Advertisement

Unternehmertum und Innovation

  • Isabell StammEmail author
  • Marie Gutzeit
Living reference work entry

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag rückt den aktuellen Paradigmenwandel in der Forschung zu Unternehmertum in den Mittelpunkt. Unternehmerisches Handeln wird verstanden als kollektives Handeln unternehmerischer Gruppen. Eine Engführung von Innovation im Diskurs zu Unternehmertum, so wird gezeigt, verhindert es, die innovative Kapazität unternehmerischer Gruppen passend zu greifen. Neue Perspektiven auf Innovation können dieses Spannungsverhältnis begrifflich auflösen, wie am Ansatz von Sensemaking und Sensegiving sowie reflexiver Innovation gezeigt wird.

Schlüsselwörter

Unternehmertum Unternehmerische Gruppen Reflexive Innovation Innovative Kapazität Sensemaking und Sensegiving 

Literatur

  1. Ács, Zoltán J., und David B. Audretsch, Hrsg. 2010. Handbook on entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, Howard E., und Martha A. Martinez. 2001. Many are called but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25(4): 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldrich, Howard E., und Martha A. Martinez. 2015. Why aren’t entrepreneurs more creative? Conditions affecting creativity and innovation in entrepreneurial activity. In The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship, Hrsg. Michael A. Hitt, Christina E. Shalley und Jing Zhou, 445–456. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aldrich, Howard E., und Martin Ruef. 2006. Organizations evolving. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE.Google Scholar
  5. Alvarez, Sharon A., und Jay B. Barney. 2007. Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Organicoes em contexto 3(6): 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartel, Caroline, und Raghu Garud. 2009. The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organization Science 20(1): 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baur, Nina, Cristina Besio, und Maria Norkus. 2016. Organisationale Innovation am Beispiel der Projektifizierung der Wissenschaft: Eine figurationssoziologische Perspektive auf Entstehung, Verbreitung und Wirkungen. In Innovationsgesellschaft heute, Hrsg. Werner Rammert, Arnold Windeler, Hubert Knoblauch und Michael Hutter, 373–402. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beckert, Jens. 2016. Imagined futures: Fictional expectations and capitalist dynamics. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Block, Joern H., Christian O. Fisch, und Mirjam van Praag. 2017. The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: A review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation 24(1): 61–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bögenhold, Dieter, Jean Bonnet, Marcus Dejardin, und Domingo García Pérez de Lema, Hrsg. 2016. Contemporary entrepreneurship: An overview. In Contemporary entrepreneurship: Multidisciplinary perspectives on innovation and growth, 3–15. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breugst, Nicola, Holger Patzelt, und Philipp Rathgeber. 2015. How should we divide the pie? Equity distribution and its impact on entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing 30(1): 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collewaert, Veroniek, und Harry J. Sapienza. 2016. How does angel investor – entrepreneur conflict affect venture innovation? It depends. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 40(3): 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooney, Thomas. 2005. What is an entrepreneurial team. International Small Business Journal 23(3): 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Decker, Carolin, und Christina Günther. 2017. The impact of family ownership on innovation: Evidence from the German machine tool industry. Small Business Economics 48(1): 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drucker, Peter F. 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Drucker, Peter F. 1998. The discipline of innovation. Leader to Leader 1998(9): 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fagerberg, Jan, David C. Mowery, und Richard R. Nelson, Hrsg. 2013. The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Forsström-Tuominen, Heidi. 2015. Collectiveness within startup teams: Leading the way to initiating and managing collective pursuit of opportunities in organizational contexts. Doctoral thesis, School of Business and Management, Lappeenrante University of Technology. Lappeenranta, Finland.Google Scholar
  19. Gartner, William B., Hrsg. 2004. Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Gartner, William B., Barbara J. Bird, und Jennifer A. Starr. 2016. Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. In Entrepreneurship as organizing: Selected papers of William B. Gartner, Hrsg. William B. Gartner, 108–126. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gioia, Dennis A., und Kumar Chittipeddi. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12(6): 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granovetter, Marc. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The Problem of embedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hashimoto, Keiko. 2012. A literature review of entrepreneurial team. In Technology for education and learning. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, Hrsg. Honghua Tan, Bd. 136, 221–226. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutter, Michael, Hubert Knoblauch, Werner Rammert, und Arnold Windeler, Hrsg. 2016. Innovationsgesellschaft heute: Die reflexive Herstellung des Neuen, 15–35. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaskiewicz, Peter, James Combs, und Sabine Rau. 2015. Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 30(1): 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kammerlander, Nadine, Cinzia Dessi, Mariam Bird, Michela Floris, und Alessandra Murru. 2016. The impact of shared stories on family firm innovation: A multi-case study. Family Business Review 28(4): 332–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keating Andrew, und Damien McLoughlin. 2010. The entrepreneurial imagination and the impact of context on the development of a new venture. Industrial Marketing Management 39(6): 996–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirzner, Israel M. 1997. Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process. Journal of Economic Literature 35(1): 60–85.Google Scholar
