Entrepreneurship and Change: Understanding Entrepreneurialism As A Driver of Transformation

Edited by
Denis Hyams-Ssekasi
Fredrick Agboma
Entrepreneurship
and Change
Understanding
Entrepreneurialism as a
Driver of Transformation
Entrepreneurship and Change
Denis Hyams-Ssekasi • Fredrick Agboma
Editors
Entrepreneurship
and Change
Understanding Entrepreneurialism
as a Driver of Transformation
Editors
Denis Hyams-Ssekasi Fredrick Agboma
Institute of Management Liverpool Business School
University of Bolton Liverpool John Moores University
Bolton, UK Liverpool, UK
ISBN 978-3-031-07138-6 ISBN 978-3-031-07139-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
Entrepreneurialism is a much quoted, but in many ways still a not com-

pletely understood, phenomenon and there are many folk beliefs about
it, some of them lazily incorporated without adequate interrogation into
the scholarly literature. So, this book, which is based on careful research,
is a welcome addition to an already vast literature. It avoids grand ges-
tures of acclamation of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurialism and focuses
on reporting findings that stay close to practical experience of entrepre-
neurialism as a driver of transformation.
This book is anchored in the reality of the entrepreneurial journey,
starting not with a recapitulation of the presumed personal qualities of
the entrepreneur like sticking to the craft or knowledge-based knitting,
demonstrating resilience, persistence and other character traits, but
instead leading off with a review of contextual linkage with the external
environment into which the challenge of the ‘new’ has to be inserted by
the entrepreneur. This is a refreshing note to strike that involves prob-
lematising newness in terms of change and transformation from a range
of perspective and levels.
The liability and advantages of venture newness and the marked
changes they occasion are thus an interesting focus for scholarly research.
I am delighted this book contributes enormously to this cause. The focus
of enterprise as an agent of socio-economic and environmental change
comes at a time when more collective action is required to harness the
v
vi Foreword
power of enterprise as a force for good. Our world is facing unique sets of
socio-economic and environmental issues that require urgent action—
and entrepreneurship has an important role to play in this.
In the book, entrepreneurship is often presented through a sociological
lens and thus the societal context is widened beyond the usual economic
and financial parameters incorporated into analytical frameworks. When
considering transformational change, it is important to understand that
this may involve negative as well as positive outcomes. Not least to me as
the some-time co-owner of a start-up in the sector of perfume retailing in
a tourist destination. On reflection we did well enough to enter the ‘lia-
bility of adolescence’ and if we had access to the scholarship of this book
we might well have reflected that we had already grown up faster than we
knew or had expected and that this stage imposed its own vulnerabilities.
Next time we might get it right.
The scope of this collection is wide-ranging and covers several themes
not usually encountered in the literature of entrepreneurship, including
the agricultural sector and some developing economies that pose special
issues for research. Some of these intersect with themes such as need-
driven entrepreneurship in which features of the communal context are
significant. Volunteer-led and community and collective bases for entre-
preneurial agency are a helpful focus, often illustrating a refreshing nov-
elty of approach, some of them illustrating the positive outcomes possible
from smart responses to negative environmental shocks.
Hopefully this emphasis will lead to more empirical research on, for
example, the viable lessons from the evolving crisis of the Covid-19 pan-
demic. This focus could borrow from framings in other areas of science,
for example newer geological understandings of the implications of spe-
cies extinction for framing the conditions of adaptive response and auto-
poietic adaptation. To adequately account for the role of entrepreneurship
in transformational change, survival for the small entrepreneurial enter-
prise has to be construed as more than just getting through to another
Friday and Resilience to be more than ducking once more into the trench
as the shells fly overhead. In a world of radical uncertainty, both incre-
mental small-scale change and collaborative wide-scale initiatives are
important.
Foreword vii
For those in the HE sectors, the chapters on entrepreneurialism in the

university type of organisation will be especially significant, problematis-
ing the zones where it becomes necessary for institutions to go beyond
strategising and market-chasing responses into the need to question craft
skills, personality and system preferences in recruitment, training and
development processes and effective utilisation of scholarly time in the
management of knowledge-based systems.
This new emphasis must move on from a knowledge-transfer perspec-
tive that does not see only one side of the KT bargain as bearing the sole
responsibility as creator of new knowledge but of both sides developing
through the vulnerabilities of practice into a trusting mind-set in which
new knowledge is vitalised through a process of co-creation and authen-
tication in reflexive practice. To crystallise the triple helix and to justify
taking on the third mission, universities have much that needs to change
in their culture and practices because this is not just a selling job. In some
ways it requires reverting to an earlier more adaptive, more accepting
model that respected the experienced knowledge of craft and practice
that in business and management was more characteristic of the post-war
situation up to the 1960s in FE and HE before the mechanistic choke-
hold of the REF, rankings and no publications/no promotion started to
ransack universities as Alaric’s Goths ransacked Rome. Hybrid forms are
by no means inferior but are necessary in the processes of mutation. Some
universities were more entrepreneurial in the nineteenth century than in
the twenty-first.
In a brief foreword there is not space enough to mention every point
of interest in the varied collection of chapters in this interesting book that
offers few pre-cooked solutions but much opportunity for Socratic dia-
logue, and there is no doubt that this book offers new insights and gives
notice of good practice and craft improvement in several respects and is
well worthy of adding helpfully to the literature.
York,
UK David Weir
viii Foreword
References
Acs Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2005) (eds.). Handbook of entrepreneurship
research. Springer.
Gibbons, B. J. (2003). Warning: May contain nuts: Capstone Publications.
Hoffman, S. (2021). Surviving a start-up. HarperCollins.
Preface
Like change, entrepreneurship is an ever-present and enduring feature of

social and economic life. Failure to consider the role and importance of
either or both of these phenomena can have significant impact on the
prosperity of societies. This understanding of change and entrepreneur-
ship provides a landscape for the examination of the ways in which prog-
ress, growth and development manifest themselves. The argument being
advanced here is that change and entrepreneurship are key tenants of
human existence that serve to inform how we perceive of and operate in
our respective spaces. Change is a multifaceted phenomenon of entrepre-
neurship which comprises fundamental elements: the environment, cre-
ativity and innovation that serve as conditions for entrepreneurship to
emerge. The entrepreneurship environment is perceived to include the
many facets of an ecosystem within which enterprises of all nature, sizes
and scope must operate in. In view of this, the influence of the environ-
ment in the lifecycle (development, introduction, growth, maturity and/
or decline) of these businesses is well-recognised in both theory and prac-
tice (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Kshetri, 2014). The environment is encap-
sulated and often synthesised through an examination of political,
socio-economic, technological, legal and cultural dimensions. From a
level’s perspective, the environment is generally considered to transpire
across three planes of hierarchy, namely the macro, meso and micro level
that can differently bring about change in entrepreneurship as well as
ix
x Preface
change through entrepreneurship. Conversely, entrepreneurship can also

cause changes to occur in each of the three levels of the environment. In
this way, entrepreneurship is also seen as a catalyst of change in the envi-
ronment (Elert & Henrekson, 2021).
While the environment is a wholly exogenous consideration, creativity
necessitates a primary and internal focus on the individual. In this sense,
creativity and the environment can be said to sit at opposite ends of the
spectrum in our thinking about entrepreneurship. This endogenous cogni-
tive mechanism of entrepreneurship centres on the ability to excogitate
new insights, perspectives and patterns of relationship that constitute novel
ideas (Gilson & Litchfield, 2017). Essentially, creativity is an attitude and
mental process underpinned by a desire for change. For Gurteen (1998),
creativity is an ideas-generation process reliant on divergent thinking. It is
a key tool under the entrepreneurship umbrella which fosters opportunities
that are original and unique (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). The importance of
creativity is emphasised by Burns (2016) who reports on its ability to bring
about (incrementally or transformationally) changed ideas in an increas-
ingly dynamic, unstable and uncertain business environment.
In relation to entrepreneurship, innovation represents the tangible
manifestation of the creative business endeavours. Kanter (1983) defines
innovation as the generation, acceptance and implementation of new
ideas, processes and products which involve creative use as well as original
invention. Embedded in innovation is the notion of ‘mould-breaking’
development in goods and services that can be linked to commercial
opportunities and successful exploitation (Burns, 2016). Innovation is
about the recognition and taking opportunities for making changes that
introduce new ideas into practice so as to make a difference to what busi-
nesses provide. While innovation is considered to be a relative rather than
an absolute concept (Smith, 2005), there is an acceptance that truly
innovative ideas must have practical application and be financially viable.
Thus, to align with the principles that govern innovation, acceptance and
implementation are considered paramount.
Underlying the notion of change, learning plays a pivotal role in the
practice of entrepreneurship. Rigg and O’Dwyer (2012) and Ollila et al.
(2012) discuss how entrepreneurs learn how to be and act entrepreneurially
from members of their network including family, customers, employees,
Preface xi
suppliers, competitors and others. Drawing on Kolb and Kolb’s (2005)

learning cycle theory, a number of dimensions inherent in the learning-
entrepreneurship relationship are identified. In their view, learning is a pro-
cess that involves the coming together of cognitive, affective and experiential
attributes culminating in knowledge creation. It acts as a bridge between
the person and the environment where new information or experiences are
transformed via internal reflection and/or manipulation of the external
world. The suggestion here is that for learning to be an effective process, the
mere perceptions of experiences are insufficient; there is also a need for
transformation to occur in how individuals think, feel and act. Corroborating
this viewpoint, Shane (2000) reports that learning is not merely dependent
on knowledge but also encompasses the process through which individuals
acquire and transform their knowledge. Learning and its transformative
effect on knowledge result in bringing together the three fundamental ele-
ments of entrepreneurship alluded to earlier. Therefore, learning and
change help to initiate and sustain entrepreneurship. Acquiring knowledge
and skills relevant to business venturing has led to a widening opportunity
for and interest in entrepreneurship across stakeholder groups (Hyams-
Ssekasi & Agboma, 2020).
In seeking to examine the nature and role of change in relation to
entrepreneurship, this book focuses on an understanding of entrepre-
neurialism as a driver of transformation. Special attention is given to
practical and theoretical perspectives of entrepreneurship with emphasis
on a holistic approach to change and learning. It raises a couple of impor-
tant questions around how the contest for practice and for learning is
fundamental for increased entrepreneurship behaviour and how the
implications for different conceptions of change are manifested through
entrepreneurship.
We have divided the book into three parts, which examine change
from a theoretical, educational and industrial context. In Part I, the chap-
ters cover theoretical perspective of entrepreneurship and change. In
Chap. 1, Wapshott and Mallett provide an account of the challenges and
insights from change encountered by small enterprising firms. In Chap.
2, Heyworth-Thomas, Hyslop and Jones take a multi-disciplinary
approach to the study of entrepreneurship and societal changes. Agboma
(Chap. 3) delivers a view of entrepreneurship from an outcome of change
xii Preface
perspective. In Part II, there are four educations-based studies of change

and entrepreneurship geared towards learning and knowledge transfor-
mation. This is followed by Crammond, Scuotto, Obi Omeihe and
Murray (Chap. 5) who take a pedagogical approach and examine the use
of digital technology as a resource for transformative entrepreneurship
education. Guo, Edghiem, Dakhan and Khan (Chap. 6) examine the
moderating role of culture in entrepreneurship intention using the theory
of planned behaviour. The final chapter in this part offers an overview of
change in relation to experiential learning in entrepreneurship education
within the context of knowledge and skin transfer(Nyaria, Hyams-Ssekasi
and Mushunje, Chap. 7). Part III consists of three chapters which focus
on entrepreneurship and practice. Yasin and Khansari (Chap. 8) reflect
on the role of business incubators in the context of entrepreneurship and
economic development. In Chap. 9, Panditharathna, Hossain and
Bamber discuss the challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurship in
relation to the prevailing culture and offer insights for policy-making.
Following this, the study of Daskalaki and Hyams-Ssekasi (Chap. 10)
examines the entrepreneurship environment and the opportunity for
innovation it provides. The book ends by remarking on the transforma-
tive bidirectional powers of entrepreneurship both in terms of social
structures and in terms of social relationships.
Finally, we owe thanks to many people who have enabled this book to
come to fruition. Firstly, we would like to thank the contributors for tak-
ing the time to write their chapters and the reviewers for their role in
providing feedback and intellectual stimulation to the contributors. We
are also grateful to Dr Jamie Halsall and Dr Michael Snowden who have
been invaluable sources of inspiration and gave us the impetus and
encouragement to embark in this project. We would also like to thank Liz
Barlow at Palgrave Macmillan for her support at every stage of the book
and Tikoji Rao Mega Rao and the production team at Springer for their
dedicated work during the production process.
Bolton, UK Denis Hyams-Ssekasi

Liverpool, UK Fredrick Agboma
Preface xiii
References
Bruyat, C., & Julien, P. A. (2001). Defining the field of research in entrepre-
neurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 165–180.
Burns, P. (2016). Entrepreneurship and small business. Palgrave Macmillan.
Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2021). Entrepreneurship prompts institutional
change in developing economies. The Review of Austrian Economics,
34(1), 33–53.
Gilson, L. L., & Litchfield, R. C. (2017). Idea collections: A link between cre-
ativity and innovation. Innovation, 19(1), 80–85.
Gurteen, D. (1998). Knowledge, creativity and innovation. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 2(1), 5–13.
Hyams-Ssekasi, D., & Agboma F. (2020). Entrepreneurship education in the
making for start-ups. In: Peters M., Heraud R. (eds) Encyclopedia of educa-
tional innovation. Springer.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and productivity in
American corporations. Simon & Schuster.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces:
Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 4(2), 193–212.
Kshetri, N. (2014). Global entrepreneurship: Environment and strategy. Routledge.
Ollila, S., Williams Middleton, K., & Donnellon, A. (2012). Entrepreneurial
Identity Construction-what does existing literature tell us?. In Institute for
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Annual Conference, Dublin Ireland.
Rigg, C., & O’Dwyer, B. (2012). Becoming an entrepreneur: Researching the
role of mentors in identity construction. Education+ Training, 54(4), 319–329.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial oppor-
tunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.
Smith, K. H. (2005). Measuring innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery,
and R. R. Nelson (eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford
University Press.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the contributors to this book for their aca-
demic and professional input and all those who have supported us at the
various stages in the text’s developments. Our sincere thanks go also to
the following reviewers for their time spent on reviewing the different
chapters and the thoughtful comments that helped us to improve the
book: Prof Dr Çağrı Bulut, Yaşar University, Turkey; Dr Konstantinos
Biginas, University of East London, UK; Dr Eirini Daskalaki, ACC
Akademia College, Cyprus; Dr Iain Stalker, University of Bolton, UK;
Prof. John Sharp, OLC, (Europe); Dr Vlasios Sarantinos, University of
the West of England, UK; Dr Chris Bamber, OLC (Europe); Mr Irfan
Chhadat, University of Bolton, UK; Dr Asad Ghalib, Liverpool Hope
University, UK; and Dr Toritseju Rita Pessu, Birmingham City
University, UK.
xv
Contents
Part I Entrepreneurship and Change 1
1 Persisting
and Reoccurring Liability of Newness:
Entrepreneurship and Change in Small Enterprises 3
Robert Wapshott and Oliver Mallett
2 Entrepreneurship
and Societal Change 23
Elizabeth M. Heyworth-Thomas, Katie Hyslop, and
Rosalind Jones
3 Articulating
a View of Entrepreneurship as Outcome of
Change in Practice 43
Fredrick Agboma
Part II Entrepreneurship and Learning 65
4 Change
Strategies for the Entrepreneurial University:
Towards a Contextualized Understanding 67
Michael Breum Ramsgaard
xvii
xviii Contents
5 Reframing
University-Level Entrepreneurship Education
Through Digitisation and Transformational Technologies:
An Institutional Case Study103
Robert James Crammond, Veronica Scuotto, Kingsley Obi
Omeihe, and Alan Murray
6 Investigating
Female Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention
in the UK and Pakistan: An Application of TPB129
Xiuli Guo, Farag Edghiem, Sarfraz Ahmed Dakhan, and
Muzammal Khan
7 Experiential
Learning in Entrepreneurship Education for
Sustainable Agricultural Development: A Bibliometric
Analysis165
Nyarai Margaret Mujuru, Denis Hyams-Ssekasi, and Abbyssinia
Mushunje
Part III Entrepreneurship in Practice 189
8 Exploring
the Enterprise Landscape for Business
Incubators in the UAE191
Naveed Yasin and Zeinab Khansari
9 Entrepreneurship
and Culture: Challenges and
Opportunities209
Mohammad Rashed Khan, Roshan Panditharathna, Md Ismil
Hossain, and David Bamber
Contents xix
10 Unravelling
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Within the
Hospitality Industry: A Case Study of Selected Hotels in
Cyprus239
Eirini Daskalaki and Denis Hyams-Ssekasi
C
oncluding Remarks269
I ndex275
Notes on Contributors
Fredrick Agboma is a senior lecturer at Liverpool Business School,

Liverpool John Moores University, UK. He holds an MSc in Information
Technology, Management and Organisational Change from the
University of Lancaster and a PhD in Entrepreneurship in Developing
Countries from the University of Manchester. Prior to an academic career
at the University of Manchester, Fredrick gained industry experience at
the African Development Bank as well private sector organisations in the
finance and energy sectors. He is a senior fellow of the Higher Education
Academy; is a member of the Institute for Small Business and
Entrepreneurship; and has research interests in entrepreneurship, innova-
tion management and private sector development.
David Bamber is an acknowledged scholar and Professor of Marketing
Research with over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject. His
PhD research critically examined the interrelationships of personality
within organisational learning and learning organisations. He is an edu-
cational psychologist with over 40 years’ teaching and learning practice
under his belt. David is Director of PhD Studies for the Institute of
Management, University of Bolton. He has a wealth of experience in
diverse disciplines in business ethics, marketing, finance and manage-
ment. He is also an internal and external examiner for PhD in many
universities in the UK. Previously he has worked with Salford University,
xxi
xxii Notes on Contributors
Liverpool Hope University, Canterbury Christ Church University, York

St John University and many other leading universities in the UK. He is
a great teacher, educator, mentor, specialist and generalist in higher edu-
cation as well as in the industry.
Robert James Crammond is Lecturer in Management, and a programme
leader at the University of the West of Scotland, UK. His academic inter-
ests lie in enterprise and entrepreneurship education and progressing
enterprise-centric stakeholder theory. A Fellow of the Higher Education
Academy (FHEA) and Certified Management and Business Educator
(CMBE), Crammond teaches across many disciplines, including organisa-
tional behaviours and stakeholder relationships, leadership theory and
practice, human resource management, organisational development and
addressing business research skills. His work has been published in many
international journals, and his debut book concerning teaching and sup-
port for entrepreneurship education was released in 2020.
Sarfraz Ahmed Dakhan is Professor of Entrepreneurship at Sukkur
IBA University, Pakistan. Dakhan is a renowned academician with 20
years’ teaching experience in public as well as private universities in
Pakistan. He has written more than 20 research articles in various inter-
national journals and a book chapter. His area of interest included female
entrepreneurship, culture and economics. He holds his PhD from
University of the West of Scotland and a master’s degree from Robert
Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.
Eirini Daskalaki is the Academic Director and Head of Research at
ACC Akademia College, Cyprus. She holds a BA in Philosophy, Pedagogy
and Psychology from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens;
an MA in Intercultural Business Communication from the University of
Central Lancashire; and a PhD in Intercultural Communication and
Business Strategy in the hotel industry from the University of Glasgow.
Her area of expertise concerns the leisure/hospitality sector and intercul-
tural communication. Her research interests also include a variety of
HRM-related fields such as learning/training and development, diversity
and entrepreneurship. She teaches on a variety of courses related to busi-
ness and management, tourism and hospitality.
Notes on Contributors xxiii
Farag Edghiem is Assistant Professor of Marketing and Retail Management

in the Institute of Management Greater Manchester. Being an active con-
tributor to numerous academic journals and conferences, Edghiem focuses
on the topics of service innovation and the critical role of service employees
in initiating innovation. Edghiem’s research also opts to explore the deter-
minants of automated service encounters, both online and offline, and ser-
vice users’ segmentation through analysing Big Data.
Xiuli Guo is Lecturer in Marketing in the School of Business and
Creative Industries at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS),
UK. She holds an MSc in International Marketing and a PhD in the
areas of business management and marketing, both from the University
of the West of Scotland. She has over 19 years of experience in teaching;
research; supervising undergraduates, postgraduates and PhD students;
and educational management in higher education institutions both in
China and in the UK. She has also worked in a number of different roles
for companies and organisations, amongst them are assistant marketing
manager, communication assistant and chief operation officer.She suc-
cessfully completed several research projects either independently or col-
laboratively when she worked in China. She authored a number of
publications including academic journal articles, conferences papers and
book chapters. Currently she is actively participating in a few Knowledge
Transfer Partnerships (KTP) projects at UWS, providing guidance and
expertise in marketing for companies to solve real-world problems. Her
areas of research interest include but are not limited to service marketing,
digital marketing, international marketing, public sector marketing and
management, consumer behaviour, business and management, widening
participation, work-based learning and pedagogy in business education.
Elizabeth M. Heyworth-Thomas is a programme leader at Liverpool
Business School. With a PhD in Sociology and Social Policy from Bangor
University, much of Elizabeth’s work explores entrepreneurship in the
third sector and contributions to the everyday lives of people living with
complex conditions from a policy and business perspective. Her current
research projects include the sustainability of small firms in rural regions
(AONBs, UK), business owner wellbeing perspectives, supporting social
xxiv Notes on Contributors
enterprise in vulnerable community groups and Black and Minority

Ethnic (BME) participation in wellbeing activity.
Md Ismil Hossain is working as an external PhD supervisor at the
Centre for Islamic Finance, University of Bolton. He obtained his PhD
from the Institute of Management, University of Bolton, UK, where he
was also acting as a President for Postgraduate Research Society. Hossain
specialised in developed and developing country contexts including their
socio-cultural, political, economic and judicial aspects. He also special-
ised in the field of national and international human resources manage-
ment. Hossain holds a Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)
with distinction in where his teaching skills have been framed on the UK
Professional Standards that supports the leading, engagement and col-
laboration of students.
Denis Hyams-Ssekasi is Director of Studies and Lecturer in Business
Management at the University of Bolton, UK. He received his doctorate
from the University of Huddersfield. Denis has a keen interest in entre-
preneurship and enterprise. He has developed and delivered modules on
entrepreneurship, ran several mentoring schemes and offered consultancy
to start-up businesses, especially in developing countries. He has also
edited a book entitled Experiential Learning for Entrepreneurship:
Theoretical and Practical Perspectives on Enterprise Education and co-edited
Women Entrepreneurs and Strategic Decision Making in the Global Economy.
He is a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a member of
the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Katie Hyslop is Lecturer in Business Management at Liverpool John
Moores University, UK. She received her PhD in Economics and Social
Sciences from the Vienna University of Economics and Business in
December 2019. Katie’s research interests include open innovation pro-
cesses in SMEs, citizen science and openness in knowledge production
and dissemination.
Rosalind Jones is Professor of Management at Liverpool Business
School and an award-winning academic and well-published author in
journals such as the International Small Business Journal, Tourism
Management, Journal of Business Research and Journal of Entrepreneurship
Notes on Contributors xxv
and Innovation. Current research projects include the study of supply

chains and networks for technology innovations (Quantum Sensing
Technologies), sustainability of small firms in rural regions (AONBs,
UK), digital marketing in tourism Small and Medium Enterprise (SMEs)
and the study of technology-driven SMEs.
Muzammal Khan is a lecturer in the School of Business and Creative
Industries at the University of the West of Scotland, Scotland, UK. He
has graduated with a PhD from the university in which he is currently
working. He is an author of several publications and a researcher in the
field of business ethics and entrepreneurship research. Currently, he is
supervising a PhD project that investigates the impact of culture on
women entrepreneurship in a developing country. He is keen to conduct
further research on interdisciplinary topics.
Mohammad Rashed Khan is Lecturer in Business at Salford Business
School, UK. He obtained a PhD from the Institute of Management,
University of Bolton, where he held several admin roles in the Postgraduate
Research Society. He specialises in the field of national and international
human resources management. Khan holds a Post Graduate Certificate
in Education (PGCE) in which his teaching skills have been framed on
the UK Professional Standards that support the leading, engagement and
collaboration of students.
Zeinab Khansari is an affiliate researcher working with University of
Regina and Ryerson University, Canada. She received her PhD in
Chemical Engineering (energy and environment specialisation) from the
University of Calgary and is interested in performing multi-disciplinary
researches in the fields of engineering, entrepreneurship and education.
She has previously taught in both graduate and undergraduate levels in
different universities in Canada and the Middle East (Iran and Oman).
Zeinab is an associate member of the Institute of Chemical Engineers
(AMIChemE) and EIT member of the Association of Professional
Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA).
Oliver Mallett is Associate Professor of Work and Employment at
Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Scotland. Oliver’s
most recent book, A History of Enterprise Policy (2020), examines the role
xxvi Notes on Contributors
of government in shaping the external environment for small firms and

entrepreneurs. His research has been published in journals such as Work,
Employment & Society and the British Journal of Management.
Alan Murray is Lecturer in Business and Enterprise at the University of
the West of Scotland, UK. He is a programme leader for the BA
Management, teaches a range of enterprise and business modules and is
an active researcher. Alan has over ten years’ industry experience with
leading enterprise agencies as a business adviser and consultant with
Business Gateway and a Regional Enterprise Manager with The Prince’s
Scottish Youth Business Trust (PSYBT) and has helped over 1000 clients
set up and develop their businesses. Alan is also an experienced entrepre-
neur in his own right having run his own adventure recreation business
since 1999.
Abbyssinia Mushunje is a professor in the Department of Agricultural
Economics and Extension at the University of Fort Hare, South Africa.
The department focuses on issues that have to do with the economics of
agriculture. He holds a PhD in Agricultural Economics and an MSc in
Agricultural Economics from University of Fort Hare, South Africa.
Abbyssinia has successfully supervised 28 PhD and 41 master’s students.
He specialises in food security, rural livelihoods, natural resource man-
agement and land reform. He has authored over 70 articles in peer-
reviewed journals, book chapters and technical reports.
Nyarai Margaret Mujuru is a scholar and lecturer, teaching agricultural
economics at the University of Fort Hare, South Africa. She holds a PhD
in Agricultural Economics and an MSc in Economics. Her areas of inter-
est include food security, resource use efficiency, smallholder develop-
ment, trade and poverty. She has written manuscripts under these topics.
Her professional and career path envisions contributing to the ongoing
transformation and sustainable development of rural communities in
Africa at large.
Kingsley Obi Omeihe is a leading educator in entrepreneurship and an
advisor to small and ethnic minority businesses. He is Assistant Professor
of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Edinburgh Napier University,
UK, where he oversees the Graduate Apprenticeship Programme.
Notes on Contributors xxvii
Kingsley’s contribution to entrepreneurship studies relies on the use of

institutional logics to critically analyse complex entrepreneurial behav-
iour in society. He has written articles in international peer-reviewed
journals, in addition to ongoing authored books, as well as chapter con-
tributions. He also holds the position of chair for the Minority
Entrepreneurship Group at the Institute of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship (ISBE).
Roshan Panditharathna is Lecturer in Business at Newcastle University
Centre, teaching graduate and postgraduate students. He is an experi-
enced academic in the UK with extensive experience both in teaching
and in research. He has completed his PhD in Marketing and Innovation
from the University of Bolton. Before coming to teaching, he worked for
the retail industry. He is also an active researcher who has addressed
nearly 20 national international conferences in Finland, Germany, France
and in the UK, as well decent number of journal papers and book chapter
publications. He is also a member of many professional institutions such
as Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) and a fellow of the Higher
Education Academy.
Michael Breum Ramsgaard is an associate professor at VIA University
College, Aarhus, Denmark. He is a PhD student in the Department of
Management at Aarhus University. He has 15 years of research experi-
ence in the area of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial learning
and innovation management. In 2015, he was awarded a prize for his
work by Danish Society for Entrepreneurship and Business. His research
interests are all within entrepreneurship education, with a special focus
on experiential learning, entrepreneurial leadership and identity. His
research has been published in Innovations in Education and Teaching
International and Education+ Training.
Veronica Scuotto after working at the University of the West of
Scotland, UK, and then at the Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci, Paris,
France as Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, joined
the University of Turin, Italy. Her research interests are focused on SMEs,
entrepreneurship and digital technologies. Her work has been featured in
several peer-to-peer international journals and books. She is the editorial
xxviii Notes on Contributors
assistant of the Journal of Intellectual Capital and editorial board of Journal

of Knowledge Management.
Robert Wapshott is an associate professor in the Haydn Green Institute
for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the University of Nottingham,
UK. He writes about small business management, particularly employ-
ment relationships and management practices. Robert is an editor for the
International Small Business Journal.
Naveed Yasin is (Full) Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Abu Dhabi
School of Management, UAE. He has extensive experience of working in
the UK and the Gulf region delivering the British and North American
Higher Education curricula. Winner of the highly acclaimed ‘Outstanding
All-Round Academic Award 2015’ conferred by the Teaching and
Learning Institute, UK, Yasin has an extensive record of impactful publi-
cations in entrepreneurship and business management journals and has
also examined doctorates (PhD) as a lead external examiner for Cranfield
University, UK, and University of Pretoria, South Africa. He has also
been a member of the Babson College’s (USA) enterprise educators’
global consortium. Yasin graduated with an MSc and a PhD in Cross-
National Entrepreneurship from the University of Huddersfield, UK,
and an MA in Higher Education from Manchester Metropolitan
University, UK.
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Entrepreneurship: a facilitator of societal change and

empowerment27
Fig. 2.2 Entrepreneurship: born out of societal change 31
Fig. 3.1 Attributes of enterprise culture (Gibb, 1987) 49
Fig. 3.2 3Cs view of entrepreneurship as outcome of change 56
Fig. 4.1 Influences on the transformation into an entrepreneurial
university91
Fig. 4.2 A processual understanding of the transformation into an
entrepreneurial university based on theory development 94
Fig. 5.1 Institutional and cultural factors for university-led dEE 121
Fig. 6.1 The research conceptual framework 135
Fig. 7.1 Annual scientific production. (Source: Scopus (1991–2020)) 177
Fig. 7.2 Co-occurrence network 180
Fig. 7.3 Country collaboration network 181
Fig. 9.1 Hofstede’s 6D Model, scores of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka 219
Fig. 9.2 Power distance index (PDI) 222
Fig. 9.3 Individualism versus collectivism 224
Fig. 9.4 Masculinity versus femininity 226
Fig. 9.5 Uncertainty avoidance index 227
Fig. 9.6 Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation 228
Fig. 9.7 Indulgence versus restraint 230
xxix
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Definitions of entrepreneurial university (elaborated from

Guerrero-Cano et al., 2006) 70
Table 4.2 The five waves of entrepreneurial university literature 86
Table 4.3 Questions for future research topics about the
entrepreneurial university 96
Table 5.1 Sample details of students 111
Table 5.2 Module schedule 114
Table 5.3 Students’ responses of the use of technology 116
Table 5.4 Negative student responses 120
Table 6.1 Measurement model 139
Table 6.2 Discriminant validity 140
Table 6.3 Structural model 141
Table 6.4 MICOM Step 2 results 143
Table 6.5 MICOM Step 3 results 144
Table 6.6 Country-wise multi-group analysis 145
Table 6.7 PLS predict 146
Table 6.8 Adapted from global entrepreneurship monitor 2019/2020
global report pages 148 and 186 148
Table 7.1 Bibliometric techniques used per unit of analysis 175
Table 7.2 Summary statistics (Timespan, 1991–2020) 176
Table 7.3 Most relevant sources 178
Table 7.4 Country-specific production 178
xxxi
xxxii List of Tables
Table 8.1 The trend of BIs establishment in the UAE from 2002 to
2016199
Table 9.1 Country comparison 211
Table 10.1 Interviews with hotel management staff 250
Table 10.2 Interview questions 251
Part I
Entrepreneurship and Change
1
Persisting and Reoccurring Liability
of Newness: Entrepreneurship
and Change in Small Enterprises
Robert Wapshott and Oliver Mallett
Introduction
Writing in 1965, Arthur L. Stinchcombe set out to consider ‘the relation
of the society outside organizations to the internal life of organizations’
(Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142). In doing so he produced a wide-ranging
essay with significant insights. Stinchcombe’s proposed liability of newness
has been particularly influential. In essence, Stinchcombe considers the
role of ‘newness’ in relation to social conditions that create specific chal-
lenges for new organisations and new forms of organising. This is used to
explain why a higher proportion of new organisations, and particularly
R. Wapshott (*)
Haydn Green Institute, Nottingham University Business School, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
e-mail: robert.wapshott@nottingham.ac.uk
O. Mallett
Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
e-mail: oliver.mallett@stir.ac.uk
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 3

D. Hyams-Ssekasi, F. Agboma (eds.), Entrepreneurship and Change,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_1
4 R. Wapshott and O. Mallett
new forms of organisation, fail more frequently than older organisations

and more established organisational forms.
Although set out across only a handful of pages (148–150), the influ-
ence of Stinchcombe’s liability of newness idea has been far-reaching
(Abatecola et al., 2012). For example, it has influenced important debates
in the fields of Organisational Ecology (Baum, 1996; Freeman et al.,
1983; Hannan & Freeman, 1984) and Entrepreneurship (Abatecola &
Uli, 2016; Soto-Simeone et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020). Elsewhere,
authors such as Thornhill and Amit (2003) have highlighted the rele-
vance of shortcomings in general management skills to the failure of new
enterprises and new forms of organising.
In this chapter we utilise a firm-level perspective to revisit Stinchcombe’s
liability of newness and analyse the management challenges facing small
organisations. In the first half of the chapter, we set out Stinchcombe’s
liability of newness and the major contributions to the development of
the concept. We frame our perspective in terms of a sociology of entre-
preneurship that, building on Stinchcombe’s insights, is focused on social
relations and the social structure and considers them in relation to
Wapshott and Mallett’s (2021) characterisation of small firms. In the sec-
ond half of the chapter, we set out how, considered as relevant to forms
of novelty, the liability of newness can be experienced by these firms as
persisting and also reoccurring. We illustrate these characteristics and the
key management challenges through discussion of different pressures and
external challenges. Our chapter contributes to the study of entrepre-
neurship and change by arguing that, in recognising the challenges facing
start-ups, which are new in the sense that they are ‘young,’ we should not
overlook how small organisations can continue to encounter novel chal-
lenges, associated with how external pressures demand responses from
within the organisation.
Stinchcombe’s Liability of Newness

When we think of new organisations, we can sometimes forget what it
really means to launch an entrepreneurial venture, working with an inno-
vative idea and operating within a new product niche, market or even
1 Persisting and Reoccurring Liability of Newness… 5
industry. Setting up the firm may involve recruiting strangers who, while
experienced in past jobs, have not worked in the entrepreneur’s business
or with their innovative new ideas. There are new customers to build
relationships with, not to mention broader business contacts, supply
chains and regulators. Potentially, there is a lot that could go wrong.
The liability of newness refocuses our attention on the challenges fac-
ing new and small organisations. To fully explore Stinchcombe’s concept,
it is helpful to set his ideas in the broader context of his original chapter.
Stinchcombe was studying ‘the relation of the society outside organiza-
tions to the internal life of organizations’ (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142).
The ‘society outside’ can be thought of as the social structure, which refers
to stable characteristics including ‘groups, institutions, laws, population
characteristics, and sets of social relations that form the environment of
the organization’ (ibid.). An ‘organization’ and its ‘internal life’ are under-
stood in terms of ‘a set of stable social relations deliberately created, with
the explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals
or purposes’ (ibid.).
To understand the relationships between the external (social structure)
and the internal (organisational forms), Stinchcombe sets out several
areas for consideration. He identifies that the prevailing social structure
will affect the rate of new venture formation, especially those adopting a
new organisational form. Further, organisational forms will be shaped by
the prevailing social structure of the time they were created (also see
Stinchcombe, 1968). The effect of this can be that organisations in a
particular industry take on similar characteristics. These forms might per-
sist, even as new technologies are introduced, so long as the underlying
socio-technical system is not disrupted by their introduction.
In his consideration of new organisational forms, Stinchcombe identi-
fies what he terms the ‘liability of newness.’ Liability of newness consid-
ers the challenges facing nascent organisational forms and organisations.
Stinchcombe identifies four facets of the liability of newness:
(a) The roles required for the organisation to operate. Without the exist-
ing organisation-specific resolutions that have been worked out in
older organisations, new organisations have to find ways of getting by
‘with generalized skills produced outside the organization, or have to
invest in education (including especially the cost of inefficiency until

people learn their roles)’ (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 148);
(b) Determining how roles and social routines are developed in order to
achieve the performance required. Working through the practical
task of defining roles and ways of working, including communica-
tion, ‘have high costs in time, worry, conflict, and temporary ineffi-
ciency’ (ibid.);
(c) New organisations rely on inter-personal relations to a significant
degree, meaning that these organisations rely on inter-personal rela-
tions among strangers where trust might not yet be firmly estab-
lished. In practice, this ‘means that relations of trust are much more
precarious in new than old organizations’ (ibid., p. 149), trusting
that someone will keep their word and act as they have promised;
(d) Users of the organisation’s services, for example customers, are unfa-
miliar with the organisation, its staff, its characteristics and its pro-
cesses. For new organisations, and new organisational forms, routines
and social ties are not yet established with external stakeholders and
this could represent hurdles for users to engage with the organisation.
These four facets of the liability of newness provide us with a valuable

way of thinking about the different management challenges and tensions
that emerge from the social relations involved in new organisations and
new organisational forms. We argue that they provide valuable insights
into particular contexts of entrepreneurship and change.
The challenges in mitigating the liability of newness can affect new
organisations, to a greater or lesser degree. In a new venture that is also a
new organisational form, these problems are likely to be especially signifi-
cant because organisations might not have industry norms or relevant
experiences that can serve as ‘template’ solutions to such problems. Until
the problems facing this type of organisation have become familiar, and
routine solutions have been developed, the organisation must ‘muddle
through’ as it finds ways to cope.
An entrepreneur starting a new coffee shop will face decisions about
how it is going to operate and what that means for managing the
organisation. They will need to address the tasks that need to be com-
pleted and how different roles will fit together, while staff will take time
to establish their working relationships. The owner and the staff will need
to decide how they want to deliver the service to customers and work
with other external stakeholders. However, while the challenges that can
lead to the liability of newness will cause headaches and require some
learning-by-doing, there are templates that exist for how a coffee shop
operates. Employees are likely to have experience working in similar
organisations and customers are able to evaluate the products and services
they are offered. More formally, the fact that a business format can be
sold as a franchise arrangement suggests that answers have been found to
the challenges of running a coffee shop. Although the challenges might
be new to the specific venture and team, success depends on making a
conventional structure work.
Contrast the coffee shop example with a new venture founded in an
emerging industry where it might be the first of its kind. Here, we are
thinking especially about those ventures that are at the cutting edge of
innovation, but other examples will also exist (e.g., it may be possible to
hypothesise a radically new form of coffee shop). In such organisations,
the liability of newness is experienced not only in terms of the particular
challenges associated with a new venture but also in terms of organisa-
tional practices. There are no ready templates to implement in solving the
problems encountered and the team members’ prior experiences in other
organisations could be ill-suited to the present challenges. Adopting solu-
tions that have been devised to solve different problems in other forms of
organisation can be harmful (Stinchcombe, 2001). Of course, there is no
guarantee that new organisations will make it through such challenges or
that the new organisational forms that are developed will be adopted
more widely to replace existing alternatives.
Since Stinchcombe set out these ideas, they have been unpacked,
empirically investigated, debated and in some cases extended. Before
beginning to explore the importance of the liability of newness to entre-
preneurship and change, we provide a brief historical overview of several
key themes in this subsequent work.
Studying the Liability of Newness

The liability of newness has been empirically investigated in different
ways and settings; conceptually it has been expanded to address a broader
set of phenomena. This has included discussions of a ‘liability of small-
ness’ (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Coad, 2018) and a ‘liability of volatility’
(Lundmark et al., 2020). In this section, we provide a very brief historical
overview of the liability of newness concept in the fields of Organisational
Ecology and Entrepreneurship.
Scholars developing the field of Organisational Ecology placed an
emphasis on liability in terms of venture mortality. Mortality might occur
in different ways, such as dissolution or being absorbed through merger,
and might differ between organisational populations. Freeman et al.
(1983) studied populations of labour unions, semiconductor manufac-
turers and newspaper companies, finding evidence that among these dis-
tinct populations of organisations, ‘there is indeed a liability of
newness—death rates at early ages are much higher than those at later
years’ (p. 706).
However, Aldrich and Yang (2012) argue that, because researchers
generally study organisations found in business registers, Stinchcombe’s
ideas have received limited direct testing. By the time businesses are reg-
istered, they will have typically overcome the liability of newness or are at
least more established ventures than those Stinchcombe had in mind, an
observation confirmed by Soto-Simeone et al. (2020). As a consequence
of researchers’ reliance on datasets of relatively established firms, Aldrich
and Yang call for greater attention to be paid to emerging firms (see also
O’Toole & Ciuchta, 2020).
Other scholars have raised questions around how long a period of
‘newness’ lasts, leading some to propose a ‘liability of adolescence’
(Bruderl & Schussler, 1990; Fichman & Levinthal, 1991). Rather than
focusing on the initial period of organisational founding as representing
one of high mortality, the liability of adolescence thesis holds that mor-
tality rates increase once ‘initial resource endowments of a firm’ are spent
(Bruderl & Schussler, 1990, p. 530). A new organisation, it is argued,
benefits from the resources gathered ahead of the organisation’s founding.
These resources can be financial ones but also include the goodwill and
commitment that exist at the start of a new venture (Fichman & Levinthal,
1991), the so-called assets of newness (Choi & Shepherd, 2005).
The initial resources held by a new venture can be understood as pro-
viding an initial ‘buffer’ or ‘honeymoon period.’ The resource endow-
ments that support this buffer allow the organisation to function and,
depending on how well-resourced the organisation initially is, this may
provide opportunities to work through the challenges of overcoming the
liability of newness. However, certain of the intangible resources, such as
goodwill and commitment, not to mention the effort required to found
a new venture, can be expended in meeting the demands of establishing
the organisation or, for example, where it faces short-term revenue vola-
tility (Lundmark et al., 2020). The buffering or honeymoon period may
therefore buy time but may ultimately only delay the liability of newness.
What we are focused on in this chapter is understanding the nature of
the challenges that emerge in connection with the liability of newness
and how they are addressed, at whatever point in an organisation’s time-
line they occur. What is interesting in the liability of adolescence findings
for our focus on entrepreneurship and change is how the opportunity
provided by ‘buffering’ of initial resources is utilised to address liability.
We want to understand the challenges involved in the liability of newness
not in aggregate, at the level of business populations, but in terms of the
processes at a firm-level.
New Organisations or Small Organisations?

As studies adopting the liability of newness expanded, Aldrich and Auster
(1986) distinguished the liability of smallness as a related but distinct
concept. Although most new organisations are small, the challenges asso-
ciated with newness are presented as distinct from those of smallness. The
liability of smallness relates to problems associated with accessing and
holding resources. The examples provided by Aldrich and Auster (1986)
include those of raising capital, coping with government and regulatory
requirements and competing for labour with larger organisations (see also
Coad, 2018).
Freeman et al. (1983) have argued that the concepts should be under-
stood as co-existing rather than dichotomous. Since new organisations
are often small, these ventures will commonly be exposed to the demands
of their external environment. Those organisations with higher initial
resource endowments can utilise these assets to act as a buffer against
challenges and might experience later and less severe levels of risk in terms
of mortality (Bruderl & Schussler, 1990). Conversely, new organisations
without resource munificence could be subject to environmental changes
that they have little buffer against. New and small organisations might be
forced into continually adapting in the face of environmental turbulence,
limiting their capacity to age and establish ways of working that permit
efficiencies to be developed through routines (Starbuck, 1965). The lia-
bility of smallness can therefore be understood as extending, or otherwise
compounding, the liability of newness (Aldrich & Auster, 1986).
What is important in terms of firm size, especially for our firm-level
approach, is to understand the particular characteristics that tend to char-
acterise smaller businesses. This is important for understanding firms’
internal dynamics and their relationship with the external social struc-
ture. Drawing on Wapshott and Mallett (Wapshott & Mallett, 2021; see
also Wapshott & Mallett, 2015), we can summarise these common ten-
dencies or characteristics in the following terms:
Takers not makers of the external environment: business founders can exer-
cise choice over the sector and location of their venture (see Child,
1972). However, once in an environment, small players are likely to
find themselves with limited capacity to bend that environment to
their will (Rainnie, 1989).
Owner-manager prerogative: notwithstanding these external constraints on
the organisation, internally the owner-manager can typically exert sig-
nificant influence over operations (Moule, 1998; Ram & Edwards, 2003).
Close spatial and social proximity: arises where employee numbers are
small and staff can be co-located. With colleagues working side-by-
side, it might be easier for tasks to be shared and for performance to be
observed. Along with close spatial proximity come degrees of social
proximity, although such interactions are not necessarily familial or
friendly (Ram, 1999).
Informal and ad hoc: approaches to internal operations tend to character-

ise small firms (Ram et al., 2001). This provides the flexibility required
for responding to environmental turbulence or owner-manager
decisions.
Low task specialisation: arises from the basic fact of tasks requiring com-
pletion. Rather than have one person dedicated to specific roles in the
enterprise, each person might ‘wear different hats’ so the bookkeeper is
also responsible for health and safety as well as dealing with human
resources queries and acting as general office manager.
Resource poverty: can often refer to keenly-felt financial constraints on small
enterprises, but it can also be thought of more widely in terms of things
like time, technical knowledge or other resources needed to take the ven-
ture in the direction desired (Cassell et al., 2002; Welsh & White, 1981).
In considering these characteristics in relation to the specific manage-

ment challenges Stinchcombe identified in his discussion of the liability
of newness, we are interested in how small organisations may then
become vulnerable to the liability of newness in other ways, beyond the
founding of the business.
Newness or Novelty?
In placing an emphasis on the firm-level analysis of the liability of new-
ness, our aim is to foreground for examination the management chal-
lenges faced internal to the organisation, while acknowledging the wider
social structure that shapes these challenges and the responses to them.
We interpret each facet of the liability of newness as a management chal-
lenge, or as a question posed to business leaders. In this way, the four
facets of Stinchcombe’s liability of newness outlined above can be
expressed as follows:
(a) How can we work out the roles required for the organisation to
operate?
(b) How can we develop the roles and social routines to achieve the per-
formance required?
(c) How can we consolidate inter-personal relations among our team

members where trust is not yet firmly established?
(d) How can we build familiarity with our customers and other external
stakeholders?
We therefore frame the liability of newness as a set of problems rooted

in social relations and the social structure that need to be addressed in the
process of forming and running a new organisation or new organisational
form. If we focus on these management challenges, it is apparent that
beyond newness per se, which might be confused with the age of the
organisation, it is the novelty encountered that drives these challenges and
that this might therefore recur beyond the creation of a firm. For exam-
ple, novel tasks, roles or relationships may create challenges as an organ-
isation enters new markets, begins new operations or develops new ways
of doing business (see also Shepherd et al., 2000). We argue that it
becomes useful to frame these novel challenges as giving rise to a liability
through doing new things, not necessarily simply by being a new firm. In
these circumstances, the four problems or management challenges posed
earlier are likely to persist beyond start-up.
ersisting and Reoccurring Liability

P
of Newness: Understanding Crises
Reframing the liability of newness as concerned primarily with novelty
has important implications for our understanding of entrepreneurship
and change. In taking this view, we follow Hannan and Freeman (1984)
who reason that, where degrees of change are so fundamental as to reor-
ganise work groups, work patterns and working relationships, such ‘reor-
ganization sets the “liability of newness” clock back towards zero’ (Hannan
& Freeman, 1984, p. 159). The challenges associated with liability of
newness can therefore affect not only organisations that are young, in
terms of years since founding, but also those organisations responding to
pressures for change. It is here that reframing the challenges as related to
novelty as well as newness is useful.
The need for change can amount to organisational ‘crises’ (Child &
Kieser, 1981, p. 48) that fundamentally alter an organisation and the
ways in which it operates. Child and Kieser’s perspective on crises recog-
nises mortality as just one outcome from such situations:
The mortality of an organization represents its final insuperable crisis, but

many more crises may have preceded this point in its development. To
some extent, a crisis successfully overcome may represent a rebirth, in the
sense that changes initiated are sufficiently radical for a new identity
to emerge.
This conceptualisation of a ‘rebirth’ captures a clear sense of setting the

clock back towards zero, where an existing firm encounters the liability of
newness as it faces novel challenges. From this, we can develop the con-
cept further by considering how the liability of newness extends beyond
questions of mortality and can embrace consideration of the manage-
ment challenges arising through novelty. In the second half of this chap-
ter we will argue that, considered in this way, the liability of newness can
be persistent and reoccurring.
A persistent liability of newness arises where an organisation, from
inception or since the previous crisis, does not successfully establish rou-
tines. That is, the management challenges associated with the liability of
newness are not overcome. The means of addressing novel tasks or work-
ing relationships do not become routine and so frustrate the development
of operational efficiencies. For example, the organisation could experi-
ence high levels of staff turnover that hinder the development of inter-
personal relationships and a clear understanding of who does what.
By contrast, a reoccurring liability of newness arises when the organisa-
tion faces up to a new crisis and the resulting reorganisation is sufficiently
significant that it ‘robs an organization’s history of survival value’ (Hannan
& Freeman, 1984, p. 160). The organisation members find themselves
facing novel situations that re-expose them to the liability of newness.
The routines that have developed and the trust and organisational effi-
ciency that have been established are no longer fit for purpose. For exam-
ple, we might see this where a disruptive new technology or change in
regulations transforms the way an industry is structured and how busi-

ness is conducted.
To explore in more detail how the liability of newness can be poten-
tially persistent and reoccurring for small enterprises, we can return to
Stinchcombe’s focus on ‘the relation of the society outside organizations
to the internal life of organizations’ (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142) and
Wapshott and Mallett’s (2021) identification of characteristics common
to many small firms. Next, we explore these ideas in relation to the role
played by turbulent external environments, managers’ ability to respond
to challenges posed and other organisation members’ responses to situa-
tions characterised by the liability of newness.
Turbulent Environments
As set out by Wapshott and Mallett (2021), small enterprises can be con-
sidered as takers, not makers, of their external environment. They tend
not to have the ability to significantly influence the demands placed upon
them. Moreover, with limited resources (‘resource poverty’) small organ-
isations might lack opportunities to fully assess how changes in the envi-
ronment will impact the organisation or to plan a response. Instead, small
organisations will often need to address environmental changes in ad
hoc, reactive ways that can suddenly and significantly alter the ways in
which the business operates.
Ongoing challenges as a result of turbulent environments are likely to
be further compounded by resource poverty. In the first instance, turbu-
lent environments demanding change might hamper the ability of the
organisation to establish and build upon processes that allow it to meet
requirements through routinised operations. Pressures to continually
adapt can hinder the effective management of the tasks the organisation
needs to undertake and how roles can be coordinated to achieve these
tasks. Secondly, such reorganisation may require additional resources that
the organisation lacks, or which have been depleted in the face of ongo-
ing changes (something we expand upon below).
Consider how a small clothing manufacturing business would be dis-
rupted by strict social lockdown requirements under Covid-19. Typically,
a traditional factory or workshop environment could operate with close

spatial and social proximity in terms of how work was monitored and
relationships were formed. How can this operate if tasks are to be com-
pleted by staff working from home? Shifting the organisation model to
one more akin to outworkers can allow the organisation to keep operat-
ing but management cannot proceed on the basis of close spatial proxim-
ity. Those established ways of working and managing are forced to change
as ‘business as usual’ no longer applies and the organisation has effectively
returned towards ‘zero’ and, as a result, faces significant novelty.
In this way, where organisations experience environmental turbulence
as a crisis, they may be subject to the types of management challenges
associated with the liability of newness. The liability may be persistent if
the crisis is extended in duration, or reoccurring if it arises after a period
of relative stability in the organisation. These crises, as experienced in the
organisation, need not be isolated events. In Australia, the Covid-19 pan-
demic followed traumatic bush fires, while in the UK uncertainties
around the post-Brexit business environment were compounded by the
impacts of Covid-19.
Management Skill
Deficiencies in management skill have been associated with rates of busi-
ness mortality. Thornhill and Amit (2003, p. 500) argue that it takes time
for managers to learn about the organisation and to be able to mitigate the
liability of newness: ‘Young firms will be more prone to failure as a func-
tion of general management because time is required to develop the neces-
sary firm-specific knowledge, skills, and abilities.’ A difficulty arising in
the context of small firms is that there might be limited opportunity to
develop this firm-specific learning as the organisation is under pressure to
respond to the demands placed upon it. This is also the case in both per-
sistent and reoccurring instances of the liability of newness where signifi-
cant management skills are likely to be required to coordinate tasks and
employee activities, to help build trust and new relationships.
We can see this clearly if we return to the example of our hypothetical
factory or workshop impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The scope for
owner-manager prerogative, commonly associated with small firms

(Wapshott & Mallett, 2021), reflects their control of the strategic direc-
tion of the firm. It often also means that they are responsible for many of
the management tasks and decisions that need to be made. The manage-
ment challenges associated with the transition to working online, with no
relevant experience or expertise among the staff, may include but would
certainly not be limited to the need to develop new means of working
and collaborating, a possible breakdown of trust within the firm and the
need to engage with and perhaps to reassure external stakeholders.
Understood in this light, where crisis or crises might degrade the value
of routines established and experiences acquired to-date, criticism of
management skill in small firms might be unfair. It can take substantial
time and resources to reorganise structures, people’s roles and how they
work together and to develop new relationships inside and external to the
firm. The day-to-day experience for many entrepreneurs leading small
firms with limited resources is simply a lack of time and support, for
instance in the form of templates of organising that can be adopted.
Subject to requirements for fast responses to pressure for significant
change, which also limit the value of existing knowledge and practices,
owner-managers of small firms in highly competitive environments often
do well to keep the organisation running at all.
Resource Commitment
Against a backdrop of environmental turbulence and with managers
seemingly unable to bring stability to the organisation, organisation
members can be tentative in their willingness to commit organisation-
specific resources. Not only may there be a lack of trust invested in social
relations but also feelings of stress and anxiety around the uncertainty of
change and newness. This can discourage personal commitment of
resources, for example not wanting to tailor one’s skills and development
to the needs of a business that may soon cease to exist (Choi & Shepherd,
2005; Hannan & Freeman, 1984). Yang et al. (2020, p. 2) identify that
‘early-stage team members are reluctant to provide resources tailored to
the business, even though such resources are critical to venture survival.’
This can be a particular issue given the low task specificity that is com-
mon to work in many small firms (Wapshott & Mallett, 2021).
This means that organisations have to address the challenges they face
‘with generalized skills produced outside the organization, or have to
invest in education (including especially the cost of inefficiency until
people learn their roles)’ (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 148). This might be less
of a problem where there are established roles and forms of organising.
For example, where the organisation is operating in a traditional industry
or from an established organisational model the generic skills and ways of
working that are available are more likely to be appropriate. However, it
will be a significant challenge if the firm is operating, for example, in an
innovative industry at the leading edge. Here, traditional ways of work-
ing may not be appropriate to the new product or service or the new
organisational form.
Where a persistent liability of newness occurs, those organisation
members who are uncertain of the organisation’s viability may continue
to have little incentive to invest in organisation-specific skills. This is
especially the case for those skills that are perceived to have limited value
externally. For example, where the organisation is using an innovative
process or technology that is not in operation elsewhere, members might
hold something back, causing the organisation to continue to rely on
generalist skills. However understandable the organisation members’
reluctance to commit may be, this might reinforce the problems and
result in the liability of newness persisting further. Without organisation
members’ commitment to establishing routines particular to that organ-
isation, efforts to coordinate activities and to establish trust around agreed
processes will be hard to come by.
The problems for organisations facing a persistent liability of newness
might differ from those facing a reoccurring liability of newness. Once
members have started to commit organisation-specific resources, even
where liability of newness reoccurs, these commitments can serve as an
incentive to invest further in order to see the organisation’s continuation
(Fichman & Levinthal, 1991). Having already established a stake in the
organisation, members of organisations facing a reoccurrence of liability
of newness might be willing to adapt in an effort to retain their jobs in
the reorganised venture. Particularly for small enterprises, as
characterised by Wapshott and Mallett (2021), the liability of newness

does not necessarily go away, but rather it might persist, and, even if it is
overcome at some stage, enterprises’ exposure to the social structure leaves
them potentially vulnerable to its reoccurrence.
Conclusion
This chapter has set out a firm-level approach to considering the manage-
ment challenges associated with the liability of newness. Managers, and
others in the organisation, need to address what roles are required for the
organisation to operate, how those roles and the associated social routines
will be developed, how trusting inter-personal relations will be estab-
lished and how familiarity will be built between the organisation and its
external stakeholders. Further, we have focused attention on persistent
and reoccurring instances of the liability of newness that, from a firm-
level perspective, extends the relevance of this approach beyond new ven-
tures to challenges associated with the novelty inherent in entrepreneurship
and periods of significant change.
The analysis in this chapter also highlights the importance of a clear
understanding of common characteristics of small firms to understand-
ing entrepreneurship and change (Wapshott & Mallett, 2021).
Characteristics including how small organisations relate to their environ-
ments, tightly constrained resources to buffer against turbulence and
informal and ad hoc working practices, can have a bearing on how the
liability of newness is experienced and the means to mitigate this liability.
This is, of course, not to suggest that all small firms are the same but
rather that an ‘ideal type’ of small firm that highlights key factors they
tend to exhibit provides a valuable starting point for considering the
types of issue raised in this chapter.
Finally, our analysis of entrepreneurship and change, developed from
the classic work of Arthur L. Stinchcombe, emphasises the value of a
sociology of entrepreneurship attentive to social relations and social
structure. An analysis of social relations helps us to identify the key chal-
lenges that emerge in response to novelty, in terms of how people work
together, how trust develops and how relationships are built within and
external to the organisation. It is important to understand, in turn, how

these social relations are shaped by (and at times shape) the social struc-
ture. This sociology of entrepreneurship and the relationships between
social relations and social structure for entrepreneurial firms suggests an
important agenda for future research.
References
Abatecola, G., Cafferata, R., & Poggesi, S. (2012). Arthur Stinchcombe’s “liabil-
ity of newness”: Contribution and impact of the construct. Journal of
Management History, 18(4), 402–418.
Abatecola, G., & Uli, V. (2016). Entrepreneurial competences, liability of new-
ness and infant survival: Evidence from the service industry. Journal of
Management Development, 35(9), 1082–1097.
Aldrich, H. E., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of
age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 8(1), 165–198.
Aldrich, H. E., & Yang, T. (2012). What did Stinchcombe really mean?
Designing research to test the liability of newness among new ventures.
Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 2(3), 1–14.
Baum, J. A. C. (1996). Organizational ecology. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, &
W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 77–114). Sage
Publications.
Bruderl, J., & Schussler, R. (1990). Organizational mortality: The liabilities of
newness and adolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 530–547.
Cassell, C., Nadin, S., Gray, M., & Clegg, C. (2002). Exploring human resource
management practices in small and medium sized enterprises. Personnel
Review, 31(6), 671–692.
Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment and performance: The
role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1–22.
Child, J., & Kieser, A. (1981). Development of organizations over time. In
P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design,
Vol. 1, Adapting organizations to their environments (pp. 28–64). Oxford
University Press.
Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Stakeholder perceptions of age and
other dimensions of newness. Journal of Management, 31(4), 573–596.
Coad, A. (2018). Firm age: A survey. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,

28(1), 13–43.
Fichman, M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Honeymoons and the liability of
adolescence: A new perspective on duration dependence in social and organi-
zational relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 442–468.
Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability of newness:
Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review,
48(5), 692–710.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational
change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.
Lundmark, E., Coad, A., Frankish, J. S., & Storey, D. J. (2020). The liability of
volatility and how it changes over time among new ventures. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 44(5), 933–963.
Moule, C. (1998). Regulation of work in small firms: A view from the inside.
Work, Employment & Society, 12(4), 635–653.
O’Toole, J., & Ciuchta, M. P. (2020). The liability of newer than newness:
Aspiring entrepreneurs and legitimacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, 26(3), 539–558.
Rainnie, A. (1989). Industrial relations in small firms: Small isn’t beautiful.
Routledge.
Ram, M. (1999). Managing autonomy: Employment relations in small profes-
sional service firms. International Small Business Journal, 17(2), 13–30.
Ram, M., & Edwards, P. (2003). Praising Caesar not burying him: What we
know about employment relations in small firms. Work, Employment and
Society, 17(4), 719–730.
Ram, M., Edwards, P., Gilman, M., & Arrowsmith, J. (2001). The dynamics of
informality: Employment relations in small firms and effects of regulatory
change. Work, Employment and Society, 15(4), 845–861.
Shepherd, D. A., Douglas, E. J., & Shanley, M. (2000). New venture survival:
Ignorance, external shocks, and risk reduction strategies. Journal of Business
Venturing, 15(5–6), 393–410.
Soto-Simeone, A., Sirén, C., & Antretter, T. (2020). New venture survival: A
review and extension. International Journal of Management Reviews,
22(4), 378–407.
Starbuck, W. H. (1965). Organizational growth and development. In J. G. March
(Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 451–533). Rand McNally College
Publishing Company.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March

(Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally College
Publishing Company.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968). Constructing social theories. Harcourt, Brace, and
World, Inc.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (2001). When formality works: Authority and abstraction in
law and organizations. University of Chicago Press.
Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2003). Learning about failure: Bankruptcy, firm age,
and the resource-based view. Organization Science, 14(5), 497–509.
Wapshott, R., & Mallett, O. (2015). Managing human resources in small and
medium-sized enterprises: Entrepreneurship and the employment relationship.
Routledge.
Wapshott, R., & Mallett, O. (2021). HRM in small and medium-sized enter-
prises. In A. Wilkinson & T. Dundon (Eds.), Contemporary human resource
management: Text and cases 6E (pp. 469–485). Sage.
Welsh, J. A., & White, J. F. (1981, July–August). A small business is not a little
big business. Harvard Business Review, 59, 18–32.
Yang, T., Bao, J., & Aldrich, H. (2020). The paradox of resource provision in
entrepreneurial teams: Between self-interest and the collective enterprise.
Organization Science, 31(6), 1336–1358.
2
Entrepreneurship and Societal Change
Elizabeth M. Heyworth-Thomas, Katie Hyslop,
and Rosalind Jones
Introduction
Entrepreneurship represents institutionalised change, a continuous quest for
better methods, products, and services. In the absence of such efforts, society does
not maintain a steady state, nor does quality of life. (Morris & Lewis,
1991, p. 30)
Society is evolutionary, often influenced by social diffusion, natural eco-

systems, technological advancements, and demographic fluctuations.
Societal change can result from ‘top-down’ push or ‘bottom-up’ pull fac-
tors (Form & Wilterdink, 2020). The former influenced by institution-
alised societal ideologies, economic pressure, and political agendas and
the latter by any change to social structure, with societal norms, behav-
iours, and value systems being viewed as a byproduct of society’s
E. M. Heyworth-Thomas (*) • K. Hyslop • R. Jones

Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
e-mail: E.M.HeyworthThomas@ljmu.ac.uk; K.A.Hyslop@ljmu.ac.uk;
R.Jones1@ljmu.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_2
24 E. M. Heyworth-Thomas et al.
development as it grows, becoming more complex and diverse. Such soci-

etal change may directly impact upon or influence any current societal
issues, either positively or negatively. These changes often influence wider
society, local communities, and individuals.
Aguilar (1967) highlights the importance of understanding society in
the broader context of business. Typically, this requires a business-centric
view that seeks to conceptualise society’s influence upon an area of busi-
ness or identify a market gap or opportunity. This exploration of society
becomes an information-gathering exercise that is purposeful, typically
narrow, and results-driven. A somewhat narrow focus; viewing society
through a ‘business-centric lens’ can often lead to societal complexities
and the rationale for societal change being overlooked, underestimated,
or underutilised. Researchers (Ali et al., 2020; Autio et al., 2014; Levie
et al., 2014) have gone some way to address these concerns, highlighting
the significance of the external environment in providing a suitable con-
text for entrepreneurship creation. Therefore, the pervasive environment
often dictates the form of entrepreneurial creation adopted and its associ-
ated outcomes. Further, Ali et al. (2020), Baumol (1990), and Oxley
(1999) observe that the statutory sector can be influential in facilitating
entrepreneurial endeavours through political influence, use of legal
frameworks, and the economic and societal conditions which it forms.
Viewing the external environment in which organisations operate
through a societal lens facilitates the understanding of entrepreneurship
and its role in supporting or leading societal change and its potential to
empower vulnerable or disadvantaged communities. The societal lens
allows us to identify entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviours in
society and identify pockets of entrepreneurial thinking which can form
solutions which address societal need (Heyworth-Thomas & Jones,
2019). With any societal change, there is opportunity. While entrepre-
neurs are known for their opportunity-seeking behaviours, societal prob-
lems can ‘pull’ or ‘push’ entrepreneurial individuals to make societal
changes out of need or necessity (Aidis et al., 2007; Bosma & Harding,
2007; Harding et al., 2006; Maritz, 2004; Minniti et al., 2006; Perunovic,
2005; Smallbone & Welter, 2004). Need-driven entrepreneurship, driven
or ‘pulled’ by the need to address an unmet need in society (Heyworth-
Thomas & Jones, 2019), often takes the form of a volunteer-led,
2 Entrepreneurship and Societal Change 25
community-led, or social enterprise. Need-driven entrepreneurship tends

to address an identified gap in existing support provision or is born out
of a personal need identified by the entrepreneur themselves. Such forms
of entrepreneurship can improve society as a whole, creating a cohesive
community and inclusive society (Heyworth-Thomas & Jones, 2019).
Whereas necessity-driven entrepreneurship is driven or ‘pushed’ out of
necessity, perhaps due to a change in circumstances such as unemploy-
ment (Zwan et al., 2010).
Driven by social aims rather than financial return (Bjerke, 2013;
Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016), social enterprise is often mistaken for corpo-
rate social responsibility (CSR), societal marketing, or social marketing
(not to be confused with social media marketing). While there are simi-
larities in focus on societal issues, there are distinct differences. CSR is an
act of social good performed by a corporate entity, whereas societal mar-
keting is the marketing by a business on a social dimension of their activ-
ity, and social marketing seeks to promote positive behaviour change in a
particular setting. The latter typically observed through the third or statu-
tory sectors, with examples seen globally from support organisations,
public health services, and activist groups.
The simplest way to understand social enterprise and distinguish them
from other entrepreneurial or corporate entities is to look at their busi-
ness model. In contrast to profit-driven organisations, social enterprise
seeks to address social aims. However, their business model also focuses
on profit, but rather than be distributed to shareholders, profit goes back
into the business and supports the business in meeting its social aims
(Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016). Like ‘traditional’ entrepreneurial businesses,
social enterprise will seek to pursue an opportunity with a view of creat-
ing (societal) value (Chell, 2007). Social enterprise provides an interest-
ing example of how innovative Schumpeterian behaviours (Schumpeter,
1934) can provide an entrepreneurial response to urgent social problems,
where traditional private or statutory sector organisations cannot
(Heyworth-Thomas & Jones, 2019).
The intrinsic value of entrepreneurship to society has not gone unno-
ticed, particularly around the concept of social entrepreneurship (Bjerke,
2013; Heyworth-Thomas & Jones, 2019; Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2016).
Whilst there is a clear economic contribution through entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial enterprise, exploring entrepreneurship through a

‘sociological lens’ further enables researchers to ascertain that the value of
entrepreneurship to society goes beyond job creation, business innova-
tion, and start-up ventures. In this chapter, we further examine the con-
cept of entrepreneurship via two alternate perspectives: (i) entrepreneurship
as a facilitator of societal change and (ii) entrepreneurship born out of
societal change. The chapter authors encourage you to consider entrepre-
neurship as a pivotal concept that can be related to the entrepreneur, who
can be created from society and be a driver for societal change.
Entrepreneurship: A Facilitator
of Societal Change
Entrepreneurial endeavours can create societal change through innova-
tion and creative responses to problems, resulting in impactful outcomes
which can empower communities and promote positive change.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the roles and simple pattern of events. These events,
situated within the macro-environment context, can influence, facilitate,
or impede, through barriers, societal change. Hence the macro-
environment, inclusive of society and the statutory sector, can either
encourage or inhibit entrepreneurial empowerment.
Both innovation and opportunistic entrepreneurship describe a notion
of change for improvement or development. With this in mind, it is easy
to see how entrepreneurship can mirror societal change. Whilst this pro-
cess could be intentional, it is worth noting that this could also be non-
deliberate. Instead of positive, it is also possible for the impact of societal
change to be negative, leading to negative societal change. Here, we focus
on entrepreneurship and the intent to promote positive societal change.
Entrepreneurs who seek to address societal issues through opportunity-
driven entrepreneurship tend to focus on value creation rather than being
profit-centric (Ali et al., 2020). As such, they are more likely to be
customer-centric than market-centric. In contrast, those entrepreneurs of
necessity will tend to be market-centric, prioritising profit for personal
income. An unintended (though not unwelcome) outcome of the latter
The
Entrepreneur
Society
Empowerment
Fig. 2.1 Entrepreneurship: a facilitator of societal change and empowerment
can be improved economic development. Either model presents an

opportunity to develop social capital and community development,
bringing with it the possibility of added value through community
engagement and enhanced quality of life.
Society-Driven Economic Development

Societal evolution and change as a result of economic development can
create conditions for entrepreneurship through providing opportunity.
As institutional infrastructures in the statutory sector develop, opportu-
nities for people and communities to form entrepreneurial enterprises
emerge, creating ‘bottom-up’ community-led or ‘grassroots’ economic
development. An example of this is agri-enterprises, where land (resource)
tenancy or ownership creates self-employment opportunities. Sustainable

farming in developing nations contributes to poverty reduction and sup-
ports economic development. For example, Liberia relies on agriculture
for 76.9% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), after many
years of civil war and societal unrest, which negatively impacted the econ-
omy (Sawe, 2017). Sawe (2017) highlights that those counties most
dependent on agriculture tend to be low-income countries and practice
small-scale farming. A market-driven approach to sustainable farming
provides income for the farmer and can provide employment opportuni-
ties for others in the community as the venture grows, leading to increased
knowledge and skills, as well as richer land and natural resources.
Furthermore, the tended land increases in value and provides the com-
munities with vital food resources. The environmental impact of this is
that land quality is improved, which benefits the natural landscape. Ivanic
and Martin (2018) found that the poorest countries in the world benefit
the most from agriculture, as entrepreneurship in this sector can become
a catalyst for economic development, reducing poverty and inequality,
addressing social need and leading to positive societal change. From a
sociologist’s perspective, this form of entrepreneurship can also empower
and enhance individual and community wellbeing and quality of life per-
ceptions. It is not surprising that agri-entrepreneurship in developing
nations has attracted much interest from researchers of social enterprise
organisations.
Addressing Sociological Issues

Need-driven entrepreneurship can also provide an avenue for societal
change. Entrepreneurship in this context can take many forms. Often
presenting itself as community-led, volunteer-led, charity or social enter-
prise, need-driven entrepreneurship seeks to address a societal need (or
issue) that often presents itself due to a gap in existing provision. An
example of needs-driven entrepreneurship is Stroke Club, as discussed in
Heyworth-Thomas and Jones (2019). Stroke Clubs seek to address the
need to support survivors of stroke and their caregivers in their commu-
nities, often addressing needs not met by other support initiatives.
Initiatives such as Stroke Clubs form worldwide, often run by volunteers,

driven by social need. The value of such volunteer-led community groups
to a person’s life is significant. Stroke Clubs can help combat social isola-
tion and loneliness by going beyond providing a social outlet, breaking
down barriers to social participation and community engagement, and
improving stroke outcomes through long-term rehabilitative activities.
Being community- (or customer-) centric, they empower individuals by
providing a sense of belonging whilst survivors and caregivers rebuild
their lives after stroke. These kinds of volunteer-led enterprises can run
independently as social enterprises or be formed as a sub-product of a
larger third sector or statutory sector initiative, promoting positive soci-
etal change by raising awareness, supporting caregivers, and reducing
present or anticipated stigma for those surviving stroke.
A further example of a community enterprise includes
Professor Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank in Jobra, Bangladesh (see:
GrameenBank.org). This community-based bank provides loans to peo-
ple who would not ordinarily be eligible. It has generated ‘grass roots’
economic development and wealth and promoted positive societal change
to the region. Through its products and services, the Grameen Bank has
contributed to the improvements of income levels of people previously
living in poverty and has also contributed to female entrepreneurship in
the region, helping combat gender inequality. This enterprise initiative
paves the way for future generations in the community following the
path of societal evolutionary development by empowering entrepreneur-
ial individuals. The value of social enterprise is gaining recognition glob-
ally, although social enterprise initiatives are often described as community
or volunteer-led enterprise, particularly in countries such as Malaysia,
where the social enterprise definition remains relatively new.
Entrepreneurship: Born Out of Societal Change

As society evolves, societal change brings with it opportunities. This
change or development of society can be naturally progressive, following
an incremental process. However, global events have taught us that
change can sometimes be sudden, radical, and often negative. There is
often an economical and societal response to any change within the

macro-environment. Furthermore, the change within the macro-
environment can stimulate an entrepreneurial response. Through change,
impact, and market flux, entrepreneurs are driven to look for new oppor-
tunities and proactively respond to change. While entrepreneurship lit-
erature has made inroads in exploring the role of entrepreneurship in
society and critical aspects such as opportunity seeking and entrepreneur-
ship out of necessity, we want to go one step further and explore entre-
preneurship in times of crisis or disaster. An impactful event’s immediacy
can challenge the existing definitions of entrepreneurship and provide
further scope to consider the contextual nature of entrepreneurship in a
societal setting during times of radical and incremental change.
Technological changes impact both business and society and are gener-
ally seen as incremental in nature, as seen in the gradual consumer adop-
tion of digital technologies in our daily lives over the last two decades.
Approximately 59% of citizens within the UK state that they use their
mobile phone to purchase products or services online (The Holistic
Consumer, 2019). The rate of online shopping due to the pandemic has
created a seismic shift in consumer shopping preferences to online shop-
ping platforms. The advancement of technology certainly has some ben-
efits to consumer life. However, this can create a challenge for smaller
organisations, particularly for entrepreneurs who may struggle to adapt
to changes they may need to make to their businesses to transition effec-
tively into the digital world (Alford & Jones, 2020).
However, the catalyst for change could be the onset of crisis or disaster.
Reflecting on events over the recent years, we are reminded of the impact
of disaster on societies worldwide. The World Disasters Report (2020)
states that over 1.7 billion people globally have been affected by natural
disaster between 2010 and 2020. Further, the onset of the Covid-19 pan-
demic has been a stark reminder of how vulnerable societies are to disease
while economic crises have plagued several wealthy nations to cata-
strophic effect. Disaster or crisis on a local, national, or global scale can
lead to a shake-up of societal norms, leading to societal uncertainty and
immediate and, at times, dramatic change. More recently, research has
investigated entrepreneurs’ response to disaster or crises provoked by a
distinct and catastrophic event or series of events in close succession
(Morrish & Jones, 2020). Figure 2.2 illustrates simply the process where
a catalyst for societal change, either radical or incremental, results in an
impact on society, which leads to an entrepreneurial response.
In Disaster or Times of CRISIS, There

Is Opportunity
Jolts in the external environment can disrupt existing organisational
practice completely and unexpectedly whilst having the potential to
unleash spectacular acts of ingenuity, invention, and creativity. Thinking
objectively, we observe that times of crisis can create conditions for entre-
preneurial thinking in organisations for survival and give individuals
opportunities to be entrepreneurial by identifying new opportunities
Catalyst for
Change
Impact on
Society
Entrepreneurial
Response
Fig. 2.2 Entrepreneurship: born out of societal change

created due to market disruptions. With entrepreneurship being identi-

fied as the ‘unsung hero’ in pandemic recovery (Maritz et al., 2020) and
a ‘key driver’ of disaster recovery (Haeffele et al., 2020), entrepreneurial
response in times of crisis or disaster has become increasingly more
acknowledged by researchers in both the entrepreneurship field and
disaster recovery fields (Morrish & Jones, 2020).
Before discussing the notion of impact and strategies to reduce crisis
impact, we define crisis. Booth (1993, p. 86) defines crisis as ‘the use of
normal routine procedures’. Management of crisis has long been an
essential part of organisational and management scholarship (Gkeredakis
et al., 2021). As Wan and Yiu (2009) explain, crisis often fundamentally
alters the type and abundance of resources available in an environment
(Giotopoulos et al., 2017). During crisis, the sudden and discontinuous
changes in the environment may render existing strategies and routines
ineffective or even obsolete (Sine & David, 2003). Nonetheless, as the
definitions above suggest, while often viewed as unsettling and disrup-
tive, crises can represent an altered set of opportunities. If businesses and
entrepreneurial individuals recognise where these opportunities lie, they
can reap significant benefits.
The potential for crisis to drive change has been made abundantly clear
to us over recent times. The Covid-19 pandemic has interrupted indi-
viduals, communities, and business worldwide, with millions of people
testing positive for the disease and a death toll currently in the millions
worldwide. While the pandemic continues to rage, its negative effect on
countries’ economies also creates a knock-on effect (Li-Ying & Nell,
2020). From small stores to multi-national organisations, businesses have
been severely impacted by the pandemic and its accompanying lock-
down restrictions, and some have sadly not survived. Furthermore, many
social initiatives had to cease operations, at least temporarily, to assess
how operations could continue safely with minimal contact. The situa-
tion remains precarious and uncertain: consumer confidence is extremely
low, with many customers stopping or postponing (particularly large)
purchases or purchasing less than they did before. This uncertainty is
problematic for businesses as they need to find a replacement market for
their goods or services to survive. Reduced consumer demand coupled
with disrupted supply chains has generated a ‘perfect storm’ that has
found many organisations questioning the value and effectiveness of their

existing—approaches and look to make changes. In other instances, vital
supply chains have been severely disrupted, resulting in the ceasing of
goods manufacturing and no alternative business model.
Additionally, many community and social enterprises remain severely
restricted, with limits on contact and at least some form of residual social
distancing likely to remain with communities for the foreseeable future.
Since the early days of the covid crisis, we have been hearing about role
model cases of innovative entrepreneurial businesses that have success-
fully adapted their products and services and grasped new market oppor-
tunities. In a matter of weeks of the scale and magnitude of the covid
crisis becoming apparent, there were clear demonstrations of the power
of the entrepreneurial mindset, with organisations, communities, and
individuals worldwide exhibiting flexibility, fortitude, and skill to recog-
nise or search for the opportunity in the chaos (Ratten, 2020).
Thousands of such examples abound, all turned around at lightning
speed. Many big players recombined and reallocated skills and resources
to meet new market demand and demand for new products or services.
Hotel chains, for example, substantially reduced or waived room rates for
key frontline workers in need of a place to stay. Dyson, a vacuum manu-
facturer, adapted their in-house technology to develop a portable ventila-
tor that could be easily transported to where it was needed most. Many
large breweries and distilleries both in Europe and beyond dedicated
some of their production capacity to making hand sanitiser, which was in
extreme demand at the start of the pandemic (Maritz et al., 2020). The
seizing of new market opportunities exampled here reflects an entrepre-
neurial response that is altruistic and driven by urgent needs in society
created by dramatic change. These acts were by no means exclusively
undertaken by larger organisations with a wealth of resources. Robust
evidence has shown many small businesses have also demonstrated altru-
ism, finding new ways to reach existing and new customers by rapidly
modifying product and service offerings to sustain operations and retain
staff where possible.
Also, innovative entrepreneurial companies have shared employees
with organisations unable to meet increased demand during the height of
the pandemic, allowing valuable manpower to reach areas where it was
needed most (Zahra, 2021). In societal response to the pandemic, there

are extreme acts of charity, unexpected generosity, and kindness shown as
individuals have taken it upon themselves to ‘step-up’ and help their
communities by addressing gaps in care and support provision. While
these initiatives have been extremely wide-ranging in terms of their scale
and impact, they all help perpetuate a sense of hope, healing, recovery,
and positive, sustained change within wider society and cohesion in local
communities, leading to more resilient communities.
The examples above reinforce the view of crises as a constructive force
for progress and improvement. By forcing organisations to re-evaluate
and question almost everything they do, crisis offers an opportunity to
speed up and streamline inefficient processes and question the value of
prevalent business models. It also offers businesses a chance to re-evaluate
social and organisational norms, structures, and strategies and for testing
and trialling new processes, and at times, at much greater speed and effi-
ciency. Indeed, researchers have emphasised the critical role of crises for
experimentation with, and the creation of, new ground-breaking inven-
tions and novel ideas and even in driving forward fundamental scientific
theories (Eggers, 2020). Eggers (2020) argue that a major crisis is an
essential piece of the puzzle necessary to develop innovative solutions
based on their marshalled evidence. This is because it essentially (at least
temporarily) suspends the ‘rules of the game’, allowing organisations and
entrepreneurial individuals to write the new rules (Doern, 2016). More
generally, during times of crisis, the need to adhere to dominant social
conventions and norms is reduced, leading to new forms of new condi-
tions for creating new social and organisational models. This was observed
by Morrish and Jones (2020), who explored entrepreneurship post-
disaster in the aftermath of the New Zealand earthquake. Morrish and
Jones (2020) found that entrepreneurial restaurant owners who used
entrepreneurial marketing practices successfully became resilient, were
swift in securing finance, retained vital resources for their business, and
were able to rebuild premises. The entrepreneurial restaurant owners had
accepted the new risks involved and adapted to changes in the market-
place by creating new business models. Furthermore, through harnessing
innovative products and services, they had found a way to provide new
customer value for current customers whilst reaching out to new markets.
In summary, crises can be both a curse and a blessing in disguise. As

recent times have shown, crisis can bring devastation, societal trauma,
and lasting shocks to business and finance markets. Nonetheless, it can
also be a blessing to society for its capacity to imprint on our world in a
dramatic and lasting way. These imprints are identifiable in our attitudes
towards how we want to shape our futures and the changes we want to
see in businesses and organisations as they continue to grow and change.
Adapting through crisis provides avenues for building social capital.
Co-operation and collaboration bring opportunities for all areas of soci-
ety to bring about innovation and entrepreneurship to respond to the
short-term impact of a crisis, incident, or disaster and create new and
sustainable business methods for community resilience. In line with their
industry situation, organisations and entrepreneurial individuals need to
chart and circumnavigate the opportunity landscape and assess the poten-
tial of the available options (Li-Ying & Nell, 2020). Thankfully, as some
of our discussion suggests, there is a growing body of knowledge about
being entrepreneurial, leading to recovery (known as ‘intrapreneurship’
in larger organisations) and innovating seeking new market opportunities
during crisis or disaster. If entrepreneurial individuals or organisations
enact these approaches, it may provide more surety for future societal
cohesion.
Fixing the World: Where Do We Go from Here?

The evolutionary nature of entrepreneurship means it can be a catalyst or
a byproduct of change. The change is the catalyst that impacts business;
entrepreneurial activities and behaviour can be enablers. However, sup-
pose the resources, capabilities, and capacities of the business, or the eco-
system which supports it, do not reflect what is needed to adapt to
change. In that case, barriers to change can emerge. Alford and Jones
(2020), in their study of digital marketing knowledge acquisition in small
tourism enterprises, found that effective ecosystems were crucial for facil-
itating entrepreneurial learning and knowledge transfer for sole business
entrepreneurs. However, all too often, business owners may be less will-
ing or able to adapt to technological changes without the appropriate
support. Those businesses (both large and small) which fail to adapt
quickly to the swift changes to online marketing and sales are most likely
to fail post-pandemic.
We can see that entrepreneurship is closely intertwined with econo-
mies and societies, being born out of necessity for survival on an indi-
vidual basis or out of necessity for community survival as a response to
economic crisis. Similarly, the prevalent societal and economic condi-
tions to which an organisation is exposed can make the entrepreneurial
enterprise thrive or fail. Entrepreneurial actions can influence an organ-
isation’s success and effective ‘intrapreneurship’ in larger companies.
Exploring entrepreneurship through a ‘societal lens’ allows us to see
entrepreneurship as a contributor to society, as an incubator of social
capital, and as an empowering entity that can help rebuild and enhance
resilience through a community-led approach. Moving forward, the
authors here call for creation of ‘resilient-entrepreneurship’, whether this
is through business support initiatives, statutory sector provision, innova-
tive ‘intrapreneurship’ or a combination of these concepts. Entrepreneurial
activity is fundamental for harnessing innovation and creativity and for
flexibility in the face of change. Having explored the influence of societal
change on entrepreneurship and the influence that entrepreneurship can
have on societal change, we can now look to the future and ask the ques-
tion—Where do we go from here? The only thing that is certain is that
nothing is certain. We live in unprecedented times, and the ability to
forecast, predict, and plan for the future is becoming ever more challeng-
ing. However, we can observe several trends that are likely to inform and
shape how we move forward.
First, the increasing speed and magnitude of innovation. During more
settled periods, across various businesses and industries, innovation pro-
cesses take significant periods of time, sometimes stretching over many
years (Milan et al., 2020). Time itself is typically allocated to perfect and
fine-tune ideas, allowing multiple prototypes and iterations to be evalu-
ated before a product or service eventually reaches the market. However,
the urgency for response has created conditions and constraints that have
forced organisations to shorten innovation lead times from years to some-
times days. For example, at the early stages of the pandemic crisis, organ-
isations had to think fast to speed up innovation in the areas of personal
protection equipment (PPE), medical equipment, and data analytics to

quickly and accurately trace individuals who may have been exposed to
the virus. Even before the present crisis, acceleration of innovation pro-
cesses increased in recent years, as new and faster research and develop-
ment (RandD) tools have helped streamline the process (Lifshitz-Assaf
et al., 2021). However, the crisis has made the temporal dimension of
innovation a significant one for organisations. In particular, the unparal-
leled speed of vaccine development paved the way to assess and revise
current RandD processes and tools that had previously dominated. This
accelerated pace of development is very likely to remain with us, as we
continue to require quick solutions to environmental, public health and
social crises.
Second, we are also witnessing the removal of various barriers to exper-
imentation and acceleration of innovation and entrepreneurship in previ-
ously sluggish sectors. For example, prior to the crisis, investors were
often hesitant to invest in health-based technology. This sector was char-
acterised by rigid regulation, red tape, and bureaucracy, which resulted in
a greater focus on incremental innovations, when compared to other
technology-based sectors. However, Oborn et al. (2021) describe how the
sense of urgency over the past year has lowered hurdles to funding to
increase experimentation with new digital methods and techniques in
health technology. These advancements range from basic research to fin-
ished products that change the way we deliver treatments and vastly
improve patient outcomes and experience (Somauroo, 2020). This has
led to a substantial increase in available financing to support creative
ideas in this area. For instance, recently, the UK government unveiled a
£140 million fund to accelerate the testing and appraisal of emerging
artificial intelligence technologies for healthcare. Going forward, these
incentives offer a real opportunity for entrepreneurial organisations and
individuals to explore and test ideas that may have real societal benefit.
However, investors would have previously considered ‘too risky’ or ‘not
promising enough’ to support.
A third trend that we can observe is the increase in collaboration. The
leveraging of digital technologies makes it easier than ever to experiment
and work together to create new knowledge and respond to crisis collab-
oratively. Previously, when organisations, entrepreneurs, and communities
took the decision to work together to solve problems, these processes were
often challenging to initiate and coordinate (Doh et al., 2019). Involved
parties were often confronted with significant organisational and profes-
sional challenges to adopting such open processes (Yun et al., 2017). This
growing motivation to continue to break down these traditional profes-
sional, organisational, and societal boundaries (Farhoud et al., 2021) is
likely to continue, as evidence repeatedly shows us the value of collabora-
tion in knowledge creation for solving societal problems (George
et al., 2020).
The power of the crowd is being recognised, and digital technology is
making it even more feasible for smaller organisations or individuals to
get involved in causes and initiatives that directly impact them or where
they have relevant expertise. For instance, recent research has shown that
digital innovation has proved invaluable to establishing compassion ven-
turing. Compassion ventures are new entities or organisations formed in
the immediate aftermath of an adverse event (such as a hurricane, human-
itarian crisis, or the aftermath of conflict and war) and located locally
with the victims for the primary purpose of alleviating people’s suffering.
Typically, these initiatives can be crowd-rich but resource-poor. Majchrzak
and Shepherd (2021) show that advancements and applications of digital
innovation will continue to improve the ability of these ventures to
mobilise resources more easily, magnify responses, build community, and
facilitate learning. However, we can also utilise the increase in collabora-
tion to build social capital, which can aid joined-up thinking, open inno-
vation, and potentially support resilience during these uncertain times.
Fourth, the relevance and prevalence of social entrepreneurship. Social
entrepreneurship is acknowledged for its capacity to confront existing
mental models and facilitate connections between industry, government,
and society to improve our world. The pandemic has shown us the poten-
tial of entrepreneurship and the power of community in overcoming
adversity. However, it has also exposed substantial gaps in existing pro-
cesses and shortcomings in health, social care, and housing, which has
intensified the need for coordinated action (Bacq & Lumpkin, 2020).
These persistent challenges show us that social entrepreneurship still has
a pivotal part in flexibly coordinating responses and as a binding element
that brings various stakeholders together in collective action. Much about
our post-pandemic world remains unknown, but the crisis represents a
unique chance for social entrepreneurs to coordinate multi-stakeholder

initiatives that benchmark best practice that has shown to work at a larger
scale while considering the particularities of the local context (Farhoud
et al., 2021). This current situation presents a need for us to develop a
clearer picture of the impact of social entrepreneurship and what moti-
vates individuals to get involved. We also need to explore new avenues for
social entrepreneurship to drive and coordinate force for social change.
Finally, while we have focussed a lot on providing examples of entre-
preneurship and entrepreneurial activity during a crisis, we must look at
how entrepreneurship can aid recovery. The post-crisis setting offers a
unique set of challenges for organisations, communities, and individuals.
For recovery to happen, certain conditions and various kinds of informa-
tion are required, much of which cannot be known before the full impact
of the crisis event is known (Chandra & Paras, 2021). Recovery also
brings along enormous uncertainty regarding the future, and trade-offs
must be made between restarting what was once there, pressing ahead
with new ways of doing things (Dahlander & Wallin, 2020). Many of the
benefits of recovery are tied to the individuals and groups who choose to
rebuild. As the world emerges from the pandemic, entrepreneurs and
individuals with novel and creative ideas will be in a unique place to
shape the future and generate a lasting impact and value.
References
Aguilar, F. (1967). Scanning the business environment. Macmillan.
Aidis, R., Welter, F., Smallbone, D., & Isakova, N. (2007). Female entrepre-
neurship in transition economies: The case of Lithuania and Ukraine.
Feminist Economics, 13(2), 157–183.
Alford, P., & Jones, R. (2020). The lone digital tourism entrepreneur: Knowledge
acquisition and collaborative transfer. Tourism Management, 81, 104139.
Ali, A., Kelley, D. J., & Levie, J. (2020). Market-driven entrepreneurship and
institutions. Journal of Business Research, 113, 117–128. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.010
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustard, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014).
Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy,
43(7), 1097–1108.
Bacq, S., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2020). Social entrepreneurship and COVID-19.
Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12641
Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and
destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 1), 893–921.
Bjerke, B. (2013). About entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar.
Booth, S. A. (1993). Crisis management strategy: Competition and change in mod-
ern enterprises. Routledge.
Bosma, N., & Harding, R. (2007). Global entrepreneurship monitor: GEM 2006
Results. London Business School.
Chandra, Y., & Paras, A. (2021). Social entrepreneurship in the context of disas-
ter recovery: Organising for public value creation. Public Management Review,
23(12), 1856–1877.
Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent
theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal,
25(1), 5–26.
Dahlander, L., & Wallin, M. (2020). Why now is the time for “Open
Innovation”. Harvard Business Review, 5, 8–27.
Doern, R. (2016). Entrepreneurship and crisis management: The experiences of
small businesses during the London 2011 riots. International Small Business
Journal, 34(3), 276–302.
Doh, J. P., Tashman, P., & Benischke, M. H. (2019). Adapting to grand envi-
ronmental challenges through collective entrepreneurship. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 33(4), 450–468.
Eggers, F. (2020). Masters of disasters? Challenges and opportunities for SMEs
in times of crisis. Journal of Business Research, 116, 199–208.
Farhoud, M., Shah, S., Stenholm, P., Kibler, E., Renko, M., & Terjesen, S. (2021).
Social enterprise crowdfunding in an acute crisis. Journal of Business Venturing
Insights, 15, 211.
Form, W., & Wilterdink, N. (2020). Social change. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Retrieved April 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-change
George, G., Merrill, R. K., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. (2020). Digital sustainability
and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate
change and sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
45(5), 999–1027.
Giotopoulos, I., Kontolaimou, A., & Tsakanikas, A. (2017). Drivers of high-
quality entrepreneurship: What changes did the crisis bring about? Small
Business Economics, 48(4), 913–930.
Gkeredakis, M., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Barrett, M. (2021). Crisis as opportunity,
disruption and exposure: Exploring emergent responses to crisis through
digital technology. Information and Organisation. In Press. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100344.
Haeffele, S., Hobson, A., & Storr, V. H. (2020). Coming back from Covid-19:
Lessons in entrepreneurship from disaster recovery research. Mercatus Special
Edition Policy Brief.
Harding, R., Brooksbank, D., Hart, M., Jones-Evans, D., Levie, J., O’Reilly, J.,
& Walker, J. (2006). Global entrepreneurship monitor United Kingdom 2005.
London Business School.
Heyworth-Thomas, E. M., & Jones, R. (2019). Social enterprise: Bridging the
gap between the statutory and third sector. The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 20(2), 80–89.
Ivanic, M., & Martin, W. (2018). Sectoral productivity growth and poverty
reduction: National and global impacts. World Development, 109, 429–439.
Levie, J., Autio, E., Acs, Z., & Hart, M. (2014). Global entrepreneurship and
institutions: An introduction. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 437–444.
Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Randazzo, S., & Jung, O. S. (2021). End-starting the innova-
tion process: How organizations redesigned their innovation process in the
COVID-19 pandemic. Available at SSRN 3790271.
Li-Ying, J., & Nell, P. (2020). Navigating opportunities for innovation and entre-
preneurship under COVID-19. California Management Review, 63(1), 1–6.
Majchrzak, A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2021). Can digital innovations help reduce
suffering? A crowd-based digital innovation framework of compassion ven-
turing. Information and Organization, 31(1), 100338.
Maritz, A. (2004). New Zealand necessity entrepreneurs. International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1(3/4), 255–264.
Maritz, A., Perenyi, A., de Waal, G., & Buck, C. (2020). Entrepreneurship as
the unsung hero during the current COVID-19 economic crisis: Australian
perspectives. Sustainability, 12(11), 4612.
Milan, E., Ulrich, F., Faria, L. G., & Li-Ying, J. (2020). Exploring the impact of
organisational, technological and relational contingencies on innovation
speed in the light of open innovation. Industry and Innovation, 27(7), 804–836.
Minniti, M., Bygrave, W., & Autio, E. (2006). Global entrepreneurship monitor:
2005 Executive report. London Business School.
Morris, M. H., & Lewis, P. S. (1991). Entrepreneurship as a significant factor in
societal quality of life. Journal of Business Research, 23(1), 21–36.
Morrish, S. C., & Jones, R. (2020). Post-disaster business recovery: An entrepre-
neurial marketing perspective. Journal of Business Research, 113, 83–92.
Oborn, E., Pilosof, N. P., Hinings, B., & Zimlichman, E. (2021). Institutional
logics and innovation in times of crisis: Telemedicine as digital ‘PPE’.
Information and Organization, 31(1), 100340.
Oxley, J. (1999). Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance:

The impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm
alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 38(3), 283–309.
Perunovic, Z. (2005). Introducing opportunity-based entrepreneurship in a transi-
tion economy. The William Davidson Institute Policy Briefs, 39, p. 11.
Ratten, V. (2020). Coronavirus (covid-19) and entrepreneurship: Changing
life and work landscape. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
32(5), 503–516.
Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2016). Understanding social enterprise: Theory and
practice (2nd ed.). Sage.
Sawe, B. (2017). Countries most dependent on agriculture. WorldAtlas.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard
University Press.
Sine, W. D., & David, R. J. (2003). Environmental jolts, institutional change,
and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunity in the US electric power
industry. Research Policy, 32(2), 185–207.
Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2004). Entrepreneurship in transition economies:
Necessity or opportunity driven?. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from www.bab-
son.edu/entrep/fer/BABSON2003/XXV/XXV-S8/xxv-s8.htm
Somauroo, J. (2020, December 10). U.K. Invests $330 million to lead the world
in healthcare AI. Forbes. Retrieved April 12, 2021, from https://www.forbes.
com/sites/jamessomauroo/2020/12/10/uk-invests-250-million-to-lead-the-
world-in-healthcare-ai/?sh=417805607af2
The Holistic Consumer. (2019). The holistic consumer report. Retrieved April 12,
2021, from Mintel.com
The World Disasters Report. (2020). The international federation of red cross.
World disasters report 2020—International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies. Retrieved April 12, 2021, from ifrc.org
Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. W. (2009). From crisis to opportunity: Environmental
jolt, corporate acquisitions, and firm performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 30(7), 791–801.
Yun, J. J., Park, K., Im, C., Shin, C., & Zhao, X. (2017). Dynamics of social
enterprises—Shift from social innovation to open innovation. Science,
Technology and Society, 22(3), 425–439.
Zahra, S. A. (2021). International entrepreneurship in the post-Covid world.
Journal of World Business, 56(1), 101–143.
Zwan, P., Thurik, R., & Grilo, I. (2010). The entrepreneurial ladder and its
determinants. Applied Economics, 42, 2183–2191. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00036840701765437.
3
Articulating a View of Entrepreneurship
as Outcome of Change in Practice
Fredrick Agboma
Introduction
Entrepreneurship is the subject of enterprise and entrepreneurs involving
theoretical knowledge, as well as practical skills and techniques (Rae,
2015). The discipline seeks to understand how opportunities to create
something new arises, and are discovered or created by specific persons,
who then use various means to exploit or develop them, thus producing
a wide range of effects (Baron & Shane, 2007). While there are many
ways to define entrepreneurship, Baron and Shane’s (2007) definition
provides a comprehensive and practice-based way of examining the sub-
ject. It identifies the four central tenet—(1) specific enterprising people
who act or behave in particular ways, (2) creativity and the role of novelty
and distinction, (3) innovation as the basis for developing and exploiting
distinction and newness, and (4) impact, in terms of the varied benefits
resulting from these development—relevant to an understanding of
F. Agboma (*)
Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
e-mail: F.U.Agboma@ljmu.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_3
44 F. Agboma
entrepreneurship and change. From this perspective, entrepreneurship is

recognised as revolving around factors that contribute to the creation and
extraction of value and as such should be viewed from both an outcome
of change and an agent of change perspectives.
Discussions around the role of entrepreneurship as an agent of change
is well examined in the literature (see Carree & Thurik, 2010; Luke et al.,
2007; Rawhouser et al., 2019). A popular stream of work in this area
focuses on the human, social, and economic changes resulting from
entrepreneurship. It enables organisations and industries as well as indi-
viduals and societies to adapt and change in line with breakthrough tech-
nologies and innovations in products, process, and markets. Economic
growth occurs because entrepreneurs improve their technology, organisa-
tion, and processes, becoming more productive and innovative and as a
result forcing less innovative firms out of the market. As this ongoing
creative destruction occurs, new and better jobs than the ones lost are
created, the overall level of productivity rises, and overall economic and
social wellbeing increases. This is achieved as individuals open new busi-
nesses, expand existing ones, and generally mobilise resources to create
value and (re)distribute wealth (Baer & Frese, 2003; Davila et al., 2012;
Mafabi et al., 2015; Sigala & Kyriakidou, 2015). Despite the more quan-
tifiable economic changes, entrepreneurship plays an equally key change
role in wider society as well as the individual lives of entrepreneurs
(Amorós & Bosma, 2014; Haapasaari et al., 2018; Hamblett & Holden,
2000; Holmquist & Johansson, 2019). Although it is an increasingly
held view that entrepreneurship may not always be associated with posi-
tive changes, while it offers obvious economic benefits on one level, it
may lead to personal, social, and environmental degradation on another
(Saille & Medvecky, 2016).
A view of entrepreneurship as an outcome of change has received less
attention in the literature. Discussion around entrepreneurship and
change in this regard has tended to focus exclusively on entrepreneurs,
seen as the primary agents or instigators of entrepreneurship (Wickham,
2006), negating critical factors that underpin the actions and outcome of
their entrepreneurial behaviour. The sole focus on entrepreneurs repre-
sents only one of the central tenets of entrepreneurship as stipulated in
3 Articulating a View of Entrepreneurship as Outcome… 45
the Baron and Shane (2007) definition provided earlier. In addition to

examining the role of these “specific enterprising people”, it is equally
important to acknowledge environmental factors like enterprise culture
that condition entrepreneurial ways of acting as well as the full range of
antecedent activities including creativity and innovation that lead to
entrepreneurship in practice. Knowledge of these factors should also be
prioritised (Burns, 2016). They are understood to underlie and inform
the ability of entrepreneurs to create value and by extension serve as the
foundation for entrepreneurship and change. Enterprise culture, creativ-
ity, and innovation by their very nature embody notions of change, in
terms of the transformational role they play in mindsets and behaviours,
ideas, and the products, processes, and markets that constitute entrepre-
neurship. Conversely, wider socio-economic developments and the piv-
otal changes these have on lived experiences are a result of these essential
antecedent entrepreneurship factors and activities.
While enterprise culture, creativity, and innovation are recognised as
important standalone concepts (Burns, 2016), the entrepreneurship lit-
erature has so far failed to examine how they differently and specifically
contribute to entrepreneurship and change. This raises questions of what
exactly these concepts mean for entrepreneurship development and what
logic underscores their collective ability to bring about entrepreneurial
value and change. This chapter seeks to bridge this gap. The goal is to
articulate a view for entrepreneurship as an outcome of change (comple-
menting the currently held view of entrepreneurship as an agent of
change) in practice. It requires an examination of the distinctive but
interdependent nature of enterprise culture, creativity, and innovation as
the building blocks of entrepreneurship and change. In order to address
this objective, I start with an overview of the three building blocks of
entrepreneurship and show how each embody distinct facts of change.
The discussion then moves on to define the logic of relationship between
them, delineating the sequence of changes that collectively serve to estab-
lish entrepreneurship in practice. I conclude the chapter by reflecting on
the implication for entrepreneurship in practice in light of the all-encom-
passing and distinct role of change in the discipline.
46 F. Agboma
uilding Blocks of Entrepreneurship

B
and the Nature of Change They Embody
The notion of change in relation to entrepreneurship is not new. However,
the ways in which this is conceived in the literature leaves ample room for
a more fine-grained evaluation of important antecedent concepts. Prior
to articulating a view of entrepreneurship as an outcome of change, in the
discussion that follows, I first examine: (1) enterprise culture and the
change in societal-level mindset/behaviour it occasions; (2) creativity at
the individual-level as the basis for change in ideas; and (3) innovation at
the organisational level and corresponding changes in products, pro-
cesses, and markets. The distinct facets of changes in these spaces serve as
the building blocks and roadmap for entrepreneurship as outcome
of change.
Enterprise Culture
Due to its abstract nature and broad spectrum, enterprise culture is a
complex construct characterised by many different interpretations and
many different ways of operationalising (Carr, 2000). To reduce this
complexity and facilitate greater practice-oriented understanding, it is
important to first examine the origins and ideology that inspire the gen-
eral ways of thinking about culture from an enterprise perspective. This
way of thinking was originally derived from the political and economic
ideological revolution of the 1980s (Blundel et al., 2021; Gibb, 1987),
when as a precursor to reducing participation in economic activity, the
UK and US governments sought to create an array of new job opportuni-
ties by engineering an increase in the number of independent firms
(Blundel et al., 2021; Burrows, 2015; Della-Guista & King, 2008). The
initiative birthed the notion of an “enterprise culture” (Peters, 2001), a
value system signalling the retreat of government and the establishment
of free market mechanisms as the fundamental determinant of the econ-
omy (Burrows, 2015; Carr, 2000; Della-Guista & King, 2008). In the
UK, this centred largely on the implementation of a range of external
structural changes including cuts in taxation, deregulation, privatisation,

marketisation, and the like.
Despite its roots in the economic and political space, there has been a
drive to accompany structural change at the macro level with change at
the individual level. For some time talk of and about enterprise culture
has permeated the media, education, and industry settings, exposing lay
people to the concept and practice of enterprise and making it more a
recognisable and acceptable feature of most prosperous societies.
Ubiquitous communication of and about the subject underscores the
requirement for a moral and social revolution as much as an economic
and political one. It represents a form of “cultural re-engineering” built
on the conscious and sustained attempt to foster engagement with entre-
preneurship through a programme of sustained cultural change which
would release or create an enterprising society. Enterprise culture priori-
tises the notion that wealth creation is best facilitated and achieved by a
highly individualistic form of capitalism (Carr, 2000) with emphasis on
(1) the trickle-down effect of wealth creation and the assumption that
competition is vital, (2) promotion of key values around self-reliance and
freedom from state control, and (3) expectations for individuals to draw
on their own resources to compete in the open market. In its current
guise, enterprise culture has become a crucial tool for encouraging par-
ticipation in enterprise activity.
Having established the historical and ideological underpinnings of
enterprise culture, to further facilitate a practice-based understanding,
there is a need to also unpack the individual concepts that constitute the
construct. The word enterprise has its origins in the French language and
translates loosely as “an undertaking” (Gray, 1998). Subsequent develop-
ment in the English language refers to enterprise in a number of comple-
mentary ways including (1) an especially difficult project that is
complicated or risky, (2) a systematic purposeful activity, (3) the readi-
ness to engage in daring or difficult action, (4) the ability to solve prob-
lems in new ways, and (5) a difficult and important plan of action.
Reflecting the general spirit of these literal expressions, Rae (2015) defines
enterprise as the application of creative ideas to practical situations. In
this regard, it involves the use of skills, knowledge, and personal attri-
butes to apply ideas and innovations to practical problems and situations.
48 F. Agboma
Like enterprise, culture is similarly beset with are several definitions,

most of them relating to a society or group of people who behave or
assume to behave in a certain way. It is conceived as an entire worldview,
a way of life that typically involves choices (de Woot, 2016; Lavoie &
Chamlee-Wright, 2002; Linn & Harris, 2008; Szeman & Kaposy, 2011)
about what are acceptable, regarded, and encouraged practices in a soci-
ety. Matsumoto (1996) and Lee (2006) see culture as a set of values and
beliefs, or a cluster of learned behaviours in a particular society commu-
nicated over time from one generation to the next. Hofstede (1980) simi-
larly defines culture as the collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes one group of people from another. From this perspective,
culture gives individuals a sense of identity and belongingness by sustain-
ing the notion of an accepted mindset. It alludes to the underlying struc-
tures and distinctive ways of behaving within a group or society and can
include the ideas, norms, and customs that inform social behaviour
(Dubina & Carayannis, 2016). In some literature, cultural groups tend
to be associated with race, ethnicity, and nationality. For instance,
Alexandre-Leclair’s (2014) study reveal that different geographic areas
across the world are characterised by their own unique cultures. While
this may be this case, a focus on geography limits the scope and utility of
such an encompassing concept. Cultural groups are best distinguished by
the assumptions they hold about particular ideas and objectives in rela-
tion to enterprise and entrepreneurship for instance. We know that cul-
tural dispositions influence the nature and conduct of entrepreneurship
behaviour. If “what is honoured in a culture is cultivated there” as the
saying by the philosopher Plato goes, then societies where enterprise and
entrepreneurship is regarded would tend to be more entrepreneurial.
In definitional terms, some authors define enterprise culture as a shared
vision of enterprising behaviour (Cook, 2016) and others see it as an
evolution of the individualistic perspective of capitalism (Carr, 2000;
Gray, 1998). Hashimzade et al. (2017) attempts to accommodate both
perspectives and describes enterprise culture as a climate of social accep-
tance for risk-takers, and a collective welcoming of people looking for
different ways of doing business. It reflects the values, beliefs, attitudes,
but also assumptions and expectations that members of a society share in
relation to the nature and conduct of entrepreneurship. In essence,
enterprise culture embodies a mindset that encourages members of a

society to think and behave in enterprising ways. This collective ideology
fosters positive social attitudes towards entrepreneurship (Cook, 2016),
one based on the formation of social opinions centred on the willingness
to undertake new venture creation activities.
As shown in Fig. 3.1, Gibb (1987) outlines some of the attributes that
underpin the existence of an enterprise culture.
Gibbs (1987, p. 15) suggests that “the combination of these circum-
stances on a sufficient scale can be said to underwrite the existence of an
enterprise culture”. Although enterprise culture is generally classified as
deeply abstract and unconsciously anchored in a group, these attributes
help provide “relevant values” that lay the foundation for increased entre-
preneurial activity (Blundel et al., 2021). They signify a climate condu-
cive to change and value creation through an aptitude for new business
creation and development. The fundamental believe is that enterprise
culture exists to occasion change in the behaviours of individuals in a
society towards a deep-rooted willingness and ability to conceive, develop
and implement new ideas for entrepreneurship (Davila et al., 2016).
Enterprise Culture
Abundant positive role images of successful independent business
Opportunity to practice entrepreneurial attributes reinforced by society
culture during formative years
Opportunity for familiarisation with enterprising tasks during youth
Provision formally and/or informally of knowledge and insight into the
process of independent business management
Network of independent business contacts and acquaintances reinforcing
familiarity and providing market entry opportunities
Fig. 3.1 Attributes of enterprise culture (Gibb, 1987)

50 F. Agboma
Through its subtle yet enduring impact, enterprise culture conditions

members of a society or group to be enterprising by providing the foun-
dation for different ways of thinking and behaving. For individuals, it
nurtures enterprising capabilities like creativity and the tendency gener-
ate or recognise ideas. For organisations, it serves to promote innovative
tendencies through the development, application, and exploitation of
enterprising capabilities in different settings and at different levels. This
demonstrates the all-encompassing role of enterprise culture. Through its
ability to bring about a different more enterprising mindset, it lays the
foundation for creativity at the individual level and innovation at the
organisational level.
Creativity
Creativity is seen as the complex set of conditions for the generation of
new and meaningful ideas. It fundamentally resolves around the ability
to move beyond common knowledge by exploring loosely related con-
cepts (Jaarsveld et al., 2012) and to view the world from new perspectives
(Fitzpatrick, 2014) in order to find solutions to poorly defined issues
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). The creative process requires exposure to
diverse influences and an ability to (1) create and recreate unique inter-
pretations of existing ideas and (2) communicate these creations and rec-
reations. From this perspective, creativity is the intellectual unfolding
and converging of experience which is necessary for realising new ideas
(Colemont et al., 1988). A flipped perspective on creativity is offered by
Gurteen (1998) who argue that creativity is about generating new ideas
often through a process of divergent thinking. It is characterised by the
ability to perceive the world in different ways, to make connections
between seemingly unrelated phenomena and find hidden patterns cul-
minating in the production of new ideas or concepts, or the creation of
new alliances between ideas or concepts already in existence. Several
authors have co-opted these distinct viewpoints to define creativity more
holistically as involving complex conceptual combinations involving the
application of both convergent and divergent processes (Ai-Girl, 2015;
Gilson, 2016; Jaarsveld et al., 2012; Mumford et al., 2010; Stein &
Harper, 2011). This reflects a more contemporary view of creativity as the

process by which one utilises imaginative abilities “to transcend tradi-
tional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create mean-
ingful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.” (Dictionary.
com). Creativity from this standpoint reflects a crossover between intu-
ition and logic, bringing together knowledge, critical thinking, and moti-
vation (Adams, 2005) to the process of idea generation. It is based on the
view that out of existing knowledge, insights, and problem awareness,
imaginative people are motivated to develop new ideas through familiari-
sation, critical examination, and combination of existing information
and experiences in novel ways.
Several methods have been developed to help understand the creative
process (see Ai-Girl, 2015; Fitzpatrick, 2014; Jaarsveld et al., 2012;
Plagens, 2015; Stein & Harper, 2011). One of the more accessible
approaches is provided by Fitzpatrick (2014) who advocated the cycle of
creativity as a way of articulating the sequence of activities that underlie
the creative process. The cycle is made up of preparation, incubation,
illumination, and verification, a succession of activities or stages that
come together to give new ideas life. Through its focus on progression
through the stages, the cycle facilitates an understanding of the practical
requirements for transcending current practices and generating new ideas
that are original, unique, and meaningful (Fitzpatrick, 2014; Plagens,
2015; Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Sarri et al., 2010). In this sense, creativity
is about evolution and the ability to bring about changes to ideas, forms,
methods, interpretations, and practices. Because novelty and usefulness
are the hallmarks of creative ideas, it is unsurprising that connections
exist between creativity and entrepreneurship (Ward, 2004). However,
while changed ideas are an importance facet of entrepreneurship, ideas in
and of themselves tend not to have the market and related value sought
by entrepreneurship. Creativity is the primary element of a growing idea,
one that needs the entrepreneurial context, a perception of opportunity
to become a business reality and gain broader entrepreneurial relevance
(Burns, 2016). If creativity is the ability to think in transcendent ways to
come up with new ideas, there is then an additional step required to
develop these changed ideas into elements of value that underpin
entrepreneurship.
52 F. Agboma
Innovation
Innovation is the prime and substantial mechanism used by enterprising
individuals to develop and exploit commercial and non-commercial
opportunities (Burns, 2016). A recognition that innovation is grounded
in the notion of transformation and change is evident in the work of
O’Sullivan and Dooley (2009). They advocate a view of innovation as a
process that signals renewal, rejuvenation, and change in relation to
products, processes, or markets. Building on this view, Hippel (2005)
describe innovation as an object or practice perceived as new, which is
intended to bring about improvements in relation to desired business
objectives in a planned and deliberate manner. It relates to new, useful,
and actionable solutions that challenge existing practices and influence
the way businesses operate (Fillis, 2002). On this basis, innovation can be
thought of as the further evolution through development of new ideas
that lead to the productions of objects or practices that have real practical
applications and are economically viable. Unlike creativity, innovation
has an inherent clarity of purpose that comes from organisational mem-
bers working in unison to produce tangible outcomes that consumers
desire. A view of innovation as the ongoing evolving of creativity is cham-
pioned by Deakins and Freel (2012). For them, innovation is a combina-
tion of both creativity and application of new perceptions or ideas to
come up with valuable products, processes, and markets.
In the context of entrepreneurship, innovation is linked to the ways
in which new entrepreneurial ideas are converted to marketable objects
or practices. The process is triggered by a production stimulus, which
has a novel character, and leads after a processing phase to changes that
add value to consumers (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Since users judge inno-
vations and the novelty character associated with them differently,
innovation requires an understanding of people and an entrepreneurial
willingness to engage with a subset of these as customers. In this sense,
innovation is a holistic management process (Trott, 2008) concerned
with the generation, acceptance, and implementation of new ideas
(Kanter, 1983). It involves the successful conception, communication,
and exploitation of novelty including all those activities that contribute

to the idea generation, technology development, production, and mar-
keting of new entrepreneurial opportunities. The argument here is that
the ideas to innovation journey is not realised until the newly created
product, process, or markets are accepted and endorsed by relevant
users. So, innovation does not only embody changes in products, pro-
cess, and market, it also represents change in the ways customers and/
or consumers engage with these products, process, and markets. That is,
not only does entrepreneurship come from change—in values and
behaviours, ideas and the corresponding products, process, and market
they inform—but it plays a corresponding role as an agent of change.
Entrepreneurship is formed through innovative practices that bring
about changes in specific product, process, and market environments
(Colman, 2009; Gehani, 2011; Walia, 2019). This means that without
creativity there are no new ideas, without new ideas there is no innova-
tion, and without innovation there is no entrepreneurship.
iew of Entrepreneurship as Outcome

V
of Change
The discussions so far have shown how enterprise culture, creativity, and
innovation, defined as the building block of entrepreneurship, play a role
in catalysing a successful entrepreneurship endeavour through the dis-
tinct nature of change—in mindset and behaviours, ideas as well as prod-
uct process and markets—they embody. In this section, I build on this
argument by articulating an integrated view of entrepreneurship as an
outcome of change. The discussion delineates the nature of the relation-
ship between enterprise culture, creativity, and innovation and advocates
a clearer logic on how they function to establish entrepreneurship in
practice.
There are several ways to show complementarity between enterprise
culture, creativity, and innovation. Kwan et al. (2018) for instance point
to the reciprocal relationship that exists between the three building
blocks. This view notwithstanding, to stay true to the simplified and
54 F. Agboma
practice-based view of entrepreneurship as outcome of change objective

of the chapter, the most pertinent way to articulate their relationship is to
start from the acknowledgement, as advocated by Burns (2016), of inno-
vation as the end goal of all entrepreneurial activity. This position is based
on the capacity of innovation to create the real and tangible value that
society demands, and entrepreneurs and their enterprises strive for. As a
result, examining the sources and antecedent for innovation then becomes
an essential activity for understanding the foundations of entrepreneur-
ship and business development (Blundel et al., 2021). In this regard,
enterprise culture is of central importance in constructing a view of entre-
preneurship as outcome of change. More than just creating the wider
conditions required for entrepreneurial behaviour to flourish, enterprise
culture serves as an anchor variable for the emergence and continuity of
innovation-based activity. And because novelty and creative ideas are dis-
tinctive features of innovation, an examination of the connection between
creativity and innovation also becomes relevant to the task. It shows that
the relationship between enterprise culture and innovation is not a direct
one; it is facilitated by creativity, an equally important cog in the entre-
preneurship as outcome of change analysis.
Enterprise culture sits at the core of creativity; it fosters the conditions
that enable creativity and new ideas to blossom. Although new ideas and
the creative thinking process occurs at the level of the individual, it is
important to acknowledge the important impact of this essential envi-
ronmental conditioning in creative thinking. The social environment, in
particular the presiding culture in favour of enterprise, can have a signifi-
cant impact on creative intent and the creative process. Simply put, cre-
ativity thrives in an environment in favour of enterprise. Creativity
typically involves an individual’s ability to think in ways beyond what is
currently perceptible when confronted with problem situations. This
requires specific sets of values and beliefs around originality and the
demands of being able to “construct, formulate, or otherwise define the
problem or task to be accomplished, to retrieve from memory or seek out
relevant information, and to generate and evaluate potential courses of
action” (Ward, 2004, p. 182). By embedding knowledge and practice of
these values and changing the way people think, enterprise culture gives
creativity a greater chance of occurring. Individuals within such societies
are offered more opportunities to engage in the steps required for creative
behaviour and as a result are conditioned for creative thinking and com-
ing-up with new ideas (Bessant & Tidd, 2015; Heunks, 1998; MacDonald
& Coffield, 2015; Obiwulu et al., 2019). Rather than a mere intra-
individual cognitive process, the creative process is influenced by factors
of the person and the environment, where the outcome is a transcendent
idea with potential to inform innovations.
Creativity is an important component of entrepreneurship in practice.
It is an imperative element and a key underpinning factor in innovation
(Anderson et al., 2014; Bessant & Tidd, 2015; Pratt & Jeffcutt, 2009;
Zhao, 2005) and the overall nature and trajectory of entrepreneurial
activities. Bateson et al. (2013) describe creativity as an active sub-process
and a necessary precursor to innovation. It provides raw materials and in
doing so stimulates the change processes that results in the generation of
novel ideas where successful innovation is then the subsequent imple-
mentation of these ideas and their uptake by others. As alluded to earlier,
innovation takes new ideas and the creative process further (Birla, 2014;
Scarborough & Cornwall, 2016), incorporating necessary organisational
competencies and mechanism for their development into products, pro-
cesses, and markets with value. “The development of entrepreneurship
and innovation, and the interaction between them for the successful
commercialisation of new ideas, require a culture of enterprise that is
innovation-focused and supportive” (Zhao, 2005, p. 35). If innovation is
entrepreneurship’s overriding goal, then this is achieved through creative
thinking and the representative mindset of an enterprise culture. This
thesis conceives enterprise culture, creativity, and innovation as an assem-
bly line of change culminating in entrepreneurship.
As illustrated in Fig. 3.2 in the 3Cs model, the presence and filtering
down of changed values, norm, and ways of behaving in favour of enter-
prise (i.e. the cloudy phase) trickles down to individual members of soci-
ety who are creative and generate the new ideas (i.e. contained phase) that
organisations develop into new products, processes, and markets (i.e.
concrete phase) that actualise entrepreneurship in practice.
Within the cloudy phase where enterprise culture resides, the focus is
strongly on the collective view in favour of enterprise behaviours. Its role
in the road map for entrepreneurship and change is in occasioning change
56 F. Agboma
Cloudy Phase
Enterprise culture operating at
the societal level to occasion
change in mindset and social
attitudes in favour of enterprise
activity
Increasing level of specificity
Increasing level of abstraction

Contained Phase
Creativity operating at the
individual level to occasion
change in ideas and ways of
conceiving problems and
solutions
Concrete Phase
Innovation operating
at the organisation
level to occasion
change in products,
process and markets
Fig. 3.2 3Cs view of entrepreneurship as outcome of change
in the values and mindsets at the group/societal level. This is the first
important step with regard to entrepreneurship as an outcome of change,
the extent to which the members of a society come to understand and
practice enterprise behaviour as an essential element of their culture. As
enterprise culture is highly abstract and exists in the minds or habits of
the members of a society, it is not always clear, transparent, or easily
understood, hence cloudy. Of course, there are degrees of visibility of

cultural behaviour, ranging from the regularised activities of persons to
their internal reasons for so doing. While we cannot see and easily com-
municate many elements of enterprise culture, it is still widely recognised
as the shared ways of doing and thinking of entrepreneurship. In other
words, we cannot see this culture as such; we can only see its manifesta-
tion through human behaviour. When this behaviour occurs in regular
patterned fashion it is called culture. Culture is not something to which
social events, behaviours, institutions, or processes can be causally attrib-
uted. It is not separable from social structure, economics, politics, and
other features of human activity. Consequently, the effect of culture is
highly ambiguous and lacking in specificity. “Culture is not a set of ideas
imposed but a set of ideas and symbols available for use. Individuals select
the meanings they need for particular purposes from the limited but
nonetheless varied cultural menu a given society provides” Schudson
(1989, p. 155). In this view, enterprise culture is a resource for social
action and because it has several possible meanings, it can be variously
interpreted, and people will read into messages what they please.
Enterprise culture operates in the cloudy phase because culture is largely
an ambiguous set of symbols that are usable as a resource for rational
actors in society pursuing their own interests. Until these interests are
actualised (through the contained and then concrete phases), it is impos-
sible to attribute them to a specific entrepreneurship outcome. Kwon
et al. (2013) suggest that individuals who recognise cultural attributes in
entrepreneurial ways are likely to have better access to cultural informa-
tion on enterprise and are better placed to exploit opportunities presented
to them. It is therefore important to encourage this form of social capital
in order to promote enterprise culture as well as creativity and innovation
that define the subsequent phases.
In the second phase, an aptitude for enterprise behaviour is achieved
through the socialisation of individual members in the direction of cre-
ative thinking, the teaching of appropriate methods and techniques on
this topic and the creation of a social environment in which the process
of creativity is possible and desired by the individual. Here the context is
an inseparable element of knowing and meaning-making (Thompson &
Walsham, 2004; Stierand, 2015). In this phase, the cloudy and
58 F. Agboma
ambiguous notion of enterprise culture begins to become more defined,

achieving an increasing level of entrepreneurial specificity through the
new ideas generated by and contained within, at least initially, the enter-
prising individual. From the perspective of cognitive psychology, this
reflects the more general propensity of people to store select information
from their experiences in the environment in organised knowledge struc-
tures and then access that knowledge for use in subsequent creative tasks
(Ward, 2004). All creative processes involve sense-making, which is usu-
ally understood as the rational processing of selected stored information
based on existing cognitive schemas and models (Stierand, 2015).
Personal creativity requires one to have developed a “controlled oddness
of thought or feeling” for what could potentially be perceived as being
both a new and meaningful idea (Barron, 1993, p. 183), both realised in
mind of the individual and unrealised in practice. Due to its transitional
and temporal nature, this contained phase of the process is uniquely
ambiguous and specific in a more or less equal measure.
In the third and final phase of entrepreneurship as an outcome of
change, the distinction between the process of being creative in the
abstract and the infinitely more specific process of being innovationist in
the concrete is laid bare. Here, organisations are able to select from suf-
ficiently creative individuals and as such more likely to attach a funda-
mental value to the topic of innovation, aligning human and other
resources for this purpose. Because organisational members also feel com-
mitted to this value, innovative behaviour is also expressed more strongly
(Hartmann, 2006). Backed by appropriate firm resources, organisational
members work to present creative ideas as concrete products, processes,
and markets that provide specific value. However, the conversion of
ambiguous creative ideas into highly specific innovative offerings is com-
plicated by “a long-winding, uncertain path with unfavourable outcomes
in many instances” (Sarooghi et al., 2015, p. 715). To be actualised in a
concrete form, questions are raised about the costs, risks, manpower, and
time to carry ideas through. In doing so, it increases the uncertainty for
decision makers that allocate resources and those in charge of implemen-
tation. And because uncertainty is often not a welcome feature of organ-
isational life, only the most practical, re-producible, and reliable ideas
become concrete. As Levitt (2002) pronounce, “all in all, ideation is
relatively abundant. It is its implementation that is more scarce.” This

embodies the ongoing tension, paradox, contradictions, and dilemmas
between the contained phase of creativity and the concrete phase of inno-
vation (Levitt, 2002; Sarooghi et al., 2015) where developing concrete
offerings require organisations to focus on efficiency, goal orientation,
and routine execution that help put ideas to work. In this way, innova-
tion represents the concrete manifestation of entrepreneurship in prac-
tice, a view acknowledged by Kwan et al. (2018) who put forward the
argument that entrepreneurship accompany innovation.
Conclusion
The chapter acknowledges the widely held view, both in literature and in
practice, of entrepreneurship as an agent of change. As noted, this view of
entrepreneurship and change rightly emphasise the human, social, and
economic transformations that result from entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurship-related activities. From this perspective, entrepreneur-
ship is seen as provoking change and adaptation. In order to bring har-
mony, complementariness, and completeness to the entrepreneurship
and change literature, emphasis here is on a view of entrepreneurship as
an outcome of change. In achieving this task, enterprise culture, creativ-
ity, and innovation are posited as building block of entrepreneurship and
presented as inseparable and essential components for entrepreneurship
to exist and prevail in the longer term. The 3Cs view of entrepreneurship
as outcome of change model proposed is a useful practice-based tool to
articulate the dynamic nature of change in relation to the establishment
of entrepreneurship. I suggest that the cloudy, contained, and concrete
phases (representing enterprise culture, creativity, and innovation respec-
tively) with their varying levels of specificity and ambiguity embody dis-
tinct facts of change that build upon one another to institute
entrepreneurship in practice. When viewed from within this holistic,
interconnected, and interdependent perspective, changes in mindset and
behaviours, in ideas, and in products, processes, and markets not only
serve to exert a strong impact on one another in establishing entrepre-
neurship but also play a complementary secondary role in bringing about
60 F. Agboma
wider human and socio-economic changes. An enterprising culture cre-

ates a platform for entrepreneurship through a chain effect with creativity
and innovation (Carayannis et al., 2015; Kaufmann & Shams, 2016) and
as innovations enables progress in entrepreneurship through changes in
products, processes, and markets, these serve to alter the social and eco-
nomic dynamics of the environment they are implemented in. In this
way, prior to being an agent of change, entrepreneurship is first and fore-
most an outcome of change.
References
Adams, K. (2005). The sources of innovation and creativity. National Center on
Education and the Economy (NCEE) Research Summary and Final Report
Ai-Girl, T. (2015). Convergent creativity: From Arthur Cropley (1935–)
onwards. Creativity Research Journal, 27(3), 271–280.
Alexandre-Leclair, L. (2014). Diversity as a motive for entrepreneurship?: The
case of gender, culture and ethnicity. Journal of Innovation Economics &
Management, 2(14), 157–175.
Amorós, J. E., & Bosma, N. (2014). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2013 global
report: Fifteen years of assessing entrepreneurial activity across the globe. Global
Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).
Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in
organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and
guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiation
and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal
of Organizational Behaviour, 24(1), 45–68.
Baron, R. A., & Shane, S. A. (2007). Entrepreneurship: A process perspective.
Thomson/South-Western.
Barron, F. (1993). Controllable oddness as a resource in creativity. Psychological
Inquiry, 4(3), 182–184.
Bateson, P., Bateson, P. P. G., & Martin, P. (2013). Play, playfulness, creativity
and innovation. Cambridge University Press.
Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Wiley.
Birla, M. (2014). Unleashing creativity and innovation: Nine Lessons from nature
for enterprise growth and career success. John Wiley & Sons.
Blundel, R., Lockett, N., Wang, C., & Mawson, S. (2021). Exploring entrepre-
neurship. Sage.
Burns, P. (2016). Entrepreneurship and small business. Palgrave Macmillan.
Burrows, R. (2015). Deciphering the enterprise culture: Entrepreneurship, petty
capitalism and the restructuring of Britain. Routledge.
Carayannis, E. G., Samara, E. T., & Bakouros, Y. L. (2015). Innovation and
entrepreneurship: Theory, policy and practice. Springer.
Carr, P. (2000). Understanding enterprise culture: The ‘fashioning’ of enterprise
activity within small business. Strategic Change, 9(7), 405–414.
Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. (2010). The Impact of entrepreneurship on eco-
nomic growth. In Z. Acs & D. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneur-
ship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction. Springer.
Colemont, P., Rickards, T., & Smeekes, H. (1988). Creativity and innovation:
Towards a European network. Springer Science & Business Media.
Colman, A. M. (2009). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford University Press.
Cook, P. (2016). Leading innovation, creativity and enterprise. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
innovation. Harper Perennial.
Davila, T., Epstein, M., & Shelton, R. (2012). Making innovation work: How to
manage it, measure it, and profit from it. Pearson FT Press.
Davila, T., Epstein, M., & Shelton, R. (2016). The creative enterprise: Managing
innovative organizations and people. Praeger Publishers.
de Woot, P. (2016). Rethinking the enterprise: Competitiveness, technology and
society. Routledge.
Deakins, D., & Freel, M. (2012). Entrepreneurship and small firms. McGraw-
Hill Higher Education.
Della-Guista, M., & King, Z. (2008). Enterprise culture. In M. Casson,
B. Yeung, A. Basu, & N. Wadeson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of entrepre-
neurship (pp. 629–647). Oxford University Press.
Dubina, I., & Carayannis, G. (2016). Creativity, innovation and entrepreneur-
ship. Springer.
Fillis, I. (2002). An Andalusian dog or a rising star? Creativity and the market-
ing/entrepreneurship interface. Journal of Marketing Management,
18(3/4), 379–395.
Fitzpatrick, L. (2014). The cycle of creativity: Gestalt coaching and the creative
process. Gestalt Review, 18(2), 161–171.
62 F. Agboma
Gehani, R. R. (2011). Individual creativity and the Influence of mindful leaders
on enterprise. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(1), 82–92.
Gibb, A. (1987). Enterprise culture: Its meaning and implications for education
and training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 11(2), 2–38.
Gilson, L. (2016). Idea collections: A link between creativity and innovation.
Innovation: Organisation and Management, 19(1), 80–85.
Gray, C. (1998). Enterprise and culture. Routledge.
Gurteen, D. (1998). Knowledge, creativity and innovation. Journal of Knowledge
Management., 2(1), 5–13.
Haapasaari, A., Engestrom, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2018). From initiatives to
employee-driven innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management.,
21(2), 206–226.
Hamblett, J., & Holden, R. (2000). Employee-led development: Another piece
of left luggage? Personnel Review., 29(4), 509–520.
Hartmann, A. (2006). The role of organizational culture in motivating innova-
tive behavior in construction firms. Construction Innovation, 6(3), 159–172.
Hashimzade, N., Myles, G., & Black, J. (2017). A dictionary of economics.
Oxford University Press.
Heunks, F. J. (1998). Innovation, creativity and success. Small Business Economics,
10(3), 263–272.
Hippel, E. V. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-
Related Values. Sage Publications.
Holmquist, M., & Johansson, A. (2019). Employee-driven innovation: An
intervention using action research. Technology Innovation Management
Review, 9(5), 44–53.
Jaarsveld, S., Lachmann, T., & Leeuwen, C. (2012). Creative reasoning across
developmental levels: Convergence and divergence in problem creation.
Intelligence, 40(2), 172–188.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and productivity in
American corporations. Simon & Schuster.
Kaufmann, H. R., & Shams, S. M. R. (2016). Entrepreneurial challenges in the
21st Century: Creating stakeholder value co-creation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kwan, L. Y. Y., Leung, A. K. Y., & Liou, S. (2018). Culture, creativity, and
innovation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(2), 165–170.
Kwon, S. W., Heflin, C., & Ruef, M. (2013). Community social capital and
entrepreneurship. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 980–1008.
Lavoie, D., & Chamlee-Wright, E. (2002). Culture and enterprise. Routledge.
Lee, H. W. (2006). International human resource management can be achieved

through cultural studies and relevant training. The Business Review, 5(2), 95.
Levitt, T. (2002). Creativity is not enough. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved
December 12, 2021, from https://hbr.org/2002/08/creativity-is-not-enough
Linn, A. C., & Harris, D. R. (2008). The colours of poverty: Why racial and ethnic
disparities persist. Russell Sage Foundation.
Luke, B., Verreynne, M. L., & Kearins, K. (2007). Measuring the benefits of
entrepreneurship at different levels of analysis. Journal of Management &
Organization., 13(4), 312–330.
MacDonald, R., & Coffield, F. (2015). Risky business? Youth and enterprise cul-
ture. Routledge.
Mafabi, S., Munene, J., & Ahiauzu, A. (2015). Creative climate and organisa-
tional resilience: The mediating role of innovation. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis., 23(4), 564–587.
Matsumoto, D. (1996). Culture and psychology. Brooks/Cole.
Mumford, M. D., Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S.,
Murphy, S. T., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Creativity and ethics: The rela-
tionship of creative and ethical problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal,
22(1), 74–89.
O’Sullivan, D., & Dooley, L. (2009). Applying innovation. Sage.
Obiwulu, S. U., Yunus, E. M., Ibrahim, F., & Zuruzi, A. S. (2019). Sustaining
innovation: Creativity among employees of small and medium-sized enter-
prises and students in higher education institutions in Brunei Darussalam.
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(25), 1–15.
Peters, M. (2001). Education, enterprise culture and the entrepreneurial self: A
foucauldian perspective. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 58–71.
Plagens, C. (2015). The Gestalt model of evolutionary creative process. Gestalt
Review, 19(2), 144–161.
Pratt, A. C., & Jeffcutt, P. (2009). Creativity, innovation and the cultural econ-
omy. Routledge.
Rae, D. (2015). Opportunity-centred entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact mea-
surement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneur-
ship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Saille, S. D., & Medvecky, F. (2016). Innovation for a steady state: A case for
responsible stagnation. Economy and Society, 45(1), 1–23.
64 F. Agboma
Sarooghi, H., Libaers, D., & Burkemper, A. (2015). Examining the relationship
between creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cul-
tural, and environmental factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 714–731.
Sarri, K. K., Bakouros, I. L., & Petridou, E. (2010). Entrepreneur training for cre-
ativity and innovation. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(3), 270–288.
Scarborough, N., & Cornwall, J. (2016). Essentials of entrepreneurship and small
business management. Pearson.
Schudson, M. (1989). How Culture Works: Perspectives from media studies on
the efficacy of symbols. Theory and Society, 18(2), 153–180.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A
path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management
Journal, 37(3), 581–607.
Sigala, M., & Kyriakidou, O. (2015). Creativity and innovation in the service
sector. The Service Industries Journal, 23(6), 297–302.
Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2011). Creativity and innovation: Divergence and
convergence in pragmatic dialogical planning. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 32(1), 5–17.
Stierand, M. (2015). Developing creativity in practice: Explorations with world-
renowned chefs. Management Learning, 46(5), 598–617.
Szeman, I., & Kaposy, T. (2011). Cultural theory: An anthology. Wiley and Sons.
Thompson, M., & Walsham, G. (2004). Placing knowledge management in
context. Journal of Management Studies, 41(5), 725–747.
Trott, P. (2008). Innovation management and new product development. Financial
Times Prentice Hall.
Walia, C. (2019). A dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
31(3), 237–247.
Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 19(2), 173–188.
Wickham, P. (2006). Strategic entrepreneurship (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Zhao, F. (2005). Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 11(1), 25–41.
Part II
Entrepreneurship and Learning
4
Change Strategies for the
Entrepreneurial University: Towards
a Contextualized Understanding
Michael Breum Ramsgaard
Introduction
To advance entrepreneurial activities within higher education institu-
tions (HEIs), many countries have promoted institutional transitions
towards the entrepreneurial university model (Etzkowitz et al., 2000,
2008). Despite aboundant efforts to unify entrepreneurship with
higher education, the organizational process towards becoming an
entrepreneurial institution presents a major challenge in theory and in
practice (Gibb & Hannon, 2006). Universities, business schools, and
institutes of applied sciences have made recent efforts to apply entre-
preneurship education to advance the entrepreneurial side of institu-
tional change and strategy (Audretsch, 2014). Developments over past
decades have thus influenced HEIs to adopt entrepreneurship and
innovation in their strategies. This process towards becoming an
M. B. Ramsgaard (*)
Research Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, VIA University
College, Aarhus, Denmark
Department of Management, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
e-mail: mibj@via.dk

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_4
68 M. B. Ramsgaard
entrepreneurial institution is mainly driven by societal development

and by calls to increase industry collaboration, start-up accelerators,
and incubators, as well as calls to help the workforce master entrepre-
neurial skills and competences (Killingberg et al., 2020; Lackéus et al.,
2020). Despite a focus on entrepreneurship from policy institutions
such as the EU and the OECD, barriers remain regarding institutional
strategies for developing an entrepreneurial university model.
This chapter offers an integrative review of the change strategies
necessary for an HEI to become an entrepreneurial university. Such a
review serves as a lens for examining entrepreneurship’s role in HEIs’
change processes. The chapter investigates the archetypical definitions
and prototypical developments of an entrepreneurial university and
offers three main contributions: First, the review offers an overview of
the discrepant definitions of an entrepreneurial university. Second, the
review illustrates five waves of theory development regarding the entre-
preneurial university, each with a particular focus and agenda. Third,
the chapter connects institutional theory to a contemporary under-
standing of an entrepreneurial university. Finally, the chapter proposes
a model for processing and contextualizing the entrepreneurial univer-
sity concept to propose managerial options (Gibb et al., 2013). This
further expands upon what Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (1998) refers to
as “an endless transition” to generate new meanings of the concept.
In this chapter, I first present the case of a classic university institu-
tion undergoing change and focus on theory development related to
becoming an entrepreneurial university, particularly on possible strat-
egies and strategizing activities. In the second part, these insights
about transformation processes are compared with the contemporary
institutional theory related to change processes in general. Then, the
identified insights from the review are outlined. Finally, the chapter
discusses ways to incorporate innovation and entrepreneurship, as
well as organizational strategic efforts for becoming an entrepreneur-
ial university. I conclude the chapter by suggesting a model for under-
standing the process of transitioning to an entrepreneurial university.
This is followed by an exploration of future research avenues and
research questions for further development of the entrepreneurial
university.
4 Change Strategies for the Entrepreneurial University… 69
Methodology
The following analysis will address two main questions: (1) How has the
concept of an entrepreneurial university evolved? (2) What distinctive
entrepreneurial features are important for a strategy towards becoming an
entrepreneurial university? The analysis is based on an integrative review
of contemporary literature regarding the entrepreneurial university con-
cept. An integrative review “reviews, critiques, and synthesizes represen-
tative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks
and perspective on the topic are generated” (Torraco, 2016, p. 404). In
this sense, the integrative review method illustrates discrepancies and
contradictions in the entrepreneurial university literature. In addition, it
illustrates the notion of the problematizing review (Alvesson & Sandberg,
2020) because it regards reviews as an “opening up exercise … that
enables researchers to imagine how to rethink existing literature in ways
that generate new and ‘better’ ways of thinking about specific phenom-
ena” (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020).
The review is based on the overview table in Guerrero-Cano et al.
(2006) which covers articles up to 2004. For an updated overview, a
revised table includes recent publications and added details on the con-
tributing definitions and topics from the publications (Table 4.1). An
initial reading of Etzkowitz (1983), Clark (1998), and Guerrero-Cano
et al. (2006) deepened the search for literature and for recent publica-
tions. This was mainly accomplished by reading links and reference lists
and compiling entries with a conceptual, review, or novel focus. Entries
with a local study, a single-case study, or a single focus (e.g., industry–
university collaboration and technology transfer) were excluded. Without
limiting the time scope, the integrative review compiled journal articles,
working papers, book chapters, and reports. Based on the updated sam-
ple of fifty entries, an in-depth reading provided a deeper analysis of the
entrepreneurial university concept.
Table 4.1 Definitions of entrepreneurial university (elaborated from Guerrero-Cano et al., 2006)
ID Year Authors Article title Type Definition of entrepreneurial university Key focus areas
1 1983 Etzkowitz Entrepreneurial Scientists Journal “Universities that are considering new • Funding
and Entrepreneurial article sources of funds like patents, research • Patents
Universities in under by contracts and entry into a • Partnerships
American Academic partnership with a private enterprise.”
Science
2 1995 Chrisman Faculty Entrepreneurship Journal “The Entrepreneurial University involves • New venture creation
et al. and Economic article ‘the creation of new business ventures by • Faculty
Development: The Case university professors, technicians, or entrepreneurship
of the University of students’.” • University-industry
Calgary cooperation
3 1995 Dill University-Industry Journal “University technology transfer is defined as • Technology transfer
Entrepreneurship: The article formal efforts to capitalize upon university • Capitalization on
Organization and research by bringing research outcomes to research
Management of fruition as commercial ventures. Formal • Commercialization
American University efforts are in turn defined as organizational • Organizational units
Technology Transfer units with explicit responsibility for
Units promoting technology transfer.”
4 1998 Etzkowitz The Endless Transition: A Journal “‘[T]hird mission’ for the university, in • Triple helix
“Triple helix” of article addition to teaching and research, has • Third mission
University-Industry- emerged world-wide.” • Transition
Government Relations
5 1998 Clark Creating Entrepreneurial Book “An Entrepreneurial University, on its own, • Innovation
Universities: seeks to innovate in how it goes to • Shift in
Organizational business. It seeks to work out a substantial organizational
Pathways of shift in organizational character so as to character
Transformation. Issues arrive at a more promising posture for the • University as
in Higher Education future. Entrepreneurial universities seek to significant actor
become ‘stand-up’ universities that are
significant actors in their own terms.”
6 1998 Clark The Entrepreneurial Journal “The entrepreneurial response offers a • Pathways of
University: Demand article formula for institutional development that transformation
and Response puts autonomy on a self-defined basis: • Strengthened
diversify income to increase financial steering core
resources, provide discretionary money, • Entrepreneurial
and reduce governmental dependency; culture
develop new units outside traditional
departments to introduce new
environmental relationships and new
modes of thought and training.”
7 1998 Röpke The Entrepreneurial Journal “An entrepreneurial university can mean • University as
University, Innovation, article three things: the university itself, as an entrepreneurial
Academic Knowledge organization, becomes entrepreneurial; organization
Creation and Regional the members of the university—faculty, • Entrepreneurial
Development in a students, employees—are turning faculty, students, and
Globalized Economy themselves somehow into Entrepreneur; employees
and the interaction of the university with • Interaction with
the environment, the ‘structural coupling’ region
between university and region, follows
entrepreneurial patter.”
8 1999 Subotzky Alternatives to the Journal “The entrepreneurial university is • University-business
Entrepreneurial article characterized by closer university-business partnerships
University: New Modes partnerships, by greater faculty • External sources of
of Knowledge responsibility for accessing external funding
Production in sources of funding, and by a managerial • Managerial
Community Service ethos in institutional governance, governance and
Programs leadership and planning.” management
9 2002 Kirby Creating Entrepreneurial Working “As at the heart of any entrepreneurial • Entrepreneurial
Universities: A paper culture, Entrepreneurial Universities have culture
Consideration the ability to innovate, recognize and • Innovation
create opportunities, work in teams, take • Opportunity creation
risks and respond to challenges.” • Respond to challenges
(continued)
Table 4.1 (continued)
10 2003 Etzkowitz Research Groups as Journal “Just as the university trains individual • Incubator
“quasi firms”: The article students and sends them out into the • Support structures for
Invention of the world, the Entrepreneurial University is a teachers and students
Entrepreneurial natural incubator, providing support • New venture creation
University structures for teachers and students to • Intellectual,
initiate new ventures: intellectual, commercial, and
commercial and conjoint.” conjoint
11 2003 Jacob et al. Entrepreneurial Journal “An Entrepreneurial University is based • Commercialization
Transformations in the article both commercialization (customs made • Commoditization
Swedish University further education courses, consultancy • Start-ups
System: The Case of services and extension activities) and
Chalmers University of commoditization (patents, licensing or
Technology student owned start-ups).”
12 2003 William The Enterprising Book – • Reform
University: Reform, • Management
Excellence, and Equity
13 2004 Etzkowitz The Evolution of the Book chapter “The capitalization of this knowledge to • Incubators
et al. Entrepreneurial create new firms and to channel a flow of • Academic
University research funds from existing firms into the entrepreneurship
university is changing the purpose of the • New paradigm for
university, making it an engine of university
economic development as well as a vehicle
of socialization, cultural memory, and
research.”
14 2004 Schulte The Entrepreneurial Journal “An entrepreneurial university must • Training future
University: A Strategy article undertake two tasks: it must train future entrepreneurs
for Institutional entrepreneurs, persons who will found • Entrepreneurial
Development their own businesses, and also develop an organization and
entrepreneurial spirit in students in all operation of
subject areas. Second, it must operate in university
an entrepreneurial manner itself, • Involving students
organizing business incubators,
technology parks, and the like, involving
students in these organizations.”
15 2004 Clark Delineating the Journal “For a university to be appropriately and • Entrepreneurial
Character of the article productively entrepreneurial, it needs to organization
Entrepreneurial acquire the right kind of organization, one • Not synonym with
University that allows the institution to be in a state commercialization
of continuous change and adapt effectively • Institution-wide
to a changing society, and also one that entrepreneurial
allows its groups and individuals to culture
become more effective than previously.”
16 2006 Gibb & Towards the Journal “[E]ntrepreneurship becomes part of the • Model of an
Hannon Entrepreneurial article university’s core strategy. The ultimate entrepreneurial
University outcome is the creation of an ‘enterprise university
culture’ defined particularly as one open • Entrepreneurship and
to change and to the search for, and policy efforts
exploitation of, opportunities for • Challenges for HEI
innovation and development.”
17 2005 Mautner The Entrepreneurial Journal “Within this rhetoric, enterprise and • Discourse
University: A Discursive article enterprising, as well as entrepreneur and • Buzzword
Profile of a Higher entrepreneurial, stand out as keywords • Rhetoric aimed at
Education Buzzword carrying significant ideological loads that market
reflect the colonization of academia by
the market.”
(continued)
18 2005 Todorovic Making University Journal “[F]or universities to become • Faculty members role
et al. Departments More article entrepreneurial, it has to modify its • Risk-tolerant
Entrepreneurial: The structure to develop an appropriate environment
Perspective from organizational culture and attract the • Organizational
Within right people to arrive at the desired culture and people
outcome—innovation.” • Entrepreneurial
orientation
19 2006 Gjerding Twenty Practices of an Journal “The idea that entrepreneurial practices • Organizational
et al. Entrepreneurial article emanate from within individuals and small practices
University organisational groups. Entrepreneurship • Clark’s
cannot be solely decided upon top-down, entrepreneurial
but evolves bottom-up.” practices
20 2006 Guerrero- A Literature Review on Journal “[A]n Entrepreneurial University is defined • No consensus in
Cano et al. Entrepreneurial article— as an university that have the ability to definitions
Universities: An review innovate, recognize and create • Different theoretical
Institutional Approach opportunities, work in teams, take risks models
and respond to challenges, on its own, • Formal and informal
seeks to work out a substantial shift in factors
organizational character so as to arrive at
a more promising posture for the future.
In other words, is a natural incubator that
provides support structures for teachers
and students to initiate new ventures:
intellectual, commercial and conjoint.”
21 2007 Rothaermel University Journal “The increasing volume of studies on this • Taxonomy on
et al. Entrepreneurship: A article— topic corresponds with the increasing entrepreneurial
Taxonomy of the review levels of entrepreneurship in universities university
Literature around the world. In addition to • Increase in university
institutional changes discussed earlier, a entrepreneurship
technology pull and a technology push can • Development of
further explain this phenomenon.” trends over 25 years
22 2008 Blenker et al. A Framework for Working “The learning processes of the • Learning
Developing paper entrepreneurial university are closely • Pedagogy
Entrepreneurship related to both profound theoretical and • Context
Education in a experience-based reflection, as well as
University Context entrepreneurial action, where the
university actors see themselves as parts of
a community practice with an impact on
the university context.”
23 2008 Etzkowitz Pathways to the Journal “The transition to the entrepreneurial • Shift in knowledge-
et al. Entrepreneurial article university also encompasses the transition based economy
University: Towards a from individual to collective and • Triple helix
Global Convergence organizational entrepreneurship. If • Global transition of
entrepreneurship is essentially the process universities
of taking leadership in putting ideas into
practice, filling the gap between invention
and innovation, then organizations as well
as individuals may serve as entrepreneurs.”
24 2009 Gibb et al. Leading the Report – • Leadership
Entrepreneurial • Enterprise education
University: Meeting the
Entrepreneurial
Development Needs of
Higher Education
Institutions
(continued)
25 2009 Shattock Entrepreneurialism and Book chapter “Entrepreneurialism in a university setting is • Entrepreneurialism
Organizational Change not simply about generating resources— • Entrepreneurial
in Higher Education although it is an important element—it is activities
also about generating activities, which • Distinctive
may have to be funded in innovative ways institutional profile
either in response to anticipated and/or
particular market needs or driven by the
energy and imagination of individualism,
which cumulatively establish a distinctive
institutional profile.”
26 2010 D’Este & Why Do Academics Journal “[F]or universities, the benefits of university- • Academics
Perkmann Engage with Industry? article industry collaboration are best attained by • Collaboration
The Entrepreneurial cross-fertilization rather than encouraging
University and academics to become economic
Individual Motivations entrepreneurs. Collaboration is fruitful when
it facilitates or contributes to both industry
applications and academic research.”
27 2010 Bratianu & An Overview of Present Journal “The concept is cultural dependent, and • University
Stanciu Research Related to article— understanding it means to consider its management
Entrepreneurial review social and economic external environment. • Institutional
University Also, it is important to consider a transformation
multidimensional analysis, and not to
reduce the main idea of entrepreneurship
to its financial metric.”
28 2010 Guerrero & The Development of an Journal “[A]n instrument that not only provides a • Institutional
Urbano Entrepreneurial article workforce and value added with the economics
University creation or transformation of knowledge • Resource-based view
but also improves the individual’s values
and attitudes towards these issues.”
29 2010 Heinonen & Back to Basics: The Role Journal “We suggest that teaching entrepreneurship • Role of teaching
Hytti of Teaching in article does, indeed, have a decisive role in • Entrepreneurial
Developing the developing more entrepreneurial pedagogy
Entrepreneurial universities and thereby accomplishing the
University third mission referred to above. This role
depends on the objectives set for
entrepreneurship education and the
context in which the teaching takes place.”
30 2011 Kirby et al. Making Universities Journal “Universities that strive to be more • Institutional
More Entrepreneurial: article entrepreneurial transform their economics
Development of a organizational structures to better • Formal and informal
Model respond and adapt to the external factors
environment … and seek to encourage • Facilitators and
collective entrepreneurial action at all barriers
levels … by using various mechanisms to
promote entrepreneurial culture.”
31 2012 Gibb Exploring the Synergistic Journal “A strong university commitment to • Framework for
Potential in article entrepreneurship education as described strategic approach to
Entrepreneurial earlier will involve a number of strategic entrepreneurial
University decisions. One such decision is that of university
Development: Towards organisation design, namely the degree to • Synergy between
the Building of a which ownership and practice of concept existing activities in
Strategic Framework and delivery should or should not be the institution
embedded in individual departments and • Entrepreneurship and
what should be the role of any central enterprise education
support group.”
(continued)
32 2013 Coyle et al. The Entrepreneurial Report “The entrepreneurial university would build • Teaching and
University: From into its staffing a body of externals as learning
Concept to Action professors/fellows of practice and be • Entrepreneurial
unafraid to engage even the smallest pedagogies
economic and social entrepreneurs. In the
field of teaching and learning,
entrepreneurial pedagogies would be
embedded in each department across the
university, students and externals would
be actively engaged in curriculum design
and assessment processes.”
33 2013 Hannon Why Is the Journal “Within an academic context and • A multi-layered
Entrepreneurial article environment, entrepreneurialism can be approach
University Important? perceived as the development of a set of • Challenges for
individual behaviors, skills and attitudes as universities
characterized by the entrepreneur.” • European approach
34 2013 Gibb et al. Leading the Book chapter “[M]ove the debate on the entrepreneurial • Leadership
Entrepreneurial university away from the narrow focus • Employability
University: Meeting the upon commercialization of intellectual • Globalization and
Entrepreneurial property. … Entrepreneurship has been internationalization
Development Needs of located as an individual and • Organizational
Higher Education organizational behavioral and development
Institutions (Updated) development response to uncertainty and
complexity broadly relevant to citizens and
organizations of all kinds, private, public,
and autonomous.”
35 2013 Perkmann Academic Engagement Journal “A ‘third mission’ by fostering links with • Knowledge-related
et al. and Commercialisation: article— knowledge users and facilitating collaboration by
A Review of the review technology transfer.” academic researchers
Literature on • Commercialization
University–Industry • Individual,
Relations institutional, and
organizational factors
36 2014 Audretsch From the Entrepreneurial Journal “[S]uggesting that the role of the university • Entrepreneurial
University to the article in the entrepreneurial society is society
University for the considerably broader and more extensive
Entrepreneurial Society than the more narrow mandate for the
entrepreneurial university. In particular, in
the entrepreneurial society the university
contributes by enhancing entrepreneurial
university and enabling individuals to
thrive in such an entrepreneurial society.”
37 2014 Guerrero The Internal Pathways Book chapter “An entrepreneurial university is • Institutional
et al. that Condition characterized by organizational perspective
University adaptation to environmental changes … • Effect of university
Entrepreneurship in managerial and governance distinctiveness pathways on start-up
Latin America: An … new activities oriented to the intentions
Institutional Approach development of entrepreneurial culture at • Actions mediated by
all levels … a contribution to economic motivational factors
development with the creation of new
ventures … and the commercialization of
research.”
(continued)
38 2014 Morris et al. Building Blocks for the Book chapter “A university-wide orientation suggests that • Institutional
Development of entrepreneurship becomes part of the environment
University-Wide DNA of an institution, integral to the • Ways in which
Entrepreneurship university’s culture and operating model.” entrepreneurship
manifests itself across
a campus
• Underlying
operational
challenges
39 2014 Bronstein & Entrepreneurial Journal “[T]his study should generate, through the • Archetypes of the
Reihlen University Archetypes: article— identification of archetypes, a more entrepreneurial
A Meta-Synthesis of meta- refined framework of specific university
Case Study Literature synthesis organizational characteristics among • Similar
differing forms of entrepreneurial organizational
universities.” attributes
40 2014 Gibb & The University of the Book chapter “[R]epositioning of the university as a • Dynamics of the
Haskins Future: An broad, pluralistic entrepreneurial Higher Education
Entrepreneurial stakeholder learning organisation, • Freedom and
Stakeholder Learning managing numerous interdependencies, autonomy
Organization? and examines what this might mean for • Pressure from
the development of future institutional stakeholders
strategies.”
41 2017 Mascarenhas Entrepreneurial Journal “[A] channel for spillover effects • Divergent attitudes
et al. University: Towards a article— contributing to socioeconomic of industries and
Better Understanding bibliometric development through its multiple missions academia
of Past Trends and review of teaching, research and entrepreneurial • Systematic review
Future Directions activities.”
42 2018 Centobelli The Mediating Role of Journal “[E]xploration and exploitation processes • Knowledge
et al. Knowledge Exploration article produce a dynamic path that is like a exploration and
and Exploitation for twisting learning path crossing the exploitation
the Development of an different evolution phases of • Ambidexterity
Entrepreneurial entrepreneurial universities.”
University.
43 2018 Pugh et al. The Entrepreneurial Journal “Formal activities are performed through • Roles of
University and the article the wider structure of the ‘entrepreneurial entrepreneurship
Region: What Role for university’ and also via direct links to departments
Entrepreneurship regional networks and actors, whereas • Informal/soft/
Departments? more informal roles are enacted through engagement activities
direct routes to the region.” versus formal/hard/
commercialization
activities
44 2019 Etzkowitz Entrepreneurial University Journal “The entrepreneurial university may be • Entrepreneurial
et al. Dynamics: Structured article defined in terms of the role of university transition
Ambivalence, Relative entrepreneurship in traditional research • University as a
Deprivation and and teaching mission as well as its role in promoter of
Institution-Formation in ‘third mission’ for Innovation.” technological
the Stanford Innovation innovation
System
45 2019 Klofsten The Entrepreneurial Journal “Catalyst for development through • Dynamic
et al. University as Driver for article attracting well-educated people, organizational
Economic Growth and facilitating knowledge transfer, and capabilities
Social Change—key contributing to the creation of new • Synergetic
Strategic Challenges ventures, as well as to maintaining the combinations of
competitiveness of established firms and environmental
organizations.” factors
• Teaching needs to
develop
entrepreneurial
mindsets
(continued)
46 2019 Centobelli Exploration and Journal “[S]hould deal with the modernisation of • Ambidexterity
et al. Exploitation in the article— their degree programs, the • Managerial and
Development of More review reconfiguration of their internal processes, policy implications
Entrepreneurial the adoption of innovative education tools
Universities: A Twisting and practices, as well as the development
Learning Path Model of public-private partnerships to improve
of Ambidexterity their performance.”
47 2020 Bliemel & A Decade of Research on Journal “Since Rothaermel, Agung and Jiang’s • Review of literature
Monicolini the Entrepreneurial article— seminal review in 2007, the literature on • Interconnectedness
University: A bibliometric the Entrepreneurial University experienced
Bibliometric Review review exponential growth, with over 1500
articles over 10 years. This paper aims at
providing an objective, systematic, and
comprehensive review of the literature
based on detailed bibliometric analysis.”
48 2020 Compagnucci The Third Mission of the Journal “[I]ncreasing pressure on Universities to • Third mission of the
& Spigarelli University: A Systematic article— shift from focusing primarily on teaching university
Literature Review on review and performing research, and to add an • The entrepreneurial
Potentials and equivocal Third Mission (TM), labelled ‘a shift in higher
Constraints contribution to society’.” education
49 2020 Thomas & From “entrepreneurial” Journal “We find the entrepreneurial university • Social change
Pugh to “engaged” article concept to be incomplete in the emerging • Social innovation
Universities: Social economy context, where universities are at • Economic challenges
Innovation for the heart of regional efforts to address
Regional Development massive social and economic challenges,
in the Global South largely because of its scant treatment of
social innovation and entrepreneurship
dimensions.”
50 2020 Knudsen New Forms of Journal “Based on such lab access, new meeting • Technology transfer
et al. Engagement in Third article places for third mission activities can offices
Mission Activities: A emerge, where the universities invite • Societal trends
Multi-level University- industry, firms and other stakeholders to • New meeting places
Centric Approach come closer to build stronger
relationships. Such meeting places for
collaboration and scientific discovery may
be a new fruitful avenue for leaping into
combining third mission activities with
societal needs.”
84 M. B. Ramsgaard
nalysis of Theoretical Frameworks that

A
Condition the Entrepreneurial University
Universities are institutions formed around two main interests: research
and teaching. However, a third strategic focus has arisen in recent decades,
often described as universities’ third mission (Etzkowitz et al., 2000).
This theory refers to a university transitioning from being an “ivory
tower” for research and teaching towards becoming a collaborative and
innovative institution situated in the regional environment (Cooke &
Leydesdorff, 2006). The OECD, the World Economic Forum, the EU,
and other policy-driven institutions have declared major interest in the
entrepreneurial university concept, seeing them as a leverage point for
society’s economic development. However, no unified theory of an entre-
preneurial university exists, and the concept’s many definitions indicate a
diverse set of strategic foci.
Several scholars have driven the understanding of an entrepreneurial
university. As early as 1983, Etzkowitz introduced the term entrepreneur-
ial university. He focused on factors influencing what he called the triple
helix model, in which entrepreneurial universities are defined as “univer-
sities that are considering new sources of funds like patents, research
under contracts and entry into a partnership with a private enterprise”
(Etzkowitz, 1983). According to Etzkowitz, an entrepreneurial university
can be developed through the following “norms of the entrepreneurial
university”:
• Capitalization of knowledge and research

• Interdependence between the university, industry, and governmental
institutions
• The university’s independence as an HEI
• Hybridization of organizational forms
• Reflexivity in that the university’s internal structure changes continu-
ously “as its relation to industry and government changes” and that the
same happens to industry and government “as their relationship to the
university is revised” (Etzkowitz, 2004, p. 66).
Etzkowitz further connected entrepreneurial development to a historic

process where HEIs add the third mission to their existing focus on
research and teaching (Etzkowitz, 2003). His posited that universities can
operate in complex and changing environments if they aim to operate
autonomously and develop hybrid forms of organizational structures
linked to the surrounding society. The triple helix model centres on inter-
actions between universities, industries, and governments that drive
innovation and growth in the knowledge economy (Etzkowitz, 2003),
and this model has found widespread recognition (Anderson et al., 2019)
from established journals and conferences.
In 1998, Clark wrote the book Creating Entrepreneurial Universities as
well as several articles on the matter. According to Clark,
[A]n entrepreneurial university, on its own, seeks to innovate in how it goes

to business. It seeks to work out a substantial shift in organizational char-
acter so as to arrive at a more promising posture for the future.
Entrepreneurial universities seek to become “stand-up” universities that are
significant actors in their own terms.
Clark advocated for a strong focus on developing entrepreneurial

mindsets throughout the organization. He focused on explaining how
HEIs could transform into entrepreneurial institutions and how local
actors could support this process. Considering the societal changes dur-
ing the 1990s, Clark (1998) called for more “steering than drifting” (p. 5)
of HEIs, thus making the management and strategy-making perspective
relevant for universities.
Much literature has been based on Etzkowitz and Clark’s early devel-
opment of the entrepreneurial university concept (Bratianu & Stanciu,
2010). However, grasping what constitutes an entrepreneurial university
can be difficult because of the many definitions and underlying ratio-
nales. Furthermore, much research has been either conceptual, regional,
or based on case studies. This accentuates a growing need for an overview
that connects the concept’s phases and development. The apparent lack
of theory has managerial consequences for adapting the concept and,
subsequently, for the related transition processes. The diverse understand-
ings of the entrepreneurial university illustrated in Table 4.1 highlight the
86 M. B. Ramsgaard
concept’s discrepancies and problematic nature. For an important soci-

etal institution such as a university, a shared understanding or consensus
model seems paramount when addressing the transition to a new or
revised organizational mode. However, the extant number of entries (50)
in the current sample indicates a need to synthesize and cluster the
insights.
No unified theory of the entrepreneurial university exists, but research
can help reduce the complexity via other syntheses. The developments
and exponential publication stream on the topic show a great interest
from many stakeholders. An integrative review of the literature summa-
rized in Table 4.2 reveals five waves of development.
The five waves illustrate and highlight specific interests that comprise
the entrepreneurial university concept as accumulated over time. Thus,
these waves represent change strategies that direct the university’s devel-
opment. They constitute conceptual definitions that inform the contex-
tualized and situational development (both in theory and in practice).
The first wave established the concept as an agenda within management
theory, primarily driven by Etzkowitz and Clark. Here, the literature
review primarily aimed to establish and define the concept’s parameters.
The second wave provided a much-needed overview and synthesis of the
literature up to 2006. Here, the primary aim was to expand the defini-
tions and connect them to related streams of literature, for example, uni-
versity–industry collaboration (Lockett et al., 2008; Mueller, 2006),
Table 4.2 The five waves of entrepreneurial university literature

Waves and period Primary focus Primary advocates
First wave (~1983–1998) Defining the Etzkowitz and
entrepreneurial university Clark
Second wave (~1999–2006) Overview of theory and Guerrero-Cano
related concepts
Third wave (~2005–2014) Teaching and learning as Gibb and Hannon
culture change
Fourth wave (~2010–2019) Organizational development Guerrero
and strategies towards
transition
Fifth wave (~2020–) New roles for the Bliemel and
entrepreneurial university Monicolini
technology-driven innovation (Cooke & Leydesdorff, 2006), and incu-

bator impact (Etzkowitz, 2002). These topics illustrated the definitional
underpinnings of Etzkowitz’s triple helix model. In a literature review,
Guerrero-Cano et al. (2006) described a purpose similar to this chapter’s
investigation, namely, dissolving discrepancies, synthesizing information,
and suggesting new frameworks. Mautner (2005) investigated the entre-
preneurial university as a discursive profile, exploring the discursive
meanings and interpretations related to the term “entrepreneurial univer-
sity”, much literature is based on case studies of universities, but Bronstein
and Reihlen (2014) conducted a meta-synthesis of existing case studies to
establish an overview. The third wave outlines a more education-centred
perspective, in which Allan Gibb further described the changing univer-
sity paradigm. Through a UK-based research project, Gibb, Hannon, and
others empirically and conceptually examined how to establish an entre-
preneurial university (Gibb et al., 2013). They instigated the third wave
by focusing on the teaching and learning side of the concept of the entre-
preneurial university, specifically addressing the need for a focus on entre-
preneurship education.
The fourth wave primarily focused on organizational development and
strategies for transitioning to the entrepreneurial university model.
Guerrero et al. (2014) linked the institutional approach and strategic
initiatives, particularly for the change processes involved in the internal
pathways towards university entrepreneurship. Kirby (2006) had previ-
ously suggested seven strategic actions for promoting an enterprise cul-
ture in universities. The formal factors included the organization’s
strategic actions, endorsements, incorporation, implementation, and
communication. The informal factors were related to promotion, recog-
nition, and reward systems. Rothaermel et al. (2007) developed a con-
ceptual framework of an entrepreneurial university that commercializes
new knowledge, technology transfer, and new venture creation. They
stressed the importance of technology transfer offices, incubator hubs,
and other institutional structures to support this development towards an
entrepreneurial university.
The fifth wave represents the current discussion about why contribu-
tions are few, and three entries stand out because they articulate a role
change for entrepreneurial universities. Thomas and Pugh (2020) argued
88 M. B. Ramsgaard
that an entrepreneurial university must embed a social focus beyond the

purely economic modes that previous literature contended. Thus the uni-
versity’s role broadens into an engaged role of social innovation and social
entrepreneurship to benefit society. In a recent bibliographic review,
Bliemel and Monicolini (2020) showed that the field had grown expo-
nentially over a 10-year period, with over 1500 articles published.
Furthermore, Hytti (2021) advocated the need to establish a research
agenda for entrepreneurial universities, highlighting the diverse under-
standings (including critical ones) of the concept.
ntrepreneurial Universities in Light

E
of Organizational Change in Higher Education
The literature provides diverse and complex strategies for appropriately
transitioning towards an entrepreneurial university model. In particular,
the third wave of literature aimed at aiding university management via
guidelines, pathways, and instructions regarding strategy. However,
Welter (2011) and Thomassen et al. (2020) argued that “context mat-
ters”, which is why this particular endeavour might be challenging
in HEIs.
Two main analytical tracks appear upon examining the strategies
related to an entrepreneurial university. One is the evidence and the ways
of strategizing that the literature reveals. The second analysis relates to an
institutional theory highly intertwined with the processes of strategy-
making and change in general. These two directions will be examined in
the following section.
Investigating the antecedent to strategically becoming an entrepre-
neurial university reveals differing approaches and suggestions. One
approach involves Schulte’s (2004) focus on strategy for institutional
development. He argued that an entrepreneurial university must operate
in an entrepreneurial manner, including organizing business incubators
and technology parks, while engaging students in these organizational
activities. Schulte explicitly focused on founding businesses and on
related measures. He further described some organizing and structuring
efforts (towards becoming entrepreneurial) as relating to incubator envi-

ronments and to funding start-ups. Schulte represents an early view of an
entrepreneurial university, which is why I place him in the first wave of
theory development. However, he kindled the debate around the organi-
zational structure and strategy-making for such a university. Theories
concerned with defining the concept also appear in this wave, but Schulte
put the internal structure topic on the agenda.
Clark had earlier introduced the “steering above drifting” view to push
strategy-making for HEIs. Gjerding et al. (2006) investigated Clark’s
ideas to describe the practices spurred by his work. From Clark’s work,
they wanted to extract a list of pertinent organizational practices aimed at
supporting institutional development. Their investigation added distinc-
tive features of the strategy for entrepreneurial universities centred on
history, culture, diversity, and understanding of commercialization. They
also identified facilitators of and barriers to the process, particularly con-
cerning the role of organizational culture.
The second analysis track sheds more light on the institutional approach
because it links contemporary institutional theory with concurrent devel-
opments of the entrepreneurial university model. Linking the institu-
tional theories incorporated other streams of theoretical development
beyond just the university context, such as institutional logics and
strategy-as-practice.
The concepts of new institutionalism bring relevant insight because
these studies are not bound to singular institutions and can explain the
organization of a broad field of institutions. The institutional theorist
Scott (2008b) advocated a new institutionalism perspective on under-
standing organizational change. He explained various dimensions that
may affect the development: (a) regulatory changes (laws shaping organi-
zations), (b) normative changes (professional norms), and (b) cultural–
cognitive changes (assumptions and frames) (Scott, 2008b). Institutions
may exert pressure on these change processes to significantly influence
the outcome. Coercive pressure urges institutions to embed certain
changes and practices to avoid formal sanctions. Scott further identified
a normative pressure regarding compliance with the HEI’s standard or
accreditation obligations. Lastly, he addressed mimetic pressures that
encourage institutions to “copy” other universities for legitimacy.
90 M. B. Ramsgaard
Understanding assumptions and contextualized practices helps

research to guide and advise the strategy processes. Recent approaches in
institutional theory might help in examining why and how the entrepre-
neurial university model works. Strategy-as-practice reveals strategy as a
social activity enacted by practitioners at all levels of an organization who
variously shape the agenda and influence the strategy. Strategy-as-practice
shows that strategy is less what organizations have and more what they
actually do (Jarzabkowski & Whittington, 2008; Whittington, 2006).
Therefore, strategy-as-practice can inform institutional change processes
that inherently can have high levels of complexity. Furthermore, synthe-
sizing the five waves from a processual perspective enables a sequential
understanding of previous waves that influence current change strategies
towards making HEIs into entrepreneurial universities. I will discuss this
in the following section.
Finally, the institutional logic perspective (Besharov & Smith, 2014;
Thornton et al., 2015; Weber et al., 2013) helps understand the organi-
zational changes caused and influenced by entrepreneurship in relation to
HEIs (Greenman, 2013; Greenwood et al., 2010). Building on institu-
tional logic perspectives, Barton Cunningham et al. (2002) argued for
entrepreneurial logics as a way of understanding how entrepreneurial
thinking influences new organizational forms.
Discussion
The present review on the extant literature on entrepreneurial universities
and an examination of the link to institutional theory reveal a discussion
centred on this chapter’s main contributions. The chapter’s most impor-
tant contribution is identifying five waves of literature about the entre-
preneurial university model. An overview of the existing literature can be
established in many ways. The overall aim of reviewing literature is to
reduce the complexity in a field of knowledge. Therefore, reviewing lit-
erature that includes multiple research methods to reveal various contri-
butions and insights makes sense. When Bliemel and Monicolini (2020)
applied a bibliometric approach to 1500 literature entries, they showed
some emerging trends and evidence of these topics’ prominence in the
sample. This method offers new knowledge about how the entrepreneur-

ial university concept was dealt with in a specific period, which under-
scores the current integrative review this chapter is based on.
Suggesting how HEIs can initiate strategic activities is dangerous
because of the multitude of organizational contexts. However, a discus-
sion about approaches to strategizing can illustrate multiple available
paths. Depending on context (Welter & Baker, 2020), HEIs can strate-
gize differently. Identifying the antecedents and elements influencing the
strategic process, as represented in Fig. 4.1, is crucial. As my literature
review illustrates, the foundational understanding of entrepreneurial uni-
versities subsequently influences the strategic approach. Any approach to
becoming an entrepreneurial university can have several priorities, thus
accentuating the “equifinal” nature of these transition processes (Van de
Ven & Poole, 1995).
Nelles and Vorley (2010, 2011) discussed the architecture and organi-
zational structures needed to develop an entrepreneurial university. They
offered a pragmatic approach for institutions to address the challenges of
the third mission of commercial and regional engagement. In particular,
they advanced an “entrepreneurial architecture” lens to understand uni-
versities’ changing role. The architecture comprises internal factors that
interact to shape entrepreneurial strategies within HEIs (Nelles & Vorley,
2010). These factors are (a) structures (entrepreneurial infrastructures),
(b) systems (network and linkage between structures and departments),
(c) strategies (institutional goals), (d) leadership (qualification and orien-
tation), and (e) culture (institutional and individual attitudes and norms).
According to Nelles and Vorley, these elements influence the third mis-
sion’s inclusion irrespective of context because they are organizational
architectural design elements aimed at socioeconomic and societal
engagement.
Fig. 4.1 Influences on the transformation into an entrepreneurial university

92 M. B. Ramsgaard
Based on the interpretations and definitions described in this review,

no accreditation or prescriptive standard exists for an HEI’s development
into an entrepreneurial university. The processual and strategizing activi-
ties of getting there may constitute a more relevant aspect to investigate
and rely on because each institutional context is different (Ramsgaard
and Blenker, forthcoming). For example, the regional influence, the con-
textual balance for management, the educators, the ecosystem, and the
students make it unrealistic to provide generic models and theories for
the transformation into an entrepreneurial university.
Hindle (2007) encouraged consideration of entrepreneurial universi-
ties’ contexts to address the widespread scepticism about entrepreneur-
ship education. Hindle argued that advancing an academic curriculum of
entrepreneurship involves interactions between educators, students, the
environment, and the educational institution’s overall context. Hence, he
critically addressed whether a business school is the most appropriate
institution for entrepreneurship and suggested that universities adopt
philosophies for critical imagination to make entrepreneurship relevant
(Hindle, 2007, p. 123). Therefore, the entrepreneurial university’s princi-
pal understandings and strategic focal points become more prominent
because something relevant in one context might not be relevant in
another.
Sporn (2001) discussed the emerging forms of universities via the
adaptive lens. She argued that an entrepreneurial transformation may be
hindered by a university’s bureaucratic structures. According to Sporn
(2001), the transformation process has several critical issues, namely,
clarifying mission statements and goals, establishing an entrepreneurial
culture, professionalizing university management, sharing governance,
and keeping the leadership committed.
Related to the above is the role of the institutional agent or intrapre-
neur inside the university. Prominent individuals with strategic roles in
the transition could vary according to context. Scott (2008a, 2010)
therefore argued that professionals serve as institutional agents in change
processes.
Henry (2020) advocated for the importance of the entrepreneurship
educator role, which she referred to as an “aggregator of content” in the
development of educational practices. This importance accentuates the
complexity of transforming at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels and

implies that “each” level needs its own “aggregators of entrepreneur-
ial strategy”. Considering a myriad of stakeholders seems relevant in light
of the complex processes that take place when HEIs change into entre-
preneurial institutions.
Finally, this discussion could include the perspective that some identi-
fied “waves” must be revisited or “tested” relative to developments in a
particular theory. For instance, the stream of theory regarding an entre-
preneurial university in the third wave (focused on teaching and learning)
could be challenged by the recent development of value creation peda-
gogy (Jones et al., 2020; Lackéus, 2018), thus creating value that has
equal meaning for the university organization, the strategy activities, or
the surrounding context—although value is not purely pedagogical. If
the fourth wave is contested by a recent development in institutional
theory, new perspectives on the strategy processes could emerge.
This suggests using a model to understand the transition’s process. The
proposed model in Fig. 4.2 is theoretically derived from the current
review of the extant literature.
The model offers no distinct definition of an entrepreneurial univer-
sity. However, the model suggests understanding all the concept’s facets
as a sequential development where the five waves accumulate influence
on current understandings. This current understanding must be contex-
tualized to become a managerial concept (Thomassen et al., 2020). Thus,
HEIs must consider five parameters or questions related to this
development:
(1) What definitional outset does the university base its strategic devel-
opment on in becoming an entrepreneurial university?
(2) What is the organizational scope of transitioning to becoming an
entrepreneurial university?
(3) How is an entrepreneurial teaching and learning culture established?
What are its theoretical foundations?
(4) What strategic change processes facilitate the transformation into an
entrepreneurial university?
(5) How can a new role be widely accepted and legitimized internally
and externally?
Wave 1: Defining the entrepreneurial university
94
Incentives and
pressures to
Wave 2: Overview of theory and related concepts
transform into an
entrepreneurial
university Wave 3: Teaching and learning as culture change
Wave 4: Organizational development and strategies towards transition
Wave 5: New roles for the entrepreneurial university

M. B. Ramsgaard
Accumulated
influence
A contextualized understanding/version of the entrepreneurial university

• Hybrid manageable concept not predefined in theory but based in change practices
• HEIs considering terms of 1) definitional outset, 2) organizational scope, 3) teaching and learning
foundation and culture, 4) strategic change processes, and 5) role accepted and legitimized.
Fig. 4.2 A processual understanding of the transformation into an entrepreneurial university based on theory development
Conclusion
Universities may undertake entrepreneurial activities in various ways and
at multiple levels. Although universities exhibit distinct characteristics
related to the entrepreneurial university, contextualization and further
development of the concept are needed. Universities’ evolution into
entrepreneurial institutions may even be impossible in many cases. The
entrepreneurial university concept contains mixed agendas and diverse
definitions but lacks robust theoretical frameworks for understanding it.
Despite the extraordinary attention and volume of articles evidenced by
Bliemel and Monicolini (2020), the phenomenon nevertheless lacks clear
theoretical explanations. This integrative review describes how the con-
cept of an entrepreneurial university has evolved and identifies distinctive
entrepreneurial features important for a strategy for becoming an entre-
preneurial university.
This insight reveals several problems: (a) HEIs continuously struggle to
understand which strategies to apply to transform into entrepreneurial
institutions, something Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (1998) referred to as an
“endless transition”. The transformation can indeed seem endless for uni-
versities. Etzkowitz et al. (2019) further demonstrated that these efforts
can be challenging even for HEIs at the forefront of global university
rankings. (b) Contextualizing an entrepreneurial university or HEI is a
highly overlooked issue in previous literature. Each institution has rela-
tionships with its regional society and its student body and a specific
institutional role (e.g., a university of applied sciences). (c) Institutional
practices with regard to strategy-making and subsequent strategic activi-
ties need further focus specifically for HEIs’ transformation into entre-
preneurial universities. This particular institutional transformation has
unique complexities because it entails a complex set of stakeholders, and
the transformation is driven partly by societal change and policy regula-
tion in the field of HEIs.
This accentuates the question of how research can guide HEIs in their
strategic development if a one-size-fits-all solution is not desired. As the
current review shows, waves of development have influenced the debate.
If these waves can be further examined and shaped into prototypes or
Table 4.3 Questions for future research topics about the entrepreneurial university
96
Strategy Context Teaching and learning Impact

• How should • How does the • How will higher education • Are student start-ups and
strategizing activities entrepreneurial institutions adopt incubator environments a
towards becoming an university develop in strategies at micro level? prerequisite element of the
entrepreneurial higher education entrepreneurial university?
university be prioritized institutions other than
in HEIs? university and business
school?
M. B. Ramsgaard
• How does the theories • What forms/prototypes • How do pedagogies for • What frameworks can guide
of the entrepreneurial of the entrepreneurial entrepreneurial universities and evidence the impact of an
university adapt to new university have develop? entrepreneurial university?
societal trends? developed in various HEI
forms?
• How does strategic • How does an • What is the relationship • How can a strategic impact be
intentions of entrepreneurial between educator-initiated adapted to trends and foci that
entrepreneurial university relevant for activities at a micro level arise through societal
university compare with applied professions and management-initiated development?
strategizing practices in look? strategies at meso and
HEIs? macro level?
• How does HEI • How can strategy • What classroom activities • Which actors and institutional
management-level plan processes be and pedagogical agents influence the change
execute and prioritize a contextualized in the approaches facilitate the process into becoming an
transition into becoming case of transformation various elements that entrepreneurial university in
an entrepreneurial into entrepreneurial condition the relation to micro, meso, and
university? universities? entrepreneurial university? macro levels of an institution?
frameworks for HEIs, a link between research and practice can be

established.
A larger transformation relates to an entrepreneurial society in which
knowledge-based entrepreneurship drives economic growth, job creation,
and sustainable development. In this ongoing transition, entrepreneurial
universities play important roles as strategy-makers in the education field,
knowledge producers, and institutions for teaching and learning. Clearly,
the entrepreneurial university concept needs further research. I will con-
clude this chapter by proposing future avenues for research as presented
in Table 4.3.
References
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2020). The problematizing review: A counter-
point to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews.
Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290–1304.
Anderson, G., Mascarenhas, C., Marwues, C., Ferreira, J., & Ratten, V. (2019).
Triple helix and its evolution: A systematic literature review. Journal of Science
and Technology Policy Management, 10(3), 812–833.
Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university
for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
39(3), 313–321.
Barton Cunningham, J., Gerrard, P., Schoch, H., & Lai Hong, C. (2002). An
entrepreneurial logic for the new economy. Management Decision,
40(8), 734–744.
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in orga-
nizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of
Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.
Bliemel, M., & Monicolini, L. (2020). A decade of research on the entrepre-
neurial university: A bibliometric review. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 1, 18546.
Bratianu, C., & Stanciu, S. (2010). An overview of present research related to
entrepreneurial university. Management & Marketing, 5(2), 117–134.
Bronstein, J., & Reihlen, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial university archetypes: A
meta-synthesis of case study literature. Industry and Higher Education,
28(4), 245–262.
98 M. B. Ramsgaard
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational path-

ways of transformation. In Issues in higher education. Elsevier Science.
Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional development in the knowledge-
based economy: The construction of advantage. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 31(1), 5–15.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities
in American academic science. Minerva, 21(2–3), 198–233.
Etzkowitz, H. (2002). Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of
university-industry-government networks. Science and Public Policy,
29(2), 115–128.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-
industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university.
International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77.
Etzkowitz, H., Germain-Alamartine, E., Keel, J., Kumar, C., Smith, K. N., &
Albats, E. (2019). Entrepreneurial university dynamics: Structured ambiva-
lence, relative deprivation and institution-formation in the Stanford innova-
tion system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141(C), 159–171.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: “A Triple Helix”
of university-industry-government relations: Introduction (pp.
203–208). Minerva.
Etzkowitz, H., Ranga, M., Benner, M., Guaranys, L., Maculan, A. M., &
Kneller, R. (2008). Pathways to the entrepreneurial university: Towards a
global convergence. Science and Public Policy, 35(9), 681–695.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future
of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to
entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
Gibb, A., & Hannon, P. (2006). Towards the entrepreneurial university.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4(1), 73–110.
Gibb, A., Haskins, G., & Robertson, I. (2013). Leading the entrepreneurial
university: Meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of higher educa-
tion institutions. In A. Altmann & B. Ebersberger (Eds.), Universities in
change: Managing higher education institutions in the age of globalization
(pp. 9–45). Springer.
Gjerding, A. N., Wilderom, C. P., Cameron, S. P., Taylor, A., & Scheunert,
K.-J. (2006). Twenty practices of an entrepreneurial university. Higher
Education Management and Policy, 18(3), 1–28.
Greenman, A. (2013). Everyday entrepreneurial action and cultural embedded-

ness: An institutional logics perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 25(7–8), 631–653.
Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity
of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses.
Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Gajón, E. (2014). The internal pathways that
condition university entrepreneurship in Latin America: An institutional
approach. In S. Hoskinson & D. F. Kuratko (Eds.), Advances in the study of
entrepreneurship, innovation & economic growth (Vol. 24, pp. 89–118).
Guerrero-Cano, M., Kirby, D., & Urbano, D. (2006). A literature review on
entrepreneurial universities: An institutional approach. In 3rd Conference of
Pre-Communications to Congresses, University of Barcelona.
Henry, C. (2020). Reconceptualizing the role of the future entrepreneurship
educator: An exploration of the content challenge. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 32(9–19), 657–676.
Hindle, K. (2007). Teaching entrepreneurship at university: From the wrong
building to the right philosophy. Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship
Education, 1, 104–126.
Hytti, U. (Ed.). (2021). A research agenda for the entrepreneurial university.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Whittington, R. (2008). A strategy-as-practice approach to
strategy research and education. Journal of Management Inquiry,
17(4), 282–286.
Jones, C., Penaluna, K., & Penaluna, A. (2020). Value creation in entrepreneur-
ial education: Towards a unified approach. Education + Training,
63(1), 101–113.
Killingberg, N. M., Kubberød, E., & Blenker, P. (2020). Preparing for a future
career through entrepreneurship education: Towards a research agenda.
Industry and Higher Education, 35(6), 713–724.
Kirby, D. A. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying
entrepreneurship theory to practice. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
31(5), 599–603.
Lackéus, M. (2018). “What is Value?”—A Framework for analyzing and facili-
tating entrepreneurial value creation. Uniped, 41(1), 10–28.
Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M., Middleton, K. W., & Inden, J. (2020). The entre-
preneurial employee in public and private sector: “What, why, how”. Joint
Research Centre.
100 M. B. Ramsgaard
Lockett, N., Kerr, R., & Robinson, S. (2008). Multiple perspectives on the chal-
lenges for knowledge transfer between higher education institutions and
industry. International Small Business Journal, 26(6), 661–681.
Mautner, G. (2005). The entrepreneurial university: A discursive profile of a
higher education buzzword. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2), 95–120.
Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and
university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy,
35(10), 1499–1508.
Nelles, J., & Vorley, T. (2010). Constructing an entrepreneurial architecture: An
emergent framework for studying the contemporary university beyond the
entrepreneurial turn. Innovative Higher Education, 35(3), 161–176.
Nelles, J., & Vorley, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial architecture: A blueprint for
entrepreneurial universities. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,
28(3), 341–353.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneur-
ship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change,
16(4), 691–791.
Schulte, P. (2004). The entrepreneurial university: A strategy for institutional
development. Higher Education in Europe, 29(2), 187–191.
Scott, W. R. (2008a). Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents.
Organization Studies, 29(2), 219–238.
Scott, W. R. (2008b). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional
theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427–442.
Scott, W. R. (2010). Entrepreneurs and professionals: The mediating role of
institutions. In W. D. Sine & R. J. David (Eds.), Research in the sociology of
work (Vol. 21, pp. 27–49).
Sporn, B. (2001). Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms
based on experiences of European and us universities. Tertiary Education and
Management, 7(2), 121–134.
Thomas, E., & Pugh, R. (2020). From ‘entrepreneurial’ to ‘engaged’ universities:
Social innovation for regional development in the Global South. Regional
Studies, 54(12), 1631–1643.
Thomassen, M. L., Middleton, K. L. W., Ramsgaard, M. B., Warren, L., &
Neergaard, H. (2020). Conceptualizing context in entrepreneurship educa-
tion: A literature review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, 26(5), 863–886.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2015). The institutional logics
perspective. In Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–22).
American Cancer Society.
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and
present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review,
15(4), 404–428.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
Weber, K., Patel, H., & Heinze, K. L. (2013). From cultural repertoires to insti-
tutional logics: A content-analytic method. In Research in the Sociology of
Organizations: Vol. 39 Part B (pp. 351–382). Emerald.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—Conceptual challenges
and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.
Welter, F., & Baker, T. (2020). Moving contexts onto new roads: Clues from
other disciplines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1154–1175.
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research.
Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634.
5
Reframing University-Level
Entrepreneurship Education Through
Digitisation and Transformational
Technologies: An Institutional Case
Study
Robert James Crammond, Veronica Scuotto,
Kingsley Obi Omeihe, and Alan Murray
Introduction
Entrepreneurship education (EE) has recently evolved as an important
aspect of research. To date, majority of academic approaches for entrepre-
neurship education (EE) have involved being embedded within face-to-
face delivery. Traditionally, much of the research have focused on
R. J. Crammond (*) • A. Murray

School of Business and Creative Industries, University of the West of Scotland,
Scotland, UK
e-mail: robert.crammond@uws.ac.uk; alan.murray@uws.ac.uk
V. Scuotto
Economics, Management and Institutions, University of Napoli Federico II,
Naples, Italy
e-mail: veronica.scuotto@unina.it
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_5
104 R. J. Crammond et al.
traditional pedagogical approaches and appear to have lost sight of emer-

gent themes within the field. While it is widely accepted that the twenty-
first-century enterprise educator should embed digital component to
their offerings, higher educational institutions appear to be playing catch-
up in this regard. There is no agreement in literature on how effective EE
should be delivered. Whereas some authors put strong emphasis on the
role of the universities (Fayolle et al., 2006; Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019),
others also point to the importance of unique enterprise strategies
(Crammond et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2018). At the same time, although
the global COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the landscape (Secundo
et al., 2021), many areas of higher education appear reluctant to engage
with more dynamic digital approaches. This chapter will concentrate
mainly on how transformative approaches to delivering entrepreneurship
education.
The adoption of technology for enhancing EE is not a by any means a
new concept. Its uniqueness, broadly conceived, may be seen as embod-
ied within knowledge advancement and dissemination. Technology
affects the level of EE delivery within institutions and hence influences
students and cohorts to be more entrepreneurial. EE approaches differ
between higher educational institutions (Higgins and Elliott, 2011; Bae
et al., 2014); however, a combination of prescribed, educational and gov-
ernmental reporting demands renewed approaches towards reshaping EE
delivery.
The recent pandemic has brought to light the need to reform EE offerings
across board. We do, however, also find that digital competences enhance
students’ entrepreneurship (Scuotto & Morellato, 2013; Del Giudice et al.,
2014a, b; Spante et al., 2018; Le Dinh et al., 2018). This is particularly
notable as such competences improve human capital for new business ven-
tures (Murray & Palladino, 2020). Among scholars who take seriously the
value of EE (e.g., Kirby, 2004; Kuratko, 2005; Liñán et al., 2011), the prime
influence of EE is seen to be overarching, as it accelerates global growth and
new advancements in innovation. Scholars such as Mwasalwiba (2010) and
K. O. Omeihe
The Business School, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
e-mail: king.omeihe@abdn.ac.uk
5 Reframing University-Level Entrepreneurship Education… 105
Gonçalves et al. (2017) do not completely neglect transformative elements

of EE; however, they remain stoic in their assessments that teaching meth-
ods should be evaluated and designed to enhance entrepreneurial compe-
tences. As EE in this stance is seen to be transformative, it is not assumed
that educators are aware of best practices for its delivery. Instead, there
should be a strong rationale for EE methodologies that distil entrepreneurial
knowledge and skills within the start-up process. Despite that, there is still a
paucity of studies in the field on EE and digital technologies.
In response to these productive advancements, this chapter goes
beyond the conventional view to examine the application of digitised
forms of education and transformational technologies to EE. In agree-
ment with Murray et al. (2018), we hold that current EE approaches are
not enough to enhance innovation and competitiveness. Consequently,
we discuss the many considerations for universities, as our focus will be
to recommend contemporary approaches for EE delivery and their degree
congruence across HEIs. This is apposite amidst and beyond the current
COVID-19 pandemic.
An exploratory case study of an undergraduate module is reviewed, as
the EE context is analysed through the contingency-based perspective.
These perspectives are employed to explain the scope of our approach and
their legitimacy for EE delivery. Our examination of EE approaches will
pay attention to how much alternative forms of digital delivery differ
with current traditional approaches and particularly to what extent they
can be endorsed across HEIs. The design of the study is interpretive, fol-
lowing an emergent iterative process, where a case study signals the effi-
cacy of digitalised approaches to EE in higher education is uncovered.
The analysis of the findings is focused around one sub-question:
RQ1: What are the types of digital technological platforms needed for effec-
tive EE delivery?
In leading and promoting the digitised agenda, reflections on contem-

porary understanding of contingency theory are considered and, latterly,
critically analysed as the case study evidence is presented and detailed. It
is proposed that a new pedagogical response towards the digitalisation of
entrepreneurship education is offered and designed along purpose, vision,
strategy and operationalisation lines. The paper concludes by considering

the way the themes can be tentatively validated to ascertain their transfer-
ability across other HEs. The findings reached in this study provide well
founded and valid insights into the role of digitalisation in HEI.
ontexts of Entrepreneurship Education

C
and Digital Platforms
Entrepreneurship, as a process, is characterised by the pursuit of opportu-
nity for fulfilling market needs. It is the product of a combination of skills,
knowledge and mindsets which form the core capabilities needed by entre-
preneurs (Pano & Gjika, 2020). Although it is widely held by scholars that
teaching entrepreneurship in higher education improves the quality of
graduate business start-ups (Galloway & Brown, 2002; Jones and Iredale,
2010; Campanella et al., 2013), the view that entrepreneurship education
fails to meet the needs of students within Higher Education continues to
garner debates. There is, across studies, a growing attention being paid to
the delivery of entrepreneurship education. While some commentators are
convinced that entrepreneurship education should eliminate aspects of
teaching that encourage surface approaches to learning (Omeihe &
Omeihe, 2019), many believe that a digital shift in delivery approaches will
optimise effective teaching interactions with students (Biggs & Tang, 2011;
Murray et al., 2018). Owing to the fact that students acquire entrepreneur-
ial knowledge and mindset students while at university, it is expected that
contemporary pedagogical approaches to learning should be applied.
In fact, the notion is ripe that the digital delivery of entrepreneurship
education is of high topicality, as advances in infrastructure continue to
create opportunities for student entrepreneurs. The greater degree of digi-
tal evolution has not had a destructive impact on the delivery of entrepre-
neurship education. On the contrary, the infusion of cloud computing,
social media (Mueller et al., 2014), 3D printing and data analytics has
transformed the very nature of entrepreneurial outcomes (Nambisan,
2017; Vorbach et al., 2019). Indeed, there is evidence that (Bennett,
2006; Samuel & Rahman, 2018) digital platforms can stimulate effective
teaching, as learning thrives better within the framework created by
innovative approaches to pedagogy. As a generalised philosophy, it must

be noted that the delivery of entrepreneurship should be non-prescriptive
and fluid (Jones & Iredale, 2010). This is because it provides the oppor-
tunity to meet learner requirements and classroom expectations.
For higher education, the scope and core essence of digital platforms is
that they allow the increasing effectiveness of entrepreneurship educa-
tion. To understand the degree to which digital platforms have been
adopted by higher education, it is important to consider the technologies
that are associated with entrepreneurship education. As is made clear by
Akhmetshin et al. (2019), three emergent technologies have become rec-
ognised in the field of entrepreneurship education. They include mass
open online modules, online personalised learning and simulation-game
based learning. Together, they have become widely used in universities
that are oriented towards the delivery of entrepreneurship education
(Kaminstein & Child, 2013; Spector, 2014). The strength of these emer-
gent technologies means that students are guided to make self-discovery
by being exposed to the workings of a flexible learning environment.
This, in turn, enhances those attributes and the generally applicable skills
that form the basis of the entrepreneurial mindset.
Entrepreneurship Education and Industry

Reflecting upon the relationship between EE and Industry, different
considerations emerged along with barriers and challenges. For
instance, there is an increasing need of investing more in EE to gener-
ate more entrepreneurial ideas (Lerner, 2009; Colombo et al., 2016).
Lack of investment is acknowledged to reduce the level of capabilities
and skills in developing new business ideas (Alese, 2014). The results
include a paucity of business planning and constraint in knowledge
transfer (Chinoye et al., 2016; Hammawa & Hashim, 2016; Ali &
Salisu, 2019). Yet, along with the capacity of nurturing new entrepre-
neurs, entrepreneurial personal attributes are still crucible. Turner and
Gianiodis (2018) affirm that “entrepreneurial passion” spurs new busi-
ness ideas and skills to build new entrepreneurial paths, acting
deliberation and/or serendipity (Alvarez & Barney, 2007). To empha-

sise that student can generate knowledge and so put in place new
entrepreneurial ideas. It calls for a design thinking approach (Lynch
et al., 2019). A new way of teaching that goes from a top-down to a
bottom-up approach. A shift which was introduced with the evolve-
ment of the knowledge era where the real assets of companies are based
on intangible factors such as know-how, skills and capabilities which
can be nurtured and be part of an individual.
The opportunity to share knowledge is connected to the new modern
conceptual meaning of capitalism. Coultrier has recently discussed the
future of capitalism relying on a form of altruism which leads new entre-
preneurial realities. This goes beyond the pragmatism of Smith and
embraces the modern terms of social values, family goals and ethical
world where EE can nurture the nature of new entrepreneurial spirits. It
is an entrepreneurial spirit that depends on internal and external situa-
tions that calls for contingency theory. In fact, the contingency theory
helps to explain how the combination of cognitive skills and uncertain
environment influence future entrepreneurs (Honig, 2004). Hence, there
is the need to orientate students towards the entrepreneurial world (Liu
et al., 2019; Bouncken et al., 2020). This occurs mostly when industries
cannot offer proper and well-paid jobs that the future workers need to
find their own pathway. Such a situation can characterise emerging econ-
omies (Mentoor & Friedrich, 2007) and developed markets (Hussain &
Norashidah, 2015). The industry is aware that entrepreneurs are not just
born but they need to be nurtured by EE (Sharma & Chrisman, 2007).
Learning how to be an entrepreneur should be combined with the experi-
ence of being an entrepreneur (Muehlfeld et al., 2017). In this context,
the matter is can the EE facilitate the combination of learning and experi-
ence in an early entrepreneurial stage? It may be addressed by the new
proposed approach in the following paragraph.
he Topicality of Teaching “for”

T
Entrepreneurship Education: The Educator
Core to the application of digital platforms for entrepreneurship educa-
tion is the paucity of resources-in the form of human resources and insti-
tutional funding. These have been acknowledged as central obstacles
impeding the transition towards digital platforms. On the part of instruc-
tors, delivery is predicated on having the requisite skill sets. In fact, there
has been a tendency that compared to more traditional didactic educa-
tion methods, the use of digital platforms dilute learner expectations-in
their understanding of the issues and processes involved. As such, there is
little motivation on the part of the educators to exploit digital learning
opportunities. The outcome is that educators are reluctant to engage in
contemporary approaches to delivering enterprise education. It is also
particularly noteworthy that although the acquisition of digital platforms
of EE is labour-intensive and costly, effective pedagogical delivery via
digital platforms requires specific training. And with a lack of funding
and shortage of human resources, it becomes difficult to meet growing
student demands (Spante et al., 2018; Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019). In the
absence of strong institutional support, there is a very real danger that
educators may be unaware of the related potentials of digital platforms
and its emerging opportunities for enterprise education.
Not surprisingly then, it becomes expedient to acknowledge that the
role of digital platforms is to enhance innovative performance of educa-
tors and students alike (Donovan et al., 2013; Hero & Lindfors, 2018).
When applied to the delivery of entrepreneurship education, it creates an
authentic learning process through which collaborative ideas are trans-
formed into more concrete results. At the centre, such ideas are imple-
mented to produce novel solutions and object-oriented entrepreneurial
value for the real world. Accordingly, this chapter explores range of digital
approaches to EE delivery in the context of HEIs. There has been limited
research on the role of transformational digital technologies in enhancing
EE. Hence, there is a need for a greater understanding of the novel
approaches to EE delivery.
Methodology
Sample and Data Collection
The explorative nature of this study demanded an interpretivist approach

to capture the richness of the EE context. The interpretivist nature is
centred on the reality of the subjective experiences and uniqueness of the
participants (Schwandt, 1994). Following Yin (1994) the empirical
aspect of this study adopts a multi-case study approach that gauges the
delivery of EE within an undergraduate course at Scottish university.
Identifying the cases was based on a purposive sampling approach, con-
sistent with the research question. This was useful in investigating the
contemporary phenomenon which exists between students and learning
within real-life contexts (Yin, 2009). Our comparison of the multiple
cases provides clear conclusions of how students and educators make
sense of technological platforms from their particular vantage point
(Fellnhofer, 2015). It also encourages educators and academics alike in
ascertaining new avenues of facilitation and investigation, as well as
enhances existing teaching and research projects (Lahn et al., 2016; Kraus
et al., 2018).
Many studies have adopted an exploratory approach to gauge the
delivery of EE as well as the response from the cohort (e.g., Dutot & Van
Horne, 2015; Lahn et al., 2016) as well understand the application of
methods within given group, course or institutional contexts (Warhuus
et al. 2017; Murray et al., 2018) Employing this case study method allows
for detail, description and reflective information to be documented and
discussed. Additionally, a chronology of activities is made clear, with
regard to the various factors crucial towards a EE offering: platform,
information, innovation, marketisation, delivery and assessment.
Based on the nature of this study, the unit of analysis were enterprise
education students studying at a Scottish University. The empirical analy-
sis focus on them as key informants, as they provide as unique lens
through which one can best understand unique EE delivery approaches
(see Table 5.1).
Table 5.1 Sample details of students

Student Age
N details Gender Location Course Campus bracket
1. Student 1 Male Online Enterprise Paisley 18–25
Creation
2. Student 2 Female Online Enterprise Hamilton 20–24
Creation
3. Student 3 Male Online Enterprise Hamilton 23–26
Creation
4. Student 4 Female Classroom Enterprise Paisley 21–24
Creation
5. Student 5 Female Classroom Enterprise Paisley 20–24
Creation
6. Student 6 Male Online Enterprise Hamilton 21–23
Creation
Creation
Creation
Creation
Creation
Creation
12. Student 12 Male Classroom Enterprise Paisley 21–27
Creation
The table provides a sample distribution of students. Overall, there were 40
participants
Procedure and Data Analysis
The empirical component of this study examined feedback from qualita-

tive module evaluations. Direct questions about EE seeking disclosure of
sensitive information were not posed. The evaluation forms were admin-
istered electronically to help protect participants’ identities. This was
done to facilitate student cooperation and participation. Follow up evalu-
ations were done to explore the capture of specific experiences to avoid
generalisations. Our choice of thematic analysis was useful in identifying
themes and patterns within the data set. The analysis unearthed a long list
of codes which were modified into salient themes. The identified patterns
within the data corpus enable comparisons across the participant

responses.
Specifically, we sought to interpret information and make judgements
on issues related to quality EE delivery. Through this, effort was made to
apply key responses to respective cases. Ultimately, this is important in
achieving an accurate and valid depiction of EE delivery through the lens
of the local actors. We concluded by identifying series of candidate
themes and sub-themes, and as such we were able to best interpret the
data. To a broader context, this provided an opportunity theme refine-
ment which revealed the richness of the phenomenon being investigated.
Context
The Creativity, Enterprise and Entrepreneurship (CEE) module is an SCQF

Level 7 course delivered over 10 weeks in the School of Business and
Creative Industries (University of the West of Scotland). As part of the
BA Management (Graduate Apprenticeship) Programme, the course
examines “entrepreneurialism” by looking at enterprise in the context of
organisations, self-employment and the individual themselves. The core
areas that this module addresses include: enterprise awareness, enterprise
approaches and tools (processes) and enterprising attributes and traits (prac-
tices). The module also adopts a theoretical lens, through which contex-
tualised examples from contemporary business and organisational activity
are discussed. This is achieved within networks of class groups indepen-
dent of introspections. Upon completion of the module, students are
expected to possess a wider and deeper understanding of creativity, enter-
prise and entrepreneurship for today’s business world. This is further
achieved through personal reflections and an analysis of appropriate
examples of enterprising behaviours.
Digital Classroom
The use of digital classrooms allows students to break away from the con-
straints of the physical classroom and connect with a wider network
including industry and to engage their learning anyplace, anytime,
anywhere. This was particularly topical as the global COVID-19 pan-

demic highlighted challenges in the traditional education paradigm
which is based largely on a face-to-face delivery approach. Table 5.2 pro-
vides a practical snapshot of how a digital classroom can be operation-
alised at a modular level using a range of accessible technologies.
The delivery of this module employed pre-recorded digital lectures
supplemented by online support materials and weekly live digital tutori-
als. This also included additional “clinic” sessions as required. For each
delivery across three academic years, the lecturer was the same very expe-
rienced enterprise educator who doubles as the Module Coordinator for
CEE. At the end of each delivery of the module students were asked to
complete a standard survey-based module evaluation questionnaire
(MEQ) which captures both quantitative and qualitative feedback from
students.
The online lectures are pre-recorded digital video lecture. This differs
from the offline tutorial activities, which involves a short exercise that
contextualises the learning from each session. Here, students are expected
to work individually at their own timing. The online tutorial sessions
involve a live online video session using video calling platforms where
staff—at a pre-set time, that is weekly—contextualise the learning from
the lecture and the tutorial activity. The tutorial class size is set at a maxi-
mum of 25 students. For self-directed assessment work, students are
expected to work independently on the module coursework
Delivery Approach
CEE course makes use of key transformational technologies which are

applied to maximise the teaching and learning experience. The goal is to
deliver a more engaging entrepreneurial learning experience which is
visual, vibrant and viral. All teaching applications embedded within the
module are free and relatively simple to use. This is useful as the enter-
prise educator can work effectively with them from the outset. Elements
such as “drag and drop” technologies were specifically selected for their
ability to allow the users usage. This requires nothing more than a
SMART phone or an iPad for access and development. Thus, there is
114
R. J. Crammond et al.
Table 5.2 Module schedule

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Online lecture 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins
Online tutorial session 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins
Offline tutorial activity 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins
Self-directed work 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins
therefore no requirement for significant institutional investments or cost-

saving considerations in this context. We do acknowledge that some aca-
demics appear reluctant to engage with more dynamic digital approaches.
This is perfectly understandable; however, with this module, staff at a
school level have been trained to implement the techniques, which have
enabled a shift from traditional face-to-face delivery to be blended or
fully online delivery for other modules within the programme.
Findings
tudents’ Perceptions of the Impact of Technology
S
for CEE Delivery
From our empirical analysis, there was evidence that use of fully digitised
TouchCast was well received by the students. The process of embedding
all support materials, hosted on the module virtual learning environment
(VLE) ensured ease of accessibility for all students. A majority of the
responses as indicated in Table 5.3 suggest that simultaneous release of
sessional materials accommodated students who sought to move through
the module at a quicker pace. In particular, the student mentioned that
they liked the fact that each session had its own tutorial activities specific
to the topic for that session. All the students acknowledged that they
found the pre-recorded digital lecture useful. This enabled them to under-
take tutorial activities at their own time, prior to engaging in the sched-
uled live tutorial session with their tutor via Google Meet.
The aforementioned evidence involves a self-induced reflection on the
part of the students as they recognised value of the user-friendly web
base. This is part of Google’s G Suite and it is intended to encourage col-
laboration and file sharing. For context, there are three levels of permis-
sion, namely, owner, editor and viewer meaning that it can accommodate
a variety of users in an academic setting. The overall look and feel of the
Google-based VLE is vastly superior to that offered by other platforms
such as Moodle and there is also much greater scope for creativity and
inter connectivity with other apps, tools and platforms.
Table 5.3 Students’ responses of the use of technology

Student
details Typical student excerpt
Student 2 “Being able to learn from a distance and at any time of day/day
of week is a big advantage”
Student 5 “Due to the way the course has been set up it gives us the
opportunity to manage our studies in our own time”
Student 7 “Lecturer has presented the module very well and made it easy
to understand”
Student 8 “Easily accessible lectures. Content interesting when real life
examples were used”
Student 10 “I really like the manner in which the module is brought
together in the digital arena through google classrooms”
Student 17 “This allows me to study when I want and also across a lot of
different channels”
Although much can be achieved using technology, we found that the

Google site was useful to providing teaching support for the students.
Half of the responses indicate that the dedicated YouTube channel for
educators, providing a reliable facility for assessing created videos. This
allowed the students benefit from what we refer to as a “content factory”—
a useful content suite which can be accessed whenever required. Further
along these lines, playlists created for various topics were well appreciated
in the responses. The use of YouTube to record and stream innovative
workshops supported real-time viewing which accommodates 130 par-
ticipants with access to live Twitter feed.
ersonalised User Experiences Via

P
Technological Applications
In view of the student’s experiences and feedback, we found that the pre-
recorded lectures using TouchCast (a free app which allows the user to
record, edit and upload hi-definition video on an iPad and incorporate
green screen technology) made learning easy for the students. The fact
that viewers can simply touch to interact with the learning videos was
vital for enhancing student experience. In practical terms it was entirely
possible for user to become better with the application through repeated
usage. We noted that 11 of the students stated that they enjoyed the use
of digitally captured lectures via TouchCast, as it breaks content into

short (sub 30 min) presentations. This enabled students to layer their
knowledge and experience with what they are seeing and hearing. The use
of TouchCast is also widely used throughout the module and essential for
creating a range of supporting materials such as short “how to” videos
and module overview.
As one of the students put it:
The live online classes were good & well structured. Also took time to meet
with groups individually & evaluate progress and encourage us with broad-
ening our plans and learning about new aspects of business and learning
how to approach situations with different mindsets. (Student 9 2020)
As explained by the student, there enjoyed the range technologies

available to support online support sessions. These were useful for indi-
vidual students up to small or very large groups if required. Generally,
online tutorial sessions involve teaching staff being available online, to
provide tutoring support at a predetermined time. Nonetheless, it should
be noted however that although online streaming (generally defined as
the simultaneous recording and broadcasting of media in real time) places
a requirement on the tutor to be prepared and to perform as “the world
is watching”, this requires a degree of basic technological knowledge
although this can be overcome with basic training.
Describing the personalised aspect of digital platforms, the students
were found to appreciate the chat functions. These allowed the students
to engage in the discussion in a relatively safe way useful for individuals
who are less confident in a group or online settings. Chat activity is mon-
itored by staff to ensure a prudent student. More than half of the cases
stated that it was useful in identifying students who were not contribut-
ing. This encourages student engagement and allows the educator to
carry out quick polls. This was useful in contextualising course materials
and real-life examples from the world of business.
There was also evidence on the importance of digital whiteboards
which allow participants to write directly onto the screen. Four students
state that they provide useful aids for collaborative working. We also
found that these were useful in helping teaching staff and students cap-
ture, develop and share ideas quickly in an accessible format.
Positive Aspects of the CEE Online Module
A majority of the students maintained they considered the digital videos

easy to watch. While they stated that technology made learning useful,
they emphasised that the expertise and career experience of the lecturers
were very important. When asked about the positive elements of the
modules, some of the students explained:
The lecturer’s personal experience in his career was also very evident and
really invaluable: the material was not all theoretical, real-world references
and examples really helped when relating the point that was being deliv-
ered. I don’t think delivery would have sunk in quite as much collectively
if the real world experience was not applied. (Student 18 2020)
Immediately an open, honest, safe and personable online environment was

established with the constant encouragement of interaction being a big
plus—it allowed everybody to participate at their own comfort level and
also allowed thoughts to be shared amongst the class that under normal
teaching practice might not have been. (Student 17 2020)
There was also evidence that proactive and responsive nature of the
lecturers influenced the student usage of online materials. Two of the
students put it aptly:
In terms of the course content, having all materials pre-uploaded and avail-
able was another benefit you may not traditionally have, as it helped with
outlining both expectation and content over the entire 10 weeks. This
made following the lectures a lot easier as you had an idea of what was
coming and in context, but without the pressure of expectation to speed
ahead. (Student 25 2020)
The lecturer has a natural talent for making people feel comfortable and
engages with everyone on the tutorials. Having not done any further edu-
cation since school, I was nervous and felt slightly intimidated going into
the course. The lecturer quickly eased my nerves and fears of further educa-
tion. (Student 30 2020)
In addition, more than half of the students mentioned that the lectures
were easy to watch. Evidence showed that it was easier to fit in with work-
ing life, since lectures can be watched at any time. This allowed for effec-
tive group collaborations and idea generation. For students who prefer
dictation, the support materials on Google provide an invaluable point of
reference for both re-cap and catch up. The evidence showed that flexibil-
ity in delivery was also a massive benefit. This differs with what students
would normally receive in traditional module delivery. The choice of
being able to join either class (two allocated time slots) was also a big
positive—and the students recognised that this took the pressure off
them. This was especially important for students with work commit-
ments—meaning that no one missed out. Additionally, one-quarter of
the responses explained that the weekly online tutorials were really ben-
eficial for the group as it provided a greater understanding of the subject.
While others reported that they were engaging and available when needed.
Negative Aspects of the CEE Online Module
Despite the positive narratives reported by the students, there was evi-
dence of a range of discontent across the findings. Although the responses
were found to be more constructive and experiential than negative, we
believe they were worth capturing. Table 5.4 summarises the various
responses:
The data confirm some of the issues faced by students within the
course. Including challenges such as communication, operational and
technological, these limitations were seen as constraints.
Of course, this seismic shift in the educational context during 2020
puts a significant spotlight on the strengths and weaknesses of a univer-
sity; its response to entrepreneurship, its immediate community, and
wider, societal issues. The concept of institutional leadership is central, in
this quest to reshape its educational approach for more inclusive, efficient
and digitised education.
As Crammond (2020) highlights, in order for institutions to appropri-
ately embed entrepreneurship education, and promote a conducive cul-
ture, a number of factors must be considered. These factors, or “cultural
Table 5.4 Negative student responses

Theme Item
Technology “The Google platform took some time to get to grips with
challenges at the start”
“Operating over several platforms for example Microsoft
365 and Google Classroom can be confusing”
“Sometimes there are access problems on different
technologies”
Operational “The Module could be more streamlined”
challenges “Induction could have been better organised”
“With all the apps and platforms it’s overwhelming and
the approach could be a lot simpler to make it less
confusing”
Communication “Waited a while for feedback and had to email several
challenges times”
“Trying to communicate from afar is proving challenging
especially with approaching deadlines”
“There is a lot to be gained from touching base in person
that online delivery prohibits by default”
considerations” are (1) capacity, (2) capability, (3) mobility and, finally,
(4) durability. Starting with capacity, the institution must realise and
review their existing resources and availability to accommodate, maintain
and advance the relevant technologies. Secondly, do the present person-
nel possess the desired capability and skill(s) in order to lead programmes,
courses or host such sessions. Thirdly, universities must consider their
institutional reach, both locally and internationally. If these EE pro-
grammes and contemporary features, including transformational or
assisted technologies, cannot attract a solid and growing applicant base,
then resource allocation may be both inefficient and ineffective.
Essentially, educational institutions and course leaders must realise a dis-
tinct balance between content and intent. What are the key materials and
course syllabus which highlight core theory and make sense of contex-
tual, business phenomena? Also, what is the purpose of its inclusion?
Given the findings of this chapter, Fig. 5.1 extends the abovemen-
tioned cultural considerations and asserts relevant action from university-
wide stakeholders. The model displays the various themes captured from
the case study findings, as institutional considerations in reframing a
digital EE (dEE), at a university level, through digital and transformative
technologies:
Intellectual
& Physical
Resource
Motivation
A Digital EE Purpose &
&
Engagement (dEE) Approach Rhetoric
Entrenched
dEE
Ecosystems
Fig. 5.1 Institutional and cultural factors for university-led dEE
The university must realise and add to its existing resources, with new
ideas and enterprise-relevant digital competences, as well as invest in the
physical infrastructure. This bridges the institution with industry.
Additionally, in practice, and in entrenching dEE ecosystems, institutional
leaders must continue to clarify the task and intended benefits through
motivational and engagement techniques. This underlines further a shared
purpose and productive university rhetoric. Within longstanding research,
the EE stakeholder or champion has reinforced the aims or premise of
entrepreneurship education. They have voiced the requisite competences
and intangible characteristics of entrepreneurs. This bears a responsibility
of institutions to facilitate education which enables recipients to increase
their motivation, initiative, critical thinking, group-based engagement
and experience. It also sheds light on the institutional structure and
whether it proactively responds to its strategy.
Conclusion
Following the unprecedented impact of the pandemic on education, edu-
cators have looked to hybrid or blended learning approaches for a solu-
tion. This has, for now become the new normal in Higher Education
Institutions across the globe. However, hybrid approaches to teaching
and learning bring with them their own challenges not only for students
but also for teachers. Looking to the future, we have been exposed to the
inherent weaknesses of traditional business and enterprise education par-
adigms. By being denied the opportunity to trade and teach on a face to
face, education has had to quickly move away from traditional models to
embrace digital models and modes of delivery. In doing so the resources
needed by the entrepreneur and the educator must also change by neces-
sity. Whilst creativity, leadership and problem-solving skills will remain
critical to success the modern entrepreneur, those dedicated to support-
ing their development will critically also need to possess digital skills
capable of communicating beyond the face-to-face context. This will be
useful in enhancing effective remote collaborations (Diamante &
London, 2002; Hanna et al., 2011). In a context of globalisation, HE
needs to find new ways of doing and adapt to support the development
of meaningful capitals in their students and graduates. We believe that
failure to do so will simply widen the current gap between academia and
industry. This will further weaken the position of universities in a dynamic
marketplace where the privileged role of the university as the seat of
learning is currently being questioned.
It is only by combining excellence in pedagogy with technological
innovation will it be possible for enterprise education to empower and
equip individuals, communities and partners to flourish, sustainably
grow and transform their lives and the lives of others in the twenty-first
century and beyond.
There are also considerable policy and practice implications. While
knowledge can now be accessed anywhere by anyone 24 hours a day 7
days a week, HEIs can no longer claim to be the font of all knowledge. In
fact, models based on this assumption are clearly not sustainable. In this
light government policies should seek to encourage effective enterprise
education. We believe that such policies will encourage an agile, and
flexible and focussed workforce as graduates possess knowledge, skills and

capitals acquired along the way (Rae, 2004). For practitioners, the
domain of everyday individual agency is a driving force for entrepreneur-
ship. And there is evidence of a “forget the books and have a go” culture.
In the context of everyday entrepreneurship, the entrepreneur is acknowl-
edged, respected and admired in their field for their personal socio-
cultural history. However, we contend that although the entrepreneurial
journey purifies their expertise, we believe that wisdom they have acquired
an understanding of EE theories enhances entrepreneurial resilience.
This chapter has examined how EE can be delivered using transforma-
tional digital platforms through considering new dEE factors. A focus on
promoting its application will ensure that students are equipped with the
ability to understand and control their own actions, regardless of the cir-
cumstances of their lives. In this way universities can encourage students
to be entrepreneurial actors who can add value to their communities and
the wider society. We believe that this approach offers clear benefits to the
university bold enough to follow this path. As students deploy their cre-
ativity and confidence, they help to create an open learning environment
where anyone can say what they think and feel, and anything goes. The
aim here is neither to create a utopian world nor to create one where chaos
reigns, but rather to develop a supportive and authentic environment
which helps both the student and the entrepreneur gain a better under-
standing of themselves and the other and how the talents of both can be
harnessed to the benefit of all. A sophisticated conceptualisation of EE
delivery approaches is needed. There is a clear need for the introduction of
an innovative new approach to enterprise education which combines
dynamic teaching practices and transformational technologies. This will
be capable of reinventing how educators deliver their service whilst extend-
ing their reach globally into new markets. Now and in the future the key
challenge facing the enterprise educators will be how to provide a mobile,
immediate, socially interactive and empowering educational experience—
That which addresses institutional corporate priorities and encourages stu-
dents to be more entrepreneurial and distinct. To be successful any such
approach must be capable of delivering highly personalised, highly flexible
and collaborative learning experiences for students rather than the tradi-
tional rationalised form of education.
References
Akhmetshin, E. M., Mueller, J. E., Chikunov, S. O., Fedchenko, E. A., &
Pronskaya, O. N. (2019). Innovative technologies in entrepreneurship edu-
cation: The case of European and Asian countries. Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education., 22(1), 1–15.
Alese, O. D. (2014). Perception of entrepreneurship education in Adekunle
Ajasin University: The gender perspective. Journal of Educational and Social
Research, 4(6), 447–447.
Ali, M. A., & Salisu, Y. (2019). Women entrepreneurship and empowerment
strategy for national development. Journal of Economics, Management and
Trade, 22(3), 1–1.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories
of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.
Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta–analytic
review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.
Bennett, R. (2006). Business lecturers’ perceptions of the nature of entrepre-
neurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
12(3), 165–188.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Society
for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
Bouncken, R., Ratzmann, M., Barwinski, R., & Kraus, S. (2020). Coworking
spaces: Empowerment for entrepreneurship and innovation in the digital and
sharing economy. Journal of Business Research, 114, 102–110.
Campanella, F., Della Peruta, M. R., & Del Giudice, M. (2013). The role of
sociocultural background on the characteristics and the financing of youth
entrepreneurship. An exploratory study of university graduates in Italy.
Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(3), 244–259.
Chinoye, M. L., Iyiola, O. O., Akinbode, M. O., Obigbemi, I., & Eke,
O. P. (2016). Women entrepreneurship in Nigeria: Policy framework, chal-
lenges and remedies. Kasmera, 43(2), 1–21.
Colombo, M. G., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S. (2016). Governmental ven-
ture capital for innovative young firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
41(1), 10–24.
Crammond, R., Omeihe, K. O., Murray, A., & Ledger, K. (2018). Managing
knowledge through social media: Modelling an entrepreneurial approach for
Scottish SMEs and beyond. Baltic Journal of Management, 13(3), 303–328.
Crammond, R. (2020). Advancing entrepreneurship education in universities:

Concepts and practices for teaching and support (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Del Giudice, M., Peruta, M. R. D., & Carayannis, E. G. (2014a). Student entre-
preneurship in the social knowledge economy: Successful cases and management
practices (Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management). Springer
International Publishing.
Del Giudice, M., Peruta, M. R. D., & Scuotto, V. (2014b). Student entrepre-
neurship, creativity and success. How much does knowledge heterogeneity
really matter? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Diamante, T., & London, M. (2002). Expansive leadership in the age of digital
technology. Journal of Management Development, 21(6), 404–416.
Donovan, J., Martitz, P. A., & McLellan, A. (2013). Innovation training within
the Australian advanced manufacturing industry. Journal of Vocational
Education and Training., 65(2), 256–276.
Dutot, V., & Van Horne, C. (2015). Digital entrepreneurship intention in a
developed vs. emerging country: An exploratory study in France and the
UAE. Transnational Corporations Review, 7(1), 79–96.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entre-
preneurship education programmes: A new methodology. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 30(9), 701–720.
Fellnhofer, K. (2015). Changing entrepreneurial intention and behaviour: A
digital game-based learning environment dedicated to entrepreneurship edu-
cation. Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development,
8(4), 378–404.
Galloway, L., & Brown, W. (2002). Entrepreneurship education at university: A
driver in the creation of high growth firms? Education + Training,
44(8/9), 398–405.
Gonçalves, A. C. Sousa, M. J., & Cruz, R. (2017). Designing higher education
digital course to boost entrepreneurship competencies. In EDULEARN17
Proceedings, 5178–5184.
Hammawa, Y. M., & Hashim, N. B. (2016). Women-micro entrepreneurs and
sustainable economic development in Nigeria. Journal of Business and
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The
power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54(3), 265–273.
Hero, L. M., & Lindfors, E. (2018). Student’s learning experience in a multidis-
ciplinary innovation project. Education +Training, 16(4), 500–522.
Higgins, D., & Elliott, C. (2011). Learning to make sense: What works in
entrepreneurial education? Journal of European Industrial Training,
35(4), 345–367.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-
based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
3(3), 258–273.
Hussain, A., & Norashidah, D. (2015). Impact of entrepreneurial education on
entrepreneurial intentions of Pakistani Students. Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Business Innovation, 2(1), 43–53.
Jones, B., & Iredale, N. (2010). Enterprise education as pedagogy. Education +
Training, 52(1), 7–19.
Kaminstein, D., & Child, J. (2013). Innovations in education, knowledge, organi-
zation, and management: Building on the work of Max Boisot. Oxford
Scholarship Online.
Kirby, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet
the challenge? Education+ training, 46(8/9), 510–519.
Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F. L., & Spitzer, J. (2018). Digital
entrepreneurship: A research agenda on new business models for the twenty-
first century. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
25(2), 353–375.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education:
Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
29(5), 577–597.
Lahn, L. C., Erikson, T., McCracken, M., & Matlay, H. (2016). Entrepreneurship
education by design. Education+. Training, 58(7/8), 684–699.
Le Dinh, T., Vu, M. C., & Ayayi, A. (2018). Towards a living lab for promoting
the digital entrepreneurship process. International Journal of Entrepreneurship,
22(1), 1–17.
Lerner, J. (2009). Boulevard of broken dreams: Why public efforts to boost entrepre-
neurship and venture capital have failed—And what to do about it. Princeton
University Press.
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Factors
affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 195–218.
Liu, J., Zhu, Y., Serapio, M. G., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2019). The new generation
of millennial entrepreneurs: A review and call for research. International
Business Review, 28(5), 101581.
Lynch, M., Kamovich, U., Longva, K. K., & Steinert, M. (2019). Combining
technology and entrepreneurial education through design thinking: Students’
reflections on the learning process. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 164, 119689.
Mentoor, E. R., & Friedrich, C. (2007). Is entrepreneurial education at South
African universities successful? An empirical example. Industry and Higher
Education, 21(3), 221–232.
Muehlfeld, K., Urbig, D., & Weitzel, U. (2017). Entrepreneurs’ exploratory
perseverance in learning settings. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
41(4), 533–565.
Mueller, J., Della Peruta, M. R., & Del Giudice, M. (2014). Social media plat-
forms and technology education: Facebook on the way to graduate school.
International Journal of Technology Management, 66(4), 358–370.
Murray, A., Crammond, R. J., Omeihe, K. O., & Scuotto, V. (2018). Establishing
successful methods of entrepreneurship education in nurturing new entre-
preneurs. Journal of Higher Education Service Science and Management,
13(3), 303–328.
Murray, A., & Palladino, R. (2020). Developing human capitals in today’s
entrepreneurs: A practitioner perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
22(4), 681–702.
Mwasalwiba, S. E. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objec-
tives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training,
52(1), 20–47.
Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology
perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice., 41(6),
1029–1055.
Omeihe, I., & Omeihe, K. O. (2019). Transformative reflexivity: Teaching and
quality enterprise pedagogy. Journal of Higher Education Service Science and
Pano, N., & Gjika, I. (2020). Fostering students entrepreneurship through digi-
tal platforms. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(7), 3179–3188.
Rae, D. (2004). Entrepreneurial learning: A practical model from the creative
industries. Education + Training, 46(8/9), 492–500.
Samuel, A. B., & Rahman, M. M. (2018). Innovative teaching methods and
entrepreneurship education: A review of literature. Journal of Research in
Business, Economics and Management, 10(1), 1807–1813.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human
inquiry. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 1(1994), 118–137.
Scuotto, V., & Morellato, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial knowledge and digital

competence: Keys for a success of student entrepreneurship. Journal of the
Knowledge Economy, 4(3), 293–303.
Secundo, G., Gioconda, M. E. L. E., Del Vecchio, P., Gianluca, E. L. I. A.,
Margherita, A., & Valentina, N. D. O. U. (2021). Threat or opportunity? A
case study of digital-enabled redesign of entrepreneurship education in the
COVID-19 emergency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
166, 120565.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, S. J. J. (2007). Toward a reconciliation of the defini-
tional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. In Entrepreneurship
Spante, M., Hashemi, S. S., Lundin, M., & Algers, A. (2018). Digital compe-
tence and digital literacy in higher education research: Systematic review of
concept use. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1519143.
Spector, M. (2014). Emerging educational technologies: Tensions and synergy.
Journal of King Saud University, 26(1), 5–10.
Turner, T., & Gianiodis, P. (2018). Entrepreneurship unleashed: Understanding
entrepreneurial education outside of the business school. Journal of Small
Business Management, 56(1), 131–149.
Vorbach, S., Poandl, E., & Korajman, I. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship edu-
cation—The role of MOOCs. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy,
9(3), 99–111.
Warhuus, J. P., Tanggaard, L., Robinson, S., & Ernø, S. M. (2017). From I to
We: collaboration in entrepreneurship education and learning?. Education+
Training, 59(3), 234–249.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evalua-
tion research. Evaluation practice, 15(3), 283–290.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage.
6
Investigating Female Students’
Entrepreneurial Intention in the UK
and Pakistan: An Application of TPB
Xiuli Guo, Farag Edghiem, Sarfraz Ahmed Dakhan,
and Muzammal Khan
Introduction
Entrepreneurship has been playing a key role in economic growth and
job creation, productivity, and introduction of innovation into societies
(Hussain & Malik, 2018; Audretsch, 2012; Shane & Venkataraman,
2000; Parker, 2009; Wennekers et al., 2005; GEM, 2019). In the past
X. Guo (*) • M. Khan

School of Business and Creative Industries, University of the West of Scotland,
Paisley, UK
e-mail: Xiuli.Guo@uws.ac.uk; Muzammal.Khan@uws.ac.uk
F. Edghiem
Institute of Management, University of Bolton, Bolton, UK
e-mail: F.Edghiem@bolton.ac.uk
S. A. Dakhan
Business Administration, Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Pakistan
e-mail: sarfraz@iba-suk.edu.pk
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_6
130 X. Guo et al.
years, entrepreneurs have made great changes to trade and markets

through new technologies, produced commodities and services
(Oke, 2013).
Female entrepreneurship has been increasingly popular and been the
focus of many studies. Although there is an increase in female business
ownership rates, women business ownership falls far behind that of man
and only accounts for 50–60% of that for men (Fairlie & Robb, 2009).
According to the analysis from Pew Research Centre (Fetterolf, 2017),
women account for more than 40% of the workforces in more than 80
countries. In Pakistan, women account for 22% of the total labour forces,
while in the UK, women accounts for 46.8% (World Bank, 2019).
Women in developed countries are more motivated to start businesses by
opportunity, while those in developing countries are primarily driven
into entrepreneurship by necessity (Brush & Cooper, 2012).
Entrepreneurial intention (EI) has been defined by Moriano et al.
(2012, p. 165) as “the conscious state of mind that precedes action and
directs attention toward entrepreneurial behaviors such as starting a new
business and becoming an entrepreneur”. The importance of EI has been
recognised by a number of scholars (Shapero, 1975; Shapero & Sokol,
1982; Bird, 1988; Krueger, 1993; Krueger et al., 2000). EI has been
widely analysed in many empirical studies over the past decades (Krueger
& Carsrud, 1993; Krueger Jr & Brazeal, 1994; Krueger et al., 2000;
Veciana et al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2005; Liñán & Chen, 2009; Yordanova
& Tarrazon, 2010; Zhang et al., 2015; Esfandiar et al., 2019).
Several models, such as Shapero’s model of the Entrepreneurial Event
(SEE) (Shapero & Sokol, 1982) and Ajzen’s (1988, 1991) theory of
planned behaviour (TPB), have been widely used to explain entrepre-
neurial intention. Some studies have been conducted to compare and
discuss SEE and TPB models (Krueger Jr & Brazeal, 1994; Veciana et al.,
2005). Although different models are available to understand and predict
entrepreneurial intention, TPB is still regarded as the most influential
one (Krueger et al., 2000; Moriano et al., 2012; Van Gelderen et al.,
2008; Liñán & Chen, 2009). Since an overwhelming majority of studies
support the usefulness of TPB and prove that behavioural intent is a pow-
erful predictor of the targeted behaviour (Engle et al., 2010), TPB model
will be used in this study. Theory and the findings from the past studies
6 Investigating Female Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention… 131
showed that the strength of relationships among the TPB components

might be moderated by culture (Moriano et al., 2012). The aim of the
research is to investigate female students’ entrepreneurial intention in the
UK and Pakistan and examine if culture will moderate the relationships
between the three constructs and entrepreneurial intention.
This study will shed some light on the following issues. Firstly, it will
serve as an experiment to test the applicability of the TPB model and
compare the entrepreneurial intention in two different settings. The sam-
ple for this study comes from a developed country UK and a developing
country Pakistan, which will render the comparison more useful.
Although these two countries are different in culture and economy, they
are both sizable in terms of either population or total GDP. Besides, the
impact of cultural factors over entrepreneurial intention will be exam-
ined. Finally, the findings and implications of the study will benefit edu-
cators and policy makers.
Literature Review
Entrepreneurship Scope and Functions
The scope of the entrepreneurship is almost limitless. Entrepreneurship

can be associated with ownership of property, resale of goods, sale of own
products or provision of services in various fields and so on. Essentially,
any entrepreneurial activity is unattainable without attracting financial
resources (Westhead & Solesvik, 2016). Potential sources of funding can
be own savings of a person planning to conduct production, attraction of
investments from the parties interested in the venture results, lending
from financial institutions or individuals and government aid (grants and
subsidies) (Shirokova et al., 2016). Entrepreneurship, perceived widely as
initiative-independent, economic and commercial activities of individu-
als and legal entities, is focused entirely on profits (Mustapha & Selvaraju,
2015). Entrepreneurship can be largely distinguished by its scale and
nature of activity, whereas the upcoming three functions of an entrepre-
neur are explained below (Karimi et al., 2017).
132 X. Guo et al.
The first function is related to the resource one. For any entrepreneurial
activity, objective (means of production) and subjective factors (workers
with relevant knowledge and skills) are essential. Entities of entrepreneurial
activity are also legal entities that run strategic and operational manage-
ment and are liable for these obligations (Yadav & Unni, 2016).
The second function is organisational. Its essence is to ensure the effec-
tive coordination of these objective and subjective factors to achieve the
intended entrepreneurial goals (Sieger et al., 2016). The third function is
about creativity, which is commonly associated with innovation
(Chowdhury et al., 2015). The value of this function for business has grown
exceptionally in the context of modern scientific and technological progress
leading to rapid competition (Ramadani et al., 2015; Poggesi et al., 2016).
Entrepreneurial organisations are commercial organisations, whose
main purpose is to make a profit from their activities; non-profit organ-
isations may also carry out entrepreneurial activities to serve achieving
the goals for which they were set (Ratten, 2016). In view, the contribu-
tion of entrepreneurship to the market economy is advocated to be a
critical element of countries economic development (Noguera et al.,
2015). Entrepreneurship contributes to the state’s economic growth rate,
structure, volume and quality of gross national product to the extent that
both concepts of business and entrepreneurship are used interchangeably
(Berger & Kuckertz, 2016).
Female Entrepreneurship
Female entrepreneurship is a term that is far more than the framework of

gender definition but carries the meaning of a social influence; as the con-
scious willingness of a female entrepreneur to contribute to the interests of
society and its development needs (Berger & Kuckertz, 2016). Generally,
women create small enterprises in such fields as education, medical and
social services, developing a rather new direction and social entrepreneur-
ship (Sieger et al., 2016). Adding to essential role of women in the house-
hold as a partner or a mother carrying out extensive daily responsibilities.
Therefore, government policies should develop supportive programmes
and create appropriate conditions for female entrepreneurs who contribute
to both the economy and society through their ventures (Noguera

et al., 2015).
The share of women in entrepreneurship equals around one-third in
developed economies (Karimi et al., 2016). Although women typically
account for a little more than half of the population, their lack of represen-
tation in entrepreneurship drives policymakers to explore the reasons for
their lack of participation and employ proper action planning (Mustapha
& Selvaraju, 2015). Although both men and women experience start-up
difficulties that may hider entrepreneurship development, these difficulties
may be more acute for women (Westhead & Solesvik, 2016). Women’s
entrepreneurial activity is impacted by gender-specific responsibilities that
require time and energy, which prevent women from participating in entre-
preneurship and self-realisation (Rubio-Bañóna & Esteban-Lloret, 2016).
In addition, women usually have difficulties securing resources that are
critical to initiate entrepreneurship (Berger & Kuckertz, 2016).
Entrepreneurship research traditionally exemplified the role of men as
the norm. However, female entrepreneurs have distinctive perceptions
such as greater fear of risk, conducting activities in areas with lower pub-
lic prestige, great challenges in balancing work and family life, need for
external support and unlike ordinary woman in employment (Lock &
Smith, 2016). The scope of female entrepreneurship may also be deemed
to be distinctive and primarily in the fields of small businesses such as
retail, education and training, healthcare and social assistance, and cos-
metics, where there are lower-income levels (Noguera et al., 2015).
The traditional comprehension of the differences between female and
male entrepreneurship may fade away with time, and focus will be on the
quality of goods and services provided by entrepreneurs (Ramadani et al.,
2015; Westhead & Solesvik, 2016) and reducing inequality for both men
and women (Chowdhury et al., 2015).
he Theory of Planned Behaviour

T
and Entrepreneurial Intention
Entrepreneurial intention (EI) can be defined as “a self-acknowledged

conviction by a person that they intend to set up a new business venture
and consciously plan to do so at some point in the future” (Thompson
134 X. Guo et al.
2009, p. 676). Although there are some conflicts between the different
studies, findings have supported the applicability of the TPB in EI
(Karimi et al., 2013; Krueger et al., 2000; Liñán & Chen, 2009). Studies
also proved that the TPB can be used to explain EI across various cultures
(Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Krueger et al., 2000; Tkachev & Kolvereid,
1999; Engle et al., 2010; Liñán & Chen, 2009).
The TPB is applied to measure and compare between female students’
entrepreneurship intention in the UK and Pakistan. According to the
TPB model, attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural con-
trol can predict behavioural intentions. Behavioural attitude can be
defined as an individual’s overall evaluation of a behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).
In the entrepreneurial context, attitude towards entrepreneurial behav-
iour influences the formation of entrepreneurial intention. In this sense,
it means that the more positive the attitude towards entrepreneurial
behaviour, the better the perception of entrepreneurial behaviour, the
more favourable the overall desirability of towards starting a business
(Shook & Bratianu, 2010).
Subjective norm is regarded as the individual’s perception of the social
pressures to engage (or not to engage) in entrepreneurial behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991). Factors such as family, friends, colleagues, peers, other
social circles and so on influence subjective norms. Although some schol-
ars failed to prove the significant effect of subjective norms (Leroy et al.,
2009; Liñán & Chen, 2009), both Pruett et al. (2009) and Engle et al.’s
(2010) studies confirmed that social norms could help to explain entre-
preneurial intention.
Perceived behaviour control (PBC) is viewed as people’s perceptions of
their ability to perform a given behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), which is a simi-
lar concept to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), and to perceived feasibility
(Shapero & Sokol, 1982). In the entrepreneurial context, it refers to the
perceived easiness or difficulty of starting a business. Some scholars have
used self-efficacy to replace this concept, and their studies showed that
self-efficacy had a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention (Austin
& Nauta, 2016; Gupta & Bhawe, 2007; Hussain & Malik, 2018; Prabhu
et al., 2012; Peng et al., 2013),
Hence, based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are
proposed (see Fig. 6.1):
Culture
Attitude
H4
H1 H5 H6
Subjective
norms Entrepreneurial
intention
H2
Perceived
behaviour
control
H3
Fig. 6.1 The research conceptual framework
H1: Behavioural attitude positively contributes to social entrepreneurial

intention.
H2: Subjective norms are positively associated with Social entrepreneur-
ial Intention.
H3: Perceived behavioural control is positively associated with social
entrepreneurial intention.
Cultural Implications
Cultural differences in entrepreneurship have been known to exist

(Moriano et al., 2012). In addition to the perceptions on gender differ-
ences in entrepreneurship, complex country-specific variances may also
influence entrepreneurship activities (GEM, 2010). For instance,
Stenholm et al. (2013) argued that the rate of entrepreneurial activity
varies widely from country to country, yet it may be difficult to precisely
explain why. Foreman-Peck and Zhou (2014) postulated that
136 X. Guo et al.
country-specific differences may not only be related to economic indica-

tors but may exceed it to factors such as opportunities, motivations, insti-
tutions and culture. The focus in our research is on the cultural aspect
and how it mediates female entrepreneurship intentions.
In recognition of the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001) propos-
ing that the social setting in which people live in plays an imperative role
in their cognition, cultural values may influence entrepreneurial inten-
tion in different ways. Unsupportive cultural values may hinder entrepre-
neurship intentions in terms of motivation, confidence and persistence
(Mueller & Thomas, 2001). On the contrary, culture could play a sup-
portive role to encourage entrepreneurial intention. Given the context of
this study, it is realistic to expect varied cultural perspectives of entrepre-
neurship in the UK and Pakistan.
Cultural implications may vary significantly between the two coun-
tries to be studied. Previous empirical research, however, did not examine
the impact of culture on creation of new business in depth (Karimi et al.,
2017) especially from the viewpoint of developing countries such as
Pakistan (Nabi & Liñán, 2013). Expectedly, external environmental fea-
tures such as the socio-economic situation and the ability to access finance
(Taormina & Lao, 2007; Nabi & Liñán, 2013) and the religion (Barro &
McCleary, 2003) to be key determinants of cultural norms.
Cultural factors have been proved to moderate relationships between
the TPB constructs (Hagger et al. 2007 cited in Moriano et al., 2012).
Krueger et al. (2000) believed that culture influences intentions mainly
through the influence on the “social” component, subjective norms in the
TPB model. Krueger et al. (2000) argued that attitude and PBC, but not
subjective norm, significantly impacted US students’ entrepreneurial
intention. However, Tkachev and Kolvereid’s (1999) study showed that
subjective norm was a significant predictor of entrepreneurial intention
in a collectivistic country (Russia). By applying the theory of planned
behaviour model (Ajzen, 1991), we opt to test the impact of culture on
the intention of female students in the UK and Pakistan to carry out
entrepreneurial activities.
Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are suggested
(see Fig. 6.1):
H4: Culture moderates the relationship between behavioural attitude

and social entrepreneurial intention.
H5: Culture moderates the relationship between subjective norms and
social entrepreneurial intention.
H6: Culture moderates the relationship between perceived behavioural
control and social entrepreneurial intention.
Research Methods and Results

Sample
The target audiences of this study were university female students. The
reason why university students were chosen is that students’ entrepre-
neurial intention are mainly affected by their perceptions and attitudes
in identifying opportunities (Robledo et al., 2015). Secondly, they are
more accessible for the researcher so that the data can be collected
quickly.
The sampling method used was non-probability convenience, which is
similar to that used in other studies (Robledo et al., 2015; Liñán et al.,
2011). The sample consists of students from two universities in the UK
and two universities in Pakistan. A total of 382 participants completed
the questionnaire and 379 responses (220 from the UK and 159 from
Pakistan) were usable for analysis.
Data Collection
Data were collected via both an online questionnaire survey link and
paper-based surveys administered to students from four universities in
the UK and Pakistan between 18 November 2019 and 31 December
2019. The online survey could help the researchers to achieve wider access
of participants and the paper-based survey can help to increase the
response rate.
138 X. Guo et al.
Measures
The four variables of TPB, namely entrepreneurial intention, attitude,

subjective norm and perceived behavioural control, were measured by
different items. Each item was measured by a 5-point Likert scale with 1
representing strongly agree to 5 strongly disagree. The measures were
adopted from Liñán and Chen (2009), which have been extensively used
in other studies (Robledo et al., 2015; Liñán et al., 2011; Lo et al., 2012;
Karimi et al., 2014; Soria-Barreto et al., 2017; Dinc & Budic, 2016). The
items for culture were derived from the relevant literature (Moriano et al.,
2012; Krueger, 2000; Mueller & Thomas, 2001).
Results/Data Analysis
Literature on structural equation modelling (SEM) suggests that struc-
tural models can be examined either through a variance-based approach,
a co-variance-based approach (Bock & Bargmann, 1966; Byrne & Van
de Vijver, 2010) or partial least square structural equation modelling
(PLS-SEM) (Chin, 1998; Henseler et al., 2009). To conduct this study,
we adopted PLS-SEM due to following reasons: (1) it is preferred over
other traditional multivariate approaches (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004);
(2) PLS-SEM can simultaneously estimate hypothesised relationships
reflected in structural model and links between latent variables and their
indicators as measurement model reflects (Hair et al., 2013, 2016;
Henseler et al., 2009); (3) by using bootstrapping method, PLS-SEM
provides statistically reliable estimates that produce standard errors for
path coefficients (Hair et al., 2013, 2016; Kock, 2014); (4) the current
study focuses on prediction; therefore, the use of PLS-SEM is more
appropriate as suggested by Hair et al., (2016); and, finally, (5) PLS-SEM
has been widely applied by different scholars as a popular method for
data analysis in social science research (Hair et al., 2019; Muskat et al.,
2019; Sabiu et al., 2018; Sarstedt et al., 2019; Umrani et al., 2018).
Following the guidelines suggested in PLS-SEM literature, a two-step
approach was adopted to analyse the data. First, the measurement model
was examined followed by testing of structural model (Hair et al., 2019).
Measurement Model
To examine the measurement model, first inter-item reliability was

ascertained by testing factor loadings and a threshold of 0.70 was main-
tained (Hair et al., 2016). Second, the convergent validity was exam-
ined by assessing average variance extracted (AVE) and as suggested in
literature, all values of AVE were found greater than 0.50 (Bagozzi
et al., 1991; Chin, 1998; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gefen et al., 2000).
Finally, the internal consistency reliability was assessed by analysing
composite reliability (CR) values and a minimum threshold of 0.70 or
above was maintained (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Chin, 1998; Fornell &
Larcker, 1981; Gefen et al., 2000; Hair et al., 2016). The results pre-
sented in Table 6.1 suggest that the entire threshold was achieved.
Therefore, we conclude that the reliability and validity of the measure-
ment model is ascertained.
Table 6.1 Measurement model

Construct Items Loadings Alpha CR AVE
Behavioral attitude A1 0.881 0.820 0.875 0.585
A2 0.663
A3 0.805
A4 0.709
A5 0.749
Culture C1 0.927 0.830 0.898 0.746
C2 0.780
C3 0.877
Social entreprenuerial EI1 0.855 0.831 0.898 0.747
intentions EI2 0.819
EI3 0.916
Percieved behavioral PBC1 0.916 0.925 0.944 0.772
control PBC2 0.933
PBC3 0.915
PBC4 0.866
PBC5 0.751
Subjective norms SN1 0.889 0.789 0.876 0.702
SN2 0.804
SN3 0.818
140 X. Guo et al.
Table 6.2 Discriminant validity

Construct 1 2 3 4 5
Behavioral attitude
Culture 0.72
Percieved behavioral control 0.628 0.712
Social entreprepreneurial intentions 0.853 0.739 0.599
Subjective norms 0.743 0.558 0.59 0.772
Discriminant Validity
To assess discriminant validity, we used hetrotrait-monotrait (HTMT)

ratio of correlations. HTMT is based upon the multitrait-multimethod
matrix (Henseler et al., 2015) to determine discriminant validity. The
reason behind using HTMT is the recent criticism on Fornell and Larcker
(1981) criterion. Literature suggests that if HTMT value exceeds 0.85
(Kline, 2011), or 0.90 (Gold et al., 2001), then there is problem of dis-
criminant validity. Table 6.2 suggests that all values passed the HTMT
0.90 (Gold et al., 2001) and 0.85 (Kline, 2011); therefore it is suggested
that discriminant validity has been ascertained.
Structural Model
As per suggested guidelines, the second step in PLS-SEM is to determine

significance of path coefficients (Henseler et al., 2009). To assess signifi-
cance of path coefficients, bootstrapping procedure by taking 5000 sub-
samples was employed by using Smart PLS software version 3.2.9 (Ringle
et al., 2015; Hair et al., 2011). The results of structural model are pre-
sented in Table 6.3.
Hypothesis 1 of the current study posits that behavioural attitude posi-
tively contributes to social entrepreneurial intention. Our results revealed
that behavioural attitude significantly contributes in shaping individuals’
social entrepreneurial intention (B = 0.273, t = 4.636, p = 0.000), hence
it is concluded that hypothesis 1 is fully supported.
Similarly, hypothesis 2 of current study suggests that subjective norms
are positively associated with Social entrepreneurial Intention. Our results
confirm that subjective norms plays a key role in developing social
Table 6.3 Structural model

Hypothesis Relationship Beta SD t-Values p-Values Decision
1 BA -> SEI 0.273 0.058 4.636 0.000 Supported
2 SN -> SEI 0.318 0.047 6.807 0.000 Supported
3 PBC -> SEI 0.014 0.051 0.297 0.766 Not
Supported
4 Culture x BA -> SEI 0.071 0.046 1.990 0.048 Supported
5 Culture x SN -> SEI 0.159 0.043 3.731 0.000 Supported
6 Culture x PBC -> 0.202 0.050 3.985 0.000 Supported
SEI
Note: BA = Behavioural Attitude, SN = Subjective Norms, PBC = Perceived
Behavioural Control, SEI = Social Entrepreneurial Intentions
entrepreneurial intention among individuals (B = 0.318, t = 6.807,

p = 0.000), therefore it is concluded that hypothesis 2 is also fully
supported.
Likewise, hypothesis 3 of present study posits that perceived behav-
ioural control is positively associated with social entrepreneurial inten-
tion. The results do not provide empirical support to this hypothesis
(B = 0.014, t = 0.297, p = 0.766). Therefore, it is stated that hypothesis 3
is not supported.
Moderation Analysis
The product indicator approach was employed to assess moderating

effects of culture in relationship between behavioural attitude and social
entrepreneurial intention, subjective norms and social entrepreneurial
intention, perceived behavioural control and social entrepreneurial inten-
tion (Henseler & Chin, 2010; Helm et al., 2010; Chin et al., 2003). The
results of moderating analysis are presented in Table 6.3.
Hypothesis 4 of current study posits that culture moderates relation-
ship between behavioural attitude and social entrepreneurial intention.
As expected, our results fully supported this hypothesis (B = 0.071,
t = 1.990, p = 0.048), by confirming that the link between behavioural
attitude and social entrepreneurial intention become more relevant
when we add moderating effect of culture. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is fully
supported.
142 X. Guo et al.
In similar vein, hypothesis 5 of current study suggests that the link

between subjective norms and social entrepreneurial intention is moder-
ated by culture. This relationship is also supported by our results
(B = 0.159, t = 3.731, p = 0.000). This finding suggests that the relation-
ship between subjective norms and social entrepreneurial intention
becomes stronger when we add culture as a moderating variable between
this link. Hence, hypothesis 5 is fully supported.
Finally, the hypothesis 6 of this research posits that the relationship
between perceived behavioural control and social entrepreneurial inten-
tion become more relevant when we add culture as moderating variable.
As per our expectations, the results also supported this hypothesis by
providing empirical evidence that when we add culture as an interacting
variable between perceived behavioural control and social entrepreneurial
intention, the link between perceived behavioural control and social
entrepreneurial intention becomes stronger.
Multi-group Analysis
In order to find any significant differences among individual responses

across the countries, a multi-group analysis technique was employed by
using Smart PLS software. Following the guidelines suggested by
Matthews (2017), a three-step approach was adopted. First, two different
data groups were generated and it was ensured that both data groups
large enough to demonstrate statistical power.
Second, test for invariance was performed through measurement
invariance of composite models (MICOM). To assess MICOM, first, it
was ensured that all indicators in model are identical by assessing mea-
surement models of both data groups separately. Next, composite invari-
ance was assessed by ensuring that original correlation is greater than or
equal to the 5% quantile. The results presented in Table 6.4 show that all
correlation values are greater than 5% quantile; hence, measurement
invariance is established.
After establishing measurement invariance, we proceed with third step
of MICOM, that is composite equality. The composite equality was
ensured by maintaining the suggested criteria, that is mean original
Table 6.4 MICOM Step 2 results

Correlation
Original permutation Permutation
Constructs correlation mean 5.00% p-Values
Behavioral Attitude 1.000 0.999 0.997 0.935
Culture 0.995 0.999 0.996 0.034
Percieved Behavioral 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.525
Control
Social Entreprnuerial 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.850
Intentions
Subjective Norms 0.999 0.999 0.996 0.397
difference should fall between the boundaries of 2.5% and 97.5% and
original variance should fall between 2.5% and 97.5%. Results in
Table 6.5 suggest that all values met the suggested criteria; therefore,
composite equality is achieved.
After testing for invariance, we proceed towards final step of PLS
multi-group analysis. Path coefficients of both groups were obtained by
using multi-group analysis in Smart PLS version 3.2.9. The results of
path coefficients of both groups are presented in Table 6.6. The results
suggest that no significant difference found among the responses of indi-
viduals living in Asia and Europe except for hypothesis 4 that suggests
that culture moderates the relationship between behavioural attitude and
social entrepreneurial intention. This hypothesis is supported by data
obtained from individuals residing in Asia (B = 0.106, t = 2.362,
p = 0.019), but not supported by the data obtained from individuals liv-
ing in Europe (B = 0.043, t = 0.314, p = 0.754).
Assessment of Predictive Validity
The predictive power of a model demonstrates its ability to generate accu-

rate predictions of new observations, cross-sectional or temporal (Shmueli
& Koppius, 2011). Predictive validity suggests that a set of measures of a
construct can predict a given outcome variable (85). The predictive rele-
vance was examined by using cross-validation through holdout samples.
By running PLS-Predict algorithm in Smart PLS version 3.2.9, k-fold
Table 6.5 MICOM Step 3 results
Mean— Variance—
Mean— permutation Variance— Permutation
original mean original Mean
difference difference difference Difference
(Pakistan– (Pakistan– Permutation ( Pakistan– (Pakistan– Permutation
Constructs UK ) UK ) 2.50% 97.50% p-Values UK ) UK ) 2.50% 97.50% p-values
Behavioral −0.026 −0.001 −0.211 0.200 0.807 −0.005 0.005 −0.292 0.309 0.972
Attitude
Culture −0.112 0.001 −0.201 0.210 0.000 −0.189 0.005 −0.198 0.211 0.000
Percieved −0.103 0.000 −0.210 0.209 0.323 0.032 0.004 −0.188 0.200 0.742
Behavioral
Control
Social 0.081 0.000 −0.208 0.207 0.435 −0.010 0.004 −0.265 0.278 0.944
Entrepmuerial
Intentions
Subjective −0.052 −0.001 −0.202 0.206 0.615 −0.034 0.004 −0.251 0.260 0.810
Norms
Table 6.6 Country-wise multi-group analysis
Beta Beta SD t-Value t-Value p-Value p-Value
Hypothesis Relationship (Pakistan) (UK) (Pakistan) SD (UK) (Pakistan) (UK) (Pakistan) (UK)
1 BA -> SEI 0.159 0.447 0.071 0.092 2.164 4.889 0.031 0.000
2 SN -> SEI 0.377 0.227 0.064 0.079 5.980 2.864 0.000 0.004
3 PBC -> SEI 0.005 0.108 0.066 0.089 0.066 1.316 0.947 0.189
4 Culture x BA -> 0.106 0.043 0.046 0.094 2.362 0.314 0.019 0.754
SEI
5 Culture x SN -> 0.157 0.120 0.067 0.060 2.322 2.065 0.021 0.039
SEI
6 Culture x PBC -> 0.223 0.193 0.071 0.095 3.114 1.991 0.002 0.047
SEI
Note: BA = Behavioural Attitude, SN = Subjective Norms, PBC = Perceived Behavioural Control, SEI = Social Entrepreneurial
Intentions
6 Investigating Female Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention…
145
146 X. Guo et al.
Table 6.7 PLS predict

Construct prediction summary
Q2
EI 0.473
Indicator prediction summary
PLS LM PLS—LM
RMSE MAE Q2 RMSE MAE Q2 RMSE MAE Q2
EI2 0.889 0.629 0.348 0.909 0.65 0.319 −0.02 −0.021 0.029
EI3 0.698 0.488 0.592 0.717 0.51 0.569 −0.019 −0.022 0.023
EI1 0.791 0.532 0.464 0.797 0.533 0.455 −0.006 −0.001 0.009
Note: EI = Social entreprepreneurial intentions
cross validated prediction errors and prediction error summaries like

mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE) were
obtained to examine predictive performance of their PLS path model for
constructs and indicators. After getting these statistics, two newly devel-
oped benchmarks were used to assess predictive relevance of structural
model (Ringle et al., 2015).
First, by running Blindfolding in Smart PLS, Q2 value was obtained.
Q2 compares the prediction errors of PLS path model against simple
mean predictions. Research suggests that in order to demonstrate predic-
tive relevance, the value of Q2 should be positive. PLS-predict assessment
results presented in Table 6.5 show positive value of Q2, suggesting an
appropriate predictive relevance. Finally, RMSE and MAE along with
Q2 of PLS and linear regression models were obtained through running
PLS predict in Smart PLS. Results presented in Table 6.7 suggest that the
values of RMSE and MAE for PLS model are lower than for LM model.
In addition to that, Q2 values for indicators of PLS model are greater
than LM model. Therefore, the predictive validity of the structural model
has been ascertained.
Discussion
The aim of this research was to investigate the impact of culture on female
students’ entrepreneurial intention while comparing this phenomenon in
two distinct culture, namely Pakistan and the UK. TPB was applied to
determine which factors influence the entrepreneurial behavioural
intentions of female students. Six main hypotheses were formulated

which examined the impact of culture on the attitudes, perceived behav-
iour and subjective norms towards the entrepreneurial intention of this
group. H1 stated that behavioural attitude positively contributes to social
entrepreneurial intention; H2 stated that subjective norms are positively
associated with social entrepreneurial intention; H3 stated that perceived
behavioural control is positively associated with social entrepreneurial
intention; H4 stated that culture moderates the relationship between
behavioural attitude and social entrepreneurial intention; H5 stated that
the link between subjective norms and social entrepreneurial intention
are moderated by culture; and, finally H6 suggested that the relationship
between perceived behavioural control and social entrepreneurial inten-
tion became more relevant when adding culture as a variable. Of the six
hypotheses only H3 was not supported by the research data. Similar
results were also found in previous literature (Autio et al., 2001; Ferreira
et al., 2012; Krueger et al., 2000).
UK and Pakistan Comparison
By examining the behavioural attitudes, subjective norms and cultural

factors relevant to female students, the results of this current study were
able to significantly predict the responses from this group in relation to
their entrepreneurial intention. It is possible that the positive results of
H1 and H2 may have been due to a desire of some in this group to start-
up a business or could suggest the potential conviction for some to start
their own business. According to Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2020
report (GEM (2020) hereafter) by (Bosma et al., 2020) state that only
2% of female in Pakistan identify as entrepreneurs this compares with
7% females in the UK. As a ratio only 3 in every 10 entrepreneurs in
Pakistan are female compared to 6 in every 10 in the UK. This is despite
the fact that, according to GEM (2020), 33% more women than men in
Pakistan identify with entrepreneurship as means for making a difference
to society, whereas in the UK 4% more men than women identify with
this concept. Table 6.8 highlights the motivational reasons for setting up
as entrepreneurs and compares females in Pakistan with females in the UK.
148 X. Guo et al.
Table 6.8 Adapted from global entrepreneurship monitor 2019/2020 global

report pages 148 and 186
% Total early stage
Topics (somewhat or entrepreneurial activity (all) % Female % Female
strongly agree) Pakistan UK Pakistan UK
To make a difference 70.3 49 95.1 46.1
Build great wealth 90.3 51.6 100 44.3
Continue family 67.1 5.8 54.5 7.8
tradition
To earn a living 92.1 64.4 100 69.5
It appears that in all but one of the topics Pakistani females rate moti-
vational issues higher than their male counterparts, with only the con-
tinuation of the family tradition, mainly a male-dominated culture
(Mahmood et al., 2012), ranking less than the males who were surveyed
by GEM (2020). Note the responses were considerably higher in each
category than those of the UK female respondents. There may be a num-
ber of reasons why these figures differ so widely between the two coun-
tries, potentially cultural but also likely due to the economic disparities
between the two nations. For example, if the GDP per capita is compared
(2018), GDP in Pakistan was the equivalent of 5.69 thousand US dol-
lars, whereas the equivalent UK figure was 45.74 thousand US dollars. It
is also worth noting that the weighting for Pakistan by the World Bank
Starting a Business Rating was 89.3/100 which ranked Pakistan at 72 out
of 190 countries compared with the UK’s 94.6/100, ranking the UK at
18 out of 190 countries. Despite Pakistan’s economic position this is still
a solid performance and suggests that the government has made attempts
to encourage entrepreneurship, particularly given that the country ranks
at only 110 from 141 countries that make up the World Economic
Forum Global Competitiveness Rank compare to the UK’s 9th position.
The positive motivation shown by Pakistani females is very much in
contrast to the ratings and suggests that many see entrepreneurship as
desirable and as a mean of escaping economic poverty. It may negatively
reflect the perceived ability of Pakistani students to perform the target
behaviours because of uncertainty due to the political and economic cri-
sis. This is in line with previous studies (Autio et al. (2001), Krueger et al.
(2000); Liñán (2008), Shah and Soomro (2017). This is an interesting
result and will require further investigation to find out the reasons for
this. However, one possible reason could be linked to the perception that
entrepreneurial activity in Pakistan is a male domain and perhaps this
impacts more on the potential for females to start a business despite hav-
ing perceived opportunities; they may simply choose instead to go for a
salaried job. Contrast this to the UK females’ responses which suggests
considerably lower motivation towards entrepreneurship and the ques-
tion then changes to “What stops UK females from being motivated
towards the benefits of entrepreneurship that Pakistani women more
clearly identify with?”.
There are some indications the difference lies in how employment is
perceived, not just how self-employment/entrepreneurship perceived.
For example, Smith et al. (2019) examined the experiences of UK and
Australian university students and notice that job flexibility in employ-
ment was a strong motivation for UK students in avoiding self-
employment. The benefits that paid full-time employment brought in
the shape of sick leave, sick pay, paid leave, maternity and paternity pro-
vision and pay, constant and regular income, and some additional bene-
fits such as pension scheme, free car parking, access to gymnasiums and
healthcare may be some of the reasons why entrepreneurship, with none
of these benefits, is seen as less attractive. This paper by Smith et al.
(2019) predates COVID-19 and refers to a point in time when the UK
labour market was extremely buoyant. Wennekers et al. (2005) argued
that developed countries offer attractive public and private sector job
opportunities for graduates which result in reduced entrepreneurial
intention, relevant in the UK context. In contrast, Pakistani students’
higher levels of entrepreneurial intention could be explained by the GEM
(2020) found that less developed countries with the unfavourable eco-
nomic environment, for example, those countries with high unemploy-
ment and low wages have witnessed higher entrepreneurial activity than
the developed countries (Davey et al., 2011; Iakovleva et al., 2011).
However, although the data from this paper does not fully conquer with
the GEM (2020) report, it does appear that entrepreneurship in Pakistan
among both females and males is lower than in the UK; however, this
may be due to some of the issues discussed later.
150 X. Guo et al.
Another earlier cited article identified that women in the UK have the
lowest percentage of entrepreneurship uptake within high-income coun-
tries (Minniti et al. 2005 cited in Quader, 2012). They considered this to
be a negative influence on the employment market and on GDP. Quader
(2012) concluded that the main issue which prevented UK women from
entering into self-employment was fear of failure. He argued that although
a considerable effort had been expended by government and other start-
up support mechanisms, this only focused on the early stages of the busi-
ness and that support beyond the early stages was essential to provide
confidence for longer term self-employment success. In contrast, lack of
employment rights and protection, benefits and pay equality may explain
the motivation displayed by Pakistani females in relation to the issue
entrepreneurial intention. Table 6.8 confirms the findings of this paper in
relation to hypotheses 1 and 2 which show a similar response pattern to
the GEM (2020) findings.
Impact of Culture
Hypothesis 4 considered the impact of culture on moderating attitudes

and social entrepreneurial intention, and Hypothesis 5 considered the
link between the subjective norms and the social entrepreneurial inten-
tion by considering how these are moderated by culture. Pakistani female
students appear to be keener to work and create a business venture than
their UK counterparts, despite having unique challenges, particularly
resulting from cultural pressures. In the Pakistani context there exist dif-
ferent stereotypes that may also be seen as a hindrance to women in
entering into any form of entrepreneurial activity. For example, the pre-
dominant view is that the male should pursue an entrepreneurial career
rather than the female. This comes from a traditional masculine culture
which does exist, most notably in rural parts of the country. Anwar ul
Haq et al. (2014) argued that men dominate when it comes to entrepre-
neurship in Pakistan. Islam is the dominant religion in Pakistan, and in a
traditional Muslim culture, women are discouraged to work alongside
men, particularly young females, as they are more vulnerable to exploita-
tion within a male-oriented business environment. It remains a challenge
to transform the norm, which is that males should pursue an entrepre-

neurial career, rather than females pursuing an entrepreneurial career. In
contrast decades of gender equality legislation, albeit not yet fully suc-
cessfully integrated, have allowed UK females scope and opportunities to
access education and employment in all walks of life, with few industries
now providing barrier to entry, allowing females the opportunity to earn
and progress in employed careers. The barriers placed on Pakistani females
remain limiting and perhaps it is understandable that many perceive
entrepreneurial as a means of breaking through these barriers (Fazal et al.,
2019; Roomi & Parrott, 2008).
In addition to culture, the weak economy and the long-term unstable
political situation in Pakistan, this may have increased pressure on
Pakistani females when selecting their career choices, an issue not based
by their counterparts in the UK. The fact that Pakistani females are faced
with cultural, economic, religious and political issues does not mean that
they have no ambitions. As Maslow in his seminal theory of hierarchal
needs suggest individuals will seek to fulfil their desire and a career and
the wealth it may bring will perhaps seem more important to those who
have fewer opportunities in life that to those who have more opportuni-
ties. This may explain why, in the GEM (2020) report, Pakistani females’
ratings for motivational issues, and for some of the attitudes and percep-
tions, ranked much higher than their female counterparts in the UK;
however, realism prevails in that Pakistani females recognised that start-
ing a business in Pakistan was considerably more difficult than the UK
females suggested it would have been to set up in the UK. Importantly,
despite that perception, Pakistani women had a stronger belief in their
own abilities, that is, skill and knowledge, and belief in having opportu-
nities to do so than their UK counterparts. Although this belief was
strong, their fear of failure was much higher, perhaps due to the stronger
economic and employment sector within the UK. This could be due to a
more sophisticated support network for new UK entrepreneurial busi-
ness setup but could easily be attributed to the much easier access to
employment in the jobs market. In common with the Bosma et al. (2020)
(GEM report), an important finding of this study is that both Pakistani
showed an extremely positive attitude to becoming an entrepreneur,
whereas UK female students showed a positive, if somewhat muted
152 X. Guo et al.
response. However, when evaluating the moderating effect of culture, it

was clear that Pakistani students’ intentions were impacted by cultural
factors and that UK students were influenced more by a secure employ-
ment market and the benefits that this brings.
Discussion Based on Theory of Planned Behaviour
The positive results reinforced the TPB Ajzen (1991) confirming this
theory to be predictive amongst female students from both countries.
However, Mahmood et al. (2012) found that a number of additional bar-
riers exist in the Pakistani context that does not exist in the UK. For
example, “lack of finance, restriction on mobility, limited decision mak-
ing, lack of role models and guiders, men’s hold on markets, family pres-
sure and discrimination” (p. 340). As confirmed in the Bosma et al.
(2020) report this paper has confirmed that female students in Pakistan
still strive to find a career in spite of the challenges that exist in Pakistan.
This is not replicated in the UK female context. In contrast to the find-
ings from the UK female students, Pakistani female students appear to be
willing to start-up a business after their degree. However, there needs to
be support provided to them in order to achieve their goals. In this regard,
Hussain and Malik (2018) suggested that universities could be a factor in
providing the support that they need in preparing the way towards their
entrepreneurship. This is a service which many universities in the UK
already provide as part of their employability support. Dutta et al. (2011)
suggested that training and coaching on entrepreneurship can strengthen
students’ interest in engaging in a start-up activity as well as helping them
to improve their venture creation norms and skills.
In relation to Ajzen’s TPB, and similar to previous literature that inves-
tigated entrepreneurial intention, the finding of this paper support the
positive relationship between entrepreneurial intention and subjective
norms. These results coincide with of Liñán and Chen (2009) which all
recognised the positive relationship between entrepreneurial intention
and the subjective norm. However, a perceived behavioural control factor
was not proven to be a predictor of the entrepreneurial intention of
female students in Pakistan.
As previously discussed, students’ self-efficacy may have been impacted

by their attitudes towards paid jobs, particularly as a result of the risk
aversion that exists in their society (Paul et al., 2017), reducing their aspi-
ration to venture creation, particularly visible within the UK market. It
can be observed from the results that Pakistani students have positive
views about entrepreneurship; however, low self-efficacy could be the
result of a desire to secure long-term salaried employment, such as gov-
ernment positions. In addition, the political situation faced by Pakistan
(country under huge debt, troubled economy due to terrorism, lack of
government focus) and the UK Brexit potentially leads to students’
desires to create ventures, and this has led to a statistically significant
outcome, yet there remains for many the feeling that the possibility of
starting a new business is not currently feasible in either country.
The young and dynamic Pakistani population provides an important
prospect for new ventures, unfortunately due to lack of government sup-
port and input from the higher education system, the potential in
Pakistan is not well supported particularly for females. Conversely, the
situation is reversed in the UK and would be expected to lead to higher
uptake of entrepreneurship amongst younger females, yet the motivation
and attitudes remain relatively low. Although females in the UK have
already broken down long-held traditional views of women in the work-
place and have achieved equality, at least in legal terms if not fully,
Pakistani females still have a long journey ahead. However, Pakistani
females are beginning to break down barriers and are challenging the
traditional norms. In recent years, women have realised the importance
of entrepreneurship as it offers benefits to society and individuals. It is
very interesting and positive to see that women are excelling in Pakistan
(Farrukh et al., 2019) whether they choose a job or entrepreneurship as a
career, albeit the level remains low. Key to the success for future young
female entrepreneurs is the influence of their family on building their
confidence and in supporting their desire to start a business. As the
younger generation, with its aspirations and increased expectations, par-
ticularly in terms of its attitude towards success, wealth and position,
becomes the next generation to raise children, perhaps these new parents
will have an important a pivotal influence on the next generation of
entrepreneurs.
154 X. Guo et al.
Conclusion
In this study, culture as a moderator, theory of planned behaviour (TPB)
was adopted to investigate and compare female students’ entrepreneurial
intention in Pakistan and the UK. The findings further support previous
studies that attitude and subjective norms are positively related to entre-
preneurial intention, while perceived behaviour control does not contrib-
ute to entrepreneurial intention. Overall, culture does moderate the
relationships between attitude and intention, subjective norms and inten-
tion, perceived behaviour control and intention.
We provide recommendations as follows based on our findings in
order to support female entrepreneurship. It appears that for the situation
to change in Pakistan, the culture that shaped the perceptions needs to be
changed, and a culture of female empowerment is needed.
In Pakistan, government and universities should develop new policies
which promote entrepreneurship education as previous research has sug-
gested that training and education have a positive impact on inspiring
female students to start new ventures (Premand et al., 2016). In addition,
universities should enhance their current curricula and transform their
environment to support and encourage female students’ intentions to
start new ventures. However, in the UK such support does exist both
from government and from universities. What may be missing is relevant,
direct and focused communication. It is essential that these bodies look
more closely at how the message is received and that some of the fear
associated with establishing a business is removed from the decision
before starting on a venture, for example, providing ongoing support
beyond the initial start-up period.
There are also limitations in this study. Firstly, the samples of this study
were only from two universities in Pakistan and two universities in the
UK. The generalisation of the results could be problematic. Future stud-
ies could include participants from more developing countries and devel-
oped countries so that the results could be more representative. Secondly,
the data were collected cross-sectionally from both undergraduates and
postgraduates, which did not further identify which year the students
were in. With time passing by, female students may make new friends
and change their attitudes and intentions. Therefore, a longitudinal
research could be explored further in future.
References
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behaviour. Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Anwar ul Haq, M., Usman, M., Hussain, N., & Anjum, Z. U. Z. (2014).
Entrepreneurial activity in China and Pakistan: A GEM data evidence.
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 6(2), 79–193.
Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision,
50(5), 755–764.
Austin, M. J., & Nauta, M. M. (2016). Entrepreneurial role-model exposure,
self-efficacy, and women’s entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Career
Development, 43(3), 260–272.
Autio, E., Keeley, R. H., Klofsten, M., Parker, G. G. C., & Hay, M. (2001).
Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the
USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2(2), 145–160.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation
models in experimental designs: Two extensions. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 8(2), 125–140.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology., 52(1), 1–26.
Barro, R. J., & McCleary, R. (2003). Religion and economic growth (No. w9682).
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Berger, E. S., & Kuckertz, A. (2016). Female entrepreneurship in startup ecosys-
tems worldwide. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5163–5168.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.
Bock, R. D., & Bargmann, R. E. (1966). Analysis of covariance structures.
Psychometrika, 31(4), 507–534.
Bosma, N., Hill, S., Ionescu-Somers, A., Kelley, D., Levie, J., & Tarnawa, A. (2020).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/2020 Global Report. [Online].
156 X. Guo et al.
Retrieved November 5, 2020, from https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/

gem-2019-2020-global-report
Brush, C. G., & Cooper, S. Y. (2012). Female entrepreneurship and economic
development: An international perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 24(1–2), 1–6.
Byrne, B. M., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2010). Testing for measurement and struc-
tural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of
nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10(2), 107–132.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares
latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results
from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adop-
tion study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 89–217.
Chowdhury, F., Terjesen, S., & Audretsch, D. (2015). Varieties of entrepreneur-
ship: Institutional drivers across entrepreneurial activity and country.
European Journal of Law and Economics, 40(1), 121–148.
Davey, T., Plewa, C., & Struwig, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship perceptions and
career intentions of international students. Education and Training,
53(5), 335–352.
Dinc, M. S., & Budic, S. (2016). The impact of personal attitude, subjective
norm, and perceived behavioural control on entrepreneurial intention of
women. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 9(17), 23–35.
Dutta, D. K., Li, J., & Merenda, M. (2011). Fostering entrepreneurship: Impact
of specialization and diversity in education. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 7(2), 163–179.
Engle, R. L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J. V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado,
I., He, X., Buame, S., & Wolff, B. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent: A
twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen’s model of planned behavior. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(1), 35–57.
Esfandiar, K., Sharifi-Tehrani, M., Pratt, S., & Altinay, L. (2019). Understanding
entrepreneurial intention: A developed integrated structural model approach.
Journal of Business Research, 94, 172–182.
Fairlie, R. W., & Robb, A. M. (2009). Gender differences in business perfor-
mance: Evidence from the Characteristics of Business Owners survey. Small
Business Economics, 33(4), 375–395.
Farrukh, M., Lee, J. W. C., Sajid, M., & Waheed, A. (2019). Entrepreneurial
intention: The role of individualism and collectivism in perspective of theory
of planned behaviour. Education and Training, 61(7–8), 984–1000.
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on

entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of
Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93.
Fazal, S., Naz, S., Khan, M. I., & Pedder, D. (2019). Barriers and enablers of
women’s academic careers in Pakistan. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies,
25(2), 217–238.
Ferreira, J. J., Raposo, M. L., Rodrigues, R. G., Dinis, A., & do Paço, A. (2012).
A model of entrepreneurial intention: An application of the psychological
and behavioral approaches. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 19(3), 424–440.
Fetterolf, J. (2017). In many countries, at least four-in-ten in the labor force
are women. Pew Research Center. [Online]. Retrieved November 28,
2019, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/07/in-many-
countries-at-least-four-in-ten-in-the-labor-force-are-women/
Foreman-Peck, J., & Zhou, P. (2014). Cultures of female entrepreneurship (No.
E2014/1). Cardiff Economics Working Papers.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39–50.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation model-
ing and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol.4, Article 7.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor by Bosma, N., Hill, S., Ionescu-Somers A.,
Kelley, D., Levie, J., and Tarnawa, A. (2020). 2019/2020 global report.
[Online]. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.gemconsortium.
org/report/gem-2019-2020-global-report
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor by Bosma, N.; Kelley, D. (2019). 2018/2019
report. [Online]. Retrieved November 28, 2019, from https://www.gemcon-
sortium.org/report
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor by Bosma, N., & Levie, J. (2010). 2009
global report. [Online]. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from http://entreprenor-
skapsforum.se/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/GEM-2010-Global-Report.pdf
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management:
An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 185–214.
Gupta, V. K., & Bhawe, N. M. (2007). The influence of proactive personality
and stereotype threat on women’s entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4), 73–85.
158 X. Guo et al.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner’s guide to partial least
squares analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283–297.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver
bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher accep-
tance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and
how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016).
Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part I–
method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63–76.
Helm, S., Eggert, A., & Garnefeld, I. (2010). Modeling the impact of corporate
reputation on customer satisfaction and loyalty using partial least squares. In
V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of
partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 515–534). Springer.
Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analy-
sis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares
path modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(1), 82–109.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least
squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to inter-
national marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hussain, S., & Malik, M. I. (2018). Towards nurturing the entrepreneurial
intentions of neglected female business students of Pakistan through proac-
tive personality, self-efficacy and university support factors. Asia Pacific
Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship., 12(3), 363–378.
Iakovleva, T., Kolvereid, L., & Stephan, U. (2011). Entrepreneurial intention in
developing and developed countries. Education and Training, 53(5), 353–370.
Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J., Lans, T., Aazami, M., & Mulder, M. (2016).
Fostering students’ competence in identifying business opportunities in
entrepreneurship education. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 53(2), 215–229.
Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J., Lans, T., Chizari, M., Mulder, M., & Mahdei,
K. N. (2013). Understanding role models and gender influences on entrepre-
neurial intentions among college students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 93, 204–214.
Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J., Naderi Mahdei, K., Lans, T., Chizari, M., & Mulder,
M. (2017). Testing the relationship between personality characteristics, con-
textual factors and entrepreneurial intentions in a developing country.
International Journal of Psychology, 52(3), 227–240.
Karimi, S., Biemans, J. A. H., Lans, T., Chizari, M., & Mulder, M. (2014).
Effects of role models and gender on students’ entrepreneurial intention.
European Journal of Training and Development, 38(8), 694–727.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.
Guilford Press.
Kock, N. (2014). Advanced mediating effects tests, multi-group analyses, and
measurement model assessments in PLS-based SEM. International Journal of
e-Collaboration (IJeC), 10(1), 1–13.
Krueger, N. F., Jr., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and
potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91–104.
Krueger, N. F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on percep-
tions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 18(1), 5–21.
Krueger, N. F. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), 5–23.
Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying
the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
5(4), 315–330.
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of
entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 411–432.
Leroy, H., Manigart, S., & Meuleman, M. (2009). The planned decision to trans-
fer an entrepreneurial company. Working Paper Series of Faculty of Economics
and Business Administration, Ghent University
Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: How do they affect entrepreneur-
ial intention? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
4(3), 257–272.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross–cultural application
of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurship
Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepre-
neurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development., 23(3–4), 187–215.
Lo, C., Sun, H., & Law, K. (2012). Comparing the entrepreneurial intention
between female and male engineering students. Journal of Women’s
Entrepreneurship and Education, Institute of Economic Sciences, 1–2, 28–51.
160 X. Guo et al.
Lock, R., & Smith, H. L. (2016). The impact of female entrepreneurship on
economic growth in Kenya. International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 90–96.
Mahmood, B., Sohail, M., Khalid, S., & Babak, I. (2012). Gender specific bar-
riers to female entrepreneurs in Pakistan: A study in urban areas of Pakistan.
Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 2(4), 339–352.
Matthews, L. (2017). Applying multigroup analysis in PLS-SEM: A step-by-
step process. In H. Latan, R. Noonan, & L. Matthews (Eds.), Partial least
squares path modeling: Basic concepts, methodological issues and applications
Moriano, J. A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U., & Zarafshani,
K. (2012). A cross-cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial inten-
tion. Journal of Career Development, 39(2), 162–185.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential:
A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–75.
Muskat, B., Hörtnagl, T., Prayag, G., & Wagner, S. (2019). Perceived quality,
authenticity, and price in tourists’ dining experiences: Testing competing
models of satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 25(4), 480–498.
Mustapha, M., & Selvaraju, M. (2015). Personal attributes, family influences,
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship inclination among univer-
sity students. Kajian Malaysia: Journal of Malaysian Studies, 33(1), 155–172.
Nabi, G., & Liñán, F. (2013). Considering business start-up in recession time:
The role of risk perception and economic context in shaping the entrepre-
neurial intent. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
19(6), 633–655.
Noguera, M., Alvarez, C., Merigo, J. M., & Urbano, D. (2015). Determinants
of female entrepreneurship in Spain: An institutional approach. Computational
and Mathematical Organization Theory, 21(4), 341–355.
Oke, D. F. (2013). The effect of social network on women entrepreneurs in
Nigeria: A case study of Ado-Ekiti Small scale Enterprise. International
Journal of Education and Research, 1(11), 1–14.
Parker, S. C. (2009). The economics of entrepreneurship. MIT Press.
Paul, J., Hermel, P., & Srivatava, A. (2017). Entrepreneurial intention—theory
and evidence from Asia, America, and Europe. Journal of International
Peng, Z., Lu, G., & Kang, H. (2013). Entrepreneurial intentions and its influ-
encing factors: A survey of the university students in Xi’an China. Creative
Education, 3(8), 95–100.
Poggesi, S., Mari, M., & De Vita, L. (2016). What’s new in female entrepre-
neurship research? Answers from the literature. International Entrepreneurship
Prabhu, V. P., McGuire, S. J., Drost, E. A., & Kwong, K. K. (2012). Proactive
personality and entrepreneurial intent: Is entrepreneurial self-efficacy a medi-
ator or moderator? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research., 18(5), 559–586.
Premand, P., Brodmann, S., Almeida, R., Grun, R., & Barouni, M. (2016).
Entrepreneurship education and entry into self-employment among univer-
sity graduates. World Development, 77, 311–327.
Pruett, M., Shinnar, R., Toney, B., Llopis, F., & Fox, J. (2009). Explaining
entrepreneurial intentions of university students: A cross-cultural study.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 15(6), 571–594.
Quader, M. S. (2012). A characteristic model of successful women entrepre-
neurs in the UK. Journal of Services Research, 12(1), 89–113.
Ramadani, V., Hisrich, R. D., & Gërguri-Rashiti, S. (2015). Female entrepre-
neurs in transition economies: Insights from Albania, Macedonia and
Kosovo. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development, 11(4), 391–413.
Ratten, V. (2016). Female entrepreneurship and the role of customer knowledge
development, innovation outcome expectations and culture on intentions to
start informal business ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Small Business, 27(2–3), 262–272.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH.
Robledo, J. L. R., Arán, M. V., Sanchez, V. M., & Molina, M. Á. R. (2015). The
moderating role of gender on entrepreneurial intentions: A TPB perspective.
Intangible Capital, 11(1), 92–117.
Roomi, M. A., & Parrott, G. (2008). Barriers to development and progression
of women entrepreneurs in Pakistan. The Journal of Entrepreneurship,
17(1), 59–72.
Rubio-Bañóna, A., & Esteban-Lloret, N. (2016). Cultural factors and gender
role in female entrepreneurship. Suma de Negocios, 7(15), 9–17.
Sabiu, I. T., Abdullah, A., Amin, A., & Tahir, I. M. (2018). An empirical analy-
sis of the need for achievement motivation in predicting entrepreneurial per-
162 X. Guo et al.
sistence in Bumiputra entrepreneurs in Terengganu, Malaysia. International

Journal of Business and Globalisation, 20(2), 190–202.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Jr., Cheah, J. H., Becker, J. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019).
How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-
SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197–211.
Shah, N., & Soomro, B. A. (2017). Investigating entrepreneurial intention
among public sector university students of Pakistan. Education and Training,
59(7–8), 841–855.
Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a
field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology
Today, 9(6), 83–88.
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial
Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., & Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Exploring the inten-
tion–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of indi-
vidual and environmental characteristics. European Management Journal,
34(4), 386–399.
Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. R. (2011). Predictive analytics in information sys-
tems research. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 553–572.
Shook, C. L., & Bratianu, C. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent in a transitional
economy: An application of the theory of planned behavior to Romanian
students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
6(3), 231–247.
Sieger, P., Gruber, M., Fauchart, E., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Measuring the
social identity of entrepreneurs: Scale development and international valida-
tion. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(5), 542–572.
Smith, B. R., Conger, M. J., McMullen, J. S., & Neubert, M. J. (2019). Why
believe? The promise of research on the role of religion in entrepreneurial
action. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 11, e00119.
Soria-Barreto, K., Honores-Marin, G., Gutiérrez-Zepeda, P., & d Gutiérrez-
Rodríguez, J. (2017). Prior exposure and educational environment towards
entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation,
12(2), 45–58.
Stenholm, P., Acs, Z. J., & Wuebker, R. (2013). Exploring country-level institu-
tional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal
of Business Venturing, 28(1), 176–193.
Taormina, R. J., & Lao, S. K. M. (2007). Measuring Chinese entrepreneurial

motivation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.,
13(4), 200–221.
The World Bank. (2019). Labor force, female (% of total labor force). [Online].
Retrieved November 28, 2019, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
SL.TLF.TOTL.FE.ZS
Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarifica-
tion and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship
Tkachev, A., & Kolvereid, L. (1999). Self-employment intentions among
Russian students. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(3), 269–280.
Umrani, W. A., Kura, K. M., & Ahmed, U. (2018). Corporate entrepreneurship
and business performance. PSU Research Review.
Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E., & Van
Gils, A. (2008). Explaining entrepreneurial intention by means of the theory
of planned behaviour. Career Development International, 13(6), 538–559.
Veciana, J. M., Aponte, M., & Urbano, D. (2005). University students’ atti-
tudes towards entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison. The
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(2), 165–182.
Wennekers, S., van Stel, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entre-
preneurship and the level of economic development. Small Business Economics,
24(3), 293–309.
Westhead, P., & Solesvik, M. Z. (2016). Entrepreneurship education and entre-
preneurial intention: Do female students benefit? International Small Business
Journal, 34(8), 979–1003.
Yadav, V., & Unni, J. (2016). Women entrepreneurship: Research review and
future directions. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6(1), 1–18.
Yordanova, D. I., & Tarrazon, M. A. (2010). Gender differences in entrepre-
neurial intention: Evidence from Bulgaria. Journal of Developmental
Zhang, P., Wang, D. D., & Owen, C. L. (2015). A study of entrepreneurial
intention of university students. Entrepreneurship Research Journal,
5(1), 61–82.
Zhao, H., Hills, G. E., & Siebert, S. E. (2005). The mediating role of self–effi-
cacy in the development of entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272.
7
Experiential Learning
in Entrepreneurship Education
for Sustainable Agricultural
Development: A Bibliometric Analysis
Nyarai Margaret Mujuru, Denis Hyams-Ssekasi,
and Abbyssinia Mushunje
Introduction
Entrepreneurship and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are impor-
tant sectors for sustainable livelihoods and business. In most countries
within the region the sector’s contribution to gross domestic product is
very low (below 3% in Botswana and South Africa) with an exception of
countries like Chad where it contributes more than 50% (World Bank,
2016). The agricultural sector is no longer dualistic in nature comprising
N. M. Mujuru (*) • A. Mushunje

Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension,
University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa
e-mail: nmujuru@ufh.ac.za; amushunje@ufh.ac.za
D. Hyams-Ssekasi
e-mail: dh4@bolton.ac.uk
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_7
166 N. M. Mujuru et al.
large commercial farms and smallholder farms but agrarian structures in

most countries have changed to tri-modal with the advent of a middle
group called ‘emerging farmers’. Smallholder farms though not perceived
as entrepreneurs are characterised with low productive technologies yet
approximately 54% of the population in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) is
employed in this sector (Shimeles at al. 2018).
High agricultural dependence matched with low productive capacities
has resulted in less policy focus and small farms in the region being
‘neglected’. Major reasons that have been cited for low productivity
include lack of profitable markets, predominance of low productive tech-
nologies and slow uptake of new innovations and technologies, lack of
support and high levels of illiteracy, among others. It is pertinent to note
that because of the nature of small farms in rural parts of Africa, they
have not been fully recognised as enterprises. They are owned mostly by
old and less educated people who reside in the most unfavourable places
hence production on such farms is viewed as a way of life not a business.
Even though smallholder production is marred with low incomes and
high poverty levels, there has been an increase in the number of family
farms in SSA over the years (Moyo, 2016). Why farmers retain their
farms even through hardships can be explained by Brewster’s (1961)
hypothesis which postulates that farmers are willing to accept lower
returns than other investors because of the lifestyle benefits derived from
farming.
From the foregoing discussion it can be argued that small farms are not
going anywhere, at least in the near future. Hence, family farms will con-
tinue to be passed from generation to generation. Mujuru and Obi
(2020) found that 92% of respondents acquired their land through
inheritance in rural parts of South Africa; hence the current youth will
inherit the farms. Families from poor backgrounds have taken advantage
of governments’ education support to send their children for higher edu-
cation but not in pursue of entrepreneurial skills. For example, in South
Africa, through the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS),
students from poor backgrounds receive loans to pay for their studies
which they can pay back once they start earning an income. Such incen-
tives have resulted in the growth of the gross enrolment ratio in SSA at a
rate of 4.3% compared with a global average of 2.8% between 1970 and
7 Experiential Learning in Entrepreneurship Education… 167
2013 (Darvas et al., 2017). Education and training is a vital component

of human capital and it is essential for economic development especially
within the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Hence,
university curricula should be designed in a way that meets the current
and future needs of the industry. The World Bank (2008) reported that
most agricultural programmes offered in higher institutions of learning
across Africa lack relevance, were inflexible and had outdated curricula.
In addition, entrepreneurship courses are not offered in most universities
in Africa resulting in graduates who cannot establish their own businesses
(Gyimah-Brempong & Ondiege, 2011). ANAFE (2011) reported that
employers found agriculture graduates to be deficient in technical and
practical skills, resource management skills and writing skills among
SADC countries. From the preceding discussion, we identify the twin
problem of unemployment facing agriculture graduates in SSA. Due to
deficiencies in the curricula agricultural graduates have been found to be
unemployable and concurrently lack skills to start businesses for self-
employment. This has contributed to the decline in the share of enrol-
ment for agricultural courses across Africa and elsewhere
(Mohammadinezhad & Sharifzadeh, 2017; Garwe, 2015; Adebo &
Sekumade, 2013).
Can entrepreneurship orientation give young graduates new perspec-
tives on agriculture? Dias et al. (2019) argue that education and training
positively influence the entrepreneurial behaviour in the agricultural sec-
tor. However, they further noted that training requirements differ across
different agricultural subsectors and between men and women. Pindado
and Sanchez (2017) noted that agricultural entrepreneurs tend to have
less entrepreneurial skills than other sectors. Due to this lack of skills Dias
et al. (2019) highlight the importance of improving entrepreneurial skills
through implementation of programmes targeting not only farmers but
also agricultural students in higher education institutions (HEIs).
Globally, policies have been implemented to attract youth participation
in agriculture. Pindado and Sanchez (2017) argue that since younger
people are less likely to become entrepreneurs in the agricultural sector,
young farmers stand to benefit from entrepreneurship programmes. Can
academic training bridge the gap between entrepreneurship and sustain-
able development within the sector in the near future? It is therefore
crucial for policy-makers to take note of the intergenerational nature of

agribusinesses and renew policies to attract youth participation for the
sustainable development of the sector. Due to supply and demand side
dynamics, the agricultural sector is currently confronted with rapid
changes and challenges (Gellynck et al., 2015 in Dias et al., 2019) Some
of the challenges can be attributed to climate change, new technologies
and innovations, changes in consumer tastes and the global agribusiness
landscape, inter alia. Therefore, in order to compete in the complex and
multifaceted environment in which they operate, farmers require entre-
preneurial skills (Dias et al., 2019).
It is against this backdrop that this study seeks to address how new
perspectives on farming within the context of a changing agrarian struc-
ture in most SSA countries can be cultivated through experiential learn-
ing for the sustainable development of the sector. The study makes an
original contribution by combining a systematic review and bibliometric
analysis of literature published between 1991 to 2020 in order to deter-
mine the conceptual and social structure of existing research on the topic.
Theoretical Perspectives
According to Gamede and Uleanya (2017) linking entrepreneurship
training with HEIs is the basis for industrialisation and technological
development in the twenty-first century. Entrepreneurship is viewed as a
‘means to an end’ and perceived as a channel for economic development
through job creation and poverty alleviation especially among the youths
(Gamede & Uleanya, 2017; Cheung, 2008; Kuratko, 2005). Uleanya
et al. (2018) argued that HEI curricula need to be tailor-made to meet
the existing needs of its host society. Research on the decolonisation of
higher education and curricula in Africa is ongoing (Adefila et al., 2022;
Chasi and Rodny-Gumede, 2019; Janks, 2019; Saurombe, 2018;
Zembylas, 2018, 2021).
A study carried out at a South African university revealed that the
majority of students associated entrepreneurship as a form of ‘creating a
business’ while a sizeable number of students perceived it as an art of
“launching and developing a project or an activity” (Iwu et al., 2020).
This finding depicts a narrow perception of what entrepreneurship

encompasses. Besides business ownership, entrepreneurship also entails
the crucial roles of creativity, intention and innovation. Iwu et al. (2020)
found that 80.3% of students were willing to start their businesses after
graduating. On the other hand, Agbim et al. (2013) found that only a
few graduates become entrepreneurs after completing their studies.
Starting a business can be a daunting task for a graduate with limited
capital, lack of support, absence of enabling environment and lack of
technical know-how. The gap between willingness to be entrepreneurs
and the realisation of becoming an entrepreneur can be attributed to
inadequate curricula, among other things.
Wilson (2008) defines entrepreneurship as “the development of atti-
tudes, behaviours and capabilities that can be applied during an individ-
ual’s career as an entrepreneur”. Tang et al. (2014) in Mohammadinezhad
and Sharifzadeh (2017) noted a lack of empirical data regarding the rela-
tionship between agricultural curriculum and entrepreneurial skills.
However, a few studies have found out that education support greatly
influence agricultural students’ intention to start businesses (Gelaidan
and Abdullateef, 2017; Kadir et al., 2012 and Kuehn, 2008). Snyder
(2003) found out that entry-level graduates at corporations were found
to lack critical thinking and creativity skills.
Entrepreneurship can be taught (Drucker, 1985; Kuratko, 2005;
Robinson and Haynes, 1991); hence, it is essential for agricultural insti-
tutions to integrate entrepreneurship education into their educational
programmes through curriculum development (Janks, 2019). Chen et al.
(2015) found out that entrepreneurship intentions of students did not
improve using an experimental design with mentor co-teaching for 18
weeks. From the experiment it was concluded that entrepreneurship edu-
cation does not teach students to “pursue an entrepreneurial career”, but
to apply what they learned to their future careers. This conclusion further
supports Mohammadinezhad and Sharifzadeh’s (2017) notion that expe-
riential learning is not about, but for, entrepreneurship. With the imple-
mentation of the entrepreneurship course, students came to understand
that they are not suitable to pursue an entrepreneurial career. Puni et al.
(2018) found a positive relation between entrepreneurship knowledge
acquisition and entrepreneurial intentions of undergraduate students at a

public university in Ghana.
Agricultural Entrepreneurship
Agricultural entrepreneurship in Africa is still a phenomenon under con-
struction. Very few studies have been conducted on the topic in Sub-
Saharan Africa and among these are Adeyanju et al. (2021), Adobor
(2020), Cele & Wale (2020), Otache (2017) and currently no studies
have been found on experiential agricultural entrepreneurship education.
Agripreneurship can be defined as the ability and willingness of a person
to recognise viable agricultural business opportunity, gather resources,
establish and manage the resulting agribusiness successfully (Otache,
2017). Dias et al. (2019) found four terms used in literature to refer to
entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector, namely agricultural entrepre-
neurship, farm entrepreneurship, agri-entrepreneurship or agripreneur-
ship, agro-entrepreneurship or agropreneurship.
Mohammadinezhad and Sharifzadeh (2017) investigated the impor-
tance of academic courses on agricultural entrepreneurship. They
employed a modified Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index
for the determination of entrepreneurial dimensions of agricultural grad-
uates. Their study placed emphasis on the content of core, free electives
and restricted elective courses provided in agricultural programmes in
Iran. Their major findings were on the importance of restricted elective
courses in developing agricultural students’ enterprise knowledge, skills
and experience. The structure of an entrepreneurship course or pro-
gramme and its mode of delivery have implications on the entrepreneur-
ial outcomes (Dias et al., 2019; Mohammadinezhad & Sharifzadeh,
2017; San-Martín et al., 2019; Debarliev et al., 2020)
The question that needs to be addressed is whether agricultural entre-
preneurship courses provide entrepreneurial skills and the intent for stu-
dents to become entrepreneurs.
Experiential Learning for Entrepreneurship

