Collaborative entrepreneurship and the fostering of entrepreneurialism in developing countries

Collaborative entrepreneurship and the fostering of entrepreneurialism in developing countries
Vanessa Ratten
International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2014) pp. 137 – 149
The purpose of this paper is to consider collaborative entrepreneurship and its relevance to entrepreneurialism in developing countries. The paper provides some background to the role of collaboration in society including how individuals, businesses and organisations interact with governments to encourage economic and society activity in developing country economies. The academic literature on collaborative entrepreneurship is examined with an emphasis on entrepreneurialism to try and understand how entrepreneurship is conducted in developing countries. The determinants of collaborative entrepreneurship are stated with the key themes being individual level, social networks, institutional factors, community nature and international experience. The paper comments on a proposed collaborative entrepreneurship research agenda, which contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by illustrating how collaborative entrepreneurship and entrepreneurialism are adapted and used in developing countries to suit the social and market conditions.

Go to Source

Tags: , , ,

Cognitive consequences of business shut down. The case of Ugandan repeat entrepreneurs

zv7qrnb

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on the cognitive and motivational consequences of a business failure, and their relation with subsequent start up success. The paper hypothesizes that if previous business failure was attributed to an internal and stable cause, subsequent business would be less successful compared to where an entrepreneur attributed business failure to an internal and unstable cause. Design/methodology/approach – The authors reviewed the literature on attribution theory in an achievement context and derived a hypothesis about the relation between causal thinking and subsequent business success. A survey amongst entrepreneurs in Uganda was carried out to yield insights on how attributions to past performance influence subsequent business performance. Findings – Entrepreneurs who attributed previous business failure to an internal, stable cause were found to be less successful in subsequent business start up. When repeat entrepreneurs attribute previous shut down to a lack of ability, they are less successful in a subsequent business start up. However, attributing the failure to a lack of effort, does not affect subsequent business success. Originality/value – The study reaffirms the importance of attributional thinking in entrepreneurship and provides empirical evidence on the relationship between the way entrepreneurs think about their previous performance and subsequent performance. Attributional thinking influences subsequent business actions and outcomes, which offers important practical applications. For instance training to change attributions of entrepreneurs may be used to influence their eventual performance.
Go to Source

Tags: , ,

How Innovation Ecosystems Turn Outsiders into Collaborators

Running a truly innovative company means constantly improving your innovation culture and process. Running a successful innovation ecosystem, however, demands more. Successful innovation ecosystems make people outside the company measurably smarter, richer, and more innovative. Biologically speaking, innovation ecosystems invest in symbiosis, not parasitism. Growth isn’t zero-sum.

Jeff Bezos knows. So do Larry Page and new Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Mark Zuckerberg, Reed Hastings, Marissa Mayer, and Haier CEO Zhang Ruimin similarly grasp the strategic, operational, and cultural distinction. They’re leaders and entrepreneurs who are publicly committed to creating better ecosystems, not just better products.

While successful innovators reap new profits from new products and services, successful innovation ecosystems cultivate profitability by encouraging others to create valuable new offerings. Their financial futures depend on how innovative they make their customers, clients, channels, and partners. Truly effective ecosystems manage to turn outsiders into de facto collaborators. Enabling external innovation becomes as important as improving one’s own. In fact, successful innovation ecosystems create virtuous cycles of external creativity, which drives internal adaptation. In turn, internal innovation enables and inspires external investment.

Ecosystem innovators like Bezos and Hastings are constantly asking, “Who are we making richer? Who are we making more innovative? Who’s on both those lists?” The answers say everything about the future they’re trying to create.

This is beautifully highlighted by Flipboard cofounder and CEO Mike McCue’s recent comment about how empowering users to create their own “virtual magazines” redefined the reader experience. “It was totally transformative,” he observed. “There are over 7 million magazines that people made in the nine or 10 months since we launched it. It’s awesome.” These customers are now creating virtual magazines, not just reading them. And Flipboard is learning and adapting thanks to their expressive ingenuity.

This is the real IP — not “Intellectual Property” but “Innovation Partnerships.” Look at Amazon Web Services, GitHub, Toyota and YouTube’s investments in suppliers, and Apple’s App Store. Or consider Netflix’s efforts to procure binge-able viewing: With Netflix’s new commissions of series like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black, creative people are now producing for a Netflix audience the way they once did for syndication, cable, and HBO. The common denominator for all these companies isn’t simply an exchange of value, but offering new opportunities for collaboration. Success comes from exploring how to make one’s partners more valuable innovators.

Dramatically boosting an innovation ecosystem isn’t inherently expensive; a new API, a simulation tool, a training methodology, or slightly greater access to customer data are frequently all that’s necessary to seed mutual growth opportunities. But just as management isn’t leadership, innovation process improvement isn’t innovation ecosystem stewardship. Fostering an innovation ecosystem does require a culture and competence of stewardship — making the kinds of investments and improvements that aren’t just opportunistic, but reflect and respect the core values you want to endure.

How does your organization invite innovation partnerships? How do you recognize and reward innovation partners? (Of course, your answers matter less than their answers.) Similarly, how is your innovation ecosystem making participatory innovation possible?

It’s tempting, often irresistibly so, for stewards of innovation ecosystems to want to compete against customers, channels, and suppliers when lush new savannas of profitability and growth materialize. The strategic challenge becomes resisting the urge to gobble up that opportunity, and instead identifying the partnerships that would expand it even more. Indeed, innovation ecosystems triumph over innovative companies if and when the benefits of mutual value creation outweigh the costs. That, in no small part, is why Google acquired Nest and why its ecosystem is broader and deeper than Microsoft’s or Yahoo’s. In other words, if you’re not making your innovation partners richer in some measurable way, you’re simply running an innovation factory, not an ecosystem.

Again, the Googles, the Amazons, the Toyotas, and the LinkedIns know this. But does your organization mind and measure who it’s making richer and more innovative? If it doesn’t, it may not be your innovation ecosystem for long.


Go to Source

Tags: ,

Entreprenuering together: his and her stories

Abstract

Purpose – Among the various “critical” voices which have contributed to problematizing the discourse on entrepreneurship, that of gender studies is indubitably one of the most significant and fruitful. Applying a gender perspective to the study of entrepreneurship has led to the uncovering of the (male) gender assumptions embodied in the dictates of entrepreneurship and to distinguish between study of women entrepreneurs and study of the relationship between gender and entrepreneurship. One aspect little explored within this diversified array of studies concerns “mixed” situations in which a firm’s management is shared between a woman and a man. Such situations are interesting in that: first, they make it possible to problematize the economic rhetoric which promulgates entrepreneurship as an individual and isolated, activity; second, the simultaneous presence of a man and a woman allows observation of whether and how gender stereotypes and practices are at work in the process of positioning Him and Her within the firm. In order to investigate both these aspects, the paper considers 18 verbal histories of women and men entrepreneurs, showing how entrepreneurship can be conceived as a distributed activity, as well as a playground for gender dynamics. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Narrative analysis of 18 “two-voice” interviews (for a total of 36 individual interviews) collected in artisanal activities characterized by the concomitant presence of a Him and a Her within the firm. Findings – First, interweaving between doing gender and doing business; second, entrepreneurship as a distributed activity; third, entrepreneurial environment sets out opportunities and contingent factors which can be used as resources for the positioning of Him and Her in the story and the construction of different narratives. This confirms the multi-dimensionality of entrepreneurial experience and suggests that future research should pay closer attention to the aspects of business activity sharing and reciprocity in the construction and positioning of gender. Research limitations/implications – Main implication for future research is to pay closer attention to aspects of reciprocity sharing and gender positioning in entrepreneurship. Originality/value – “Mixed” entrepreneurial experiences (firm’s management is shared between a woman and a man) are little explored and it is still uncommon to frame entrepreneurship as a distributed activity.
Go to Source

Tags: ,

When the Recipe Is More Important Than the Ingredients: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of Service Innovation Configurations

Service innovation is a primary source of competitive advantage and a research priority. However, empirical evidence about the impact of innovativeness on new service adoption is inconclusive. A plausible explanation is that service innovation has thus far been studied using new product frameworks that do not fully capture the complexity of new service assessments by customers. We propose a different, holistic framework, which posits that new service adoption does not depend on individual service attributes, but on specific configurations of such attributes. We investigate this framework in a luxury hotel service context, using qualitative comparative analysis, a set-membership technique that is new to service research and suitable for configuration analyses. Results confirm that individual service attributes have complex trade-off effects and that only specific combinations of attributes act as sufficient conditions for new service adoption. Moreover, the composition of such combinations differs according to the different coproduction requirements. Our findings contribute to managerial practice by providing new insights for improving the service-development process and the launch strategy for new services. They also augment extant service knowledge by demonstrating why interdependencies among various innovation attributes are important to consider for gaining an accurate understanding of new service adoption.

Go to Source

Tags: , , ,

Emancipation and/or oppression? Conceptualizing dimensions of criticality in entrepreneurship studies

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to use the attribute “critical” as a sensitizing concept to emphasize entrepreneurship’s role in overcoming extant relations of exploitation, domination and oppression. It builds on the premise that entrepreneurship not only brings about new firms, products and services but also new openings for more liberating forms of individual and collective existence. Design/methodology/approach – Honing in on Calas et al.’s (2009) seminal piece on critical entrepreneurship studies, and building on Laclau’s (1996) conceptualization of emancipation as intimately related to oppression, the paper explores different interpretations of emancipation and discuss these from a critical understanding of entrepreneurship. The paper then employs these interpretations to introduce and “classify” the five articles in this special issue. Findings – The editorial charts four interpretations of emancipation along two axes (utopian-dystopian and heterotopian-paratopian), and relates these to various strands of critical entrepreneurship research. United by a general commitment to positive change, each interpretation champions a different take on what might comprise the emancipatory or oppressive potential of entrepreneurship. Originality/value – As the emancipatory aspect of entrepreneurship has attracted increasing attention among entrepreneurship researchers, the paper formulates a tentative framework for furthering views on the emancipatory aspects of entrepreneurship as a positive phenomenon in critical research – which to date has tended to be preoccupied with the “dark side” of entrepreneurship.
Go to Source

Tags:

Female Entrepreneurship: What Support Programs Should Do (and What They Should Avoid Doing)

Take a look at the nine points listed below, and think about the various support programs for women entrepreneurs that you may be familiar with. Have you seen these factors before?

  • Ignore gender differences
  • Create curriculum around PowerPoint (Stand and deliver)
  • Emphasis on existing idea or opportunity
  • Use of big business examples
  • Use of industry standards
  • Reliance on banks as start-up funds
  • Primarily including male instructors and speakers
  • Assumptions about firm size
  • Assumptions about linearity of growth

This is a list of what NOT to do when designing and implementing successful support programs for women entrepreneurs, as suggested by Prof. Patricia Greene of Babson College at a recent presentation at the World Bank Group. Her seminar was the first in a series on “Women Entrepreneurs: A New Approach to Growth and Shared Prosperity.”

Go to Source

Tags: