Advertisement

Firm Founders’ Passivity as a Source of Serendipitous Opportunity Discovery

  • Antti KauppinenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on understanding how subsistence entrepreneurs utilise chance discoveries in their marketplace. A case study method is utilised to understand the process of serendipitous opportunity discovery in terms of obtaining market advantages. Case studies from Finland and Denmark are utilised to analyse the subsistence entrepreneurship process from a transformational perspective. The results indicate that some passivity can generate a serendipitous opportunity discovery. Suggestions for future research are stated that highlight the link between the transformational and subsistence entrepreneurship literature.

References

  1. Arenius P, Engel Y, Klyver K (2017) No particular action needed? A necessary condition analysis of gestation activities and firm emergence. J Bus Ventur 8:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blakemore S-J, Smith J, Steel R, Johnstone EC, Frith CD (2000) The perception of self-produced sensory stimuli in patients with auditory hallucinations and passivity experiences: evidence for a breakdown in self-monitoring. Psychol Med 30:1131–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardon MS, Wincent J, Singh J, Drnovsek V (2009) The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Acad Manage Rev 34:511–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Czarniawska B (2008) Organizing: how to study and how to write about it. Qual Res Org Manage 3(1):4–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dew N (2009) Serendipity in entrepreneurship. Org Stud 30(7):735–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foo M-D, Uy MA, Baron RA (2009) How do feelings influence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs’ affect and venture effort. J Appl Psychol 94(4):1086–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frith CD, Blakemore S-J, Wolpert DM (2000) Explaining the symptoms of schizophrenia: abnormalities in the awareness of action. Brain Res Rev 31:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Görling S, Rehn A (2008) Accidental ventures – a materialist reading of opportunity and entrepreneurial potential. Scand J Manage 24(2):94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kirzner I (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. J Econ Lit 35(1):60–85Google Scholar
  12. Mark G, Gudith D, Klocke U (2008) The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. Conference proceedings of SIGCHI 2008 conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy, April 5th to 8th 2008, pp 107–110Google Scholar
  13. Martello WE (1996) Developing creative business insights: serendipity and its potential in entrepreneurship. Entrep Reg Dev 6(3):239–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merrilees B, Miller D, Tiessen J (1998) Serendipity, leverage and the process of entrepreneurial internationalization. Small Enterp Res 6(2):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller RA, Collier EW (2010) Redefining entrepreneurship: a virtues and values perspective. J Leadersh Account Ethics 8(2):80–89Google Scholar
  16. Minniti M (2008) The role of government policy on entrepreneurial activity: productive, unproductive, or destructive. Entrep Theory Pract 32(5):779–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ratten V, Jones P (2019) Transformational entrepreneurship. Routledge Frontiers of Business Management/Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Reynolds PD (2005) Understanding business creation: serendipity and scope in two decades of business creation studies. Small Bus Econ 24(4):359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schoar A (2010) The divide between subsistence and transformational entrepreneurship. Innov Policy Econ 10:57–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seawright J, Gerring J (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Polit Res Q 61(2):294–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad Manage Rev 25(1):217–226Google Scholar
  22. Singh S, Corner PD, Pavlovich K (2015) Failed, not finished: a narrative approach to understanding venture failure stigmatization. J Bus Ventur 30(1):150–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of grounded theory methods. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  24. Styhre A (2006) Organization creativity and the empiricist image of novelty. Creat Innov Manage 15(2):143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Venkataraman S, Sarasvathy SD, Dew N, Forster WR (2012) Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Acad Manage Rev 37(1):21–33Google Scholar
  26. Viswanathan M, Echambadi R, Venugopal S, Sridharan S (2014) Subsistence entrepreneurship, value creation, and community exchange systems: a social capital explanation. J Macromark 34(2):213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolfe MT, Shepherd DA (2013a) “Bouncing back” from a loss: entrepreneurial orientation, emotions, and failure narratives. Entrep Theory Pract 37(4):1–26Google Scholar
  28. Wolfe MT, Shepherd DA (2013b) What do you have to say about that? Performance events and narratives’ positive and negative emotional content. Entrep Theory Pract 37(6):1–31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business, School of ManagementRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations