Politics of Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness in Compassion Venture Expansion

Abstract

Compassion ventures addressing human suffering after disasters are gaining attention in entrepreneurship research, yet little is known about their potential to expand beyond immediate response. This 19-month qualitative study examines a compassion venture amid the Russo-Ukrainian war and shows how self-reliant, joint, and political forms of entrepreneurial resourcefulness help compassion ventures emerge, formalize, and expand with key partners. We uncover how these forms interact, helping compassion ventures transition to enduring organizations over a prolonged crisis. We present a model of resourcefulness dynamics in compassion venture expansion, emphasizing its political dimension, and contribute to research on compassion venturing and entrepreneurial resourcefulness.

Introduction

Contemporary societies face formidable challenges, such as natural disasters, wars, and other human-generated crises, that require rapid interventions to mitigate their impact. These interventions can involve compassion ventures—nonprofit compassion-driven organizations that alleviate human suffering through entrepreneurial action (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2025; Shepherd & Williams, 2014). These ventures play a critical role in responding to crises, especially when larger organizations or government bodies cannot provide timely or customized resources to those in need (Farny et al., 2019; Williams & Shepherd, 2016). Compassion ventures typically consist of volunteers, entrepreneurs, and emergent response groups working together to help victims in the immediate aftermath of such events (Shepherd & Williams, 2014; Williams & Shepherd, 2018). The nonprofit orientation of compassion ventures (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2025) is an important nuance since researchers agree that nonprofit ventures may evolve differently than for-profit firms and have distinct characteristics (Chowdhury & Audretsch, 2024). On that note, the rapid formation of compassion ventures in early crisis phases has garnered significant scholarly attention (Mittermaier et al., 2023; Shepherd & Williams, 2014; Williams & Shepherd, 2016), with research focusing primarily on how these ventures emerge in the wake of a crisis. However, with only a few studies examining their longer-term trajectories (e.g., Farny et al., 2019), little is known about how compassion ventures expand, transition in organizational form, and navigate evolving partnerships with resource-rich actors, leaving a critical gap in understanding their expansion and longevity that this study addresses.

Given the rising frequency of human-caused and natural disasters and the often-prolonged suffering that follows (Gümüsay et al., 2022), understanding how compassion ventures expand is increasingly relevant. Crises can involve different temporalities and even become part of a poly-crisis (Klyver & McMullen, 2025)—a much more complex, dynamic, and intertwined crisis system. Whether a crisis is sudden, like an earthquake, or gradual, like a pandemic, or is perceived as one unit or as an aggregation of interlinked elements, the need for support and recovery from crises can last for months or even years (UNDRR, 2017). Hence, the continuity of compassion ventures is partly tied to the duration of the particular crisis they respond to. When compassion-driven ventures expand to respond to sustained crises, they can extend their social impact beyond a crisis’s immediate aftermath (Chandra & Paras, 2021; Hertel et al., 2022). This expansion, we suggest, requires balancing their initial focus on urgent assistance with formalizing processes and structures to sustain their impact over time (Dees, 2008; Islam, 2020; Xheneti et al., 2017).

To assess the potential for expanding compassion ventures, it is crucial to considering their distinct characteristics compared to established firms or other ventures like traditional startups or social enterprises. Compassion ventures typically lack strategic planning as they emerge spontaneously in response to crises and often under significant resource constraints (Farny et al., 2019; Shepherd & Williams, 2018). In crisis contexts, these constraints suddenly disrupt conventional resource-acquisition channels (Kuckertz et al., 2023). Hence, we posit that compassion ventures leverage collaborations with established organizations to access the resources they need to expand their operations and social impact over time. However, unlike planned social or commercial ventures, the spontaneity and urgency of compassion ventures affect their resource partnerships and capabilities to expand effectively. In addition to this distinctiveness, compassion ventures are assumed to have a focused temporality; the general view in the literature is that compassion ventures come to the rescue in a disaster’s aftermath and soon dissipate. Nevertheless, some studies highlight that compassion-driven ventures may continue their efforts over time by pivoting or changing their services (Shepherd & Williams, 2014).

Ultimately, our knowledge of how compassion ventures evolve in the later phases of a crisis and what role entrepreneurial resourcefulness plays in the expansion of compassion ventures over time is underdeveloped. This knowledge void presents a significant theoretical and practical challenge. Theoretically, it limits our understanding of how compassion ventures collaborating with resource partners evolve from temporary initiatives into enduring forms of entrepreneurial activity. Practically, it constrains our ability to guide these ventures in collaborating effectively with resource partners to create lasting social impact. We reflect on this issue by asking, how does a compassion venture engage in entrepreneurial resourcefulness for expansion?

To address our research question, we conducted an in-depth longitudinal qualitative study (over 19 months: the end of February 2022 to mid-September 2023) of a new compassion venture that emerged in a Nordic country in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Specifically, the venture was established by an entrepreneurial team with a compassionate orientation (Bacq & Alt, 2018; Miller et al., 2012) with the mission to support Ukrainians fleeing the war by providing essential services such as housing and emotional assistance. Through direct observation and active field immersion, we meticulously documented how the compassion venture initially operated as a critical relief provider for arriving Ukrainian refugees and later expanded its services to support additional communities in new locations, all while engaging with different resource partners.

Our work explores and exploits the idea of compassion ventures’ longevity and the benefits and challenges that it may bring. Specifically, we argue that the maturation of compassion ventures entails an expansion process that requires nurturing entrepreneurial resourcefulness (Michaelis et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2021) through collaborations with other organizations. At the same time, the speed and urgency with which resources are needed may create challenging resourcing relationships and dependencies (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) without time for compassion ventures to validate these relationships or establish mechanisms to regulate them. Accordingly, compassion ventures may need to engage in tactical, diplomatic, and politically nuanced actions to negotiate, balance, and assert their position in relation to more powerful resource partners. Indeed, when power-imbalanced resource dependencies between compassion ventures and their partners are not addressed, compassion ventures may become overly reliant on dominant resource partners, limiting these ventures’ decision-making autonomy and ultimately hindering their expansion.

In that regard, our study shows that compassion ventures adopt diverse entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices to successfully expand their operations. We demonstrate how these practices evolve and influence one another over time, playing a critical role in overcoming challenges—particularly in interactions with established and dominant resource partners throughout the expansion process. As a compassion venture transitions toward more stable and formalized structures, its resourcefulness efforts span various forms of self-reliant and joint resourcefulness, as well as what we conceptualize as “political resourcefulness.” Our contribution lies in illuminating this political dimension of entrepreneurial resourcefulness, which facilitates the expansion of compassion ventures. Responding to the recent call by Williams et al. (2021), our model explicitly highlights the important yet often overlooked role of political resourcefulness and clarifies the underlying mechanisms through which different entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices intertwine in enabling compassion venture expansion.

Overall, our study advances the entrepreneurial resourcefulness perspective (Fisher, 2024; Michaelis et al., 2022; Scheidgen et al., 2024; Williams et al., 2021) and contributes to the literature on compassion venturing and emergent response groups (Farny et al., 2019; Kornberger et al., 2019; Williams & Shepherd, 2016). Our findings also shed light on how social impact (Bacq et al., 2022; Dees, 2008) can be expanded in the compassion venturing setting.

Theoretical Background

Compassion Venturing: Bridging Short-Term Initiatives and Long-Term Impact

Compassion venturing is the practice of individuals voluntarily coming together and swiftly organizing to alleviate the suffering of victims in the aftermath of an adverse event (Mittermaier, et al., 2023; Shepherd & Williams, 2014, 2018; Williams & Shepherd, 2016, 2018). Compassion venturing focuses on compassionate responses through the creation of new organizations and thus goes beyond Dutton et al.’s (2006) concept of compassion organizing, which focuses on compassionate responses within existing organizations. To mitigate the negative consequences of affected populations, venturing stimulated by compassion often arises in response to human-made or natural disasters (Farny et al., 2019; Williams & Shepherd, 2016; Mittermaier et al., 2023). For instance, Farny et al.’s (2019) work exemplifies how local Haitians rallied compassionately after the 2010 Haiti earthquake to support their devastated communities, and Shepherd and Williams (2014) work explores a similar response after the outbreak of the 2009 Australian bushfires.

In the critical phases following a disaster, compassion venturing is key to complementing the work of established organizations and government bodies and to filling the voids they leave behind (Farny et al., 2019; Majchrzak et al., 2007; Muñoz et al., 2019; Williams & Shepherd, 2016, 2018). Given the limitations of traditional organizations in mounting exhaustive, effective, and swift postcrisis responses (Muñoz et al., 2020; Shepherd & Williams, 2020), emergent compassion ventures become crucial response groups (Bell et al., 2018). Compassion ventures’ flexibility and improvisation allow them to adeptly meet the urgent needs of those affected (Kornberger et al., 2019; Majchrzak et al., 2007; Shepherd & Williams, 2014). However, the implications of a disaster persist beyond the immediate aftermath; victim suffering may continue long after the initial disaster phase, and victims’ needs may evolve (Farhoud et al., 2024; Farny et al., 2019; Muñoz et al., 2020). For example, individuals displaced by war might initially require food and shelter but later need psychological support (Muñoz et al., 2020), meaningful work opportunities (Kodeih et al., 2022), and other long-term assistance. As the focus naturally shifts from urgent relief to sustained support, it becomes important to explore how these ventures adapt and grow over time.

Yet, research on compassion venturing has predominantly focused on the immediate aftermath of disasters, paying limited attention to what unfolds within these ventures as they grow their activities and impact over time—or undergo more substantial transitions, such as shifts in organizational form. For example, adopting a for-profit logic may become necessary when a compassion venture evolves into a social enterprise or even transforms into a commercial entity. While the current literature provides valuable insights into venture expansion (Coviello et al., 2024; DeSantola & Gulati, 2017; Islam, 2020), including that of prosocial ventures, it does not perfectly fit the mold for compassion ventures, which require urgency, provide rapid responses, and must frequently overcome unique resource constraints. Investigating the development and longevity of compassion ventures holds potential for uncovering novel pathways to creating both short- and long-term social impact (Bacq & Eddleston, 2018; Dees, 2008; Dees et al., 2004; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2022; Smith et al., 2016), often involving the complex task of expanding new venture activities to reach more beneficiaries (DeSantola & Gulati, 2017; Mair et al., 2023).

We posit that compassion ventures’ expansion must be achieved through strategic collaborations with larger, resource-rich organizations (Bacq & Eddleston, 2018; Islam, 2020, 2022). However, aside from highlighting how compassion ventures may be more selective in their resource partnerships, the extant literature scarcely addresses compassion ventures’ transition from short-term responders to enduring agents of social impact while partnering with resource-rich organizations.

Given the importance of resourcefulness in compassion venturing (Mittermaier et al., 2022), there is great potential for advancing our theoretical understanding of how entrepreneurial resourcefulness unfolds as compassion ventures expand. In pursuit of this goal, we draw on the entrepreneurial resourcefulness literature (Fisher, 2024; Williams et al., 2021) as the theoretical background for understanding compassion venture expansion.

Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness in Compassion Venturing

The existing literature offers diverse approaches to delineating and interpreting entrepreneurial resourcefulness. These approaches include concepts like bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005), effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001), frugality (Michaelis et al., 2020), and cultural entrepreneurship (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001). Although there is a range of views of entrepreneurial resourcefulness, we adopt a comprehensive approach provided by Williams et al. (2021: 2), who defined entrepreneurial resourcefulness as “a boundary-breaking behavior of creatively bringing resources to bear and deploying them to generate and capture new or unexpected sources of value in the process of entrepreneurship.” This definition highlights a fundamental aspect of entrepreneurial resourcefulness scholarship (Fisher, 2024)—the creative exploitation, repurposing, and utilization of resources by new ventures to achieve novel or unforeseen applications.

Despite the breadth of research on entrepreneurial resourcefulness, most scholarship has focused on the resourcefulness of early-stage ventures, particularly on mobilizing resources, securing funding, overcoming liabilities, and building market trust (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001). Recent studies have extended this focus to ventures in crises, suggesting that resourcefulness is critical for venture emergence and survival during disasters (Farny et al., 2019; Kuckertz et al., 2023; Scheidgen et al., 2024). Compassion ventures typically originate in the aftermath of disasters. Accordingly, since resourcefulness is critical for venture emergence and survival in crisis settings, it can easily be concluded that resourcefulness is a key element of compassion venture expansion. Hence, understanding the literature around entrepreneurial resourcefulness helps uncover and unpack insights about compassion ventures’ development.

However, despite the growing interest in entrepreneurial resourcefulness in disruptive settings (Fisher, 2024; Scheidgen et al., 2024), little is known about what happens beyond the initial response of compassion ventures, such as how compassion ventures expand in the face of continued disaster adversity (Klyver & McMullen, 2025). In addition, while valuable insights have emerged from studies exploring individual entrepreneurial resourcefulness (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Sonenshein, 2014), there is a clear gap in understanding resourcefulness as a joint effort focusing on positive social impact (Hertel et al., 2021; Moss et al., 2022), especially in prosocial ventures like compassion ventures. The expansion of social impact, social good, or positive social change has primarily been conceptualized as originating from the work of social ventures, some commercial ventures, other institutional stakeholders (e.g., governments), or interactions among all of the above (Bacq & Alt, 2018; Dees, 2008; Lumpkin & Bacq, 2022; Stephan et al., 2016). Hence, the oversight in the literature is twofold: there is a lack of understanding regarding (a) how compassion ventures expand their operations and impact, and (b) how this expansion occurs when they collaborate with resource partners.

Nevertheless, several studies point in the direction where our contribution lies. For instance, Miller et al.’s (2012) work shows that partnerships with ventures driven by compassion may evolve, and that partnering organizations’ motivations regarding resource expectations and allocations may shift. Research has also shown that both localized support and external stakeholder involvement occur in compassion venturing such that these parties jointly mobilize resources to alleviate suffering more effectively (Shepherd & Williams, 2014). In addition, studies have highlighted issues encountered in disaster settings involving suffering alleviation, such as a mismatch between available resources and needs, insufficiencies in resource allocation, and the need for ventures to improve communication to engage resource partners (Chandra & Paras, 2021; Farny et al., 2019).

Moreover, nonprofit compassion ventures likely experience resource partnerships and entrepreneurial resourcefulness differently than for-profit ventures (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2025). Specifically, their actions toward beneficiaries and response speed may be quite distinct from for-profit ventures. Nonprofit compassion ventures also accumulate and distribute resources differently in terms of scale and scope (building on Dutton et al., 2006) and customize these resources to beneficiaries’ needs by adjusting dynamically. Also, compassion ventures differ in how they access resources and the partners they attract and engage because they do not provide financial returns (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2025). In addition, the literature explains that compassion ventures’ ability to build an emotional connection with resource partners is key to their success, as such ventures are built on collective compassionate responses (Farny et al., 2019).

Indeed, third-party interorganizational collaborations with partners, government departments, and community actors are critical to compassion ventures’ success in securing resources for broadening social impact (Farny et al., 2019; Williams & Shepherd, 2016)—a key aim of compassion ventures. Since resources are often scarce and urgently needed in crisis contexts, a single organization cannot typically possess all the necessary resources to alleviate victim suffering. Emerging compassion ventures need to proactively engage with critical stakeholders to bring resources to bear and deploy them to expand their operations and social impact (Mittermaier et al., 2022; Shepherd & Williams, 2014; Williams & Shepherd, 2016). For instance, in the aftermath of the Australian Black Saturday bushfire, compassion ventures forged strong relationships with established organizations to mobilize resources, increasing the scale and speed of the disaster response (Williams & Shepherd, 2018). Resources like the compassion ventures’ strong relationships with the local community, local knowledge, and local values were key to an effective response (Shepherd & Williams, 2014). Even weak bonds were essential in gathering support. Hence, the relational aspect of resourcefulness in disaster response cannot be overlooked.

Indeed, working with other actors and stakeholders means a compassion venture needs to manage such relationships well—establishing effective resource relationships becomes essential in victim-support efforts (Shepherd & Williams, 2014). Compassion ventures may work with organizations that control specific and essential resources for the compassion venture. According to resource dependency theorists, such dependencies create political power dynamics among partners (Hillman et al., 2009), whereby resources shape social interactions by enabling the individuals (or organizations) who control them to exert influence and strategically achieve their goals (Giddens, 1984). Hence, we also cannot overlook the political dimension of resources and resourcefulness and the potential power dynamics arising in joint resourcefulness practices between compassion ventures and other partners. Consequently, the expansion of compassion ventures likely depends on and builds upon these ventures’ dynamic interactions with other actors (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Misalignment with partners can jeopardize the support that compassion ventures receive, affecting their survival and expansion. Therefore, tensions with partners can hinder successful expansion (Dees et al., 2004), making it essential for compassion ventures to prioritize fostering positive social interactions within their partner networks to enhance resource acquisition (Anderson et al., 2007).

While expanding venturing activities and their social impact imply that compassion ventures need to be resourceful and continuously engage in entrepreneurial resourcefulness within and beyond their entrepreneurial teams, the extant literature also suggests that venture expansion benefits from ventures’ formalization (Corner & Kearins, 2021). Formalization refers to how a venture transitions from an informal or less structured status to a more formalized and structured one. Formalization could, for instance, entail going from a volunteer to a fixed workforce, formalizing and defining working structures and processes, establishing a consistent flow of financial capital or funding, and organizing with a long-term vision aimed at continuing or expanding operations (Xheneti et al., 2017). While formalization may not be necessary during the initial phases of a compassion venture (Williams et al., 2017), it can facilitate venture expansion and overall success (Xheneti et al., 2017). For compassion ventures initially operating voluntarily and informally (Williams et al., 2017), formalization could enhance venture performance; foster resource mobilization (Salvi et al., 2022); and open doors to broader resource-access opportunities (Khan, 2018), such as additional government funding. Hence, we suggest the importance of formalizing compassion ventures as they expand.

In conclusion, engaging in self-reliant and/or joint resourcefulness is vital for compassion ventures as they formalize their activities over time and extend their social impact beyond the immediate aftermath of an adverse event. However, a pivotal question remains: how does a compassion venture engage in entrepreneurial resourcefulness for expansion? By unpacking how compassion ventures transition from emergency response to sustained impact through entrepreneurial resourcefulness, we contribute to a broader understanding of social impact expansion across various domains. Ultimately, we highlight the links between compassion venturing, crisis duration, entrepreneurial resourcefulness, and the endurance of these ventures in continuing to support those in need.

Method

As research on the role of entrepreneurial resourcefulness in expanding compassion ventures and their social impact is still in its early stages, we adopted a grounded theory-building approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) with a process-oriented perspective (Langley, 1999). Specifically, we conducted an in-depth longitudinal qualitative study to examine how compassion ventures expand beyond the immediate disaster-response phase while engaging with resource partners. We followed the development of a compassion venture—FreshStart (FS, pseudonym)—since its inception, for 19 months. FS was formed in a Nordic country as a nonprofit organization (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2025) to alleviate the suffering of Ukrainians who arrived there seeking refuge from the devastation caused by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. We used an insider-outsider approach (Hehenberger et al., 2019) when conducting our study. Specifically, we combined the insider elements of ethnographic work (Van Maanen, 2011)—deep engagement and immersion inside the studied phenomenon—and the outsider perspective offered by coauthors removed from data collection and the initial analyses.

Research Context

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has led to immense human suffering and displacement. Within a year of Russia’s full-scale invasion, over 12 million Ukrainians were forced to flee their homes (UNHCR, 2023). In response to this crisis, numerous volunteer groups and collectives both within Ukraine and internationally have launched humanitarian missions to support displaced Ukrainians. These initiatives have provided shelter, food, and other essential supplies to those affected, showcasing the global community’s empathy. Due to the insufficiency of governmental aid, compassion-driven projects have played a crucial role in bridging the gap for those in need.

Our study focuses on a compassion venture (FS), which is dedicated to supporting refugees. It is important to note that compassion ventures differ from traditional refugee organizations. While refugee organizations are often established and operated by government entities with appointed public servants (e.g., van der Giessen et al., 2025), compassion ventures are initiated by entrepreneurial individuals who are motivated by compassionate empathy and a desire to help others. FS provides Ukrainian refugees with a range of services, including informational resources, psychosocial and psychological support, tangible aid (such as clothing, hygiene products, and food), entertainment, workshops for inclusion and integration, a playground for children, and a cafeteria for visitors, all aimed at fostering a sense of community. FS’s efforts have been highly praised by the Nordic country’s government, and various institutions and have received widespread media recognition. For instance, one media outlet (Media #1, 2023) reported, “FS has helped over 25% of all Ukrainians arriving in [Nordic country],” translating into thousands of refugees and protection seekers.

Data Collection

The first author predominantly engaged in data-collection efforts, aided by the second author, who brought an outsider’s perspective, and 10 months into the project, by a research assistant proficient in Ukrainian and Russian. Starting as an insider, the first author had unique access to conduct participant observations and interviews with actors and stakeholders, including entrepreneurial team members, partner organizations, and volunteers, as they engaged deeply in the venture from its inception to its expansion, thereby gaining trust within the team. The first author and research assistant are both Ukrainian, which facilitated culturally and context-sensitive interviewing (as per Kodeih et al., 2022). Interviews were conducted in one of three languages, preferred by the interviewees: mostly in English and Ukrainian, and also in Russian (chosen by two interviewees only). Although the second and third authors provided primarily an outsider perspective on data collection and analysis, our research team jointly deliberated on the research direction and data-collection efforts, discussed and interpreted emerging empirical findings, and derived initial theoretical insights from the analysis. Our data collection, spanning 19 months, comprised a variety of data sources. Appendix Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of these sources and their abbreviations, including a complete list of interviewed and observed actors.

Semi-Structured Interviews

We conducted 77 semi-structured interviews, interviewing all of FS’s 7 core entrepreneurial team members and conducting 7 follow-up interviews with select team members. Additionally, we held 63 interviews with partners, collaborators, and volunteers of FS. Four of these interviews were follow-up interviews. Our interviews with team members and partners provided rich insights into FS’s internal processes and external relationships.

Field Observations and Memos

Furthermore, we compiled 451 daily fieldwork and meeting memos through participant observations. The memos helped us meticulously document and later analyze our daily observations of activities, events, attitudes, and behaviors (Van Maanen, 2011). As in previous studies on compassion venturing (Farny et al., 2019), conducting frequent in-depth field observations proved immensely valuable. These observations helped us situate and refine our analysis of emerging practices that appeared to be crucial in elucidating the successful expansion of the compassion venture, particularly in collaboration with various resource partners. Given our field study’s longitudinal and immersive nature, the lead author and research assistant actively participated in FS’s daily operations with site visits three to four times per week, to build rapport with key stakeholders and document the venture’s rapid development, systematically recording structured memos. These memos captured a range of data, including descriptions of day-to-day activities, team interactions, partner engagements, emotional tone and atmosphere, personal reflections, emerging patterns or tensions, key insights, and prompts for future inquiry. Over time, the memo protocol evolved to include more descriptive and relational dimensions, focusing on recurring misunderstandings, coordination challenges, and resource-related dynamics. In addition, we paid attention to how interviews and observations related over time by exploring how participants’ accounts and observed practices informed each other about the expansion of the compassion venture.

Archival and Secondary Data

To better understand the compassion venture’s transition to a formalized nonprofit organization and further comprehend its expansion, we complemented our primary data with secondary data from venture documents, press clippings, and media articles (36) and with photos (32) and videos (20) of FS’s premises and events, such as meetings with the city council and other partnering organizations.

We paused formal data collection after a significant shift in the venture’s partnerships, particularly when we recognized novel entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices which we later conceptualized and present in our findings. Additionally, this occurred as the venture expanded to additional locations. Nonetheless, we continued informal immersion for several more months to observe the development of these relationships, attending meetings and staying in contact with participants beyond the official end of fieldwork. We still have occasional interactions with interviewees, 3 years after the venture’s launch.

Data Analysis

We allowed the data collected over the 19 months to organically guide our exploration, unveiling the most salient themes and fostering comprehension of the phenomenon (Langley & Abdallah, 2011). Throughout our analytical procedure, we transitioned from empirical data to theoretical interpretations, continuously cycling between data collection, analysis, and the existing literature (Cloutier & Langley, 2020). These nonlinear and iterative procedures facilitated creative leaps in advancing our understanding (Van Burg et al., 2022) of compassion venture expansion. However, to enhance clarity, we highlight four analytical steps.

Step 1: Establishing the Boundaries for Compassion Venture Expansion

We subjected our comprehensive dataset of interviews, memos, and secondary documents to an in-depth examination guided by sensitizing questions, including “who, what, where, how, when, and why” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Employing a temporal-bracketing strategy (Langley, 1999), we focused on documenting and observing the progression of our primary unit of analysis, FS (referred to interchangeably as the “compassion venture”). Inspired by previous research on venture creation (Davidsson & Gruenhagen, 2021), we examined how the compassion venture evolved through key phases, transitioning from a temporary organization to a formal one while expanding its activities and social impact. Subsequently, we delineated FS’s development process into three periods spanning the 19 months of our study: venture emergence, formalization, and expansion. Figure 1 in the Appendix provides a timeline of the compassion venture’s developmental activities.

Figure 1.

Illustration of the role of entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices in the expansion of a compassion venture’s operations and impact.

The emergence period (end of February to March 2022) involved a group of previously unacquainted individuals swiftly devising support strategies for arriving Ukrainians. These individuals met at a volunteering event, where a proactive team member suggested they create FS. They envisioned FS as a comprehensive service space offering goods and services tailored to the needs of the newly arrived Ukrainians. Remarkably, within just a few weeks, the team gathered the needed resources to establish and start running FS, thanks to the collaborative efforts of numerous governmental organizations (GOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), alongside an increasing number of volunteers (we later label this practice organic joint resourcing). With the development of its humanitarian services, FS entered a formalization period (April to August 2022), focusing on its operational structure and financial stability. During this period, FS secured almost 100,000 euros in government grants and additional government funding (e.g., from GO2), facilitating the transition from volunteers to paid staff. Aside from acquiring financial resources, FS implemented new operational procedures, tools, and systems (e.g., a client-management system), and developed critical documents (e.g., a code of conduct). This period marked a strategic shift toward more structured operations and a more sustainable financial model, moving from a volunteer-only workforce to a hybrid workforce (i.e., volunteers and salaried employees). After FS formalized its operations, it focused on extending operations to propagate its work and social impact to other cities and initiatives. During this expansion period (September 2022 to September 2023), FS expanded its location by adding a “[new] floor to do additional gatherings and activities” (FS #4), and new projects in the confines of FS materialized.

As Ukrainian refugees’ needs evolved during their extended stay in the Nordic country, community events and projects gained increasing importance. Expanding FS required broadening and enhancing services to address previously uncharted areas. Beyond fulfilling immediate and basic needs through food distribution and support, FS started to cover refugees’ other needs, such as providing employment advice. More services became possible thanks to partner collaborations, such as those with governmental organizations to provide resources. The expansion period also involved FS receiving a government grant of nearly half a million euros and private investments to continue its expansion. FS extended its reach by opening a smaller location, FS II, in another city. The venture’s success in expanding its operations and social impact became increasingly evident as its model was replicated in seven cities across the Nordic region. FS’s expansion was recognized nationally, with media outlets reporting on the project’s success. Furthermore, FS’s entrepreneurial team consistently emphasized the venture’s compassionate response and social impact as a collective, which were driven by a deep commitment to alleviating the suffering of Ukrainians. We conceptualize compassion in this paper as a collective team and venture orientation rather than a definition based on cognitive function. This compassionate emphasis was evident from the beginning and expanded progressively across all stages of the venture’s development—emergence, formalization, and expansion. During the venture’s emergence, FS supported more than 3,000 people. Further, during the formalization period, a team member appeared on media news and recalled how FS had helped thousands of people and had an above-average repeat rate, indicating that more than half of the visitors returned for additional assistance (FS #1, appearing in Media #2). Moreover, FS’s social impact grew as it expanded its operations to other locations. For instance, FS II (the second location of the organization) “assisted over 800 families, each consisting of approximately two to four members” (FS II member). FS’s clients—refugees—also provided positive feedback on public opinion platforms. Many such reviews stated immense gratitude for receiving necessities, psychological support, employment assistance, and aid in filling out job or housing applications. Several individuals outlined the friendly atmosphere and the feeling of home at FS.

Step 2: Identifying Key Collaborations and Diverse Resource Partnerships

Our observations showed that resource collaborations were key for FS throughout its expansion. Thus, keeping our research question in mind, we examined FS’s critical collaborative efforts during this analysis phase to better understand its interactions with major partners to mobilize resources for continued expansion. After categorizing partners as for-profit organizations (Org1, 2, 3…), NGOs (NGO1, 2, 3…), and governmental organizations (GO1, 2, 3…; see Appendix Table 1), we began to distinguish between those holding a dominant position in resource control and those with minimal dominance. We focused on partners’ resource dominance due to its well-documented influence on ventures’ development.

We classified dominant resource holders as collaborators and partners possessing access to, control over, and/or ownership of critical resources that were essential for the compassion venture’s operations but were not easily substitutable. We classified the resources based on how critical or noncritical they were, on the one hand, to sustain the venture’s operations (e.g., resources like a physical location or the human capital workforce) and, on the other hand, to satisfy the needs of FS’s clients. For instance, we classified a real estate company (Org1) as a dominant resource holder because it provided the physical space necessary for FS’s operations. We classified partners as nondominant if they had minimal control over critical resources.

We recognize that the importance of specific resources may vary depending on the circumstances, settings, or phases of venture expansion. However, for simplicity, we used a dichotomy and categorized resources as critical or noncritical and partners as dominant or nondominant resource holders. In a more detailed analysis of FS’s collaborative dynamics, we categorized partners based on their involvement in decision-making. We labeled partners as participatory if they actively influenced FS’s decision-making processes and nonparticipatory if their involvement in FS’s decision-making was limited or nonexistent. We focused on the decision-making characteristics of each partner, as power dynamics can emerge when a partner possesses leverage and chooses to exert its agency regarding resources.

As the compassion venture developed, dominant participatory resource-holding partners increasingly influenced FS’s decision-making. For example, long-term collaborators, such as NGO1 and NGO9, began playing more active roles in shaping and directing FS’s affairs, significantly impacting the venture’s progress. FS’s interactions with different partners and the extent of partners’ participation and involvement in the venture became essential themes in defining and refining our conceptual lens. When considering FS’s expansion and provision of services to support refugees, we found that mobilizing resources while collaborating with others was a crucial aspect of its expansion regarding organizational activities and social impact. Appendix Table 2 provides empirical illustrations of FS’s expansion in terms of its organizational and impact activities. While our research centers on how entrepreneurial resourcefulness unfolds in compassion venture expansion, we also acknowledge its connection to the venture’s social impact (see Appendix Figure 1 and Appendix Table 2).

Step 3: Identifying Different Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness Practices

In this analysis phase, we shifted our focus from examining FS’s resource partners to exploring the entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices crucial for FS’s successful expansion of its operational (e.g., automating visitor registration) and impact (e.g., increasing essential food provision) activities. Following extensive discussions and data interpretation, the authorship team developed a preliminary shared understanding of the practices FS employed as it emerged, formalized, and expanded. This phase of our analysis underscored the vital role of entrepreneurial resourcefulness (Williams et al., 2021). We saw that over time, a range of entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices enabled FS to mobilize and accumulate resources for refugee aid, including essentials like clothing, hygiene products, and food parcels, as well as resources for the expansion of the venture’s operations, including a mix of volunteer and paid staff, a physical base, and diverse funding sources. With this in mind, our data initially revealed that internal resourcefulness practices and those in collaboration with external partners (Michaelis et al., 2022) were crucial for the venture’s formalization and expansion. We emphasized these self-reliant and joint resourcefulness practices that built on the dynamic nature of resources, highlighting the notion of resourcing via actors’ enactment of resources (Feldman, 2004). This view aligns with entrepreneurs’ creativity in finding new modes of converting or repurposing resources for alternative uses to fulfill entrepreneurial objectives (Williams et al., 2021).

Therefore, we employed “resourcing” to ground and label the practices we observed. For instance, with a more detailed focus on self-reliant resourcefulness (Michaelis et al., 2022), our analysis led us to differentiate two subcategories of self-reliant resourcefulness in compassion venture expansion: entrepreneurial team resourcing and venture resourcing. The former relates to the core entrepreneurial team independently identifying and utilizing resources effectively, as evidenced by the core team’s creative problem-solving and skillful resource management. In contrast, venture resourcing refers to resourcefulness involving a broader workforce, including paid personnel and specialized and nonspecialized volunteers, who frequently worked with FS but not as part of the core entrepreneurial team. Their participation was crucial in activities like resource allocation and innovative fundraising under financial constraints.

Further, we observed that FS actively and frequently engaged in entrepreneurial resourcefulness with external partners and the broader community. Informed by the extant literature, we refer to these entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices involving the shared acquisition/ownership of resources as joint resourcefulness (Michaelis et al., 2022). Building on our second analytical step, we further explored joint resourcefulness by categorizing it into organic joint resourcing and enforced joint resourcing. FS practiced organic joint resourcing in interactions with dominant and nondominant resource-holding partners who did not become strongly involved in its decision-making processes. For instance, organic joint resourcing manifested as spontaneous, implicit (Rico et al., 2008), and effective coordination, trust, and mutual understanding among FS, helpers, and partners. In contrast to organic joint resourcing, FS practiced enforced joint resourcing with dominant resource-holding partners who wanted to “have a say” in the compassion venture’s decision-making. Such overt participatory behaviors from dominant resource-holding partners affected the entrepreneurial team’s motivation and the venture’s progress, slowing down some developments due to challenges with decision-making. Furthermore, we saw enforced joint resourcing develop over time and indirectly lead to more protocol-driven resourcing interactions between the compassion venture and the dominant participatory partners (what we later introduce, describe, and label in the findings as bureaucratic joint resourcing).

As we progressed in our analysis of self-reliant and joint resourcefulness, we discovered and discerned that FS’s team implemented new entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices that extended beyond existing labels; we termed those new practices political resourcefulness (inspired by Williams et al., 2021). These practices aimed to achieve the venture’s resource-mobilization goals while countering resource partners’ overt participatory actions. This form of resourcefulness was accomplished through resourcefulness practices that we labeled assertive, dialogic, and protective resourcing. Assertive resourcing was characterized by the entrepreneurial team members’ proactive lobbying to influence the perceptions of dominant participatory resource holders in favor of FS’s resource mobilization. Dialogic resourcing involved more diplomatic strategies, with the team members working to strategically integrate dominant resource holders into collective decision-making. Protective resourcing was observed in how FS prevented its volunteer community from being adversely affected by tensions between the organization and external partners. It also involved FS keeping resources and information within the venture to enhance leverage in resource mobilization. To arrive at these labels, we took inspiration from the resource dependency literature (Hillman et al., 2009; Meznar & Nigh, 1995), taking into account buffering and bridging mechanisms that ventures may resort to when facing resource dependencies and challenges within the sociopolitical environment. This literature helped us better understand the political dimension of entrepreneurial resourcefulness.

Appendix Table 3 provides an overview of the primary conceptual themes and subcategories that emerged from our analysis and were informed by the literature on entrepreneurial resourcefulness.

Step 4: Theorizing Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness in Compassion Venture Expansion

In the final phase of our data analysis, we merged insights from the first three analytical steps to better understand how various entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices evolved and interacted as the compassion venture emerged, formalized, and expanded its operations and impact. Our deeper examination of the dynamic components of the data and the identified conceptual (sub)themes unraveled the complex interplay among self-reliant, joint, and political resourcefulness practices. This exploration shed light on distinct resourcefulness practices and the mechanisms underpinning how they related to and influenced one another over time—such as motivating and enabling—in the context of compassion venture expansion. It also offered pivotal insights into the venture’s evolving dynamics, particularly its interactions with both dominant and nondominant resource holders, thereby highlighting the political dimension of entrepreneurial resourcefulness. Moreover, our evidence across the stages of development shows that compassion ventures can become increasingly structured and professionalized over time—evolving from spontaneous to organized and from emergent to enduring—a transition supported by their compassionate mission. Despite this progression, our case organization continues to maintain its core nonprofit and compassion-driven mission today, a continuity further reinforced by its engagement in political entrepreneurial resourcefulness.

Findings

This section presents key findings on how a compassion venture engages in entrepreneurial resourcefulness for expansion, while collaborating with resource partners. Our empirical model (see Figure 1) illustrates this process, highlighting three critical resourcefulness practices: (a) self-reliant resourcefulness by the entrepreneurial team, (b) joint resourcefulness with partners, and (c) political resourcefulness to mitigate the influence of dominant participatory partners. The empirical model begins with a crisis that triggers the formation of a compassion team and its initial resourcing to alleviate immediate suffering. As the compassion venture grows, external partners join to support the mission, but over time, a few dominant partners exert control, hindering the venture’s progress. This control prompts the team to adopt political resourcefulness practices, such as protective resourcing, to shield the venture’s operations from dominant participatory partners while balancing collaboration and independence while expanding.

Toward the end of our findings, we focus specifically on the political dimension of entrepreneurial resourcefulness, a novel and significant aspect of resourcefulness. This political dimension enabled the venture team to navigate power dynamics and safeguard the venture’s compassion-oriented mission during expansion. We present our theoretical model on the critical weight of political resourcefulness in compassion venture expansion (Figure 2). In what follows, we provide a brief overview of period 1, reflecting our knowledge of the compassion venturing literature. We continue with a more detailed dive into periods 2 and 3.

Figure 2.

Dynamics of entrepreneurial resourcefulness in compassion venture expansion.

Period 1. Emergent Team Formation and the Alleviation of Immediate Suffering: The Role of Entrepreneurial Team Resourcing and Organic Joint Resourcing

During this first period of emergence, FS acquainted the team with a common compassionate purpose and was creative in seeking, acquiring, and deploying resources within the team’s confines, which we defined as self-reliant entrepreneurial team resourcing. We observed entrepreneurial team resourcing clearly in the venture idea and emergence stages. Entrepreneurial team resourcing fostered team unity and collaboration, enabling members to jointly acquire and use resources for shared goals. A team member recalled:

[FS] has been built by entrepreneurs who had a personal responsibility and helped. . . . I don’t know how we did it, but we had extremely good chemistry. We were there to support each other. The team that has gathered is one of a kind. What we managed to turn around . . . is a miracle. (FS #1)

However, entrepreneurial team resourcing alone was insufficient for the venture to expand. The entrepreneurial team’s strategy was to engage other actors and stakeholders for joint resourcing efforts or to “get under their shoulders.” FS #1 continued, “Because we were successful and powerful, [FS] exists. But right now, [FS] has to exist with funding. . . . We can right now [for example] get under the shoulders of [GO2] and continue to be sponsored by [GO2].” The entrepreneurial team speedily connected with collaborators and engaged resource partners to directly leverage partners’ resources or co-own and co-deploy them.

Working with others happened naturally and effortlessly. Partners “organically” supported the entrepreneurial team resourcing via organic joint resourcing. An example of organic joint resourcing among partners and FS unfolded as the compassion venture acquired a space for its operations. First, FS requested this space. Then, a venture capitalist from NGO7 searched for options. A multinational real estate company (Org1) offered the best space, and a local NGO (NGO1) took on the lease. This effort secured the space for FS free of charge in just days and with no set duration (Memo March 16, 2022). This example illustrates how the entrepreneurial team’s self-reliant resourcefulness practices—specifically, their approach to resourcing—motivated collaborative organic joint resourcing with partners. While entrepreneurial team resourcing motivated organic joint resourcing, the reverse also occurred: organic joint resourcing further enabled entrepreneurial team resourcing. The following passage illustrates FS’s interactions with partners and collaborators and how the two different forms of resourcing motivated each other:

The power of teamwork . . . all of it was a team effort. It was our team, . . . and then it was the companies helping out. . . . If you just believe in your [idea] and you just make a phone call . . . “We are building up this [FS] for Ukrainians. How can you help?”. . . . We need to be structured in what we do. We need a list of where and whom you have contacted, and who will give you what. So, you need to get them all together. . . . So, it was the teamwork and then the support and . . . a common goal . . . the right people. But it could be that you have never worked together, but you know that these people can work together with different companies. . . . I think that’s the thing, yes . . . a good team . . . a common goal. (FS #7)

Entrepreneurial team resourcing and organic joint resourcing with partners were paramount in this period, helping to alleviate the immediate suffering of those in need.

Period 2. Compassion Venture Formalization and Carrying on With the Venture’s Social Impact: Managing Enforced and Organic Joint Resourcing via Protective Resourcing

The next period of compassion venture development was characterized by the formalization of the venture’s activities and processes (e.g., “The main advance is that we have started using lots of software that simplifies our lives a little bit and helps align processes and that we have become more like one team, one family” [FS #5]). In this period, we observed new developments in the entrepreneurial team’s interactions with their partners and additional nuances in team resourcing efforts. Also, the impact on the venture’s target audience seemed more substantial by this time, as indicated by a volunteer:

The impact . . . is so huge—quantitative and qualitative impact. After people leave [FS], they have an exact plan for which institution to go to next. They have addresses, they have guidelines, and they have instructions, so people are more confident. Because of that, there are fewer questions in the public sector as we are answering most of the questions on taxation, employment, accommodation, and schooling. When people enter [FS], they are stressed and a little bit lost in this system. They don’t know where to start. But when they leave [FS], they’re smiling, they are joking, they are building communities, they’re making friends in [FS], they make plans to go to museums together. So, after they leave [FS], they receive all the support they need, and then they feel more confident and have more trust in the future. (Volunteer #1)

In this period, we observed that as formalization continued, entrepreneurial team resourcing led to enhanced venture resourcing. For instance, we observed how FS made its first two hires in early May (Memo May 2, 2022), just over 2 months after FS’s launch. These hires also contributed to FS’s resourcing objectives. In addition, expert volunteers joined the entrepreneurial team and further aided in resourcing efforts. Essentially, venture resourcing entailed the resourcing behaviors of those who were part of the venture, including FS’s partners and volunteers who worked on the premises. Venture resourcing went beyond the initial entrepreneurial team resourcing efforts to benefit FS’s overall resourcing practices. For instance, a member of an NGO partner mentioned the following:

I’m working in [NGO8]. During the last year, my full-time job has been working with the Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war, helping with family adaptation issues in the school, practically answering all the possible questions you can imagine [consultation]. I have a lot of contacts; I can do a lot more. Fortunately, I had the okay from my employer, and I just started to do whatever I needed to do [at FS]. . . . If there is an issue, we don’t have a car, we need to pick some things or bread . . . or someone has a request, okay, I have a car, I can do it. . . . I feel that we need to be flexible. . . . Even though it’s not my working post, I can do it. It’s not a problem for me. (Member of NGO8, emphasis added)

We realized that the more engaged the partners were with FS, the more they felt a certain ownership over the venture, wanting to become more involved. While some partners, such as NGO8, organically supported the resourcing efforts of the venture’s entrepreneurial team, others (e.g., NGO1 or NGO9) wanted more say in the venture’s decision-making, as illustrated below

The [participatory partners] didn’t really, let’s say, interfere a lot in the work of [FS] back in spring. While in September . . . I could immediately feel the pressure that was forwarded from the [participatory partners’] administration to [FS] . . . because we started receiving some commands from the [participatory partners], which bothered and interfered with our work mode and complicated, I would say, our work for sure. (FS #5)

This unwelcome meddling of dominant partners slowed overall decision-making and affected FS’s efforts:

And it’s hard, too, when you do such a good job and do so much work and so many hours, and then you’re tired, and everybody’s tired, and then there’s still the war going on. And when some decisions can’t be made [due to dominant participatory partners]. It’s frustrating. Yes. (FS #7)

However, FS was unable to “get rid of” (Memo July 10, 2022) dominant participatory partners “because they need to use the partners’ names or their funding to sustain social impact activities and help more Ukrainians in need” (Memo August 2, 2022). Hence, FS’s team had to continue working with dominant participatory partners in what we labeled enforced joint resourcing. This enforced joint resourcing was crucial for FS to sustain its operations, but it increasingly directed how the entrepreneurial team engaged in self-reliant resourcefulness. We observed that FS attempted to address challenges posed by dominant and participatory partners by reducing the venture’s and the entrepreneurial team’s reliance on them. To achieve this, FS sought alternative collaborators. Interestingly, joint resourcing with some participatory partners motivated more or stronger organic joint resourcing efforts with other partners.

At the same time, we saw that it was essential for the entrepreneurial team to safeguard the motivation of volunteers and other partners, “hiding or shielding them” (Memo September 24, 2022) from the challenges and tensions encountered due to the dominant participatory partners’ involvement. To do so, the entrepreneurial team engaged in what we labeled (political) protective resourcing. For example, an entrepreneurial team member told us, “I can take all the shit that is coming [from dominant participatory partners], but I will protect [FS]” (FS #1). Indeed, the entrepreneurial team tried to keep their frustration with resource providers meddling in the venture’s decision-making behind closed doors to protect volunteers, clients (refugees), and the venture while continuing their compassion-based journey. For example, one entrepreneurial team member noted the following about these protective practices:

I know that people [fellow entrepreneurial team members] were struggling a bit because these kinds of [dominant participatory partners] are not that effective in making decisions and things like that. But if we look at it from the point of view of the volunteers working here or . . . the clients’ or the customers’ point of view, [to them, it seems like everything] is perfect. (FS #7)

Given the challenges of enforced joint resourcing, FS engaged with nondominant resource partners to diversify its resource acquisition. The following illustration showcases the dynamics between enforced joint resourcing and organic joint resourcing:

The (entrepreneurial) team started engaging with additional companies that could provide regular provision of food items (biweekly or weekly) as there were difficulties in working with [dominant participatory partner] due to power dynamics [because the dominant participatory partner] wanted to be more proactive in the venture’s decision-making as well as limit access to some resources. These power dynamics take a toll on the venture’s capabilities to support refugees. (Memo July 20, 2022)

As the above examples illustrate, what initially started as organic joint resourcing with dominant partners split in two directions: some partners remained engaged in organic joint resourcing, while joint resourcing became enforced for others. At times, organic joint resourcing activated enforced joint resourcing based on the dominant partners’ desired level of participation in the venture’s decision-making processes and their alignment with the overall vision of the entrepreneurial team. Hence, protective resourcing further enabled organic joint resourcing by safeguarding FS’s other stakeholders from the challenges of enforced joint resourcing to help the venture move forward. By shielding partners from power battles with some resource providers, FS was able to maintain its organic joint resourcing efforts.

In contrast, we observed that some partners engaged in organic joint resourcing were exposed to the tensions between FS and dominant participatory partners (i.e., when protective resourcing was not deployed) and considered abandoning or withdrawing their aid efforts. For example, “some partners just [did] not want to be involved in the drama” (Memo June 13, 2022), and “other collaborators [were] used to working without external meddling, [so] what is happening now is an unusual way of working for them” (Memo July 20, 2022). Indeed, one entrepreneurial team member noted, “Partners are important, but many of them do not want to continue cooperating [with FS] because they are used to working a certain way [which does not involve meddling by others]” (FS #3). Similarly, a volunteer reflected, “Partners see that everything is confusing” (FS volunteer #9), referring to interactions between FS and its dominant participatory partners. Such tensions impacted FS’s partnerships and overall entrepreneurial team resourcing and motivation. For instance, another team member added:

[FS #6] needed a [participatory partner] to not interfere with [their] work. Because [they] knew how to build connections with [Nordic country] organizations . . . to build trustworthy, reliable business connections, [they] knew many organizations and entrepreneurs who wanted to help in different ways. As soon as [participatory partner] would get in touch with some of these contacts, it would lead to the end of the cooperation with this source, with this partner. . . . [FS] did not need to be puppetiered; [FS] needed freedom of action. (FS#5)

Essentially, to avoid “partner leakage” (Memo August 15, 2022) the entrepreneurial team used the political resourcefulness practice of protective resourcing to shield joint resourcing stakeholders from challenges stemming from enforced joint resourcing partnerships, which further enabled organic joint resourcing efforts.

In sum, challenges with some dominant resource partners arose as FS moved from its initial venture activities to formalization and as partners became more involved in FS’s decision-making processes. However, by implementing protective resourcing, the entrepreneurial team and the venture could continue to expand its operations and social impact activities, shielding the venture from unwanted engagement. Protective resourcing enabled: (a) core team members and broader venture resourcing efforts (entrepreneurial team resourcing and venture resourcing), and (b) organic joint resourcing by ensuring that the partners that were engaged in organic joint resourcing were not exposed to the tensions generated by dominant participatory partners. Therefore, protective resourcing supported organic joint resourcing while weakening the negative influence of enforced joint resourcing on organic joint resourcing.

Period 3. Compassion Venture Expansion: Expanding Venture Operations and Social Impact Through Assertive and Dialogic Resourcing, Alongside Bureaucratic Joint Resourcing

In the third venture period, the entrepreneurial team focused on further expanding the venture’s operations and social impact. While continuing to engage in organic joint resourcing with some partners, we noticed that in the presence of enforced joint resourcing with dominant participatory partners, FS’s venture resourcing became further constrained by pressures from dominant participatory partners, leading to what we label as embedded venture resourcing. Embedded venture resourcing refers to FS’s resourcing in the confines of its dominant participatory partners. To move within the confines of this embedded venture resourcing and successfully expand, FS employed (additional) political resourcefulness practices, including dialogic and assertive resourcing.

