Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unternehmertum und Innovation

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Innovationsforschung

  • 541 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Weitere Überblicke zu den Diskursen um Innovation und Unternehmertum liefern das Oxford Handbook of Innovation (Fagerberg et al. 2013), die Übersicht von Dieter Bögenhold et al. (2016) sowie das Handbuch von Ács und Audretsch (2010).

Literatur

  • Ács, Zoltán J., und David B. Audretsch, Hrsg. 2010. Handbook on entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Aldrich, Howard E., und Martin Ruef. 2006. Organizations evolving. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, Sharon A., und Jay B. Barney. 2007. Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Organicoes em contexto 3(6): 123–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartel, Caroline, und Raghu Garud. 2009. The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organization Science 20(1): 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beckert, Jens. 2016. Imagined futures: Fictional expectations and capitalist dynamics. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, Thomas. 2005. What is an entrepreneurial team. International Small Business Journal 23(3): 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, Peter F. 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, Peter F. 1998. The discipline of innovation. Leader to Leader 1998(9): 13–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, Jan, David C. Mowery, und Richard R. Nelson, Hrsg. 2013. The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gartner, William B., Hrsg. 2004. Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, Dennis A., und Kumar Chittipeddi. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12(6): 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, Marc. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The Problem of embedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, Michael, Hubert Knoblauch, Werner Rammert, und Arnold Windeler, Hrsg. 2016. Innovationsgesellschaft heute: Die reflexive Herstellung des Neuen, 15–35. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, Israel M. 1997. Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process. Journal of Economic Literature 35(1): 60–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, Christopher, und András Tilcsik. 2013. Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 195–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, Leif, Mattias Nordqvist, und Pramodita Sharma, Hrsg. 2014. The Sage handbook of family business. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moroz, Peter W., und Kevin Hindle. 2012. Entrepreneurship as a pocess: Toward harmonizing multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice 36(4): 781–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, Martin. 2002. A structural event approach to the analysis of group composition. Social Networks 24(2): 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, Martin. 2010. The Entrepreneurial Group: Social identities, relations, and collective action, Kauffman Foundation series on innovation and entrepreneurship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, Martin, und Michael Lounsbury, Hrsg. 2007. Introduction: The sociology of entrepreneurship. In The sociology of entrepreneurship, 1–32. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schjoedt, Leon, und Sascha Kraus. 2009. Entrepreneurial teams: Definition and performance factors. Management Research News 32(6): 513–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1980. Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie. München: Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strike, Vanessa M., und Claus Rerup. 2016. Mediated sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal 59(3): 880–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, Richard, Hrsg. 2000. Entrepreneurship: The social science view. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ven, Andrew H van de, Polley, Douglas E., Raghu Garud, und Sankaran Venkataraman. 1999. The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visintin, Francesco, und Daniel Pittino. 2014. Founding team composition and early performance of university-based spin-off companies. Technovation 34(1): 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, Karl E., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, und David Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science 16(4): 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windeler, Arnold. 2016. Reflexive innovation. In Innovationsgesellschaft heute, Hrsg. Werner Rammert, Arnold Windeler, Hubert Knoblauch und Michael Hutter, 69–110. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Soziologie, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Isabell Stamm

  2. Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Marie Gutzeit

Authors
  1. Isabell Stamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie Gutzeit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabell Stamm .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst für Soziologie Campus Westend PEG, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Inst für Soziologie Campus Westend PEG, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Birgit Blättel-Mink

  2. Institut für Soziologie, TU Berlin Institut für Soziologie, Berlin, Germany

    Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer

  3. Institut für Soziologie, TU Berlin Institut für Soziologie, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Arnold Windeler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Stamm, I., Gutzeit, M. (2019). Unternehmertum und Innovation. In: Blättel-Mink, B., Schulz-Schaeffer, I., Windeler, A. (eds) Handbuch Innovationsforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17671-6_26-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17671-6_26-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-17671-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-17671-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Naturwissenschaften

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation