We develop the beginnings of a grounded theory of entrepreneurship based on the idea that entrepreneurship, in terms of a changing opportunity structure–-consisting of opportunity detection, opportunity facilitation and motivation to pursue opportunity–-can be viewed through a paradoxical perspective that considers the interplay of organizational and individual capabilities as virtuous and vicious spirals across time. The virtuous spiral led toward successful change because of supportive organizational and individual capabilities across time. The vicious spiral led away from successful change because of countervailing organizational and individual capabilities. Paradoxically, however, we found that entrepreneurship developed in both types of spirals. We discuss these points based on two case studies of Finnish banks and bank managers within the fundamentally changing opportunity structure of the banking business in the late 1980s.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshbyW. (1952). Design for a brain.New York: Wiley.
2.
CovinJ. G., & SlevinD. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.
3.
DayD. L. (1992). Research linkages between entrepreneurship and strategic management or general management. In SextonD. L., & KasardaJ. D. (Eds.), The state of the art of entrepreneurship.Boston: PWS-Kent.
4.
GartnerW. G. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 15–28.
5.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.New York: Aldin.
6.
van HeigenoortJ.. (1958). Social behavior as exchange.American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.
7.
HowellJ. M., & HigginsC. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation.Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317–341.
8.
HuntJ. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
HuntJ. G., & RopoA. (In press). Systems motivation, leadership, and teaching in an innovative academic setting. In BessJ. L. (Ed.), Teaching well and liking it: The motivation of faculty in higher education.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
LaaksoJ. (1986). Suomen rahoitusjärjestelmä.Suomen Pankki A: 64. Helsinki.
11.
LindsleyD. H., BrassD. J., & ThomasJ. B. (1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective.Academy of Management Review, 20, 645–678.
12.
MacMillanI. C. (1987). New business development: Challenge for transformational leadership.Human Resource Management, 26, 439–454.
13.
MasuchM. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 14–23.
14.
MeyerA. D., TsuiA. S., & HiningsC. R. (1993). Configuratonal approaches to organizational analysis.Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195.
15.
MillerD., & FriesenP. H. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
PinchotGiffordIII (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don't have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur.New York: Harper & Row.
17.
PooleP. P., GioiaD. A., & GrayB. (1989). Influence modes, schema change, and organizational transformation.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25, 271–289.
18.
PooleM. S., & Van de VenA. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories.Academy of Management Review, 14, 562–578.
19.
QuinnR. E., & CameronK. S. (1988). Paradox and transformation. A framework for viewing organizational and management. In QuinnR. E., & CameronK. S. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management.Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
20.
RothenburgA. (1979). The emerging goddess.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
RopoA. (1989). Leadership and organizational change. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, ser A, vol 280. Tampere: University of Tampere, Finland.
22.
RopoA., & HuntJ. G. (1994). Leadership and organizational change: Development of a processual grounded theory. Unpublished manuscript, College of Business Administration, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
23.
SantalainenT. (1983). How savings banks confronted deregulation in Finland. Unpublished manuscript, Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki.
24.
SmithK. K., & BergD. N. (1988). Paradoxes of group life.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
StevensonH. H., & JarilloJ. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management.Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.
26.
StevensonH. H., RobertsM. J., & GrousbeckH. I. (1989). New business ventures and the entrepreneur.Homewood, IL: Irwin.
27.
StewartA. (1989). Team entrepreneurship.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
StewartA. (1991). A prospectus on the anthropology of entrepreneurship.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 71–91.
29.
StraussA. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
StraussA. L., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
ThatcherV. S. (1971). The new Webster's encyclopedic dictionary of the English language.Chicago: Consolidated Book Publishers.
32.
Van de VenA. (1987). Review essay: Four requirements for processual analysis. In PettigrewA. (Ed.), The management of strategic change.Oxford: Blackwell.
33.
Van de VenA. (1992). Longitudinal methods for studying the process for entrepreneurship. In SextonD. L., & KasardaJ. D. (Eds.), The state of the art of entrepreneurship.Boston: PWS-Kent.
34.
Van de VenA. H., & PooleM. S. (1993). Explaining development and change in organizations.Academy of Management Review, 20, 510–540.
35.
WestenholzA. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference.Organization Studies, 14, 37–58.
36.
YinR. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
