Transcript Slide 1

4. Revisiting social psychology of
entrepreneurship: on the
construction of agency
(15.11.2010)
Construction of entrepreneurial agency
• Social psychology contributing to the study of
A. how, and if, individuals in different contexts and
settings construct entrepreneurial agency for
themselves?
B. the nature of entrepreneurial agency in
entrepreneurial discourses and representations
.
• I Agency as a perspective to the multiplicity
and popularity of entrepreneurship discourses
• II A relational, frame analytical view to agency
• III Two sides of entrepreneurial agency
-executive aspect: making it happen
-self as principal
-other principals
I Agency as a perspective to the multiplicity and
popularity of entrepreneurship discourses
• (Small business, SME), entrepreneur,
entrepreneurship, enterprise culture,
entrepreneurship policy, entrepreneurial orientation
(EO), corporate entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship,
institutional entrepreneurship, social
entrepreneurship, community entrepreneurship,
ecological entrepreneurship, ecopreneur,
agripreneur, life entrepreneur, spiritual entrepreneur,
identity entrepreneur …
• Entrepreneur is (not) a small business ownermanager! Self-evident?
Kent (1984, 2):
• “In entrepreneurship, surprisingly, the political
right and left seem to have found a common
cause. The political right supports
entrepreneurs because of their perceived
contribution to innovation and economic
growth, and the political left supports
entrepreneurship because of belief that the
new ventures will create jobs and allow for a
reduced concentration of industrial and
political power.”
How to make sense of this discoursive
multitude?
• Why so popular?
• Why so many versions? (Extended to many
contexts? Involving controversies?)
• Is there a common nominator? What?
• Agency as a point of departure for exploring
these questions
Nicholson. L & Anderson, A.R. (2005) News and Nuances of
the Entrepreneurial Myth and Metaphor: Linguistic Games inEntrepreneurialSenseMaking and Sense-Giving. Entrepreneurship Theory and PracticeVolume 29, Issue 2,
• “The entrepreneurial metaphors portray the agency-fuelled
entrepreneur as creator, seducer, aggressor, charmer or
savior” (p.168)
• “The entrepreneurial myth stretches to cover the evil wolfish
entrepreneur and the supernatural angel-like guru, the
successful skyrocket and the community corrupter. However,
the extensive range of traits making up the entrepreneurial
myth have a common element; agency. Whether as creator,
seducer, aggressor, charmer, savior or pursuer, the
entrepreneur is always active, rather than the object of
someone else’s agency” (163)
II A relational, frame analytical view to agency
• Three aspects of self? (comp. Baumeister)
-Reflection: Individual reflects upon her action and
agency, on her relations with others, (e.g. identity,
self-efficacy)
-Relation: individual must relate to others and to the
fact that others perceive and define her (e.g. selfpresentation, transaction)
-Agency: Individual regulates and governs herself,
attempts to influence and control her situation and
environment (e.g. utilising contacts and networks,
managing impressions)
Agency
• Mele (2003): Agent = a human being who acts
• Wan Har (2006, 3): ” A growing body of studies
has advocated moving responsibility back to the
individual to allow for greater control over
learning and life processes to reinforce the
antecedents of personal agency. Belief in one´s
capability to exercise control over one´s level of
functioning and environmental demands can
exert considerable impact on one´s development
and adaptation. (.. Self-efficacy, internal locus of
control, independence, self-direction)
Two sides of agency
• Agency as executive function (vs structure; in
control not under control; initiative not
reactive; origin not pawn; both self-control
and control of one’s own
condition/life/situation/environment)
• Principal as a perspective to agency (acting for
whom or what; serving whom?;
Principal as a frame of the executive function of agency
• Baumeister – Milgram – Reicher
• other principals as a means to influence other actors
(“I am doing for your own good”, “I am representing
the university”),
• self as principal as a means for other actors to
influence the self (“you should want to brush your
teeth autonomously”)
• Other principals as a means for other actors to
influence the self (“do it for me, please”, “you have
my permission”)
III Two sides of entrepreneurial agency
Executive aspect: making it happen:
-self-efficacy, personal control,
independency
-creation of business; risk, innovation;
agent of change,
Sarasvathy 2004, 520:
• “The first thing that leaps out at us when we
examine the phrase “Making it happen” is the
necessity of agency—the idea that “it, whatever it
might be, might not “happen” if it were not for
someone making it happen. The second thing is a
little more subtle— it points to the rather ambiguous
role of the “it” in making it happen. In other words, it
is not immediately clear what “it” might be.”
III Two sides of entrepreneurial agency
Self as principal:
-utilitarian: profit, money, financial interest,
-expressive: achievement, self-expression,
freedom,
III Two sides of entrepreneurial agency
-other principals?