  29. Klotz, Anthony C., Keith M. Hmieleski, Bret H. Bradley, und Lowell B. Busenitz. 2014. New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management 40(1): 226–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knoblauch, Hubert. 2016. Kommunikatives Handeln, das Neue und die Innovationsgesellschaft. In Innovationsgesellschaft heute, Hrsg. Werner Rammert, Arnold Windeler, Hubert Knoblauch und Michael Hutter, 111–131. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kollmann, Tobias, und Christoph Stöckmann. 2014. Filling the entrepreneurial orientation–performance gap: The mediating effects of exploratory and exploitative innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38(5): 1001–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lumpkin, G. T., und Gregory G. Dess. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21(1): 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ma, Zhenzhong, Shuzhen Zhao, Tangting Wang, und Yender Lee. 2013. An overview of contemporary ethnic entrepreneurship studies: Themes and relationships. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 19(1): 32–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marquis, Christopher, und András Tilcsik. 2013. Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 195–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKelvie, Alexander, Anna Brattström, und Karl Wennberg. 2017. How young firms achieve growth: Reconciling the roles of growth motivation and innovative activities. Small Business Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9847-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McMullen, Jeffery S., und Alexander S. Kier. 2017. You don’t have to be an entrepreneur to be entrepreneurial: The unique role of imaginativeness in new venture ideation. Business Horizons 60(4): 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Melin, Leif, Mattias Nordqvist, und Pramodita Sharma, Hrsg. 2014. The Sage handbook of family business. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Moroz, Peter W., und Kevin Hindle. 2012. Entrepreneurship as a pocess: Toward harmonizing multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice 36(4): 781–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nordstrom, Onnolee A., und Jennifer E. Jennings. 2015. Charting the collective interest in collective entrepreneurship: An integrative review. Academy of Management Proceedings 2015(1): 16851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pearce, Craig, und Michael D. Ensley. 2004. A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior 25:259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rammert, Werner, Arnold Windeler, Hubert Knoblauch, und Michael Hutter, Hrsg. 2016. Die Ausweitung der Innovationszone. In Innovationsgesellschaft heute, 3–13. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  42. Rauch, Andreas, Johann Wiklund, G. T. Lumpkin, und Michael Frese. 2009. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(3): 761–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reynolds, Paul D., Nancy M. Carter, William B. Gartner, und Patricia G. Greene. 2004. The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics. Small Business Economics 23(4): 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruef, Martin. 2002. A structural event approach to the analysis of group composition. Social Networks 24(2): 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruef, Martin. 2010. The Entrepreneurial Group: Social identities, relations, and collective action, Kauffman Foundation series on innovation and entrepreneurship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruef, Martin, und Michael Lounsbury, Hrsg. 2007. Introduction: The sociology of entrepreneurship. In The sociology of entrepreneurship, 1–32. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  47. Ruef, Martin, Howard E. Aldrich, und N. M. Carter. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review 68(2): 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schjoedt, Leon, und Sascha Kraus. 2009. Entrepreneurial teams: Definition and performance factors. Management Research News 32(6): 513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1980. Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie. München: Francke.Google Scholar
  50. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1991. Comments on a plan for the study of entrepreneurship. In The economics and sociology of capitalism, Hrsg. Richard Swedberg, 406–428. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shane, Scott. 2008. The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that entrepreneurs, investors, and policy makers live by. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Shane, Scott, und Sankaran Venkataraman. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 217–226.Google Scholar
  54. Sharma, Pramodita, James J. Chrisman, und Kelin E. Gersick. 2012. 25 years of family business review: Reflections on the past and perspectives for the future. Family Business Review 25(1): 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shepherd, Dean A., und Norris F. Krueger. 2002. An intentions-based model of entrepreneurial teams’ social cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27(2): 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Strike, Vanessa M., und Claus Rerup. 2016. Mediated sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal 59(3): 880–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Swedberg, Richard, Hrsg. 2000. Entrepreneurship: The social science view. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ven, Andrew H van de, Polley, Douglas E., Raghu Garud, und Sankaran Venkataraman. 1999. The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Visintin, Francesco, und Daniel Pittino. 2014. Founding team composition and early performance of university-based spin-off companies. Technovation 34(1): 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Weick, Karl E., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, und David Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science 16(4): 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Welter, Friederike, Ted Baker, David B. Audretsch, und William B. Gartner. 2016. Everyday entrepreneurship. A call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41(3): 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Windeler, Arnold. 2016. Reflexive innovation. In Innovationsgesellschaft heute, Hrsg. Werner Rammert, Arnold Windeler, Hubert Knoblauch und Michael Hutter, 69–110. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für SoziologieTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinDeutschland
  2. 2.Technische Universität BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations