ↓ ↓ ↓ a single, specific a multidisciplinary an interdisciplinary approach. approach. In this case, approach that analyzes, knowledge from synthesizes, and different disciplines or harmonizes links fields of research stays between two within their disciplines into a boundaries. coordinated and coherent whole. Source: Author’s personal elaboration

knowledge may add something new and allow proceeding with entrepreneurship studies (Coviello & Jones, 2004; Kouriloff, 2000; Matricano, 2015; Scheaf & Wood, 2022; Withane, 1996). On the other hand, an interdisciplinary9 approach may be adopted, as well. Since interdisciplinarity analyzes, synthesizes, and harmonizes links between two disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole, scholars could rely on different disciplines, try to apply them to entrepreneurship, and advance with entrepreneurship studies (Baker & Welter, 2018; Levenburg et  al., 2006; Matthews et  al., 2018; Ripsas, 1998; Zaheer et al., 2019). A synthesis of the approaches that may be used to study entrepreneurship is included in Table 2.1. In this volume, an interdisciplinary approach is implemented. The idea behind this volume is to refer to other disciplines and grasp theories, principles, approaches, schemes, or concepts that may be useful to support and enrich entrepreneurship research. Of course, such contributions  Among the scholars who have already shared the importance of interdisciplinarity for the development of entrepreneurial theories, it is worth mentioning the following: Amit et al. (1993); Aldrich and Martinez (2001); Davidsson et al. (2001); Low (2001); Okhuysen and Bonardi (2011). 9

2  Entrepreneurship Processes: Some Critical Issues… 

13

are not selected ex ante, in a deterministic way, and they are not expected to stay within their boundaries. They are expected to synthesize and harmonize with entrepreneurship principles. For this reason, they strictly depend on the state-of-the-art of entrepreneurship studies, on the criticalities and limits that emerge within entrepreneurship studies, and on the usefulness that may potentially derive by looking at entrepreneurship issues with new lenses. All these aspects will be evaluated in reference to the different topics, in the dedicated chapters.

2.3 The Main Issues Concerning Entrepreneurship Processes After defining interdisciplinarity as the approach to adopt for the current research, it is essential to review entrepreneurship literature in order to figure out a standard entrepreneurship process and detect the main issues concerning it. The task pursued hereinafter is not easy since many scholars have investigated entrepreneurship processes and many configurations are available. As remarked by scholars authoring literature reviews about entrepreneurship processes (Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2021; Moroz & Hindle, 2012; Steyaert, 2007), it is impossible to list all the contributions that deal with entrepreneurship processes. Therefore, only those that best fit with the task of this volume are included in Table 2.2. The review of entrepreneurship processes included in Table 2.2 does not aim to determine the best configuration of entrepreneurship processes. It is only useful to show how each scholar proposes a different configuration of phases as well as a different list of variables affecting them. By focusing their researches on different aspects, they define multiple configurations of what Davidsson and Gruenhagen define as “the process within the process” (Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2021, p. 1094). All these configurations of entrepreneurship processes might prevent any generalization. Actually, despite specific configurations designed by one or another scholar, all the entrepreneurship processes have some characteristics in common that cannot be ignored or denied. Entrepreneurship processes start when individuals (nascent or experienced entrepreneurs acting

14 

D. Matricano

Table 2.2  A review of contributions focused on entrepreneurship processes Scholars

Definition of entrepreneurship processes

Hornsby “Very little research exists which attempts to establish a et al. (1993) theoretical framework or model that outlines the various components, including individual and organizational characteristics that affect the corporate entrepreneurship process” (p. 29). Bhave (1994) “The model suggests the existence of a conceptual process of new venture creation in addition to the more obvious physical creation process. Further, it suggests that this conceptual process is iterative, continues even after a venture is in existence, and is not linear or chronological” (p. 238). Bygrave The model includes different sets of variables that in the (2004) scholar’s view can affect innovation, triggering event, implementation, and growth of firms. “A simple process model that begins with a penurious Baker and environment and ends with variations in the likelihood of firm Nelson growth” (p. 353). (2005) Corbett “I illustrate the importance of understanding learning as part of (2005) the process of opportunity identification and exploitation” (p. 483). The scholars consider: the entrepreneur, the firm, Jones and internationalization behavior, and the performance. Coviello (2005) Ruef (2005) The model includes different sets of variables that in the scholar’s view can affect resource mobilization, legal establishment, social organization, and growth. Scholars focus on skills and attribute that affect intention, Heinonen opportunity search and discovery, decision to exploit, and and exploitation. Poikkijoki (2006) Baron (2007) “For each phase identified, both independent variables and key dependent measures are described” (p. 21). Only sample activities and dependent measures are provided. Cunneen “The model outlines four broad stages, containing fourteen et al. (2007) major steps that map entrepreneurial behavioral process pursued during founding episodes” (p. 90). Fayolle The main purpose of this book is to present a generic model (2007) and a theoretical framework of the entrepreneurial process in order to improve our understanding of its complexity. Each phase in the model is explored, and theoretical frameworks aimed at better understanding the phases are proposed and justified. (continued)

2  Entrepreneurship Processes: Some Critical Issues… 

15

Table 2.2 (continued) Scholars

Definition of entrepreneurship processes

Haber and Reichel (2007) Baron and Henry (2011) Slotte-Kock and Coviello (2010) Gielnik et al. (2015)

No stage model. It is a “quantification sequences” paper according to Moroz and Hindle (2012). The model is consistent with many current views of entrepreneurship as a process. It includes individual, group, and societal level. “We review how the entrepreneurship literature interprets and applies the concept of process to the study of networks” (p.31).

“We develop a theoretical model with new venture progress and free choice as two important factors that help to explain why and under which conditions entrepreneurial effort affects entrepreneurial passion” (p. 1013). Leyden and “This paper models the entrepreneurial process as both creation Link (2015) and discovery composed of an iterative two-step process where entrepreneurs create social networks based on subjective expectations about the future effectiveness of those networks, and then choose the innovation to pursue and map a search process to discover how to bring the innovation to fruition” (p. 475). Held et al. “We focus on the most essential process within venture (2018) creation, namely the one of team formation. The process of team formation describes the assembly of a venture’s most crucial resource: human capital” (p. 442). Lévesque and “We describe how these two aspects of time [time perspective and time management] relate through experiences of the Stephan pace of time” (p. 166). (2020) Wood et al. “We develop an explicative and predictive model that (2021) introduces internal time-calibrated narrative construction as the mechanism by which entrepreneurs cognitively integrate these temporal dimensions into the imagination of action toward entrepreneurial endeavours” (p. 153). Source: Author’s personal elaboration

alone, in teams, or in networks) identify entrepreneurial opportunities and act on them. They move in order to select the opportunity that can best fit with market needs and they collect resources (both tangible and intangible ones) to exploit the selected opportunity on the market. When entrepreneurs carry out entrepreneurship processes, several critical issues

16 

D. Matricano

Table 2.3  The main issues concerning a standard entrepreneurship process Topics

Critical aspects

The origin of → The locus (internal to the individual or external, entrepreneurship referable to the context) from which the impetus, the force to start entrepreneurship processes, derives. Entrepreneurial → To reinterpret and frame the relationship among purposes entrepreneurial purposes. Entrepreneurial → To figure out—if possible—a mental scheme or decision-making approach that entrepreneurs may leverage to interpret an event or a phenomenon and make decisions along the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurial → What lies behind the implementation and networks management of entrepreneurial networks or, put simply, which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties among involved subjects. Entrepreneurial → How entrepreneurial ecosystems should work in ecosystems reference to the exchanges of tangible or intangible resources and innovation chain. Source: Author’s personal elaboration

may arise. Five out of all sound very relevant and require in-depth investigations.10 They are as follows: 1 . the origin of entrepreneurship, 2. the purpose to achieve, 3. the way decisions are made, 4. entrepreneurial networks, and 5. entrepreneurial ecosystems. Despite their relevance in the field of entrepreneurship, all these topics reveal some critical aspects that are still to be solved in a proper way. This volume tries to offer new perspectives to interpret them (see Table 2.3).  The reviews—from which the relevance of these issues comes out—are conducted and presented in the following chapters. In particular, the origin of entrepreneurship is reviewed in Chap. 3. The purpose that entrepreneurs aim to achieve is analyzed in Chap. 4. The way entrepreneurs make decisions is investigated in Chap. 5. Implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks are reviewed in Chap. 6. The way entrepreneurial ecosystems should work is studied in Chap. 7. 10

2  Entrepreneurship Processes: Some Critical Issues… 

17

Table 2.4  The fields of knowledge where scholars may seek new lenses Topics

New lenses

Origin of entrepreneurship

→

Entrepreneurial purpose

→

Entrepreneurial decision-making

→

Entrepreneurial networks

→

Entrepreneurial ecosystems

→

Cosmology Philosophy, psychology, and sociology Mythology Design thinking Philosophy, psychology, and sociology Cognitive psychology Psychological, economic, personal, and social needs Bayesian analysis or Boolean algebra Mathematics Neuroscience Chemistry Regional innovation systems/innovation theories Biology

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

2.4 Looking for New Lenses In order to shed new light on the five selected topics and try to reduce the criticalities and limits affecting them, new lenses are required (Okhuysen & Bonardi, 2011). They cannot be sought in the field of entrepreneurship, where these topics are well-known, largely investigated, and relevant, but may be borrowed from other fields of knowledge. As already said,11 theories, principles, approaches, schemes, or concepts of other disciplines are not selected ex ante, in a deterministic way,12 but they depend on the state-of-the-art of entrepreneurship studies, on the criticalities and limits that emerge within entrepreneurship studies, and on the usefulness that may derive by looking at entrepreneurial issues with these new lenses. For this reason, the overlaps among the disciplines need to be figured out and evaluated in a proper way before being proposed. An overview of the possible fields of knowledge that have been explored in search of new lenses is offered in Table 2.4.  See paragraph 2.2.  Overall, the process adopted to select other theories, principles, approaches, schemes, or concepts is inductive in its nature (Locke, 2007). 11 12

18 

D. Matricano

Among the several alternatives proposed above, only one per each topic has been selected. Of course, before selecting the new lenses to use, it is mandatory to find the right relationship among entrepreneurship and other fields of knowledge, as this is the only way to advance entrepreneurship studies effectively.

References Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Introduction to the handbook of entrepreneurship research. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research. International handbook series on entrepreneurship (Vol. 1). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-­387-­24519-­7_1 Aldrich, H., & Martinez, M. A. (2001). Many are Called, but Few are Chosen: An Evolutionary Perspective for the Study of Entrepreneurship, CB#3210 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210. Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. (1993). Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management Studies, 30(5), 815–834. Audretsch, D. B. (2002). Entrepreneurship: A survey of the literature. Enterprise Directorate General, European Commission. Audretsch, D.  B. (2003). Entrepreneurship policy and the strategic management of places. In D. M. Hart (Ed.), The emergence of entrepreneurship policy. Cambridge University Press. Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5), 755–764. Bacq, S., Hertel, C., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2022). Communities at the nexus of entrepreneurship and societal impact: A cross-disciplinary literature review. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(5), 106231. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. Baker, T., & Welter, F. (2018). Contextual entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary perspective. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 14(4), 357–426. Baron, R.  A. (2007). Behavioral and cognitive factors in entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurs as the active element in new venture creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 167–182. Baron, R. A., & Henry, R. A. (2011). Entrepreneurship: The genesis of organizations. In APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 1:

2  Entrepreneurship Processes: Some Critical Issues… 

19

Building and developing the organization (pp.  241–273). American Psychological Association. Bhave, M.  P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 223–242. Brixy, U., Sternberg, R., & Stüber, H. (2012). The selectiveness of the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(1), 105–131. Bygrave, W. D. (1989a). The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I): A philosophical look at its research methodologies. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7–26. Bygrave, W. D. (1989b). The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (II): Chaos and catastrophes among quantum jumps. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 7–30. Bygrave, W.  D. (1993). Theory building in the entrepreneurship paradigm. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 255–280. Bygrave, W.  D., & Hofer, C.  W. (1992). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 13–22. Bygrave, W.  D. (2004). The entrepreneurial process. In W.  D. Bygrave & A.  Zacharakis (Eds.), The portable MBA in entrepreneurship. John Wiley & Sons. Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory (second edition in 2003). Edward Elgar Publishing. Corbett, A. C. (2005). Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(4), 473–491. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. Coviello, N. E., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 485–508. Cunneen, D.  J., Mankelow, G.  J., & Gibson, B. (2007). Towards a process model of independent growth firm creation. Small Enterprise Research, 15(1), 90–105. Davidsson, P., & Gruenhagen, J. H. (2021). Fulfilling the process promise: A review and agenda for new venture creation process research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1083–1118. Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(4), 81–99.

20 

D. Matricano

Davidsson, P., Low, M. B., & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s introduction: Low and MacMillan ten years on: Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(4), 5–15. Dimov, D. (2018). Uncertainty under entrepreneurship. In A.  Fayolle, S. Ramoglou, M. Karatas-Ozkan, & K. Nicolopoulou (Eds.), Philosophical reflexivity and entrepreneurship research (pp. 184–196). Routledge. Dimov, D. (2020). Entrepreneurial process: Mapping a multiplicity of conversations. In W. B. Gartner & T. T. Bruce (Eds.), Research handbook on entrepreneurial behavior, practice and process (pp. 56–80). Edward Elgar Publishing. Doern, R., Williams, N., & Vorley, T. (2019). Special issue on entrepreneurship and crises: Business as usual? An introduction and review of the literature. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(5-6), 400–412. Fayolle, A. (2007). Entrepreneurship and new value creation: The dynamic of the entrepreneurial process. Cambridge University Press. Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696–706. Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15–28. Gartner, W. B. (2001). Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(4), 27–39. Gielnik, M.  M., Spitzmuller, M., Schmitt, A., Klemann, D.  K., & Frese, M. (2015). I put in effort, therefore I am passionate: Investigating the path from effort to passion in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1012–1031. Haber, S., & Reichel, A. (2007). The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: The contribution of human capital, planning and environment resources to small venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 119–145. Heinonen, J., & Poikkijoki, S. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: Mission impossible? Journal of Management Development, 25(1), 80–94. Held, L., Herrmann, A. M., & van Mossel, A. (2018). Team formation processes in new ventures. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 441–464. Henry, C., & Foss, L. (2015). Case sensitive? A review of the literature on the use of case method in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(3), 389–409.

2  Entrepreneurship Processes: Some Critical Issues… 

21

Herron, L., Sapienza, H. J., & Smith-Cook, D. (1991). Entrepreneurship theory from an interdisciplinary perspective: Volume I. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 7–12. Herron, L., Sapienza, H. J., & Smith-Cook, D. (1992). Entrepreneurship theory from an interdisciplinary perspective: Volume II. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(3), 5–12. Hjorth, D., Holt, R., & Steyaert, C. (2015). Entrepreneurship and process studies. International Small Business Journal, 33(6), 599–611. Hornsby, J. S., Naffziger, D. W., Kuratko, D. F., & Montagno, R. V. (1993). An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 29–37. Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics, 36(2), 135–150. Jones, M. V., & Coviello, N. E. (2005). Internationalisation: Conceptualising an entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 284–303. Kouriloff, M. (2000). Exploring perceptions of a priori barriers to entrepreneurship: A multidisciplinary approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(2), 59–80. Landström, H. (2020). The evolution of entrepreneurship as a scholarly field. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 65–243. Levenburg, N.  M., Lane, P.  M., & Schwarz, T.  V. (2006). Interdisciplinary dimensions in entrepreneurship. Journal of Education for Business, 81(5), 275–281. Lévesque, M., & Stephan, U. (2020). It’s time we talk about time in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 163–184. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Toward a theory of the entrepreneurial process. Small Business Economics, 44(3), 475–484. Locke, E.  A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6), 867–890. Low, M., & MacMillan, I. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161. Low, M. B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: Specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 17–26. MacMillan, I.  C. (1993). The emerging forum for entrepreneurship scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(5), 377–381. Matricano, D. (2015). Lo studio dell’imprenditorialità. Un approccio di indagine multidimensionale. Carocci Editore, Roma.

22 

D. Matricano

Matthews, R. S., Chalmers, D. M., & Fraser, S. S. (2018). The intersection of entrepreneurship and selling: An interdisciplinary review, framework, and future research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(6), 691–719. McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512. Moroz, P. W., & Hindle, K. (2012). Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward harmonizing multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(4), 781–818. Morris, M. H., Lewis, P. S., & Sexton, D. L. (1994). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurship: An input-output perspective. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 59(1), 21–31. Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J. P. (2011). The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 6–11. Phan, P. H. (2004). Entrepreneurship theory: Possibilities and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 617–620. Pryor, C., Webb, J. W., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2016). Toward an integration of the behavioral and cognitive influences on the entrepreneurship process. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(1), 21–42. Ripsas, S. (1998). Towards an interdisciplinary theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 10(2), 103–115. Ruef, M. (2005). Origins of organizations: The entrepreneurial process. In L. A. Keister (Ed.), Entrepreneurship (Research in the sociology of work, Vol. 15) (pp. 63–100). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Rumelt, R.  P. (1987). Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship. In D.  J. Teece (Ed.), The Competitive Challenge. Harper & Row, New York. Scheaf, D. J., & Wood, M. S. (2022). Entrepreneurial fraud: A multidisciplinary review and synthesized framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(3), 607–642. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and business cycle (1934 edition). Harvard University Press. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469. Shane, S.  A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-­ opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

2  Entrepreneurship Processes: Some Critical Issues… 

23

Simpeh, K.  N. (2011). Entrepreneurship theories and Empirical research: A Summary Review of the Literature. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(6), 1–8. Slotte-Kock, S., & Coviello, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship research on network processes: A review and ways forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(1), 31–57. Stevenson, H. H., & Gumpert, D. E. (1985). The Heart of Entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 85–94. Stevenson, H.  H., Roberts, M.  J., & Grousbeck, H.  I. (1999). New business ventures and the entrepreneur. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Stewart, A. (1992). A prospectus on the anthropology of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 71–92. Steyaert, C. (1997). A qualitative methodology for process studies of entrepreneurship: Creating local knowledge through stories. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(3), 13–33. Steyaert, C. (2007). Entrepreneuring as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6), 453–477. Van De Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486–489. Vedula, S., Doblinger, C., Pacheco, D., York, J. G., Bacq, S., Russo, M. V., & Dean, T. J. (2022). Entrepreneurship for the public good: A review, critique, and path forward for social and environmental entrepreneurship research. Academy of Management Annals, 16(1), 391–425. Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2000). Introduction. In P. Westhead & M. Wright (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship (Vol. I). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. Wiklund, J., Wright, M., & Zahra, S.  A. (2019). Conquering relevance: Entrepreneurship research's grand challenge. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3), 419–436. Withane, S. (1996). Broadening the concept of entrepreneurship: A multidisciplinary approach. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 4(03), 225–240. Wood, M. S., Bakker, R. M., & Fisher, G. (2021). Back to the future: A time-­ calibrated theory of entrepreneurial action. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 147–171. Zaheer, H., Breyer, Y., & Dumay, J. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary structured literature review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, 119735.

3 The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology

This chapter focuses on the origin of entrepreneurship or, more specifically, on the locus (internal to the individual or external, that is referable to the context) from which the impetus, the force to start entrepreneurship processes, derives. Over the years, entrepreneurship scholars have proposed several approaches to investigate this topic (demand for entrepreneurship vs. supply of entrepreneurship, pull vs. push factors, the role of nature or nurture in entrepreneurship) and consistent advances in entrepreneurship studies have been achieved. Indeed, on the basis of the approaches above, entrepreneurship scholars have ended up with addressing their attention toward factors affecting the internal or external origin of entrepreneurship, rather than the locus itself. For this reason, these studies are far from offering satisfying results and new avenues of research need to be opened up. Of course this chapter is not in the position to offer definitive results; nevertheless, it will try to shed some light on this issue by recalling some assumptions rooted in another field of knowledge—in particular in the field of mythology. May the genesis of Greek gods clarify the origin of entrepreneurship? Mutual references and feasible overlaps between mythology and entrepreneurship reveal intriguing insights and allow to overcome existing limits and to proceed with studies about the origin of entrepreneurship. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Matricano, Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1_3

25

26 

D. Matricano

3.1 Drawing the Boundaries of Research According to the processual view of entrepreneurship presented in the previous chapter,1 the first issue that requires to be analyzed carefully deals with the origin of entrepreneurship, that is the locus (internal to the individual or external, referable to the context) from which the impetus, the force to start entrepreneurship processes, derives (Brazeal & Herbert, 1999; Bygrave & Hofer, 1992; Dencker et  al., 2021; Low, 2001; Matricano, 2015; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Ucbasaran et al., 2001; Wadhwani et al., 2020). A proper definition of the concept of locus in reference to entrepreneurship is necessary, due to the existence of many similar concepts, which might confuse both scholars and practitioners. For a start, let us consider the geographical meaning of locus. Very often, in fact, entrepreneurship scholars investigate the relationship between the context (in terms of macro-areas, countries, or regions) and entrepreneurship (Audretsch et  al., 2012; Audretsch et  al., 2021; Smallbone & Welter, 2006; Welter et al., 2019). They examine the differences among contexts in terms of favorable or hostile context for entrepreneurship and the consequences that derive—especially intended in terms of new startups launched. In the present chapter, this view is not embraced and the locus of entrepreneurship is not meant geographically. Let us recall also the locus of control,2 which is a different concept, well-­ known and affirmed in the field of entrepreneurship. According to several  As already said, this processual view derives from an extensive review of contributions focused on entrepreneurship and presented in Chap. 2. 2  The concept is born in the field of social studies (Heider, 1958; ). Several scholars have referred it to the economic area (Timmons, 1978; Brockhaus, 1980; Hull et al., 1980; Begley & Boyd, 1987a, 1987b; Hamilton & Harper, 1994) by considering it as the feeling of being able to control the present and determine the future. In particular, in the field of entrepreneurship, the distinction between an internal and an external locus of control is mandatory. Individuals with an internal locus of control can act proactively and eventually succeed in modifying the context in which they operate to pursue their pre-established objectives. Therefore, it is assumed that individual behavior can affect the consequences. On the contrary, individuals who have an external locus of control are forced to suffer what happens in the surrounding environment and do not have the power or the ability to change the current setting. In this case, therefore, the consequences that derive from human action are influenced by exogenous variables, such as fate or chance. According to the above, the difference between internal or external locus of control is of great importance in the field of entrepreneurship since it affects the results of entrepreneurial actions. 1

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

27

scholars (Cromie, 2000; Koh, 1996; Mueller & Thomas, 2001; Rauch & Fresen, 2007), an internal locus of control stands for the feeling of being able to control the present and determine the future. Accordingly, the concept is more focused on the consequences and on the outputs, rather than on the premises and the inputs of entrepreneurship. The present chapter is not going to share such views, and the locus of entrepreneurship is not meant in terms of implications, but in terms of premises to entrepreneurship. Once the above concepts have been evidently excluded, it is possible to move ahead and start the investigation of the origin of entrepreneurship. For a start, it is very useful to draw the boundaries of the present research in a more accurate way.3 This chapter does not aim to detect where the impetus of entrepreneurship lies exactly. The origin of entrepreneurship is inquired to figure out where the impetus, the force to start entrepreneurship processes, may derive from. Notoriously, entrepreneurship falls in the field of social sciences (Venkataraman & Shane, 2000; Wiklund et al., 2011) to the point that the entrepreneurship journey,4 whether it leads or not to the exploitation of an entrepreneurial opportunity and/or to the creation of a startup in the end, only starts if and when individuals (nascent or experienced entrepreneurs acting alone, in teams, or in networks) willingly undertake it (McMullen & Dimov, 2013; Selden & Fletcher, 2015). Undoubtedly, individuals assume a prominent role in entrepreneurship, but, as pro-social agents (McMullen & Bergman Jr., 2017; Shepherd, 2015), entrepreneurs act in a context from which they can derive both opportunities and impediments at the same time. For this reason, investigating the locus of entrepreneurship becomes of crucial importance. Over the years, the investigation of this issue has slowly changed and step-by-step the problem about the origin of entrepreneurship has ended up by simply questioning about the role of nature or nurture in  Defining the boundaries of entrepreneurship research is not easy. For this reason, it is very useful to refer to previous contributions that focus on this: Low and MacMillan (1988), Bruyat and Julien (2001), and Davidsson et al. (2001). 4  The concept of “entrepreneurship journey” enlarges the field of research since it includes many entrepreneurial activities and looks at them as a whole (McMullen & Dimov, 2013; Selden & Fletcher, 2015). 3

28 

D. Matricano

entrepreneurship. In other words, scholars have questioned if entrepreneurs are born or made5 (Amini Sedeh, 2017; Busenitz & Barney, 1997; Delmar & Davidsson, 2000; White et  al., 2007; Widyanti & Rajiani, 2021). Actually, by reviewing the vast entrepreneurship literature focused on the origin of entrepreneurship, other approaches can be found out. Before questioning if entrepreneurs are born or made (a question that is posed according to the principles of entrepreneurship), scholars have tried to explain the origin of entrepreneurship by recalling also the principles of economics and of management. According to the principles of economics, the origin of entrepreneurship can be explained by referring to the transition from the perfect to the imperfect competitive model or, in other words, to the dynamics of market competition (Ebner, 2006; Sorrentino, 2003). According to the principles of management, instead, the origin of entrepreneurship can be enlightened by recalling pull and push factors (Dawson & Henley, 2012; Martiarena, 2020). All the above-cited approaches reveal intriguing insights about the origin of entrepreneurship. For this reason, all of them are recalled and reviewed in the following sections in order to propose achieved results and discuss them.

3.2 The State-of-the-Art of the Origin of Entrepreneurship 3.2.1 The Origin of Entrepreneurship According to the Principles of Economics and Management The first approach recalled herein to rebuild the origin of entrepreneurs is embedded in the principles of economics and dates back to the transition  The dichotomies born versus made, nature versus nurture, inborn versus nurtured, demand versus supply, and pull versus push have the same meaning and so they are used as synonyms in this volume. Briefly, they refer to two different origins of a phenomenon: spontaneous, natural, on the one hand, and artificial, developed, on the other. 5

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

29

from perfect to imperfect competitive models (Brouwer, 2002; Ebner, 2006; Mason & Harvey, 2013; Sorrentino, 2003). According to some of the most prominent scholars supporting neoclassical economics,6 such as Jevons (1871), Walras (1874), and Marshall (1920), the demand for entrepreneurship arises from the market. Theoretically, the market tends to be in a status of equilibrium. According to Schumpeter (1911), in fact, innovations (which can be easily grasped by entrepreneurs and brought to markets through the creation of new firms) cause a temporary status of disequilibrium, which is restored by the dynamics of the market itself. When the status of equilibrium is restored, other innovations are brought to markets so that the process of market adjustment starts again and again. It is the market and its dynamics that demand for entrepreneurship. Scholars interested in explaining the demand for entrepreneurship—a concept that is typical of neoclassical economics—refer to the structural view of the markets,7 which has developed along two different trajectories. Economic theorists,8 who have focused their attention on the role of entrepreneurs, have developed the first trajectory. Instead, institutional theorists,9 who have mainly focused their attention on the institutions created by the entrepreneurs, have developed the second one. By focusing particular attention on the group of economic theorists rather than on the group of institutional theorists, the relevance assumed by the setting, that is, the context in which entrepreneurs are, can be easily understood. Scholars recall the status of equilibrium or the temporary status of disequilibrium as well as the dynamics that take place onto markets,10 which confirm that resources, means, and opportunities are  The birth and the subsequent affirmation of the neoclassical economy occurred from 1870 to 1930. 7  In particular, when referring to the structural view of the markets, Hjorth and Kostera (2007, p. 121) invite to consider “the macro-functions and the structural nature of entrepreneurship as the innovative force of economies.” 8  In the group of economic theorists we can find: Schumpeter (1911) and Arrow and Debreu (1954). Some years later other scholars, such as Leibenstein (1979), Baumol (1993), and Delmar and Davidsson (2000), have shared this view. 9  In the group of institutional theorists we can find: Di Maggio and Powell (1983); Hannan and Freeman (1984); Aldrich and Wiedenmayer (1993). 10  According to Schumpeter (1911), the market is in a status of equilibrium and new firms can cause a temporary status of disequilibrium but the market tends to restore the status of equilibrium. 6

30 

D. Matricano

supposed to exist by themselves. Therefore economic choices seem to be due to already-established rules of the market. It is only the economic setting and its dynamics that give impetus to entrepreneurship. The end of neoclassical economics (Colander, 2000), and the passage from perfect to imperfect competition,11 remarks the first step toward a new view of individuals and their impetus to start entrepreneurship processes (Brazeal & Herbert, 1999; Matricano, 2015). Entrepreneurial impetus, in fact, is now due to a supply of entrepreneurship depending on personal abilities to evaluate economic matters (such as costs to be incurred, and selling prices), to foresee the evolution of markets, and to face the raising competition. After the end of neoclassical economics (Colander, 2000), individuals started being considered in a different way since their impetus to start entrepreneurship processes depends more on themselves and less on the dynamics of the market. The affirmation of management as an autonomous field of research— and, in particular, of the paradigm of strategic management (Ansoff, 1979; Chandler, 1976, 1977; Hofer & Schendel, 1978; Porter, 1980)— leads scholars to translate the passage from demand for entrepreneurship to supply of entrepreneurship in terms of pull and push factors (Amit & Muller, 1995; Dawson & Henley, 2012; Martiarena, 2020). Pull factors reveal themselves when entrepreneurs look at what is missing onto markets, thus trying to exploit opportunities offered by temporary gaps. Push factors, instead, are uncovered when entrepreneurs are not looking for existing gaps. In this case, they are able to develop new business ideas that will modify the markets they are destined for. The supply of entrepreneurship and the focus on the push factors— which underline the willingness of entrepreneurs to be involved in entrepreneurship processes—constitute the premise to what will be labeled as the “trait view” of entrepreneurship (Low & MacMillan, 1988; Thornton, 1999). This view investigates “the psychological dispositions of individual decision makers” (Hjorth & Kostera, 2007, p. 121) and summarizes  This passage is due to the rejection of neoclassical economic theory. It happened because of several theories, like the imperfect markets one belonging to Chamberlin (1933) or the neo-­ institutionalist ones developed by Coase (1937), which drove scholars to consider a new market model. 11

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

31

a specific strand of research focused on personal traits attributed to entrepreneurs.12 In this vein, it is possible to cite McClelland’s (1961) concept of need for achievement; Sutton’s (1954) notion of desire for responsibility; Winter’s (1973) concept of need for power; Liles’s (1974), Palmer’s (1971), and Hull et al. (1980) introducing the concept of locus of control; as well as DeCarlo and Lyons (1979) and Hull et al. (1980) focusing their attention on risk-taking. One of the best syntheses of the main push factors can be attributed to Timmons (1978), who defines the entrepreneur as self-confident, goal-oriented, with a moderate risk propensity, creative, innovator, and, in the end, with an internal locus of control. The transition—according to the principles of economics—from the perfect competitive model (based on demand for entrepreneurship) to the imperfect one (based on supply of entrepreneurship) and the corresponding contraposition—according to the principles of management— between pull and push factors does not provide any satisfying result about the origin of entrepreneurship. Even if—at the beginning—scholars have tried to identify the locus (internal or external to the individual) from which the impetus to start entrepreneurship processes derives, in the end this result seems only partly satisfying. Indeed, it is not fully satisfying since attention has been mainly addressed toward factors revealing if the locus of entrepreneurship is internal or external to the individual rather than investigating the locus itself. At the same time, the above contributions provide satisfying results since they are useful to define and shape entrepreneurial profiles (Cools & den Broeck, 2007; Hull et al., 1980; Van der Zwan et al., 2016). To try to overcome the above-cited limitation, it is congenial to inquire the origin of entrepreneurship from a different perspective, which has its roots in the field of entrepreneurship and that investigates the role of nature and nurture.

 Over the years scholars have investigated several individual traits and most of them have been assigned to entrepreneurs. Listing all the entrepreneurial traits is quite impossible. An extensive review of these traits—based on a chronological approach—can be found in the contribution authored by Matricano (2015). Overall, it is possible to declare that many of the characteristics depend on gender (Matricano & Sorrentino, 2018; Matricano, 2022), age (Matricano, 2018), and ethnicity (Matricano & Sorrentino, 2014). 12

32 

D. Matricano

3.2.2 The Origin of Entrepreneurship According to the Principles of Entrepreneurship Before investigating the origin of entrepreneurship according to the principles of entrepreneurship13 and in the light of the nature versus nurture debate, it is necessary to introduce the topic from a psychological point of view (Ceci & Williams, 1999; Farrukh et al., 2021; Hellmich, 2020; Huczynski & Buchanan, 2001). During childhood, individuals start developing their behavior, intelligence, and personality. Which factor can play a role or even affect the behavior, the intelligence, and the personality of children? Scholars interested in this topic distinguish between natural traits and external factors (McCrae et al., 2000; Stiles, 2011). The former category comprehends all the biological and physiological qualities or traits14 of individuals. Genes encoded in the DNA determine these inborn factors that—by definition—make the difference among individuals. The latter category, instead, refers to external factors. They range from emotional to physical advantages that can derive from processes of socialization: all the experiences made and the relationships created in a setting affect and shape individuals’ behavior. This is the so-called behavioral science.15 Historically, natural traits and external factors have always been clearly separated even if there have been some attempts to combine them. As pointed out by Massey (2002), the main attempt to combine natural traits and external factors has been put into practice by hypothesizing a possible cause-and-effect relationship between them. The rationale at the basis of this hypothesis is that natural traits can determine human behavior (synthesizing the external factors) in a given setting and, vice versa, that human behavior can be due to inborn traits.16  Several scholars—such as Carland et al. (1984), Goldberg (1992), Goldberg et al. (1998), and Envick and Langford (2000)—have remarked the differences between entrepreneurs and managers in terms of education, experiences, and expectations. 14  In this category it is possible to include several biological and physiological qualities or traits such as willingness, ability, caution, honesty, insight, goal-orientation, strength, intelligence, determination, sensitiveness, flexibility, and so on. 15  According to this theory, human behavior can be influenced and changed as it happens for animals. For a more exhaustive approach to behavioral science, see Skinner (1965, 1976). 16  Put simply, it is hypothesized that a gene in the DNA may increase the likelihood that individuals will behave in a certain way. Actually, this could be true or not at the same time. 13

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

33

Actually, the above hypotheses do not consider additional variables (such as contingencies, incongruities, and necessities) that necessarily influence human behavior. The combination of the effects generated by all these additional variables has so far been unexploited (White et al., 2007); therefore, the hypothesis of a possible cause-and-effect relationship between natural traits and external factors does not sound robust. In line with the above result, Massey (2002) suggests considering a convergence process between natural traits and external factors: instead of combining or affecting each other, they influence decisions and actions simultaneously. By keeping natural traits and external factors as autonomous and standing alone, the debate about the role of nature and nurture has developed and the comparison among factors has been analyzed from several perspectives, such as philosophy,17 psychology,18 sociology,19 and entrepreneurship.  The philosophical perspective is based on the contrast between Plato’s myth of the cave (where the allegory of the cave is just a means of explaining that all the capabilities that the individuals have, are present at birth and the relevance of the external environment consists in helping the individual to remember things that already exist in the human mind) and Aristotle’s proposal about considering human mind as a blank slate (human mind is without content—there is no prior knowledge or mental schemas—and can be enriched through experience, embraces the idea that nurture factors influence human behavior). The philosophical interest about innate or trained factors influencing human behavior has increased during the 1700s because of the theories proposed by Leibniz and Locke who, respectively, refer to the already-cited authors, Plato and Aristotle, and try to develop their theories. Leibnitz (1646–1716) supports the theory that ideas (generating knowledge and driving behavior) are innate. Actually, according to the author, innate ideas are small perceptions which are confuse and not so clear. Even if the author recognizes that external reality is helpful in defining these ideas, by making them clear and comprehensible, they cannot derive from experience. It is so because empirical knowledge is not perfect. Leibnitz theory reminds Descartes’s thinking (1596–1650). On the contrary Locke (1632–1704), who is one of the main English empiricists, is against the relevance given to human mind. According to Hobbes (1588–1679), Locke supports the theory that human mind is limited because it has only simple ideas. To develop more complex ideas human mind needs experience. Only when human mind gets experience it is possible to start reasoning. In conclusion, the knowledge process starts because of experience. See Abbagnano and Fornero (1996). 18  In the field of psychological studies both the categories of factors are contemplated and evaluated. Some psychologists support the idea that individuals are born with peculiar qualities and traits that are due to genes; other psychologists maintain that human personal traits are due to environmental, cultural, and social factors. It is the environment that determines how individuals think and behave. See Huczynski and Buchanan (2001). 19  In the field of sociological studies, instead, the analysis starts from the values shared in a determined context (where socialization takes place) in order to analyze both the influence of the community on an individual and, as a consequence, her/his position within the community itself. 17

34 

D. Matricano

Specifically, in reference to entrepreneurial studies, the debate about the role of nature and nurture has become very relevant in the 1970s when two scholars supported two different approaches to explain the origin of entrepreneurship: Kirzner (1973) promoted the role of nature in entrepreneurship, while Vesper (1980) and Vesper and Gumpert (1979) backed the role of nurture. Kirzner’s view (1973) starts from the assumption that entrepreneurs are individuals in a continuous state of alertness in order to identify and exploit new opportunities in markets. Alertness is an innate quality that only entrepreneurs own. Instead, Vesper’s (1980) and Vesper and Gumpert’s view (1979) is based on opposite assumptions. They underline the scarce or useless relevance of systematic research for new entrepreneurial ideas; they consider education, work experience, and hobbies as the main sources of ideas. As a consequence, they suggest that entrepreneurs can acquire expertise in different ways, for example, by someone else’s actions. Both Kirzner’s (1973) and Vesper and Gumpert’s (1979) views have supported and nourished the debate about the role of nature and nurture in entrepreneurship, and have led other scholars to inquire about the origin of entrepreneurship. The debate, in fact, has developed during the 1980s, thanks to the contributions authored by Casson (1982)20 and Gartner (1988, 1989). In particular, Casson (1982) argues, “all the entrepreneurial qualities are to some extent innate [but] not all of them are entirely innate” (2003, p. 30). An example of almost entirely innate qualities is imagination; a not entirely innate quality is foresight, which can be developed or improved by training or experience. By admitting that entrepreneurs have both innate and developed qualities, it is clear that Casson (1982) approaches the debate in a very cautious way. The scholar, in fact, does not define which factors are at the basis of the entrepreneurial impetus. He admits that entrepreneurship is based on natural traits but, at the same time, he cannot neglect the impact exerted by external factors (nurtured). Gartner (1988, 1989) embraces the view proposed by Casson about the impossibility to define one single origin of entrepreneurship. The  The scholar has proposed his theory again in 2003.

20

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

35

scholar, in fact, cannot determine whether people learn to act in an entrepreneurial way or they are able to act entrepreneurially in an unconscious way. The only difference between the two approaches is that Gartner (1988, 1989) admits that entrepreneurs learn to undertake some entrepreneurial actions. Even if not explicitly, the scholar emphasizes the contribution of nurtured factors rather than natural ones. In line with the previous contributions, Giunta (1993) has explicitly assumed that entrepreneurship cannot be due only to natural traits. Individuals may have inborn entrepreneurial capabilities, but these need to be improved through experience. Later on, studies about the role of nature and nurture have proceeded in a pragmatic way. Some scholars21 have tried to empirically test the relevance of natural traits and external factors as well as the combination between them. White et al. (2007) did not get to any statistically significant results. Despite this, they maintain: “[T]he absence of evidence does not prove the absence of a relationship” (2007, p. 453). In contrast with the study conducted by White et al. (2007), other scholars22 (Colarelli, 2003; Delmar & Davidsson, 2000; Lawrence & Nohria, 2002; Nicholson, 2000; Nicholson & White, 2006) recall the approach proposed by Massey (2002) and talk about a probable convergence—rather than a combination—of natural traits and external factors. Up to now, statistically robust results that may take to a general agreement on the role of nature and nurture in entrepreneurship have not been achieved yet; thus the debate is still ongoing. However, all the above researches (Decker, 2004; Nicolaou et al., 2008; Niemann et al., 2022; White et al., 2007; Wyld, 2011) have contributed to draw two different profiles: inborn or nurtured entrepreneurs.

 About inborn factors, empirical studies (Busenitz & Barney, 1997) have given uncertain results. About external, nurturing factors, a very important result deals with the influence of a family business environment on the launching of start-ups (Matthews & Moser, 1996; Bloodgood et al., 1995; Krueger, 1993). 22  In particular, among the cited studies, it is interesting to recall the one authored by Delmar and Davidsson (2000) who have tested five factors affecting the genesis of entrepreneurship. These factors are parental occupation, gender, ethnicity/race, education and work experience, and psychological profile. Achieved results are not satisfying in terms of combination between inborn and external factors. 21

36 

D. Matricano

Inborn entrepreneurs hold innate qualities that drive them to act (Niemann et al., 2022; Wyld, 2011). They are aware of their knowledge, which determines a high propensity to risk. When acting, they are prone to an attempt-oriented approach. They feel able to change the setting in which they operate since they use a forward-looking perspective. The confidence in their personal abilities enables them to overcome difficulties. On the other hand, nurtured entrepreneurs develop their entrepreneurial qualities through personal experiences that can encourage, inspire, and help them to become entrepreneurs (Nicolaou et al., 2008; Niemann et al., 2022). They lay stress on the careful management of relationships with other individuals involved in their network, since they recognize the advantages of developing a personal network. Nurtured entrepreneurs are aware that they do not have all the knowledge they need and try to reduce risks by leveraging on the others’ experiences. Thus, creating a personal network becomes of great importance. Nurtured entrepreneurs have a more prudent approach when facing problems since they know that rapid changes may cause opportunities and difficulties as well. To clarify and compare the different approaches between natural-born and nurtured entrepreneurs, twenty-six entrepreneurial characteristics (going from A to Z) have been analyzed (see Table 3.1). As it is possible to see from Table 3.1, each of the 26 items is representative of both inborn and nurtured style. By reading the second and third columns, the items are representative of two different entrepreneurs, who think and act in a different, maybe opposite, way. Also in reference to the debate about the role of nature and nurture in entrepreneurship, as in reference to the demand for entrepreneurship versus the supply of entrepreneurship, and to pull and push factors, scholars have prioritized the locus (internal to the individual or external, referable to the context) from which the impetus to start entrepreneurship processes derives, but the final result is only partially satisfying. Again, they have mainly addressed their attention toward factors revealing if the locus of entrepreneurship is internal or external to the individual rather than on the locus itself. According to the above results, the origin of entrepreneurship needs to be inquired from a new, different perspective rooted in a totally different field of knowledge.