We found that the entrepreneurial team exhibited dialogic resourcing as they held talks, discussed settlements, and intended to reach compromises with dominant and participatory partners. For example, one entrepreneurial team member stated, “We need to negotiate. . . . We can do it [achieve a certain resourcefulness goal] only with the agreement of [dominant resource partners]” (FS #1). The following interview extract from a partner on FS’s team also exemplifies this dialogic resourcing:

Just ask and negotiate. . . . It’s not so much asking as negotiating. Please give us this and this and this for free. This is a great skill. And in general, the ability to . . . ask nicely and to stay at it, to remain dignified is a talent. So, I can say that [FS team are] . . . talented people. (Member of GO3)

We also found that FS’s assertive resourcing manifested as the entrepreneurial team tried to reach a desired outcome by finding a way past dominant participatory partners, for instance, via lobbying. The following statement illustrates such lobbying:

I am at a meeting of core [FS] team members. The meeting is at a bar terrace close to [FS]. The discussion concerns a participatory partner limiting [FS’s] option to operate a social media page to showcase [FS’s] work and gather donations. [FS] team members seem desperate. It feels like there is nothing the team members can do to change the minds of some participatory partners. At the same time, FS team members speak about doing whatever is necessary to move the venture forward. They discuss how the purpose of the venture—to help Ukrainian refugees and protection seekers, hence pointing to their compassionate orientation—stands above the challenges in their relationship with specific participatory partners. The [FS] team is ready to overcome any challenge as long as [FS] continues to operate. Then, an idea materializes: a team member suggests, “Let’s lobby the members of [participatory partner] to make sure we can get the [social media] page up and running.” Others support the idea, “Let’s message them all and try to convince them individually to achieve this goal.” (Memo September 1, 2022)

Assertive resourcing was further enhanced via the organic joint resourcing that FS had with other NGOs, governmental institutions, and corporate partners. Backup from nonparticipatory (dominant and nondominant) partners—namely, “having others on their side”—provided the entrepreneurial team “some more leverage” (Memo October 18, 2022) and helped FS “push” its agenda further, as evidenced in the following quote:

I said, “Write an email to [participatory partner] and explain everything and say we have this funding [for FS] from [GO2]; it’s approved. . . . It’s already on paper. You cannot change [it]. . . .” So, this was one of our objectives [secure payment], and that’s what we were pushing. So, this milestone has been achieved little by little. (FS #2)

In addition, with the goal of continuing to help as many people as possible, the “entrepreneurial team need[ed] a long-term working solution with dominant participatory partners to continue its expansion, operations, and impact” (Memo December 21, 2022).

Finding themselves in a state of embedded venture resourcing, the entrepreneurial team continued to engage with dominant participatory partners using established protocols and procedures (i.e., bureaucracy). Hence, we saw that enforced joint resourcing indirectly led to bureaucratic joint resourcing, which further directed embedded venture resourcing, as indicated in the following statement:

There were tensions between a participatory partner and [FS] regarding unclear objectives and planning. An [FS] team member expressed feeling pressured by the dominant participatory partner, stating, “It’s not clear what is being done” and questioning why [FS] was forced to do things a certain way. She advocated for “clear guidelines of who is doing what” to ensure that the “resources are better distributed”. This situation brought the need for defined protocols to align efforts and prevent issues between [FS] and the dominant partner. She suggested establishing more communication “so there are no misunderstandings [between FS and dominant partner].” (Memo July 7, 2023, reflecting on FS #3’s frustration and need for operational clarification with a participatory partner)

Indeed, FS followed bureaucratic joint resourcing with some dominant participatory partners (especially NGO1 and NGO9). Specifically, FS engaged in behavioral conduct-related protocols with these partners and tread carefully to satisfy their demands and ways of working (Memo November 13, 2022) while simultaneously finding ways to push FS’s agenda. On the one hand, “defined protocols” (Memo July 7, 2023) were appreciated by FS to gain clarity in resourcefulness with dominant participatory partners and avoid misunderstandings, but on the other hand, this way of working felt daunting for some members of FS who advocated to “break the bureaucracy” and “[focus on] help[ing] people” (FS #6).

Yet, as FS continued to operate in the confines of its dominant participatory partners, bureaucratic joint resourcing became the norm. Ultimately, FS’s engagement in political resourcefulness (e.g., assertive and dialogic resourcing), as well as bureaucratic joint resourcing further enabled the expansion of the compassion venture’s operations and impact. For example, a member of FS recalled, “The main goal was to help Ukrainians, that’s for sure. [Importantly, we also] helped change some policies for Ukrainians in [Nordic country], which was a big win” and “We managed to expand to many other locations and new projects, thanks to our flexibility in finding ways to work it out with our partners.” (FS #2).

In conclusion, FS’s use of dialogic and assertive resourcing, as well as bureaucratic joint resourcing, was instrumental in further expanding the compassion venture, allowing FS to secure new resources, leverage existing ones, and maintain a balanced collaboration with dominant and participatory resource partners.

A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness in Compassion Venture Expansion

To develop our theoretical model, we extracted key insights from our findings to present a framework illustrating the main resourcefulness practices—self-reliant, joint, and political resourcefulness—and the mechanisms underpinning their interaction—motivating, enabling, activating, and directing—through which compassion-driven ventures leverage entrepreneurial resourcefulness during their expansion.

Specifically, we highlight the political dimension of entrepreneurial resourcefulness. Compassion ventures use political resourcefulness to broaden their activities and impact as they engage in resource partnerships. Throughout their expansion, these ventures deploy entrepreneurial behaviors to mobilize resources—drawing on both their internal capacities (self-reliant resourcefulness) and collaborative efforts (joint resourcefulness)—to alleviate the suffering of those affected by an adverse event.

However, compassion ventures often face resourcing challenges as they expand, particularly due to dependencies on external partners and the inherent power dynamics in these relationships. To overcome such dependencies and balance power asymmetries, compassion ventures employ political resourcefulness. This includes both other-directed practices (e.g., assertive or dialogic engagement with partners) and self-preserving practices (e.g., protective positioning or lobbying), which involve strategic political actions to safeguard the venture’s mission and autonomy. As compassion ventures expand, tensions may arise when partners’ interests diverge from the compassionate goals of the venture. Yet by drawing on political resourcefulness, entrepreneurial teams can navigate these challenges without compromising their core orientation and activities. This enables them to sustain mission-driven efforts and preserve their identity in the face of competing demands.

Taken together, our theoretical model illustrates the dynamics of entrepreneurial resourcefulness in compassion ventures. Specifically, we propose that entrepreneurial teams adopt self-reliant resourcefulness practices, which then motivate joint resourcefulness. Over time, this joint resourcefulness—whether organically formed or enforced by necessity—both enables and directs the unfolding of further self-reliant resourcefulness.

At the center of this dynamic process lies political resourcefulness, which is activated and motivated by joint resourcefulness. Political resourcefulness enables self-reliant resourcefulness (e.g., by protecting the entrepreneurial team from the negative influence of dominant partners). It also directs and enables joint resourcefulness practices (through protective, dialogic, and assertive resourcing approaches). This dynamic interplay supports the expansion of compassion ventures from emergent initiatives to enduring organizations capable of generating sustained social impact.

Discussion

Over 19 months, our longitudinal qualitative study in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine explored the role of entrepreneurial resourcefulness in compassion venture expansion. Our findings offer novel insights into how compassion ventures expand over time by engaging in self-reliant and joint resourcefulness (Michaelis et al., 2022) and adopting what we introduce as political resourcefulness. Specifically, our findings highlight (a) the self-reliant resourcefulness practices of both individual entrepreneurs/entrepreneurial teams and compassion ventures; (b) joint resourcefulness practices, which vary based on the nature of the interactions between entrepreneurial teams and external partners, whether organic and enforced (or bureaucratic); and (c) political resourcefulness practices, including protective, assertive, and dialogic resourcing, which compassion ventures employ when dealing with dominant resource-holding partners that are involved in and are also needed to sustain these ventures’ operations. From these findings, we propose a dynamic model of entrepreneurial resourcefulness in compassion venture expansion, focusing on the political dimension of entrepreneurial resourcefulness (Figure 1).

Building on our key insights, we generate two primary contributions. First, we extend the literature on compassion venturing (Farny et al., 2019; Shepherd & Williams, 2014; Williams & Shepherd, 2016, 2018) by explaining compassion venture expansion during the later stages of crises. Second, we advance theory on entrepreneurial resourcefulness (Williams et al., 2021) by expanding on the existing knowledge of entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices, introducing new ones, and theorizing novel mechanisms through which these practices develop over time to facilitate the expansion of compassion ventures.

Implications for Advancing Compassion Venturing Research

In the theoretical background section, we established that the existing compassion venturing literature does not sufficiently inform us about how compassion ventures evolve over an extended period, limiting our comprehension of the potential impact of compassion ventures. In the current paper, we address this issue by moving our focus from the dominant view of nonprofit compassion ventures (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2025) as temporary organizations (Shepherd & Williams, 2014; Williams & Shepherd, 2018) to their transition into more formalized ventures that provide enduring support. Our work extends the social impact view by illustrating how nonprofit compassion ventures can formalize and expand the breadth and depth of their social support (Desa & Koch, 2014; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2022). Indeed, we highlight how compassion ventures can endure even when the initial need to alleviate others’ suffering has diminished, highlighting the dynamism of a crisis context.

On that note, recent work by Muñoz et al. (2020) posits that ventures that form in extreme contexts may need to adjust their responses to their target audiences’ needs. We extend knowledge in this area by explaining how compassion ventures persist beyond initial victim-relief efforts through entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices. Our work also extends the recent study by Farhoud et al. (2024) on sustaining spontaneous venturing. Specifically, we demonstrate how compassion ventures engage in resource partnerships, extending beyond temporary entities to formalize and expand their operations and social impact. Although our case does not show how a compassion venture transitions into a different organizational form, we acknowledge that this may be a possibility and hope future research delves deeper into addressing questions such as how and under what circumstances compassion ventures transform into various organizational forms, such as social enterprises, community-based enterprises, and commercial businesses?

Moreover, our work highlights the role of partnerships and collaborations in compassion venturing. Existing research has shown that compassion ventures collaborate with stakeholders to develop effective responses to victim suffering (Farny et al., 2019; Mittermaier et al., 2023; Shepherd & Williams, 2014, 2018). We expand this knowledge by illustrating how these partnerships change as partners’ participation and interests shift, providing new insights into how initial collaborations develop, sustain, and change over time (Muñoz et al., 2020; Williams & Shepherd, 2018). Future studies could investigate how varying degrees of partner participation affect compassion ventures’ explicit and implicit coordination processes (Rico et al., 2008) and partner relations in venture expansion.

As our study contributes to understanding the longevity of compassion venturing, we also indirectly extend knowledge on how compassion ventures may expand their social impact (Bacq et al., 2022; Islam, 2020), which initially develops from these ventures’ mission to alleviate others’ immediate suffering (Williams & Shepherd, 2016). By addressing the development of compassion ventures beyond the initial disaster and crisis phases, we contribute to the literature that encourages and explores social impact more broadly, focusing on how social impact may be sustained and expanded (Islam, 2020; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2022). Indeed, understanding social impact and the challenges associated with extending it (Dees, 2008), particularly in a disaster context, is a crucial topic of discussion for governmental and environmental institutions, private organizations, individual actors, and scholars alike (Adams et al., 2023; Rawhouser et al., 2019). While our study highlights the challenges of expanding social impact due to difficulties in collaborating on expansion efforts and the obstacles that compassion ventures face in overcoming constraints on entrepreneurial resourcefulness, it is also crucial to shifting the focus and gaining a deeper understanding of how diverse target beneficiaries of compassion ventures experience related social impact activities, across contexts and geographies. Relatedly, future research could also explore how compassion venturing is shaped by shared histories between helpers and helped, how solidarity based on ethnicity, ideology, or other values fosters compassionate responses, and how it varies across contexts and target populations depending on the degree of political support for those suffering.

Finally, while compassion ventures may align with certain definitions of social ventures, such as utilizing resources to address societal challenges (Mair & Marti, 2006), not all social ventures are compassion ventures. Many social ventures are not founded on compassion-driven motivations, particularly in response to crises or disasters, and even fewer fit the definition of nonprofit compassion ventures, which are the focus of our study. We call for research that examines the diversity of nonprofit compassion ventures and social enterprises and avoids assumptions of uniformity in their development, partnerships, and resourcing. A more nuanced understanding can reveal the differences and commonalities of how nonprofit and social ventures distinctly emerge, operate, and evolve.

Implications for the Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness Literature

Our study also contributes to advancing our understanding of entrepreneurial resourcefulness. We elucidate how the interplay of distinct entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices manifests within the context of crisis response and clarify their role in expanding ventures. While Williams et al. (2021) underscored the need for theory development in entrepreneurial resourcefulness research, recent work by Fisher (2024) also calls for a deeper processual understanding of its manifestation in various contexts. Expanding on the work of Michaelis et al. (2022), we address these calls by inductively identifying and theorizing distinct types of self-reliant (entrepreneurial, venture, and embedded) and joint (organic, enforced, and bureaucratic) resourcefulness efforts.

Importantly, we extend the entrepreneurial resourcefulness perspective (Williams et al., 2021) by introducing the political dimension of entrepreneurial resourcefulness. This concept relates to the assertive, dialogic, and protective practices that entrepreneurs apply over time to mobilize and deploy resources with others. In doing so, we contribute to the literature emphasizing the importance of entrepreneurial resourcefulness in partnerships, affiliations, and collaborative settings (see Dees et al., 2004; Hertel et al., 2021; Moss et al., 2022), enhancing understanding of partners’ influence on ventures’ resource mobilization (Hillman et al., 2009; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) and how entrepreneurs can effectively manage them. While we develop new understanding of the nuanced differences between self-reliant and joint resourcefulness, as well as introduce political resourcefulness as a yet underexplored practice in the context of compassion venture expansion, we encourage scholars to further advance the entrepreneurial resourcefulness perspective by examining and developing our knowledge of the manifestations of these entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices in different venturing contexts.

Furthermore, it is widely recognized that researchers and practitioners continuously need to enhance and comprehend social impact expansion (Dees et al., 2004; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2022; Smith et al., 2016). In our paper, we address this need by offering insights into the role of entrepreneurial resourcefulness in ventures that are expanding their social impact. Our findings illustrate how new compassion ventures, both independently and collaboratively, can uphold their social impact work and endure beyond the initial emergence stage of a crisis by navigating expansion through entrepreneurial resourcefulness and, in particular, tapping into political resourcefulness practices. Our study highlights how compassion ventures may develop from short-term response initiatives into enduring agents of social impact by engaging in distinct entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices with other organizations. Building on our insights, we call for future studies to develop a more in-depth understanding of the role of entrepreneurial resourcefulness in social impact expansion over time and across entrepreneurial settings.

All in all, to live beyond the temporary, compassion ventures interact with resource providers who might support and challenge them in their entrepreneurial resourcefulness and expansion journeys. Hence, it is imperative to understand the nature of compassion ventures’ resource partnerships. Our study extends previous work (Moss et al., 2022) on resource partnerships by providing a more nuanced grasp of how these partnerships can be formed and maintained—for instance, as participatory/nonparticipatory (in terms of decision-making involvement in a venture) and organic/enforced (in terms of coordination of resourcing efforts) partnerships. Against this backdrop, our findings illustrate that some partnerships may hinder a venture’s resource mobilization depending on the focal partner’s desire to meddle in the venture, the partner’s resource dominance, and the venture’s stage and resourcing needs. Future studies can explore how compassion ventures’ strategic resource decisions influence the evolution of resource partnerships and how joint or political resourcefulness failures affect their ability to expand operations and enhance social impact. Indeed, understanding partnerships in compassion venturing can help entrepreneurs respond to crises more effectively.

Finally, most studies on entrepreneurial resourcefulness have focused on resourcefulness in the early stages of venturing. Except for one recent study (Scheidgen et al., 2024), previous studies have lacked a dynamic process-oriented perspective on resourcefulness throughout various developmental stages. Additionally, research has predominantly focused on individual entrepreneurs or ventures (e.g., Baker & Nelson, 2005; Sonenshein, 2014), with limited exploration of resourcefulness within partnerships (Moss et al., 2022). Our work examines the interaction of entrepreneurial resourcefulness practices in both the initial and later stages of venture expansion, providing a novel theoretical foundation for understanding the underlying mechanisms through which self-reliant, joint (Michaelis et al., 2022), and political resourcefulness efforts relate to one another and evolve. With this in mind, we suggest that this foundation of entrepreneurial resourcefulness applies beyond extreme contexts, and we encourage future studies to explore how different forms of resourcefulness—whether self-reliant, joint, or political resourcefulness—manifest over time and in other venturing contexts.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the crucial role of entrepreneurial resourcefulness, particularly its political dimension, in compassion venture expansion. Our analysis reveals the dynamic resourcefulness practices compassion ventures use to expand, including self-reliant, joint, and—especially—political resourcefulness. We identify political resourcefulness as a key that helps compassion ventures navigate complex interactions with resource providers and stakeholders. Our findings offer valuable insights for compassion ventures, resource-holding organizations, and policymakers, (a) emphasizing the importance of managing long-term partnerships, (b) recognizing decision-making limitations, and hopefully (c) helping design supportive policies to sustain and grow compassion ventures.