Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Collective forms of Indigenous entrepreneurship are often seen as a mechanism to promote social equity through productive collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners. However, the different temporal frames that Indigenous and non-Indigenous people bring to collective Indigenous entrepreneurship can undermine collaboration. Our research explores tensions in temporal frames, related to time horizon, project view, and momentum. Our longitudinal, in-depth case study of the Bundian Way, a social enterprise involving over 40 partners, highlights the critical role temporal work plays in shifting temporal frames and coalescing partners around a shared vision. Our research contributes to the literature on Indigenous entrepreneurship by highlighting the role of temporal work in reconciling temporal tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners. Our research extends theorization on temporal work by showing how, as a transformative mechanism, it shifts embedded temporal frames and generates new ways of organizing.

Keywords

Indigenous entrepreneurship Indigenous knowledges Indigenous organizing temporal frames temporal work

Introduction

Indigenous entrepreneurship is promoted as a mechanism to empower Indigenous¹ communities and contribute to Indigenous self-determination (Tedmanson & Evans, 2017; Verduyn et al., 2017). Indigenous entrepreneurship often generates social outcomes alongside economic outcomes as Indigenous communities create jobs and generate income whilst respecting their culture (Hindle & Lansdowne, 2005). Consequently, Indigenous entrepreneurship can be a means to address inequality, create opportunities for future generations, support community empowerment, strengthen connections to Country,² and contribute to reconciliation (Banerjee & Tedmanson, 2010; Salmon et al., 2023).

Indigenous entrepreneurship is frequently a site of collective entrepreneurship (Peredo & Anderson, 2006). Collective entrepreneurship refers to situations where a range of actors come together to cooperatively develop new entrepreneurial initiatives (Lounsbury, 1998). When partners from Indigenous and non-Indigenous backgrounds work together, tensions can arise in how entrepreneurial action is conceptualized, organized, and experienced (Murphy et al., 2020; Peredo & McLean, 2013). If tensions are not understood and managed, they may hinder entrepreneurial development (Tedmanson et al., 2015). If Indigenous entrepreneurship is to deliver on its promise of social and economic inclusion, then it is important that we understand the source of tensions and how these tensions might be resolved.

Indigenous scholars have identified how Indigenous and non-Indigenous views of time and temporality differ (Love, 2019; Maddison & Nakata, 2020; Yunkaporta, 2019). At the outset, we emphasize that Indigenous temporalities are complete, distinctive, and legitimate. Given the distinctiveness of Indigenous temporalities, when Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners come together in the context of collective entrepreneurial endeavors, we can expect to find differences in temporal frames. Temporal frames are the “hidden rhythms” through which time is “socially defined and organised” (Boden, 1997, p. 6). In colonial contexts, non-Indigenous partners are often not attuned to Indigenous temporal frames and ways of working (Banerjee & Tedmanson, 2010; Murphy & Arenas, 2010; Peredo & McLean, 2013), which may lead to temporal tensions (Adib & Emiljanowicz, 2019). Temporal tensions are defined as “the dilemmas, dichotomies, and dualities that emerge at the boundaries between competing temporal perceptions” (Aitken et al., 2024, p. 1). These temporal tensions can reinforce past practices of marginalization (Palmer et al., 2022; Reo et al., 2017). For example, Latin American Indigenous communities have faced challenges in entrepreneurial renewable energy projects where non-Indigenous stakeholders prioritize immediate economic benefits, while Indigenous partners emphasize long-term environmental stewardship and cultural preservation, causing conflicts and project delays (Segovia-Tzompa et al., 2024). To date, we know very little about how people involved in Indigenous entrepreneurship navigate these temporal tensions (Vogel et al., 2021). Accordingly, our research asks, how do Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners address temporal tensions in collective Indigenous entrepreneurship?

To answer this question, we draw on an in-depth longitudinal case study of the Bundian Way, a large-scale Indigenous social enterprise involving over 40 Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners on the Far South Coast of New South Wales, Australia. Led by the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council, this Indigenous entrepreneurial endeavor aims to create cultural tourism social enterprises along the Bundian Way, a traditional walking track of cultural significance to Aboriginal custodians of the region. For the Yuin Nation, the Bundian Way is not just a physical path but a cultural and spiritual journey that embodies the Yuin people’s historical and ongoing connection to the land, making it an ideal context to explore the interplay of temporality and Indigenous entrepreneurship.

Our findings reveal three significant temporal frames that can create tensions in Indigenous entrepreneurship: time horizon, project view, and momentum. We show how differences in temporal frames lead Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners to prioritize opposing goals and outcomes, generating tensions. We find that these temporal tensions can be addressed by engaging in temporal work (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013). We demonstrate how this temporal work involves questioning taken-for-granted understandings of the past, its impact on the present, and how it drives hopes for the future. We thereby highlight the importance of being open to shifting one’s temporal frames and to learning from other ways of understanding time.

Our research contributes to our understanding of how Indigenous knowledges and ways of organizing can enrich and reframe Western organizational approaches (Love, 2019; Salmon et al., 2023; Tedmanson & Evans, 2017). We make an empirical contribution to our understanding of temporal frames by highlighting how three contrasting temporal frames are operationalized differently by Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors. We also make a theoretical contribution by identifying the role of temporal work as the mechanism that facilitates the negotiation of tensions in temporal frames.

Literature Review

Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Temporality

Ameliorating the ongoing impacts of colonization drives the work of many Indigenous entrepreneurs (Croce, 2017; Murphy et al., 2020). However, the ongoing impacts of colonization, including systemic exclusion from economic opportunities, land dispossession, and the imposition of Western legal and governance structures, can undermine the work of Indigenous entrepreneurs (Foley, 2003; Galbraith et al., 2006). On the other hand, the deep temporal connection that Indigenous entrepreneurs have to place leads to the development of initiatives that align with the priorities of Indigenous communities (Morphy & Morphy, 2013, Murphy et al., 2020). In this way, Indigenous entrepreneurship poses a challenge to Western entrepreneurial views, including the focus on shorter-term goals and individualist outcomes (Hindle & Lansdowne, 2005; Tedmanson & Evans, 2017; Verduyn et al., 2017). For example, Henry et al. (2018) explored the development of a Māori-led community enterprise providing affordable care that prioritizes long-term community well-being over shorter-term individual outcomes.

As Yunkaporta (2019) explains for Australia’s Aboriginal peoples, “time does not go in a straight line”; rather, “it is non-linear and regenerates creation in endless cycles” (pp. 44–45). He further explains that in Aboriginal languages, “time and place are usually the same word—they are indivisible” (Yunkaporta, 2019, p. 66). Yunkaporta (2019) argues, “Aboriginal people . . . have always had our own ways of mapping time/place” (p. 65). Rather than focusing on different ways of knowing, we should turn our minds to “ways of being” that help us make sense of how different systems of thought are “embedded in daily life” (Yunkaporta, 2019, p. 69). Understanding time as “placed” means that for most Aboriginal people, time cannot be extracted from the system, and “it is not important when things happen, it is important that they happen” (Janca & Bullen, 2003, p. 41). The development of evolving shared histories links the past, present, and future for Indigenous peoples (Tapsell & Woods, 2008), which differs significantly from Western understandings of time. As Siena Stubbs explains for her people, the Yolŋgu, of northern Australia, “the past is in the present is in the future. Our ancestors were here, are here and will be here” (Stubbs, 2021, p. 1).

Present-day actions for Indigenous people are coupled with long-term trajectories, reaching back into the distant past, connecting both to their ancestors and into the future and their descendants. For example, Stewart et al. (2017) illustrate how Native American leaders’ decisions are not just based on business needs but are ethical decisions that honor the legacy of their past and the future of their people. Similarly, Hēnare et al. (2016) comment on how Māori entrepreneurial teams work across two interconnected spiritual and physical worlds, and three temporal dimensions of the past, present, and future. They comment that “temporality is evinced in the long-term outlook and activity of a Māori entrepreneurial team, which is both forward reaching and backward looking, and influenced by multiple generations” (Hēnare et al., 2016, p. 222).

Given the very distinct temporal orientation of Indigenous peoples, the temporal frames of Indigenous entrepreneurs are likely to come into tension with the temporal frames of non-Indigenous partners. Down (2012) suggests this in identifying the need for studies of Indigenous entrepreneurial initiatives to focus on diverse ontologies of time. Our research explores the tensions between the different temporal frames that Indigenous entrepreneurs and their non-Indigenous partners bring to their work and how these tensions can be negotiated and Indigenous temporal frames brought to the fore through the mechanism of temporal work.

Temporal Frames and Temporal Work

Temporal frames operate as “shared meaning-structures that facilitate social involvement” (Boden, 1997, p. 27). As Boden (1997) points out, temporal frames are a crucial part of collective activity because they enable people to “orient to and account for the interlocking timetables of organisational life” (p. 9). Researchers have observed how the contrasting temporal framing of clock time and event time, reversible and irreversible time, and short-term and long-term deadlines can shape approaches to organizing work (Ancona et al., 2001; Bluedorn & Waller, 2006; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015). These contrasting frames shape the ways in which organizational actors derive a sense of momentum from work activities, with potential tensions arising between objective time and subjective or experiential time; symmetric and asymmetric planning approaches; and top-down frames focused on routine action versus bottom-up frames focused on constructing urgency (Ancona et al., 2001; Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015). We suggest that in the context where Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples come together to collaborate toward a shared goal, we will find different and, at times, conflicting temporal frames.

Previous research suggests that partners may need to negotiate temporal tensions to have a sense of momentum (Hernes, 2014) or to reach a consensus on the shared outcomes (Andrésen et al., 2014). Resolving temporal tensions may also provide opportunities for people to negotiate new ways of working together tailored to the circumstances they encounter (Bansal et al., 2022; Dille et al., 2022; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015). If tensions arising from differences in temporal frames are not resolved, it can be detrimental to the long-term prospects of a collective initiative (McGivern et al., 2018). Resolving temporal tensions is complex and involves cooperation (Standifer et al., 2015). Organizational actors may need to integrate elements of other temporal frames into their work, adapt their temporal frames to the temporal frames of others, or completely transform their own temporal frames (Dille et al., 2022). Integrating temporal frames can help groups to develop “objectives and systems that better reflect time-based diversity and diffuse temporal conflict” (Klassen & Hajmohammad, 2016, p. 1600).

The adaptation, integration, and transformation of temporal frames have been identified as temporal work (Standifer et al., 2015). Kaplan and Orlikowski (2013) use the term “temporal work” to explain how people strategically negotiate different understandings of the past, present and future to develop a coherent narrative that promotes engagement. Bansal et al. (2022) define temporal work as individual, collective, and organizational effort to guide, sustain, or redirect the time-related framework, structures, and assumptions that influence strategic action.

Previous research on temporal work highlights multiple ways in which temporal work is enacted to overcome temporal tensions. For example, temporal work can assist in shaping a sense of urgency or windows for opportunity (Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016), which in turn can shape the pace of collective entrepreneurial action (Hilbolling et al., 2022). Temporal work can also assist in overcoming frustration and disruptions associated with collaboration in uncertain contexts (Kent & Granqvist, 2024). Temporal work also serves as a means for collectives to draw on and repurpose painful memories from the past to shape views of the future (Crawford et al., 2022). In this sense, temporal work allows for the past and the future to be reinterpreted and renegotiated through action in the present (Hernes & Irgens, 2013). Given the capacity for competing temporal frames to undermine effective collaboration, we need to better understand the role of temporal work in enabling Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners to negotiate and adapt to tensions in temporal frames.

Methods

In light of the dearth of research on temporality and Indigenous entrepreneurship, we adopted a single-case study approach (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Siggelkow, 2007). The single-case study approach is viewed as most appropriate when exploring complex phenomena with extensive interdependencies (Dubois & Gadde, 2002), such as the complex understandings of temporality from Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders. The single-case study approach allowed us to move beyond descriptive of temporal frames to unpack complex ways in which different actors engage in temporal work to overcome temporal tensions.

Research Site

We draw on an in-depth longitudinal case study of the Bundian Way, a large-scale Indigenous social enterprise involving over 40 partners on the Far South Coast of New South Wales, Australia. The Bundian Way is a 365-km walking route of major significance to the Aboriginal people of the Yuin Nation of south-eastern New South Wales. Traditionally, the Bundian Way was a network of paths that linked people living on the coast to people living beyond the coastal range. Along the journey, people engaged in communal hunting, fishing, land management, yam harvests, storytelling, and celebrations. Around the time of colonization, Aboriginal people shared the Bundian Way with settlers.

The Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council was established in 1984 as one of 120 Local Aboriginal Land Councils in New South Wales (Aboriginal Affairs NSW, 2021). Shortly after the establishment of the Land Council, the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council signed the Regional Forestry Agreement with the New South Wales Government. The Regional Forestry Agreement granted permission for the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council to use the land within the Land Council’s catchment for the social and economic benefit of the local Aboriginal community. Drawing on this commitment, the Eden Aboriginal Land Council envisioned the Bundian Way as both a traditional walking track and a site of social enterprise infrastructure. For the Land Council, the motivation to develop the Bundian Way was informed by the values of caring for Country and community and hopes to inspire a greater future appreciation of the cultural, historical, and wilderness significance of the region among non-Indigenous visitors.

To support the development of these entrepreneurial ventures, the Bundian Way Advisory Committee was established with a flexible membership growing to over 40 partners drawn from the local community, industry, the not-for-profit sector, and the three tiers of the Australian government. Advisory Committee partners provide input to support social enterprise development focused on job creation, wealth generation, environmental preservation, and cultural maintenance and reclamation. Through the Bundian Way Advisory Committee, the Land Council and partners aimed to support the development of numerous income-generating social enterprises such as guided cultural walking tours, cultural training, accommodation, and art galleries.

Positionality and Ethics

Before outlining how we collected and analyzed the data, it is imperative that we are clear about our positionality as researchers and that we acknowledge that our privilege is the result of colonization (Kwaymullina, 2016, p. 442). The first author is non-Indigenous. She grew up in Canada and migrated to Australia in early adulthood, where she originally met partners on the Bundian Way Advisory Committee while living on the South Coast of New South Wales. Today, over 15 years later, she still maintains relationships with many of those who have been (and continue to be) influential in the project and is motivated by a desire to see their passion and commitment realized through the delivery of the Land Council’s vision for the Bundian Way as a series of social enterprise ventures. The second author is a non-Indigenous Australian whose family arrived in Australia on the first fleet of convicts from England in 1788. For the last 14 years, he has worked with over 30 different Aboriginal communities on action research projects to develop social enterprise ideas. The third author grew up unaware of her Indigenous ancestry. Colonizing practices have robbed many Australian people of the truth about their family history. In this case, the third author was unaware until recently of her Aboriginal ancestry because her great, great, great grandmother, an Awabakal woman, was not recorded on her children’s birth certificate. While acknowledging that she grew up with white privilege, she is proud to identify as an Awabakal woman. For her, undertaking research with and for Aboriginal people is motivated by a desire to honor her Aboriginal ancestors and to contribute in some way to overcoming the ongoing impacts of colonization.