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

37

Table 3.1  Individual characteristics of inborn versus nurtured entrepreneurs A to Z characteristics

Nature

Nurture

Awareness Behavior Confidence Determination Evaluation Feasibility Giftedness Helpfulness Impediments Judgment Knowledge Learning Mind-set Network Opportunity Personality Questions Research Success Traits Uncertainty View (point of) Willingness Xenial You Zest

Of their knowledge Attempt-oriented Of their abilities Risk-taking Forward-looking To change the setting Autonomous Of personal capabilities Are a challenge Is a personal task Is innate Is unconscious Is due to heritage Is not so relevant Can be discovered Is determined Are useless Is systematic Is a natural condition Are given Can be faced Internal To change situations Refuse the others Singular To unknown unknowns

Of their experience Safely acting Of the others’ ability Risk-reducing Present-looking To evaluate the setting Dependent on the others Of external possibilities Need to be evaluated Others can give advices Can be improved Is wished Can be changed Is a strength Must be created Can be changed Are useful to understand Is serendipitous Can be obtained Are shaped Must be managed External To analyze situations Meet the others Plural To known unknowns

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

3.3 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation into the Origin of Entrepreneurship The extensive reviews of the studies concerning the locus of entrepreneurship have not provided fully satisfying results. Even if scholars have tried to explain the origin of entrepreneurship by recalling the principles of economics, management (and strategic management, in particular), and entrepreneurship, the results have not changed significantly. Scholars mainly pay attention to factors revealing if the origin of entrepreneurship

38 

D. Matricano

is internal or external to the individual rather than on the origin itself. In fact, scholars interested in this issue are not able to detect the locus from which the impetus, the force to start entrepreneurship processes, derives. To overcome this limit, new lenses are necessary. Different concepts, approaches, themes, and theories—embedded in other fields of knowledge—need to be evoked (Acs, 2010; Herron et  al., 1992a, 1992b; Matricano, 2015; Ripsas, 1998). Similarities need to be sought and evaluated in order to realize if other disciplines or fields of knowledge can be useful to the aim. For a start, attention could be addressed toward the field of research investigating the origin of everything. Unconsciously, attention could be directed toward the origin of the universe (Kragh, 1999; Turner, 2009; Weisskopf, 1983, 1989). May studies related to cosmology be useful to review and reinterpret the origin of entrepreneurship and disclose something new about this topic? Despite the unquestionable relevance of cosmology and its concepts, approaches, themes, and theories,23 the gap between cosmology and entrepreneurship results very difficult to fill in. Studies about the origin of the universe, in fact, do not consider the role of individuals. This makes the comparison or the reference between these fields of research unreasonable. Therefore, another field of research, which considers the role of individuals, needs to be selected. As a matter of fact, the fields of research considering the role of individuals in a proper way (such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology) have been already cited and partly included in the origin of entrepreneurship24 and so the reference—again—to these fields seems useless. At this point, after excluding the two alternatives above, it is necessary to think of another way to possibly detect the locus of entrepreneurship. Actually, the most correct way to proceed consists in: 1. considering ambiguous results emerging from the use of principles of economics, management, and entrepreneurship in reference to the impetus of entrepreneurship; and  The most known theory in the field of cosmology is the Big Bang Theory (Peterson, 1991; Morriston, 2002; Bagdonas & Kojevnikov, 2021). 24  The relevance of philosophy, psychology, and sociology has already been discusses in paragraph 3.3. 23

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

39

2. capitalizing the main results emerging from the above review, which refer to the role of the context and/or the individual. By considering ambiguous results and by focusing on the role of the context and/or the individual at the same time, some questions instinctively arise: how can the individual and the context combine? Is it possible to pinpoint the origin of entrepreneurship despite the vagueness and the uncertainty that characterize this field of research? To what extent is it possible to be accurate when pinpointing the origin of entrepreneurship? Such questions deserve vigorous answers that seem to be proper to mythology. The basic assumptions of mythology consider the individual and/or the context together with a sense of ambiguity and vagueness. Mythology,25 in fact, stands for the study and interpretation of sacred tales, fables, or stories dealing with various aspects of the human condition: good and evil; the meaning of suffering; human origins; the origin of place-names, animals, cultural values, and traditions; the meaning of life and death; the afterlife; and celestial stories of the gods (see Table 3.2). In the following lines attention will be paid to Greek mythology (Fowler, 2000, 2013; Grimal, 1996; Hansen, 2004; March, 2001). Both Homer, with his Iliad and Odyssey (composed around the eighth century B.C.), and Hesiod, with his Theogony (730–700 B.C.), provide precious and detailed information about the origin of myths. In particular, in the Table 3.2  An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate the origin of entrepreneurship New lenses

Limits/strengths

Cosmology (origin of the universe) Philosophy, psychology, and sociology Mythology

Studies about the origin of the universe do not consider at all the role of individuals. These lenses are already cited and partly included in the origin of entrepreneurship and so the reference— again—to these fields seems useless. Considers the individual and/or the context and—above all—a sense of ambiguity and vagueness that characterizes entrepreneurship studies as well.

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

25

 An interesting definition is provided at https://www.worldhistory.org/mythology/

40 

D. Matricano

lines of Theogony, Hesiod talks about the genesis of Greek gods by combining different aspects that—hopefully—can be valuable to add something new about the origin of entrepreneurship.

3.4 Leveraging the Lens of Mythology to Investigate the Origin of Entrepreneurship 3.4.1 The Birth of Zeus’s Children To figure out the locus from which the impetus to start entrepreneurship processes derives, Greek mythology can be very useful since it considers the individual and/or the context and a sense of ambiguity and vagueness (Fowler, 2000, 2013; Grimal, 1996; Hansen, 2004; March, 2001). In particular, the part of Greek mythology that may fit with the premises and objectives just cited above concerns Zeus—the king, the father of the gods—and his children (Blickman, 1987; Caldwell, 1993; Carniani, 1828; Felson, 2011; Gervais & Henrich, 2010; Morford & Robert, 2007; Parada, 1993; Perelli, 1969). According to Hesiod,26 Zeus is one of Cronus27 and Rhea’s28 children. He is the king of gods and, in particular, is the god of the sky and thunder. He lives on Mount Olympus, which offers a panoramic view of the world and allows the god to see events on earth. One of Zeus’s main tasks, in fact, is to control humans, to prevent them from sinning in hubris, arrogance, and making them consider equal to the gods. Accordingly, at a large extent, Zeus is the guarantor of natural balance in the world. Despite this, divine or natural forces and instincts drive all his actions, thus making Zeus a very complex character (Blickman, 1987; Druon, 1964; Gervais & Henrich, 2010). This is especially true in reference to  Hesiod talks about Zeus and his children in the Theogony (composed around 730–700 B.C.). See Blickman (1987) and West (1966) for their comments and insights about Theogony. 27  According to Hesiod, Cronus is the leader and youngest of Titans, the divine descendants of the primordial Gaia (Mother Earth) and Uranus (Father Sky). 28  Rhea is the older sister of Cronus and is also his consort. In early traditions (the classical Greeks) she is known as the mother of the Olympian gods and goddesses. 26

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

41

his personal life. In most traditions, he is married to Hera, by whom he is said to have fathered Ares, Hebe, and Hephaestus. At the same time, Zeus is also known for his many extramarital affairs29 and for the numerous offspring born after these affairs. Given the mythological genre of these tales, the sources for this topic are not accurate and unique (Felson, 2011) and information about Zeus’s children is often ambiguous. Overall, we know that Zeus’s offspring can be classified as legitimate or extramarital, divine or mortal, born by or without him, born adult or children.30 These classifications (Felson, 2011), which may sound really unusual in reference to other fields of knowledge, assume a consistent meaning only in the field of mythology, where real life and imagination overlap, are combined, and diverge ad infinitum. Based on these premises, it is possible to recall how Zeus’s children are born. Unsurprisingly, not all Zeus’s children are going to be cited.31 Attention is going to be focused only on those whose birth exhibits some aspects of novelty and originality in reference to the relationship between individual and context, always bearing in mind that we aim to rely on mythology to add something new to the field of entrepreneurship. According to Gantz (1996a, 1996b), who recalls Hesiod’s Theogony, Athena was the first of Zeus’s children to be conceived. Specifically, Zeus impregnated Metis, an Oceanid nymph, and then swallowed her. For this reason, Athena is born from Zeus’s head: literally, she jumped out of his head. According to Hesiod, Athena was born already an adult. At birth, in fact, she wears an armor, she holds a shield in her hands, and she utters warlike cries. The birth of Athena is supposed to affect the birth of Zeus’s other children. In particular, it is supposed to affect the birth of Ares and Hephaestus. Ares is one of Zeus and Hera’s three children. He is the god of courage and war, thus symbolizing the physical valor, necessary for  Actually, according to Gantz (1996a, 1996b), Zeus has seven wives.  Up to now, the birth of some of Zeus’s children is not totally clear. Mythological sources can propose different stories about the same Zeus’s child. This does not reduce the relevance of mythological studies since this approach is well known and largely shared by classical scholars. Of course, this does not reduce the relevance of the current study since it aims to catch the mood, the humus of classical studies. See Felson (2011). 31  According to Greek mythology, Zeus has twenty-six children. 29 30

42 

D. Matricano

success in war, but he also exemplifies sheer brutality and bloodlust. Information about the birth of Ares is confused. According to Homer and Hesiod, Ares is born naturally from Zeus and Hera. According to Ovid, who relies on Greek sources and explains it in the lines of Fasti (eighth century A.D.), Hera is angered with Zeus for having begotten a daughter without the involvement of a mother (maybe there is a reference to Athena), so she conceives Ares without lying with Zeus, by simply touching a lotus flower. Hephaestus—the god of volcanoes, fire, metalworking, stone masonry, forges, the art of sculpture, and technology (among others)—is Hera’s parthenogenous child. Put simply, even if he is son of Zeus, he is self-conceived by Hera alone and thus he is the result of asexual reproduction. After his birth, Hera turns him away from Mount Olympus because of his lameness, probably due to a congenital impairment. Our investigation about Zeus’s children and their birth proceeds with the legend about Apollo and Artemis. They are twins conceived during an extramarital affair between Zeus and Leto (another goddess). When Hera discovers that Leto is pregnant, she prevents Leto from giving birth on terra firma (i.e., on the land), so Apollo and Artemis are born on a floating island, named Delos. Apollo is the god of archery, music and dance, truth and prophecy, healing and diseases, the Sun and light, poetry, and more. Artemis is the Greek goddess of the hunt, wilderness, wild animals, and the moon. Also Hermes’s birth is worth of telling. Hermes is son of Zeus and Maia (one of the Pleiades) and he is born in a cave. He is a very precocious child: in his first day of life he invents the lyre by killing a turtle (his sacred animal), and that same night he steals Apollo’s herd of cattle by hiding it in a cave and erasing the traces of the hooves. After this episode, Hermes becomes protector of thieves, as well as a messenger of the gods. The tale about the birth of Dionysus is of great interest. He is the son of Zeus and Semele (a mortal princess that becomes a goddess after death) and he is the god of the grape-harvest, winemaking, vegetation, ritual madness, festivity, and theater (among others). He spends much of his time on earth and struggles for acceptance when he returns to Greece where he is considered a foreign deity and is only reluctantly accepted into the standard Greek pantheon.

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

43

The last son of Zeus recalled in the present overview is Aphrodite. She is the goddess of love, lust, beauty, pleasure, passion, and procreation. As explained in Hesiod’s Theogony, Aphrodite is born from the white foam32 in Paphos (Cyprus island).

3.4.2 Framing the Birth of Zeus’s Children At first glance, legends and tales about the birth of Athena, Ares, Hephaestus, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes, Dionysus, and Aphrodite might sound outlandish and peculiar since many fantastic elements, conjectures, and hypotheses are used to tell about their birth. Despite this, some elements strongly characterizing and differentiating the birth of Zeus’s children can be used to frame their birth. The three main elements worth stressing are as follows: 1. their conception: some of them are conceived by Zeus after coupling with a goddess/a mortal woman, while others are not; 2. their status at birth: some of them are born children, while others are born adults; 3. the differences among Zeus’s children, their areas of interest (what they patronize as gods), and the way they behave or act. If their conception and their status at birth are considered as variables to catalog Zeus’s children, we can depict a matrix (see Table 3.3) to catch the differences among them and get a clearer overview. Table 3.3 offers a preliminary overview of the differences among Zeus’s children but—as a matter of fact—even more dissimilarities can be pointed out. In particular, it is very interesting to focus on Ares and Hephaestus. Even if Zeus did not conceive any of them, and they both are born as children, Ares is born because of a contingent event (Hera simply touches a lotus flower) while Hephaestus is born lame and is cast from Mount Olympus. By incorporating the above specifications, a new table (Table 3.4) is possible. 32

 More precisely, Aphrodite is born from Uranus’s severed genitals. See Gantz (1996a, 1996b).

44 

D. Matricano

Table 3.3  A possible classification of Zeus’s children based on their conception and their state at birth Gods NOT conceived by Zeus Gods born adult Gods born children

Aphrodite Ares and Hephaestus

Gods conceived by Zeus Athena Apollo, Artemis, Hermes, and Dionysus

Source: Author’s own elaboration Table 3.4  A more specific classification of Zeus’s children based on their conception and their state at birth

Gods born adult Gods born children

Gods NOT conceived by Zeus

Gods conceived by Zeus

Aphrodite

Athena

Ares is born because of a contingent event

Hephaestus is born Apollo, Artemis, with a malformation Hermes, and Dionysus

Source: Author’s own elaboration

The same level of detail can be said also in reference to Apollo, Artemis, Hermes, and Dionysus. Also in this case, in fact, Zeus conceived all of them and they all are born as children, but consistent dissimilarities exist among them. Prevented from being born on terra firma, Apollo and Artemis are born on a floating island; Hermes is born in a cave and burns out to be precocious in all things; Dionysus is a foreign god, therefore reluctantly accepted. A new classification (depicted in Table 3.5) is possible thanks to such data. Specifications about the conception and the status at birth of Zeus’s children are the variables used to build the matrix. The differences among Zeus’s children (the third point in the list above) can be read in the matrix.

3.4.3 The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Greek Mythology What does the birth of Zeus’s children have to do with entrepreneurship studies? Can results achieved in the field of mythology be useful to answer

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

45

Table 3.5  A complete classification of Zeus’s children based on their conception and their state at birth Gods born adult Gods born children

Gods NOT conceived by Zeus

Gods conceived by Zeus

Aphrodite

Athena

Ares is born because of a contingent event

Hephaestus is born with a malformation

Apollo and Artemis are prevented from being born on terra firma so they are born on a floating island Hermes is born in a cave and he is precocious Dionysus is a foreign god and is reluctantly accepted

Source: Author’s own elaboration

the question about the origin of entrepreneurship? If so, to what extent can they be useful? Can achieved results really be useful to overcome current limits of entrepreneurship studies and progress? To try to answer these questions, critical thinking concerning mythology and entrepreneurship at the same time is going to be applied in the following lines. Let us recall and analyze the results33 obtained so far: on the one hand, according to mythology, Zeus may have played a more or less active role in begetting his children; on the other hand, some gods are born children while others are born adult. In addition, mythology underlines differences among Zeus’s children. Probable mutual references and feasible overlaps of some value seem to be coming to light between the two disciplines. Let us focus on Zeus. He is the leading actor of Greek mythology, especially through Hesiod’s tale in his Theogony. Zeus’s temperament, his behavior, and his choices determine marital and extramarital affairs that— in turn—affect the birth of his children and his whole life. Would it be reasonable to consider Zeus as an entrepreneur? Would that make sense? Undoubtedly, some entrepreneurial characteristics34 can be attributed to  These results have been presented in par. 2.5.2.  See paragraph 3.2.1 “The origin of entrepreneurship according to the principles of economics and management,” where some entrepreneurial characteristics were cited. 33 34

46 

D. Matricano

Zeus, and his leading role in Greek mythology seems to positively affect the response but—of course—other aspects need to be considered. Zeus acts in the context—divine and/or mortal—where his actions can be intentional or not, hidden or overt, successful or not. It seems that Zeus relates to the context just like entrepreneurs do. Reasonably, Zeus’s children (Athena, Ares, Hephaestus, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes, Dionysus, and Aphrodite) can stand for new business projects based on entrepreneurial opportunities (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Sarason et al., 2006; Shane, 2003; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). Zeus, and his more or less active role in conceiving his children, can be perceived as an entrepreneur, who exploits an entrepreneurial opportunity, which can be already thought and developed or not. Adult or children at birth, his offspring can stand for the level of maturity that entrepreneurial opportunities can achieve in reference to the context—or, more precisely—to the market. At this stage, we can recall Table 3.5 and propose Table 3.6 that shows how the conclusions drawn from Greek mythology intersect the field of entrepreneurship. Table 3.6 A transposition of the above classification to the field of entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial opportunities NOT thought/developed by entrepreneurs High level of maturity

Mature business projects NOT thought/ developed by entrepreneurs

Low level of maturity

Not mature projects Not mature thought/developed projects not thanks to a properly contingent event thought/ developed

Source: Author’s own elaboration

Entrepreneurial opportunities thought/developed by entrepreneurs Mature business projects thought/ developed by entrepreneurs Not mature projects characterized by flexibility Not mature projects born in hidden contexts with high growth potential Not mature projects born in different contexts and reluctantly accepted

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

47

As it can be noticed in Table 3.6, the involvement of Zeus can stand for the involvement of entrepreneurs and the status of Zeus’s children at birth can represent the level of maturity of entrepreneurial opportunities (high or low). At this stage, it is possible to try to respond to the questions posed before about usefulness of mythology to answer the question about the origin of entrepreneurship. Let us think about the topic investigated since the beginning, that is, the origin, the locus (internal to the individual or external, referable to the context) from which the impetus to start entrepreneurship processes derives. While the economic, managerial, and entrepreneurial approaches have always compelled scholars to consider the context and the individual as two opposite loci from which the entrepreneurial impetus can derive, the lens of mythology can be useful to overcome this dichotomous approach. In fact, mythology suggests several loci due to the different possible combinations between the individual and the context. This view opens up new alternatives about the origin of entrepreneurship. As said at the beginning of this chapter, this research does not aim to define where the impetus of entrepreneurship can be found exactly. The origin of entrepreneurship is inquired here in order to investigate the locus from which the impetus to start entrepreneurship processes derives. By looking at Table 3.6, it is possible to pinpoint the locus of entrepreneurship processes: it may lie inside entrepreneurs, who can think of and develop entrepreneurial opportunities, and make them get to the market; it may lie in the context, in the situations that take place outside. Indeed, all the possible combinations between individuals and the outside give extremely intriguing results. These combinations remark that the impetus at the basis of entrepreneurship processes cannot be easily framed and that nuanced options need to be considered properly when talking about the origin of entrepreneurship. At this stage, in response to the questions posed above, it is possible to argue that achieved results in the field of mythology can be useful to interpret the question about the origin of entrepreneurship since they identify new and more practical and truthful combinations from which the impetus to start entrepreneurship processes can derive.

48 

D. Matricano

3.5 Concluding Remarks The present chapter has explored if mythology can be a new lens to proceed with entrepreneurial studies. In particular, such lens has been used to investigate the origin of entrepreneurship, that is, the locus (internal to the individual or external, referable to the context) from which the impetus to start entrepreneurship processes derives. The need to use new lenses derives from entrepreneurial studies, which—following previous economic and a managerial studies—have investigated the origin of entrepreneurship by considering the context and/or the individual. Bouncing between two extremes has not helped to advance entrepreneurship studies; in fact the origin of entrepreneurship is still an open topic. Related studies are still ongoing and far from offering satisfying results. In a case like this, the only way to overcome the standstill is to refer to different fields of knowledge. Several alternatives have been initially considered (cosmology on the one hand, philosophy, psychology, and sociology on the other hand) but their contribution to the investigation seems to be of limited usefulness. Vagueness and uncertainty emerging from the use of principles of economics, management, and entrepreneurship in reference to the impetus of entrepreneurship and the relevance of the context and/or the individual have led attention toward mythology. In particular, attention has been addressed toward the genesis of gods. The birth of Zeus’s children has been deeply investigated and, through critical thinking, a matrix linking the role of the individual and the impact of the context has been generated. This matrix stands for a possible contribution that mythology can offer to the field of entrepreneurship. By sharing this matrix, the lens of mythology can be used to revise the problem about the origin of entrepreneurship and open up new alternatives. In particular, by using the lens of mythology to revise entrepreneurship, it is manifest that entrepreneurship scholars following economics and management scholars tend to use rigorous schemes, which cannot catch and represent the essence of entrepreneurship. Maybe mythology, based on fantastic elements, conjectures, and hypotheses, can replace

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

49

previous schemes with perspectives that, although they may seem destabilizing to scholars (Troise et al., 2022), can offer a brand new and fresh view about the origin of entrepreneurship.

References Abbagnano, N., & Fornero, G. (1996). Protagonisti e Testi della Filosofia (vol. II). Torino, Paravia. Acs, Z. J. (2010). High impact entrepreneurship. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 165–182). Springer. Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations Evolving (2nd ed.). Sage. Aldrich, H., & Wiedenmayer, G. (1993). From traits to rates: An ecological perspective on organizational foundings. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 1, 145–195. Amini Sedeh, A. (2017). Are Entrepreneurs Born or Made? A multilevel, cross-­ national perspective. Academy of Management Proceedings. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.17433 Amit, R., & Muller, E. (1995). “Push” and “pull” entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 64–80. Ansoff, H. I. (1979). Strategic management. Macmillan. Arrow, K. J., & Debreu, G. (1954). Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 22(3), 265–290. Audretsch, D. B., Falck, O., Feldman, M. P., & Heblich, S. (2012). Local entrepreneurship in context. Regional Studies, 46(3), 379–389. Audretsch, D.  B., Lehmann, E.  E., & Schenkenhofer, J. (2021). A context-­ choice model of niche entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1276–1303. Bagdonas, A., & Kojevnikov, A. (2021). Funny origins of the Big Bang theory. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 51(1), 87–137. Baumol, W. J. (1993). Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: existence and bond. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 197–210. Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987a). Psychological characteristics associated with performence in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 79–93. Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987b). A comparison of entrepreneurs and managers of small business firms. Journal of management, 13(1), 99–108. Blickman, D. R. (1987). Styx and the Justice of Zeus in Hesiod’s “Theogony”. Phoenix, 41(4), 341–355.

50 

D. Matricano

Bloodgood, H. M., Sapienza, H. J., & Carsrud, A. L. (1995). The dynamics of new business start-ups: Person, context, and process. In J.  A. Katz & R.  H. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 2, pp. 123–144). JAI Press. Brazeal, D.  V., & Herbert, T.  T. (1999). The genesis of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 29–46. Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Psychological and environmental factors which distinguish the successful from the unsuccessful entrepreneur: A longitudinal study. In Academy of Management Proceedings (pp.  368-372). Briarcliff Manor, NY. Brouwer, M. T. (2002). Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on entrepreneurship and economic development. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1), 83–105. Bruyat, C., & Julien, P. A. (2001). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 165–180. Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-­ making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9–30. Bygrave, W.  D., & Hofer, C.  W. (1992). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 13–22. Caldwell, R.  S. (1993). The origin of the gods: A psychoanalytic study of Greek theogonic myth. Oxford University Press. Carland, J.  W., Hoy, F.  S., Boulton, W.  R., & Carland, J.  C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owner: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354–358. Carniani, T. (1828). Della natura degli dei. Masi. Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory (second edition in 2003). Edward Elgar Publishing. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (1999). The nature-nurture debate: The essential readings. Blackwell Publishing. Chamberlin, E. (1933). The theory of monopolistic competition (second edition in 1962). Harvard University Press. Chandler, A. D. (1976). The development of modern management structure in the US and UK. In L. Hannah (Ed.), Management strategy and business development (pp. 23–51). Palgrave Macmillan. Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. Colander, D. (2000). The death of neoclassical economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22(2), 127–143.

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

51

Colarelli, S.  M. (2003). No best way: An evolutionary perspective on human resource management. Praeger/Greenwood. Cools, E., & den Broeck, V. (2007). The hunt for the Heffalump continues: Can trait and cognitive characteristics predict entrepreneurial orientation? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(2), 23–42. Cromie, S. (2000). Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: some approaches and empirical evidence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 7–30. Davidsson, P., Low, M. B., & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s introduction: Low and MacMillan ten years on: Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 5–15. Dawson, C., & Henley, A. (2012). “Push” versus “pull” entrepreneurship: An ambiguous distinction? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18(6), 697–719. DeCarlo, J. F., & Lyons, P. R. (1979). A comparison of selected personal characteristics of minority and non-minority female entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 369–373. Decker, T. (2004). The making of an entrepreneur: nature vs. nurture, an interview with Mel Baiada. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 97–109. Delmar, F., & Davidsson, P. (2000). Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(1), 1–23. Dencker, J. C., Bacq, S., Gruber, M., & Haas, M. (2021). Reconceptualizing necessity entrepreneurship: A contextualized framework of entrepreneurial processes under the condition of basic needs. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 60–79. Di Maggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Druon, M. (1964). The memoirs of Zeus. Charles Scribner’s and Sons. Ebner, A. (2006). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and the rationale of government: An outline of the Schumpeterian theory of the state. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 59(4), 497–515. Envick, B.  R., & Langford, M. (2000). The five-factor model of personality: Assessing entrepreneurs and managers. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 6–17.

52 

D. Matricano

Farrukh, M., Raza, A., Sajid, M., Rafiq, M., Hameed, R., & Ali, T. (2021). Entrepreneurial intentions: The relevance of nature and nurture. Education + Training, 63(7/8), 1195–1212. Felson, N. (2011). Children of Zeus in the Homeric hymns: Generational succession. In A.  Faulkner (Ed.), The Homeric hymns: Interpretative essays (pp. 254–279). Oxford University Press. Fowler, R. L. (2000). Early Greek mythography. Volume 1: Text and introduction. Oxford University Press. Fowler, R. L. (2013). Early Greek mythography. Volume 2: Commentary. Oxford University Press. Gantz, T. (1996a). Early Greek myth: A guide to literary and artistic sources Vol. 1. Johns Hopkins University Press. Gantz, T. (1996b). Early Greek myth: A guide to literary and artistic sources Vol. 2. Johns Hopkins University Press. Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Small Business Journal, 12(4), 11–31. Gartner, W. B. (1989). Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1), 27–38. Gervais, W. M., & Henrich, J. (2010). The Zeus problem: Why representational content biases cannot explain faith in gods. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(3-4), 383–389. Giunta, F. (1993). La creazione di nuove imprese. Uno schema di analisi economico-­ aziendale. Cedam. Goldberg, L.  R. (1992). The development of markers for the big five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. Goldberg, L.  R., Sweeney, D., Merenda, P.  F., & Hughes, J.  E. (1998). Demographic variables and personality: The effects of gender, age, education, and ethic/racial status on self-descriptions of personality attributes. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(3), 393–403. Grimal, P. (1996). The dictionary of classical mythology. Wiley-Blackwell. Hamilton, R.  T., & Harper, D.  A. (1994). The Entrepreneur in Theory and Practice. Journal of Economic Studies, 21(6), 3–18. Hannan, M.  T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164. Hansen, W. (2004). Handbook of classical mythology, ABC-Clio. Penguin. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley. Hellmich, S. N. (2020). Social psychological aspects of “making” economists: A review of the nature versus nurture debate. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 19(1), 23–50.

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

53

Herron, L., Sapienza, H. J., & Smith-Cook, D. (1992a). Entrepreneurship theory from an interdisciplinary perspective: Volume I. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 7–12. Herron, L., Sapienza, H.  J., & Smith-Cook, D. (1992b). Entrepreneurship theory from an interdisciplinary perspective: Volume II. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3), 5–12. Hjorth, D., & Kostera, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the experience economy. Copenhagen Business School Press. Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. West Publishing Company. Huczynski, A., & Buchanan, D. (2001). Organizational behaviour: An introductory text (instructor’s manual). Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Hull, D. L., Bosley, J., & Udell, G. (1980). Reviewing the heffalump: Identifying potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management, 18(1), 11–18. Jevons, W. S. (1871). The theory of political economy. Macmillan and Co.mpany. Kirzner, I.  M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press. Koh, H.  C. (1996). Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA students. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 12–26. Kragh, H. (1999). Cosmology and controversy: The historical development of two theories of the universe. Princeton University Press. Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–21. Lawrence, P., & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: The four drives underlying human nature. Jossey-Bass. Leibenstein, H. (1979). The general x-efficiency paradigm and the role of the entrepreneur. In M.  J. Rizzo (Ed.), Time, uncertainty, and disequilibrium (pp. 127–139). D. C. Health. Liles, P. R. (1974). New business ventures and the entrepreneur. R. D. Irwin. Low, M., & MacMillan, I. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161. Low, M. B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: Specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 17–26. March, J. (2001). Cassell’s dictionary of classical mythology. Cassell & Co. Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of Economics (eighth edition). Macmillan.

54 

D. Matricano

Martiarena, A. (2020). Re-examining the opportunity pull and necessity push debate: Contexts and abilities. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32(7-8), 531–554. Mason, C., & Harvey, C. (2013). Entrepreneurship: Contexts, opportunities and processes. Business History, 55(1), 1–8. Massey, D. S. (2002). A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. American Sociological Review, 67(1), 1–29. Matricano, D. (2015). Lo studio dell’imprenditorialità. Un approccio di indagine multidimensionale. Carocci Editore. Matricano, D. (2018). Grey vs. young entrepreneurs: Are they really that different in terms of entrepreneurial intentions? Empirical evidence from Italy. International Journal of Business and Management, 13(2), 76–86. Matricano, D. (2022). The influence of gender on technology transfer processes managed in Italian Young Innovative Companies: A stochastic frontier analysis. Technovation, 111, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021. 102383 Matricano, D., & Sorrentino, M. (2014). Ukrainian entrepreneurship in Italy: Factors influencing the creation of ethnic ventures. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3(10), 1–28. Matricano, D., & Sorrentino, M. (2018). Gender equalities in entrepreneurship: How close, or far, have we come in Italy? International Journal of Business and Management, 13(3), 75–87. Matthews, C. H., & Moser, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal investigation of the impact of family background. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(2), 29–43. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Van Nostrand. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hřebíčková, M., Avia, M. D., Sanz, J., Sánchez-Bernardos, M. L., Kusdil, M. E., Woodfield, R., Saunders, P. R., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 173–186. McMullen, J. S., & Bergman, B. J., Jr. (2017). Social entrepreneurship and the development paradox of prosocial motivation: A cautionary tale. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 243–270. McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512. Morford, M. P. O., & Robert, J. L. (2007). Classical mythology (eighth edition). Oxford University Press.

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

55

Morriston, W. (2002). Creation ex nihilo and the big bang. Philo, 5(1), 23–33. Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–75. Nicholson, N. (2000). Executive instinct: Managing the human animal in the information age. Crown Business. Nicholson, N., & White, R. (2006). Darwinism—A new paradigm for organizational behavior? Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(2), 111–119. Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. (2008). Is the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Management Science, 54(1), 167–179. Niemann, C. C., Mai, R., & Dickel, P. (2022). Nurture or nature? How organizational and individual factors drive corporate entrepreneurial projects. Journal of Business Research, 140, 155–169. Palmer, M. (1971). The application of psychological testing to entrepreneurial potential. California Management Review, 13(3), 32–38. Parada, C. (1993). Genealogical guide to Greek mythology. Paul Åströms Förlag. Perelli, L. (1969). Storia della letteratura latina. Paravia. Peterson, I. (1991). State of the universe. If not with a Big Bang, then what? Science News, 139(15), 232–235. Porter, M. E. (1980). Industry structure and competitive strategy: Keys to profitability. Financial Analysts Journal, 36(4), 30–41. Rauch, A., & Fresen, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385. Ripsas, S. (1998). Towards an interdisciplinary theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 10(2), 103–115. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. F. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of business venturing, 21(3), 286–305. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and business cycle (1934 edition). Harvard University Press.

56 

D. Matricano

Selden, P. D., & Fletcher, D. E. (2015). The entrepreneurial journey as an emergent hierarchical system of artifact-creating processes. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 603–615. Shane, S.  A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-­ opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. Shepherd, D. (2015). Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 489–507. Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior. Simon and Schuster. Skinner, B. F. (1976). Farewell, my LOVELY! Journal of the Experimental analysis of Behavior, 25(2), 218. Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2006). Conceptualising entrepreneurship in a transition context. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 3(2), 190–206. Sorrentino, M. (2003). Le nuove imprese. Economia delle nuove iniziative imprenditoriali. Cedam. Stiles, J. (2011). Brain development and the nature versus nurture debate. Progress in Brain Research, 189, 3–22. Sutton, F. X. (1954). Achievement norms and the motivation of entrepreneurs. In Entrepreneurs and Economic Growth. Social Science Research Council and Harvard University Research Center in Entrepreneurial History. Thornton, P. H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 19–46. Timmons, J. A. (1978). Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship. American Journal of Small Business, 3(1), 5–17. Troise, C., Matricano, D., Candelo, E., & Schjoedt, L. (2022). A ten-year cross-­ national examination of dance between intuition and rationality in entrepreneurial processes. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18, 663–692. Turner, M. S. (2009). Origin of the universe. Scientific American, 301(3), 36–43. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2001). The focus of entrepreneurial research: Contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 57–80. Van der Zwan, P., Thurik, R., Verheul, I., & Hessels, J. (2016). Factors influencing the entrepreneurial engagement of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. Eurasian Business Review, 6(3), 273–295.

3  The Origin of Entrepreneurship Through the Lens of Mythology 

57

Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. In J.  Katz & J.  Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth (pp. 119–138). JAI Press. Venkataraman, S., & Shane, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. Vesper, K. H. (1980). New venture strategies. Prentice-Hall. Vesper, K. H., & Gumpert, D. E. (1979). New-venture ideas: Do not overlook experience factor. Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 164–170. Wadhwani, R. D., Kirsch, D., Welter, F., Gartner, W. B., & Jones, G. G. (2020). Context, time, and change: Historical approaches to entrepreneurship research. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(1), 3–19. Walras, L. (1874). Eléments d’économie politique pure. Rouge. Weisskopf, V. F. (1983). The Origin of the Universe: An introduction to recent theoretical developments that are linking cosmology and particle physics. American Scientist, 71(5), 473–480. Weisskopf, V.  F. (1989). The origin of the universe. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 42(4), 22–39. Welter, F., Baker, T., & Wirsching, K. (2019). Three waves and counting: The rising tide of contextualization in entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 319–330. West, M. L. (1966). Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford University Press. White, R. E., Thornhill, S., & Hampson, E. (2007). A biosocial model of entrepreneurship: The combined effects of nurture and nature. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 28(4), 451–466. Widyanti, R., & Rajiani, I. (2021). Nascent entrepreneurs of millennial generations in the emerging market of Indonesia. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(2), 151–165. Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The future of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 1–9. Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. The Free Press. Wyld, D. C. (2011). Nature plus nurture: do teenage activities predict entrepreneurial success? Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 100–101.

4 Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy

This chapter investigates entrepreneurial purposes. As a practice, entrepreneurship scholars interested in this topic usually consider three common purposes (the perceiving of entrepreneurial opportunities, the creation of new businesses, and the bringing of innovation to the market) and question about them in order investigate their main characteristics and point out the most relevant one. Here, the common purposes will be briefly summarized in order to determine if there may be a kind of priority among them to explore the probable reasons why entrepreneurs address their interest and efforts toward one purpose rather than another, as well as to hypothesize the implications due to the emerging reasons. Up to now, by exclusively referring to the field of entrepreneurship, the above purposes reveal a bright and a dark side, and this does not help to proceed with entrepreneurial studies. For this reason, different fields of knowledge are recalled and evaluated. Philosophy—and in particular rationalism—turns out to be very useful. Philosophical inquiries concerning human actions, in fact, may be transposed to the field of entrepreneurship. Not only may this help to detect the reasons affecting the choice to pursue an entrepreneurial purpose, but also to reinterpret and frame the relationship between entrepreneurial purposes in a new and more pragmatic way. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Matricano, Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1_4

59

60 

D. Matricano

4.1 Entrepreneurial Purposes: Drawing the Borders Beyond the origin of entrepreneurship,1 another relevant issue that emerges when investigating entrepreneurial processes2 (Brazeal & Herbert, 1999; Bygrave & Hofer, 1992; Low, 2001; Matricano, 2015; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Ucbasaran et al., 2001) concerns the purposes that entrepreneurs aim to pursue. Since Schumpeter’s seminal3 work (Schumpeter, 1911) entrepreneurship has been intended as a process carried out by a nascent or experienced entrepreneur acting alone, in teams, or in networks4 in order to achieve a specific purpose. Over the years, entrepreneurship scholars have proposed and considered several entrepreneurial purposes to try to define which of them is the most relevant. The main contributions about entrepreneurial purposes are going to be reviewed in the next lines to rebuild the state-of-the-art. From Schumpeter’s (1911) point of view, entrepreneurs aim to bring innovations to the market. They can do this through: 1. the production of new goods (or by improving the quality of already existing ones); 2. the use of new production methods; 3. the creation of new markets;

 The topic has been investigated in Chap. 3.  As already said, the standard configuration presented in Chap. 2 derives an extensive review of contributions focused on entrepreneurship process. 3  As a matter of fact, in entrepreneurship studies it is possible to trace some contributions—published before Schumpeter’s one (1911)—that are identified as forerunners since they anticipated the modern definition of entrepreneur. For example, Cantillon (1755) attributes the goal of making decisions to the entrepreneur who assumes the risk associated with uncertainty. A few decades later, Say (1803) assigns another purpose to the entrepreneur, namely that of coordinating the production factors. In the following years, other contributions (Marshall, 1890; Mill, 1848) were proposed on the subject. They are not reported here only because they are rooted in the field of economics rather than entrepreneurship. Overall, it is possible to argue that Schumpeter’s theoretical proposal (1911) was the first to contain the modern definitions of entrepreneur and entrepreneurship (Bygrave, 1989a, 1989b). 4  The creation of entrepreneurial networks will be explored in Chap. 6. 1 2

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

61

4. the use of new sources of supply of raw materials and semi-finished products; or 5. the redefinition of an industrial sector. Even though Schumpeter (1911) enlists five different ways to bring innovations to markets, what matters is that all the five ways share the same purpose in the end, that is, to bring innovation to the market. By underlying this, Schumpeter (1911) distinguishes entrepreneurs from the neoclassical producers,5 from capitalists,6 from subordinate workers,7 and, in the subsequent decades, from managers.8 However, the Schumpeterian view of entrepreneurship outlines also other aspects about entrepreneurial purposes. In particular,9 it is worth recalling the idea that entrepreneurs can bring innovations to the market by the creation of new businesses (startups). The purposes that Schumpeter (1911) assigns to entrepreneurs are of great relevance since it can help to understand the evolution of entrepreneurial studies in the following years (Baumol, 1996; Casson, 1982; Clough et al., 2019; Cole, 1965; Dess et al., 1997; Hoogendoorn et al., 2020; Kilby, 1971; Knight, 1921; Leibenstein, 1978, 1979; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Silva et al., 2021; Stevenson & Jarrillo, 1990; Thompson, 1999; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003; Zahra et al., 1999). Bringing innovations to the market, in fact, is one of the few milestones persisting in entrepreneurial studies.10 Regardless of some

 Neoclassical producers know exactly what to produce, how to produce it, and in what quantity. As such, they noticeably differ from entrepreneurs who bring innovations to the market through new products, production methods, ways of organizing, and materials and so they destroy the pre-­ existing economic balance (Schumpeter, 1911). 6  Capitalists use their wealth to invest in trade and industry for profit. They just provide money to be invested. Reasonably, they are totally different from entrepreneurs. 7  Subordinate workers are employees who rank below a supervisor within a hierarchy. They assume specific roles and duties depending on their hierarchal level. 8  Several scholars (Envick & Langford, 2000; Goldberg, 1992; Goldberg et al., 1998) have remarked the noticeable differences between entrepreneurs and managers. 9  When talking about entrepreneurial purposes, scholars cannot ignore the risk that entrepreneurs decide to bear. This concept has already been treated in Chap. 3. 10  In 1985, Drucker consecrates the importance of innovation in entrepreneurial studies. 5

62 

D. Matricano

differences about entrepreneurial processes, relevance of innovation11 in entrepreneurial studies is unquestionable12 and, in fact, this stands for the main purpose that all the entrepreneurs aim to achieve. On the contrary, scholars have often questioned the relevance of creating new businesses. In fact, bringing innovations to the market does not exclusively occur through the creation of new businesses (Davidsson, 2003; Hamilton & Harper, 1994; Matricano, 2015; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). This comment has opened up several avenues of research that embrace (but to a limited extent), partially reject, or harshly criticize the idea that entrepreneurs aim to create new businesses.

4.2 Exploring New Areas of Research Creating new businesses in order to bring innovations to the market is not a purpose that all scholars assign to entrepreneurs. Such a purpose, in fact, is the result of a process (Bhave, 1994; Brixy et al., 2012; Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2021; Dimov, 2020; Johannisson, 2011; Leyden & Link, 2015; McMullen & Dimov, 2013; Morris et al., 1994; Stevenson et al., 1999; Stewart, 1992; Steyaert, 2007), which can be divided into several phases,13 among which we can consider the definition of business ideas, its design validation, its realization, and, finally, its evaluation (Zanni, 1995). Each of these phases can be implemented and handled in different ways and, above all, analyzed from different perspectives. Specifically, this

 Without anticipating the contents of Chap. 5, it seems appropriate to underline the difference between the views of Schumpeter (1911), Kirzner (1973), and Drucker (1985). According to Schumpeter (1911), the entrepreneurial purpose is to bring innovations to the market. According to Kirzner (1973), entrepreneurs aim to recognize innovations and exploit them. According to Drucker (1985), entrepreneurs have a number of sources to refer to in order to search for innovations to exploit. 12  According to Schumpeter (1911), entrepreneurs hold innovative capabilities. Unlike inventors, who simply discover something, entrepreneurs are able to understand the economic value of innovations (in particular the scholar refers to radical innovations) and to bring them to the market in the form of new combinations. If they succeed in doing this, entrepreneurs achieve the entrepreneurial profit (this corresponds to the rent due to the monopoly position created). 13  Entrepreneurial processes can be divided into several phases, so Davidsson and Gruenhagen (2021) talk about “the process within the process” (p. 1094). 11

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

63

is what has led several scholars to distance themselves from Schumpeter’s proposal (Schumpeter, 1911) and to explore new avenues of research. When rebuilding entrepreneurial processes in order to investigate entrepreneurial purposes, some scholars have mainly addressed their attention toward the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities (Drucker, 1985; Kirzner, 1973, 1997; Leibenstein, 1978, 1979). Since it lays at the basis of entrepreneurial processes, it seems reasonable to assume that entrepreneurs necessarily aim to identify, select, and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities (useful to bring innovations to the market); after this, they can be interested or not in the creation of new businesses. According to other scholars, the entrepreneurial purpose may consist in predicting the future. In the field of economics, this means to anticipate the evolution of the market and its future needs in order to be able to satisfy them (Knight, 1921). Differently, the entrepreneurial purpose may consist in adapting the internal functions of firms to the external environmental (Cole, 1965), or in responding to what governments and the society may ask (Kilby, 1971). A more challenging purpose assigned to entrepreneurs consists in improving general well-being (Baumol, 1996). From another perspective, some scholars have tried to get entrepreneurial purposes closer to the ones of established companies, by proposing a new line of research called entrepreneurial management (Stevenson & Jarrillo, 1990) or corporate entrepreneurship (Dess et al., 1997). In this case, the aim of entrepreneurship is to launch new products in existing markets, to seek for new markets, or to introduce new technologies (Dess et al., 1997; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003; Zahra et al., 1999). Overall, the entrepreneurial purpose is to ensure the development of companies; thus, entrepreneurs need to carry out all the activities falling within the concept of strategic leadership in order to achieve this goal (Thompson, 1999). Despite the attempts to explore and open up new areas of research about entrepreneurial purposes, the theoretical proposals presented over the years and recalled above are so heterogeneous as to prevent us from reaching a unanimous view on entrepreneurial purposes.14  Some scholars (Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1986; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) have tried to systematize the various theoretical proposals advanced in reference to entrepreneurial purposes. 14

64 

D. Matricano

Nevertheless, from an extensive analysis (Klyver et al., 2011), it is clear that two lines of research characterize entrepreneurship studies: the first focuses on the creation of new businesses and the second focuses on the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities. These two aims are going to be reviewed in the following sections.

4.2.1 The Creation of New Businesses Despite the critiques and the alternatives expressed over the years, since the second half of the 1980s, some entrepreneurship scholars15 have reconsidered and redeemed the creation of new businesses as the main entrepreneurial purpose16 (Schumpeter, 1911). Accordingly, an overview of the creation of new businesses is mandatory at this stage. According to Sorrentino (2003), two criteria characterize a new business: novelty and entrepreneurial value. Novelty must be objective. New businesses are economic activities that have never been carried out before, not even in different contexts. Entrepreneurial value, instead, refers to the high level of control that entrepreneurs exercise and to the consequent independence of the business on the market. These ensure the substantive (and not just formal) independence of new businesses. Only if it is possible to verify objective novelty and high level of control as well as market independence,17 then new businesses—properly meant—are created.  Several scholars share the idea that entrepreneurship can consist in the creation of a new business. They are as follows: Gartner (1985, 1988, 1990, 2001); Katz and Gartner (1988); Low and MacMillan (1988); Gartner and Gatewood (1992); Larson and Starr (1993); Woo et al. (1994); Cooper (1995); Ucbasaran et al. (2001). 16  The creation of new businesses may imply a social and economic development of the areas where new businesses are located. This is the reason why scholars have paid noticeable interest in this purpose (Matricano, 2020a, 2022). 17  To be able to identify new businesses, Sorrentino (2003) underlines the characteristics of the erroneously indicated new businesses. Companies born from business subsidiaries, for example, report an objective novelty but do not have the required independence of command and market. On the contrary, companies born from acquisition or succession processes are characterized by independence of command and market but not by objective novelty. Finally, companies such as those that arise from spin-offs of existing companies have neither an objective novelty nor the independence of command and market. 15

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

65

Based on the criteria proposed by Sorrentino (2003), it is now workable to consider if the creation of new businesses may be an entrepreneurial purpose. Since it is quite impossible to recall and analyze all the contributions dealing with this topic, attention is focused only on those offering theoretical or interpretative frameworks and revealing their main dimensions,18 labeled as variables or factors. Gartner (1985) proposed one of the most known interpretative frameworks.19 The scholar included four dimensions in this framework: the individual, the context, the organization, and the process. Only if the four dimensions are considered together, then it is possible to investigate the creation of new business that—according to Gartner (1985)—is the main entrepreneurial aim. Another interpretative framework, proposed by Katz and Gartner (1988), envisages four different factors: the intentionality of the individual, the resources, the boundaries between business and the environment, and the transactions carried out. The main aspect characterizing this framework and making it very interesting is the observation of these four aspects in the transition from the pre-organization phase (when the firm does not exist yet) to the organization phase (when the firm is already created). Only by understanding this passage, the process of creation of new businesses is conceivable20 (Gartner, 1990, 2001; Gartner & Gatewood, 1992; Katz & Gartner, 1988).

 In his contribution, titled “A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation,” Gartner (1985) makes scholars understand the complexity of this topic by recalling the passage from one-dimensional frameworks (Cole, 1959; Cooper, 1979; Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1981; Vesper, 1980) to multi-dimensional ones. Van de Ven (1989) proposed one of the firs examples of a multi-dimensional framework, including the entrepreneurial, the organizational, and the ecological dimensions. For a more complete overview of dimensions, variables, or factors used in the different frameworks, see the contributions authored by Gartner (1985, 1988, 1990, 2001); Katz and Gartner (1988); Gartner and Gatewood (1992); Giunta (1993); Buttà (1995); Larson and Starr (1993); Woo et al. (1994); Cooper (1995); Ucbasaran et al. (2001). 19  About the framework, Gartner (1985) writes: “[T]he four dimensional conceptual framework can be seen as a kaleidoscope, as an instrument through which to view the enormously varying patterns of new venture creation” (p. 701). 20  The creation of new businesses has been considered as the result of an organizational process properly labeled as “organizing” (Gartner, 2001, p. 30). 18

66 

D. Matricano

Of course, other frameworks propose and include different variables such as the acquisition of resources, the creation of exchange relationships, the trial-and-error approach and the cognitive aspect (Larson & Starr, 1993), the individual profile, managerial processes, entry strategies and the external environment (Cooper, 1995), or individual and external variables (Giunta, 1993). Overall, from the review of the literature focused on the creation of new businesses two main results come out: there is no framework shared by all the scholars and the variables used to investigate the topic are heterogeneous (see Table 4.1). The first result concerns the missing of a shared framework useful to study the creation of new businesses. Scholars propose or share different frameworks. As a result, all of them are valid but none of them really is in the end. The second result—strictly related to the previous one—concerns the heterogeneity of the variables included in the frameworks. Since there is no agreement on one framework, there is not even an agreement on the number of variables to include and on their nature. In addition to this, it should be noted that the attempt to indicate detailed variables may not lead to expected results: some dimensions related to the process of creating a new business, in fact, necessarily are and remain unknown (Gartner, 1985). The above results—which actually stand for criticalities emerging from the literature review—hinder a general agreement on the fact that the creation of new businesses could be the aim of entrepreneurial action; certainly, they also create the necessary premises for further investigations. Table 4.1 Results about the creation of new businesses

Achieved results: (1) There is no framework shared by scholars (2) Variables used to investigate the topic are heterogeneous Source: Author’s own elaboration

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

67

4.2.2 The Perceiving of Entrepreneurial Opportunities Before trying to verify if the perceiving of entrepreneurial opportunities may be considered as the main entrepreneurial purpose, it is necessary to divide the vast literature about this topic into two streams: the first, proposed in contrast with Schumpeter’s theory (1911) and referable to the avenue of research opened up by Bygrave and Hofer (1992); the second, falling within the field of strategic entrepreneurship21 and referable to the strand of research started22 by Shane and Venkataraman (2000). More specifically, in the view of Bygrave and Hofer (1992, p.  14), entrepreneurs are interested in the “perceiving” of opportunities. Scholars have not clarified what they mean by this. Perceiving, in fact, stands for an individual ability or capacity to get, realize something through senses. It is not a rationale process and the path addressed is not clear. Instead, according to Shane and Venkataraman (2000) entrepreneurs act in order to identify, select, and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities. In this case, scholars refer to a more complex and articulated process that entrepreneurs must carry out (Hitt et  al., 2001, 2002; Ireland et  al., 2001; McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Meyer & Heppard, 2000; Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001). Of course, the differences occurring between the act of perceiving and the process of identifying, selecting, and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities are rather manifest. In the light of the aim pursued herein—that is, determining the entrepreneurial purpose—and according to the way of proceeding already started—that is, by comparing the relevance of entrepreneurial opportunities with the creation of new businesses (Schumpeter, 1911)—it is appropriate to focus on the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities as proposed by Bygrave and Hofer (1992) and further developed by other scholars (Drucker, 1985; Kirzner, 1973, 1997; Leibenstein, 1978, 1979).  The field of strategic entrepreneurship is born thanks to the contributions proposed by McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Meyer & Heppard, 2000; Ireland et  al., 2001; Hitt et  al., 2001, 2002; Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001. 22  For the sake of completeness, it should be underlined that Venkataraman (1997) offered the first hints of this new conception of entrepreneurial opportunities. The consecration of this new conception of entrepreneurial opportunities is due to Shane (2003). 21

68 

D. Matricano

In reference to the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities, two main aspects need to be highlighted. The first deals with the characteristics of entrepreneurs in order to perceive entrepreneurial opportunities; the second concerns the sources of entrepreneurial opportunities. As for the individual characteristics, entrepreneurs are expected to be in a state of alertness23 in order to discover new opportunities (Kirzner, 1973, 1997). In this vein, Kirznerian entrepreneurs perfectly interpret the concept of perception of entrepreneurial opportunities because of the importance attributed to their alertness, a state of vigilance that is subjective and which necessarily leads to different behaviors. However, even if Kirzner focuses on the state of alertness,24 it is appropriate to underline that he also refers to the concept of opportunities that consist in bringing product and process innovation to the market and entering new markets (Kirzner, 1973). According to Kirzner (1973, 1997), the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities and the creation of new businesses are totally different. In his view, in fact, entrepreneurs aim to perceive entrepreneurial opportunities while managers organize resources to turn the opportunity into a new business. Over time, scholars have disclosed an ever-growing interest in the perception of new entrepreneurial opportunities to the extent that they question about the individual characteristics that allow achieving this purpose. According to some scholars (Gaglio, 1997; Woo et al., 1992), knowledge25 is the key factor that makes the difference. Entrepreneurs

 The scholar talks about “pure entrepreneur whose entire role arises out of his alertness to hitherto unnoticed opportunities” (Kirzner, 1973, p. 39). 24  Kirzner’s theory (Kirzner, 1973) marks a turning point in entrepreneurial theories and is generally considered to be the basic theory of the Austrian school. Despite the originality of the contribution, it is appropriate to underline the influence received from Von Hayek (1945)—according to whom the entrepreneur is the one who discovers, exploits, and eliminates the differences between the prices of goods and services—and by Von Mises (1949). 25  Regarding the importance of knowledge in economic studies, please refer to the main studies on the subject of knowledge-based view proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Conner and Prahalad (1996), Grant (1996), Spender (1996), and Spender and Grant (1996). 23

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

69

with more experience,26 who have accumulated more knowledge and use more complex cognitive schemes, are more likely to perceive new entrepreneurial opportunities (Gaglio, 1997). As regards the sources of entrepreneurial opportunities, scholars have proposed several alternatives. According to Leibenstein (1978, 1979), the main source is the market. Since entrepreneurs are expected to promote the circulation of information and to fill in possible gaps in the market, it is reasonable to assume that entrepreneurial opportunities are perceived from the market. Another possible source is the entrepreneurial judgment (Casson, 1982). This allows entrepreneurs to decide how to allocate the scarce resources27 they hold, so that—more or less implicitly—they make choices through which they create new entrepreneurial opportunities. In Drucker’s (1985) perspective, instead, entrepreneurial opportunities derive from the ability to exploit the changes due to innovation.  Several scholars (Birley & Westhead, 1993, 1994; Donckels et  al., 1987; Hall, 1995; Low & MacMillan, 1988; MacMillan, 1986; McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Ucbasaran et  al. 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Westhead et al., 2005; Westhead & Wright, 1998a, 1998b) have emphasized the importance of experience in entrepreneurship. As a result, several classifications are offered and there is no general agreement on them (Starr & Bygrave, 1991; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2008). According to MacMillan (1986), running entrepreneurs start a business and aspire to become its CEO; dropping out entrepreneurs start a business with the aim of selling it; serial entrepreneurs are satisfied with starting a new business and so they aim to repeat the same process. According to Westhead and Wright (1998a, 1998b), instead, it is possible to distinguish between nascent entrepreneurs (who have no experience and are involved in the management of an entrepreneurial activity for the first time), serial entrepreneurs (who currently manage an entrepreneurial activity but they have already gained some experience since they have previously managed another business now closed or sold), and portfolio entrepreneurs (who manage two or more entrepreneurial activities at the same time). In line with the aforementioned classification, Hall (1995) proposes to distinguish between habitual entrepreneurs (who are interested in starting two or more businesses), serial entrepreneurs (who are interested in starting and managing one business at a time), and portfolio entrepreneurs (who are interested in starting and running more than one business at a time). Starting from the above classifications, it is interesting to focus attention on the implications that can be related to having already started at least one business. By reiterating the process of starting a new business, entrepreneurs learn the “technology of entrepreneurship” (MacMillan, 1986). The mistakes made previously leave a lesson to habitual entrepreneurs (Ripsas, 1998) who therefore have a better knowledge of how the entrepreneurial process should be implemented (Shepherd et al., 2000) or are more capable of identifying a greater number of entrepreneurial opportunities and introducing a greater level of innovation (Ucbasaran et al. 2003a). 27  According to Casson (2003, p.  20), “[A]n entrepreneur is someone who specializes in taking judgmental decisions about the coordination of scarce resources.” 26

70 

D. Matricano

Thus, the amount and type of sources from which entrepreneurial opportunities originate may vary. They can be internal sources—such as the unexpected, inconsistencies, the need arising from the process, or structure of the sector or market—or external ones, such as demographic evolution, changes in the way things are perceived, and new knowledge. At the end of the 1990s, as anticipated above, the study of entrepreneurial opportunities was carried out in the light of strategic entrepreneurship (Hitt et  al., 2001, 2002; Ireland et  al., 2001; McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Meyer & Heppard, 2000; Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001), a new field of research assuming that opportunities are no longer only perceived but identified, selected, and exploited according to a complex process that scholars try to formalize. This stands for a very important change of perspective that needs to be remarked. Overall, the theoretical contributions about entrepreneurial opportunities, cited above, disclose two main results as shown in Table 4.2. The first result concerns individual characteristics useful to perceive new entrepreneurial opportunities (e.g., being in a state of alertness or having previous experience and therefore knowledge). As already said, perception stands for something extremely subjective, that is to say the ability to become aware of something through stimuli and impressions, that can never be generalized. It is very difficult, and perhaps even fruitless, to try to define and enlist the characteristics that entrepreneurs should have in order to perceive new entrepreneurial opportunities.28 The second result concerns the uncertain sources of entrepreneurial opportunities. The reference to gaps in the market or innovations, to Table 4.2  Results about the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities

Achieved results: (1) Entrepreneurs hold some characteristics (alertness, knowledge) (2) It is not possible to detect the source of entrepreneurial opportunities Source: Author’s own elaboration

 Over the years scholars have investigated several entrepreneurial traits. Listing all the entrepreneurial traits is quite impossible. An extensive review of these traits can be found in the contribution authored by Matricano (2015). 28

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

71

internal and external sources, has caused an exponential enhancement of theoretical proposals—which do not always fit with each other—instead of leading to a univocal and generally shared solution. Also in reference to entrepreneurial opportunities the achieved results—that actually stand for criticalities and limits emerging from the literature review—do not allow to reach an agreement on the fact that the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities might correspond to the entrepreneurial purpose.

4.3 Defining Preliminary, Optional, and Leading Purposes Which results do we get from the above literature reviews, concerning the creation of new businesses and the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities? What may we infer? Overall, we get to know that the main purposes that entrepreneurs aim to achieve are the creation of new businesses and the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities (Klyver et al., 2011). Both the topics reveal some criticalities that scholars have not been able to overcome so easily. The review and the analysis of each of the topics are not enough. Perhaps, it may be useful to review and analyze both the topics at the same time, jointly. The hypothesis to theoretically link the topics is not new29 in entrepreneurship literature, even if it is not largely embraced. As noted by some scholars (Buenstorf, 2007; Matricano, 2015), Schumpeter was the first scholar to refer to both of them even if—actually—the creation of new businesses is openly cited and inquired, while the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities is not. Somehow, the concept may derive by the alternatives through which innovation can be brought to the market.30  Some scholars (Buenstorf, 2007; Bygrave & Hofer, 1992; Ucbasaran et al., 2001) have attempted, or at least they have suggested, reconciliation between the two topics. 30  Again, as Schumpeter (1911) remarks in his seminal contribution, entrepreneurs can bring innovation to the market by the production of a new good (or by improving the quality of an already existing one), by the use of a new production method, either by the creation of a new market or by the use of a new source of supply of raw materials and semi-finished products or, finally, by the redefinition of any industrial sector. 29

72 

D. Matricano

All the alternatives proposed by Schumpeter (1911) may be intended as entrepreneurial opportunities since they allow entrepreneurs to enter the market and create a temporary status of disequilibrium (Buenstorf, 2007). Such a view, by trying to reconcile the creation of new businesses and the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities, may be found in additional contributions proposing a sequential approach (Bygrave & Hofer, 1992; Ucbasaran et al., 2001), recalling the input-output model (Morris, 1998), and the rate of entrepreneurship (Covin & Slevin, 1991). According to Morris (1998), the input-output model31 can be very useful to study and understand entrepreneurial purposes. Inputs stand for factors that are necessary to start the process. These factors are the entrepreneurial opportunity, the individual, the context, as well as the tangible resources. These factors may be found in all the entrepreneurial processes. Outputs, instead, stand for the feasible outcomes. These outcomes comprehend bringing innovations to the market, creating new businesses, or improving wellness in the society. These outcomes may vary and cannot be determined ex ante. By considering the only shared goal in the field of entrepreneurship, that is, bringing innovation to the market, the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities comes before the creation of new businesses that is one of the alternatives to bring innovations to the market. The purposes considered before fall in two different phases of the input-output model (Morris, 1998). The perception of entrepreneurial opportunities is an input of the model; the creation of new businesses is a possible output. Thus, the assumption that entrepreneurs aim to perceive entrepreneurial opportunities means that a part of the whole process (moving from inputs to outputs) is ignored. In the same way, the assumption that entrepreneurs aim to create new businesses means that a part of the whole process (focused on the inputs and on the dynamics of their transformation into outputs) is taken for granted. Overall, the input-output model (Morris, 1998) clarifies the chronological link between the two purposes (Table 4.3).

 Actually, before Morris’s contribution (1998), Giunta (1993) had already proposed an input-­ output model considering: input variables—stages of a process—output variables. 31

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

73

Table 4.3  The perception of entrepreneurial opportunities and the creation of new businesses in the light of the input-output model The perception of entrepreneurial opportunities

The creation of new businesses

It is one of the possible inputs of the It is one of the possible outputs of the model and concerns the initial phase model and concerns the final phase of the entrepreneurial process of the entrepreneurial process Source: Author’s own elaboration

Another theory useful for analyzing the link between the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities and the creation of new business is related to the rate of entrepreneurship (Covin & Slevin, 1991). Although the theory was created to analyze the rate of internal entrepreneurship or corporate venturing (Sorrentino, 2000), the theoretical framework is very useful since it allows determining the rate of entrepreneurship of the possible purposes. All things considered, it is easy to acknowledge that the creation of new businesses discloses the highest rate of entrepreneurship. According to Cooper (1995), this aim refers to and includes several variables, such as the individual profile, management processes, entry strategies, and the external environment. Instead, the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities reports a lower rate of entrepreneurship since it does not include all those organizational aspects related to management, strategy, or human resources. The difference between the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities and the creation of new business in terms of the rate of entrepreneurship is shown in Table 4.4. If the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities and the creation of new businesses are reviewed and analyzed at the same time, it results that the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities is an input of the model and it reveals a low rate of entrepreneurship; the creation of new businesses is an output of the model and it reveals the highest rate of entrepreneurship (see Table 4.5). The purposes of entrepreneurial action seem to ideally be placed at the extremes of a continuum along which it is possible to represent a generic entrepreneurial process. The value that the two extreme points acquire has a different specific weight, just as the relationship between them is different.

74 

D. Matricano

Table 4.4  The perception of entrepreneurial opportunities and the creation of new businesses in the light of the rate of entrepreneurship The perception of entrepreneurial opportunities

The creation of new businesses

Low rate of entrepreneurship since organizational aspects of entrepreneurial action are not contemplated

Highest rate of entrepreneurship since organizational aspects of entrepreneurial action are contemplated

Source: Author’s own elaboration Table 4.5  An overall assessment of entrepreneurial purposes Purposes

Input-output model

Rate of entrepreneurship

The perception of entrepreneurial opportunities

It is one of the possible Low rate of inputs of the model and entrepreneurship since concerns the initial phase organizational aspects of of the entrepreneurial entrepreneurial action are process not contemplated The creation of new It is one of the possible Highest rate of businesses outputs of the model entrepreneurship since and concerns the final organizational aspects of phase of the entrepreneurial action are entrepreneurial process contemplated Source: Author’s own elaboration

If scholars analyze this relationship by focusing on the creation of new businesses, then the connection between the extremes results very strong. The creation of new businesses necessarily incorporates the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities. Therefore, if scholars consider the creation of new businesses as the purpose of entrepreneurial action, somehow they also include the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities (Bygrave & Hofer, 1992; Ucbasaran et al., 2001). Conversely, if scholars analyze the link by focusing on the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities, the connection results are weak. The perception of entrepreneurial opportunities is an input of the model that is relevant only in the initial phase of the process and reports a limited rate of entrepreneurship that does not necessarily lead entrepreneurs toward the creation of new businesses (Davidsson, 2003; Hamilton & Harper, 1994; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

75

The final result is the impossibility of theorizing a two-way link between the aims: if the creation of new businesses incorporates the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities, the perception of entrepreneurial opportunities necessarily leads to the creation of new businesses. The impossibility of establishing a link between the aims, and of theorizing a two-way link between them, has forced a change of perspective and the redefinition of the research focus. The idea according to which entrepreneurs must necessarily perceive an entrepreneurial opportunity and then, in a subjective way, must establish the best way to exploit it (the creation of new businesses being, therefore, only one of the possible alternatives) may be not very clear and this would risk diminishing the relevance of the purpose in entrepreneurship studies. Fortunately, this risk is averted. The exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, in fact, necessarily involves the planning and the starting of an entrepreneurial process: from this it follows that entrepreneurship may be understood as the perception of an entrepreneurial opportunity and as the organization and the initiation of a process, that is, as a set of functions, activities, and actions, aimed at exploiting it. As argued in a recent study, authored by McMullen and Dimov (2013) and considering entrepreneurship as a process, it is interesting to try to define a process, to reconstruct the beginning and the end of the process, and to identify the variables on which advancements depend and, ultimately, what remains constant throughout the process. Answering these questions is not easy and this is the reason why research on the subject is still in progress. In conclusion, from the above analysis, it is clear that entrepreneurs are driven to act in order to achieve the preliminary purpose, consisting in the perception of an entrepreneurial opportunity, to bring innovations to the market—this is the leading purpose that all the entrepreneurs aim to. On the way to achieve their leading purpose, entrepreneurs may be involved in the organization and launch of an entrepreneurial process leading to the creation of new businesses (optional purpose), or they may be involved in a series of functions, activities, and actions strictly connected to each other and leading to a different way to exploit the perceived opportunity.

76 

D. Matricano

4.4 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation of Entrepreneurial Purposes The review of literature about entrepreneurial purposes has revealed that all the entrepreneurs are involved in the achievement of the preliminary purpose in order to get to the leading one. On their way, entrepreneurs may be interested in the achievement of an optional purpose. A schematization of entrepreneurial purposes is depicted in Table 4.6. At first glance, this comprehensive view of entrepreneurial purposes might seem straightforward, as the three purposes are considered in a chronological order. This is only partly true since entrepreneurs act in order to pursue two of them (the preliminary and the leading ones) while evaluating the optional one. In point of fact, the chronological order is as relevant as the selection of the purposes to pursue. Thus, it is interesting to enquiry: what could drive entrepreneurs to pursue some purposes rather than others? Is there any reason why this happens? How could scholars explain this? In this vein, attention needs to be focused on the probable reasons why entrepreneurs address their interest and efforts toward some purposes rather than others as well as on the implications related to these. Quite simultaneously, the concept of a more or less straightforward sequence of choices suggests that we may borrow the lenses of design thinking32 (Beverland et  al., 2015; Dorst, 2011; Liedtka, 2015, 2018; Martin, 2009), in order to overcome the limits emerging from the  The birth of design thinking can be dated back around the 1960s and 1970s thanks to the contributions of Asimow (1962), Alexander (1964), Archer (1965), Jones (1970), Rittel (1973), Rittel and Webber (1973), and Leifer (1976). These scholars (architects and urban planners) started a progression of analysis and reflection leading to the definition of methods and processes then defined as design thinking. Over the years the concept of design thinking has strengthened thanks to the contribution of Simon (1969) who supports the affirmation of artificial intelligence in several fields of knowledge and its diffusion has permeated in very different sectors. Thanks to the contribution of Buchanan (1992), the concept of design thinking is defined and then, starting from 2000, it is officially shared and applied in innovation studies thanks to the contributions of Martin (2009), Brown and Wyatt (2010), Kelley and Kelley (2012), Gonçalves et al. (2014), and Luebkeman (2015). 32

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

77

Table 4.6  A comprehensive view of entrepreneurial purposes Preliminary purpose

Optional purpose

Leading purpose

To perceive entrepreneurial opportunities

To create new businesses

To bring innovations to the market

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

literature review and to add something new. Design thinking, in fact, is an innovative approach based on the ability to solve problems by using a creative approach; its main characteristic is the involvement of people, a team created ad hoc (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018; Seidel & Fixson, 2013), who share their ideas in order to solve complex problems.33 Such a process is based on convergent and divergent thinking that allows testing several alternatives and choosing the best one (Matricano, 2020b). The process of design thinking assumes that if an alternative is not the best one, it is possible to start the process again and again (try and see approach) until the problem is solved. This approach is not typical of entrepreneurship since the perceiving of entrepreneurial opportunities, the creation of new businesses, and the bringing of innovations to the market are not explorative purposes and they do not provide the opportunity to go back and start the entrepreneurial process again so easily. The definition and the achievement of entrepreneurial purposes follow different paths that—in their essence—are less explorative and more heedful. Thus, the reference to human-centered sciences such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology seems more fruitful. These fields of knowledge have already been cited in reference to the origin of entrepreneurship34 and their contribution appeared to be limited. Indeed, in reference to entrepreneurial purposes, the contribution of philosophy35 could be relevant (see Table 4.7). Philosophers are interested in the individuals and in their choices/ actions in order to achieve a specific purpose. Over the centuries,  Among the several models proposed to frame the design thinking approach (see Matricano 2020), the one proposed by IBM and comprehending five phases is the most cited and used for innovation strategies (Lin & Eichelberger, 2020; Tu et al., 2018). The phases are as follows: (1) empathize, (2) define, (3) ideate, (4) prototype, and (5) test. 34  See paragraph 3.3. 35  Pittaway (2005) has already remarked the relevance of philosophy to advance entrepreneurship studies. In particular, the scholar analyzes the philosophies underlying economic studies in entrepreneurship and tries to explain how they may contribute to the understanding of entrepreneurial behavior. 33

78 

D. Matricano

Table 4.7  An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate the purpose of entrepreneurship New lenses

Limits/strengths

Design thinking

Design thinking assumes that if an alternative is not the best one, it is possible to start the process again and again (try and see approach). This approach is not typical of entrepreneurship since entrepreneurship processes do not offer the opportunity to go back and start the entrepreneurial process again so easily. These lenses are already cited and partly included in the origin of entrepreneurship and so the reference—again— to these fields seems useless. It deals with the individuals and in their choices/actions in order to achieve a specific purpose.

Philosophy, psychology, and sociology Philosophy

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

philosophical approaches have consistently changed. By thinking about entrepreneurial purposes, the simplest idea is to quote philosophers who might assign to individuals the capabilities to achieve their purposes. Immediately (and incorrectly) it would be reasonable to think of Nietzsche’s übermench (1883–1885) or superman, a man able to create his own values, which are completely rooted in real life. Actually, this approach presumes that individuals overcome, go beyond restraints36 (Abbagnano & Fornero, 1996), and this is not in line with the principles of entrepreneurship. By reverse, ancient philosophical approaches— reaching up to the Middle Ages37—assume that individuals act only under restraints. In fact, they assume that individual freedom is limited. Again, this is not in line with the principles of entrepreneurship. Halfway between the two approaches, rationalism38 could be appropriate. This strand of thought, whose best representatives are Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz, assumes that reason is the fundamental of truth as  Generally speaking, in the field of philosophy, it is God, the Nature, or faith that imposes restraints to individual action. 37  Although historians still argue about the beginning and the end of the Middle Ages, it seems possible to say that the Middle Ages starts with the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476) and ends with the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus (1492). 38  Rationalism is an epistemological approach—born in the seventeenth century—looking at reason as the only source of knowledge. Cognitive processes are not sensory but intellectual and deductive. 36

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

79

well as it is the instrument for elaborating a new, overall vision of the world. Obviously, the prominent role of reason remarks the prominent role of individuals, who try to overcome restraints preventing them from the achievement of their purposes. With the shift from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, the vision of individuals in the society radically changed. The sentence homo faber ipsius fortunae39 best describes this new view of individuals, who make projects about themselves, plan their future, and act in order to achieve their main purposes. However, this vision of individuals is not without limits. Although individuals are able to shape their future through their actions, philosophers remarked the role that external forces (real, random, or supernatural) might exert. Although these forces do not invalidate individual freedom or willingness, they may limit it. Actually, the Renaissance view of individuals recalls the approach described above and referred to the achievement of entrepreneurial purposes may be valued through the lenses of rationalism in the sense that entrepreneurs make projects, plan their future, and act in order to achieve their purposes just like individuals do according to Renaissance thinkers. Of course, despite efforts, results may be achieved or not because of external forces (real, random, or supernatural). Again, this is exactly what happens both in entrepreneurship and in the Renaissance anthropology. The principles of the Renaissance reached their peak thanks to the contribution of the rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz) whose contributions are going to be recalled and reviewed in order to hopefully advance studies about entrepreneurial purposes.

4.5 Leveraging the Lens of Philosophy to Investigate Entrepreneurial Purposes 4.5.1 The Principles of Rationalism The lens of philosophy—and in particular of rationalism—may be very useful to review entrepreneurial purposes and to try to overcome the 39

 Appio Claudio Cieco (350–271 B.C.) first used this sentence in his work entitled “Sententiae.”

80 

D. Matricano

limits emerged before. Centrality of entrepreneurs acting in order to achieve their purposes strictly recalls the rationalist vision of individuals who struggle between freedom and willingness to act on the one hand and external constraints on the other hand. By embracing this approach, rationalist philosophers have faced several theoretical and practical problems, ranging from the existence of God to the role of Nature, from knowledge methodology to social issues (Abbagnano & Fornero, 1996). Of course, out of the theories proposed by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz, only those parts of theories referable to entrepreneurship are recalled and deepened. Chronologically, the founder of rationalism is René Descartes (1596–1650), whose sentence cogito ergo sum40 best represents the principles of this philosophical trend. In his work of 1641, titled “Meditationes de prima philosophia, in qua Dei existentia et animae immortalitas demonstratur,” Descartes focused his attention on the concept of ideas, which he classified according to the origins of their contents. Based on this, Descartes distinguished between innate, adventitious, and factitious ideas. The ideas of basic things, determining the ability to think, are innate (Abbagnano & Fornero, 1996, p. 201). The origin of these ideas does not pose any difficulty, since Descartes can explain these ideas (their contents) by appealing to their own nature.41 The ideas of natural things—deriving from the outside—are adventitious ideas. The external origins of these ideas, which exist independently from human mind, posed some problems to the philosopher; certain forms of doubt, in fact, may inhibit Descartes from the belief that such ideas actually exist. The ideas of utopian or invented things are factitious ideas. Despite their random derivation, the origin of these ideas does not pose any difficulty. Descartes, in fact, puts them together out of other ideas that individuals already hold.  Descartes erected his epistemic foundations on intuition by assuming that he exists only when he is thinking. The original statement was in French “Je pense, donc je suis” and it becomes “I think, therefore I am” in its English formulation. 41  In particular, it is important to remark that God is an innate idea for Descartes. God exists external to, or independently of, Descartes’s finite mind. 40

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

81

According to the above, the distinction between innate ideas, on the one hand, and adventitious and factitious ideas, on the other, may seem blurred. In some ways, it could be argued that all of them are innate since the former are inborn by definition, while the latter (adventitious and factitious) derive from inborn ones. Thus, adventitious and factitious ideas might be innate at a certain extent. Of course, Descartes resolves this problem by clearly distinguishing all the ideas in terms of intelligibility (Lennon, 2007; Nelson, 2008; Nolan Jr., 1997). Innate ideas are always present. Adventitious and factitious ideas, instead, rely on innate ideas in the sense that the latter account for the intelligibility of the former. Based on this, the blurring distinction among all the categories of ideas is resolved. In line with Descartes’s theory, Baruch (Benedict) de Spinoza (1632–1677) remarks the relevance of reasoning and knowledge, and consecrates their importance in the light of rationalism. In his theory of knowledge,42 Spinoza identifies three kinds of knowledge, which are characterized by the procedures through which they are obtained. The first kind of knowledge derives from perceptions or imagination. In particular, Spinoza distinguishes between knowledge deriving from reporting and knowledge deriving from wandering experience, which leads to the generalization of ideas and as a consequence to new knowledge. Actually, according to these origins of the first kind of knowledge, things of the universe can only be observed and interpreted separately and individually. Therefore, they give birth to obscure and inadequate ideas, generating—in turn—inadequate or limited knowledge. The second kind of knowledge derives from reason43 and commune ideas. In Spinoza’s view, reason is infallible (in fact it is possible to gain scientific knowledge through it) and commune ideas are representative of the whole (what totality of things have in common, and what is alike in  Theory of knowledge is included in the “Ethics,” a philosophical treatise—composed of five parts—written between 1661 and 1675 and published posthumously in 1677. About knowledge, Spinoza articulates the cognitive process into stages or moments that ultimately resolve themselves into God. The last type of knowledge, in fact, raises the finite human mind that is placed from the point of view of God. God is the ultimate cause of knowledge. God expresses itself in infinite attributes, which must all necessarily exist. Attributes are how our intellect perceives the essence of God in all things. Thus, all things emerge from God. 43  In Spinoza’s view, reason is the first filter through which we must run our imagined ideas. 42

82 

D. Matricano

the part and the whole). Based on reason and commune ideas, this kind of knowledge is able to infer the cause from any action, the general from the particular. One of the main characteristics of the second kind of knowledge is that it is possible to see things that are true for all, in all the places and at any time. As a consequence, such knowledge gives birth to clear and distinct ideas clarifying the cause-effect nexus; despite this useful advancement, the second kind of knowledge fails to point out the necessary relation among things. According to Spinoza’s view, a higher form of knowledge is required; therefore, it is necessary to introduce the third kind of knowledge. The third kind of knowledge, the highest one, is based on intuition; only this can lead to comprehend the essence of things.44 According to Spinoza, it is possible to perceive this knowledge directly (it is not inference-­oriented). Even if intuition is the base of scientific knowledge, it is not infallible. In comparison with ratio (characterizing the second kind of knowledge), intuition has some characteristics such as the focus on the whole scheme of things (fullness and eternity) and discursive and indirect reasoning. Despite the differences among the three kinds of knowledge, Spinoza states that they work together to offer a more complete picture of reality. If human mind (which—by definition—is finite) relies on imagination, reason, or intuition alone, then this would be a partial and poor way to obtain knowledge. The three kinds of knowledge need to proceed in order. For a start, human mind develops an opinion (imagination) and then it applies reason and intuition to fully understand if the idea/opinion is true. Also Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) faces the problem concerning the foundations of a theory of knowledge.45 His approach is based on the distinction between truths of reason and truths of fact. Truths of reason are necessary propositions because they are either  Essentially things are parts of God; thus, God exists within all things.  In Leibniz’s manuscripts it is possible to find ideas and basic principles about different fields of research ranging from mathematics to physics, from logic to theology passing through ethics. In particular, the theory of monads needs to be recalled because of its importance in the field of philosophy. 44 45

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

83

self-­evident or reducible to self-evidence. According to this, they do not refer to reality. If we get their meaning, we also get that their opposite or contradictories cannot be true. They are based on the principle of contradiction or the principle of identity. They cannot derive from experience and so they derive from innate ideas that are opaque and confused. Only experience can make ideas clear and distinct. On the contrary, truths of fact are not necessary propositions, but they are contingent and deal with reality. When we deny them, there will be no logical contradiction and so their opposite is possible. Truths of fact are based on the principle of sufficient reason,46 according to which nothing happens without a reason. Put simply, if something exists, then all its requisites have been posited; if all the requisites have been posited, then it does exist. By distinguishing truths of reason from truths of fact, Leibniz recalls innate ideas, the concept of experience, and the principle of sufficient reason. His theory remarks that knowledge starts with basic ideas, passes through experience, and gets to sufficient reasoning. All the rationalist philosophers cited above reveal a common approach to the pursuing of cognitive purposes by individuals.

4.5.2 Entrepreneurship Purposes Through the Lens of Rationalism After briefly recalling the principles of rationalism—introduced and shared by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz—two questions necessarily arise. Is it possible to transpose the principles of rationalism to the field of entrepreneurship? If so, what may we derive by transposing this view to the field of entrepreneurship? Immediately, possible overlaps between rationalism and entrepreneurship seem reasonable and acceptable so that the transposition of the principles of rationalism to the field of entrepreneurship may be hypothesized. In their original view, Descartes’s, Spinoza’s, and Leibnitz’s contributions allow framing cognitive purposes and describe if and how individuals  Actually, Descartes first endorsed the principle of sufficient reason. Spinoza also dealt with it. Leibniz consecrated it. 46

84 

D. Matricano

may move along an imaginary path leading to true knowledge. In this vein, Descartes distinguishes innate, adventitious, and factitious ideas in terms of intelligibility (Lennon, 2007; Nelson, 2008; Nolan Jr., 1997); Spinoza argues that all the three kinds of ideas help to comprehend the essence of things, but they need to work together and in a predetermined order to offer a complete picture of reality; eventually, Leibniz supports the idea that only experience can make ideas clear and distinct. Despite differences, Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz share the idea that cognitive processes are divided into stages. Only by passing from one stage to another, individuals increase their level of knowledge and arrive at the final goal, that is, true knowledge. Individuals who act in order to get true knowledge are similar to entrepreneurs who act in order to achieve their leading purpose—that is, to bring innovation to the market. If so, it is possible to try to answer to the second question then: what may we derive by transposing rationalism to the field of entrepreneurship? Reasonably, entrepreneurship may derive from rationalism the processual view of entrepreneurship and rely on it (Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2021; Dimov, 2020; Leyden & Link, 2015; McMullen & Dimov, 2013). This helps to reinterpret and frame the relationship between entrepreneurial purposes in a new and more realistic way. In the debate concerning the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities and the creation of new businesses, the approach is dichotomous in the beginning and it becomes sequential in the end. Ultimately, all the entrepreneurial purposes (preliminary, optional, and leading) are sequential—just like the three kinds of knowledge identified by Spinoza. Intelligibility (according to Descartes), sequentiality (according to Spinoza), or experience (according to Leibnitz) supports individuals and makes them proceed along the cognitive path. Similarly, entrepreneurship scholars need to think of intangible factors that may affect the selection and the achievement of their purposes in a positive (or negative) way. The decisions whether to identify an entrepreneurial opportunity, to create a new business, and to bring innovation to the market are not arbitrary. In this wake, the lenses of philosophy—and in particular of rationalism—are very useful since they suggest thinking about entrepreneurial purposes according to a processual view, as well as considering external factors that may affect the way individuals evaluate and pursue all the

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

85

entrepreneurial purposes. These lenses suggest viewing entrepreneurship purposes as a sequence that cannot be split or fragmented but—on the contrary—needs to be considered as a whole since entrepreneurs move along such purposes. At the same time, rationalism seems to corroborate the idea that there is a process within the process (Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2021). The beginning and the end of the process are always the same (the preliminary and the leading purposes); the way in which the process is articulated (the optional purpose) is never the same.

4.6 Concluding Remarks This chapter has investigated if philosophy—and in particular rationalism—may offer new lenses to study entrepreneurial purposes. The need to use new lenses derives from the results achieved by entrepreneurship scholars. Overall, the literature review about entrepreneurial purposes has revealed that all the entrepreneurs are involved in the achievement of the preliminary purpose, consisting in the perception of an entrepreneurial opportunity, in order to bring innovations to the market—this is the leading purpose that all the entrepreneurs aim to. On the way to achieve their leading purpose, entrepreneurs may be involved in the organization and launch of an entrepreneurial process taking to the creation of new businesses (optional purpose), or they may be involved in a series of functions, activities, and actions strictly connected to each other and leading to a different way to exploit the perceived opportunity. Despite some comprehensive views of entrepreneurial purposes (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Morris, 1998) and a possible sequential perspective (Bygrave & Hofer, 1992; Ucbasaran et  al., 2001), most scholars have tried to point out which is the most relevant purpose to achieve. As a consequence, the probable reasons why entrepreneurs address their efforts toward one goal rather than another (thus defining an ever-changing process) still need to be investigated. The only way to study these probable reasons is to refer to different fields of knowledge. Despite some alternatives, attention has been addressed toward philosophy that may help to understand the reasons of

86 

D. Matricano

human choices and actions. In particular attention has been addressed toward rationalism whose main representatives, Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz, share the vision of individuals who struggle between freedom and willingness to act, on the one hand, and external constraints, on the other hand (these individuals act under the same conditions as entrepreneurs). In particular, Descartes distinguishes innate, adventitious, and factitious ideas in terms of intelligibility; Spinoza argues that all the three kinds of ideas help to comprehend the essence of things but they need to work together and in a predetermined order to offer a complete picture of reality; eventually, Leibniz supports the idea that only experience can make ideas clear and distinct (Abbagnano & Fornero, 1996). Intelligibility, sequentiality, and experience are the reasons why individuals address their interest toward specific concepts and ideas and then move on to achieve superior cognitive aims; similarly, they may be the reasons why entrepreneurs address their interest and efforts toward one purpose after another. This helps to reinterpret and frame the relationship between entrepreneurial purposes in a new and more realistic way by corroborating the idea (Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2021) that there is a process within the entrepreneurial process.

References Abbagnano, N., & Fornero, G. (1996). Protagonisti e Testi della Filosofia (Volume II). Paravia. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press. Archer, L. B. (1965). Systematic Method for Designers. The Design Council. Asimow, M. (1962). Introduction to Design. Prentice-Hall. Baumol, W.  J. (1996). Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), 3–22. Beverland, M. B., Wilner, S. J., & Micheli, P. (2015). Reconciling the Tension Between Consistency and Relevance: design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(5), 589–609. Bhave, M.  P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 223–242.

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

87

Birley, S., & Westhead, P. (1993). A comparison of new business established by “novice” and “habitual” founders in Great Britain. International Small Business Journal, 12(4), 38–60. Birley, S., & Westhead, P. (1994). A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm growth and size. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(1), 7–31. Brazeal, D.  V., & Herbert, T.  T. (1999). The Genesis of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 29–46. Brixy, U., Sternberg, R., & Stüber, H. (2012). The Selectiveness of the Entrepreneurial Process. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(1), 105–131. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. Buenstorf, G. (2007). Creation and Pursuit of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: An Evolutionary Perspective. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 323–337. Buttà, C. (1995). La Genesi dell’Impresa: Fondamenti Cognitivi e Decisori. Franco Angeli. Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1992). Theorizing About Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 13–22. Bygrave, W. D. (1989a). The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I): A Philosophical Look at its Research Methodologies. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7–26. Bygrave, W.  D. (1989b). The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (II): Chaos and Catastrophes among Quantum Jumps. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 7–30. Cantillon R. (1755). Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général, eng. Trans. H. Higgs (ed.), AM Kelley, New York. Casson, M. (1982). The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory (2nd ed. in 2003). Edward Elgar Publishing. Clough, D. R., Fang, T. P., Vissa, B., & Wu, A. (2019). Turning Lead into Gold: How Do Entrepreneurs Mobilize Resources to Exploit Opportunities? Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 240–271. Cole, A.  H. (1959). Business Enterprise in its Social Setting. Harvard University Press. Cole, A.  H. (1965). Aggregative Business History. Business History Review, 39(3), 287–300.

88 

D. Matricano

Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A Resource-based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501. Cooper, A. C. (1979). Strategic management: new ventures and small business. In D. E. Schendel & C. W. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic Management. Little Brown. Cooper, A.  C. (1995). Challenges in predicting new firm performance. In I.  Bull, H.  Thomas, & G.  Willard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship. Perspectives on Theory Building, Pergamon-Elsevier. Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. (1981). A new look at business entry: experience of 1805 entrepreneurs. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College. Wellesley. Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 53–68. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behaviour. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25. Davidsson, P. (2003). The Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: Some Suggestions. Jönköping International Business School. internal paper. Davidsson, P., & Gruenhagen, J. H. (2021). Fulfilling the process promise: A review and agenda for new venture creation process research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1083–1118. Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: test of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677–695. Dimov, D. (2020). Opportunities, language, and time. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 333–351. Donckels, R., Dupont, B., & Michel, P. (1987). Multiple Business Starters Who? Why? What? Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 48–63. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Harper & Row. Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274–2306. Envick, B.  R., & Langford, M. (2000). The five-factor model of personality: assessing entrepreneurs and managers. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 6–17. Gaglio, C.  M. (1997). Opportunity identification: review, critique and suggested research directions. In J.  Katz & J.  Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth. JAI Press.

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

89

Gartner, W.  B. (1985). A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696–706. Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Small Business Journal, 12(4), 11–31. Gartner, W.  B. (1990). What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15–28. Gartner, W.  B. (2001). Is There an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind Assumptions in Theory Development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(4), 27–39. Gartner, W.  B., & Gatewood, E. (1992). Thus the Theory of Description Matters Most. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 5–10. Giunta, F. (1993). La creazione di nuove imprese. Uno schema di analisi economico-­ aziendale. Cedam. Goldberg, L.  R. (1992). The development of markers for the big five-factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. Goldberg, L.  R., Sweeney, D., Merenda, P.  F., & Hughes, J.  E. (1998). Demographic variables and personality: the effects of gender, age, education, and ethic/racial status on self-descriptions of personality attributes. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(3), 393–403. Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2014). What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design Studies, 35(1), 29–53. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122. Hall, P. (1995). Habitual owners of small business. In F. Chittened, M. Robertson, & I.  Marshall (Eds.), Small Firms: Partnership for Growth. Paul Chapman Publishing. Hamilton, R.  T., & Harper, D.  A. (1994). The Entrepreneur in Theory and Practice. Journal of Economic Studies, 21(6), 3–18. Hitt, M.  A., Ireland, R.  D., Camp, S.  M., & Sexton, D.  L. (2001). Guest Editors’ Introduction to the Special Issue Strategic Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Strategies for Wealth Creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 479–491. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2002). Strategic Entrepreneurship—Creating a New Mindset. Blackwell Publishing. Hoogendoorn, B., van der Zwan, P., & Thurik, R. (2020). Goal heterogeneity at start-up: are greener start-ups more innovative? Research Policy, 49(10), 104061.

90 

D. Matricano

Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49–63. Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics, 36(2), 135–150. Jones, J. C. (1970). Design Methods. John Wiley & Sons. Katz, J.  A., & Gartner, W. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429–441. Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2012). Reclaim your creative confidence. Harvard Business Review, 90(12), 115–118. Kilby, P. (1971). Hunting the Heffalump. In P. Kilby (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. The Free Press. Kirzner, I.  M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press. Kirzner, I.  M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85. Klyver, K., Evald, M. R., & Hindle, K. (2011). Social networks and new venture creation: the dark side of networks. In K.  Hindle & K.  Kliver (Eds.), Handbook of Research on New Venture Creation. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, UK. Knight, F.  H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Larson, A., & Starr, J. A. (1993). A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 5–15. Leibenstein, H. (1978). General X-efficiency Theory and Economic Development. Oxford University Press. Leibenstein, H. (1979). The General X-efficiency Paradigm and the Role of the Entrepreneur. In M. J. Rizzo (Ed.), Time, Uncertainty, and Disequilibrium. D. C. Health, Lexington, MA. Leifer, J. C. (1976). Designing an instrumented driver response system. Public Roads, 40(2), 60–65. Lennon, T. M. (2007). The Eleatic Descartes. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 45(1), 29–45. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Toward a theory of the entrepreneurial process. Small Business Economics, 44(3), 475–484. Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938.

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

91

Liedtka, J. (2018). Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 72–79. Lin, M. F. G., & Eichelberger, A. (2020). Transforming faculty communication and envisioning the future with design thinking. TechTrends, 64(2), 238–247. Low, M., & MacMillan, I. (1988). Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161. Low, M. B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 17–26. Luebkeman, C. (2015). Design is our answer: An interview with leading design thinker Tim Brown. Architectural Design, 85(4), 34–39. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 135–172. MacMillan, I.  C. (1986). To really know about entrepreneurship, let’s study habitual entrepreneur. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(3), 241–243. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. Macmillan. Martin, R. L. (2009). The Design Of Business: Why Design Thinking Is The Next Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Press. Matricano, D. (2015). Lo studio dell’imprenditorialità. Un approccio di indagine multidimensionale. Carocci Editore, Roma. Matricano, D. (2020a). The effect of R&D investments, highly skilled employees, and patents on the performance of Italian innovative startups. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 32(10), 1195–1208. Matricano, D. (2020b). Entrepreneurship Trajectories: Entrepreneurial Opportunities, Business Models, and Firm Performance. Elsevier Academic Press. Matricano, D. (2022). Economic and social development generated by innovative startups: does heterogeneity persist across Italian macro-regions? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 31(6), 467–484. McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset. Harvard Business School Press. McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: the problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512. Meyer, G. D., & Heppard, K. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as Strategy: Competing on the Entrepreneurial Edge. Sage Publications. Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of Political Economy with Some of their Applications to Social Philosophy. John W. Parker. Morris, M.  H. (1998). Entrepreneurial Intensity: Sustainable Advantages for Individuals, Organizations, and Societies. Quorum.

92 

D. Matricano

Morris, M. H., Lewis, P. S., & Sexton, D. L. (1994). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurship: an input-output perspective. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 59(1), 21–31. Nelson, A. (2008). Cartesian Innateness. In J. Broughton & J. Carriero (Eds.), A Companion to Descartes. Blackwell. Nolan, L. P., Jr. (1997). Descartes’ Theory of Essences. University of California. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press. Pittaway, L. (2005). Philosophies in entrepreneurship: a focus on economic theories. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 11(3), 201–221. Ripsas, S. (1998). Towards an interdisciplinary theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 10(2), 103–115. Rittel, H. (1973). The State of the Art in Design Methods. Design Research and Methods, 7(2), 143–147. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(1), 155–169. Say, J. B. (1803). A Treatise on Political Economy: Or, the Production, Distribution and Consumption of Wealth (1964 ed.). Augustus M. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and business cycle (1934 ed.). Harvard University Press. Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 19–33. Shane, S.  A. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-­ Opportunity Nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. Shepherd, D. A., Ettenson, R., & Crouch, A. (2000). New venture strategy and profitability: a venture capitalist’s assessment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 449–467. Silva, D. S., Ghezzi, A., Aguiar, R. B. D., Cortimiglia, M. N., & ten Caten, C. S. (2021). Lean startup for opportunity exploitation: adoption constraints and strategies in technology new ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(4), 944–969. Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press. Sorrentino, M. (2003). Le nuove imprese. Economia delle nuove iniziative imprenditoriali. Cedam, Padova.

4  Entrepreneurial Purposes Through the Lens of Philosophy 

93

Sorrentino, M. (2000). L’Imprenditorialità interna per lo sviluppo, in A.  Lipparini, G.  Lorenzoni (a cura di), Imprenditori e Imprese. Idee, Piani, Processi, Il Mulino, Bologna. Spender, J. C. (1996). Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 45–62. Spender, J.  C., & Grant, R.  M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), 5–9. Starr, J., & Bygrave, W. (1991). The assets and liabilities of prior start-up experience: an exploratory study of multiple venture entrepreneurs. In N.  Churchhill, J.  Bygrave, D.  Covin, D.  Sexton, K.  Slevin, K.  Vesper, & W.  Wetzel (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesley. Stevenson, H.  H., & Jarrillo, J.  C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(SI: Corporate Entrepreneurship), 17-27. Stevenson, H.  H., Roberts, M.  J., & Grousbeck, H.  I. (1999). New business Ventures and the Entrepreneur. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Stewart, A. (1992). A prospectus on the anthropology of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 71–92. Steyaert, C. (2007). Entrepreneuring as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6), 453–477. Thompson, J. L. (1999). A strategic perspective of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 5(6), 279–296. Tu, J. C., Liu, L. X., & Wu, K. Y. (2018). Study on the learning effectiveness of Stanford design thinking in integrated design education. Sustainability, 10(8), 1–21. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2001). The focus of entrepreneurial research: contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 57–80. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Binks, M. (2003a). Does entrepreneurial experience influence opportunity identification? The Journal of Private Equity, 7(1), 7–14. Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. (2003b). A longitudinal study of habitual entrepreneurs: starters and acquirers. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 15(3), 207–228. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2006). The Habitual Entrepreneur. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd..

94 

D. Matricano

Van De Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486–489. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor’s perspective. In J.  Katz & J.  Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth (pp. 119–138). JAI Press. Venkataraman, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Strategy and entrepreneurship: outline of an untold story. In M. Hitt, E. Freeman, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Strategic Management. Blackwell Publishers. Vesper, K. H. (1980). New Venture Strategies. Prentice-Hall. Von Hayek, F.  A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530. Von Mises, L. (1949). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Yale University Press. Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (1998a). Novice, portfolio and serial founders in rural and urban areas. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 22(4), 63–100. Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (1998b). Novice, serial and portfolio founders: are they different? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(3), 173–204. Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Decisions, actions and performances: do novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs differ? Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 393–417. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2008). Portfolio entrepreneurship: habitual and notice founders, new entry, and mode of organizing. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(4), 701–725. Woo, C. Y., Daellenbach, U., & Nicholls-Nixon, C. (1994). Theory building in the presence of “randomness”: the case of new venture creation and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 31(4), 507–524. Woo, C. Y., Folta, T., & Cooper, A. C. (1992). Entrepreneurial search: alternative theories of behavior. In N.  C. Churchill, S.  Birley, W.  D. Bygrave, D. F. Muzyka, C. Wahlbin, & W. E. Wetzel (Eds.), Frontiers in Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesley. Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: the state of the field. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 24(2), 45–63. Zanni, L. (1995). Imprenditorialità e Territorio. Cedam.

5 Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens of Mathematics

After clarifying the purposes that entrepreneurs aim to achieve, attention is now shifted to investigate the process of decision-making addressed by entrepreneurs. Particular attention is paid to the identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. How do entrepreneurs proceed along these phases? At present, entrepreneurial studies do not offer largely agreed responses. Among several fields of knowledge that might be useful, the principles of mathematics may be of support. Someone might think about imaginary numbers—which stand for new values and could stand for new situations—but this does not help. Factually, entrepreneurs seem to be more inclined to leverage Boolean algebra classifying options as 1 or 0, yes or no. The key point here is not to determine how selection procedures work (each entrepreneur is expected to adopt their procedure) but to figure out—if possible—a mental scheme or approach that entrepreneurs may rely on in order to interpret an event or a phenomenon and make decisions along the entrepreneurial process.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Matricano, Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1_5

95

96 

D. Matricano

5.1 The Area of Research According to the standard configuration of entrepreneurship processes,1 another issue that is worth paying attention to is entrepreneurial decision-­ making.2 Entrepreneurship is a social science, made by individuals who make decisions and consequently act in order to achieve a predetermined purpose. In this vein, it becomes of crucial importance to investigate how entrepreneurs may get to a decision rather than another. The topic of decision-making in entrepreneurship is not new. Actually it has been—and still is—largely investigated (De Winnaar & Scholtz, 2020; Lyon et al., 2000; Rodgers et al., 2022; Shepherd, 2011; Shepherd et al., 2015). In fact, contributions range from the relevance of biases and heuristics (Busenitz & Barney, 1997) to the entrepreneurial risk (Busenitz, 1999), since they all may affect decision-making processes, or from psychological models at the basis of entrepreneurial decision-making (Miao & Liu, 2010) to self-efficacy, they all may derive from decision-making processes (Forbes, 2005). Other contributions (Jiang & Rüling, 2019; Sarasvathy, 2001) investigate and focus on the contrast between causation (which is closer to traditional views of entrepreneurial decision-­ making by assuming that the means are selected in order to attain the goals) and effectuation (which emphasizes that entrepreneurs create goals on the basis of the available means). Still other contributions focus on the cognitive maps (Muñoz, 2018) or on the programming techniques3 (Olayinka et al., 2015) that entrepreneurs need to develop. Despite the relevance of all the above topics, in the present chapter, attention is going to be paid to the decision-making process concerning  As already said, this standard configuration derives an extensive review of contributions focused on entrepreneurship process. 2  The concept is borrowed by managerial studies investigating decision-making processes in organizations (Feldman & Kanter, 1963; March, 1991; Simon, 1944). 3  An interesting proposal is due to Olayinka et al. (2015) who propose the linear programming technique to explain entrepreneurial decision-making. In their view, the basic assumption at the basis of entrepreneurial decision-making is the linear relationship between the amount of input (resources to be used) and the amount of output. The relationship between input and output may be reduced to two main alternative aims: profit maximization or cost minimization. According to Olayinka et al. (2015), entrepreneurial decision-making occurs in compliance with input-output relationship and profit and costs evaluations. 1

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

97

entrepreneurial opportunities (Maine et al., 2015; Reymen et al., 2015). In fact, decisions about entrepreneurial opportunities are at the basis of entrepreneurial processes since all the entrepreneurs necessarily make them; thus an investigation about them is helpful in order to enhance entrepreneurial studies. Indeed, as for the decision process, two different views emerge from an extensive literature review. On the one hand, entrepreneurial processes are viewed as a one, long-lasting phase. According to Kirzner (1973, 1997), in fact, entrepreneurial process is a continuum and all the activities carried out in order to achieve the entrepreneurial purpose4 cannot be assigned to any specific phase. This implies that all the decisions are made unceasingly, without a clear-cut distinction among different phases.5 The second view, instead, considers entrepreneurship processes as a sequence of three different phases, respectively, concerning the identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Miller, 2007; Sarason et al., 2006; Shane, 2003; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). In support of this view, Foss and Foss (2008) maintain that entrepreneurial processes require different levers, like “knowledge, effort, and investment” (p. 193), to be carried out.6 By referring to one lever or another and by assuming that their relevance may increase or decrease according to the advancement of entrepreneurial processes, it seems reasonable to divide processes into several phases. Differences between the above views may be easily caught. The former, which considers long-lasting processes made up of one phase, hypothesizes that entrepreneurial processes are linear; therefore entrepreneurs are straightly driven from the identification to the selection and then to the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities.  See Chap. 2.  Maybe, the reason underlying this proposal may be identified in Kirznerian concept of individual alertness. It is the only driver that moves the entrepreneur during the whole process so that it does not seem possible to split the process in more than one phase. 6  Foss and Foss complete their statement by maintaining: “[I]t makes analytical sense to distinguish different phases in the opportunity discovery process” (Foss & Foss, 2008, p. 193). The different levers are only a way to highlight the distinction between several phases of a whole process. See also Eckhardt and Shane (2003). 4 5

98 

D. Matricano

The second, which consists in looking at three-phases processes, underlines the passage from one phase to another, so that individuals are compelled to stop and decide whether to go on, give up, or proceed in a different way (Mitchell et al., 2000). Implicitly, differences between the two above views deal with the risk of failure and the problem of resource allocation. In fact, if entrepreneurial processes take place over a single phase, then the risk of failure is very high since entrepreneurs get the result of their activity (success or failure) only when the opportunity has been eventually exploited. Evaluations may be processed only when the process is finished. Similarly, the resource allocation happens through a one-solution investment, which leads to the exploitation of the opportunity. Instead, if entrepreneurship processes take place according to the sequence identification-selection-exploitation phases, then the risk of failure decreases since entrepreneurs may evaluate it at the end of each phase, when they may decide whether to proceed, abandon, or choose another opportunity in due time. Similarly, the resource allocation is divided into several smaller investments, fewer resources being necessary for each phase7 of the process. Even if it is not possible to question the first view—looking at entrepreneurship processes as a single-phase one—it seems that the second may better represent the reality of entrepreneurship processes, which goes through identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. This  This theory is well known in the field of finance with the name of real options theory—see Lambrecht (2017) for a review. In the last few years, the real options theory has been used to investigate ways of organizing (McGrath et al., 2004), firm boundary issues (Leiblein & Miller, 2003), corporate strategy (Barnett, 2003), and diversification (Raynor, 2002). According to McGrath and MacMillan (2000) it may be applied to entrepreneurship processes and according to Janney and Dess (2004) it may be applied to decision-making under uncertainty. As noticed by Bowman and Hurry (1993), real options theory may be referred to both financial economics and organizational investments. The difference is that while the former deals with economic value, the latter concerns with action and performance. However, “both areas have origins in a behavioural phenomenon” (p. 761). Even if many scholars agree on the possibility to refer the real options theory to entrepreneurship processes, some scholars (Plummer et al., 2007) do not. The scholars maintain that while the entrepreneurial process is based on the idea that “opportunity to produce future goods and services exists in the current period […] real options theory is grounded in the assumption that the opportunity will come to existence in some future period” (2007, p. 371). Actually, this critique does not consider that individual may redefine the opportunity during the process. Anyway, the distinction does not prevent from associating the theory of real options to entrepreneurship processes. 7

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

99

view is adopted for the current research. By rebuilding the phases about identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, it is possible to investigate how entrepreneurs make their decisions and remark limits emerging from entrepreneurship studies.

5.2 The Identification of Entrepreneurial Opportunities According to the principles of strategic entrepreneurship,8 entrepreneurship processes start with the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities, which come into existence through the acts of recognition, discovery, or creation (Alvarez & Barney, 2007, 2008; Sarasvathy et al., 2005). Recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities is rooted in the neoclassical vision of entrepreneurship. This vision is based on several assumptions: markets work perfectly (there are no inefficiencies), entrepreneurial opportunities exist by themselves, and, therefore, entrepreneurs are not required to having particular skills and/or knowledge to identify them (Schumpeter, 1911). Also the Austrian vision believes that entrepreneurial opportunities exist autonomously, but, in this case, to identify them it is necessary to have particular requirements, for example, to be in a continuous state of alertness (Kirzner, 1973). This implies that opportunities are discovered. Instead, according to the contemporary view, entrepreneurial opportunities do not exist and, therefore, it is up to the entrepreneur to identify them by the act of creation (Sarasvathy et al., 2005). Differences among the different visions and different ways to identify entrepreneurial opportunities are going to be clarified in the following sections.  Strategic entrepreneurship is a theoretical background aiming to reduce the distance between entrepreneurship and management studies (Meyer & Heppard, 2000) that may feed and complement each other (Hitt et al., 2002). Overall, strategic entrepreneurship invites to look at entrepreneurial actions with a strategic perspective and strategic actions with an entrepreneurial approach (Hitt et al., 2001). For example, strategic entrepreneurship pays attention to the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities and to the achievement and maintenance of competitive advantage. Several authors have contributed to the birth and success of this theoretical background, such as McGrath and MacMillan (2000); Meyer and Heppard (2000); Ireland et al. (2001); Hitt et al. (2001, 2002); and Venkataraman and Sarasvathy (2001). 8

100 

D. Matricano

5.2.1 The Neoclassical View The first vision, which tries to explain how the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities occurs, has its roots in the theoretical principles of classical economics. Say (1803) proposed this vision, subsequently Knight (1921) recalled it, and Schumpeter (1911) consecrated it.9 According to the neoclassical view of entrepreneurship, the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities happens through the act of recognition (Schumpeter, 1911). To understand how this act occurs, it is necessary to start from the market that, by definition, is always in a status of equilibrium.10 In the market, in fact, supply and demand interact with each other until they reach the status of equilibrium, where all producers sell their goods to consumers at a certain price. Producers11 do not play a key role in this market as they all have the same reasoning skills and, above all, identify the optimal solution. Therefore, the neoclassical market is characterized by two elements: the constant balance between supply and demand, and the perfect rationality of all individuals, especially producers. In such a perfect market it seems really difficult to recognize new entrepreneurial opportunities. According to Schumpeter (1911), three different sources of innovation can be enlisted. They are as follows: • technological changes, • political and regulatory changes, and • social and demographic changes. 9  Although Schumpeter (1911) is one of the forerunners of the Austrian view, his approach falls in the neoclassical one (Waters, 1994). In the present work attention is paid to the initial approach that Schumpeter (1911) shares about entrepreneurial opportunities in order to stress the contrast with the Austrian view supported by Kirzner (1973). 10  Schumpeter’s theory (Schumpeter, 1911) starts from the idea that the market is characterized by a status of equilibrium that—as a matter of fact—turns out to be unattainable. Innovations brought to the market break the existing equilibrium, and before this may be restored, new ones are brought to it thus preventing it from returning to the hypothetical status of equilibrium. In this way, Schumpeter (1911) explains how the market works. 11  It is appropriate to remember that in the neoclassical theory the term “entrepreneur” is not widespread. It will be after Schumpeter’s contribution (1911). Anyway, when in neoclassical theory there is a reference to the “producer,” the one organizing the resources to produce, it may be realized that the reference goes to the “entrepreneur.”

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

101

All these changes continually offer new information on how to use available resources in an ever new way (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, p. 221). Therefore, according to the neoclassical vision, entrepreneurial opportunities do not derive from the market, which—as said before—tends to an unattainable state of equilibrium (McMullen et  al., 2007). They derive, instead, from the possibility of combining the resources that already exist in a new way in order to respond to external changes (Buenstorf, 2007), whether technological, political, or regulatory, or social and demographic. Based on these premises, entrepreneurs may recognize these opportunities, which arise from the external context, thanks to the information they have (Shane, 2003). It is important to specify that the information we are talking about does not refer to internal knowledge, that is, understood as an intrinsic quality of the individual,12 but to the external one. Temporary imperfections may occur even in a perfect market, so it happens that not all subjects obtain the same piece of information at the same time (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, p. 221). Entrepreneurs who get this piece of information in advance may recognize new entrepreneurial opportunities. A summary of the characteristics of the neoclassical view is included in Table 5.1. Table 5.1  The main characteristics of the neoclassical view Focus

Description

Origin of entrepreneurial opportunities Role of entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurial opportunities are due to technological, political, or social changes and, therefore, exist autonomously The role of entrepreneurs is reduced to its minimum since they act only as an “interface” (McMullen et al., 2007, p. 281) between the external context (where opportunities originate) and the market. The entrepreneurs’ role, therefore, consists in collecting information and organizing resources in a new way The identification of entrepreneurial opportunities happens through the act of recognition (Sarasvathy et al., 2005)

Act

Source: Author’s personal elaboration  The firs reference to knowledge as a quality of individuals—making them different from each other—may be traced back to the contribution of Von Hayek (1945), forerunner of the Austrian School. 12

102 

D. Matricano

5.2.2 The Austrian View The second vision may be traced back to the Austrian school—originated in Vienna at the beginning of the twentieth century—from which, in fact, it takes its name. Although von Hayek (1945) and von Mises (1949) authored the first contributions related to this view, the most important exponent of the Austrian view is Kirzner (1973). Of course, also other scholars have embraced this view, such as Khilstrom and Laffont (1979), Brealey and Myers (1988), Evans and Jovanovic (1989), and Baumol (1993). According to this view, the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities happens through the act of discovery (Kirzner, 1973). The profound economic changes that occurred between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century changed the idea that economics scholars had of the market and of its functioning. The idea of the perfect rationality of economic agents is gradually set aside and the concept of uncertainty is strengthened. Uncertainty, in fact, assumes a very important role in the Austrian vision. In economics studies, the concept of market equilibrium is replaced by the concept of disequilibrium. This implies a radical change: starting from an initial status of disequilibrium, entrepreneurs may bring the market back to status of equilibrium (Kirzner, 1973). In such a context, obviously, differences also emerge in reference to the market supply and demand. The Austrian vision, inspired by disequilibrium, admits that supply and demand for a specific goods or service may not meet. This happens if consumers have specific needs to satisfy, but there is no adequate supply to satisfy them, or if innovative goods and services are offered, but there is no demand for them (Buenstorf, 2007). Both these situations lead to a reassessment of the role of entrepreneurs,13 who are the only ones able to get the market out of the state of disequilibrium in order to reconnect, or at least try, to the state of equilibrium, by

 In reference to the new role of entrepreneurs, Kirzner writes: “Austrian emphasis on the entrepreneur is fundamental. Whereas each neoclassical decision maker operates in a world of given price and output data, the Austrian entrepreneur operates to change price and output data. In this way, as we shall see, the entrepreneurial role drives the ever-changing process of the market” (Kirzner, 1997, p. 70). 13

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

103

stimulating supply and demand where they do not exist.14 However, not everyone may assume the new role assigned to entrepreneurs (new in comparison to the neoclassical one). The Austrian view, in fact, is based on the idea that in order to discover a new entrepreneurial opportunity, it is necessary to have a different, favored access to existing information (Shane, 2003, pp.  20 ff.). This access may reveal itself in the shape of imperfect knowledge (von Hayek, 1945), asymmetrical expectations (von Mises, 1949), or differences in entrepreneurial alertness (Kirzner, 1973). The Kirznerian proposal, according to which the entrepreneur is the one in a state of alertness to discover opportunities not yet known to others, has exerted the greatest impact on entrepreneurship studies so that many other scholars (Brealey & Myers, 1988; Evans & Jovanovic, 1989; Khilstrom & Laffont, 1979) share the idea that, thanks to this characteristic, entrepreneurs have access to specific information denied to non-entrepreneurs (Baumol, 1993). According to the above, the Austrian view is characterized by three elements such as: • the status of disequilibrium between supply and demand, • the possibility that the demand or supply of a good or service does not exist, and • the possibility that only some individuals access the information. At this stage, some reflections about the origin of the new entrepreneurial opportunities are mandatory. Where do new entrepreneurial opportunities come from? Drucker (1985) offers an important contribution about this. The scholar identifies seven possible sources of innovation (such as the unexpected, the inconsistencies, the needs arising from the process, the structure of the sector and the market, the demographic evolution, changes in the way things are perceived, and new knowledge) from which new entrepreneurial opportunities may derive.  Sarasvathy et al. (2005) provide two examples of this type of market. Cures for diseases are an example of a market where demand exists but supply has often not yet been discovered; new technological applications for the personal computer, instead, are an example of a market where the supply exists but the demand has not been discovered yet. 14

104 

D. Matricano

Table 5.2  The main characteristics of the Austrian view Focus

Description

Origin of Entrepreneurial opportunities are due to changes entrepreneurial taking place both inside and outside the market opportunities Role of entrepreneurs The role of entrepreneurs is re-evaluated, as they may discover new entrepreneurial opportunities and bring the market back from a status of disequilibrium to a status of equilibrium Act The identification of business opportunities is revealed through the act of discovery that depends on the knowledge of entrepreneurs (Sarasvathy et al., 2005) Source: Author’s personal elaboration

In comparison with the neoclassical view, it is important to remark that the sources of innovation15 in the Austrian view may be linked to the firm or the market or, alternatively, to external phenomena (Drucker, 1985). Accordingly, they may be both endogenous and exogenous (Buenstorf, 2007). A summary of the characteristics of the Austrian view is included in Table 5.2.

5.2.3 The Contemporary View Over the last decades, the contemporary view has been proposed. Scholars supporting this view seek to analyze how the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities occurs in the new economic scenario that has changed due to the global crisis, to the importance assumed by the economies of emerging countries, as well as to ongoing social and political changes (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Alvarez & Barney, 2007, 2008; Miller, 2007; Sarason et al., 2006; Sarasvathy et al., 2005). The concepts of status of equilibrium/disequilibrium and the dynamics of the market become less and less outlined and so advance entrepreneurial studies is not effortless (Matricano, 2015). In the new economic  According to Buenstorf (2007), “[W]hile the Kirznerian entrepreneur discovers and pursues opportunities that exist within markets, the Schumpeterian entrepreneur discovers opportunities that exist outside the economic sphere and pursues these opportunities by bringing them into the marketplace” (p. 325). 15

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

105

scenario, it seems possible to argue that market supply and demand may not exist,16 since the identification of new goods, and therefore of new markets, in which they may be traded may take place in unpredictable ways and forms (Buenstorf, 2007). Based on this foundation, the relationship between the context and the entrepreneur is subverted in the contemporary view. Entrepreneurs, who no longer have a reference market to analyze, may operate by leveraging only their cognitive abilities, so they have to create their own entrepreneurial opportunity (Sarasvathy et al., 2005). A related problem deals with the origin of the new entrepreneurial opportunities. With the market set aside, the possible sources may be producers or consumers (Companys & McMullen, 2007) who, with their choices, orient the market in one direction rather than another. The possible sources, therefore, are exclusively related to the subjects. Consequently, entrepreneurs assume a fundamental role since they must be able to interact with consumers and other entrepreneurs (Buenstorf, 2007) to observe and understand their choices,17 and then to create new business opportunities. It follows, therefore, that relationships with other subjects, defined as social structures (Sarason et al., 2006), determine the entrepreneurial process and, therefore, create new entrepreneurial opportunities. These, consequently, turn out to be induced phenomena (enacted phenomena) that do not exist without entrepreneurs and cannot be considered independently.18 In this new vision, totally centered on the ­entrepreneur, the relevance of the external context is reduced to a minimum, until it becomes almost completely negligible. A summary of the characteristics of the contemporary view is included in Table 5.3.  For a list of markets in which supply and demand must be created, see Sarasvathy et al. (2005, p. 146). 17  Sarason et al. (2006, p. 292) argue: “[K]nowledgeable entrepreneurs are empowered to act in a manner that influences opportunities and to reflexively monitor the impact of their actions leading to actions that reinforce, modify or create new opportunities.” 18  About interdependency between entrepreneurial opportunities and entrepreneur—labelled as structuration theory—Sarason et  al. (2006, p.  289) state: “[A] reciprocal relationship between agency and structure, and as such offers a perspective that specifically articulates the relationship between agent (entrepreneur) and structure (opportunity) as a duality. A duality, as opposed to a dualism, presents two constructs that cannot exist, or to be understood, separate from each other.” 16

106 

D. Matricano

Table 5.3  The main characteristics of the contemporary view Focus

Description

Origin of entrepreneurial opportunities

Entrepreneurial opportunities no longer exist independently (as for the neoclassical approach and for the Austrian approach), but are determined exclusively by economic subjects (entrepreneurs vs. producers and consumers) The role of the entrepreneur is completely re-evaluated. The latter, in fact, must be able to analyze changes during their occurrence to identify new business opportunities The identification of entrepreneurial opportunities is revealed through the act of creation (Sarason et al., 2006, pp. 291 ff.). It is, that is, an action that depends exclusively on the individual (Sarasvathy et al., 2005). The need for the entrepreneur to create supply and demand, which do not exist, leads to the conclusion that even entrepreneurial opportunities do not exist a priori, but must be created

Role of entrepreneurs

Act

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

5.2.4 Reflections The above review about identification of entrepreneurial opportunities (which may take place through the act of recognition, discovery, or creation) leads to reflect about decision-making in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs, in fact, cannot choose ex ante whether they are going to recognize, discover, or create new entrepreneurial opportunities. Of course, they may be more inclined toward one of these acts, but they cannot know in advance if they will be successful with one act or if they will have to rely on another (Troise et al., 2022). For this reason, it seems not appropriate to talk about entrepreneurial decision-making about the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities. Whether it is correct and fitting to refer entrepreneurial decision-­ making to the selection of entrepreneurial opportunities is going to be verified in the next sections.

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

107

5.3 The Selection Phase The distinction among the neoclassical, the Austrian, and the contemporary views has allowed us to reconstruct how entrepreneurs may identify new entrepreneurial opportunities, so that it is possible to analyze the second phase of the entrepreneurial process related to the selection of entrepreneurial opportunities (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Autio et al., 2013; Miller, 2007; Sarason et al., 2006; Shane, 2003; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). In the theoretical contributions focused on the selection of entrepreneurial opportunities, scholars remark very important aspects concerning: 1 . the goal to be achieved, 2. the possible selection procedures, 3. the variables (external and internal) that may negatively affect the selection, 4. the activities that entrepreneurs may put into practice to reduce the influence of the above variables. The order according to which the four aspects are mentioned is not random. On the contrary it theorizes the sequence through which the selection of an entrepreneurial opportunity is carried out. First, entrepreneurs need to have a clear idea of the goal they intend to pursue; therefore, they must be able to distinguish true entrepreneurial opportunities (generating profit) from false opportunities (not generating profit) in order to decide whether to pursue or reject them.19 The four possible alternatives that may occur are shown in Table 5.4. The four possible alternatives are success, loss, a false alarm, or a right rejection. Success manifests when the entrepreneur decides to take advantage of a real entrepreneurial opportunity, thus obtaining a profit. Loss,  This aspect (opportunities generating or not profit) recalls the contribution authored by Olayinka et al. (2015). 19

108 

D. Matricano

Table 5.4  Possible outcomes of the selection phase Pursuing Rejection

True opportunities

False opportunities

Success Loss

False alarm Right rejection

Source: Adaptation from Foss and Foss (2008, p. 198)

on the other hand, occurs when an entrepreneur rejects a real opportunity. In the event of a false alarm, then, the entrepreneur decides to take advantage of a false business opportunity that, therefore, does not generate profit. In the case of a reasoned refusal, however, the entrepreneur decides not to select a false business opportunity. The four alternatives may be divided into two groups: one positive and the other negative. The first includes the pursuit of a real opportunity and the rejection of a false opportunity. It is clear that the first best choice is to pursue a real opportunity. However, even the refusal of a false opportunity represents a positive choice (second best) since it still allows the entrepreneur not to report losses. The second group, on the other hand, includes the pursuit of a false opportunity and the denial of a true opportunity. In both cases, it is clear that the selection process has not been carried out correctly. As for the possible selection procedures—the second aspect of the four mentioned above—they have been classified as simultaneous or sequential (Sleptsov & Anand, 2008). The simultaneous process is put in place when an entrepreneur evaluates several business opportunities at the same time. The advantage consists in being able to compare the various business opportunities previously identified through an “absolute comparison” (Sleptsov & Anand, 2008, p.  361); the disadvantage, on the other hand, is that the search for multiple information may reduce the quality of the information itself. On the contrary, if the entrepreneur decides to adopt a sequential procedure, the selection takes place by evaluating a single business opportunity at a time. The disadvantage of this approach consists in evaluating each business opportunity independently through a “relative

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

109

comparison” (Sleptsov & Anand, 2008, p. 361), without a precise term of comparison. On the other hand, the advantage is that the evaluation is based on very detailed information. The clear theoretical distinction, although very useful, does not always correspond to what happens in reality. The selection phase, in fact, may be unordered and reversible (Eckhardt & Ciuchta, 2008). It is unordered if it happens that the procedure, simultaneous or sequential, established a priori is not followed; it is reversible if the procedure is modified according to the needs. These two characteristics show how the selection may be the result of a combination of the simultaneous and sequential approaches. For this reason, therefore, the theoretical proposal according to which the selection of entrepreneurial opportunities occurs through a multi-stage model seems preferable (Eckhardt et al., 2006). In this case, therefore, it is assumed that the final decision is the result of several intermediate assessments that may be conducted according to changing patterns. In particular, the variables (external and internal) that may negatively affect the selection and the activities that entrepreneurs may put into practice to reduce the influence of the above variables are analyzed in the following sections.

5.3.1 External and Internal Variables Affecting the Selection Phase After establishing the output of the selection phase (the pursuit of a true entrepreneurial opportunity) and which selection procedures might be useful to achieve it, it is necessary to evaluate the variables that may negatively influence the selection phase. These variables may be external, such as risk and uncertainty, or internal, such as path-dependence. The idea that risk and uncertainty may affect entrepreneurial activity is a constant in the literature, although the relationship between these two variables is not entirely clear. According to some authors (Hmieleski & Baron, 2008; Knight, 1921), these variables stand for two completely autonomous and different concepts. According to other scholars (Gifford,

110 

D. Matricano

2005; Khilstrom & Laffont, 1979), these variables are closely linked, since uncertainty implies risk. On this line, in this work the attention is mainly focused on the uncertainty of which the risk is to be understood as one of the possible consequences. In Knight’s (1921) thought, uncertainty is classified as follows: 1. uncertainty of the first type. This may refer to a “future whose distribution exists and is known.” Given that entrepreneurs already know about future events, they may try to manage this type of uncertainty by implementing policies to diversify their choices. The first type of uncertainty therefore appears to be very easy to manage; 2. uncertainty of the second type. This may refer to a “future whose distribution exists but is not known in advance” (Knight, 1921). Reducing this type of uncertainty is not easy since entrepreneurs may hypothesize the future scenario, but they cannot know it for sure; and 3. uncertainty of the third type. This is properly defined as “true uncertainty” (Knight, 1921), since it refers to an unknown and unknowable future. Reducing this type of uncertainty is impossible. The concept of uncertainty in question is usually referred to as “true uncertainty,” that is an external variable, not well identified, which negatively affects the choices made by entrepreneurs, who lack the information necessary to predict future events, to hypothesize the occurrence of certain results or possible consequences. Uncertainty could, therefore, represent the factor that negatively affects not only the choices made by entrepreneurs (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Stevenson & Jarrillo, 1990; Venkataraman, 1997) but also the selection of entrepreneurial opportunities. Instead, the internal variable that may influence the selection of entrepreneurial opportunities is path-dependence. According to this theory (Arthur, 1988; David, 1985), past events may have consequences that change the current behavior of an individual. As will be seen, it is a mechanism that reduces the possible alternatives among which an individual may choose (North, 1990). The concept, initially rooted in natural sciences, was then translated into social sciences (Arrow, 1994); later it also established itself in entrepreneurial studies (David, 1997, 2000). Path-­ dependence stands for the consequences deriving from previous

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

111

experiences20 that, in the literature, are identified with the state of lock-in (closed in) or lock-out (closed out). The lock-in theory (David, 2000) refers to cases in which a subject, due to previous experiences, is presented with only some alternatives and not others. The subject appears to be locked in a decision-making area from which he cannot get out unless there are external forces or shocks that determine the change. The possible alternatives that the subject may choose, therefore, follow the trajectory of the choices made previously (Matricano, 2020); despite this limitation, they may still lead to efficiency. On the contrary, the lock-out theory analyzes what happens when an economic subject is outside a decision-making area (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). In this case, entrepreneurs have not developed certain skills that prevent them from seizing the opportunities that will arise in the future. It follows, therefore, that some alternatives are completely precluded. In both cases, due to the path-dependence, individuals do not evaluate all possible alternatives. In fact, in the state of lock-in, they evaluate only choices which are closest to those made previously, while in the state of lock-out they do not even know that there may be other alternatives. Therefore, it is evident that path-dependence may negatively influence 20

 As maintained by Liebowitz and Margolis (1995), there are three forms of path-dependence:

• the first-degree path-dependence occurs when initial actions drive to follow a path that seems to be optimal, but it cannot be left without some costs. There is perfect information of the possible outcomes and decisions appear to be efficient in reference to the long term. • The second-degree path-dependence occurs when initial actions do not include perfect information about all the paths. The chosen path gives some outputs that are not the best but they are efficient in the long term. • The third-degree path-dependence occurs when initial actions do not include perfect information about all the paths. The chosen path does not give the expected outcome and takes to an inefficient output. In this case, however, new alternatives may come out. Arrangements are possible to get to the not obtained outputs. The contribution by Liebowitz and Margolis (1995) reminds that part of the literature focused on the “behavioral lock-in” (Barnes et al., 2004; Cowan, 1990; Katz & Shapiro, 1985). According to this theory, both producers and consumers, once they are locked in, try to exploit their choice in the best way. From the producers’ perspective, it emerges that three main features influence advancements and success of a locked-in system: technical interrelatedness, economies of scale, and quasi-irreversibility of investment (David, 1985). It recalls the concept of dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997) or, at a broader level, of all the processes that improve knowledge. By these improvements, in fact, routines are introduced in the entrepreneurial activity as the best form of entrepreneurial capabilities (Nelson & Winter, 1982).

112 

D. Matricano

the decisions made by entrepreneurs, also in reference to the selection of entrepreneurial opportunities. The fact that some variables, both external and internal, may affect the selection of entrepreneurial opportunities in a negative way (thus leading to wrong choices) pushes entrepreneurs to look for some ways to change the status quo (this is the fourth and last point in the list). In particular, entrepreneurs may decide to invest in human capital by taking part in training activities (Matricano, 2014, 2016, 2022) or having direct experiences related to entrepreneurship (Carroll & Mosakowski, 1987). In this way, they may develop useful skills, such as the ability to collect and analyze information useful for proceeding with the selection of entrepreneurial opportunities, being able to reduce the influence that internal and external variables may exert.

5.3.2 Reflections From the analysis of the selection phase, some reflections necessarily emerge. First and foremost, they concern entrepreneurs and their role. Differently from what happens in the case of the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities, as far as selection is concerned entrepreneurs play a leading role. They need to leverage their abilities to achieve the best outcome, which is the pursuing of a true opportunity. Knowledge and experience may represent strengths, if they help to get over uncertainty and risk; on the other hand they may result in being an obstacle in case they generate path-dependence. However, by developing their human capital, entrepreneurs may aspire to overcome internal and external limits that may arise and achieve their output. What clearly emerges from the above review is that most entrepreneurs start making their decisions during the selection phase.21 According to Sleptsov and Anand (2008), selection procedures may be simultaneous or sequential (both of them reveal advantages and disadvantages) but—as a matter of fact—the theoretical distinction cannot correspond to what  As already said, the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities may require no individual choice since it may happen through the act of recognition, discovery, or creation, but this choice does not depend on the entrepreneur. 21

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

113

really happens. The selection phase, in fact, may be unordered and reversible (Eckhardt & Ciuchta, 2008). The final decision, in fact, is the result of several intermediate assessments that may be conducted according to changing patterns. For this reason, the need of a mental scheme, which entrepreneurs may rely on in order to interpret an event or a phenomenon and make decisions, starts emerging.

5.4 The Exploitation Phase After identifying and selecting entrepreneurial opportunities, the last phase of the entrepreneurial process, concerning the exploitation, begins. This phase turns out to be the most relevant since the entrepreneurial process gets to an end and entrepreneurial phenomena reveal themselves (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Which factors may affect the final results? According to several scholars, attention needs to be addressed toward the context22 and the strategies.23 These factors are linked by a causal relationship: the context determines entrepreneurial strategy.24 Put simply, because of their ­positive or negative evaluations of the context, entrepreneurs define the

 In reference to entrepreneurship, the context may be meant in different ways. It may be geographical (Low and MacMillan 1988; Thornton and Flynn 2003; Whetten 2009), it may be social (Granovetter 1985; 2005; Thornton 1999), or it may be institutional (Polany 1957; North, 1990). Whatever the adopted view is, it necessarily affects entrepreneurship. 23  The interest in entrepreneurial strategies started with Drucker (1985) but reached its peak in 2000s, thanks to the proposal of strategic entrepreneurship as a new theoretical framework (Hitt et al., 2001, 2002; Ireland et al., 2001; McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Meyer & Heppard, 2000; Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001). 24  In reference to entrepreneurship, it may be assumed that the context affects entrepreneurial strategies. Entrepreneurial firms and their strategies cannot affect the context only in few cases. However, this is not true in reference to management studies. The structure–conduct–performance (SCP) paradigm proposed by Chamberlin and Robinson (1933) assumes that the market environment has a direct impact on the market structure. This has a direct influence on firms’ conduct thus affecting its market performance. In response to this, the conduct–structure–performance (CSP) paradigm assumes that—in some cases, especially for big companies—firms’ conduct affects market structure and this—in turn—affects market performance. Both the paradigms are valid in management studies. 22

114 

D. Matricano

best strategy to implement.25 This is the peculiarity of the exploitation phase. For the first time in entrepreneurial processes, the concept of strategy is introduced and attention is focused on issues that are strictly economic and are at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices. In particular, these issues concern the limited availability of resources (Sleptsov & Anand, 2008), the opportunity cost (Amit et al., 1995; Casson, 2003), and the transaction costs that entrepreneurs may bear (Casson, 2003; Foss & Foss, 2004; Shane, 2003).

5.4.1 Opportunity Costs, Transaction Costs, and Benefits In particular, entrepreneurs define if and how they may take advantage of an entrepreneurial opportunity by passing through two stages. First, they decide the opportunity to concentrate the resources on (both tangible and intangible ones) by evaluating the opportunity cost they are willing to bear; second, they establish how to proceed to take advantage of the entrepreneurial opportunity; therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the transaction costs to be incurred. As for the choice among different alternatives, they need to evaluate the opportunity cost of the resources at their disposal—they may be only tangible (Bhidé, 2000), only intangibles, such as time (Gifford, 2005; Shane, 2003), or both tangible and intangible (Casson & Wadeson, 2007). In any case, regardless of the nature of the resources considered, the amount of the opportunity cost cannot be easily determined, even if Bhidé (2000) argues that the opportunity cost associated with the exploitation of a business opportunity is very low, or almost zero, since entrepreneurs have not yet invested any significant material resources. Intangible assets, such as time spent deciding whether or not to exploit a  This seems to be confirmed also by Plummer et al. (2007). The authors contemplate two cases that may occur. The first happens when a “sub-optimal strategy is selected from the outset” (p. 374) and it gives birth to an imperfect exploitation. The second, instead, takes place when “an optimal strategy is initially selected, but that strategy becomes increasingly mismatched as the environment changes” (p.  375) generating an incomplete exploitation. The way to avoid an imperfect or an incomplete exploitation, and so achieve a successful exploitation, “depends not only on environmental conditions, but also on the chosen entrepreneurial strategy” (p. 376). 25

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

115

business opportunity, do not seem to have a high opportunity cost since often the subjects involved do not have the work experience necessary to be engaged in other activities. In general, therefore, in reference to both material and intangible resources, the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities would not bring a high opportunity cost. On the other hand, some scholars argue that it is impossible to completely eliminate the opportunity cost in reference to both tangible and intangible resources (Hamilton & Harper, 1994). They emphasize that there is always an opportunity cost linked to the use of any material resource, given the impossibility of using the same resource twice. About intangible resources, and in particular time, it is remarked that everyone always has a possible alternative to use their time and—actually—any alternative determines an opportunity cost. This last note cannot be questioned and so it is possible to get to the conclusion that entrepreneurs must always bear an opportunity cost, albeit minimal, when they decide to exploit an entrepreneurial opportunity. Therefore, the amount of this opportunity cost is among the parameters that entrepreneurs need to evaluate to determine whether or not to exploit it. In addition to the opportunity cost, entrepreneurs also need to consider the transaction costs in the exploitation phase of entrepreneurial opportunities. The concept of transaction costs, introduced by Coase (1937, 1960) and later developed by Williamson (1979, 1981, 1998), includes all the costs to be incurred to conclude a transaction. According to a recent schematization (Foss & Foss, 2008), they include the following: • counterpart research costs and information costs. These are all the costs to be incurred to start an exchange; therefore, they refer to the initial research phase. An example could be linked to the need to find a supplier or distributor, of which there is no reference or useful information; • negotiation costs. These concern the contractual aspects of the exchange and include all the costs to be incurred before the final agreement, then formalized in the contract, is signed. An example could be the impossibility of finding an agreement on the price; • control or surveillance costs. These include protection from opportunistic behavior that could be put in place after the signing of the

116 

D. Matricano

exchange agreement. The costs associated with returns for defective products are a typical example. The above classification (Foss & Foss, 2008) recalls both the theory according to which transaction costs refer more to property rights than to physical assets (Coase, 1960, 1988) and the theory according to which property rights consist in earning from the use of resources, in consuming them, or in transferring them (Alchian, 1965). Also in reference to transaction costs, scholars question about the amount that entrepreneurs have to pay to conclude their transactions. On the one hand, transaction costs may even be zero if the property rights of the goods are defined, imposed, and exchanged at zero cost (Coase, 1988; Foss & Foss, 2008): this happens when all attributes of the necessary resources are known to the parties involved. In this case, entrepreneurs may decide to take advantage of a new entrepreneurial opportunity. On the other hand, transaction costs are always positive; therefore, it is necessary to proceed with an attentive evaluation to determine if it is worth continuing or not with the exploitation of an entrepreneurial opportunity (Johannisson, 2007). Overall, the evaluation leading to the choice to exploit or not an entrepreneurial opportunity cannot ignore the advantages that derive from having concluded a transaction (Johannisson, 2007). In particular, these advantages reveal when exchanges among counterparties are not random, but recurring. By repeating the same transaction with the same stakeholders, entrepreneurs may achieve various benefits, such as transforming accidental events into new entrepreneurial opportunities, carrying out learning processes even in an unexpected way, establishing informal or friendly relationships, and, finally, socializing. The evaluation of transaction costs and benefits takes place from two different perspectives. As far as transaction costs are concerned, the perspective useful for determining them is purely economic. Entrepreneurs are expected to proceed with the determination of transaction costs based on what is required by their stakeholders. The context (namely the level of competition), the substitutability of requested goods or services, and price determine the final cost that entrepreneurs have to pay. As for transaction benefits, however, the perspective to determine them changes since

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

117

it is linked to learning and socialization. In this case, aspects related to networking26 affect the determination of benefits.

5.4.2 Reflections From the examination of the exploitation phase, some key points have clearly emerged and—in turn—some reflections about them automatically flow out. The first concerns the role of entrepreneurs. They evaluate costs (both opportunity and transaction costs) to determine if it is worth exploiting an entrepreneurial opportunity; consequently they keep on having the leading role assumed in the selection phase. The second concerns the estimation of opportunity costs and transaction costs and benefits. Step by step, entrepreneurs consider the situation they are in and they evaluate the amount of opportunity costs and transaction costs and benefits to determine if it is worth proceeding or not with the exploitation of an entrepreneurial opportunity previously identified and selected. The main issue here is not to determine the amount of opportunity and transaction costs and benefits. It would be interesting to rebuild and frame how entrepreneurs make up their decisions about the ongoing of entrepreneurial processes. From a dutiful analysis of procedures and actions put into practice, it seems that the exploitation phase takes place just like the selection one: several intermediate assessments, determining a kind of path-­ dependence, take to the final decision to exploit—or not—entrepreneurial opportunities. Differently from the selection phase, however, the exploitation phase seems to offer some new insights. In the selection phase, in fact, intermediate assessments may be conducted according to changing patterns. In the exploitation phase, instead, intermediate assessments take place according to a predetermined order that cannot be ignored (opportunity costs first, hence transaction costs and benefits). Despite this insight characterizing the exploitation phase, there is still a need to figure out—if possible—a mental scheme that entrepreneurs leverage to interpret an event or a phenomenon and make a decision. 26

 Entrepreneurial networks will be analyzed in Chap. 6.

118 

D. Matricano

5.5 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation of Entrepreneurial Decision-Making To bring to light a mental scheme or approach that entrepreneurs may leverage to interpret entrepreneurial phenomena and make decisions, it is appropriate to start from the results achieved from the above review of identification, selection, and exploitation phases of entrepreneurial opportunities. Concerning the identification phase, entrepreneurs cannot choose ex ante whether they are going to recognize, discover, or create new entrepreneurial opportunities. They may be more inclined toward one of these acts, but they cannot know in advance if they will be successful with that act or they will need to leverage another one. For this reason, it does not seem appropriate to talk about entrepreneurial decision-making in reference to the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities. Concerning the selection phase, entrepreneurs may proceed by acting simultaneously (i.e., by evaluating two alternatives at the same time) or sequentially (i.e., by evaluating one alternative per time). Both the alternatives reveal advantages and disadvantages but—as a matter of fact—the theoretical distinction cannot correspond to what really happens over entrepreneurship processes. In fact, the selection phase may be unordered and reversible and the final decision is the result of several intermediate assessments that may be conducted according to changing patterns. Eventually, concerning the exploitation phase, intermediate assessments take place according to a predetermined order that cannot be ignored (opportunity costs first, hence transaction costs and benefits). From the above, it is clear that there is a growing involvement of entrepreneurs during the entrepreneurial process so that a mental scheme becomes necessary to get to the final exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities.27

 The link between current and future scenarios is perfectly described by McMullen and Shepherd who write: “[J]udgment is what must be exercised to make a decision between alternative courses of action that take place in an uncertain future” (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006, p. 134). 27

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

119

Immediately, the search for a mental approach could lead the readers’ attention toward cognitive psychology (Barsalou, 2014; Best, 1986) that—generally speaking—stands for the study of individual-level mental processes such as information processing, attention, language use, memory, perception, problem solving, decision-making, and thinking (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2002). Thus it offers psychological models at the basis of human behavior (Ajzen, 1998; Schürmann & Beckerle, 2020). In point of fact, the growing involvement of entrepreneurs during the entrepreneurial process does not seem to appeal to the field of cognitive psychology (Barsalou, 2014; Best, 1986). This could be useful to face and overcome uncertainty about the identification phase (referring to the recognition, discovery, or creation of entrepreneurial opportunities), but when uncertainty is replaced by rationality (i.e., economic evaluations, costs, and benefits), cognitive psychology loses its relevance. Thus, cognitive psychology could be useful to frame the beginning of entrepreneurial processes, but not their last phases. Alternatively, it could be appropriate to seek a mental approach by referring to theories of needs that—specifically—consider psychological, economic, personal, and social needs to satisfy. In this case, the reference to the theories proposed by Maslow (1954), Alderfer (1972), McClelland (1961), or Herzberg (1966) sounds rather obvious. Beyond the noticeable differences among the just-cited theories, it is important to remark that all the theories assume that individuals approach their psychological, economic, personal, and social needs in different ways so that any attempt to generalize turns out to be tricky. For this reason, mental approaches should be sought in different fields of knowledge and disciplines. A possible field of knowledge to refer to could be that of finance. Among the several theories used to investigate financial decisions, the “real-option” reasoning—which accommodates the value of flexibility, differing resource allocation horizons, the process of retrospective sense making, and path-dependence (McGrath, 1996; McGrath & Nerkar, 2004)—could seem appropriate. In fact, this approach resolves the tension between the rationality of finance-based models and the observations of behaviors. Actually, precisely due to the

120 

D. Matricano

fact that real-option reasoning already incorporates behavioral issues, its contribution to the search for a mental approach may be of limited usefulness. At this stage, the reference to other fields of knowledge becomes mandatory. An already known proposal (Lohrke et  al., 2018) encourages approaching the investigation of entrepreneurial decision-making by referring to Bayesian analysis. This method of statistical inference updates the probability for a tested hypothesis as more evidence or information is available. As noted by Lohrke et al. (2018), this method fits into entrepreneurship studies: as more evidence or piece of information becomes available over time, entrepreneurs move from the identification to the selection, or even to the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Indeed, Bayesian analysis only updates probability calculation. This may strengthen methodological approaches in entrepreneurship researches, but it does not add anything or clarify mental approaches adopted by entrepreneurial decision-making. Other fields of knowledge and disciplines need to be considered. In particular, the digital world and—within it—the issues concerning digital circuits or digital electronics stand for a current area of research that is enjoying considerable interest among scholars and practitioners. This is a branch of electronics dealing with digital signals to perform various tasks such as elaborations of big data and machine learning (Ali, 2019; Huda et al., 2018). The main property of a digital circuit is the use of logical values (0 and 1) to work. The use of these logical values allows the combination of the basic building blocks of a digital circuit just by using the rules of logic. This gives modularity to digital circuits, which makes digital circuits more fruitful, reliable, and consistent than analogical circuits. The above comments about digital circuits must not shift readers’ attention to the digital world (the focus here is always on entrepreneurship) but to the principles at the basis of digital circuits that are rooted in the Boolean algebra and that may offer new rules of logic to entrepreneurship (see Table 5.5).

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

121

Table 5.5  An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate decision-­making in entrepreneurship New lenses

Limits/strengths

Cognitive psychology

This discipline could be useful to face and overcome uncertainty about the identification phase (referring to the recognition, discovery, or creation of entrepreneurial opportunities), but when uncertainty is replaced by rationality (i.e., economic evaluations, costs and benefits) cognitive psychology loses its relevance. Individuals approach their psychological, economic, personal, and social needs in a different way and so any attempt of generalization becomes tricky.

Psychological, economic, personal, and social needs Bayesian analysis

Boolean algebra

This analysis fits into entrepreneurship studies since as more evidence or information becomes available over time (when entrepreneurs move from the identification to the selection or even to the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities). Indeed, Bayesian analysis only updates the probability calculation. The use of logical values (0 and 1) may offer new rules of logic to entrepreneurship.

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

5.6 Leveraging the Lens of Mathematics to Investigate Entrepreneurial Decision-Making In 1847, two British mathematicians published their key works on logic. Augustus De Morgan (1806–1871) published the book Formal Logic (1847) while George Boole (1815–1864) published the book The Mathematical Analysis of Logic (1847). Both the scholars tried to enlarge the boundaries of logic by proposing new methods able to represent and manipulate logic inferences through mechanical modes of making logic transitions. Despite the relevant contribution proposed by both the scholars, Boole’s approach—based on the adoption of algebraic methods for making logic transitions—results more original and impacting,28  Boole has the merit of having reconciled the disciplines of logic and mathematics by creating the field of mathematical logic. 28

122 

D. Matricano

leading to a new system of algebra29 that has become a powerful tool in the development of digital electronics and in the design and study of electronic circuits as well as computer architecture (it is commonly used for all modern programming languages). The reason why Boolean algebra has become so relevant in several fields of knowledge is due to its fundamentals. These may be understood only if attention is first paid on traditional algebra. The main elements of traditional algebra are real numbers and the commutative operations (addition and multiplication). According to the principles of algebra, the set of real numbers is enclosed under the commutative operations (in fact the sum or the product of two real numbers is a real number); identity elements exist (they are 0 for addition and 1 for multiplication, in fact a + 0 = a and a × 1 = a for any real number a); multiplication is distributive over addition (i.e., a × [b + c] = [a × b] + [a × c]), but addition is not distributive over multiplication (i.e., a + [b × c] does not, in general, equal [a + b] × [a + c]). On the contrary, the principles of Boolean algebra assume that a set of elements (not real numbers) is enclosed under two commutative binary operations; these operations may be deduced from the basic postulates that assume that an identity element exists for each operation; each operation is distributive over the other and for every element in the set there is another element that combines with the first under either of the operations to yield the identity element of the other. According to the above, Boolean algebra is valid when truth-values (the truth or falsity of a given proposition or logical statement) are used as variables instead of the numeric quantities (as it happens in ordinary algebra). It lends itself to manipulating propositions that are either true (with truth-value 1) or false (with truth-value 0). The truth-value of the resulting proposition is dependent on the truth-values of the components and the connective employed. From the above, it is immediately manifest that Boolean algebra is different from algebra generally meant. The former deals with binary  Boole’s contribution has been consecrated in 1854 when he published the book titled An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. 29

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

123

variables (1 stands for true and 0 stands for false) and logical operations between these variables (conjunction, disjunction, and negation); thus variables may also have more complex interpretations. Instead, the latter deals with real numbers and numerical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). Beyond the origins of Boolean algebra and the differences with traditional algebra, it is worth remarking here the goal pursued by Boole (1847) when defining his theory. The scholar, in fact, aimed to find some mathematical axioms that could reproduce a logic process. His reflections about algebra generally meant were useful to underline the previous limitations of this branch of mathematics. So he added specific laws (such as annulment, identity, idempotent, complement, commutative, and double negation laws) to create an axiom system able to reproduce all the usual results of logic. The above goal helps to catch the essence of Boolean algebra that does not concern variables (they are not discrete neither combinatorial), but consists in expressing the possible combinations of values for logical variables. In the preface to his book (Boole, 1854, p. 1) he declares: “The design of the following treatise is to investigate the fundamental laws of those operations of the mind by which reasoning is performed; to give expression to them in the symbolical language of a Calculus, and upon this foundation to establish the science of Logic and construct its method; to make that method itself the basis of a general method for the application of the mathematical doctrine of Probabilities; and, finally, to collect from the various elements of truth brought to view in the course of these inquiries some probable intimations concerning the nature and constitution of the human mind.” In a nutshell, Boole aimed to—indeed he was successful to—offer a model of how the mind works, that is in an unquestionably logic way. This is manifest in the last part of the book when Boole discusses how free will may be compatible with definite laws of thought. He talks about how imprecise human experiences may lead to precise concepts. He discusses whether there is a truth that humans may recognize that goes beyond what mathematical laws may ever explain and he talks about how an understanding of human thinking should shape education.

124 

D. Matricano

5.6.1 Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens of Boolean Algebra Starting from the above reflections, it is clear why Boolean algebra may be useful to entrepreneurship. Over entrepreneurship processes (concerning identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities), entrepreneurs need to make decisions that allow them move forward, from one stage to another. Entrepreneurs, just like all the economic subjects, suffer asymmetric information (Harris & Townsend, 1981), bounded rationality (Simon, 1990), and limited attention (Gifford, 2005, p. 38) that do not allow them to choose always the best option. From an entrepreneurial perspective it is not possible to propose a decisional process and try to explain what really happens in entrepreneurship. However, by borrowing the set of rules of Boolean algebra, an attempt may be made. Annulment, identity, idempotent, complement, commutative, and double negation laws may reduce and simplify a complex Boolean expression in an attempt to reduce the number of logic gates required. By acting in the same way, entrepreneurs could simplify their decision-making processes just by recalling and applying Boolean laws. At this stage, it is mandatory to pose a question. May this mental scheme—again, according to Boole’s intentions, this model stands for how the mind works in an unquestionably logic way—be referred to entrepreneurship? May it really be useful? Putting aside the identification phase (when entrepreneurs cannot choose ex ante whether they are going to recognize, discover, or create new entrepreneurial opportunities), the final decision—following the selection and the exploitation phase—is the result of several intermediate assessments that may be conducted according to the laws of Boolean algebra. If entrepreneurs could know in advance how to handle the intermediate assessments taking to the final decision, then entrepreneurship processes could proceed more easily. An intelligible mental scheme (based on established options, such as annulment, identity, idempotent, complement, commutative, and double negation laws) may be useful to decode how everyone, including entrepreneurs, may make their decisions. Of course, the reference to the laws proposed by Boole (1847) does not reduce the relevance of entrepreneurial action by limiting the individual

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

125

role and proactivity. When making a decision, in fact, entrepreneurs may apply a specific law (choosing among annulment, identity, idempotent, complement, commutative, or double negation laws) thus differentiating their choices. Overall, the reference to Boolean algebra may shed some light on the decision-making process that may make entrepreneurs move across the selection and—confidently—the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Despite the uncertainty characterizing entrepreneurship processes, Boolean algebra offers a mental scheme that responds to a need expressed by entrepreneurship scholars (Casson & Wadeson, 2007, p. 285) arguing that “the behaviour of individuals who specialize in making choices require intensive use of judgment.”

5.7 Concluding Remarks Practical questions about decision-making processes in entrepreneurship, concerning if and how entrepreneurs decide to select and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities, cannot be easily solved by staying in the field of entrepreneurship. Despite the numerous contributions, in fact, it is not easy to assess if there is a mental scheme or approach that may lead entrepreneurial action to the point that the entrepreneurial process risks to be a sequence of unintended or planned actions (Troise et al., 2022) resulting from the combination of entrepreneurial actions and uncontrolled variables (both internal and external ones). Of course, although unintended actions and uncontrolled variables play a certain role in entrepreneurship, a mental approach adopted by entrepreneurs is required at the same time. Following this reasoning, it is mandatory to explore other fields of knowledge and other disciplines in which scholars can borrow new lenses useful to understand the way entrepreneurs make decisions. The search for a mental scheme leads attention toward cognitive psychology (Barsalou, 2014; Best, 1986) that stands for the study of individual-­level mental processes such as information processing, attention, language use, memory, perception, problem solving, decision-­ making, and thinking (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2002). Despite the fact that

126 

D. Matricano

it offers psychological models at the basis of human behavior (Ajzen, 1998; Schürmann & Beckerle, 2020), the focus on the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities (rather than on the selection and the exploitation) discourages this reference. Theories of needs—considering psychological, economic, personal, and social needs to satisfy Maslow (1954), Alderfer (1972), McClelland (1961), or Herzberg (1966)—result in limited utility as well. By definition, needs are personal and so any attempt of generalization becomes fruitless. The reference to other fields of research (far from decision-making dynamics) is challenging as well. Some scholars propose considering real-­ option reasoning (McGrath, 1996; McGrath & Nerkar, 2004) or Bayesian analysis (Lohrke et al., 2018) but—again—results are not convincing. A new field of knowledge that—potentially—could add something new to the investigation of decision-making processes in entrepreneurship is Boolean algebra. By transposing to entrepreneurship the idea that propositions that are either true (with truth-value 1) or false (with truth-value 0) and by adding added specific laws (annulment, identity, idempotent, complement, commutative, and double negation laws) to create an axiom system able to reproduce all the usual results of logic, Boolean algebra seems to be able to describe the way entrepreneurs make decisions and proceed along the entrepreneurial process, in particular about the selection and the exploitation phases. Entrepreneurs are expected to proceed by dichotomous choices (YES/NO), but the way they approach decisions (the laws cited above) may really be different. Despite differences between entrepreneurship and Boolean algebra, the way of reasoning of the latter seems to fit perfectly with entrepreneurial decision-making processes.

References Ajzen, I. (1998). Models of human social behavior and their application to health psychology. Psychology and Health, 13(4), 735–739. Alchian, A.  A. (1965). Some economics of property rights. In A.  A. Alchian (Ed.), Economic Forces at Work (1977 ed.). Liberty Press. Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth. Free Press.

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

127

Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations Evolving (2nd ed.). Sage. Ali, A. H. (2019). A survey on vertical and horizontal scaling platforms for big data analytics. International Journal of Integrated Engineering, 11(6), 138–150. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Guest editors’ introduction. The entrepreneurial theory of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1057–1063. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2008). Opportunities, organizations, and entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 171–173. Amit, R., Muller, E., & Cockburn, I. (1995). Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2), 95–106. Arrow, K.  J. (1994). Methodological individualism and social knowledge. American Economic Review, 84(2), 1–9. Arthur, W.  B. (1988). Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics. In P. W. Anderson, K. J. Arrow, & D. Pines (Eds.), The Economy as an Evolving Complex System. Addison-Wesley, Readings (MA). Autio, E., Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2013). Information exposure, opportunity evaluation, and entrepreneurial action: an investigation of an online user community. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1348–1371. Barnes, W., Gartland, M., & Stack, M. (2004). Old habits die hard: path dependency and behavioral lock-in. Journal of Economic Issues, 28(2), 371–377. Barnett, M. L. (2003). Falling off the fence? A realistic appraisal of a real options approach to corporate strategy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(2), 185–196. Barsalou, L. W. (2014). Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists. Psychology Press. Baumol, W. J. (1993). Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: existence and bounds. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 197–210. Best, J. B. (1986). Cognitive Psychology. West Publishing Co.. Bhidé, A.  V. (2000). The Origin and Evolution of New Business. Oxford University Press. Boole, G. (1847). The mathematical analysis of logic. MacMillan, Barclay & MacMillan. Boole, G. (1854). An investigation of the laws of thought: on which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities. Walter & Maberly. Bowman, E.  H., & Hurry, D. (1993). Strategy through the option lens: An integrated view of resource investments and the incremental-choice process. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 760–782. Brealey, R., & Myers, S. (1988). Principles of Corporate Finance. McGraw Hill. Buenstorf, G. (2007). Creation and pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities: an evolutionary perspective. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 323–337.

128 

D. Matricano

Busenitz, L. W. (1999). Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision making: It’s a matter of perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3), 325–340. Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-­ making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9–30. Carroll, G.  R., & Mosakowski, E. (1987). The career dynamics of self-­ employment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 570–589. Casson, M. (2003). The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, (second edition; first edition in 1982). Edward Elgar Publishing. Casson, M., & Wadeson, N. (2007). The discovery of opportunities: Extending the economic theory of the entrepreneur. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 285–300. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1–44. Coase, R. H. (1988). Notes on the problem of social cost. In R. H. Coase (Ed.), The Firm, The Market, and The Law. University of Chicago Press. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. Companys, Y. E., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurs at work: The nature, discovery, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 301–322. Cowan, R. (1990). Nuclear power reactors: a study in technological lock-in. The Journal of Economic History, 50(3), 541–567. David, P.  A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337. David, P. A. (1997). Path Dependence and the Quest for Historical Economics: One More Chorus of the Ballad of QWERTY, University of Oxford Discussion Papers in Economic and Social History, n. 20. David, P. A. (2000). Path-dependence, its critics and the quest for “historical economics”. In P.  Garrouste & S.  Ioannides (Eds.), Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. De Morgan, A. (1847). Formal Logic: or, the Calculus of Inference, Necessary and Probable. Taylor and Walton, London (UK).

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

129

De Winnaar, K., & Scholtz, F. (2020). Entrepreneurial decision-making: new conceptual perspectives. Management Decision, 58(7), 1283–1300. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Entrepreneurial strategies. California Management Review, 27(2), 9–25. Eckhardt, J. T., & Ciuchta, M. P. (2008). Selected variation: The population-­ level implications of multistage selection in entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 209–224. Eckhardt, J.  T., & Shane, S. (2003). The individual-opportunity nexus. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: A Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Eckhardt, J. T., Shane, S., & Delmar, F. (2006). Multistage selection and the funding of new ventures. Management Science, 52(2), 220–232. Evans, D., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808–827. Feldman, J., & Kanter, H.  E. (1963). Organization Decision-Making. System Development Corporation. Forbes, D. P. (2005). The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self–efficacy. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(5), 599–626. Foss, K., & Foss, N. J. (2004). The next step in the evolution of the RBV: integration with transaction cost economics. Management Revue, 15(1), 107–121. Foss, K., & Foss, N. J. (2008). Understanding opportunity discovery and sustainable advantage: the role of transaction costs and property rights. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 191–207. Gerrig, R. J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2002). Psychology and Life. Allyn and Bacon A. Pearson Education Company. Gifford, S. (2005). Risk and uncertainty. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction. Springer. Hamilton, R. T., & Harper, D. A. (1994). The entrepreneur in theory and practice. Journal of Economic Studies, 21(6), 3–18. Harris, M., & Townsend, R. M. (1981). Resource allocation under asymmetric information. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(1), 33–64. von Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. World Publishing Co.. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue strategic entrepreneurship: entrepre-

130 

D. Matricano

neurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 479–491. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2002). Strategic Entrepreneurship—Creating a New Mindset. Blackwell Publishing. Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Regulatory focus and new venture performance: a study of entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 285–299. Huda, M., Maseleno, A., Atmotiyoso, P., Siregar, M., Ahmad, R., Jasmi, K., & Muhamad, N. (2018). Big data emerging technology: insights into innovative environment for online learning resources. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1), 23–36. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49–63. Janney, J. J., & Dess, G. G. (2004). Can real-options analysis improve decision-­ making? Promises and pitfalls. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(4), 60–75. Jiang, Y., & Rüling, C. C. (2019). Opening the black box of effectuation processes: characteristics and dominant types. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 171–202. Johannisson, B. (2007). Enacting local economic development. theoretical and methodological challenges. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Place in the Global Economy, 1(1), 7–26. Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibilità. American Economic Review, 75(3), 424–440. Khilstrom, R., & Laffont, J. (1979). A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion. Journal of Political Economy, 87(4), 719–748. Kirzner, I.  M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press. Kirzner, I.  M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85. Knight, F.  H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Leiblein, M. J., & Miller, D. J. (2003). An empirical examination of transaction- and firm-level influences on the vertical boundaries of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 24(9), 839–859.

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

131

Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (1995). Path dependence, lock-in, and history. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 11(1), 205–226. Lohrke, F. T., Carson, C. M., & Lockamy, A. (2018). Bayesian analysis in entrepreneurship decision-making research: Review and future directions. Management Decision, 56(5), 972–986. Lyon, D. W., Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research: Operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision making process. Journal of Management, 26(5), 1055–1085. Maine, E., Soh, P. H., & Dos Santos, N. (2015). The role of entrepreneurial decision-making in opportunity creation and recognition. Technovation, 39, 53–72. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row. Matricano, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial training: a comparative study across fifteen European countries. Industry and Higher Education, 28(5), 311–330. Matricano, D. (2015). Lo studio dell’imprenditorialità. Un approccio di indagine multidisciplinare. Matricano, D. (2016). The impact of intellectual capital on start-up expectations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(4), 654–674. Matricano, D. (2020). Entrepreneurship Trajectories: Entrepreneurial Opportunities, Business Models, and Firm Performance. Academic Press—Elsevier. Matricano, D. (2022). Young entrepreneurs and skills mismatch in school-to-­ work transition. Empirical evidence from innovation processes managed in Italian NTBFs. International Journal of Manpower. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1108/IJM-­09-­2021-­0547 McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand. McGrath, R. G. (1996). Options and the enterprise: toward a strategic theory of entrepreneurial wealth creation. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 101–105. McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset. Harvard Business School Press. McGrath, R. G., & Nerkar, A. (2004). Real options reasoning and a new look at the R&D investment strategies of pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 1–21. McGrath, R.  G., Ferrier, W.  J., & Mendelow, A.  L. (2004). Real options as engines of choice and heterogeneity. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 86–101.

132 

D. Matricano

McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152. McMullen, J. S., Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2007). What is an Entrepreneurial Opportunity? Small Business Economics, 28(4), 273–283. Meyer, G. D., & Heppard, K. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as Strategy: Competing on the Entrepreneurial Edge. Sage Publications. Miao, Q., & Liu, L. (2010). A psychological model of entrepreneurial decision making. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(3), 357–363. Miller, K. D. (2007). Risk and rationality in entrepreneurial processes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 57–74. von Mises, L. (1949). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Yale University Press. Mitchell, R. K., Smith, B., Seawright, K., & Morse, E. (2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation process. Academy of Management Review, 43(5), 974–993. Muñoz, P. (2018). A cognitive map of sustainable decision-making in entrepreneurship: A configurational approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(3), 787–813. Nelson, R.  R., & Winter, S.  G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Olayinka, I., Olusegun, A.  K., Kellikume, G., & Kayode, K. (2015). Entrepreneur decision making process and application of linear programming technique. European Journal of Business, Economics and Accountancy, 3(5), 231–238. Plummer, L. A., Haynie, J. M., & Godesiabois, J. (2007). An essay on the origins of entrepreneurial opportunità. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 363–379. Raynor, M. E. (2002). Diversification as real options and the implications on firm-specific risk and performance. The Engineering Economist, 47(4), 371–389. Reymen, I. M., Andries, P., Berends, H., Mauer, R., Stephan, U., & Van Burg, E. (2015). Understanding dynamics of strategic decision making in venture creation: a process study of effectuation and causation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 351–379. Rodgers, W., Degbey, W.  Y., Söderbom, A., & Leijon, S. (2022). Leveraging international R&D teams of portfolio entrepreneurs and management con-

5  Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Through the Lens… 

133

trollers to innovate: Implications of algorithmic decision-making. Journal of Business Research, 140, 232–244. Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. F. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: a structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 286–305. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of management Review, 26(2), 243–263. Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2005). Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction. Springer. Say, J. B. (1803). A Treatise on Political Economy: Or, the Production, Distribution and Consumption of Wealth (1964 edition), Augustus M. Kelley, New York. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and Business Cycle (1934 edition), Harvard University Press: . Schürmann, T., & Beckerle, P. (2020). Personalizing human-agent interaction through cognitive models. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 561510. Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual-­ Opportunity Nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. Shepherd, D.  A. (2011). Multilevel entrepreneurship research: Opportunities for studying entrepreneurial decision making. Journal of Management, 37(2), 412–420. Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11–46. Simon, H. A. (1944). Decision-making and administrative organization. Public Administration Review, 4(1), 16–30. Simon, H.  A. (1990). Bounded rationality. In J.  Eatwell, M.  Milgate, & P.  Newman (Eds.), Utility and Probability. The New Palgrave. Palgrave Macmillan. Sleptsov, A., & Anand, J. (2008). Exercising entrepreneurial opportunities: the role of information-gathering and information-processing capabilities of the firm. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 357–372.

134 

D. Matricano

Stevenson, H.  H., & Jarrillo, J.  C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(SI: Corporate Entrepreneurship), 17–27. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities of the firm: An introduction. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Troise, C., Matricano, D., Candelo, E., & Schjoedt, L. (2022). A ten-year cross-­ national examination of dance between intuition and rationality in entrepreneurial processes. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18, 663–692. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor’s perspective. In J.  Katz & R.  Brockhouse (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth (Vol. 3). JAI Press. Venkataraman, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Strategy and entrepreneurship: outline of an untold story. In M. Hitt, E. Freeman, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Strategic Management. Blackwell Publishers. Waters, W. A. (1994). The social economics of Joseph A. Schumpeter. Review of Social Economics, 52(4), 256–259. Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577. Williamson, O. E. (1998). Transaction cost economics: how it works, where it is headed. DE Economist, 146(1), 23–58.

6 Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry

Networks have assumed a prominent role in the field of entrepreneurship since they provide both tangible and intangible resources to entrepreneurs and may positively affect performance. Previous studies have deeply investigated several issues about networks. From a theoretical point of view, scholars have investigated and defined the theoretical background, the level of analysis, the possible configurations, as well as the scope of entrepreneurial networks. From a practical point of view, instead, they have examined the subjects involved and the ties created and handled within entrepreneurial networks. Without questioning the relevance of the above contributions and the achieved results, it is of crucial importance to investigate what lies behind the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks or, put simply, which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks as well as the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties among involved subjects. Although possible explanations may be sought in different fields of knowledge, it is chemistry that provides useful ones. Studies on the speed of reaction among chemical reactants and about the enthalpy of reaction (the release of energy) may help understand what might be behind the creation of

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Matricano, Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1_6

135

136 

D. Matricano

entrepreneurial networks and may support entrepreneurs to make more informed choices about implementing and managing their entrepreneurial networks.

6.1 Approaching the Study of Networks The only way to rebuild the origin of entrepreneurial networks is by recalling the contribution authored by Granovetter (1985) and titled “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” Indeed, Granovetter’s contribution does not deal specifically with the topic of entrepreneurship. It constitutes one of the first attempts to link two different fields of research, which had previously been studied separately: economics and sociology. The assumption underlying Granovetter’s contribution is that economic action (including managerial and entrepreneurial actions) is rooted, or embedded, in the social connections established by individuals.1 In other words, interpersonal relationships do affect individuals’ behavior and their actions, including the ones put into practice in the workplace. After Granovetter’s contribution, which aroused considerable interest among scholars, the link between economic and sociological fields has been recalled and analyzed several times from different2 perspectives (Anderson et  al., 2010; Boso et  al., 2013; Gulati, 1999; Hallen et  al., 2020; Hansen, 1995; Lamine, 2017; Lefebvre et al., 2015; O’Donnell et  al., 2001). Until the 1990s, scholars were mainly interested in personal, individual, or entrepreneurial networks, that is, networks created and managed by entrepreneurs (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Birley, 1985; Johannisson, 1986, 1988; Starr & MacMillan, 1990). From the 1990s onward, scholars shifted their interest toward corporate or business  To understand this concept, Uzzi (1996) proposed a very useful contribution. In his view, embeddedness is a logical process of exchange that on the basis of the links created before—whether direct or indirect—determines the reasons and expectations underlying economic action. 2  Among the several contributions, it is worth highlighting the contribution authored by Lamine (2017) who uses a sociotechnical approach to study entrepreneurial networks. 1

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

137

networks (Burt, 1992, 2000; Powell, 1990, 1996; Uzzi, 1996). Despite the different areas of research, there are several theoretical overlaps between entrepreneurial and corporate networks that cannot be ignored. As for entrepreneurial and corporate networks, their relevance is linked to the procurement of resources: by establishing a set of relationships based on trust—leading to the creation of social capital3—it is possible to access resources (tangible and intangibles) that—otherwise—would be difficult or expensive to obtain (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Dubini, 2000). Getting resources through the one’s network is the first step in testing entrepreneurial opportunities and exploiting them. Afterward, it is the mobilization of resources that helps to develop distinctive skills and capabilities, reduce costs and financial requirements, or support the development of technological innovations in order to improve achieved performance (Fiol, 1994; Granovetter, 2005; Prajapati & Biswas, 2011;  Social capital is a topic that can be referred to several areas of research and—for this reason— Hirsch and Levin (1999) define it as an “umbrella.” From an extensive literature review, in fact, it comes out that social capital can positively influence job search (Granovetter, 1973, 1985) and determine individual success in the workplace (Burt, 1992). At the same time, it can facilitate the exchange of resources and product innovation (Tsai and Ghoshal 1998) and contribute to the development of business networks (Inkpen and Tsang 2005; Gilsing et al. 2007). From the above it is manifest that social capital ranges between a micro level of analysis, referring to the individual, to a macro level, referring to companies and the surrounding environment. In reference to the micro level of analysis, Bourdier (1980) defines social capital as an attribute of the individual in a specific social context and, following in this wake, Coleman (1988, 1990) defines social capital as all the resources that are part of the social structure in which the individual is. Instead, in reference to the macro level of analysis, Putnam (1993) looks at social capital as a social resource. According to the scholar, social capital concerns trust and the rules governing coexistence and all the elements that improve the efficiency of the social organization. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) define social capital as the sum of current and potential resources, embedded, available, and derived from a network of relationships. Therefore, social capital is based on networks but does not overlap with them since it depends on specific resources available within it. To date, about social capital, three perspectives can be cited: • the bridging perspective (Portes 1998; Burt, 1992, 2000), according to which social capital binds a subject of the network to external subjects in a direct or indirect way; • the bonding perspective (Coleman 1988, 1990), according to which subjects develop contacts and interactions with other subjects inside the network. In this way they strengthen reciprocal exchanges; • the cognitive perspective (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998), according to which social capital depends on internal and external links. 3

138 

D. Matricano

Smith & Lohrke, 2008; Troise et al., 2022). From the above, it is easy to understand the relevance of networks in reference to both the creation and growth of firms.4

6.2 Focusing Attention on Entrepreneurial Networks By introducing the concept of embeddedness, Granovetter’s contribution (1985) has generated considerable interest among scholars who have tried to enlist, define, and investigate the main characteristics of entrepreneurial networks5 (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Birley, 1985; Johannisson, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1995; Walker et al., 1997). From a critical review of the copious contributions focused on this topic, it is possible to identify three main areas of research which deserve due attention. The first—theoretical in its nature—deals with the boundaries of the area of research. From a methodological point of view it is of preliminary importance to know which aspects need to be investigated before proceeding with the study of entrepreneurial networks. The second and third ones focus on the investigation of practical issues. The second area of research, in fact, deals with subjects involved in entrepreneurial networks, while the third deals with the ties that subjects can create and handle within them. The list of the three areas of research is not random. In fact, in order to understand the effective functioning of entrepreneurial networks, it is necessary to start from the theoretical issues (linked to the definition of the main aspects of entrepreneurial networks) and then to move toward practical issues (involved subjects and created ties).  Birley (1985, p. 116) tries to describe how networks are expected to work: “[A]n efficient network is one in which, no matter where the entrepreneur enters the network, his needs are diagnosed and he is passed round the system until he gathers the necessary information and advice. This does not require that all entry points should provide diagnostic as well as counselling services, but rather that each should be clear on what services they and others are offering.” 5  Several scholars have investigated entrepreneurial networks. Among them, it is appropriate to cite: Birley, 1985; Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Johannisson, 1986; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Starr & MacMillan, 1990; Dubini & Aldrich, 1991; Ostgaard & Birley, 1994; Greve, 1995; Das & Teng, 1997; Johannisson, 1998; O’Donnell et al., 2001. 4

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

139

6.2.1 Defining the Boundaries of Research About Entrepreneurial Networks Over the decades, several scholars have contributed to define the boundaries of entrepreneurial network research (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Birley, 1985; Brown & Butler, 1993; Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Greve, 1995; Greve & Salaff, 2003; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; Johannisson, 1987, 1988; O’Donnell et al., 2001; Ostgaard & Birley, 1994; Reynolds, 1991; Slotte-Kock & Coviello, 2010; Starr & MacMillan, 1990; Walker et al., 1997). As far as it concerns theoretical issues, the above scholars have addressed their attention toward four main aspects: theoretical background, level of analysis, possible classifications, and possible applications. Each of these aspects is going to be analyzed in detail in the following lines. The first aspect deals with theoretical background. Entrepreneurial network theory6 is rooted in two fields of knowledge: respectively economics and sociology (O’Donnell et al., 2001). Generally speaking, the economic perspective prevails and the sociological one is recalled just to enrich and complete the analysis (Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Greve, 1995; Greve & Salaff, 2003; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; Johannisson, 1988; Reynolds, 1991; Slotte-Kock & Coviello, 2010). This is due to the fact that entrepreneurs act according to economic evaluations. Despite this largely shared approach, also the opposite view comes out from an extensive review of dedicated literature. According to Thornton (1999), in fact, it is the sociological perspective that prevails over the economic one because of the role exerted by the network itself. Indeed, other scholars did not offer robust support to this proposal. Scholars have offered even scarcer support to the approach by recalling psychological studies, which remark the role of the individual to the detriment of the role of ties established within networks (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986). In this research, the first option cited above is embraced.  As properly underlined by O’Donnell et al. (2001), entrepreneurial networks differ from business networks also in reference to the theoretical background. Business network theory, in fact, recalls the transaction costs theory (Coase, 1937, 1960; ) and industrial marketing (Håkansson & Ford, 2002; Naudé & Sutton-Brady, 2019). 6

140 

D. Matricano

The second aspect that attracts scholars’ attention deals with the level of analysis. In corporate networks, the level of analysis is dyadic (O’Donnell et al., 2001): the subjects involved complement each other, create synergic relationships, and manage it in an exclusive way. In entrepreneurial networks, instead, the level of analysis is egocentric (Johannisson, 1998): entrepreneurs seek, identify, and approach subjects who can become partners in their networks and support them when carrying out entrepreneurial activities since entrepreneurs are the pivots7 of their networks. They always assume the central position (Scott, 1991). The third aspect that draws scholars’ attention concerns possible configurations of entrepreneurial networks. Generally speaking, corporate networks may be horizontal—if the other firms involved carry out the same activities— or vertical—if the other firms involved carry out activities that enrich and complete the value chain. Entrepreneurial networks cannot be simply classified according to the above schemes. Entrepreneurial networks mix different schemes or models according to the aims that entrepreneurs want to pursue. Thus, they change over time (Jack et  al., 2008, 2010; Soetanto, 2019). Entrepreneurial networks may be implemented to reduce transaction costs (just like corporate networks), but they may also be implemented to manage uncertainty or acquire new resources (Dubini, 2000). For example, entrepreneurial networks may be commercial, social, or communication-oriented. Of course, because of the different aims, it may be very difficult to manage these networks (O’Donnell et al., 2001). The fourth and last aspect deals with the scope of entrepreneurial networks (Birley, 1985; Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Johannisson, 1987, 1988; Starr & MacMillan, 1990; Schillaci 1992; Ostgaard & Birley, 1994; Greve, 1995; Walker et al., 1997). Entrepreneurial networks have been applied to investigate processes about the identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities (Batjargal, 2010; Shu et al., 2018), or the processes of the creation8 of new ventures (Greve, 1995;  Greve (1995, p. 6) has recalled and investigated the role of pivots that entrepreneurs can assume by introducing the concept of “peak.” 8  About the creation of new firms, Greve (1995, p. 2) writes: “Studying networks of entrepreneurs is a study of social relations that affect founding rates of firms by concentrating on how social relations and structures facilitate the diffusion of resources that are necessary to establish firms. Characteristics of network person in terms of positions or professions and of networks indicate the availability of resources in the environment and the quality of available information for entrepreneurs.” 7

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

141

Table 6.1  The main theoretical aspects of entrepreneurial networks Investigated aspects Theoretical background Level of analysis Configurations Scopes

Area of research Contamination between economic and sociological perspectives. The economic perspective prevails. Analyses concern individuals. Entrepreneurs define, implement, and manage their own networks. Configurations of entrepreneurial networks go beyond the distinction between horizontal and vertical networks. Entrepreneurial networks are implemented to support the processes about the identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, or the creation and growth of new firms.

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

Greve & Salaff, 2003). Overall, it seems that entrepreneurial networks are useful to overcome the liability of newness9 (Stinchcombe, 1965) and make entrepreneurial process go further. All the four aspects cited above are included in Table 6.1. The four aspects cited above are useful to define—in a proper way— entrepreneurial networks. These stand for a system of relationships implemented and managed by an entrepreneur who assumes the peak position. The final aim pursued by the entrepreneur is getting resources (both tangible and intangible) that may be useful both to the entrepreneurial processes (concerning the identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities) and to the creation of new firms. Getting resources is an entrepreneurial aim that needs to be analyzed according to a strategic perspective in reference to both the short and the long run (Smith & Lohrke, 2008; Soetanto, 2019). In reference to the short run, entrepreneurs are in contact with subjects that share specific resources; in this case, the strategic approach to the entrepreneurial network is intended (Galkina, 2013). In reference to the long run, instead, entrepreneurs cannot know in advance which resources they will need;  Liability of newness expresses the weaknesses that new firms suffer because of their recent launch and short presence on the market. Since they do not have a track of their activities, they cannot gain legitimacy from stakeholders (Stinchcombe, 1965; Sorrentino, 2003). 9

142 

D. Matricano

thus, they assume a strategic approach that is unintended (Galkina, 2013). Beyond the differences at the basis of intended and unintended strategies, and their different implications, what clearly comes out is that a strategy is always at the basis of entrepreneurial networks. In the short run, the adopted strategy leads to getting resources; in the long run, the adopted strategy leads to the creation of ties that—later on—will allow sharing needed resources. As a consequence, it may be realized that creating and managing entrepreneurial networks is a part of the strategic planning through which entrepreneurs may achieve different aims, both in the short and in the long run. Indeed, networks assume a considerable importance in the field of entrepreneurial studies so that they may be considered like a critical success factor (Smith & Lohrke, 2008; Soetanto, 2019) to handle carefully since it affects performance (Granovetter, 2005). After clarifying the theoretical issues about entrepreneurial networks, it is now possible to shift attention toward practical issues, such as the subjects involved and the ties created and managed within entrepreneurial networks, which stand for the real focus of research on entrepreneurial networks according to some scholars (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003).

6.2.2 The Subjects Involved in Entrepreneurial Networks From a practical point of view, the first aspect that needs to be investigated and clarified deals with the subjects involved in entrepreneurial networks. Firstly, entrepreneurs (who create and manage their networks) and others subjects who are involved must be taken into consideration. As already said, entrepreneurs assume the pivotal position within networks (Greve, 1995; Johannisson, 1998; Scott, 1991) and they try to shape their networks according to their aims, such as managing risk, getting resources, or reducing transaction costs (Dubini, 2000). Shaping the network and trying to achieve predetermined aims is not easy. Entrepreneurs are expected to assume three different roles at the same time: they need to be architects, principal operators, and controllers (Snow et al., 1992).

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

143

In the shoes of architects, they try to shape and build their networks according to their needs. When acting as architects, entrepreneurs evaluate external subjects according to the resources—tangible and intangibles—they share within the network. As principal investigators, instead, entrepreneurs try to put in contact the subjects previously evaluated in order to create ties among them. Eventually, when acting as controllers, they supervise the operations in order to ensure that all the parties involved share their resources and the network works as established. Of course, if the network does not work and the achieved results differ from the expected ones, entrepreneurs restart the process, acting again as architects, principal operators, and controllers. In particular, attention is paid—again and with greater attention—to the selection of external subjects to involve. Due to the weight external subjects have in determining the success or failure of entrepreneurial networks, it is clear how and why their role has been the subject of extensive investigations. In particular, as it clearly emerges from the several contributions that are going to be recalled below, four main topics have aroused the interest of scholars: the number of subjects involved (the size of networks), the density of the network (clustering), the distance among the subjects within the network, and their background (Greve, 1995). The first aspect that scholars have largely investigated deals with the number of subjects involved, that is the size of network (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Birley, 1985; Burt, 1992; Butler & Hansen, 1991; Das & Goswami, 2019; Greve, 1995; Greve & Salaff, 2003; Hansen, 1995; Jost, 2021; Larson & Starr, 1993; Ostgaard & Birley, 1994). As already said, entrepreneurial intention is to collect tangible and intangible resources not held before. It sounds reasonable to assume that a very large network may guarantee entrepreneurs to access as many resources as possible (Greve, 1995). Indeed, as it emerges from various contributions (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973, 1974, 1982), there is a consistent risk of redundancy that should not be underestimated, especially in reference to intangible resources (Steier & Greenwood, 2000). It may happen that the more entrepreneurs interact with several subjects, the greater the possibility that many subjects hold the same information or knowledge is (Sullivan & Marvel, 2011). As a result, many external subjects may

144 

D. Matricano

generate limited usefulness to the network. Therefore, entrepreneurs should be able to balance their needs to interact with several subjects (in order to access all the resources they need) and—at the same time—to interact only with the ones who may share useful, not redundant, resources (Steier & Greenwood, 2000). The second aspect that scholars have focused their attention on concerns density of networks (Birley et  al., 1991; Greve, 1995; Hansen, 1995; Johannisson, 1998; Mbura, 2015; Wambui & Muathe, 2021). This concept expresses how tight the links among all the subjects in the network10 are. If network density is high, that is, if everyone knows each other, it may happen that the involved subjects share the same information or knowledge (Sullivan & Marvel, 2011) and this may cause the risk of redundancy (Steier & Greenwood, 2000). On the contrary, this risk is mitigated if network density is low. In this case, it may happen that the involved subjects miss the right relationships within the network so that they cannot collect the resources they need. It is obvious that the choice of network density is not easy because of the risks due to both high and low density. The third aspect that attracts scholars’ interest concerns the distance among subjects within networks (Greve, 1995; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003). Of course, the distance is to be meant as relational distance, not physical. According to the relational perspective, the number of contacts needed to reach another subject in the network is a proxy of distance. Thus, if the relationship is direct, there is no distance among subjects. On the contrary, if the relationship is indirect (i.e., mediated by another subject or even others) then there is distance. Of course, in this last case, managing the network may be difficult for entrepreneurs, since subjects do not know each other, and getting resources may become difficult as well. The fourth and last aspect concerns the background of involved subjects (Greve, 1995; Greve & Salaff, 2003). The term may be meant in different ways. Background may refer to the social context of involved

 Greve (1995, p.  6) provides a very useful example of density. If all the subjects involved in a network know each other, then the density of the network is 100%. 10

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

145

Table 6.2  The main aspects concerning the subjects involved within entrepreneurial networks Investigated aspects Size

Density Distance Background

Results It is necessary to seek the right balance between the possibility of accessing as many resources as possible and the need to interact with a limited number of subjects to avoid overlapping. It is necessary to seek the right balance between redundant and missing information. It is necessary to seek the right balance between direct and indirect/mediated contacts. It refers to the social context or to the previous experiences of involved subjects.

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

subjects—such as family,11 friends, and former colleagues (Kotha & George, 2012)—and, in this case, the focus is on the type of bond existing among the subjects (Klyver & Terjesen, 2007) and on the trust (Smith & Lohrke, 2008) at the basis of their relationship. The second meaning refers to previous experiences (understood as study or work experiences). These allow the accumulation of skills that complete and enrich information and knowledge available within the network (Sullivan & Marvel, 2011). As already pointed out (O’Donnell et al., 2001), entrepreneurs try to obtain the resources (tangible or intangible) they need from their networks and, therefore, different types of background may be useful to do this. The four aspects emerged from the review of contributions focused on the subjects involved within entrepreneurial networks are shown in Table 6.2. The above review discloses that size, density, distance, and background of subjects involved in entrepreneurial networks not only change from one network to another but also vary within the same network over time12 (Greve, 1995; Johannisson, 1988). Of course, the entry of new subjects  In reference to the involvement of family members in entrepreneurial networks, Klyver (2007) offers an interesting analysis in his contribution. 12  According to Johannisson (1988, p. 83), “[T]he personal network is the vehicle by which the established entrepreneurs exchanges information with and acquires resources from the environment.” 11

146 

D. Matricano

and the exclusion or the replacement of others are frequent practices that need to be appropriately managed in view of the aims pursued. Indeed, entrepreneurs must be aware of the difficulties that may arise when networks are modified. New ties are created and—of course—they need time to settle down. If the dynamics do not work properly, then entrepreneurial networks might lose legitimacy toward stakeholders (Suchman, 1995) and this risk needs to be avoided.

6.2.3 The Ties Created and Managed Within Entrepreneurial Networks Let us focus on the ties created and managed within entrepreneurial networks. These may be classified in different ways. First, it is possible to distinguish strong from weak ties, based on the frequency, intensity, involvement, and effects (Granovetter, 1973, 1985). This classification, shared by several scholars (Elfring & Hulsink, 2003; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; Johannisson, 1988; Sequeira et al., 2007), is based on the idea that strong ties manifest cohesion and consistency among the subjects involved within entrepreneurial networks. Accordingly, the ties stand for spirit of collaboration and willingness to share results. Relationships based on this type of tie favor the exchange of intangible resources, in particular the exchange of tacit, un-coded knowledge (Krackhardt, 1992). Weak ties, instead, remark the flexibility of the relationships within networks and stand for the ability to adapt to changes (Hansen, 1999). Because of these characteristics, weak bonds may be less frequent and intense. From a different perspective, it has been noted that weak ties may pave the way for further unexplored connections, while strong ties are useful to justify the choices already made (Johannisson, 1988). Second, it is possible to distinguish between formal and informal ties (Birley, 1985). This categorization is based on the nature of involved subjects. If entrepreneurs establish collaborative relationships with banks, consulting firms or legal companies, Chambers of Commerce, or any other local or national body, then the relationship will be formal. In this case, entrepreneurs do not aim to anticipate ex ante possible needs but to satisfy ex post needs and requirements that have already arisen.

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

147

Conversely, entrepreneurs create informal ties when they interact with family, friends, ex-colleagues or ex-employers, or stakeholders. If the relationship is based on listening and offering disinterested advice, then we may figure out informal ties (Matricano, 2011). Creating and handling formal or informal ties depends on the situation in which entrepreneurs find themselves and—of course—on the resources (tangible or intangible) they need13 (Birley, 1985). Third, ties may be classified as additive or redundant (Burt, 1992, 2000). Such taxonomy is based on the impact that shared resources may exert: if entrepreneurs do not hold specific resources, for example, information and new knowledge (Sullivan & Marvel, 2011), and the established ties may provide them, then we may talk about additive ties. If entrepreneurs already possess the resources deriving from the exchange, or if two subjects share the same resources, then the ties prove to be of little utility, so they are redundant. The last possible classification is based on the difference between direct and indirect/mediated links (Ahuja, 2000; Podolny & Baron, 1997). In the first case, the link between two subjects is immediate, straightforward. In the second case, instead, the tie takes place through third parties who intervene between the two parties involved. All the classifications of ties and their characteristics are shown in Table 6.3. According to the review presented above, the differences between strong or weak, formal or informal, additive or redundant, and direct or indirect ties are noticeable (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; Sequeira et  al., 2007). According to the aim14 that entrepreneurs want to pursue by leveraging their networks (Jack et al., 2010; Soetanto et al., 2018), they decide to create and handle one tie or another.

 Birley (1985) remarks how the choice between formal or informal ties is very difficult due to intrinsic risks. If entrepreneurs decide to leverage formal ties, problems of a bureaucratic nature— related to the management of the relationship—could arise. If entrepreneurs decide to leverage informal ties, problems related to lack of inventiveness or low risk aptitude could arise. The final choice, therefore, must be properly weighted by evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of both types of ties. 14  Matricano (2011) analyzes the impact that ties can exert on network structure. 13

148 

D. Matricano

Table 6.3  A synthesis of the possible ties created and managed within entrepreneurial networks Classifications of ties

Main characteristics

Strong versus weak ties Formal versus informal ties Additive versus redundant ties Direct versus indirect ties

Frequency, intensity, involvement Kind of relationship Relevance of shared resources Presence of other subjects (third parties)

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

Of course, after creating a specific tie, entrepreneurs may realize its ineffectiveness and be interested in creating new ties or modifying the existing ones (Hite, 2005). These changes are not easy because of the trust15 at their basis (Johannisson, 1988; Klyver et  al., 2012; Larson, 1992; Smith & Lohrke, 2008; Ulhøi, 2005). Building trust takes time and, obviously, involves risks both for entrepreneurs and for subjects involved in the network. Entrepreneurs, on the one hand, run the risk that their business idea may be copied, stolen, or transferred to third parties, thus reducing its entrepreneurial value. The subjects involved in the network, on the other hand, run the risks associated with information asymmetry (Akerlof, 1970; Stiglitz, 2002), which—in turn—causes adverse selection and moral hazard.16 In fact, it may happen that some information, which would allow subjects to formulate a more objective judgment on the degree of riskiness of the business in which they are going to be involved, are not exchanged deliberately or accidentally. Despite the above risks (which seem to be reducible but never completely eliminated), trust17 within the network seems to be the only factor capable of determining a positive performance (Fiol, 1994;Granovetter, 2005 ; Smith & Lohrke, 2008).

 According to Larson (1992), the concept of trust can be read according to two distinct interpretations: the first is linked to the social aspect of the relationship while the second is linked to the economic aspect. 16  Gifford (2005) has revised these concepts by referring them expressly to entrepreneurship and providing interesting examples. 17  As for trust, Fiol (1994, p. 650) writes: “[T]rust is a critical first-level determinant of the success of founding entrepreneurs because, by definition, there is an absence of information and evidence regarding their new activity.” 15

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

149

6.3 Reflections on Entrepreneurial Networks The above investigation about entrepreneurial networks—based on the recalling of theoretical issues and practical issues—reveals very interesting results. Despite the aims and the strategic vision of entrepreneurial networks, which encourage scholars and practitioners to think of a predetermined and detailed configuration of entrepreneurial networks, the involvement of subjects and the creation of ties reveal that it is not possible to define a priori any archetype (generic configuration or structure) of entrepreneurial networks (Hallen et al., 2020; Jack et al., 2010; Soetanto et al., 2018). This result must be read and interpreted very carefully. The impossibility of defining an archetype of entrepreneurial networks, in fact, does not lead to question its relevance that, on the contrary, is continually confirmed in numerous and recent contributions (Elfring and Hulsing 2003; Greve & Salaff, 2003; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; SlotteKock & Coviello, 2010; Jack et al., 2010; Jost, 2021; Wambui & Muathe, 2021; Yu et al., 2022). On the other hand, the impossibility of defining a generic configuration of entrepreneurial networks encourages scholars to recognize and embrace the evolutionary or Darwinian perspective of the entrepreneurial network.18 In the analysis carried out previously, this aspect has emerged several times, albeit in a marginal form, sometimes. According to Dubini and Aldrich (1991), involved subjects (their number, density, distance, and their background) and, above all, the ties among them do vary, not only from network to network (inter-­network), but also with reference to the same network (intra-network). This is what really happens over entrepreneurship processes (Elfring & Hulsink, 2003) and this is the reason why some scholars clearly remark this by talking of “flexible networking” (Johannisson, 1998, p. 302), or of network as a “fluid reality” (Palmieri & Rullani, 2008, p. 184). The above definitions are able to express the need to adapt entrepreneurial networks to the entrepreneurs’ aims and strategic vision (Palmieri & Rullani, 2008).  In this regard, scholars have often encouraged adopting a longitudinal perspective in order to study the evolution of the network more correctly (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Bygrave 1989a, 1989b). 18

150 

D. Matricano

In this vein, it becomes of crucial importance to investigate what lies behind the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks or, put simply, which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties among involved subjects (Matricano & Sorrentino, 2015). Possible solutions may be sought in different fields of knowledge as explained in the next section.

6.4 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation of Entrepreneurial Networks In order to investigate and clarify what lies behind the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks or, put simply, which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties among involved subjects, what field of knowledge or domain may shed light on entrepreneurial networks? By focusing attention on ties and on exchanges of resources (tangible and intangible ones) among subjects, research could be addressed toward mathematics first, since it could offer a new perspective to investigate how resources are combined in order to increase performance (Fiol, 1994; Granovetter, 2005; Smith & Lohrke, 2008). In reference to tangible resources, this perspective could be of some interest since it could measure the resource allocation and the performance generated (Meyers, 2015). This is not true in reference to intangible resources, since measurements of resource allocation and generated performance could be difficult to carry out (Granovetter, 2005; Smith & Lohrke, 2008). The perspective is totally different if attention is focused on subjects creating and handling ties. In this case, it would be appropriate to refer to an emerging field of research that is attracting a noticeable interest among scholars: neuroscience and its possible reference to entrepreneurship (Nicolaou et al., 2019; Nicolaou et al., 2021; Nicolaou & Shane, 2014; Sharma et al., 2021). This kind of studies is very recent and scholars are

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

151

still exploring and evaluating possible advantages deriving from this overlap. Nicolaou et al. (2019) have tried to specify how neuroscience may advance entrepreneurship theory and research, by defining and proposing four mechanisms: 1. capturing hidden mental processes that cannot be investigated using other techniques; 2. informing the discriminant and convergent validity of entrepreneurship constructs; 3. examining the antecedents and temporal ordering of entrepreneurship variables; and 4. refining and adjudicating among different theoretical perspectives in a way that behavioral data cannot. These mechanisms could really help to proceed with entrepreneurial studies by leveraging neuroscience even if—as pointed out by Nicolaou et al. (2021)—the theorized associations between biology and entrepreneurship are probabilistic, not deterministic. In this vein, any attempt to attribute causality in these associations is premature, or even wrong, and some time is needed to clarify this causality and make it effective. Both the perspectives proposed above—focusing attention on ties and on exchanges of resources (tangible and intangible ones) among subjects, or on subjects creating and handling ties—do not seem in the position to make scholars proceed with entrepreneurial studies. For this reason, a new, different perspective is needed. In order to investigate the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties among involved subjects, chemistry could be a possible avenue of research. In its essence, in fact, chemistry is focused on reactions, not only from a qualitative but also from a quantitative point of view. Chemistry, in fact, examines the appearance and disappearance of substances, the energy exchanged during its course, and the consequent generation of heat, as well as the speed with which a reaction occurs and is able to recognize the status of equilibrium of a chemical system. An overview of all the possible lenses is included in Table 6.4.

152 

D. Matricano

Table 6.4  An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate entrepreneurial networks New lenses

Limits/strengths

Mathematics In reference to tangible resources, this perspective could be of some interest since it could measure the resource allocation and the performance generated (Meyers, 2015). This is not true in reference to intangible resources since measurements of resource allocation and generated performance could be difficult to carry out. Neuroscience Theorized associations between biology and entrepreneurship are probabilistic, not deterministic. Any attempt to attribute causality in these associations is premature or even wrong and some time is needed to clarify this causality and make it effective. Chemistry It examines the appearance and disappearance of substances, the energy exchanged during its course (and so the generate heat), and the speed with which a reaction occurs and it is able to recognize the status of equilibrium of a chemical system. Source: Author’s personal elaboration

6.5 Leveraging the Lens of Chemistry to Investigate Entrepreneurial Networks Appearance and disappearance of substances is the premise to chemical studies, which by definition need matter (any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume) to start chemical transformations. Through chemical reactions, matter is transformed and energy is released or absorbed in the shape of heat. Precisely chemistry describes the change of the energy content when reactants are converted into products—enthalpy of reaction (Herman & Goodman, 1989; Ładosz et al., 2020). Some chemical reactions involve the production of heat (exothermic reactions); others occur with absorption of heat (endothermic reactions). Some others are chemical reactions that are not accompanied by significant thermic effects and are called thermo-neutral. At this stage, it is obvious to wonder: what does the heat of a reaction depend on? Each substance (by its structure, type of bond, or physical state) has a certain amount of energy. When a reaction occurs, quantities of

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

153

energy—which are directly related to the variations in the number and in the strengths of bond between the reactants and the products—are released or absorbed. Overall, it is necessary to administer energy to break chemical bonds, while energy is released when chemical bonds are formed.

6.5.1 Entrepreneurial Networks Through Chemical Reactions In an attempt to investigate entrepreneurial networks from a different perspective, chemistry could be useful. The premise at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks could be the positive impact that may derive from a reaction or, put simply, the creation of energy and heat (exothermic reactions). The reference to enthalpy of reaction remarks that networks cannot be implemented and managed to generate negative effects (to absorb or destroy energy) or neutral effects (thermo-neutrality), but to add something new that entrepreneurs risk missing if they proceed without their network. Beyond the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks, it is of crucial importance to disclose the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties among involved subjects. Again, the principles of chemistry may be valuable. In particular, it may be very useful to refer to chemical dynamics standing for that part of chemistry dealing with the study of the speed of reactions and chemical status of equilibrium. As for the speed of chemical reactions, we need to start from the idea that some reactions may take some microseconds (e.g., the explosions); others may take hundreds or thousands of years (e.g., the decomposition of radioactive elements); some others may take real time to happen (e.g., the rust formation). What does the speed of reactions depend on? It depends on the nature of reagents, their concentration, the temperature of the setting, and the presence of catalysts. As for the nature of reagents, chemical reactions occur only if the particles of the reactants meet, and this depends on their state of aggregation. Obviously, not all the reactants meet the other ones, thus reactions may happen or not.

154 

D. Matricano

In order to foster the meeting and missing of reactants, concentration plays a crucial role. If reactants are very close, then the speed of reactions consistently increases. Temperature plays a crucial role as well. In fact, if temperature is high, then reactants move faster and reactions may be stronger. Eventually, attention needs to be addressed toward catalysts, which are substances capable of influencing the speed of a reaction without taking part (at least apparently) in the reaction itself. According to the above, four factors (nature of reagents, their concentration, temperature of the setting, and presence of catalysts) may affect—positively or negatively—the speed of reactions. Indeed, what matters in chemistry is not to reach the best speed in all reactions but the best speed for each reaction, according to the nature and characteristics of reactants. Only if this happens, then reactions take place and new substances are created. These processes may be reversible (original reactants may be separated) or not. If not, new substances become a system that tends to achieve a status of equilibrium able to protect itself. According to the principle of Le Chatelier (1884), in fact, when a chemical system in a status of equilibrium is disturbed by an external stress or strain, the system reacts by canceling the external stress and restoring the status of equilibrium.19 This guarantees the survival of the system. Chemistry may be useful to add something new to the study of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the sense that dynamics of entrepreneurial networks cannot be generalized (e.g., in reference to the speed of reactions) since they depend on several factors (just like reactions do): what matters is the final status that dynamics should drive to. Entrepreneurial networks should work in such a way that ties among subjects may lead to a system able to protect itself from external strains. Similarly, entrepreneurs should aim to create entrepreneurial networks that cannot be reversed and may survive by overcoming market competition.

 See also the contribution authored by Mallard and Le Chatelier (1884).

19

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

155

6.6 Concluding Remarks Even if scholars have focused their attention on several issues about entrepreneurial networks, ranging from theoretical issues (about the theoretical background, the level of analysis, the possible configurations, and the scope of entrepreneurial networks) to practical issues (concerning the subjects involved and the ties created and handled within entrepreneurial networks), some issues are still veiled. In particular, what lies behind the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks or, put simply, which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties among involved subjects is not an easy task for entrepreneurship scholars; these are topics that still need to be investigated and clarified. Indeed, by leveraging theories and concepts rooted in the field of entrepreneurship, any advancement seems limited. The approach shared by entrepreneurship scholars, in fact, does not allow catching the premises and the dynamics of entrepreneurial networks. Possible contributions may be sought in different fields of knowledge, for example, in the field of mathematics (if attention is focused on the ties created and handled and on the exchanges of resources among subjects) or in the field of neuroscience (if attention is focused on the subjects creating and handling ties). The contribution of these fields of knowledge might be of limited usefulness, though. For this reason, different disciplines need to be recalled and—if possible—referred to entrepreneurship. In particular, the discipline of chemistry may be useful to add something to the study of entrepreneurial networks. Studies on the enthalpy of reaction (the release of energy) and on the speed of reaction among chemical reactants may help to approach aims and strategic vision of entrepreneurial networks (Windsperger et  al., 2018) from a different perspective. These concepts may clarify what entrepreneurs expect from implementing and managing their networks: releasing energy and heat and creating the right conditions to increase the speed of reaction among chemical reactants.

156 

D. Matricano

At the same time, the principles of chemistry remark two very important aspects. First, each reaction has its own speed and the same may be assumed about networks. Implementing a network is a process that may be planned but cannot be determined ex ante. Thus, each network needs its time to work perfectly. Second, if reactants become a system and achieve a status of equilibrium and an external stress or strain happens, then the system reacts by canceling the external stress and restoring the status of equilibrium. The same should happen in reference to networks that should work in order to achieve a status of equilibrium that may be disturbed by the external stresses or strains but may be restored easily. In sum, by referring to the principles of chemistry, it is possible to hypothesize which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties among involved subjects. Of course, further contributions are evoked in order to corroborate this view, but—hopefully— some tips about new perspectives useful to investigate entrepreneurial networks have been offered.

References Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500. Aldrich, H.  E., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In H. E. Aldrich (Ed.), Population Perspective on Organizations. Acta Universitatis Upaliensis. Anderson, A. R., Dodd, S. D., & Jack, S. (2010). Network practices and entrepreneurial growth. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 121–133. Batjargal, B. (2010). Network dynamics and new ventures in China: A longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(2), 139–153. Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 107–117. Birley, S., Cromie, S., & Myers, A. (1991). Entrepreneurial networks: Their emergence in Ireland and overseas. International Small Business Journal, 9(4), 56–74.

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

157

Boso, N., Story, V. M., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: Study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy. Journal of business Venturing, 28(6), 708–727. Brown, B., & Butler, J. E. (1993). Networks and entrepreneurial development: The shadow of borders. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(2), 101–116. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press. Burt, R. S. (2000). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In N. Lin, C. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Butler, J. E., & Hansen, G. S. (1991). Network evolution, entrepreneurial success, and regional development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 3(1), 1–16. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1–44. Das, M., & Goswami, N. (2019). Effect of entrepreneurial networks on small firm performance in Kamrup, a district of Assam. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1), 1–14. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1997). Time and Entrepreneurial Risk Behaviour. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 22(2), 69–88. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331. Dubini, P. (2000). Il ruolo dei social network nello sviluppo delle aziende culturali: il caso della New York Public Library. In A. Lipparini & G. Lorenzoni (Eds.), Imprenditore e Imprese. Il Mulino, Bologna. Dubini, P., & Aldrich, H. E. (1991). Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(5), 305–313. Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2003). Networks in entrepreneurship: The case of high-technology firms. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 409–422. Fiol, C.  M. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 5(3), 403–420. Galkina, T. (2013). Entrepreneurial networking: Intended and unintended processes. Hanken School of Economics. Gifford, S. (2005). Risk and uncertainty. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction. Springer.

158 

D. Matricano

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Granovetter, M. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Harvard University Press. Granovetter, M. (1982). Economic institutions as social constructions: A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica, 35(1), 3–11. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50. Greve, A. (1995). Networks and entrepreneurship—an analysis of social relations, occupational background, and the use of contacts during the establishment process. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(1), 1–24. Greve, A., & Salaff, J.  W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28(1), 1–22. Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397–420. Håkansson, H., & Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 133–139. Hallen, B. L., Davis, J. P., & Murray, A. (2020). Entrepreneurial network evolution: Explicating the structural localism and agentic network change distinction. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 1067–1102. Hansen, E. L. (1995). Entrepreneurial networks and new organization growth. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 7–19. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111. Herman, M. S., & Goodman, J. L. (1989). Determination of the enthalpy and reaction volume changes of organic photoreactions using photoacoustic calorimetry. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 111(5), 1849–1854. Hite, J. M. (2005). Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(1), 113–144. Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187. Jack, S., Dodd, S. D., & Anderson, A. R. (2008). Change and the development of entrepreneurial networks over time: A processual perspective. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20(2), 125–159.

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

159

Jack, S., Moult, S., Anderson, A. R., & Dodd, S. (2010). An entrepreneurial network evolving: Patterns of change. International Small Business Journal, 28(4), 315–337. Johannisson, B. (1986). Network strategies: Management technology for entrepreneurship and change. International Small Business Journal, 5(1), 19–30. Johannisson, B. (1987). Beyond process and structure: Social exchange networks. International Studies of Management & Organization, 17(1), 3–23. Johannisson, B. (1988). Business formation—A network approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 4(3/4), 83–99. Johannisson, B. (1995). Paradigms and entrepreneurial networks. Some methodological challenges. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7(3), 215–232. Johannisson, B. (1998). Personal networks in emerging knowledge-based firms: Spatial and functional patterns. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 10(4), 297–312. Jost, P.  J. (2021). Endogenous formation of entrepreneurial networks. Small Business Economics, 56(1), 39–64. Klyver, K. (2007). Shifting family involvement during the entrepreneurial process. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 13(5), 258–277. Klyver, K., & Terjesen, S. (2007). Entrepreneurial network composition: An analysis across venture development stage and gender. Women in Management Review, 22(8), 682–688. Klyver, K., Hunter, E., & Watne, T. (2012). Entrepreneurial ties and innovativeness in the start-up decision. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 13(3), 153–163. Kotha, R., & George, G. (2012). Friends, family, or fools: Entrepreneur experience and its implications for equity distribution and resource mobilization. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5), 525–543. Krackhardt, D. (1992). A caveat on the use of the quadratic assignment procedure. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 3(4), 279–296. Ładosz, A., Kuhnle, C., & Jensen, K. F. (2020). Characterization of reaction enthalpy and kinetics in a microscale flow platform. Reaction Chemistry & Engineering, 5(11), 2115–2122. Lamine, W. (2017). The social network and entrepreneurial process: A sociotechnical approach. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(5), 623–633. Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial setting: A study of the governance of exchange processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76–104.

160 

D. Matricano

Larson, A., & Starr, J. A. (1993). A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 5–15. Le Chatelier, H. L. (1884). A general statement of the laws of chemical equilibrium. Comptes Rendus, 99, 786–789. Lefebvre, V., Radu Lefebvre, M., & Simon, E. (2015). Formal entrepreneurial networks as communities of practice: A longitudinal case study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(7-8), 500–525. Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–162. Mallard, E., & Le Chatelier, H. (1884). Sur la variation, avec la pression, de la température à laquelle se produit la transformation de l'iodure d'argent. Bulletin de Minéralogie, 7(8), 478–484. Matricano, D. (2011). L’Origine delle Opportunità Imprenditoriali nelle Reti di Imprese. In F. Izzo (Ed.), Reti per l’Innovazione. McGraw Hill. Matricano, D., & Sorrentino, M. (2015). Implementation of regional innovation networks: a case study of the biotech industry in Campania. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 33(May–Aug), 105–126. Mbura, O. (2015). The effectiveness of entrepreneurial networks in the acquisition of marketing information (MI) resources: Selected small manufacturing firms in Tanzania. Business Management Review, 17(1), 97–121. Meyers, M. (2015). Making (and measuring) an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Economic Development Journal, 14(3), 28–36. Naudé, P., & Sutton-Brady, C. (2019). Relationships and networks as examined in Industrial Marketing Management. Industrial Marketing Management, 79, 27–35. Nicolaou, N., & Shane, S. (2014). Biology, neuroscience, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(1), 98–100. Nicolaou, N., Lockett, A., Ucbasaran, D., & Rees, G. (2019). Exploring the potential and limits of a neuroscientific approach to entrepreneurship. International Small Business Journal, 37(6), 557–580. Nicolaou, N., Phan, P. H., & Stephan, U. (2021). The biological perspective in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(1), 3–17. O’Donnell, A., Gilmore, A., Cummins, D., & Carson, D. (2001). The network construct in entrepreneurship research: A review and a critique. Management Decision, 39(9), 749–760. Ostgaard, T. A., & Birley, S. (1994). Personal networks and firm competitive strategy: A strategic or coincidental match? Journal of Business Venturing, 9(4), 281–305.

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

161

Palmieri, D., & Rullani, E. (2008). Reti di impresa oltre i distretti. In A. Bagnasco, A. Bonomi, D. Palmieri, & E. Rullani (Eds.), Reti di Imprese: Fenomeni Emergenti. Il Sole 24 Ore, Milano. Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. M. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673–693. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336. Powell, W. W. (1996). Inter-organizational collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 120(1), 197–215. Prajapati, K., & Biswas, S. N. (2011). Effect of entrepreneur network and entrepreneur self-efficacy on subjective performance: A study of handicraft and handloom cluster. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 20(2), 227–247. Reynolds, P. D. (1991). Sociology and entrepreneurship: Concepts and contributions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 47–70. Scott, J. (1991). Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. Sage Publications. Sequeira, J., Mueller, S. L., & McGee, J. E. (2007). The influence of social ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and motivating nascent behavior. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 275–293. Sharma, G.  D., Paul, J., Srivastava, M., Yadav, A., Mendy, J., Sarker, T., & Bansal, S. (2021). Neuroentrepreneurship: an integrative review and research agenda. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 33(9-10), 863–893. Shu, R., Ren, S., & Zheng, Y. (2018). Building networks into discovery: The link between entrepreneur network capability and entrepreneurial opportunity discovery. Journal of Business Research, 85, 197–208. Slotte-Kock, S., & Coviello, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship research on network processes: A review and ways forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(1), 31–57. Smith, D. A., & Lohrke, F. T. (2008). Entrepreneurial network development: Trusting in the process. Journal of Business Research, 61(4), 315–322. Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Coleman, H. J. (1992). Managing 21st century organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 5–20. Soetanto, D. (2019). Examining change in entrepreneurial networks: Using visualisation as an alternative approach. European Management Journal, 37(2), 139–150. Soetanto, D., Huang, Q., & Jack, S. (2018). Obstacles, networking approaches and entrepreneurial network changes. European Management Review, 15(2), 171–189.

162 

D. Matricano

Sorrentino, M. (2003). Le Nuove Imprese. Economia delle Nuove Iniziative Imprenditoriali. Cedam, Padova. Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 79–92. Steier, L., & Greenwood, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the evolution of angel financial networks. Organization Studies, 21(1), 163–192. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. American Economic Review, 92(3), 460–501. Stinchcombe, A.  L. (1965). Organizations and social structure. In J.  March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations. Randy McNally. Suchman, M.  C. (1995). Managing legitimacy, strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. Sullivan, D. M., & Marvel, M. R. (2011). Knowledge acquisition, network reliance, and early-stage technology venture outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1169–1193. Thornton, P. H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 19–46. Troise, C., Matricano, D., Sorrentino, M., & Candelo, E. (2022). Investigating Investment Decisions in Equity Crowdfunding: The Role of Projects' Intellectual Capital. European Management Journal, 40(3), 406–418. Ulhøi, L.  P. (2005). The social dimension of entrepreneurship. Technovation, 25(8), 939–946. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698. Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(2), 109–125. Wambui, R., & Muathe, S. (2021). From attention to action: Entrepreneurial networks and performance of women-owned enterprises: A theoretical review. International Journal of Business and Management, 16(2), 82–95. Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577. Williamson, O. E. (1998). Transaction cost economics: How it works, where it is headed. DE Economist, 146(1), 23–58.

6  Entrepreneurial Networks Through the Lens of Chemistry 

163

Windsperger, J., Hendrikse, G.  W., Cliquet, G., & Ehrmann, T. (2018). Governance and strategy of entrepreneurial networks: An introduction. Small Business Economics, 50(4), 671–676. Yu, W., Dai, S., Liu, F., & Yang, Y. (2022). Matching disruptive innovation paths with entrepreneurial networks: A new perspective on startups’ growth with Chinese evidence. Asian Business Management. https://doi.org/10.1057/ s41291-­022-­00177-­3

7 Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology

Among the most recent topics of research in entrepreneurship, ecosystems are assuming a prominent role on the agenda of researchers and policymakers since they do affect entrepreneurial results in a positive way, although it is not clear yet to what extent and in what way. The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has become a buzzword, an umbrella, under which several topics are included and investigated. Thus it still lacks a specific and clear definition. The concept is rooted in the field of biology but—surprisingly—very often scholars miss its essence and look at entrepreneurial ecosystems in a different way. In fact, according to the principles of biology, the co-living in a space is of crucial importance for partners to survive especially because of the food chain and the related energy flow, as well as the circular movement of matter that occurs within it. Has the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems been properly transposed into entrepreneurship field of research? If not, is it possible to transpose it in a more correct way? The way natural ecosystems work is carefully analyzed to speculate on how entrepreneurial ecosystems should work.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Matricano, Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1_7

165

166 

D. Matricano

7.1 Differentiating Entrepreneurial Ecosystems from Entrepreneurial Networks Studies about entrepreneurial networks represent a good starting point to investigate entrepreneurial ecosystems (Acs et al., 2014, 2018; Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Fernandes & Ferreira, 2022). In fact, both entrepreneurial networks and entrepreneurial ecosystems depend on the relationships and ties created and handled by entrepreneurial subjects1 (Purbasari et  al., 2020). In this vein, the concepts of size, density, distance, and background of involved subjects (referred to entrepreneurial networks2) are still of great importance. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the concepts of entrepreneurial networks and entrepreneurial ecosystems completely overlap. There is a relevant difference that cannot be ignored: the concept of space (labeled also as context, environment, or setting), where dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems take place (Johannisson, 1998; Urbano et al., 2019). Unlike entrepreneurial networks (for which the concept of space, context, environment, or setting was not introduced), in fact, entrepreneurial ecosystems are strongly characterized by the geographical space where entrepreneurial phenomena occur. Entrepreneurship scholars remark another relevant difference occurring between entrepreneurial networks and entrepreneurial ecosystems, which consist in the focal aim. While the focal aim of entrepreneurial network is the exchange of resources3 (both tangible and intangible ones), the focal aims of entrepreneurial networks are to create value through innovation (Autio & Thomas, 2014) or to support the creation of new ventures (Stam, 2015). Somehow, these aims remark the relevance of space where entrepreneurial actions reveal themselves (manifesting their impact).

 Neumeyer et  al. (2019) authored a very interesting contribution titled “Who Is Left Out: Exploring Social Boundaries in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Beyond the provocative title, the paper investigates the subjects involved in or excluded by entrepreneurial ecosystems. 2  See paragraph 6.2.2. 3  See Chap. 6. 1

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

167

Let us start by recalling some notes about the concept of context (context, environment, or setting) in reference to entrepreneurship. Context may be understood at a physical4 level, at a social5 level, or at an institutional6 level; differences about these levels are easy to catch. From a different perspective of analysis, Zanni (1995) offers three different views7 of entrepreneurship context. It may be static-topographical, abstract, and dynamic-topological. According to the first view,8 the context may be understood in a physical sense, as physical distance between two subjects who conclude an economic exchange (like physical distance, it is a measurable concept). The second view9 goes beyond the concept of physical space and defines the economic context as a “field of forces” (Zanni, 1995, p.  184) generated by entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial firms occupying the central position: in this case entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial firms shape the surrounding environment. Lastly, according to the third and final view, the context may be redefined by considering the social relations established in or beyond a territory (physical space). The first two views (the static-topographical and the abstract one) focus on the efficiency linked to the choices about location and, therefore, enhance economic advantages meant both in terms of cost reduction and in terms of economies of scale. In reference to these views, the most common example offered by scholars deals with industrial districts (Becattini, 1989; Marshall, 1890), regional innovation systems (Acs  Scholars—such as Low and MacMillan (1988), Thornton and Flynn (2003) and Whetten (2009)—openly share the idea that the context may be understood on a physical level. 5  Among the scholars who have meant the context at a social level, it is worth mentioning: Granovetter (1985) and Thornton (1999). 6  Scholars looking at the context according to an institutional perspective are Polany (1957) and North (1990). 7  According to Zanni (1995, pp. 196–197), these three views summarize the evolution of the context in entrepreneurial studies. The first meaning, the static-topographical, was born between 1870 and 1910; the second spread between 1910 and 1960. Finally, the dynamic-topological meaning was proposed starting in 1970 and is still in existence today. 8  In particular, as pointed out by Zanni (1995, p. 179), the static-topographical view may be traced back to the neoclassical economy. The choice of the setting to start a new business or transfer an existing one is linked to the main objective that the company pursues, namely the maximization of profit. 9  This second view was born and developed between the 1950s and 1960s when the neoclassical model is outdated and new theoretical proposals are advanced to redefine the boundaries of economic research. 4

168 

D. Matricano

et  al., 2014; Qian et  al., 2013), and entrepreneurial ecosystems (Acs et al., 2017; Stam & van de Ven, 2021; Wurth et al., 2022). The dynamic-­ topological view, instead, focuses on the innovative processes linked to learning and management of uncertainty, and pays less attention to the context: entrepreneurial networks are the most cited examples (Florida & Kenney, 1988). By putting aside entrepreneurial networks, it is time to remark the differences among industrial districts (Becattini, 1989; Marshall, 1890), regional innovation systems (Acs et al., 2014; Matricano & Sorrentino, 2015; Qian et al., 2013), and entrepreneurial ecosystems (Acs et al., 2017; Stam & van de Ven, 2021; Wurth et al., 2022) in order to define the boundaries of research. Among the several contributions that come out from an extensive literature review (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Brown & Mason, 2017; Thompson et al., 2018), Spigel and Harrison (2018) provide a very useful contribution to rebuild the differences among these concepts. According to their analysis, industrial clusters are characterized by the presence of other firms by the relevance of knowledge exchanged among firms (both inside and outside the cluster) and by close physical proximity among firms. These three elements may be found in regional innovation systems as well, but—as noted by Spigel (2017)—there is a relevant difference. Interactions are encouraged by geographic proximity (which allows the creation and favors the handling of ties in a specific territory) or by a supportive culture defined at a regional level. Accordingly, industrial clusters and regional innovation share a top-down culture that is determined and applied by policymakers interested in the economic and social development of a territory or a region. The main difference between them concerns the area of interest. At this stage, it is possible to clarify the main aspects characterizing entrepreneurial ecosystems and differentiating them from industrial clusters and regional innovation systems. The first aspect deals with the ability to access resources (Cowell et al., 2018; Harima et al., 2021; Shi & Shi, 2021). It is important not to focus only on some resources—such as skilled workers and specialized knowledge (as it happens in industrial clusters and regional innovation systems)—but also on the processes through which resources may be accessed. The second aspect deals with the leading role (Miles & Morrison, 2020; Purbasari et al., 2020; Roundy,

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

169

2020; Stam, 2015): while industrial clusters and regional innovation systems are created top-down so that policymakers may assign the leading role to a specific agent, entrepreneurs are expected to create their entrepreneurial ecosystems and to assume the leading role. This aspect necessarily affects the dynamics ongoing in industrial clusters and regional innovation systems, on the one hand, and in entrepreneurial ecosystems, on the other. The third and last aspect deals with industrial sectors (Loots et  al., 2021; Xu et  al., 2021): as underlined by Spigel and Harrison (2018), industrial clusters and regional innovation systems refer to specific industries (characterized by technical knowledge), while entrepreneurial ecosystems are “industry agnostic” (p.  156). Structures of entrepreneurial ecosystems change according to the industries where entrepreneurs are, but their relevance does not. An overview of the differences listed above is offered in Table 7.1. At this stage, after clarifying the main differences occurring between entrepreneurial networks and entrepreneurial ecosystems first, as well as among industrial clusters, regional innovation systems, and entrepreneurial ecosystems, it is possible to shift attention only to entrepreneurial ecosystems and try to highlight some aspects of entrepreneurial ecosystems useful to realize their relevance in entrepreneurship studies.

7.2 Defining Entrepreneurial Ecosystems After differentiating entrepreneurial ecosystems from entrepreneurial networks (which miss the geographical dimension) and industrial cluster and regional innovation systems (which miss other intangible aspects), it is time to review the main definitions of entrepreneurial ecosystems in order to define the boundaries of this research in a proper way (Acs et al., 2017, 2018; Brown & Mason, 2017; Cavallo et  al., 2019; Cho et  al., 2022; Fernandes & Ferreira, 2022; Hakala et al., 2020; Spigel & Harrison, 2018; Stam & van de Ven, 2021; Wurth et al., 2022). For a start, it is important to note that several scholars have contributed to the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems even if a holistic approach is missing (Dubini, 1989; Stam, 2015; Stam & Spigel, 2017; Van de Ven, 1993). In fact, as it can be noted in the following lines, each definition

170 

D. Matricano

Table 7.1  Some elements characterizing entrepreneurial ecosystems Investigated Entrepreneurial elements networks Space

Aim

View

Culture

Industry

Industrial districts

The concept of They are space, context, strongly environment, characterized or setting is by the not introduced geographical space where entrepre neurial phenomena occur (a specific territory) To support the To create value creation of through new ventures innovation Dynamic-­ Static-­ topological topographical and abstract Entrepreneurs The structure is define the defined structure of top-down their network Industry-­specific Industry-specific

Regional innovation systems

Entrepreneurial ecosystems

They are They are strongly strongly characterized characterized by the by the geographical geographical space where space where entrepreneurial entrepre phenomena neurial occur phenomena (entrepreneurs occur (a determine the region) area of interest) To create value To create value through through innovation innovation Static-­topogra Static-­ phical and topographical abstract and abstract The structure Entrepreneurs is defined define the top-down structure of their network IndustryIndustry agnostic specific

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

remarks a specific feature or element of entrepreneurial ecosystems but the whole concept still suffers from a number of weaknesses (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017) and unanswered questions (Kuratko et al., 2017). The first contributions about entrepreneurial ecosystems can be dated back to the end of the 1990s when Bahrami and Evans (1995) presented the case of Silicon Valley in terms of ecosystem. Later on, Spilling (1996) formalized the concept of entrepreneurial systems—not yet ecosystems— when referring to the interacting agents, roles, and contextual features that influence a region’s entrepreneurial performance. Since then, several scholars have offered more fine-grained definitions ranging from a biological view to an economic-geographic one (Fischer

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

171

et al., 2022). The contributions supporting the first vision underline the importance of biotic and abiotic elements and the interactions among them (Bailey, 2004; Cavallo et  al., 2019; Schulze et  al., 2005; Smith et al., 2012) or, to be more precise,10 the biotic community, its physical environment, and all the interactions possible in the complexity of living and nonliving components (Tansley, 1935). The contributions supporting the second vision, instead, underline the importance of space. In this vein, Johannisson (1998) argues that geography matters, as most support structures are organized spatially and personal networking is geographically concentrated even though non-local ties are also important. Cohen (2006, p. 3) defines entrepreneurial ecosystems as an interconnected group of actors in a local geographic community, committed to sustainable development through the support and facilitation of new sustainable ventures. The involvement of some actors to support the launch of new firms in a defined place summarizes the essence of entrepreneurial ecosystems. According to Auerswald (2015) and Auerswald and Dani (2017), entrepreneurial ecosystems are geographically bounded areas with mutually dependent components (organic and inorganic resources) that support and promote entrepreneurship through specific dynamics. These dynamics may be analyzed by referring to the concepts of diversity, selection, diversification, resilience, and adaptation (Iacobucci & Perugini, 2021). Eventually, according to Roundy and Fayard (2019), who recall several previous contributions,11 entrepreneurial ecosystems stand for an interrelated set of actors, organizations, resources, and values that generate and support regional12 entrepreneurial activities. As it may be noted, there is no general agreement on the definition of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The adopted perspectives (the biological and  An even more precise definition of entrepreneurial ecosystems considers the co-evolution and mutualistic interdependence among a complex nested system of diverse organizations and actors (Hawley, 1950). 11  See, for example, Hechavarria & Ingram, 2014; Stam, 2015; Acs et al., 2017; Brown & Mason, 2017; Spigel, 2017; Malecki, 2018; Roundy et al., 2018. 12  It is important to note that despite the differences cited in paragraph 7.1, some scholars overlap entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional innovation systems. 10

172 

D. Matricano

the economic-geographic ones) do not exclude but enrich and complete each other in the effort to express a complex phenomenon, difficult to catch and frame.

7.3 A Review of Theoretical Frameworks and Backgrounds Useful for Studying Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Because of the inconsistency emerged about the definition of entrepreneurial ecosystems, it is appropriate to address attention toward theoretical backgrounds or frameworks that may be used to frame them in a proper way. Hopefully, by clarifying the theoretical backgrounds and frameworks that may be used to approach entrepreneurial ecosystems, some insights may be caught more easily. This task is not easy since there is a general lack of theory in entrepreneurial ecosystems research (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Brown & Mason, 2017; Donaldson, 2021; Spigel, 2017; Spigel & Harrison, 2018), and contributions seem to proceed in a very fragmented and uneven way.13 As remarked by Stam and van De Ven (2021) the level of analysis is not clear yet and this is detrimental to advances in research about entrepreneurial ecosystems (Donaldson, 2021). Despite this, interesting contributions emerge from a dedicated literature review (Donaldson, 2021; Stam, 2015; Stam & Spigel, 2017). As for the origins of entrepreneurial ecosystems, the reference to the ecological perspective (Aldrich, 1979; Hannan & Freeman, 1977) is rather obvious and fruitful. The reference to the context, meant and interpreted in different ways, such as munificent/unmunificent (Dubini, 1989) or as infrastructures (Van de Ven, 1993), may explain the creation of new ventures and, perhaps, the creation of entrepreneurial ecosystems as well. This approach helps to frame the creation of entrepreneurial ecosystems and to explain why some of them survive while others do not according to a contextual, geographical perspective. However, some  For a more extended review of theoretical frameworks and their key elements that may be used to study entrepreneurial ecosystems, see the paper authored by Donaldson (2021). 13

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

173

limitations emerge if attention is addressed toward the functioning of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Roundy & Fayard, 2019; Spigel, 2017). In order to shed some light on the functioning of entrepreneurial ecosystems, Thompson et  al. (2018) recall several theories about clusters (Baum & Haveman, 1997; Delgado et  al., 2010), intervention of the state (Autio et al., 2018; Mason & Brown, 2014), established relationships and ties among subjects (Mack & Mayer, 2016; Spigel, 2017), or about co-creation and appropriation of value (Adner, 2017; Thomas & Autio, 2017). Limits emerging about each of the above theories encourage the scholars to consider the “field theory” (Thomas & Autio, 2017) and refer it to entrepreneurial ecosystems. This theory emphasizes the role of governmental actors and policy regimes under specific social processes and conflicts. In particular, this theory introduces the concept of conventions, standing for successful trajectories of coordination among actors operating under conditions of uncertainty. These trajectories emerge day by day, thanks to the interactions and relationships among subjects involved in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and pass through the creation of a community, the development of legal infrastructures, and the generation of financial support. By carrying out these activities, the non-deliberate act of creating an ecosystem is revealed and the final aims pursued by entrepreneurial ecosystems are fine-tuned. Although the possibility of applying the “field theory” to entrepreneurial ecosystems is still under discussion, the approach underlying this theory is in line with other studies remarking the dynamic view of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In this vein, Alvedalen and Boschma (2017) propose an approach that starts with the birth phase (when entrepreneurs face risk), moves to the sustainment phase (when market dynamics reveal themselves and take place), and ends with the decline phase (entrepreneurial ecosystems may cease to exist or a new cycle may start). According to Alvedalen and Boschma (2017), scholars should embrace the processual and dynamic view of entrepreneurial ecosystems in order to get some insights about their functioning. Roundy and Fayard (2019) take this concept to the extremes by proposing to frame entrepreneurial ecosystems according to the theory of dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997). In their view, in fact, entrepreneurial ecosystems are useful for entrepreneurs who aim to identify new

174 

D. Matricano

entrepreneurial opportunities and to be engaged in entrepreneurial learning (sensing activities), to acquire and mobilize resources (seizing activities), and to renew and redeploy resources (reconfiguring activities). Despite some necessary adaptations, the theory of dynamic capabilities is a candidate to be a useful reference framework for the study of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Again, the processual, dynamic, and evolutionary view of entrepreneurial ecosystems is confirmed (Cho et al., 2022). Still other theories are recalled in reference to the impact of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Fischer et al., 2022). In particular, the reference to the knowledge spillover effect seems rather obvious. This effect may be defined as a positive externality (result or impact) that subjects—who are not involved in the knowledge creation process—may get. Put simply, even if subjects do not contribute to creation of new knowledge, they may get and use new knowledge since—by definition—it is indivisible, non-rival, and non-excludable. Over the years, scholars have developed the concept of knowledge spillover in reference to management studies (Arrow, 1962; Autio et al. 2004; Huber, 2012; Inoue et al., 2019) and then they have referred it to entrepreneurship as well (Acs et al., 2009; Agarwal et  al., 2010; Audretsch & Keilbach, 2007; Audretsch & Lehmann, 2006; Braunerhjelm et  al., 2018; Plummer & Acs, 2014; Stough & Nijkamp, 2009). In particular, Acs et al. (2013) explicitly talk about Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship (KSTE) and make this theory referable to entrepreneurial ecosystems as well. A synthesis of the above-cited frameworks and their application, used to study entrepreneurial ecosystems, is included in Table 7.2. A different stream of research (intercepting the evolution of markets) deals with digital entrepreneurial ecosystems (Acs et  al., 2017, 2018; Sussan & Acs, 2017) that—by definition—are focused on the creation of digital companies and innovative products and services. In this case, the relevance of the geographical element decreases and some reflections are mandatory to assess its relevance in entrepreneurship studies. From the above literature review, two interesting results emerge. On the one hand, it is possible to find out interesting contributions able to reveal some insights or add something new to the study of entrepreneurial ecosystems. On the other hand, it is mandatory to admit that interesting contributions are fragmented and they do not help to create and share a clear overview of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

175

Table 7.2  A synthesis of theoretical backgrounds and frameworks referable to entrepreneurial ecosystems Theoretical backgrounds and frameworks Ecological perspective Field theory Dynamic approach and dynamic capabilities Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship

Application Origins of entrepreneurial ecosystems Functioning of entrepreneurial ecosystems Impact of entrepreneurial ecosystems

Source: Author’s personal elaboration

7.4 Investigating the Functional Aspects of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems The limited contributions made by fragmented theories and the missing of a clear overview have compelled scholars to shift attention from a theoretical perspective to a practical one, addressing attention to the functional aspects of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Before proceeding with the analysis of the functional aspects characterizing entrepreneurial ecosystems, it is necessary to remark that there is no general structure to refer to (Cowell et al., 2018). According to the needs of their firms, entrepreneurs define the best structure of their entrepreneurial ecosystem in reference to the geographical context14 they are in (Fischer et al., 2022). Despite this, there are some models that may inspire the structure of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Brown and Mason (2017), for example, present two idealized types of entrepreneurial ecosystems: embryonic and scale-up. A relatively modest level of growth-oriented entrepreneurship characterizes the former type, while the latter type is able to produce, support, and nourish the growth of firms. The difference between growth-oriented and non-growth-­ oriented entrepreneurial ecosystems is not arbitrary. It depends on specific factors (Brown & Mason, 2017) such as dominant actors, nature of  The contribution authored by Fischer et al. (2022) is very interesting. The scholars clearly remark the relevance of space both in the economic geography and in the biological view of entrepreneurial ecosystems. 14

176 

D. Matricano

interactions, levels of entrepreneurial orientation, nature and availability of funding, importance of dealmakers, fluidity and diversity of ecosystem actors, level of blockbuster entrepreneurship,15 nature of entrepreneurial recycling, spatial dynamics, and importance, as well as focus of public policy. All these factors, if properly managed and combined, may turn an embryonic into a scale-up ecosystem. In this wake, Spigel and Harrison (2018) suggest focusing attention on several aspects, such as the role of policymakers, accessibility to resources, the role of knowledge, the key actors involved, and the industry. Since these aspects characterize entrepreneurial ecosystems (and make them different from entrepreneurial networks), it is worth rebuilding and investigating them in a proper way. Following this path, other scholars (Leendertse et al., 2021; Stam, 2015; Stam & van de Ven, 2021) identify other functional aspects. Entrepreneurial ecosystems are characterized by institutional arrangements (comprehending formal institutions, culture, and network) and resource endowments (comprehending physical infrastructure, demand, intermediaries, talent, new knowledge, leadership, and finance). All these factors generate an output (standing for productive entrepreneurship) and—in turn—an outcome (economic growth). Also in this case, if the factors are properly managed and combined, then it is easier to achieve desired results. Eventually, still other scholars (Cavallo et  al., 2019) suggest specific investigation guidelines about entrepreneurial networks. From their point of view, researchers and practitioners interested in entrepreneurial ecosystems should focus their attention on entrepreneurial dynamics and governance,16 sub-systems17 within entrepreneurial ecosystems, innovative and growth-oriented  According to Napier and Hansen (2011), blockbuster entrepreneurship stands for young and successful entrepreneurial firms that have grown exceptionally in size and wealth. 16  Colombo et  al. (2019) have investigated the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. From their point of view, two models of governance may be implemented. The first, the top-down model, assumes that a visible hand of public policy manages entrepreneurial ecosystems. The second, the bottom-up model, assumes that an invisible hand makes entrepreneurial ecosystems evolve over time. 17  The concept of sub-systems within entrepreneurial ecosystems may be of great utility especially when ecosystems grow in terms of size (; Forrester, 2007; Ghaffarzadegan et al., 2011; Huang-Saad et al., 2016; Cavallo et al., 2019). 15

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

177

activities, and the spatial dimension. In this case, the level of analysis differs from previously cited studies—both Brown and Mason (2017) on the one hand and Stam (2015), Leendertse et al. (2021), and Stam and van De Ven (2021) on the other hand—passing from a micro to a meso level of analysis. Actually, the reference to the level of analysis does not seem to be mandatory. In fact, it is possible to find a different approach that combines different levels of analysis in a recent contribution (Wurth et al., 2022). The scholars identify four research streams (context, structure, micro-­ foundations, and complex systems) and four cross-sectional themes (methodologies and measurements, theory, critical research, and transdisciplinary research). All of them should be considered when investigating entrepreneurial ecosystems in order to get a complete overview of all the factors affecting the functioning of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The contribution just cited above (Wurth et  al., 2022) includes— among the four cross-sectional themes—an aspect that requires particular attention: methodologies and measurements. These aspects are critical in reference to both entrepreneurship generally meant (Carlile & Christensen, 2005; DiMaggio, 1995; Eisenhardt, 1989; Langley, 1999; Smith et  al., 1989) and entrepreneurial ecosystems (Leendertse et  al., 2021; Wurth et  al., 2022). Some factors about entrepreneurial ecosystems may be easily measured (financial aspects and number of participants), while others cannot (new knowledge and leadership). Because of these difficulties or criticalities that could arise about metrics and measurements, it may be difficult to determine if and to what extent entrepreneurial ecosystems do or may work (Leendertse et al., 2021). The above review, which considers only a part of the vast literature focused on entrepreneurial ecosystems, discloses that the definition and the analysis of factors characterizing entrepreneurial ecosystems are not easy. This result confirms what Spigel and Harrison (2018, p. 158) wrote: “[T]he entrepreneurial ecosystems construct has many of the characteristics of a chaotic conception.” This statement remarks—if necessary—that it is not effortless to define the aspects to consider and to get a clear and comprehensive definition of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

178 

D. Matricano

7.5 The Need for New Lenses to Proceed with the Investigation of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems The above reviews, which have regarded definitions, theoretical frameworks, and functional aspects of entrepreneurial ecosystems, have shed some light on a topic of research that is in its infancy (Stam & van de Ven, 2021), but—at the same time—has revealed its great impact on economic development at local level (Audretsch & Belitski, 2021). Such an antithesis leads to think over the state-of-the-art of entrepreneurial ecosystems and to speculate on them. Overall, as clearly expressed by Alvedalen and Boschma (2017), five main results emerge about the stateof-the-art of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Up to now, what is not clear is: 1 ) the theoretical framework to use; 2) how the elements of entrepreneurial ecosystems are connected; 3) which institutions have an impact on entrepreneurial ecosystems; 4) the best perspective to advance empirical and theoretical studies; and 5) the reason why a dynamic approach is missing (in favor of a static approach). As it clearly emerges, studies about entrepreneurial ecosystems still miss a clear and comprehensive view, due to the fact that despite scholars’ many interesting contributions, each of them has focused on a specific issue concerning entrepreneurship. What seems to be missing and—therefore—preventing any generalization is a clear view about the aim pursued through entrepreneurial ecosystems. According to Stam (2015), the focal aim of entrepreneurial ecosystems is to support the creation of new ventures. In many contributions, in fact, the aim of entrepreneurial ecosystems is not properly cited or defined. From a recent systematic review proposed by Fernandes and Ferreira (2022) it results that four main areas of research are treated: context and cooperation, established networks, challenges to the affirmation of minorities, and formal structures. Contemporarily, from the analysis of keyword co-occurrences, it results that the main trend deals with innovation and its dynamics (actors and norms); performance, knowledge, and

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

179

entrepreneurship; as well as technology and firms. Defining the aim of entrepreneurial ecosystems is not among the primary tasks of entrepreneurship scholars even if some mentions may be found in other studies (Wurth et al., 2022). In the effort to highlight the differences among entrepreneurial ecosystems on the one hand and clusters and regional innovation systems on the other hand, Spigel and Harrison (2018) focus their attention on five aspects (role of the state, accessing regional resources and benefits, role of knowledge, key actors, and industry) and—by recalling Stam’s contribution (2005)—they just assume that the creation of value for societies is the hearth of the ecosystems. Accordingly, several scholars (Adner, 2017; Autio et  al., 2018; Autio & Thomas, 2014; Fritsch, 2013; Thomas & Autio, 2017; Thompson et al., 2018; Tsvetkova, 2015) remark that firms in entrepreneurial ecosystems aim to co-create and appropriate value. Essentially, however, this assumption does not clarify the aim of entrepreneurial ecosystems. A more fine-grained definition is due to a group of scholars (Brown & Mason, 2017; Fischer et  al., 2022; Malecki, 2011; Moore, 1993; Oh et al., 2016; Purbasari et al., 2020; Zahra & Nambisan, 2011, 2012) who view entrepreneurial ecosystems as facilitators of innovation where different actors interact and work to co-produce new knowledge that, in turn, may generate value (generally meant). According to this approach,18 Wurth et  al. (2022, p.  744) argue that ecosystems, as entrepreneurial economies, provide the context and support for start-ups to emerge and for innovative firms and ventures to grow.19 The missing of a largely shared aim pursued by entrepreneurial ecosystems is at the basis of some questions. Should scholars work on the definition of the aim of entrepreneurial ecosystems? Where may scholars look for suggestions or tips? To what extent is it worth investigating how entrepreneurial ecosystems work even if the aim they pursue is not clear yet? The above questions—more or less openly—are posed by most entrepreneurship scholars interested in entrepreneurial ecosystems. In order to  See also Audretsch and Thurik (2001) and Thurik et al. (2013).  Not all the scholars share this positive view of entrepreneurial ecosystems, supporting and facilitating the creation of start-ups and the growth of existing firms. Kuratko et al. (2017), for example, investigate the paradox of new venture legitimation. 18 19

180 

D. Matricano

Table 7.3  An evaluation of the new lenses that could be used to investigate entrepreneurial ecosystems New lenses

Limits/strengths

Biology Searching for other fields of knowledge/disciplines seems useless and unproductive since entrepreneurial ecosystems are tautologically rooted in the field of biology. However, true principles of biological ecosystems need to be recalled and applied in a proper way to entrepreneurial ecosystems. Source: Author’s personal elaboration

advance studies about entrepreneurial ecosystems it is of crucial importance to clarify their aim and functioning. Although reflections cannot freely range across different fields of knowledge, the fact that entrepreneurial ecosystems are tautologically rooted in the field of biology compels to reflect on them by totally embracing this perspective and by looking for possible responses in this field; other fields of knowledge or disciplines seem useless and unproductive. Indeed, the principles of biology that have already been referred to in entrepreneurship need to be reconsidered and revised (Kuckertz, 2019). Entrepreneurship scholars are caught in the common trap that misses many potential insights of biological ecosystems. According to Kuckertz (2019), in fact, some principles20 of biological ecosystems are not applied to the field of entrepreneurship in a proper way. By reconsidering and revising them in a proper way (Acs et al., 2017; Kuckertz, 2019), new intriguing insights about entrepreneurial ecosystems could come out (Table 7.3).

7.6 Leveraging the Lens of Biology to Study Entrepreneurial Ecosystems In order to approach the study of entrepreneurial ecosystems in a proper way, the principles of biology need to be recalled in a scientific way and applied without demur (Alberghina, 1989; Blew, 1996; Frank, 2022;  The principles expressed by Kuckertz (2019) are as follows: protect evolutionary potential, think holistically, support self-regulation, focus on weaknesses, and think huge (but act in a minimally invasive way). 20

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

181

Gignoux et al., 2011; Keurentjes et al., 2011; Matthews et al., 2011). By ecosystems, biologists (Alberghina, 1989) refer to a specific, finite space where several life forms inhabit. Dimensions of ecosystems may be huge (such as oceans and forests), small (such as a pond or a tree trunk), or even infinitively small. These premises do not surprise entrepreneurship scholars interested in ecosystems since they sum up what we already know about them: ecosystems are limited areas (whether big or small) where different subjects live and interact. Ecosystems work thanks to the energy flow and the circular movement of nutrients that pass through them. The sequence of organisms through which energy flows (in the form of nutritional molecules) is called the food chain. It is a circular series within which interdependencies may be more or less dense and complex. In any case, they leave the essential organization (in which three fundamental components are distinguished: producer, consumer, and decomposer organisms) unaltered. In particular, producers are autotrophic organisms—such as plants and algae—that may transform simple chemical compounds into organic substances; consumers are heterotrophic organisms—such as animals—that feed on organic material realized by producers (herbivores or primary consumers) or transformed by them (carnivores or secondary consumers); eventually, decomposers are organisms—such as fungi and bacteria—that degrade organic substances by breaking them down into simple substances that producers may reuse. At this stage, the process may start again. Ecosystems are characterized by two fundamental principles: 1) the flow of energy that crosses an ecosystem is unidirectional and is sustained by the sun which always supplies new energy; and 2) the movement of matter is circular, so this may be used several times passing from living organisms to the environment and vice versa. The unidirectional flow of energy and the circular movement of matter are very interesting aspects of natural ecosystems that entrepreneurship scholars consider only partly. In the field of biology, everything starts with the sun that allows producers transforming simple chemical compounds into organic substances. These substances are created, transformed, decomposed, and reused. As a result, each type of organism

182 

D. Matricano

(producers, consumers, and decomposers) depends on the others since they all guarantee the circular movement of matter and this makes the ecosystem survive.

7.6.1 Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through Biological Flows and Movements In the effort to transpose the two fundamental principles of natural ecosystems to entrepreneurship, it clearly results that they are not considered in a proper way. Entrepreneurship scholars assume that subjects interact, but it is not clear how they do and if they do this according to a predetermined goal or scheme. The ideas of a unidirectional flow of energy and of a circular movement of matter seem to disappear as ecosystems shift from biology to entrepreneurship (Acs et al., 2017; Kuckertz, 2019). Indeed, these ideas could be very interesting in reference to entrepreneurship ecosystems, which are assumed to be at the basis of the economic and social development of specific areas. Energy flow starting with the sun (that could be meant as innovation) and circular movement of matter (that could be meant as knowledge) could describe what happens inside entrepreneurship ecosystems. Different subjects (producers, consumers, and decomposers) could stand for different firms (big and SMEs), universities, and research centers, as well as private and public actors who could support entrepreneurship by introducing innovation in ecosystems and by letting knowledge circulate within them. The energy flow and the circular movement of matter could replace the simple exchanges of resources (both tangible and intangible ones), since they are not expected to generate the same impact. The ideas of energy flow and circularity of matter, in fact, seem to be closer to the goal of the survival of the ecosystem in the long run, both in the field of biology and entrepreneurship. Despite the energy flow and the circularity of matter, the survival of ecosystems is not obvious. Several factors, known in the field of biology as limiting factors (Korhonen, 2001; Machate et al., 2021; Sakr et al., 2011; Stralberg et al., 2018), may exert a relevant and negative impact on them (Cade et al., 1999). According to National Geographic,21 a limiting  See https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/limiting-factors-collection.

21

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

183

factor is anything that constrains the size of a population and slows or stops it from growing. Limiting factors may be biotic (like food, mates, and competition with other organisms for resources) or abiotic (like space, temperature, altitude, and amount of sunlight available in an environment); density-dependent (if they limit the growth, abundance, or distribution of a population according to how dense a population is) or density-independent (if a density-independent limiting factor is capable of limiting population growth, abundance, or distribution irrespective of population density); single-limiting (if just one factor is capable of limiting the growth of the system) or co-limiting (if a factor causes an indirect restrictive effect or increases the effect of a direct limiting factor). Empirical evidences (Korhonen, 2001; Machate et al., 2021; Sakr et al., 2011; Stralberg et  al., 2018) remark that there may be many different limiting factors—some scholars talk about a complex set of factors (Machate et al., 2021)—at work in ecosystems. This implies that the risk of failure is higher than expected since these factors may have different origins; they may nurture themselves and develop in many different ways. As properly pointed out by Alberghina (1989), it becomes mandatory to pay attention to the trend of all the factors related to ecosystems. Limiting factors exert a negative impact when they are below or above a certain critical value or a tolerance limit. Both their decreasing and increasing may destroy the whole ecosystem. In an attempt to transpose the concept of limiting factors from biology to entrepreneurship, the principles of biology add another missing piece to the study of entrepreneurial ecosystems. To support economic and social development, policymakers could be inclined to share more resources (both tangible and intangible ones). The theory of limiting factors compels to evaluate this choice in an accurate way. Scarce or excessive availability of environmental factors (resources available in ecosystems) could be detrimental to innovation processes (energy flows) and knowledge sharing (circular movement of matter). Just as it happens with reference to natural ecosystems, environmental factors increase and decrease naturally, according to the changing seasons and to the needs of producers, consumers, and decomposers within ecosystems. Of course, this does not involve the risk of damaging them. Similarly, resources in entrepreneurial ecosystems should be added or deducted based on the usefulness they might have.

184 

D. Matricano

Table 7.4 Transposing entrepreneurship

the

concept

Principles referred to natural ecosystems

of

ecosystems

from

biology

to

Possible application to entrepreneurial ecosystems

Within natural ecosystems there is a Within entrepreneurial ecosystems there flow of energy that crosses them is an innovation process that in a unidirectional way. This flow entrepreneurs within ecosystems could is sustained by the sun which start always supplies new energy Within natural ecosystems the Within entrepreneurial ecosystems movement of matter is circular so subjects involved could replace the this may be used several times simple exchanges of resources (both passing from living organisms to tangible and intangible ones) with a the environment and vice versa continuous process of knowledge sharing Limiting factors exert a negative Scarce or excessive availability of impact when they are below or environmental factors could be above a certain critical value or a detrimental to innovation processes tolerance limit and knowledge sharing Source: Author’s personal elaboration

In conclusion, despite the well-known reference between biological and entrepreneurial ecosystems, the review of the basic principles of natural ecosystems and their slavish transposition to the field of entrepreneurship (see Table 7.4) reveals some insights that seem to have been lost but—on the contrary—they may actually add something new to entrepreneurial studies and advance them.

7.7 Concluding Remarks The state-of-the-art of studies about entrepreneurial ecosystems, which are in their infancy (Stam & van de Ven, 2021), is characterized by several weaknesses (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017) and unanswered questions (Kuratko et  al., 2017). A holistic approach is missing (Dubini, 1989; Stam, 2015; Stam & Spigel, 2017; Van de Ven, 1993) and this does not allow scholars to advance in an effective way. Despite uncertainty about theoretical frameworks and backgrounds to refer to and vagueness about functional aspects to focus attention on, in fact, the only focal aim of

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

185

entrepreneurial ecosystems is to support the creation of new ventures in a well-defined context (Stam, 2015). Fragmented advances achieved by entrepreneurship scholars could be offset by the principles of biology explaining the energy flow and the circular movement of matter occurring within natural ecosystems. The vital relationship among producers, consumers, and decomposers (who create, transform, decompose, and reuse organic substances) allows the energy flow and the circular movement of matter and this makes the ecosystem survive. Indeed, the ideas of a unidirectional flow of energy and of a circular movement of matter seem to disappear as ecosystems shift from biology to entrepreneurship (Acs et al., 2017; Kuckertz, 2019) even if they could be very appealing in reference to entrepreneurship ecosystems. The energy flow (that could be meant as innovation) and the circular movement of matter (that could be meant as knowledge sharing) could replace the simple exchanges of resources (both tangible and intangible ones) that scholars talk about in reference to entrepreneurial ecosystems and guarantee ecosystems survival in the long run. These flows and circular movement, however, cannot exert the foreseen impact because of limiting factors that can be below or above a certain critical value or a tolerance limit. Both their decreasing and increasing may destroy the whole ecosystem. In the attempt to transpose the concept of ecosystem from biology to entrepreneurship, it results that some characteristics of natural ecosystems are not valid for entrepreneurial ones. The food chain at the basis of natural ecosystem is not referred to entrepreneurial ecosystems, which— instead—are hypothesized to work by reproducing and implementing network dynamics (based on exchanges of tangible or intangible resources). The innovation chain (the transposition of the food chain) could work in a different way. A source of innovation should sustain the flow of innovation in a unidirectional way—taking to the creation of new ventures in a well-defined context (Stam, 2015)—and should foresee the circular movement of knowledge (knowledge sharing) among all the subjects involved in the ecosystems.

186 

D. Matricano

Unfortunately, these dynamics—which perfectly describe the way natural ecosystems work and are largely agreed by biologists—are not considered in entrepreneurial ecosystems and this might be the reason why it is difficult to advance studies about entrepreneurial ecosystems.

References Acs, Z.  J., Boardman, M.  C., & McNeely, C.  L. (2013). The social value of productive entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 785–796. Acs, Z.  J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D.  B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30. Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494. Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10. Acs, Z.  J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 501–514. Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2010). Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4), 271–283. Alberghina, L. (1989). Fondamenti di Biologia. Mondadori. Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and Environments. Prentice-Hall. Alvedalen, J., & Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 887–903. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R.  R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). Princeton University Press. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. (2006). Entrepreneurial access and absorption of knowledge spillovers: Strategic board and managerial composition for competitive advantage. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 155–166.

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

187

Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, A. R. (2001). What's new about the new economy? Sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economies. Industrial and corporate change, 10(1), 267–315. Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2021). Towards an entrepreneurial ecosystem typology for regional economic development: The role of creative class and entrepreneurship. Regional Studies, 55(4), 735–756. Auerswald, P.  E. (2015). Enabling entrepreneurial ecosystems: Insights from ecology to inform effective entrepreneurship policy. Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional Entrepreneurship. Auerswald, P. E., & Dani, L. (2017). The adaptive life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems: the biotechnology cluster. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 97–117. Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2014). Innovation ecosystems—Implications for Innovation Management? In M.  Dodgson, D.  M. Gann, & N.  Phillips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management (pp.  204–288). Oxford University Press, UK. Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95. Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (1995). Flexible re-cycling and high-technology entrepreneurship. California Management Review, 37(3), 62–89. Bailey, R.  G. (2004). Identifying ecoregion boundaries. Environmental Management, 34(1), 14–26. Baum, J. A., & Haveman, H. A. (1997). Love thy neighbor? Differentiation and agglomeration in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 304–338. Becattini, G. (1989). Modelli Locali di Sviluppo. Il Mulino. Blew, R. D. (1996). On the definition of ecosystem. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 77(3), 171–173. Braunerhjelm, P., Ding, D., & Thulin, P. (2018). The knowledge spillover theory of intrapreneurship. Small Business Economics, 51(1), 1–30. Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 11–30. Cade, B. S., Terrell, J. W., & Schroeder, R. L. (1999). Estimating effects of limiting factors with regression quantiles. Ecology, 80(1), 311–323. Carlile, P. R., & Christensen, C. M. (2005). The cycles of theory building in management research. Division of Research, Harvard Business School.

188 

D. Matricano

Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: Present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1291–1321. Cho, D. S., Ryan, P., & Buciuni, G. (2022). Evolutionary entrepreneurial ecosystems: A research pathway. Small Business Economics, 58(4), 1865–1883. Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1–14. Colombo, M. G., Dagnino, G. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Salmador, M. (2019). The governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 419–428. Cowell, M., Lyon-Hill, S., & Tate, S. (2018). It takes all kinds: Understanding diverse entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(2), 178–198. Delgado, M., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2010). Clusters and entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(4), 495–518. DiMaggio, P.  J. (1995). Comments on “What theory is not”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391–397. Donaldson, C. (2021). Culture in the entrepreneurial ecosystem: A conceptual framing. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(1), 289–319. Dubini, P. (1989). The influence of motivations and environment on business start-ups: some hints for public policies. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(1), 11–26. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576. Fernandes, A. J., & Ferreira, J. J. (2022). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and networks: A literature review and research agenda. Review of Managerial Science, 16, 189–247. Fischer, B., Meissner, D., Vonortas, N., & Guerrero, M. (2022). Spatial features of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 147, 27–36. Florida, R.  L., & Kenney, M. (1988). Venture capital, high technology and regional development. Regional Studies, 22(1), 33–48. Forrester, J.  W. (2007). System dynamics—A personal view of the first fifty years. System Dynamics Review, 23(2–3), 345–358. Frank, D. M. (2022). Science and values in the biodiversity-ecosystem function debate. Biology & Philosophy, 37(2), 1–22. Fritsch, M. (2013). New business formation and regional development: A survey and assessment of the evidence. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(3), 249–364.

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

189

Ghaffarzadegan, N., Lyneis, J., & Richardson, G. P. (2011). How small system dynamics models can help the public policy process. System Dynamics Review, 27(1), 22–44. Gignoux, J., Davies, I. D., Flint, S. R., & Zucker, J. D. (2011). The ecosystem in practice: Interest and problems of an old definition for constructing ecological models. Ecosystems, 14(7), 1039–1054. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. Hakala, H., O'Shea, G., Farny, S., & Luoto, S. (2020). Re-storying the business, innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem concepts: The model-narrative review method. International Journal of Management Reviews, 22(1), 10–32. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964. Harima, A., Harima, J., & Freiling, J. (2021). The injection of resources by transnational entrepreneurs: Towards a model of the early evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 33(1-2), 80–107. Hawley, A. (1950). Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure. Roland. Hechavarria, D. M., & Ingram, A. (2014). A review of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and the entrepreneurial society in the United States: An exploration with the global entrepreneurship monitor dataset. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(1), 1–35. Huang-Saad, A., Fay, J., & Sheridan, L. (2016). Closing the divide: accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-Corps™. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1, 1–21. Huber, F. (2012). Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in Information Technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(1), 107–126. Iacobucci, D., & Perugini, F. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic resilience at local level. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 33(9-10), 689–716. Inoue, H., Nakajima, K., & Saito, Y. U. (2019). Localization of collaborations in knowledge creation. The Annals of Regional Science, 62(1), 119–140. Johannisson, B. (1998). Personal networks in emerging knowledge-based firms: Spatial and functional patterns. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 10(4), 297–312. Keurentjes, J., Angenent, G., Dicke, M., DosSantos, V., Molenaar, J., van der Putten, W., de Ruiter, P., Struik, P., & Thomma, B. (2011). Redefining plant systems biology: From cell to ecosystem. Trends in Plant Science, 16(4), 183–190.

190 

D. Matricano

Korhonen, J. (2001). Four ecosystem principles for an industrial ecosystem. Journal of Cleaner production, 9(3), 253–259. Kuckertz, A. (2019). Let's take the entrepreneurial ecosystem metaphor seriously! Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 11(1-7), e00124. Kuratko, D. F., Fisher, G., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). The paradox of new venture legitimation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 119–140. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. Leendertse, J., Schrijvers, M., & Stam, E. (2021). Measure twice, cut once: Entrepreneurial ecosystem metrics. Research Policy, 104336, 1. Loots, E., Neiva, M., Carvalho, L., & Lavanga, M. (2021). The entrepreneurial ecosystem of cultural and creative industries in Porto: A sub-ecosystem approach. Growth and Change, 52(2), 641–662. Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161. Machate, O., Dellen, J., Schulze, T., Wentzky, V.  C., Krauss, M., & Brack, W. (2021). Evidence for antifouling biocides as one of the limiting factors for the recovery of macrophyte communities in lakes of Schleswig-Holstein. Environmental Sciences Europe, 33(1), 1–12. Mack, E., & Mayer, H. (2016). The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2118–2133. Malecki, E.  J. (2011). Connecting local entrepreneurial ecosystems to global innovation networks: open innovation, double networks and knowledge integration. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 14(1), 36–59. Malecki, E.  J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography compass, 12(3), 1–21. e12359. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. Macmillan. Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Final report to OECD, Paris, 30(1), 77–102. Matricano, D., & Sorrentino, M. (2015). Implementation of regional innovation networks: a case study of the biotech industry in Campania. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 33(May-Aug), 105–126. Matthews, B., Narwani, A., Hausch, S., Nonaka, E., Peter, H., Yamamichi, M., Sullam, K. E., Bird, K. C., Thomas, M. K., Hanley, T. C., & Turner, C. B. (2011). Toward an integration of evolutionary biology and ecosystem science. Ecology Letters, 14(7), 690–701.

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

191

Miles, M. P., & Morrison, M. (2020). An effectual leadership perspective for developing rural entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 54(4), 933–949. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86. Napier, G., & Hansen, C. (2011). Ecosystems for young scalable firms. FORA Group. Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., & Morris, M. H. (2019). Who is left out: Exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial ecosystems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 462–484. North, D. C. (1990). A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(4), 355–367. Oh, D. S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, 1–6. Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2014). Localized competition in the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 121–136. Purbasari, R., Wijaya, C., & Rahayu, N. (2020). Most roles actors play in entrepreneurial ecosystem: A network theory perspective. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 23(2), 1–16. Polany, K. (1957). The economy as an instituted process. In K.  Polanyi, C.  M. Arensberg, & H.  W. Pearson (Eds.), Trade and Market in the Early Empires. Free Press. Qian, H., Acs, Z. J., & Stough, R. R. (2013). Regional systems of entrepreneurship: the nexus of human capital, knowledge and new firm formation. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 559–587. Roundy, P. T. (2020). Do we lead together? Leadership behavioral integration and coordination in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 6–25. Roundy, P. T., & Fayard, D. (2019). Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial ecosystems: The micro-foundations of regional entrepreneurship. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 28(1), 94–120. Roundy, P. T., Bradshaw, M., & Brockman, B.  K. (2018). The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Business Research, 86, 1–10. Sakr, D., Baas, L., El-Haggar, S., & Huisingh, D. (2011). Critical success and limiting factors for eco-industrial parks: global trends and Egyptian context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(11), 1158–1169. Schulze, E. D., Beck, E., & Müller-Hohenstein, K. (2005). Plant Ecology. Springer.

192 

D. Matricano

Shi, X., & Shi, Y. (2021). Unpacking the process of resource allocation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Research Policy, 104378, 1. Smith, K. G., Gannon, M. J., & Sapienza, H. J. (1989). Selecting methodologies for entrepreneurial research: trade-offs and guidelines. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 39–49. Smith, T., Wolff, K. A., & Nguyen, L. (2012). Molecular biology of drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Pathogenesis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and its Interaction with the Host Organism, 1, 53–80. Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72. Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 151–168. Spilling, O. R. (1996). The entrepreneurial system: On entrepreneurship in the context of a mega-event. Journal of Business research, 36(1), 91–103. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R.  Blackburn, D. De Clercq, J. Heinonen, & Z. Wang (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. SAGE. Stam, E., & van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56(2), 809–832. Sterman, J.  D. (2001). System Dynamics Modeling. California Management Review, 43(4), 8–25. Stough, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship and economic development. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(4), 835. Stralberg, D., Carroll, C., Pedlar, J. H., Wilsey, C. B., McKenney, D. W., & Nielsen, S. E. (2018). Macrorefugia for North American trees and songbirds: Climatic limiting factors and multi-scale topographic influences. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 27(6), 690–703. Sussan, F., & Acs, Z.  J. (2017). The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 55–73. Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16(3), 284–307. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Thomas, L. D. W., & Autio, E. (2017). Determinants of generativity in platform ecosystems: An organizational field perspective (Working Paper No. 2017-05). Imperial College Business School, London, UK.

7  Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through the Lenses of Biology 

193

Thompson, T. A., Purdy, J. M., & Ventresca, M. J. (2018). How entrepreneurial ecosystems take form: Evidence from social impact initiatives in Seattle. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 96–116. Thornton, P. H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 19–46. Thornton, P.  H., & Flynn, K.  H. (2003). Entrepreneurship, Networks, and Geographies. In Z.  J. Acs & D.  B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship (Vol. 1, pp. 401–433). Springer. Thurik, A. R., Stam, E., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). The rise of the entrepreneurial economy and the future of dynamic capitalism. Technovation, 33(8-9), 302–310. Tsvetkova, A. (2015). Innovation, entrepreneurship, and metropolitan economic performance: Empirical test of recent theoretical propositions. Economic Development Quarterly, 29(4), 299–316. Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What has been learned? Small Business Economics, 53(1), 21–49. Van de Ven, H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 211–230. Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29–56. Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2022). Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research program. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 46(3), 729–778. Xu, Z., Sukumar, A., Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Li, F., & Tomlins, R. (2021). Local-­ global design: entrepreneurial ecosystem approach for digital gaming industry. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 18(4), 418–438. Zanni, L. (1995). Imprenditorialità e Territorio. Cedam, Padova. Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship in global innovation ecosystems. AMS Review, 1(1), 4–17. Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55(3), 219–229.

8 Final Remarks and Conclusions

This volume has sought to join the international scientific debate on entrepreneurship and to contribute to it by adopting an interdisciplinary approach, which—by definition—aims to analyze, synthesize, and harmonize links between disciplines in a coordinated and coherent whole. The idea behind this volume is to refer to other disciplines or fields of knowledge and grasp theories, principles, approaches, schemes, or concepts that may be useful to support and enrich entrepreneurship research. Of course, useful theories, principles, approaches, schemes, or concepts have not been selected ex ante, in a deterministic way, as they are expected to synthesize and harmonize with entrepreneurship. For this reason, they strictly depend on the state-of-the-art of entrepreneurship studies, on the criticalities and limits that emerge within entrepreneurship studies, as well as on the usefulness that may potentially derive by looking at entrepreneurship issues with new lenses. In order to achieve the above goal, the current research has started with a review of the main contributions focused on entrepreneurship (Chap. 2). This review has confirmed that entrepreneurship is a process that begins when individuals (nascent or experienced entrepreneurs acting alone, in teams, or in networks) identify entrepreneurial opportunities

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Matricano, Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1_8

195

196 

D. Matricano

and act on them. Then they move to select the opportunity that best suits the needs of the market and gather resources (both tangible and intangible ones) to exploit it on the market. When entrepreneurs carry out entrepreneurship processes, several critical issues may arise. Five of them seem very relevant and require thorough investigations. Firstly, attention has been focused on the origin of entrepreneurship or, more specifically, on the locus (internal to the individual or external, referable to the context) from which the impetus, the force to start entrepreneurship processes, derives (Chap. 3). In the past, entrepreneurship scholars have proposed different approaches to investigate this topic (demand for entrepreneurship vs. supply of entrepreneurship; pull vs. push factors; the role of nature or nurture in entrepreneurship) and— actually—some advances in entrepreneurship studies have been achieved. Indeed, by relying on the approaches cited above, entrepreneurship scholars have ended up addressing their attention toward factors affecting the internal or external origin of entrepreneurship rather than investigating the locus itself. For this reason, studies about this topic are far from offering satisfying results and new avenues of research need to be opened up. Several alternatives (concerning cosmology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology) have been evaluated, but they do not seem to fit perfectly with the investigated topic. By recalling some assumptions rooted in the field of mythology—and, in particular, the genesis of Greek gods—the origin of entrepreneurship may be interpreted and read through new lenses. Mutual references and feasible overlaps between mythology and entrepreneurship reveal intriguing insights and allow scholars to overcome existing limits and proceed with studies about the origin of entrepreneurship. In particular, the birth of Zeus’s children has been deeply investigated and—by critical thinking—a matrix linking the role of individuals (thinking of and developing entrepreneurial ideas) and the level of maturity of ideas has been generated.1 By leveraging the lens of mythology to revise entrepreneurship, it is manifest that entrepreneurship scholars—following economics and management scholars—tend to use rigorous schemes that cannot represent the essence of entrepreneurship.  See Table 3.6 in Chap. 3.

1

8  Final Remarks and Conclusions 

197

Instead, mythology (based on fantastic elements, conjectures, and hypotheses) may break previous schemes. Probably, it may destabilize scholars but—at the same time—it may offer a new, fresh view of the origin of entrepreneurship. Of course, the chapter does not definitively solve the issue concerning the origin of entrepreneurship but—for sure— it offers a broader perspective, characterized by interdisciplinarity, which may frame the issue better. At this stage, the focus has shifted toward the entrepreneurial purpose (Chap. 4). The most common entrepreneurial purposes (the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities, the creation of new business, and the bringing of innovation to the market) are recalled and revised, but this is done just to explore the probable reasons why entrepreneurs address their interest in and efforts toward one purpose rather than another, as well as to hypothesize the implications due to the emerging reasons. Actually, by exclusively referring to the field of entrepreneurship, the above reflections remain unanswered and this does not help to advance entrepreneurial studies. The disciplines of design thinking, philosophy, psychology, and sociology are recalled and evaluated. In particular, in the field of philosophy, rationalism may be transposed to the field of entrepreneurship; this may help not only to detect the reasons affecting the choice to pursue an entrepreneurial purpose but also to reinterpret and frame the relationship between entrepreneurial purposes in a new and more pragmatic way. In particular, this result derives from the visions of individuals proposed by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz.2 In their views, individuals struggle between freedom and willingness to act, on the one hand, and external constraints, on the other hand (these individuals act under the same conditions as entrepreneurs). Intelligibility, sequentiality, and experience are the reasons why individuals address their interest in specific concepts and ideas and then move on to achieve superior cognitive aims.

 As already said in Chap. 4, Descartes distinguishes innate, adventitious, and factitious ideas in terms of intelligibility; Spinoza argues that all the three kinds of ideas help to comprehend the essence of things but they need to work together and in a predetermined order to offer a complete picture of reality; eventually, Leibniz supports the idea that only experience may make ideas clear and distinct. 2

198 

D. Matricano

Similarly, these may be the reasons why entrepreneurs address their interest and efforts toward one purpose rather than another. These views help to reinterpret and frame the relationship between entrepreneurial purposes in a new and more realistic way by corroborating the idea of a process within the entrepreneurial process. The beginning and the end of the process are always the same (the preliminary purpose, consisting of the perception of an entrepreneurial opportunity, and the leading purpose, bringing innovations to the market); how the process is articulated is never the same for the underlying reasons. The reference to the principles of rationalism helps to overcome a myopic vision of entrepreneurial purposes (according to which one purpose could exclude another, in a dichotomous way) and helps to read the objectives sequentially (preliminary, optional, and leading purposes). Also in this case, the achieved result does not offer an ultimate view of entrepreneurial purposes. After clarifying entrepreneurial purposes, the process of decision-­ making has been investigated (Chap. 5). Particular attention is paid to the identification, selection, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. At present, entrepreneurial studies do not offer largely agreed responses, thus new and different lenses are needed. Among several fields of knowledge that might be useful, cognitive psychology; theories about psychological, economic, personal, and social needs; Bayesian analysis; and Boolean algebra are evaluated. The principles of Boolean algebra may be of support since entrepreneurs seem to proceed by classifying options as 1 or 0, yes or no. By transposing the idea that propositions are either true (with truth-value 1) or false (with truth-value 0) to entrepreneurship and by adding specific laws (annulment, identity, idempotent, complement, commutative, and double negation laws) to create an axiom system able to reproduce all the usual results of logic, Boolean algebra seems to be able to describe—by simplifying—the way entrepreneurs make decisions and proceed along the entrepreneurial process, in particular about the selection and the exploitation phases. Entrepreneurs are expected to proceed by dichotomous choices (YES/NO), but the way they approach decisions (the laws cited above) may be different. Despite differences between entrepreneurship and Boolean algebra, the latter’s position (Boole aimed to offer a model of how the mind works that—in

8  Final Remarks and Conclusions 

199

his view—is unquestionably logical) seems to fit perfectly with entrepreneurial decision-making processes. Of course, the key point in this chapter is not to determine how selection procedures work (each entrepreneur is expected to adopt their procedure), but to figure out—if possible—a mental scheme or approach that entrepreneurs may leverage to interpret an event or a phenomenon and make their decisions along the entrepreneurial process. The last chapters of the book are focused on entrepreneurial networks and ecosystems. Networks (Chap. 6) have assumed a prominent role in the field of entrepreneurship since they provide both tangible and intangible resources to entrepreneurs and may positively affect performance. Previous studies have deeply investigated several issues about networks. From a theoretical point of view, scholars have investigated and defined the theoretical background, the level of analysis, the possible configurations, and the scope of entrepreneurial networks. From a practical point of view, instead, they have examined the subjects involved and the ties created and handled within entrepreneurial networks. Without questioning the relevance of the above contributions and the results achieved, it is of crucial importance to investigate what lies behind the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks or, put simply, which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties between involved subjects. Although possible explanations may be sought in different fields of knowledge (such as mathematics and neuroscience), they may be found in the field of chemistry. Studies on the speed of reaction among chemical reactants and the enthalpy of reaction (the release of energy) may help understand what might be behind the creation of entrepreneurial networks and allow entrepreneurs to make more informed choices about implementing and managing their entrepreneurial networks. By referring to the principles of chemistry, it is possible to hypothesize which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties between involved subjects. Of course, further contributions are evoked to

200 

D. Matricano

corroborate this view but—hopefully—some tips about new perspectives useful to investigate entrepreneurial networks have been offered. Also entrepreneurial ecosystems (Chap. 7) are assuming a prominent role on the agenda of researchers and policymakers since they positively affect entrepreneurial results. Despite the growing interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems, it is not yet clear how entrepreneurial ecosystems exert their positive influence. The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has become a buzzword, an umbrella, under which several topics are included and investigated, which still lacks a specific and clear definition. The concept is rooted in the field of biology but—surprisingly—very often scholars miss its essence and look at entrepreneurial ecosystems differently. In fact, according to the principles of biology, co-living in a space is of crucial importance for partners to survive, especially because of the food chain, and of the related energy flow and the circular movement of matter that occurs within it. The functioning of natural ecosystems is carefully analyzed to speculate on how entrepreneurial ecosystems should work. The ideas of a unidirectional flow of energy and a circular movement of matter seem to disappear as ecosystems shift from biology to entrepreneurship. The energy flow (intended as innovation) and the circular movement of matter (intended as knowledge sharing) could replace the simple exchanges of resources (both tangible and intangible ones) scholars talk about when they investigate entrepreneurial ecosystems. This flow and circular movement, however, cannot exert the foreseen impact because of limiting factors that may be below or above a certain critical value or a tolerance limit. Both their decrease and increase may destroy the whole ecosystem. These dynamics—which perfectly describe the way natural ecosystems work and are largely agreed upon by biologists—are not considered in entrepreneurial ecosystems and this might be the reason why it is difficult to advance studies about entrepreneurial ecosystems. The results of the volume are depicted in Fig. 8.1. At this stage, after summarizing the main results achieved about the origin of entrepreneurship, the purpose to achieve, the way decisions are made, the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks, and the way entrepreneurial ecosystems should work, three main final reflections emerge.

8  Final Remarks and Conclusions  The origin of entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship scholars tend to use

through the lens of mythology

rigorous schemes that cannot represent the essence of entrepreneurship.



Mythology, based on fantastic elements, conjectures, and hypotheses, can break previous schemes and offer nuanced views of the origin of entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial purpose

The reference to the principles of

through the lens of philosophy

rationalism helps to overcome a myopic vision of entrepreneurial purposes



(according to which one purpose could exclude another, in a dichotomous way) and helps to read the objectives sequentially (preliminary, optional, and leading purposes)

Entrepreneurial decision-making

Entrepreneurs are expected to proceed by

through the lens of mathematics

dichotomous choices (YES/NO) but the



way they approach decisions (annulment, identity, idempotent, complement, commutative, and double negation laws) may be different

Entrepreneurial networks

By referring to the principles of

through the lens of chemistry

chemistry(speed of reaction between chemical reactants andthe release of energy – enthalpy of reaction), it is possible to hypothesize which are the premises at the basis of entrepreneurs’ choices to implement their networks and the dynamics affecting the creation and the handling of ties between involved subjects

Entrepreneurial ecosystems through the lenses of biology

The ideas of a unidirectional flow of energy and a circular movement of matter seem to disappear as ecosystems shift from biology to entrepreneurship even if they could be very appealing about entrepreneurial ecosystems

Fig. 8.1  The results of the volume. Source: Author’s personal elaboration

201

202 

D. Matricano

First, the five aspects listed above have been selected since they reveal some critical aspects that scholars have not solved adequately yet. For this reason, they are recalled and interpreted through new lenses. Of course, as scholars may easily imagine, other topics could have been selected and reinterpreted. The choice is arbitrary and it does not pretend to be correct. This means that other topics about entrepreneurship processes may be considered and investigated, thus supporting an even more interdisciplinary approach to entrepreneurship. Second, the new lenses used to reinterpret the critical issues concerning entrepreneurship processes are just a proposal, and—as such—they may be accepted and supported (by enlarging and enriching the research started herein) or questioned and denied (by proposing new lenses). In both cases, scholars are invited to share the interdisciplinary approach and look for new, intriguing lenses to advance with entrepreneurship studies. Third, none of the chapters is in a position to offer definitive results. Mutual references and feasible overlaps are hypothesized and put into practice. They are personal elaborations that may have some merits, but—for sure—disclose relevant limitations and scholars must be aware of this. In particular, this book is not in the condition to offer any measurement or empirical investigation about the five critical issues analyzed before. In some cases, even hypothesizing the operationalization of the research items seems rather difficult. However, this limit does not seem to diminish the contribution of this volume, since measurements and empirical investigations occur after scholars discuss and corroborate the theoretical aspects. Hopefully, further contributions may focus on the empirical aspects. Nevertheless, according to the achieved results and the above reflections, this volume has relevant implications for entrepreneurs and scholars. After reading this volume, entrepreneurs (both nascent and experienced ones) may look at entrepreneurship processes in a new light. By sharing the achieved results, entrepreneurs may change their ideas about the origin of entrepreneurship, the purpose to achieve, the way decisions are made, the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks, and the way entrepreneurial ecosystems should work, thus approaching entrepreneurship from an interdisciplinary perspective. In practical terms, the results achieved may encourage entrepreneurs to change their attitude toward entrepreneurship processes.

8  Final Remarks and Conclusions 

203

If the origin of entrepreneurship may depend on multiple combinations between the individual and the context, then entrepreneurs may have more chances to identify entrepreneurial opportunities and start new entrepreneurship processes. If the purposes to achieve are framed in a sequential rather than dichotomous way, then entrepreneurs are not compelled to choose one alternative or another, so they may act to achieve a purpose per time. By looking at the way decisions are made according to a mathematical approach, the decision-making processes may be simplified (YES/NO) and entrepreneurs may feel a lower risk associated with entrepreneurship processes. If the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks are carried out with the awareness of the premises and the dynamics affecting them, then entrepreneurs are encouraged to evaluate partners to involve and ties to create, with greater awareness. Similarly, if the usefulness of entrepreneurial ecosystems is reinterpreted according to the ideas of a unidirectional flow of energy and a circular movement of matter, then entrepreneurs are encouraged to look at potential partners to involve as in a chain. Overall, interdisciplinarity in entrepreneurship seems to suggest a different attitude toward entrepreneurship processes. If entrepreneurs are expected to change their attitude, then scholars are expected to do the same. The references (to mythology to review the origin of entrepreneurship, to philosophy to clarify the purpose to achieve, to mathematics to explain the way decisions are made, to chemistry to explain the implementation and management of entrepreneurial networks, and to biology to refine the way entrepreneurial ecosystems should work) represent one alternative among many. As already said, the problem here is not about a specific discipline, an exclusive field of knowledge or another. The main problem is to support an interdisciplinary approach to entrepreneurship. Scholars should act to replace rigorous schemes with nuanced approaches that—even if rooted in different disciplines—may offer a clearer and more realistic view of entrepreneurship. By referring to theories, principles, approaches, schemes, or concepts of other disciplines or fields of knowledge, the borders of previous research in entrepreneurship are partly reconsidered to make them porous, to propose ever new approaches, and to strengthen the concept of interdisciplinarity in entrepreneurship.

204 

D. Matricano

This concept assumes a noticeable relevance for entrepreneurship scholars since it may pave to theory building. In fact, although entrepreneurship is an autonomous field of research, it still lacks its own theories and frameworks (Bygrave, 1989a, 1989b; Low, 2001; Matricano, 2015). Theoretical explorations of interdisciplinarity in entrepreneurship stand for a first step toward theory building, but they are not sufficient. The relationship between entrepreneurship and each of the other disciplines considered in this volume needs to be assessed and verified in a robust way and—only after this—shifted to objective measurement, which can never be missing when new theories are proposed. Instead, willingly, measurements have not been considered in the present volume since they may be premature. Assessing the theoretical proposals first and—conceivably—going further seems a more correct and appropriate way of proceeding. In conclusion, it is hoped that entrepreneurship scholars may take advantage of this volume and feel encouraged to build new theories by looking at entrepreneurship as a process, relying on new lenses to reinterpret some critical issues, as well as adopting interdisciplinarity in entrepreneurship.

References Bygrave, W.  D. (1989a). The entrepreneurship paradigm (I): A philosophical look at its research methodologies. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7–26. Bygrave, W. D. (1989b). The entrepreneurship paradigm (II): Chaos and catastrophes among quantum jumps. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 7–30. Low, M. B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: Specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 17–26. Matricano, D. (2015). Lo studio dell’imprenditorialità. Un approccio di indagine multidimensionale. Carocci Editore, Roma.

Index1

A

B

Additive/redundant ties, 147 Alertness, 34, 68, 68n23, 70, 97n5, 99, 103 Aphrodite, 43, 43n32, 46 Apollo, 42–44, 46 Archetype, 149 Architects, 76n32, 142, 143 Ares, 41–43, 46 Aristotle, 33n17 Artemis, 42–44, 46 Athena, 41–43, 46 A to Z factors, 36 Austrian view, 100n9, 102–104

Background, 4, 99n8, 135, 139, 139n6, 143–145, 149, 155, 166, 172–174, 184, 199 Bayesian analysis, 4, 120, 126, 198 Behavioral science, 32, 32n15 Bhidé, A. V., 114 Biology, viii, 5, 9n6, 151, 165–186, 200, 203 Blank slate, 33n17 Boole, George, 121, 121n28, 122n29, 123, 124, 198 Boolean algebra, viii, 4, 95, 120, 122–126, 198

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Matricano, Interdisciplinarity in Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27975-1

205

206 Index

Boolean laws, 124 Born/made, 28, 28n5 C

Casson, M., 8, 8n3, 34, 61, 69, 69n27, 114, 125 Chemical reactants, 5, 135, 155, 199 Chemical reactions, 152–154 Chemistry, viii, 5, 135–156, 199, 203 Circularity of matter, 182 Coase, R. H., 30n11, 115, 116, 139n6 Cognitive psychology, 4, 119, 125, 198 Competition, 28, 30, 116, 154, 183 Conception, 10n7, 43–45, 67n22, 177 Contemporary view, 99, 104–107 Context, vii, 3, 25–27, 26n2, 29, 33n19, 36, 39–41, 46–48, 64, 65, 72, 101, 102, 105, 113, 113n22, 113n24, 116, 137n3, 144, 166–168, 167n4, 167n5, 167n6, 167n7, 172, 175, 177–179, 185, 196, 203 Continuum, 73, 97 Controllers, 142, 143 Cooper, A. C., 63n14, 64n15, 65n18, 66, 73 Cosmology, 3, 38, 38n23, 48, 196 Creation, vii, viii, 3, 5, 9n4, 11, 27, 29, 59–68, 60n4, 65n20, 71–75, 71n30, 77, 84, 85, 99, 106, 112n21, 119, 135, 137, 138, 140–142, 140n8, 149–151, 153, 155, 156, 166, 168, 172–174, 178, 179, 179n19, 185, 197, 199

D

David, P. A., 110, 111, 111n20 Decision-making, vii, 4, 10n7, 96–126, 198, 199, 203 Density, 143–145, 144n10, 149, 166, 183 Descartes, René, 33n17, 78–81, 80n40, 80n41, 83, 83n46, 84, 86, 197, 197n2 Design thinking, 3, 76, 76–77n32, 77, 77n33, 197 Dionysus, 42–44, 46 Direct/indirect ties, 147 Discovery, 78n37, 97n6, 99, 102, 106, 112n21, 119 Distance, 10n7, 63, 99n8, 143–145, 149, 166, 167 Drucker, P. F., 61n10, 62n11, 63, 67, 69, 103, 104, 113n23 Dynamics, viii, 5, 28–30, 72, 104, 126, 135, 146, 150, 151, 153–156, 166, 169, 171, 173, 174, 176, 178, 185, 186, 199, 200, 203 Dynamic capabilities, 111n20, 173, 174 E

Ecological perspective, 172 Ecosystem, viii, 2, 4, 5, 7, 16, 16n10, 154, 165–186, 199, 200, 202, 203 Embeddedness, 136n1, 138 Embryonic ecosystems, 175, 176 Energy flow, 5, 165, 181–183, 185, 200 Enthalpy, 5, 135, 152, 153, 155, 199 Entrepreneurial opportunities, vii, 1–4, 15, 27, 46, 47, 59, 63,

 Index 

64, 67–75, 77, 84, 85, 95, 97–107, 109, 110, 112–120, 112n21, 124–126, 137, 140, 141, 173, 195, 197, 198, 203 Entrepreneurial value, 64, 148 Equilibrium/disequilibrium, 8n1, 29, 29n10, 72, 100–104, 100n10, 151, 153, 154, 156 Exothermic reaction, 152, 153 Experience, ix, 32, 32n13, 33n17, 34–36, 35n22, 69, 69n26, 70, 81, 83, 84, 86, 111, 112, 115, 123, 145, 197, 197n2 Exploitation, 4, 27, 75, 95, 97–99, 113–118, 120, 124–126, 140, 141, 198 External variables, 66, 109–112 F

Facilitators of innovation, 179 False alarm, 107, 108 False opportunities, 107, 108 Field of forces, 167 Field theory, 173 Formal/informal ties, 146, 147, 147n13 G

Gartner, W.B., 8, 8n3, 9, 9n4, 9n5, 34, 35, 64n15, 65, 65n18, 65n19, 65n20, 66 Gods, 3, 25, 39–45, 40n28, 48, 78n36, 80, 80n41, 81n42, 82n44, 196

207

Granovetter, M., 113n22, 136–138, 137n3, 142, 143, 146, 148, 150, 167n5 Greek mythology, 39, 40, 41n31, 44–47 H

Hephaestus, 41–43, 46 Hermes, 42–44, 46 Hesiod, 39–43, 40n26, 40n27, 45 Hobbes, Thomas, 33n17 Holistic approach, 169, 184 I

Ideas, viii, 1, 7–10, 12, 30, 33n17, 33n18, 34, 61, 62, 64n15, 75, 77, 78, 80–86, 80n41, 81n43, 82n45, 98n7, 100n10, 102, 103, 107, 109, 126, 146, 148, 153, 167n4, 182, 185, 195–198, 197n2, 200, 202, 203 Identification, 3, 4, 84, 95, 97–106, 112, 112n21, 118–120, 124, 126, 140, 141, 197, 198 Impetus, viii, 3, 25–27, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 47, 48, 196 Industrial clusters, 168, 169 Innovation, 3, 29, 59–63, 61n5, 61n10, 62n11, 62n12, 68–72, 69n26, 71n30, 75, 77, 77n32, 77n33, 84, 85, 100, 100n10, 103, 104, 137, 137n3, 166–169, 171n12, 178, 179, 182, 183, 185, 197, 198, 200

208 Index

Innovation theories, 68, 68n24, 100n10, 183 Input-output, 72, 72n31, 73, 96n3 Institutions, 29, 176, 178 Intelligibility, 81, 84, 86, 197, 197n2 Intended/unintended network, 2, 60, 142 Interdisciplinarity, 2, 12, 12n9, 13, 197, 203, 204 Internal variables, 109–112 Inter-network, 149 Interpretative framework, 65 Intra-network, 149

Lock-in, 111, 111n20 Lock-out, 111 Locus, 3, 25–27, 31, 36–38, 40, 47, 48, 196 Locus of control, 26, 26n2, 27, 31 Loss, 107 Low, M. B., 9, 9n4, 9n5, 12n9, 26, 27n3, 30, 60, 63n14, 64n15, 69n26, 113n22, 138n5, 149n18, 167n4, 204 M

J

Journey, 27 K

Kinds of knowledge, 81, 82, 84 Kirzner, I. M., 34, 62n11, 63, 67, 68, 68n23, 68n24, 97, 99, 100n9, 102, 102n13, 103 Knight, F. H., 61, 63, 100, 109, 110 Knowledge spillover, 174 Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship (KSTE), 174 L

Leading purpose, 71–75, 84, 85, 198 Level of analysis, 4, 135, 137n3, 139, 140, 155, 172, 177, 199 Locke, E. A., 17n12, 33n17

MacMillan, I.C., 8, 9, 9n4, 9n5, 27n3, 30, 63n14, 64n15, 67, 67n21, 69n26, 70, 98n7, 99n8, 113n22, 113n23, 136, 138n5, 139, 140, 149n18, 167n4 Maslow, A. H., 119, 126 Massey, D. S., 32, 33, 35 Mathematics, viii, 5, 9n6, 82n45, 95–126, 150, 155, 199, 203 McClelland, D. C., 31, 119, 126 Mental scheme, viii, 4, 95, 113, 117, 118, 124, 125, 199 Morris, M. H., 10, 62, 72, 72n31, 85 Multidisciplinarity, 2, 11 Multiple combinations, 203 Myth of the cave, 33n17 Mythology, viii, 3, 25–49, 196, 197, 203

 Index 

209

N

P

Natural traits, 32–35 Nature/nurture, 3, 11, 17n12, 25, 27, 28n5, 29n7, 31–36, 33n17, 66, 80, 114, 123, 138, 146, 147n13, 153, 154, 175, 176, 183, 196 Neoclassical economics, 29, 30, 30n11, 167n8 Neoclassical view, 100–101, 104 Network, viii, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 16n10, 27, 36, 60, 60n4, 117n26, 135–156, 166–169, 176, 178, 185, 195, 199, 200, 202, 203 Network configuration, 4, 140, 149, 155, 199 Neuroscience, 5, 150, 151, 155, 199 New business creation, 62–68, 71–75, 77, 84, 85, 197 New lenses, viii, 2, 3, 7–18, 37–40, 48, 76–79, 85, 118–120, 125, 150–151, 178–180, 195, 196, 202, 204 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 78 Novelty, 41, 64, 64n17 Nutrients, 181

Path-dependence, 109–112, 111n20, 117, 119 Perceiving, 59, 67–71, 77 Philosophy, viii, 3, 4, 33, 38, 38n24, 48, 59–86, 196, 197, 203 Plato, 33n17 Preliminary purpose, 75, 76, 85, 198 Principal operators, 142, 143 Process, vii–ix, 2–4, 7–18, 25–27, 29–33, 33n17, 36, 38, 40, 47, 48, 60, 60n2, 62, 62n13, 63, 64n17, 65–68, 65n20, 69n26, 70, 72–75, 72n31, 76n32, 77, 78n38, 81n42, 84–86, 95–99, 96n1, 96n2, 97n5, 97n6, 98n7, 102n13, 103, 105, 107, 108, 111n20, 113, 114, 116–119, 123–126, 136n1, 140, 141, 143, 149, 151, 154, 156, 168, 173, 174, 181, 183, 195, 196, 198, 199, 202–204 Processual view, 26, 26n1, 84 Psychology, 3, 4, 9, 9n6, 33, 38, 38n24, 48, 77, 119, 125, 196–198 Pull/push factors, 3, 25, 28, 28n5, 30, 36, 196 Purpose, vii, viii, 2–4, 7, 16, 16n10, 59–86, 95–97, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203 Pursuing, 83, 112

O

One phase process, 97, 97n5, 98 Operationalization, 202 Opportunity cost, 114–118 Optional purpose, 75, 76, 85 Origin, vii, viii, 2–4, 7, 16, 16n10, 25–49, 60, 77, 80, 81, 98n7, 103, 105, 123, 136, 172, 183, 196, 197, 200, 202, 203

R

Rate of entrepreneurship, 72–74 Rationalism, viii, 4, 59, 78–86, 78n38, 197, 198

210 Index

Real-option reasoning, 119, 120, 126 Recognition, vii, 99, 100, 106, 112n21, 119 Regional innovation systems, 167–169, 171n12, 179 Rejection, 30n11, 107, 108 Relationship, viii, 4, 9n6, 10, 10n7, 18, 26, 32, 33, 35, 36, 41, 59, 66, 73, 74, 84, 86, 96n3, 105, 105n18, 109, 113, 116, 137, 137n3, 140, 141, 144–147, 147n13, 148n15, 166, 173, 185, 197, 198, 204 Renaissance, 79 Right rejection, 107 Role of entrepreneurs, 102n13, 117 S

Sarason, Y., 46, 97, 104, 105, 105n17, 105n18, 107 Sarasvathy, S.D., 67, 67n21, 70, 96, 99, 99n8, 103n14, 104, 105, 113n23 Scale-up ecosystems, 176 Schumpeter, J.A., 8, 8n1, 29, 29n8, 29n10, 60, 60n3, 61, 61n5, 62n11, 62n12, 63, 64, 67, 71, 71n30, 72, 99, 100, 100n9, 100n10, 100n11 Scope, 4, 135, 140, 155, 199 Selection, 4, 11, 76, 84, 95, 97–99, 106–113, 117, 118, 120, 124–126, 140, 141, 143, 148, 171, 198, 199 Sequential procedure, 108, 109, 112

Simultaneous procedure, 109, 112 Size, 143, 145, 166, 176n15, 176n17, 183 Sociology, 3, 9, 9n6, 33, 38, 38n24, 48, 77, 136, 139, 196, 197 Sorrentino, M., 28, 29, 31n12, 64, 64n17, 65, 73, 141n9, 150, 168 Space, 5, 152, 165–167, 171, 175n14, 181, 183, 200 Spinoza, 78–84, 81n42, 81n43, 83n46, 86, 197, 197n2 Status at birth, 43, 44 Strategic entrepreneurship, 67, 67n21, 70, 99, 99n8, 113n23 Strong/weak ties, 146 Sub-systems, 176 Success, ix, 42, 98, 99n8, 107, 111n20, 137n3, 142, 143, 148n17 T

Tangibles/intangibles, 2, 4, 15, 72, 84, 114, 115, 135, 137, 141, 143, 145–147, 150, 151, 166, 169, 182, 183, 185, 196, 199, 200 Technology of entrepreneurship, 69n26 Theogony, 39–41, 40n26, 43, 45 Theories of needs, 119, 126 Thermo-neutrality, 153 Thornton, P.H., 30, 113n22, 139, 167n4, 167n5 Three-phases process, 98

 Index 

Ties, viii, 4, 5, 135, 138, 139, 142, 143, 146–151, 147n14, 153–156, 166, 168, 171, 173, 199, 203 Time, 7, 10, 27, 31, 32n16, 34, 39, 41, 42, 45, 68, 69n26, 71, 73, 82, 85, 98, 101, 108, 114, 115, 118, 120, 125, 136, 137n3, 140, 142, 144–146, 148, 149, 151, 153, 156, 168, 169, 176n16, 178, 181, 197, 203 Timmons, J.A., 26n2, 31 Trait view, 30 Transaction costs, 114–118, 139n6, 140, 142 True opportunities, 108, 112 Truth-value, 122, 126, 198 Two-way link, 75

211

U

Übermench, 78 Uncertainty, 39, 48, 60n3, 98n7, 102, 109, 110, 112, 119, 125, 140, 168, 173, 184 V

von Leibniz, Gottfried Wihelm, 33n17, 78–80, 83, 84, 86, 197 W

Williamson, O.E., 115 Z

Zeus, viii, 40–48, 196