-national economy; local, regional ecomy;
global economy; economic development,
-community development; institutional
development, innovations, competitiveness,
-freedom (of markets)
Giddens (2000, 75):
• “Entrepreneurs have received short shrift from both the
old left and the neoliberals. The left has seen
entrepreneurs as selfishly profit-driven, concerned to
extract as much surplus values as possible from the
labour force. Neoliberal theory stresses the rationality of
competitive markets, where decision-making is driven by
market needs. Successful entrepreneurs, however, are
innovators, because they spot possibilities that others
miss, or take risks others decline, or both. A society that
doesn’t encourage entrepreneurial culture won’t
generate the economic energy that comes from the most
creative ideas. Social and civic entrepreneurs are just as
important as those working directly in a market context,
since the same drive and creativity are needed in the
public sector, and in civil society, as in the economic
sphere.”
One aspect of popularity: wide political
consensus (right & left) over the importance of
entrepreneurship
• Recognition of the contribution of small businesses to
economy
-> small business as vehicle for entrepreneurship (New
entrepreneurship policy; Thurik & Wennekers 2004,
Audretsch 2004)
• -> entrepreneurship something more than small business
ownership, namely a mindset, orientation, style of activity,
process: pursuit of opportunities, innovativeness, alertness
• Entrepreneurship is the mindset and process to create and
develop economic activity by blending risk-taking, creativity
and/or innovation with sound management, within a new
or an existing organisation (European commission 2003).
Economy and society
• Enterprise culture: the moral debate (Heelas &
Morris 1992)
• Entrepreneurship for various purposes;
economic as well as social (and others)
• Entrepreneurship as agency of change (in
economy and whole society)
Chell 2007: Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship. Towards a
Convergent Theory of the Entrepreneurial Process (ISBJ 25:1)
“There does appear to be more of a
consensus that ‘opportunity recognition’ is an
entrepreneurial attribute (Gaglio, 1997, 2004;
Hills, 1995; Kirzner, 1979, 1985) as is the goaloriented behaviour that may be summed up in
the phrase the ‘creation of something (of
value)’. In this way, the ‘creation of something
of value’ to a given community or a cause is
the possible link to the social enterprise.” (6)
Chell 2007, 6-7
“Sociological approaches focus on structure and ‘agentic’ aspects of
entrepreneurial behaviour; this has led to consideration of how
signals from the environment may infl uence entrepreneurs’ actions
and also how they might think about or represent images of those
situations to themselves (Thornton, 1999). Not only has social
constructionism emerged as an important paradigm in which to
understand entrepreneurs but also theoretical constructs like social
embeddedness have enabled one to develop insights into the social
and structural relations in which entrepreneurs operate(Aldrich and
Zimmer, 1986; Granovetter, 1985). Furthermore, sociologists that
focus on societal issues have started to consider the relations
between business and society and what is needed to reduce
fragmentation and begin to knit the frayed structure of society
together (Kent and Anderson, 2003). This thinking suggests that
theories about entrepreneurs as agents of change and the creation
of social as well as material value should enter our theories of
entrepreneurship.”
Chell: discourse of enterprise
Many authors have suggested this sense of
entrepreneurship; going beyond the technical
skills of, for example, business founding – the
ability to make fi ne judgements in business and
the marketplace, envision opportunities that
others cannot and create incredible wealth as a
consequence. It is this sense of entrepreneurship
that distinguishes the entrepreneur from the
owner-manager or life-style business founder
(Carland et al., 1984; Chell, 2000; Chell et al,
1991).
Chell 2007, 8
“‘Enterprise’, however, appears to have a relatively recent English
history to it. The term enterprise was adopted in the 20th century
to identify economic zones in depressed areas identifi ed by
government for industrial and commercial renewal”
“Here enterprise took on a particular meaning or rather set of
meanings, a philosophy and underpinning economic theory – that
of the free market. Enterprise culture as an element of Thatcherism
was indeed an oxymoron. Enterprise stood for the values of
individualism, personal achievement, ambition, striving for
excellence, effort, hard work and the assumption of personal
responsibility for actions. ‘Culture’ refers to attitudes and values
that are socially derived, usually associated with a particular society
or civilization.”
Chell 2007, 10
• “Since the enterprise culture of the Thatcher era, politically, policies have
moved on. Post-1997, the Labour government has attempted to develop,
on the one hand, a culture of science enterprise and, on the other, that of
social enterprise. Science enterprise policies have specifi cally been
targeted at the UK’s competitive position on the world stage; the
underperformance of R&D expenditure in producing innovative products
and processes; and, the preference of university-based scientists to pursue
‘blue-sky’ research rather than the development of the applications of
technology and the creation of economic wealth (DTI, 1998). The
government’s social enterprise strategy, in contrast to its science
enterprise policy, attempts to address a ‘wide range of social and
environmental issues’; it defines a social enterprise as:
… a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are
principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the
community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profi t
for shareholders and owners. (DTI, 2002: 14)”
Chell 2007, 11
“The point is that social enterprises may need to make a
surplus that will assure their survival, and to do so in the
long term they should become entrepreneurial. However,
there may be differences in economic and social
perspectives of the incumbents working for social
enterprises. The culture and ethos of the social enterprise
are based on principles of voluntarism, ethical behaviour
and a mission with a social cause. This, on the face of it,
gives the appearance of a culture clash with the
entrepreneurially led, for profi t organization that is based
on an employment contract, pragmatism and instrumental
actions, with a view to creating shareholder value. Is it
possible to reconcile these disparate socio-economic
standpoints?”
Chell 2007, 13
“If social enterprises are to behave entrepreneurially then arguably we
should apply the same defi nition of their entrepreneurial behaviour, as
we would to economic enterprises. Taking one particular definition, we
would mean that the social enterprise would ‘create and pursue
opportunities relentlessly, without regard to alienable resources currently
controlled, with a view to both creating wealth that may be reinvested in
the business to assure its sustainability, and social value’. This definition,
based on the Harvard defi nition of entrepreneurial behaviour (Hart et al.,
1995; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990), raises some issues in respect of social
enterprise. The examples where social enterprises operate in a
competitive environment suggest that they do need to pursue
opportunities. There is though a question over the usage of the term
‘relentlessly’ as this may convey a sense of mindlessness. However, if we
mean by relentlessly, ‘persistently, having carefully evaluated the
opportunity’, then the need for not only the economic but also the social
entrepreneur to be fleet of foot, is clearly apparent.”
Chell 2007, 13
”It is thus possible to apply the same definition to
the economic and social entrepreneur in these
general behavioural respects. Moreover, we
might question the belief that entrepreneurs are
driven by pure economic motives. Entrepreneurs
are primarily driven by challenges, the funds
generated often being viewed as a measure of
their success, and many do consider themselves
to have mixed motives, including those of
attempting to ‘make a difference’ – as they might
phrase their pro-social motivation.”
Chell 2007, 16
• “However, our argument suggests that the
entrepreneur is able to frame a situation in
both an economic and/or social way; the
drivers and differential emphases may vary
depending upon circumstances such as the
primary mission of the enterprise and the
ability to make sufficient to sustain the
enterprise, reinvest in the business and create
stakeholder value.”
Chell 2007, 17-18
“Social and community enterprises aim to create social value rather than personal
wealth for the leader-manager. Because they have valued social ends, such
enterprises have been able to attract grant aid to pump-prime their activity. So is
the process of social and community enterprise different from that of a privately
owned entrepreneurial venture? Should such businesses necessarily operate
differently?”
“Social entrepreneurs within this model have the intellectual capacity, the thought
processes and the imagination to recognize opportunity based on their technical
and/or professional experience; they have the social and personal networks that
add non-material, human and social capital resources; and they have the personal
ability to make judgements about appropriate courses of action that will result in
the pursuit of an opportunity of socio-economic value based on the realization of a
competitive advantage. All business opportunities involve customer choice.
Competitive advantage confers rarity or some other socio-economic value that
social entrepreneurs can create. In these ways social and community enterprises
can become self-sustainable; indeed they can create social and economic change
through the development of a vibrant form of doing business.”
• Baumeister, R. F. (1999) The Nature And Structure Of The
Self: An Overview. In Baumeister, R. (Ed.) The Self in Social
Psychology. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.
• Giddens, A. (2000). The third Way and Its Critics. London:
Polity Press.
• Kent, C. A. (1984). The Rediscovery of the Entrepreneur.
Teoksessa: C. A. Kent (toim.), The Environment for
Entrepreneurship (1–19). Lexington, Mass.: Lexington
Books.
• Mele, A. (2003) Motivation and Agency. Oxfrod University
Press
• Perren, L. & Jennings, P. L. (2005). Government Discourses
on Entrepreneurship: Issues of Legitimization, Subjugation,
and Power. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (2),
173–184.
• Rose, N. (1992). Governing the enterprising self.
Teoksessa: P. Heelas & P. Morris (toim.), The
Values of the Enterprise Culture. The Moral
Debate (p. 141–164). London: Routledge.
• Sarasvathy, S. D. (2004). Making it happen:
Beyond theories of the firm to theories of firm
design. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28
(6), 519–531.
• Van Har, C (2006) Personal agency beliefs in selfregulation.