As a research team, we acknowledge that our collaboration with our Indigenous research partners takes place in a colonial context where Eurocentrism reinforces and is reinforced by white privilege (Kwaymullina, 2016). By listening to and positioning our partners as “knowers not known” (Moreton-Robinson, 2004, p. 75), we aim to be part of the decolonizing project that privileges Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing. From this position, we developed our research in line with the Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS], 2012). The guidelines foreground issues of Indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination, and state that at every stage, “research with and about Indigenous peoples must be founded on a process of meaningful engagement and reciprocity . . . and all participants must be regarded as equal partners in a research engagement” (AIATSIS, 2012, p. 3). Accordingly, our methods were developed in consultation with the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council. This consultation involved first asking elders how to best approach the research and then seeking endorsement of the approach from the Land Council and the Bundian Way Advisory Committee at an in-person meeting.

An important aspect of this decolonizing approach was our engagement with Yuin research methods. As highlighted by Yuin academic, Dr Anthony McKnight (2015), “Yuin knowing is instilled in oneness, where everything is connected” (p. 2). This oneness describes an ontological view of “Country” and the connection between people and nature whereby “people are not simply connected to other humans, nonhumans or other things unseen, but are together whole” (Arnold et al., 2021, p. 132). This perspective emphasizes the importance of deep listening and walking on Country as essential for knowledge sharing as “learning has to occur with and on Country so the knowledge can be observed, felt and understood on a spiritual level of connectedness” (McKnight, 2016, p. 12). Our research approach also foregrounded Yuin research principles that prioritize “the acknowledgement and maintenance of reciprocity and respect,” where respect and reciprocity are not only ethical guidelines but also mechanisms through which knowledge flows (Arnold et al., 2023, p. 168). In line with these principles, we were in regular contact with members of the Land Council, and we had a nominated Aboriginal community member who guided us to understand local issues and priorities over time. The community member was nominated by the Chair of the Land Council during the Bundian Way Advisory Committee meeting where we sought feedback on our research methods. The community member served as an invaluable contact to help us navigate the complexities of working on Country with different stakeholders, and provided perspective that helped us remain true to the aims of the research as work progressed. This approach ensured the research aligned with Yuin research methods, respected community perspectives, adhered to the local engagement protocol, and followed ethical requirements for Indigenous research.

Indigenous Data Sovereignty, the right of Indigenous peoples to control and govern their own data, is critical for meaningful Indigenous self-determination (Marley, 2020). In line with these principles, we have prioritized proactive permission-seeking from the community throughout the project and participated in multiple opportunities for the community to provide critical feedback on our findings and maintain control over how their story is told. At a regularly scheduled Advisory Committee meeting, we added research publications to the agenda to ensure that our partners agreed on how quotes would be referenced in publications. We also explained how we would create opportunities for feedback on the use of these quotes to ensure that all parties felt comfortable that the words we attributed to them accurately reflected their intentions. Most expressed a desire for anonymity, with only their organizational background being identified. Two elders, the Chair of the Land Council and the Chair of the Advisory Committee, consented to the use of their role titles in this research.

Data Collection

Data collection took place over 36 months, with the first author spending 45 days on-site developing an understanding of the many meanings and histories associated with the Bundian Way. Participant observation, document analysis, and interviews were the main data sources. Table 1 summarizes these three data collection methods and the data they generated. We engaged in over 60 hr of formal and informal participant observation to gain insights into the collaborative aspects of the Bundian Way Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee partners were aware of the ongoing research as they had previously agreed to support the research in an Advisory Committee meeting, and as the first author regularly introduced herself and her reason for attending during the introductions each meeting involved. Observations from visits to Eden and the region were then shared back with other members of the research team on a monthly basis, prompting deep discussions about the nature of the project, the perspectives of participants, and how the initiative was unfolding over time.

Table 1.

Data Collection.

Data method	Number of records	Pages of data	Duration
Participant observation^a	17	120	30 hr 55 min
Document analysis	157	2,219	N/A
Interviews	24	309	20 hr 16 min
Total	198 records	2,548 pages	51 hr 11 min

This table only includes references to planned/formal participant observation. Informal participant interactions are unrecorded but amounted to more than 60 additional hours.

We analyzed 157 documents to gain insight into the various organizational strategies and artifacts that framed the engagement of different partners in the project from their various organizational positions. As summarized in Table 2, these documents included a range of business reports, funding submissions, strategic documents, news publications, Advisory Committee documents, local histories, and agreements that originated from across the organizations of the various partners involved in the project. The documents provided the research team with an in-depth understanding of the history of the Bundian Way and the complexity of relationships between various partners.

Table 2.

Document Analysis Data Summary.

Document type	Number of records	Pages of data
Agreement	7	134
Email	46	102
Funding applications, project plans, and strategies	30	852
Local history, research, and statistics	16	972
Advisory committee meeting documents	47	138
News articles	11	21
Total	157 records	2,219 pages

We also conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with regular Advisory Committee meeting attendees to understand the personal perspectives of Advisory Committee members. Although there has been a recent resurgence in the use and teaching of Yuin language, English is the most common language spoken in the Yuin Nation and the interviews and observations were conducted without the need for translation. Interview questions focused on identifying personal and organizational views of the Bundian Way project, and canvassed project priorities, relationships, opportunities, challenges, and success indicators. The interviews followed a semi-structured format to engage in deeper discussions about matters that were important to different stakeholders. As early insights from our observations revealed the importance of temporality to this research, we ensured that the interviews provided space for participants to reflect on how understandings of past, present, and future shaped their engagement in the Bundian Way.

Data Analysis

We adopted an abductive approach to our data analysis, which involved moving back and forth between empirical observations and theory (Dubois & Gadde, 2002), thus combining grounded insights from the field with insights from existing literature. In line with the abductive approach, we engaged with our partners and the social and natural world to derive provisional understandings and then used these insights to guide further exploration (Atkinson & Delamont, 2005). This approach made sense in the context of this research because it enabled the integration of diverse perspectives from a range of partners and data types to be integrated iteratively over the 3-year data collection period (Siggelkow, 2007). Using abduction enabled us to consider ideas, take these ideas back to partners, and refine ideas as the research progressed. In line with the abductive approach, which enabled us to validate insights based on the advice of elders, our data analysis commenced during our engagement period with the Bundian Way. Before commencing interviews, we analyzed field notes of observations of Advisory Committee meetings and coded for the practices and interactions of the Advisory Committee, including sharing knowledge, navigating tension, taking responsibility, and acknowledging the contributions of others. We noted a significant amount of temporal complexity, which prompted us to do a deeper investigation into temporal frames in the literature.

Our three temporal frames arose from both the data and the literature. We utilize Reinecke and Ansari’s (2015) notion of short-term and long-term time horizons. In our data, the temporal frames of “project view” and “momentum” were also prominent. “Project view” was related to how partners organized their activities and highlighted a difference between developing a sectioned approach to activities and taking a holistic, whole-of-project view. “Momentum” was linked to how partners maintained a sense of progress and achievement as the work of the Advisory Committee unfolded. “Momentum” presented a contrast between drawing motivation from completing predetermined, linear activities and drawing motivation from contributing to broader, non-linear community goals inherent in the project. Our analysis suggests that these temporal frames were not fixed and often changed as Advisory Committee members engaged in the interpretive shifts that are the hallmarks of temporal work.

Findings

Our analysis highlights the critical role temporality plays for partners involved in Indigenous entrepreneurship. Our findings illustrate how different temporal frames can lead partners to focus on different goals and prioritize different outcomes, and how this can generate tensions. We then explain how these competing temporal frames can shift over time through the mechanism of temporal work.

Differing Temporal Frames

Our analysis highlighted how three different temporal frames created tensions between shorter-term and longer-term time horizons, segmented and holistic project views, and linear and non-linear senses of momentum. Table 3 provides descriptions and exemplar quotes for both sides of each temporal frame.

Table 3.

Temporal Frames.

Frame	Aspect	Description	Exemplar quotes
Time horizon	Shorter-term	Focus is on concrete, immediate outcomes for the project	I suppose in the crudest of senses it would be a way of . . . capitalizing financially on [the Bundian Way] as a business . . . by making it into something that’s a compelling and competitive product for the tourism sector. (State Government Representative 4)It . . . offers enormous opportunities not only for Aboriginal businesses but also for other people wanting to set up businesses and to support the workers. (Local Government Representative 2)
Time horizon	Longer-term	Focus is on broader outcomes for the community that take the distant past and distant future into account	The development of the Bundian Way . . . is a means of cultural reclamation and maintenance. It becomes a physical representation of the culture that we can utilize to redevelop the cultural connections and identities of the youth within the communities associated with the Bundian Way. (Chair of the Bundian Way Advisory Committee)Certainly, once the Bundian Way . . . starts to run cultural tours and that, I think it can be an important site for cultural education and cultural awareness not just for visitors to Eden and surrounds, but for local people as well. (Non-Indigenous Community Member 1)
Project view	Segmented	Clear, sequenced planning with deadlines and deliverables focused on isolated stages	We’re at a bit of a junction right now where the Land Council needs to be clear on what the next steps are . . . which will inform the time commitments going forward or the time expectations. (State Government Representative 1)I think they need . . . a project plan . . . And then there might be a bunch of sub-project plans under that for each aspect that needs to be done. There seem to be a lot of plans going on I’m just getting a bit lost in what we’re up to at any one time. (State Government Representative 3)
Project view	Holistic	A flexible approach to resource allocation taking a whole-of-project approach	That’s something I learned a long time ago, is that your vision and intent will not always play out in the end . . . But it’s a natural evolution thing. Things change and evolve, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. (Chair of the Bundian Way Advisory Committee)I think, in some instances . . . perhaps they get drawn into detail too quickly without getting a broader strategic program underway. (Local Government Representative 1)
Momentum	Linear	Energy is described as deriving from the progressive achievement of outcomes	And we keep going round and round things a thousand times in the meetings, and it still hasn’t happened yet, and you know, it should have happened . . . my concern is . . . people are just going to . . . get sick of it. (Local Government Representative 2)It’s a big project that has been going on for a long time, and it’s going to continue for a long time. So the investment from staff . . . needs to be relevant to what they’re doing at the time, and not an expectation that it’s there for forever. (State Government Representative 1)
Momentum	Non-linear	Energy is described as deriving from delivery of complementary aspects of the project, often with a broader community focus	So, it’s . . . getting some positive, positive energy and positive vibes happening to progress the project . . . people need to keep attending and showing that they’re concerned and interested . . . I found that quite mundane at times, that people were so focused on the bureaucratic performance, for me, that they would forget about what we’re actually trying to achieve here. (State Government Representative 2)I’ve learned a lot . . . there’s an enormous opportunity down there . . . I do think it’s incumbent on us to make sure we support them and not do things to them, but do things with them. (State Government Representative 5)

Time Horizon: Shorter-Term and Longer-Term Temporal Frames

Differences in time horizons were related to the way that partners conceptualized the Bundian Way social enterprise. For some, it was an infrastructure project that could be completed within a defined period of a few years. For others, the Bundian Way represented a culture that extended back tens of thousands of years and would always have significance.

Partners who foregrounded a shorter-term horizon prioritized immediate employment outcomes, infrastructure development, and community income re-investment, which meant focusing on deliverables and deadlines:

I think it’s really time to make hay while the sun shines right now, and act with a bit of urgency . . . So, we would say, “look, there are some deadlines that we have to meet—help us understand why that’s a challenge for you, and then we’ll help you try and work through it”. (Non-Indigenous State Government Representative 5)

Another State Government representative suggested that the Bundian Way should be conceptualized as a series of bounded short-term projects emphasizing the need to recognize that “a project has a start and end point” and the need to be mindful that “might be another project after that, which we might well be involved in . . .” (Non-Indigenous State Government Representative 3). Similarly, partners adopting a shorter-term horizon often described concerns about missing out on opportunities that would disadvantage the project (Field notes, July 25, 2017; November 7, 2017).

In contrast, a longer-term time horizon was also more aligned with outcomes such as social integration, education, intergenerational care for Country, cultural pride, and well-being. Partners who held a longer-term time horizon emphasized Aboriginal people’s ongoing connection to the Bundian Way. As the Chair of the Land Council stressed, “we need to make sure that we’re not talking about [Aboriginal] people as if they’re not here anymore—we’re still here and we have evolved” (Field notes, June 4, 2019). It was also important to him that the Bundian Way social enterprise play a role in shifting the social narrative around reconciliation in Australia, “by sharing positive aspects of Aboriginal lifestyle, and allowing people to have a greater appreciation and respect for Aboriginal people, it’s a means of bringing about reconciliation by way of cultural awareness” (Chair of the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council).

Partners adopting a longer-term horizon often spoke about concerns for the broader acceptance of the project, both among Aboriginal and non-Indigenous people, and felt that short-term solutions would not always offer results best suited to the enduring aims of the Bundian Way project (Field notes, July 25, 2017; June 4, 2019).

Project View: Segmented and Holistic Temporal Frames

Project view refers to ways in which partners thought the project should develop and which work should be prioritized. For some, there was a focus on “segmented planning,” seeking to define clear sequences of activities with identifiable deadlines, while other partners engaged in “holistic planning,” taking a broader project view with a more flexible approach to how work should be undertaken.

A segmented planning approach emphasized the need for certainty in the project, with a desire for an overarching project plan with clear phases of activity. As one partner noted, without clear time boundaries, it was difficult for his organization to commit to the project:

I might give [my committee representation] a timeframe . . . say like two or three years . . . we need to be of value to that committee. And so, I need to know that [we’re] actually providing positive input in that timeframe. (Non-Indigenous State Government Representative 3)

Non-Indigenous partners also wanted to know when work on the Bundian Way project would align with the timing and duration of activities they needed to prioritize in their primary employment. Segmented planning approaches were also common in the day-to-day work of these partners. Partners who came from government and business organizations spoke of the need for a project view that broke larger goals down into sequential steps: As one partner commented, “the Land Council needs to be clear on what the next steps are . . . which will then inform [our] time commitments going forward” (Non-Indigenous State Government Representative 1).

A segmented approach to planning was also preferred by partners attempting to link the Bundian Way project with time-limited initiatives, most notably funding rounds, which required a clear vision of when and how work would be carried out (Field notes, July 25, 2017; November 7, 2017).

Partners adopting a holistic project view explained how they were more comfortable with a flexible work slate. These partners were also able to see the Bundian Way project as situated within a longer-running stream of other activities. As the Chair of the Advisory Committee explained: “That’s something I learned a long time ago, is that your original vision and intent does not always play out in the end . . . But it’s a natural evolution thing. Things change and evolve.” A holistic view enabled partners to have a broader, longer view of the project and encouraged more flexible planning.

Partners who came from government and business organizations where segmented view was the norm often found it challenging to take a more holistic view of the project (Field notes, March 10, 2018). Partners who came from community and Aboriginal organizations often found it challenging to focus on segmented activities when a broader range of parallel community activities concurrently demanded their attention (Field notes, March 12, 2018). Unsurprisingly, these different perspectives could lead to conflicts in the collaboration.

Momentum: Linear and Non-Linear Temporal Frames

Partners operating within a linear momentum temporal frame described a feeling of progress and energy from the achievement of clearly structured deliverables. In contrast, partners who brought a non-linear momentum temporal frame to the partnership derived a sense of progress and energy from the completion of work activities that would help advance the project at some point in the future.

A linear momentum frame was evoked when the project faced challenges in obtaining funding and resources to complete construction tasks. Lack of progress contributed to an overall sense of disappointment and a loss of a sense of momentum for some partners. A non-Indigenous community member reflected on their concern and disappointment when speaking about the stalled progress on delivering the plan, explaining that “I’m not sure that [The Bundian Way] will happen now. I couldn’t see anything that could stop it happening two years ago” (Local Non-Indigenous Community Member 2). Partners with similar views were concerned that loss of momentum would result in disengagement from the local community, key partners, and funding bodies (Field notes, November 7, 2017). Seeing visible work completed in stages was critical for these partners, who were apprehensive that a failure to move forward in the infrastructure build would jeopardize the entire project’s success. However, as the Chair of the Bundian Way Advisory Committee commented, progress was being made but this progress was not always visible:

So, all these other bits and pieces going on in the background aren’t necessarily seen or seen to be pertinent progression. That’s what they want to see: that sort of practical, pragmatic, on-the-ground sort of activity, which we haven’t been able to deliver. (Chair of the Bundian Way Advisory Committee)

The Chair of the Land Council emphasized the need to see progress over the long term: “looking back to 1966, as I am, we have made a lot of progress” (Field notes, March 13, 2018). He also reflected that there was a need to have a flexible vision: “The way that we were thinking about the Bundian Way being set up five years ago is not how it’s going to be set up, or how it’s going to finish up on the ground . . . but it may be better” (Chair of the Bundian Way Advisory Committee).

Partners with a non-linear view of momentum were more likely to emphasize the complexity of the project, the interrelated nature of the work, and the need to spread effort across multiple competing objectives (Field notes, November 7, 2017). For these partners, interconnected aspects of the Bundian Way were seen as supporting the overall progress and momentum of the project. A local business representative explained that having time to reflect on progress was important:

There are certain benefits with a steady pace: if the pace is steady, you get time to think about what you’re doing. So, while you’re waiting for money, you can say, “well what are we going to do about this, and what are we going to do about that?” (Non-Indigenous Local Business Representative)

One of the long-term project partners highlighted how they were able to gain a sense of momentum from the various activities that were happening across different aspects of the project’s work:

Yeah, well the fact that the Bundian Way Advisory Committee keeps working, keeps rolling on, is a very positive thing. And there are things being fixed along the way all the time. So it’s an ongoing thing, and if that momentum’s being maintained over time, that’s the best thing you can ask for really. (Non-Indigenous State Government Representative 2)

Those with a focus on linear momentum saw the completion of concrete tasks as a sign of success. These partners also tended to be less focused on parallel project activities outside the direct scope of the Advisory Committee. This could lead to frustration with activities which could sometimes be seen as trivial. In contrast, those who adopted a non-linear approach were more attentive to the parallel activities needed to support the project. Partners who preferred non-linear momentum were also more likely to appreciate the shifting nature of the Bundian Way project work, responding to change as it emerged and being flexible about what constituted an outcome for the project (Field notes, June 4, 2019).

We have identified three sets of competing temporal frames and the tensions they created. We have shown how contrasts between shorter-term and longer-term time horizons were significant because these differences were often related to how deeply engaged partners were with the history and longer-term cultural aims of the Bundian Way project. Different approaches to project view, with some emphasizing segmented planning and others adopting a more holistic view, affected the collaborative capacity of the Advisory Committee members. Tensions between those who saw progress as linear and sequential and those who saw progress as more cyclical influenced the partners’ overall level of commitment to and engagement with the project. In the next section, we outline how partners worked to overcome these tensions.

Temporal Work

We identified three types of temporal work that helped resolve tensions created by the different temporal frames that the non-Indigenous partners brought to the project. First, we observed various episodes where the temporal work of connecting the distant past with the future enabled non-Indigenous partners to extend their temporal horizons beyond the project’s shorter-term goals, thereby integrating an appreciation for the longer-term vision of the Bundian Way. Second, the temporal work of engaging with cultural understandings of time helped resolve tensions in approaches to the way in which the project was viewed, with segmented work schedules being embedded within a holistic project view. Third, the temporal work of acknowledging the ongoing effects of colonization helped overcome tensions about a sense of lack of momentum as partners gained a greater understanding of the broader ambitions of the Aboriginal Elders and community for the Bundian Way that solidified their ongoing commitment. We outline these three types of temporal work and the implications for the project in Table 4.

Table 4.

Temporal Work and Implications for the Bundian Way Partnership.

Temporal work	Representative quote	Implications for the Bundian Way partnership
Connecting the future with the distant past	It’s very important that we acknowledge the truth of the European occupation of Australia . . . It’s amazing how common the stories are. And they should be told locally, as well as globally, and across Australia so that we have the truth of what happened during occupations of Australia. (Local Non-Indigenous Community Member 2)	• Understanding the longer-term cultural history of place• Recognizing the significance of the project to Aboriginal partners and Aboriginal community members• Seeing present-day work (connected to future and distant past) as significant and valuable
Engaging with cultural understandings of time	He walked the node with them, so about 34 kilometres . . . a number of times, and he had his whole team walk it in the company of [the Aboriginal liaison person] and the others. So, they talked about the stories and everything, and then they all between them worked out what the engineering solutions would be and put together the business case. (State Government Representative 4)	• Developing awareness of resurfacing and interconnected issues• Increasing flexibility in planning• Gaining momentum from a more diverse range of activities
Acknowledging the ongoing effects of colonization	I see the Bundian Way as being that opportunity in which we can find a common ground to talk . . . because that would come with the reconciliation thing, but it would also create social change within the Aboriginal community . . . And they’d be able to celebrate their culture and be proud of their culture, you know, these young kids growing up. (Employee of the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council)	• Appreciating the often unseen but persistent challenges of colonizing practices• Changing ways of working to be more adaptive and aligned to Land Council needs• Increasing partner commitment to the project

Connecting the Future With the Distant Past

Connecting the future with the distant past became a critical activity to help partners who were not aware of the longer-term horizon of the Bundian Way understand its importance to the traditional custodians of the land. Connecting the future to the distant past involved telling stories in place. Listening deeply to Aboriginal partners offered non-Indigenous Advisory Committee members the chance to learn the history of the Bundian Way and understand why the pathway was so important to the local Aboriginal people. As a Local Government representative commented, this sharing of cultural stories helped non-Indigenous Advisory Committee members shift their thinking about the project from a present-day piece of infrastructure to a cultural experience deeply intertwined with millennia of history and the longer-term future of the Aboriginal people of the area:

Fundamentally, I think the idea of it being a pathway represents reconciliation [between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians] . . . and, I guess, journeys towards that. From previous times and previous experiences towards the future and how we move together collectively. (Non-Indigenous Local Government Representative 1)

Over time, non-Indigenous partners became more aware of the historical and cultural elements of the Bundian Way as details of the important sites along the trail were shared when considering options for developing the walk (Field notes, August 7, 2018; September 21, 2018; June 4, 2019). A number of non-Indigenous Advisory Committee members walked Country, listening to the stories about the history of the place they were exploring. Listening to stories on Country helped these Advisory Committee members understand how connection to Country and culture was a source of pride for the Aboriginal partners and the wider Aboriginal community:

They’re very proud of the history—it’s a really interesting history. There’s a lot to it. There’s a lot of interest from potential partners, [which comes with] the benefit of people getting a greater understanding of the Aboriginal history in that area. (Non-Indigenous State Government Representative 4)

By connecting the distant past and future to the project, non-Indigenous partners gained a greater appreciation of how the longer-term horizon of the Bundian Way was intimately connected with their present-day work.

Engaging With Cultural Understandings of Time

We observed how non-Indigenous partners came to understand the cultural dimensions of time that informed Aboriginal partners’ vision for the Bundian Way project. Yunkaporta’s (2019) observation of the symbiotic relationship between time and place for Indigenous people, where “time does not go in a straight line, and it is as tangible as the ground we stand on” (p. 45), was very much reflected in the inter-relationships between Land Council activities, such as caring for Country and engaging with community alongside the work of the Bundian Way. This relationship created a very different flow of work for the Land Council. Discussing competing priorities and developing an increased understanding of the different priorities of Indigenous partners helped non-Indigenous members of the Advisory Committee appreciate that their project view was, at times, culturally inappropriate. This appreciation was vital because it helped these members to look beyond their own organization’s needs to understand the priorities of the Land Council. In many instances, this appreciation involved the acknowledgment that Aboriginal partners’ attempts to realize that their aspirations in a contemporary Australian context were frequently met with inflexibility from government and funding bodies, meaning that work in Aboriginal settings required significantly more patience and creativity to progress:

You’ve just got to keep plodding forward, recalibrating, finding new ways, navigating—and I think understanding the people and the relationships, particularly working in Aboriginal communities, is really important. (Non-Indigenous State Government Representative 5)

An appreciation of the breadth of the Land Council’s priorities enabled non-Indigenous partners to look beyond a linear approach to time and see how different related elements, such as land claims, government agreements, community aspirations, and cultural connections to Country, interconnected and resurfaced across the course of the project.

Through the temporal work of engaging with cultural understandings of time, non-Indigenous Advisory Committee members were able to see the project from a broader perspective and adopt a more flexible approach. They began to understand that things would not proceed according to a pre-determined timeframe and that a longer-term perspective must be adopted to incorporate multiple priorities.

Acknowledging the Ongoing Effects of Colonization

The third type of temporal work we observed involved non-Indigenous partners acknowledging the ongoing effects of colonization. Over time, some Indigenous partners came to a deeper awareness of the ongoing impacts of settler colonization, in particular the legacy of the land use laws colonizers imposed, and the Land Council’s various attempts to regain the use of traditional land. We observed how non-Indigenous partners came to understand that their frustrations with the lack of progress in the short-term needed to be weighed against the longer-term history of setbacks faced by Indigenous peoples:

I know that the Land Council . . . they didn’t actually get what they thought they were going to get . . . or what they were promised. And this seems to happen quite often to a lot of Aboriginal communities . . . and so, you understand why Aboriginal people perhaps don’t trust white people and government. They keep getting . . . well, they just keep getting done over the whole time. (Non-Indigenous Local Government Representative 2)

Acknowledging the ongoing effects of colonization fostered a better appreciation among non-Indigenous partners of the challenges the Land Council faced in realizing their goals for the Bundian Way and the Aboriginal community more broadly. Attempting to overcome more than 200 years of colonizing practices involved a significant amount of continuous advocacy work in lobbying for the rights of local Aboriginal people. This was often accompanied by a disproportionate workload falling to the Land Council that was difficult to manage amid competing projects and priorities (Field notes, August 13, 2016; February 27, 2017; July 25, 2017; August 7, 2018). As a non-Indigenous State Government Representative recognized:

If we’re going to come to a good place around our acknowledging the past, acknowledging what we did, and healing some of those things like what happened to Indigenous people when white settlers came, I think you’ve got to front up to some of that sort of stuff so that we can know that we are actually contributing to overcoming the past. (Non-Indigenous State Government Representative 5)

As non-Indigenous partners became more aware of the ongoing effects of colonization, they changed their ways of working and supporting the Land Council to deliver its work.

Temporal Frames and Temporal Work

Our research shows that for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners, being able to connect the future with this distant past facilitates shifts in the temporal horizon, allowing them to view the present-day project as part of a much longer-term span of activity, spanning decades or centuries (Bluedorn & Waller, 2006; Stubbs, 2021). Engaging with the Indigenous understanding of time as placed facilitated an understanding of a holistic approach to project view (Ancona et al., 2001), while acknowledging the ongoing effects of colonization moved non-Indigenous partners from thinking of momentum as linear and unidirectional to a relational and cyclical understanding of progress (Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Maddison & Nakata, 2020). For non-Indigenous partners, our research highlights the importance of appreciating different understandings that Indigenous people place on time—understandings that are not “obsessed with dates, years, decades, centuries and progress” but which instead are “oriented around human intentionality and experience” (Love, 2019, pp. 53–55).

Discussion

Our research is concerned with the ways in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners can address temporal tensions that threaten to stymie the effectiveness of the collective entrepreneurial endeavor they are engaged in. By demonstrating how temporality deeply permeates Indigenous entrepreneurship, we show how differences in temporal frames, and the tensions these differences generate, illuminate the challenges faced when Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners seek to collaborate. We also demonstrate how engaging in temporal work can support non-Indigenous partners in shifting their temporal frames, addressing temporal tensions in the process. We contribute to the literature on temporal work by showing how it can lead to shifts in temporal frames that facilitate different ways of working.

We demonstrate how tensions in temporal frames prompt non-Indigenous partners to reevaluate their taken-for-granted understandings of the past, its impact on the present, and how it has shaped their hopes for the future. By adapting their temporal frames, they were engaging in temporal work (Dille et al., 2022; Standifer et al., 2015). Whereas Kaplan and Orlikowski (2013) found that organizational actors engaged in temporal work to create a coherent narrative, we find that temporal work can also disrupt narratives. In Indigenous contexts, this means being open to understandings of time that are embedded in connections to place that have existed for thousands of years (Hēnare et al., 2016; Stubbs, 2021; Yunkaporta, 2019). In our case, non-Indigenous partners came to appreciate the ongoing connection of Aboriginal people to the Bundian Way, which stretches back tens of thousands of years. This different narrative helped coalesce the partners around a shared long-term vision for the Bundian Way, shifting it beyond an entrepreneurial endeavor to a site for truth-telling and reconciliation. The partners began to share a narrative in which time and place are indivisible (Yunkaporta, 2019, p. 66).

Our research shows that temporal work in Indigenous contexts requires engagement with both the recent and distant past. Temporal work extends beyond the confines of the recent past and organizational present into a distant past that is grounded in place beyond any organizational or institutional boundaries. In our case, temporal work required a reflexive questioning of the history. The tensions in temporal frames were located in the present and were manifest in different approaches to the time horizon of outcomes, the view of the project, and the pace of project momentum. However, the temporal work required to shift these temporal frames was grounded in the past—a past that incorporated the colonial past and thousands of years of connection that Indigenous people have through their ancestors to Country and culture.

Temporal work in an Indigenous entrepreneurship setting requires non-Indigenous partners to listen, to ask questions, and to “highlight and support Indigenous voices” when this questioning occurs (Kwaymullina, 2016, p. 440; see also Minniecon et al., 2007; Nakata, 2007). This can enable temporalities to be reframed as individuals interact with each other (Kaufman & Lane, 1990; Orlikowski & Yates, 2002; Ramus et al., 2021). As new understandings of the connection between history and the goals of a project emerge, partners engaged in “temporal ambidexterity,” as they sought to “balance short-term and long-term needs” (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015, p. 544). However, primarily, the interpretive shifts that needed to be made in the temporal work were shifts for the non-Indigenous partners. Our findings shed light on how non-Indigenous partners can begin to question their own assumptions and habits (Nakata, 2003), through exposure to different temporal frames of their Indigenous partners (Banerjee & Tedmanson, 2010). We show how this questioning enables non-Indigenous partners to recognize where their own “norms, priorities, values and biases” are influencing and limiting their approaches (Reo et al., 2017, p. 66). As a result, our research makes a case for how incorporating Indigenous knowledges into Indigenous entrepreneurship can help to reframe ways of working and strengthen commitment when partners are open to exploring different forms of temporal organizing (Love, 2019; Yunkaporta, 2019).

In collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners, it is critical we remain mindful that Eurocentric narratives of innovation erase the contributions of non-European cultures (Tarvainen, 2022, p. 10). Engaging in collective Indigenous entrepreneurship thereby requires non-Indigenous scholars and practitioners to be open to integrating multiple approaches to organizing in our work (Altamirano-Jiménez, 2004, 2013; Banerjee, 2018; Banerjee & Tedmanson, 2010; Colbourne et al., 2020; Peredo & McLean, 2013). Indigenous entrepreneurship can be seen as “not just an economic activity, but a political act that involves contesting and redefining the boundaries of what is considered legitimate” (De Clercq & Honig, 2009, p. 508) through an “active repudiation of dominance, tragedy, and victimry” (Gladstone, 2018, p. 195). Non-Indigenous partners need to be aware that there is often much more at stake when engaging with Indigenous partners, who may see entrepreneurship as a means, rather than an end (Hēnare et al., 2016).

For non-Indigenous partners committed to working together in Indigenous entrepreneurship, one of the biggest issues they may need to encounter is this question of time. We note, however, that ongoing power asymmetries, particularly where non-Indigenous actors control institutional structures and resource flows, continue to shape the practice of Indigenous entrepreneurship (Croce, 2017; Murphy et al., 2020). Recognizing and addressing these power asymmetries is essential if we are to move toward a decolonized space that involves genuine Indigenous-led organizing.

Conclusion

Our research contributes to the literature on Indigenous entrepreneurship by highlighting the important role Indigenous peoples, knowledges, and ways of thinking can play in developing new ways of organizing approaches (Banerjee & Tedmanson, 2010; Foley, 2003; Love, 2019; Morphy & Morphy, 2013; Murphy et al., 2020; Salmon et al., 2023). We suggest that Indigenous temporal orientations should not be viewed as complementary to Western temporal frames, but as foundational to reimagining how entrepreneurial and organizational work is conceptualized and enacted. Rather than treating temporal tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous temporal frames as an opportunity for compromise, our research positions these tensions as a starting point for meaningful dialogue and action that aims to recenter Indigenous ontologies of time, place, and relationality.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the people of the Yuin Nation. We pay our respect to elders, past and present, and thank the many community members whose generous leadership and guidance informed the development and direction of this piece. We also acknowledge the contributions of the many Bundian Way Advisory Committee members who agreed to share their stories in the hopes of inspiring those involved in collective Indigenous-led entrepreneurial action.

Author’s Note

Jarrod Ormiston is now affiliated with University of Sydney Business School, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jarrod Ormiston

Notes

Author Biographies

Maegan Baker is the director of AMRF Partnerships at the NSW Government’s Advanced Manufacturing Readiness Facility. She completed her PhD in strategy and innovation at the University of Sydney Business School. Her research looked at the interplay of different perspectives in cross-sector partnerships, focusing on emotion, and temporal work. She has a particular interest in Indigenous-led initiatives that shift dominant ways of knowing and being and create potential for innovation through engagement and collaboration.

Jarrod Ormiston is a social entrepreneurship academic at the Transdisciplinary School at the University of Technology Sydney. His research focuses on working with social enterprises and impact investors to enhance their impact, entrepreneurs from marginalized backgrounds, and understanding the role of emotions, time, and place in entrepreneurship. He also works as a consultant to the Australian Government, the OECD, and United Nations on entrepreneurship and education.

Leanne Cutcher is a professor of management and organization studies. Leanne’s research explores organizational strategies, discourses, and practices and how they impact equity and inclusion for organizations, the people who work in them and the wider communities in which they are embedded. Leanne is particularly interested in alternative forms of organization, including co-operatives, social enterprises, and Indigenous community-owned organizations.

References

Aboriginal Affairs NSW. (2021). Administering the NSW aboriginal land rights act 1983. NSW Government. https://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/land-rights/land-claims

Adib Emiljanowicz

. (2019). Colonial time in tension: Decolonizing temporal imaginaries. Time & Society, 28(3), 1221–1238.

Aitken

Deakins

Skipworth

Cole

(2025). Temporal perceptions and tensions in production management. European Management Journal, 43(3), 502–513.

Altamirano-Jiménez

(2004). North American first peoples: Slipping up into market citizenship?. Citizenship Studies, 8(4), 349–365.

Altamirano-Jiménez

(2013). Indigenous encounters with neoliberalism: Place, women, and the environment in Canada and Mexico. UBC Press.

Ancona

Okhuysen

Perlow

(2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. The Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 512–529.

Andrésen

Lundberg

Wincent

(2014). Processes in collaborative entrepreneurship: A longitudinal case study of how multiple actors exploit a radically new opportunity. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 713–726.

Arnold

Atchison

McKnight

(2021). Reciprocal relationships with trees: Rekindling Indigenous wellbeing and identity through the Yuin ontology of oneness. Australian Geographer, 52(2), 131–147.

Arnold

Atchison

McKnight

(2023). “Often in between”: Thinking through research methods and Indigenous sovereignty with Yuin Country. Environment and Planning F: Philosophy, Theory, Models, Methods and Practice, 2(1–2), 163–179.

10.

Atkinson

Delamont

(2005). Analytic perspectives. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 821–840). Sage Publications.

11.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (2012). Guidelines for ethical research in Australian Indigenous Studies 2012.

12.

Banerjee

S. B.

(2018). Transnational power and translocal governance: The politics of corporate responsibility. Human Relations, 71(6), 796–821.

13.

Banerjee

S. B.

Tedmanson

(2010). Grass burning under our feet: Indigenous enterprise development in a political economy of whiteness. Management Learning, 41(2), 147–165.

14.

Bansal

Reinecke

Suddaby

Langley

(2022). Temporal work: The strategic organization of time. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 6–19.

15.

Bluedorn

Waller

(2006). The stewardship of the temporal commons. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 355–396.

16.

Boden

(1997). Temporal frames: Time and talk in organizations. Time & Society, 6(1), 5–33.

17.

Colbourne

Moroz

Hall

Lendsay

Anderson

R. B.

(2020). Indigenous works and two eyed seeing: Mapping the case for Indigenous-led research. Qualitative Research in Organisations and Management, 15(1), 68–86.

18.

Crawford

Coraiola

D. M.

Dacin

M. T.

(2022). Painful memories as mnemonic resources: Grand Canyon Dories and the protection of place. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 51–79.

19.

Croce

(2017). Contextualized Indigenous entrepreneurial models: A systematic review of Indigenous entrepreneurship literature. Journal of Management and Organization, 23(6), 886–906.

20.

De Clercq

Honig

. (2009). Social entrepreneurship as an integrating mechanism for disadvantaged persons. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 487–502.

21.

Dille

Hernes

Vaagaasar

(2022). Stuck in temporal translation? Challenges of discrepant temporal structures in interorganizational project collaboration. Organization Studies, 44(6), 1–41.

22.

Down

(2012). Evaluating the impacts of government policy through the long view of life history. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(7–8), 619–639.

23.

Dubois

Gadde

(2002). “Systematic combining”: An approach to case research. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 27(4), 258–269.

24.

Eisenhardt

Graebner

(2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

25.

Foley

(2003). An examination of Indigenous Australian entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 133–151.

26.

Galbraith

Rodriguez

Stiles

(2006). False myths and Indigenous entrepreneurial strategies. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 19(1), 1–20.

27.

Gladstone

(2018). All my relations: An inquiry into a spirit of a Native American philosophy of business. American Indian Quarterly, 42(2), 191–214.

28.

Granqvist

Gustafsson

(2016). Temporal institutional work. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1009–1035.

29.

Hēnare

Lythberg

Nicholson

Woods

(2016). Te Ohu Umanga Māori: Temporality and intent in the Māori entrepreneurial team. In Ben-Hafaïedh

Cooney

(Eds.), Research handbook on entrepreneurial teams: Theory and practice (pp. 208–229). Edward Elgar Publishing.

30.

Henry

Dana

Murphy

(2018). Telling their own stories: Māori entrepreneurship in the mainstream screen industry. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(1–2), 118–145.

31.

Hernes

(2014). A process theory of organization. Oxford University Press.

32.

Hernes

Irgens

E. J.

(2013). Keeping things mindfully on track: Organizational learning under continuity. Management Learning, 44(3), 253–266.

33.

Hilbolling

Deken

Berends

Tuertscher

(2022). Process-based temporal coordination in multiparty collaboration for societal challenges. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 135–163.

34.

Hindle

(2005). Contrasting Indigenous entrepreneurship in Australia and Canada: How three applied research perspectives can improve policy and programs. Small Enterprise Research, 13(1), 92–106.

35.

Hindle

Lansdowne

(2005). Brave spirits on new paths: Toward a globally relevant paradigm of Indigenous entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 131–141.

36.

Janca

Bullen

(2003). The Aboriginal concept of time and its mental health implications. Australasian Psychiatry, 11, 40–44.

37.

Kaplan

Orlikowski

(2013). Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 24(4), 965–995.

38.

Kaufman

Lane

(1990). The intensions and extensions of the time concept: Contributions from a sociological perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 895–901.

39.

Kent

Granqvist

(2024). Chasing storms: Temporal work to foster group engagement under uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 68(2), 380–408.

40.

Klassen

Hajmohammad

(2016). Multiple temporal perspectives extend sustainable competitiveness. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(11), 1600–1624.

41.

Kwaymullina

(2016). Research, ethics and Indigenous peoples: An Australian Indigenous perspective on three threshold considerations for respectful engagement. AlterNative, 12(4), 437–449.

42.

Lounsbury

(1998). Collective entrepreneurship: The mobilization of college and university recycling coordinators. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(1), 50–69.

43.

Love

(2019). Indigenous organisation studies: Exploring management, business and community. Springer International Publishing.

44.

Maddison

Nakata

(2020). Questioning Indigenous-settler relations: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Springer International Publishing.

45.

Marley

T. L.

(2020). Indigenous data sovereignty and the role of universities. In Walter

Kukutai

Carroll

Rodriguez-Lonebear

(Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty and policy (pp. 157–165). Routledge.

46.

McGivern

Dopson

Ferlie

Fischer

Fitzgerald

Ledger

Bennett

(2018). The silent politics of temporal work: A case study of a management consultancy project to redesign public health care. Organization Studies, 39(8), 1007–1030.

47.

McKnight

(2015). Mingadhuga Mingayung: Respecting country through mother mountain’s stories to share her cultural voice in western academic structures. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(3), 276–290.

48.

McKnight

(2016). Meeting country and self to initiate an embodiment of knowledge: Embedding a process for aboriginal perspectives. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 45(1), 11–22.

49.

Minniecon

Franks

Heffernan

(2007). Indigenous research: Three researchers reflect on their experiences at the interface. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36(1), 23–31.

50.

Moreton-Robinson

(2004). Whiteness, epistemology and Indigenous representation. In Moreton-Robinson

(Ed.), Whitening race: Essays in social and cultural criticism (pp. 75–88). Aboriginal Studies Press.

51.

Morphy

(2013). Anthropological theory and government policy in Australia’s Northern Territory: The hegemony of the “mainstream”. American Anthropologist, 115(2), 174–187.

52.

Murphy

Arenas

(2010). Through indigenous lenses: Cross-sector collaborations with fringe stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(Suppl 1), 103–121.

53.

Murphy

Danis

W. M.

Mack

Sayers

(2020). From principles to action: Community-based entrepreneurship in the Toquaht Nation. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6), 1–19.

54.

Nakata

M. N.

(2003). Better. In Grossman

(Ed.), Blacklines: Contemporary critical writing by Indigenous Australians (pp. 132–144). Melbourne University Press.

55.

Nakata

M. N.

(2007). Disciplining the savages, savaging the disciplines. Aboriginal Studies Press.

56.

Orlikowski

Yates

(2002). It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 684–700.

57.

Palmer

Walsh

Batarowicz

(2022). Parallel futures? Indigenous resurgence and the haunting of the settler. Futures, 141, 1–12.

58.

Pascoe

(2018). Dark emu: Aboriginal Australia and the birth of agriculture. Magabala Books.

59.

Peredo

Anderson

R. B.

(2006). Indigenous entrepreneurship research: Themes and variations. In Stiles

Galbraith

(Eds.), Developmental entrepreneurship: Adversity, risk, and isolation (pp. 253–273). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

60.

Peredo

McLean

(2013). Indigenous development and the cultural captivity of entrepreneurship. Business & Society, 52(4), 592–620.

61.

Ramus

Vaccaro

Berrone

(2021). Time matters! How hybrid organizations use time to respond to divergent stakeholder demands. Organization Studies, 42(10), 1529–1555.

62.

Reinecke

Ansari

(2015). When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 618–648.

63.

Reo

Whyte

McGregor

Smith

Jenkins

(2017). Factors that support Indigenous involvement in multi-actor stewardship. AlterNative, 13(2), 58–68.

64.

Saad

DiAngelo

(2020). Me and white supremacy: Combat racism, change the world, and become a good ancestor. Sourcebooks.

65.

Salmon

Chavez

Murphy

(2023). New perspectives and critical insights from Indigenous peoples’ research: A systematic review of Indigenous management and organization literature. Academy of Management Annals, 17(2), 439–491.

66.

Segovia-Tzompa

S. M.

Casimero

Apagüeño

M. G.

(2024). When the past meets the future: Latin American Indigenous futures, transitional justice and global energy governance. Futures, 163, 103438.

67.

Siggelkow

(2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.

68.

Slawinski

Bansal

(2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531–549.

69.

Standifer

Raes

Peus

Passos

Santos

Weisweiler

(2015). Time in teams: Cognition, conflict and team satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(6), 692–708.

70.

Stewart

Verbos

Birmingham

Black

Gladstone

(2017). Being Native American in business: Culture, identity, and authentic leadership in modern American Indian enterprises. Leadership, 13(5), 549–570.

71.

Stubbs

(2021). The past is in the present is in the future. National Gallery of Victoria: Essays. https://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/essay/the-past-is-in-the-present-is-in-the-future-the-knowledge-practice-and-tradition-of-the-yambirrpa-fish-traps/

72.

Tapsell

Woods

(2008). A spiral of innovation framework for social entrepreneurship: Social innovation at the generational divide in an indigenous context. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 10(3), 25–34.

73.

Tarvainen

(2022). The modern/colonial hell of innovation economy: Future as a return to colonial mythologies. Globalizations, 1–23.

74.

Tedmanson

Essers

Dey

Verduyn

(2015). An uncommon wealth . . . Transforming the commons with purpose, for people and not for profit! Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(4), 439–444.

75.

Tedmanson

Evans

(2017). Challenging leadership discourses of Indigenous entrepreneurship in Australia. In Essers

Dey

Tedmanson

Verduyn

(Eds.), Critical perspectives on entrepreneurship: Challenging dominant discourses (pp. 91–107). Routledge.

76.

Verduyn

Dey

Tedmanson

(2017). A critical understanding of entrepreneurship. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 16(1), 37–45.

77.

Vogel

Göbel

Grewe-Salfeld

Herbert

Matsuo

Weber

(2021). Cross-sector partnerships: Mapping the field and advancing and institutional approach. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24, 394–414.

78.

Yunkaporta

(2019). Sand talk: How Indigenous thinking can save the world. Text Publishing.

A Question of Time: Overcoming Temporal Tensions in Collective Indigenous Entrepreneurship Through Temporal Work

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Temporality

Temporal Frames and Temporal Work

Methods

Research Site

Positionality and Ethics

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Findings

Differing Temporal Frames

Time Horizon: Shorter-Term and Longer-Term Temporal Frames

Project View: Segmented and Holistic Temporal Frames

Momentum: Linear and Non-Linear Temporal Frames

Temporal Work

Connecting the Future With the Distant Past

Engaging With Cultural Understandings of Time

Acknowledging the Ongoing Effects of Colonization

Temporal Frames and Temporal Work

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Author’s Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author Biographies

References