Various Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship & Entrepreneurial Problem-Solving (Dissertation Excerpt)

Entrepreneurs across the world often bear the responsibility for creatively solving problems and generating economic growth (Cooper et al., 2004; Kauffman, 2005; Johansen, 2009; Lin & Nabergoj, 2014; Kuttim et al., 2014; Nasr & Boujelbene).  Similarly, entrepreneurship is widely recognized as a catalyst for addressing wicked problems of economic, social, and environmental sustainability (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], 2017).  In UNCTAD’s (2017) report, titled Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development, the ways in which entrepreneurship contributes to achieving the SDGs are outlined.  According to UNCTAD (2017), economic entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial mindset, social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and sustainable entrepreneurship each play an important role in addressing wicked problems of sustainability.  In this section, each topic is explained to connect the concepts of entrepreneurship with addressing wicked problems of sustainability.  

Defining Entrepreneurship.  The definition of entrepreneurship is widely debated.  In fact, according to Lewis (2007), “sixty years of research is yet to produce widespread agreement on how to define entrepreneurship” (p. 2).  More than one hundred different definitions exist (OECD Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities, 2012). The ambiguity is often a result of the concept traveling “between sectors, organizations, and actors” involving a “complex process of translation” (Ruskovaara et al., 2012, p. 2).  While some researchers define entrepreneurship as new venture creation, others advocate for a broader definition involving value creation (Bridge, 2017).  For example, Mishra and Zachary (2014) define entrepreneurship as a “process of value creation” leveraged in an uncertain environment (p. 251).  Similarly, Bill Aulet, managing director of the Martin Trust Center at MIT, explains that people often believe “entrepreneurship is strictly associated with startups; that’s not how we look at it” (Somers, M., 2018).  Aulet added, “We believe that entrepreneurship is a way of creating value” both as an entrepreneur and as an employee.  

Bridge (2017) warns the lack of clarity can be quite problematic due to misaligned expectations of funders, providers, and students regarding entrepreneurship education, potentially leading to disappointment for some.   In an academic setting, the course outcomes may be misaligned with a borrowed curriculum.  In a funding scenario, the grantor may expect job creation outcomes, while the grantee designs the application around building entrepreneurial competencies for employability.    

The current study provides examples of programmatic value creation related to economic, social, and environmental outcomes.  Therefore, this study will adopt a broader definition of entrepreneurship through the lens of value creation.  In the broader sense, “entrepreneurship often involves the self-directed pursuit of opportunities to create value for others.  By creating value for others, individuals empower themselves” (G. Schoeniger, personal communication, July 15, 2020).  According to Feld and Hathaway (2020), “while ideas may be the wellspring of economic potential, entrepreneurs are [also] the change-agents that bring that potential into reality, resulting in a wide variation in business performance and value creation” p. 25).

Entrepreneurial Economy.  Entrepreneurship is often viewed as an economic growth and jobs issue, which is considered a wicked problem and included in the SDGs.  John Dearie (2021), Founder of the Center for American Entrepreneurship, offered important insight into why entrepreneurship is critical to economic growth, during a recent interview.   According to Dearie (2021), new businesses account for nearly all net new job creation, while established larger businesses are more likely to shed jobs.  This assertion was based on years of his research, along with the studies of others. 

Haltiwanger (2010) analyzed more than 70 million business establishments across America, using the Census and other government data, to determine whether small, large or young businesses created more jobs.  Interestingly, the researcher found (a) new businesses disproportionately account for innovation in America and (b) as existing businesses focus on increasing efficiency through technology, the aggregate effect is a decline in jobs, shedding one million jobs annually on a net basis.  

Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow (1988) explained that innovation is the driving force of job growth.  Taken together, new businesses lead to innovation and ultimately, job growth.  Dearie (2021) agreed, stating, “If it were not for businesses younger than five years old, the jobs base in this country would actually shrink.  New businesses are the principal source of innovation, which drives economic growth and job creation”.  

Research also indicates that new business formation has been in decline across America and broadly across industry sectors for over forty years (Decker et al., 2015).  Dearie (2021) continued, “If new businesses are the source of innovation, economic growth and job creation, and if new business formation is in decline, maybe that would explain why notwithstanding the herculean efforts of policymakers to accelerate economic growth and job creation, it wasn’t working”.  According to Dearie (2021), policymakers and economic growth advocates should be more focused on the entrepreneurial economy if they want to see economic and job growth.

Entrepreneurship Education. Today, entrepreneurship education is widely acknowledged on campuses and in research publications across the globe. In 2014, there were 71 peer-reviewed journals dedicated to the subject, 1,600 colleges and universities offering at least one entrepreneurship course on the topic, and 4,000 endowed chairs (Neck et al., 2014). In addition, there are over 100 US-based entrepreneurship centers affiliated with academic institutions (Neck et al., 2014).

A degree in entrepreneurship signals to job recruiters an acquisition of in-demand 21st-century skills, such as collaboration, problem-solving, and communication (Drucker, 1985; Kauffman Foundation, 2005; Neck et al., 2014). Otani (2015) reported that Bloomberg publications surveyed recruiters to find out what competencies are most in-demand. The findings indicated a demand for analytical thinking, CPS, motivation, communication, global mindset, collaboration, and entrepreneurial mindset. Entrepreneurship education instills an action-oriented ability to address complex problems creatively, embrace ambiguity, identify opportunities, advocate for their ideas, tolerate risks, and adapt to change (McGrath & MacMillan, 2000).  The process facilitates CPS, which supports paradigm shifts that can change society by shifting business models (Hunter, 2012).  Additionally, most entrepreneurial education programs aim to (a) strengthen creative awareness, (b) recognize opportunities and take action, (c) act as an economic engine by training professionals and other educators, and (d) educate students about using business models to address economic and social problems (Hunter, 2012).

Best practices in entrepreneurship education have been thoroughly examined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in a series of reports provided on the organization’s website (OECD, 2021).  An OECD Entrepreneurship360 report titled, Entrepreneurship in Education:  What, Why, When, How provides a rich perspective regarding pedagogical approaches, value creation, competencies, tools, models, and processes (Lackéus, 2015).  The OECD Entrepreneurship360 report focused on defining and assessing the entrepreneurial mindset (Krueger, 2015).  

Entrepreneurial Mindset. Entrepreneurship education often aims to instill an entrepreneurial mindset using CPS for complex 21st-century issues (Küttim et al., 2014; Entrepreneurial Learning Initiative, 2021).  Entrepreneurial mindset is defined as a cognitive process that empowers individuals to address problems and creatively generate ideas in uncertain environments (McGrath & MacMillan, 2000). The phenomenon is characterized by navigating uncertainty, pursuit of new opportunities, creative idea generation, problem-solving, growth mindset, risk-taking, iteration, and demonstrating tenacity (McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Sardeshmukh & Smith-Nelson, 2011; The Entrepreneurial Learning Initiative, 2021).  Moore (2014) explained that entrepreneurial mindset education builds confidence in problem-solving and decision making. McGrath and MacMillan (2000) asserted that the entrepreneurial mindset consists of five characteristics, including (a) seeking new opportunities, (b) disciplined pursuit of opportunities, (c) filtering through and focusing on the best opportunities, (d) adaptively executing, and I inviting others to pursue entrepreneurial leadership.   The entrepreneurial mindset is often assessed through competencies, which are outlined through the EntreComp framework. The framework includes 3 competence areas, 15 competences, and 442 learning outcomes (Bacigalupo, Kampylis, Punie, & Van den Brande, 2016).  

Starters.  The concept of starters emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic based on the premise that “We are all starters.  All of us are born with an innate ‘right to start,’ to make an idea into reality” (Hwang, 2020, p. 5).  In 2020, Victor Hwang, former Vice President of Entrepreneurship at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, launched the nonprofit, Right to Start, with the goal of influencing minds, policies, and community.  According to Hwang (2020), “entrepreneurial opportunity ignites economic justice” and should be supported through (a) less red tape, (b) equal access to capital through financial innovation, (c) expanded access to entrepreneurial learning through local providers and libraries, and (d) a democratization of the ability to take risk through portable healthcare and student loan deferral.  Hwang calls for policymakers to redirect 5% ($2.7B) of “workforce training and economic development funding to helping Americans start businesses through local entrepreneurial support organizations” (p. 35).  With the appropriately trained entrepreneurship educators and evidence-based programming, community colleges are well-positioned to already take on the role.  Hwang also recommended America’s New Business Plan (www.startusupnow.org) for policy ideas to help drive prosperity through entrepreneurship (p. 36).

Changemakers.  The changemaker is defined as an individual who is driven to creatively tackle an economic, social, or environmental problem.  Changemakers take action, often through systemic interventions, to advance change for the purposes of simply improving society (Ashoka, 2016).  According to Ashoka (2016), there are six types of changemakers, including:

• Social Architects- Policymakers and organizational leaders
• Influencers- Educators, researchers, journalists, and parents
• Investors- Impact investors and philanthropists
• Skills Catalysts- Accountants, lawyers, mediators, and computer programmers
• Inventors- Engineers and scientists
• Connectors- Conveners and community organizers

Social Entrepreneurship.  One type of changemaker is a social entrepreneur (Ashoka, 2016).  According to Duke University’s (n.d.) Fuqua School of Business and the Center for Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship is the process of recognizing and resourcefully pursuing opportunities to create social value with the innovative method.  Social entrepreneurs are innovative, resourceful, and results-oriented individuals, who draw upon the best thinking in both the business and nonprofit worlds to develop strategies that maximize social impact.  These entrepreneurial leaders operate in all kinds of organizations: large and small; new and old; religious and secular; non-profit, for-profit, and hybrid.  (para. 1)

Dees (2001) described social entrepreneurs as change agents whose mission is to create and promote social value (rather or in addition to private value) through innovating, adapting, and continuous learning.  While business entrepreneurs are viewed as focused on the economy, social entrepreneurs are focused on social change (Dees, 2003). According to Bornstein (2004), social entrepreneurs “are driven, creative individuals who question the status quo, exploit new opportunities, refuse to give up, and remake the world for the better” (p. 15).  Dees (2003) emphasized the important role of innovation and impact of social entrepreneurship in which business-minded individuals and methods pursue innovative solutions to addressing social problems.  In fact, some researchers have highlighted the important role that social entrepreneurs play as bridges between business and philanthropy by applying entrepreneurial theory to address societal problems related to the environment, equality, and economic issues (Roberts & Woods, 2005).  After examining the literature surrounding social entrepreneurship, Jiao (2011) proposed that “higher levels of social entrepreneurship are positively related to social impact in society” (p. 139).  Jiao (2011) encouraged governments, associations, and academic institutions to collaborate and cultivate a culture of problem-solving through social entrepreneurship.  

According to Dees (2012), the field of social entrepreneurship is comprised of two cultures:” an old-age culture of charity and a more contemporary culture of entrepreneurial problem-solving” (p. 321). Dees (2012) asserted that success in social entrepreneurship requires a blend of both cultures, but Muhammad Yunus (1999), founder of Grameen Bank, acknowledged that often charity only perpetuates societal challenges, such as poverty.  Frustrated by the charitable approaches to poverty, many thinkers sought a more systematic and scientific approach, which the researchers coined as “scientific charity”.  Social entrepreneurship is considered as an “extension of this analytic problem-solving thrust” (Dees, 2012, p. 322). Social entrepreneurs are motivated by their drive and ability to alleviate the damage caused by an unjust equilibrium (Martin & Osberg, 2007). Researchers have acknowledged that social entrepreneurs need to collectively work toward outcomes (Moriano et al., 2012), but too few social organizations track outcomes associated with their mission and strategies (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001).

The Schwab Foundation’s Impact Study provides insight into the power of social entrepreneurs (Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, 2020).  According to the study, 130 entrepreneurs can collectively reach 662 million people across 190 countries for the purposes of supporting the Sustainable Development Goals. Additionally, the report outlines the most common issues social entrepreneurs work on, including education, economic opportunity and development, entrepreneurship and enterprise development, health and healthcare, environment and climate, gender equality, financial inclusion, workforce development, rural development, childhood and youth rights and development.  In fact, the organization explicitly cites achieving measurable progress across all of the Sustainable Development Goals, which are described in the report as “a rally cry for action” (Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, 2020, p. 10).

A prominent group of philanthropic and multi-stakeholder organizations, including Ashoka, Catalyst2030, Schwab Foundation, Skoll Foundation, Echoing Green, and facilitation partner McKinsey & Company (2021) recently published a report titled, New Allies:  How governments can unlock the potential of social entrepreneurs for the common good.  In the report, social entrepreneurs are described as “the R&D engine for society – and government. They design, test, and debug new approaches that tackle the root causes of social problems. Once shown to work, their innovations inform better policies that increase prosperity, participation and equity for citizens” (p. 2).  According to Bill Drayton, the founder of Ashoka, “Social entrepreneurs are not content with giving people fish or teaching people how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry” (p. 7).

The authors of the report also emphasized the need for ‘systems social entrepreneurship’.  According to Jeroo Billimoria, Chief Facilitator for Catalyst2030, “Systems social entrepreneurship is about a distinct way of approaching social problems, not about specific organizational forms or business models. To accelerate SDG achievement, we need to strengthen this entrepreneurial spirit and a culture of collaboration in all sectors” (p. 2).  The Skoll Foundation’s Chief Strategy Officer, Shivani Garg Patel, emphasized, “There are already many synergies between social entrepreneurs and government, notably a focus on systems-level solutions to address urgent societal challenges – and when they partner together, they can create impact at greater scale”.  Patel added, “By pairing the innovative solutions from social entrepreneurs closest to the issues with the reach and expertise of government partners, alliances are created that pave the way for truly transformational, sustainable change” (p. 2).  The author’s suggested that government players can “create the ecosystems that social entrepreneurs need to change policies, practices, power dynamics, social norms and mindsets” (p. 3).  Therefore, entrepreneurial ecosystems play a critical role if community colleges are to address wicked problems collaboratively through partnerships. 

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.   Entrepreneurial ecosystems are defined as, “the geographically-bound systems of individuals, organizations, physical resources, social structures, and cultural values that generate new venture activity” (Roundy, 2017, pp. 1221-1222).  Evidence has indicated that these ecosystems are “potent engines for economic and community development” (Roundy, 2017, p. 1221).  Various stakeholders, including accelerators, incubators, business plan competitions, and public funding incentives, promote synergies that can be harnessed to collectively address wicked problems (Volkmann et al., 2019).

Entrepreneurial Builders as Principal Investigators.   Ecosystem builders are central players in entrepreneurial ecosystems, as they drive long-term and system-wide change by supporting innovation and entrepreneurship in their region or community (Gines & Sampson, 2019; Kauffman Foundation, 2021; Horn, A., 2017).  These individuals contribute to local, regional, state-wide, and national goals by (a) leading recognized startup ecosystem building initiatives, (b) running entrepreneurial centers and coworking spaces, (c) managing accelerators, incubators, or startup school programs, (d) serving in professional economic development or government roles, or (e) investors and serial entrepreneurs investing in building their local ecosystem (Startup Champions, 2020; Kauffman Foundation, 2021; Horn, A., 2017).   

Ecosystem builders occasionally serve as publicly funded principal investigators (PI) tasked with public sector entrepreneurship activities (Cunningham et al., 2019).  The PI within this context is defined as “an influential entrepreneurial ecosystem actor, whose actions and behaviors shape and influence” economic and social change, often through activities involving research and complex multi-stakeholder engagement.  Cunningham et al. (2016) identified ten roles and responsibilities of PIs when taking on public-sector activities.

Ecosystem Mapping.   Ecosystem mapping, which leverages the actor and factor model, is a common starting point for communities seeking to build an entrepreneurial ecosystem or individuals new to a community (Feld & Hathaway, 2020).  The process involves developing categories of who is involved in the ecosystem and what role that individual plays.  Actors include the leaders, feeders, and instigators, while the factors include seven types of capital:  human capital, intellectual capital, financial capital, institutional capital, cultural capital, network capital, and physical capital (p. 61).  The broader entrepreneurial ecosystem involves accelerators, incubators, coworking spaces, entrepreneurial support organizations, large corporations, media, research and advocacy groups, local and regional government, national government, colleges and universities, service providers, investors, coaches, advisors, mentors, startup employees, and serial entrepreneurs (p. 187).  However, ecosystems are not static, and therefore, the maps shouldn’t be either.  This realization has led many ecosystem builders to integrate network analysis models, which demonstrate dynamic relationships, mental models, and influence between players within the ecosystem (Feld & Hathaway, 2020).  Strategic Doing is a multi-stakeholder process that leverages open innovation to build strategic value through collaborative dialogue, creating shared value for complex challenges (Morrison et al., 2019).  The program has been used to prompt ecosystem action between multiple stakeholders within the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Morrison et al., 2019). 

Ecosystem Logics.   Ecosystems foster different institutional logics (Gulati et al., 2012), which are defined as “the formal and informal rules of action, interaction and interpretation that guide and constrain decision makers” (Ocasio & Thornton, 1999, p. 804). The two dominant logics within entrepreneurial ecosystems are entrepreneurial-market logic and community logic (Roundy, 2017).  Entrepreneurial-market logic involves economic or capitalistic logic concerned with efficiency, competition, wealth accumulation, profit maximization, and value capture.  Activities common within entrepreneurial-market logic often involve pursuing innovation, creativity, and opportunity, tolerating uncertainty, and developing new business models (Cunningham et al., 2002).   Community logic emphasizes cooperation, altruism, community needs, and societal value creation (Marquis et al., 2011; Reay et al., 2015; Thornton et al., 2012).

The blended or hybrid logic is particularly important because of its influence on the effectiveness of problem-solving in the context of wicked problems of sustainability (Spigel, 2016).  However, organizations juggling different logics commonly experience tension (Greenwood et al., 2011).  For example, while entrepreneurial-market logic may emphasize maximizing profit, community logic often promotes altruistic goals (Smith et al., 2013).  Several researchers have examined organizations that combine both market and community logics to address social problems through business methods (Smith et al., 2013).

Sustainability and Entrepreneurship. Sustainability and entrepreneurship have several common characteristics. For example, both require innovation through creatively combining resources in new ways (Nicholls-Nixon et al., 2000), are concerned with protecting future generations, and emphasize impact as a primary goal. Modern literature views sustainable entrepreneurship as an imperative for business success, whereas literature of the past sees the concept as capital cost without return (Bocken et al., 2014, p. 647).  Similarly, Weidinger (2014) viewed sustainable entrepreneurship not as “a job for the do-gooders or idealists but rather an essential strategic decision” (p. 292).

Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education develops creative problem-solving skills for social and economic issues, competencies aligned with sustainable entrepreneurship (Johansen, 2010; Lin & Nabergoj, 2014).  Sustainable entrepreneurship (SE) is defined as discovering and creating entrepreneurial opportunities that improve social and environmental gains for members in society in an uncertain environment (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010; Pacheco et al., 2010; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011), “consistent with sustainable development goals” (Pacheco et al., 2010, p. 471). The core concept is based on combining social entrepreneurship and environmental sustainability (Dean & McMullen, 2007). While social entrepreneurship is driven by mission over profit, sustainable entrepreneurship is driven by social and environmental problems without neglecting profit (Dean & McMullen, 2007). In the past, sustainable entrepreneurship was primarily focused on the environment but recently shifted to a societal focus, prompting more attention from the scientific community (Fellnhofer et al., 2014). Sustainable entrepreneurship is widely cited as a method for addressing environmental (Cohen & Winn, 2007; Dean & McMullen, 2007; York & Venkataraman, 2010) and societal issues (Zahra et al., 2009) faced in this century. 

Ploum et al. (2018) used a qualitative method to examine several existing frameworks for sustainable entrepreneurship. Data were collected through a questionnaire distributed to a sample of 438 students at the University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. Findings suggested the seven key competencies for sustainable entrepreneurship include a) systems thinking competence, (b) embracing diversity and interdisciplinary competence, (c) foresighted thinking competence, (d) normative competence/stakeholder goal mapping, I action competence, (f) interpersonal competence, and (g) strategic management competence.  

Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.  Cohen (2013) defined sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems as “an interconnected group of actors in a local geographic community committed to sustainable development through the support and facilitation of new sustainable ventures” (p. 3).   Volkmann (2019) explored how entrepreneurial ecosystems can promote addressing wicked problems of sustainability to support the SDGs.  Welter et al. (2019) viewed sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems within the larger holistic context of bettering society and the environment.  According to Volkmann et al. (2019), four factors promote sustainable entrepreneurship: (a) possess a sustainability orientation, (b) recognize and mobilize for opportunities to address sustainability, (c) innovatively collaborate for sustainability initiatives, and (d) markets for sustainability are discovered or created.  Bischoff and Volkmann (2018) identified factors needed for success in sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems, including (a) a regional culture that supports entrepreneurs, (b) stakeholders specifically support sustainable business, and (c) collaborative networking supports sustainable entrepreneurship.  

Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often used interchangeably with social entrepreneurship but important differences between the two exist (Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018). For example, CSR refers to expectations for the corporation to meet the needs of investors and stakeholders, while behaving ethically and without doing harm to society or the environment. While CSR accompanies the core business, sustainable entrepreneurship is embedded into the core business. In simple terms, CSR’s goal is “doing less bad” while sustainable entrepreneurship aims to “do more good” (York & Venkataraman, 2010, p. 451). 

Triple Bottom Line. The concept of Triple Bottom Line (TBL) or 3P (People, Planet, and Profit) was introduced by Elkington and Upward (2016) as a practice method for balancing three dimensions of sustainability:  economic health (profit), societal equity and justice (people), and environmental resilience (planet) Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010).  Haines (1998, p. 10) suggested the dimensions are in hierarchal order.  The which would explain why the terms sustainability and environment are sometimes used interchangeably (Pacheco et al., 2010). Today, the TBL concept is a widely accepted framework appropriate for explaining how sustainable entrepreneurs operate (Elkington, 1997). 

? Copyright, 2021, by Samantha Bryant Steidle, All Rights Reserved.