Experiential learning can be defined as “a participatory form of learning
that involves participants in using a range of mental processes to syn-
thesize information in an active and immersive environment” (Feinstein
et al., 2002). Mohammadinezhad and Sharifzadeh (2017) define expe-
riential learning as learning for entrepreneurship and not about entre-
preneurship. Timmons and Spinelli (2003) argued that entrepreneurship
is a complex phenomenon. Due to its complexity it requires appropri-
ate teaching methods to develop students’ entrepreneurial knowledge
and stimulate learning (Balan & Metcalfe, 2012). Kolb’s experiential
learning cycle (Kolb, 1984) has been adopted by several entrepreneur-
ship educators as they move away from conventional teaching methods
(Bell, 2015). Piercy (2013) noted the need to investigate student
response to student learning. Bell (2015) used a case of a British higher
education institution (HEI) offering a national diploma with an entre-
preneurship module to determine the impact of an experiential learn-
ing approach on the perceived development of entrepreneurial traits.
Bell (2015) explored the development of four key entrepreneurship
characteristics using a qualitative approach and these are pro-activeness,
innovativeness, risk taking and self-efficacy. The teaching approach
required participants to be actively involved in the planning, develop-
ing and implementation of two student-led events and report back
through reflective essays. In response to Piercy (2013), Bell (2015)
found out that student feedback indicated a high level of engagement
and student satisfaction.
New learning-by-doing experiential approaches include simulations,
interacting with entrepreneurs, developing business plans and attending
entrepreneurship forums (Bell, 2015). In addition, team building exer-
cises, simulations, guest speakers and internships are some of the most
used approaches of experiential learning.
Case Study Context

A young woman in her mid-20s is an aspiring farmer in one of the remote
villages of Engcobo Local Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province of
South Africa. She obtained a bachelor’s degree in Agricultural Economics
from one of the historical universities in the province. The degree did not
comprise of any entrepreneurship course. Upon completion of her degree,
the young agriculture graduate was awarded a two-year internship with a
private agribusiness company. Later on she was hired by an agricultural
training company in the Northern Cape Province where her role was to
train young high school graduates about crop production, marketing and
farm management. She used the experience acquired to start her business
venture which has three enterprises namely: poultry, piggery and vegeta-
ble production. She currently supplies her community and surrounding
areas with her farm produce.
From the foregoing case study, one cannot underestimate the impor-
tance of experiential learning in driving entrepreneurial intentions for the
youth in agriculture (Piercy, 2013). Some studies have concluded that
entrepreneurship can be taught (Kuratko, 2005; Robinson et al., 1991).
However, most universities lack agricultural entrepreneurship courses
and those that offer such courses are often deficient of experiential learn-
ing modules.
Methods
Combs et al. (2019) noted that researchers are currently adopting meta-
analytical approaches to create ‘super-samples’ that allow for a compre-
hensive summary of information and results from various studies. This
study adopts a science mapping research design. The same approach was
used by Ferreira et al. (2019) in mapping research on entrepreneurship.
According to Zupic and Čater (2015) the recommended workflow for
science mapping involves study design, data collection, data analysis,
data visualisation and interpretation.
Study Design
The research is guided by the following highlights emanating from

the topic:
• Agricultural programmes in most HEIs across Africa are irrelevant and

have outdated curricula.
• Entrepreneurship courses are not offered in most universities in Africa.
• Agriculture graduates are deficient in technical and practical skills,
resource management skills and writing skills.
• Entrepreneurship can be taught.
Therefore, the study seeks to identify the knowledge base of the topic
on experiential learning for entrepreneurship education and its intellec-
tual structure. The study further explores on the conceptual structure of
the topic and lastly produces a social network of the scientific commu-
nity. Bibliometric methods have been used to map the field of entrepre-
neurship (Dias et al., 2019; Landström et al., 2012; Gartner et al., 2006;
Schildt et al., 2006) and this study seeks to employ such.
Data Collection
This research commenced in November 2020 and literature for the bib-

liometric analysis was sourced from Scopus for the period 1991 to 2020.
The period outlines a distinct trajectory of the growth in research on
experiential learning for entrepreneurship. Research on the topic was
dormant in the 1990s and it only picked momentum from 2004. Previous
reviews on entrepreneurship have used Scopus, which is considered the
largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature (Dias
et al., 2019; Baier-Fuentes et al., 2018; Palomo et al., 2017). The initial
search included the tittle, abstract and keyword search of articles and
review papers on entrepreneurship education or experiential learning and
its synonyms such as learning-by-doing, simulation or gaming.
Entrepreneurship education alone generated 2978 documents and this
shows that extensive research has been carried out (Dias et al., 2019).
Certain limits were placed on the search and the following algorithm
from a search conducted on 10 November 2020 at 10:55 GMT +2
yielded 533 documents.
(TITLE-ABS-KEY (“entrepreneurship education”) OR TITLE-ABS-

KEY (“experiential learning” OR “simulation” OR “gaming” OR
“learning-by-doing”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“entrepreneurship ori-
entation” OR “entrepreneurial skills” OR “entrepreneurial intention”
OR “agricultural entrepreneurship education”)) AND (LIMIT-TO
(DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)) AND
(LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))
Data cleaning process involved reading through all abstracts and topics
of the documents to search for duplicates or irrelevant data. All the 533
documents were found relevant hence included in the study. A similar
data cleaning process was proposed by Aria and Cuccurullo (2017) and
implemented by Dias et al. (2019).
Data Analysis
The study utilised science mapping which is a quantitative approach of

bibliometric research methods and is being increasingly used to map the
structure and development of scientific fields and disciplines (Aria &
Cuccurullo, 2017; Zupic & Čater, 2015). The aim of science mapping is
to create a representation of the research area’s structure by subdividing
documents, authors, journals, words into different groups. Visualisation
was then used to create a visual representation of the classification that
emerged. Table 7.1 depicts different approaches that the study employs
to extract networks using different units of analysis (Aria & Cuccurullo,
2017; Zupic & Čater, 2015)
Bibliometrix is an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis
developed by Aria and Cuccurullo (2017). The tool performs bibliomet-
ric analysis and builds data matrices for co-citation, coupling, scientific
collaboration and co-word analysis. The study utilised Biblioshiny which
is referred to as “the shiny app for bibliometrix”.
Table 7.1 Bibliometric techniques used per unit of analysis

Bibliometric
technique
taxonomy Unit of analysis Kind of relation
1. Bibliographic • Author • Common references in
coupling • Document authors’ works
• Journal • Common references in
documents
• Common references in
journals’ works
2. Co-author • Author • Co-occurrence of authors in
• Country of affiliation the author list of a document
• Institution of affiliation • Co-occurrence of countries in
the address list of a document
• Co-occurrence of institutions in
the address list of a document
3. Co-word • Keyword or term extracted • Co-occurrence of terms in a
from tittle, abstract or document
document’s body
Source: Extracted from Aria and Cuccurullo (2017)
Collaboration Analysis
According to Melin and Persson (1996) scientific research has become an

increasingly collaborative endeavour. Co-authorship analysis has been
widely applied to ascertain scientific collaboration structures (Liu et al.,
2005). The study envisages two aspects: collaboration index and cross-
national collaboration networks. Following Elango and Rajendran (2012)
and Koseoglu (2016), the Collaboration Index (CI) is calculated as:
CI = Total Authors of Multi - Authored Articles

/ Total Multi - Authored Articles
In other words, the Collaboration Index is a co-authors per article

index calculated only using the multi-authored article set.
Collaboration networks can be established between authors, institu-
tions or countries. The collaboration network map is made up of nodes
and lines connecting the nodes. The nodes represent the collaborators
whilst the lines show the channel of knowledge sharing.
Data Visualization and Interpretation

Descriptive Analysis
The descriptive analysis was carried out and results showing the main
information, document types and content as well as author information
was summarised and presented in Table 7.2. The data covered the period
1991 to 2020 and information emanated from 217 sources which include
journals, books and others. A total of 533 documents was analysed and
of these 522 are articles while 11 are review papers. A total of 1328
authors were observed and authors of multi-authored documents are the
majority with n = 1256, 95%, and authors of single-authored documents
n = 72, 5%. Greene (2007) noted that collaboration among researchers is
Table 7.2 Summary statistics (Timespan, 1991–2020)

Description Frequency
Main information about data
Sources (journals, books etc.) 217
Documents 533
Average years from publication 3.9
Average citations per documents 24.02
Average citations per year per document 3.364
References 26.393
Document types
Article 522
Review 11
Document contents
Keywords plus (ID) 293
Author’s keywords (DE) 1141
Authors
Authors 1328
Author appearances 1549
Authors of single-authored documents 72
Authors of multi-authored documents 1256
Authors collaboration
Single-authored documents 77
Documents per author 0.401
Authors per document 2.49
Co-authors per documents 2.91
Collaboration index 2.75
90
60
Articles
30
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Year
Fig. 7.1 Annual scientific production. (Source: Scopus (1991–2020))
on the rise. Collaboration index is a measure of the mean number of

authors. The study has a collaboration index of 2.75.
Figure 7.1 shows the annual scientific production. Research was dor-
mant in the 1990s with only a few articles published in the area.
Experiential learning is a phenomenon that originated from the educa-
tion field and had not been fully embraced in other fields. Table 7.3 also
shows that Education and Training has the largest authorship on the topic
in the area of entrepreneurship education. However 8.3% is still low for
Education and Training to be considered the dominating journal. Other
researchers found the following statistics for top sources: 12.1% in
Ferreira et al. (2019). There was a general marked increase in research
from 2004 to 2019 with a slight decline in 2020. Ferreira et al. (2019)
have shown a similar trend for research mapping on entrepreneurship.
Table 7.3 shows the most relevant sources and it can be noted that
none of the 20 sources are from the field of agriculture.
A descriptive analysis of research per country was carried out and
results which are not mutually exclusive are presented in Table 7.4. The
USA is leading in publications followed by Malaysia, the UK, China and
Table 7.3 Most relevant sources
Sources Articles %
Education and Training 44 8.3
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 26 4.9
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and 18 3.4
Research
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16 3
Industry and Higher Education 15 2.8
International Journal of Management Education 13 2.4
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 13 2.4
Frontiers in Psychology 11 2.1
Studies in Higher Education 11 2.1
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 10 1.9
Journal of Small Business Management 9 1.7
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small 8 1.5
Business
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 8 1.5
Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 1.5
Advanced Science Letters 6 1.1
International Journal of Innovation Creativity and Change 6 1.1
Journal of Entrepreneurship 6 1.1
Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 5 0.9
Education + Training 5 0.9
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 5 0.9
Table 7.4 Country-specific production

Region Frequency
USA 97
Malaysia 89
UK 86
China 73
Spain 65
Portugal 47
India 41
Indonesia 39
Germany 34
South Africa 34
Norway 25
Finland 22
Italy 22
France 21
Australia 19
Greece 18
Nigeria 18
Brazil 17
Romania 16
Pakistan 15
Spain, respectively. Most of these are industrialised countries. However,

the two largest economies in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa and
Nigeria appear in the list of the top 20 countries. Brahmbhatt et al.
(2017) argue that entrepreneurs are agents of change who are crucial for
the success of the green industrial development in Africa. Therefore,
teaching entrepreneurship and instilling entrepreneurial intentions in the
young generation should be on the agenda of every government in Sub-
Saharan Africa.
The co-occurrence network in Fig. 7.2 shows that the most common
word or phrase in the search is ‘entrepreneurship education’. This phrase
on its own generated more than 3000 articles showing how vast the body
of knowledge is. The term ‘students’ also largely appears. The study was
premised on experiential learning of students at institutions of higher
learning. However, the nodes for experiential learning and sustainable
development are minute suggesting gaps in research. The term ‘agricul-
ture’ does not appear in the selection of words done.
Cross-national collaboration networks. Collaboration among research-
ers is on the rise (Greene, 2007) and international-oriented research was
found to be more collaborative in nature in China with 62.43% repre-
sentation by cross-national collaboration (Zhai et al., 2014). In addition,
collaboration entails a much broader scholarly network of senior scholars
in international-oriented research. Research is anticipated to have greater
impact than domestic collaborations which are characterised by senior
and junior scholar dialogues (Zhai et al., 2014). However, according to
Sud and Thelwall (2016) international collaboration in general is not
beneficial but collaboration with the USA was found to positively influ-
ence research impact. Their study concluded that it is vital to take into
account specific countries when examining collaboration. Figure 7.3
shows the cross-national collaboration networks on the topic under study.
Figure 7.3 shows that five collaboration clusters were identified with
the number of countries within clusters ranging from 2 to 9. The largest
collaborators within the clusters are the UK, Malaysia, the USA, China
and the Netherlands. The largest intracontinental collaboration was
observed in the largest cluster with majority of collaborators being
European countries (n = 7, 78%). Malaysia has the second-largest node
Fig. 7.2 Co-occurrence network
and (n = 4, 80%) collaborators are from Asia. The third- and fourth-
largest clusters show high intercontinental collaborations. The USA and
China mainly collaborate with European countries. The smallest cluster
with only two countries—the Netherlands and Iran—also represents
intercontinental collaboration. South Africa, Romania, Canada and
Nigeria are standing alone without any collaborations.
Fig. 7.3 Country collaboration network
Summary and Conclusion
The chapter combined a review of literature and bibliometrics to compre-
hensively investigate the studies on experiential entrepreneurship education
with the aim of unveiling gaps, trends in publishing, country productions,
collaborations and co-occurrence networks. The findings are as follows:
Agricultural entrepreneurship as a discipline is still evolving. There is no
common consensus in definitional terms and vast terminology is used as
indicated by Dias et al. (2019). It is noteworthy that agriculture does not end
on the farm. On-farm agricultural enterprises referred to as ‘farm enterprises’
especially in the rural areas where majority of small scale farmers dwell are
associated with outdated technologies and as a result low profits (Mujuru &
Obi, 2020). To bring transformation to the sector, more emphasis should be
placed on high pay-off off-farm agricultural enterprises (Nagler & Naude,
2017) and deducing from Dias et al. (2019) such businesses are termed ‘agri-
enterprises or agro-enterprises’ and they are more complex in nature.
Therefore, the further away from the farm along the value chain, the more
sophisticated the enterprise becomes. Entrepreneurship in agriculture is not
limited to or for agricultural students alone but students from other disci-
plines such as business, management and engineering, inter alia, can apply
their skills and knowledge to bring development to the sector. Agriculture
still plays an important role in Sub-Saharan Africa where the majority of the
population depend on it for employment. However, most of the jobs created
are either seasonal or low-paying. In order to harness value chain benefits in
the sector across the continent, there is need for new perspectives, ideas and
innovations. Entrepreneurs are the agents of change (Brahmbhatt et al.,
2017) to put Africa on the green industrial development trajectory.
Experiential learning gives entrepreneurship students a solid foundation to
develop their creative abilities and intent to become entrepreneurs.
Research on experiential entrepreneurship education gained momen-
tum over the years globally. There has been a steady growth in research
articles between 2004 and 2015 beyond which output abruptly increased.
Majority of research output is coming from the developed world with the
USA in the lead. In Africa, South Africa and Nigeria have produced most
articles and they appear in the top 20 worldwide. Education and Training
field has produced most articles on experiential entrepreneurship education
than any other discipline and this is because experiential learning emanated
from the education field (Seaman et al., 2017). Agriculture as a discipline
does not appear in the 20 most relevant sources on the topic. This is a cause
for concern and practitioners and all stakeholders should take note.
In terms of collaboration, the UK and Malaysia with the largest clus-
ters recorded the highest of intracontinental collaborations. Knowledge
has mostly been shared and diffused within Europe and Asia, respectively.
On the other hand, smaller clusters have recorded more intercontinental
collaborations. There are two main contributors in Africa, Nigeria and
South Africa and researchers from these countries have not collaborated
on the topic under study. Research collaborations are likely to produce
spill-over benefits in the host nations as proposed by Zhai et al. (2014).

African countries should explore avenues of knowledge sharing and dif-
fusion and work together to unravel the entrepreneurial development
pathway for the agricultural sector in the continent.
References
Acheampong, G. (n.d.). Entrepreneurship in Agricultural Communities of Africa.
Call for Special Issue. Available at https://www.africaacademyofmanagement.
org/sites/default/files/Entrepreneurship_in_Agricultural_Communities_of_
Africa.pdf
Adebo, G. M., & Sekumade, A. B. (2013). Determinants of career choice of
Agricultural profession among the Students of the Faculty of Agricultural
Sciences in Ekiti State University, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension
and Rural Development, 5(11), 249–255.
Adefila, A., Teixeira, R. V., Morini, L., Garcia, M. L. T., Delboni, T. M. Z. G. F.,
Spolander, G., & Khalil-Babatunde, M. (2022). Higher education decoloni-
sation: Whose voices and their geographical locations? Globalisation, Societies
and Education, 20(3), 262–276.
Adeyanju, D., Mburu, J., & Mignouna, D. (2021). Youth agricultural entrepre-
neurship: Assessing the impact of agricultural training programmes on per-
formance. Sustainability, 13(4), 1697.
Adobor, H. (2020). Entrepreneurial failure in agribusiness: Evidence from an
emerging economy. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
27, 237–258.
Agbim, K. C., Oriarewo, G. O., & Owocho, M. (2013). Factors influencing
entrepreneurial intentions among graduates of Nigerian tertiary institutions.
International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(4), 36–44.
ANAFE (African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry, and Natural Resources
Education). (2011). Synthesis report on tracer study on effectiveness of agricul-
tural training programs in Botswana, Lesotho, and Zambia. Report submitted
to the Southern African Development Community.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive
science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.
Baier-Fuentes, H., Merigó, J. M., Amorós, J. E., & Gaviria-Marín, M. (2018).
International entrepreneurship: A bibliometric overview. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11365-017-0487-y.
Balan, P., & Metcalfe, M. (2012). Identifying teaching methods that engage
entrepreneurship students. Education+Training., 54(5), 368–384.
Bell, R. (2015). Developing the next generation of entrepreneurs: Giving stu-
dents the opportunity to gain experience and thrive. The International Journal
of Management Education, 13(1), 37–47.
Brahmbhatt, M., Haddaoui, C., & Page, J. (2017). Green industrialisation and
entrepreneurship in Africa. Contributing paper for African Economic
Outlook, 1–60.
Brewster, J. M. (1961). Society values and goals in respect to agriculture. In
Goals and values in agricultural policy (pp. 114–137). Iowa State
University Press.
Cele, L., & Wale, E. (2020). Determinants of smallholders’ entrepreneurial
drive, willingness and ability to expand farming operations in KwaZulu-
Natal. Development in Practice, 30(8), 1028–1042.
Chasi, C., & Rodny-Gumede, Y. (2019). No pain no gain? Reflections on decol-
onisation and higher education in South Africa. Africa Education Review,
16(5), 120–133.
Chen, S. C., Hsiao, H. C., Chang, J. C., Chou, C. M., Chen, C. P., & Shen,
C. H. (2015). Can the entrepreneurship course improve the entrepreneurial
intentions of students? International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 11(3), 557–569.
Cheung, C. K. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Hong Kong’s secondary
curriculum: Possibilities and limitations. Education+Training, 50(6), 500–515.
Combs, J. G., Crook, T. R., & Rauch, A. (2019). Meta-analytic research in
management: Contemporary approaches, unresolved controversies, and ris-
ing standards. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 1–18.
Darvas, P., Gao, S., Shen, Y., & Bawany, B. (2017). Sharing higher education’s
promise beyond the few in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Publications.
Debarliev, S., Janeska-Iliev, A., Stripeikis, O., & Zupan, B. (2020). What can
education bring to entrepreneurship? Formal versus non-formal education.
Journal of Small Business Management, 60, 1–34.
Dias, C. S., Rodrigues, R. G., & Ferreira, J. J. (2019). What’s new in the research
on agricultural entrepreneurship? Journal of Rural Studies, 65, 99–115.
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Pan Books Ltd.
Elango, B., & Rajendran, P. (2012). Authorship trends and collaboration pat-
tern in the marine sciences literature: A scientometric study. International
Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 2(3), 166.
Feinstein, A. H., Mann, S., & Corsun, D. L. (2002). Computer simulation,
games and roleplay: Drawing lines of demarcation. In Developments in busi-
ness simulation and experiential learning: Proceedings of the annual ABSEL con-
ference (Vol. 29).
Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., & Kraus, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship research:
Mapping intellectual structures and research trends. Review of Managerial
Science, 13(1), 181–205.
Gamede, B. T., & Uleanya, C. (2017). The role of entrepreneurship education
in secondary schools at further education and training phase. Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 23(2), 1–12.
Gartner, W. B., Davidsson, P., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Are you talking to me?
The nature of community in entrepreneurship scholarship. Entrepreneurship
Garwe, E. C. (2015). Trends in student enrolments in agricultural degree pro-
grammes in Zimbabwe. Global Journal of Educational Studies, 1(1), 62.
Gelaidan, H. M., & Abdullateef, A. O. (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions of
business students in Malaysia: The role of self-confidence, educational and
relation support. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
24(1), 54–67.
Gellynck, X., Cárdenas, J., Pieniak, Z., & Verbeke, W. (2015). Association
between innovative entrepreneurial orientation, absorptive capacity, and
farm business performance. Agribusiness, 31(1), 91–106.
Greene, M. (2007). The demise of the lone author. Nature, 450(7173),
1165–1165.
Gyimah-Brempong, K., & Ondiege, P. (2011). Capitalizing on Africa’s resources.
Reforming higher education: Access, equity, and financing in Botswana,
Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, and Tunisia.
Iwu, C. G., Muresherwa, G., Nchu, R., & Eresia-Eke, C. E. (2020). University
students’ perception of entrepreneurship as a career option. Academia,
20–21, 177–201.
Janks, H. (2019). The decolonization of higher education in South Africa:
Luke’s writing as gift. Curriculum Inquiry, 49(2), 230–241.
Kadir, M. B. A., Salim, M., & Kamarudin, H. (2012). The relationship between
educational support and entrepreneurial intentions in Malaysian higher
learning institution. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2164–2173.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Prentice-Hall.
Koseoglu, M. A. (2016). Mapping the institutional collaboration network of
strategic management research: 1980–2014. Scientometrics, 109(1), 203–226.
Kuehn, K. W. (2008). Entrepreneurial intentions research: Implications for
entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 11, 87.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education:

Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
29(5), 577–597.
Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Åström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring
the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154–1181.
Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship
networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing &
Management, 41(6), 1462–1480.
Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-
authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.
Mohammadinezhad, S., & Sharifzadeh, M. (2017). Agricultural entrepreneur-
ship orientation: Is academic training a missing link? Education+ Training,
59(7/8), 856–887.
Moyo, S. (2016). Family farming in sub-Saharan Africa: Its contribution to agri-
culture, food security and rural development (No. 150). Working paper.
Mujuru, N. M., & Obi, A. (2020). Effects of cultivated area on smallholder
farm profits and food security in rural communities of the Eastern Cape
Province of South Africa. Sustainability, 12, 3272. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12083272
Nagler, P., & Naudé, W. (2017). Non-farm entrepreneurship in rural sub-Saha-
ran Africa: New empirical evidence. Food Policy, 67, 175–191.
Otache, I. (2017). Agripreneurship development: A strategy for revamping
Nigeria’s economy from recession. African Journal of Economic and
Management Studies, 8(4), 474–483.
Palomo, J., Figueroa-Domecq, C., & Laguna, P. (2017). Women, peace and
security state-of-art: A bibliometric analysis in social sciences based on
SCOPUS database. Scientometrics, 113(1), 123–148.
Piercy, N. (2013). Evaluating experiential learning in the business context:
Contributions to group-based and cross-functional working. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 50(2), 202–213.
Pindado, E., & Sánchez, M. (2017). Researching the entrepreneurial behaviour
of new and existing ventures in European agriculture. Small Business
Economics, 49(2), 421–444.
Puni, A., Anlesinya, A., & Korsorku, P. D. A. (2018). Entrepreneurial educa-
tion, self-efficacy and intentions in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of
Economic and Management Studies, 9(4), 492–511.
Robinson, P., & Haynes, M. (1991). Entrepreneurship education in America’s
major universities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 41–52.
San-Martín, P., Fernández-Laviada, A., Pérez, A., & Palazuelos, E. (2019). The
teacher of entrepreneurship as a role model: Students’ and teachers’ percep-
tions. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(1), 100358.
Saurombe, N. (2018). Decolonising higher education curricula in South Africa:
Factoring in archives through public programming initiatives. Archival
Science, 18(2), 119–141.
Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpaa, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in
entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 30(3), 399–415.
Seaman, J., Brown, M., & Quay, J. (2017). The evolution of experiential learn-
ing theory: Tracing lines of research in the JEE. Journal of Experiential
Education, 40(4), NP1–NP21.
Shimeles, A., Verdier-Chouchane, A., & Boly, A. (2018). Introduction:
Understanding the challenges of the agricultural sector in sub-Saharan Africa.
In Building a resilient and sustainable agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa (pp.
1–12). Palgrave Macmillan.
Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Not all international collaboration is beneficial:
The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research col-
laboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
67(8), 1849–1857.
Snyder, K. D. (2003). Ropes, poles, and space: Active learning in business edu-
cation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(2), 159–167.
Tang, M., Chen, X., Li, Q., & Lu, Y. (2014). Does Chinese university entrepre-
neurship education fit students’ needs? Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies, 6, 163–178.
Timmons, E., & Spinelli, S. (2003). Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century.
New Venture Creation, 3, 249–256.
Uleanya, C., Rugbeer, Y., & Duma Martin, A. N. (2018). Localizing educa-
tional curriculum of tertiary institutions: Approach to sustainable develop-
ment. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21.
Wilson, K. E. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Europe. Entrepreneurship
and Higher Education. Chapter 5, OECD. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.
com/abstract=1392369
World Bank. (2008). Cultivating knowledge and skills to grow African agriculture: A
synthesis of an institutional, regional, and international review. Washington, DC.
World Bank. (2016). Global economic prospects, January 2016: Spillovers amid
weak growth. The World Bank.
Zembylas, M. (2018). Decolonial possibilities in South African higher educa-

tion: Reconfiguring humanising pedagogies as/with decolonising pedagogies.
South African Journal of Education, 38(4), 1–11.
Zembylas, M. (2021). Refusal as affective and pedagogical practice in higher
education decolonization: A modest proposal. Teaching in Higher Education,
26(7–8), 953–968.
Zhai, Q., Su, J., & Ye, M. (2014). Focus on China: The current status of entre-
preneurship research in China. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1985–2006.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and orga-
nization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.
Part III
Entrepreneurship in Practice
8
Exploring the Enterprise Landscape
for Business Incubators in the UAE
Naveed Yasin and Zeinab Khansari
Introduction
The growth and development of businesses is not solely dependent upon
the internal knowledge and expertise of individuals but is a function of
both internal and external knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002). Extracting
and exploiting external knowledge and information is conducive for
enhancing business-oriented skills, product and service development,
and innovation (Ramírez et al., 2018). It is well established that entrepre-
neurship plays a significant role in driving the economic development
and sustainability of nations (Acs & Audretsch, 2001) and therefore, the
role of business incubators (BIs) is crucial for nurturing and supporting
N. Yasin (*)
Faculty of Management, Canadian University Dubai,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
e-mail: naveed.yasin@cud.ac.ae
Z. Khansari
Faculty of Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University,
Toronto, ON, Canada
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_8
192 N. Yasin and Z. Khansari
nascent entrepreneurs with the required external knowledge and experi-

ences (Jonek-Kowalska, 2018; Lose & Tengeh, 2015; Malindžák
et al., 2017).
In 2019, The World Economic Forum praised Dubai’s remarkable
transformational change describing its rapid progression from being a
“fishing village to [a] futuristic metropolis”. This captured the attention
of academics, international policy makers, private sector foreign inves-
tors, attracting global talents of employees, and transnational entrepre-
neurs. The development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem and proactive
encouragement of policy leaders in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has
accelerated the growth of the private sector with a vision to transit from
a mixed free-market economy towards becoming a knowledge-based
economy. A similar vision to the UAE has been at the forefront among
regional member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries
(GCC) such as neighbouring Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, and others.
The United Arab Emirates, more specifically the Emirate of Dubai, has
become an inspiration for neighbouring countries to follow a similar
course of action by successfully shifting their economic reliance from
depending on the export of rich natural oil resources towards becoming
globally competitive through the development of a thriving financial and
tourism sectors.
The United Arab Emirates is on course to have successfully developed
an effective entrepreneurial ecosystem that promotes not only the quan-
tity but also the quality of business start-ups. Furthermore, the develop-
ment of a wider range of initiatives and support programmes has boosted
a conducive social and economic environment that has increased the cre-
ative and innovative potential for numerous start-up businesses.
Conclusively, the concept of business incubation has achieved global
popularity for its efficaciousness in the development of a conducive envi-
ronment for the creation of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
and therefore, an effective enterprising environment (entrepreneurial
ecosystem) that supports ideas, provides resources, promotes skills and
can lead to effective commercialization of innovative and creative ideas
(Jones et al., 2020).
The aim of this chapter is to provide an exploration of the enterprise
landscape of Dubai by focussing on the past, present and future of
8 Exploring the Enterprise Landscape for Business Incubators… 193
business incubators and the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the United

Arab Emirates. The following section provides an overview of business
incubator theories, followed by the methods used to analyse the second-
ary data retrieved from desk-based research, the background of the coun-
try, historical and contemporary contexts of business incubators, and
lastly, concludes with a projection for the future of business incubators in
the United Arab Emirates but with a more specific focus on the emirate
of Dubai.
Business Incubators
Throughout the past few decades, to foster the entrepreneurial culture
and economic growth, business incubators (BIs) have been recognized as
general tools. Although there are many definitions for “Business
Incubators” (Bruneel et al., 2012), a widely accepted definition denotes
BIs as an “umbrella term for any organization that provides access to afford-
able office space and shared administrative services” (Bøllingtoft & Ulhøi,
2005, p. 269). The main purpose of BIs is to support new micro-size
businesses (fewer than ten employees) and small and medium enterprise
companies (SMEs) to become self-sustainable, successful business
ventures.
BIs became popular in the 1980s as a common area integrating micro-
size businesses and SMEs and providing office space for small companies
(Adkins, 2002). However, a lack of knowledge support and business skills
were the main obstacles hindering new businesses to become successful
and sustainable. Thus, in the 1990s, BIs offered business knowledge sup-
porting programmes in addition to infrastructure to expand their value
proposition (Lalkaka & Bishop, 1996). Facilitating access to effective
networks has been considered as a critical supporting factor beyond infra-
structure and knowledge support as well (Bruneel et al., 2012). BIs are
platforms to assist entrepreneurs in bringing their innovative ideas from
the theoretical level to the practical and financially thriving level by pro-
viding access to the required capital (Al-Mubaraki & Busler, 2017;
Mouallem, 2019).
There are contradictory opinions about the benefits of BIs for eco-
nomic growth and sustainability. While some investigations suggest that
BIs have little or no influence of on entrepreneurial growth, wealth cre-
ation, and industry/university contributions (Colombo & Delmastro,
2002; Phan et al., 2005; Rothaermel & Thursby, 2005), other studies
provide evidence suggesting the effective role of BIs in creating job oppor-
tunities, accelerating the diversification of the economy, enterprising cul-
ture, and university/industry collaboration (Allahar & Brathwaite, 2016;
Apa, 2017; Dvoultey, 2018; Ingram et al., 2010; Olkiewicz et al., 2017;
Pratono & Mahmood, 2015; Wolniak & Grebski, 2017).
The National Business Incubation Association (NBIA) is an interna-
tional non-profit organization with the main objective of fostering new
business firm occurrences and educating investors about the advantages
of BIs in order to promote business growth, entrepreneurial culture, and
global economic diversification and sustainability (Al-Mubaraki &
Busler, 2017). NBIA encompasses a community including venture capi-
tal investors, managers and developers, corporate joint venture partners,
and business and economy professionals. Business incubators can be clas-
sified based on their structure, the type of cohort they are accommodat-
ing, and the types of services they provide for their cohorts. For instance,
according to the NBIA’s definition, a technology incubator can be
imputed to any incubator that provides tangible technical and manage-
rial support, physical infrastructure, and financial and legal services with
access to financial and social capitals (Al-Mubaraki & Busler, 2017).
Although the performance of business incubator cohorts (micro-size
businesses and SMEs) has been investigated widely, there is a dearth of
research about the business incubators themselves (Yasin et al., 2021).
Similarly, there is no widely accepted and applicable business incubator
model (Lesáková, 2012, 2009). For instance, although the model that
was proposed by Campbell et al. (1985) was utilized by many studies
(Al-Mubaraki & Busler, 2017; Ayatse et al., 2017; Busler, 2014; Gozali
et al., 2015; Hackett & Dilts, 2004), however, due to the emphasis of this
model on venture capital (VC) firms, this model is more applicable for
countries with developed economic and entrepreneurial structures such
as the U.S. and European countries, and cannot be implemented within
underdeveloped economies such as GCC countries. Venture capital and
business proposals from business incubators nurture the business growth

in this model. Another BI model was proposed by Al-Mubaraki and
Busler (2012) which was more amenable for GCC countries. In this par-
adigm, types of BIs services, their graduate cohorts, their clients, and
their goals were the four dimensions of the BI model.
Methods
To obtain secondary data on business incubators and the entrepreneurial
ecosystem in the United Arab Emirates, a manual web search was con-
ducted by the authors using an online search engine (i.e. Google). The
search results were retrieved from various websites, national and official
governmental databases, government websites and portals, newspapers,
and published reports. All information presented is open-access and
therefore, publicly available. However, further information was obtained
using e-journals through institutional resource access on business incuba-
tors and entrepreneurial ecosystems in the UAE. The searches used to
retrieve the information included terms such as “business incubators in
Dubai”, “UAE incubators”, “entrepreneurial ecosystems in the UAE/
Dubai”, and “UAE vision and Enterprise”. The desk-based research was
conducted from August–September 2019 and was compiled into a the-
matic profile for categorization. This was followed by a detailed search for
further information from the business incubators through their official
websites for each of the initiatives, with a purpose to develop a greater
understanding about the range and services for each business incubator.
The data was then compiled into a matrix table to provide a holistic over-
view for each of the initiatives.
Country Profile: The United Arab Emirates

The United Arab Emirates is situated in the Gulf of the Middle East with
an overall population of 8.1 million (BBC, 2020). The UAE comprises
seven emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Fujairah, Ras Al Khaimah,
Sharjah, and Umm Al Quwain. Formerly known as the Trucial States,
each of these emirates joined the UAE in 1971–1972. The largest con-
centrations of the population are found in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and
Sharjah. The capital city of the United Arab Emirates is Abu Dhabi. The
UAE is an Islamic country and the official language is Arabic. However,
English is the most widely spoken language in the emirate of Dubai. The
population is composed of 15% native residents (i.e. Emiratis) while the
remaining 85% of the population comprises the expatriate population,
that are mostly from Asian countries (World Population Review, 2020).
There are more than 200 nationalities living and working in the UAE
with the largest ethnic communities belonging to Indians, followed by
Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, other Asians, Europeans, and Africans (UAE
Fact Sheet, 2020). There is a clear disparity between local and foreign
nationalities, as in 2019, the Government of Dubai reported 263,450
Emirati nationals in comparison to 3,092,450 non-Emirati residents
(Dubai Statistics Center, 2019).
The Federal Competitiveness and Statistics Authority (2018) reported
non-oil foreign trade from direct trade and free zone imports of 895.5
billion dirhams (AED), non-oil exports of 206 billion dirham and re-
exports of 431.55 billion dirhams. In 2019, the GDP remained constant
at 1442.5 billion dirhams. The emirate of Dubai is the fourth most open
economy globally and the most exposed economy in the Gulf for foreign
trade and capital investment (OECD, 2018). The official report further
emphasized that Dubai’s GDP is categorized under 20 economic catego-
ries comprising wholesale and retail trade (26.6%); transport and storage
(11.8%); financial and insurance (10.4%); manufacturing (9.4%); real
estate (7.1%); construction (6.3%); accommodation and food (4.9%);
public administration, defence, and social security (5.1%); information
and communication (4.1%); professional, scientific, and technical
(3.6%); administrative and support services (3.0%); and electricity, gas,
steam, and air conditioning supplies (2.6%).
Developing, regulating, and promoting the sustainable growth of
Dubai’s diversified economy is a national priority and therefore, the gov-
ernment is keen on developing an effective entrepreneurial ecosystem
(Bahoshy, 2019). The emirate of Dubai hosts the majority of BIs in the
UAE and successfully attracts local and foreign start-ups through its
attractive policies, market size and potential, and inexpensive support
programmes that promote a strong culture of entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, BIs play a crucial role in the sustainable economic growth
of the UAE by nurturing businesses and increasing the survival rate of
start-ups (Bahoshy, 2019).
Following the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) independence from the
United Kingdom (UK) in 1971, the UAE initiated significant strategies
to develop its economic structure. Initially, oil revenues were the main
pillar of its economic growth. However, the UAE started to diversify its
development from a fossil fuel-based economy towards businesses such as
transportation, tourism, finance, and real state. To build a strong infra-
structure for these newly targeted business sectors, the UAE invested
from its oil revenue and foreign investments (Tong et al., 2012).
The combination of hydrocarbon revenue and foreign labour has had
a remarkable influence on the regional development of the GCC coun-
tries throughout history (Ennis, 2013). Thus, the UAE opened its door
to recruit from around the world (Aboud, 2000; Corm, 2009; Tabutin
et al., 2002; Tong et al., 2012). Although it was significantly effective in
developing business growth and strengthening the entrepreneurial cul-
ture and infrastructure, this policy led to around 93% expatriates occu-
pying the labour market of the UAE (Ennis, 2015). Hence, although in
general, the unemployment rate in the UAE stands at a low percentage
of around 4%, the unemployment rate among Emirati nationals in 2011
was as high as about 14% (UAE National Bureau of Statistics, 2010). To
counteract this issue, the UAE government further encouraged UAE
nationals to start up their own businesses by facilitating the entrepre-
neurial process, providing education and knowledge-based training pro-
grammes, offering financial, legal and industrial support, and enhancing
the communication access to required social capital (McCrohan et al.,
2009; Preiss & McCrohan, 2007). Although these programmes were
mainly offered to UAE nationals, the entrepreneurial ecosystem created
as a result of these efforts provided expatriates with a welcoming envi-
ronment appropriate for starting enterprising businesses (Tong
et al., 2012).
istorical and Contemporary Contexts

H
of Business Incubators
The published history of government-backed entrepreneurship in the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) dates to the 1990s when the government
aimed to foster entrepreneurial culture among Emirati citizens without
any landscape changes in the residential neighbourhoods. In 1999, Dubai
Economic Development Department (DED) began licencing projects
related to small private family (home-based) businesses under a pro-
gramme called “Intilaq” (Roomi & Ibrahim, 2004). Based on DED
records and evaluations, the number of registered home-based businesses
increased from 60 enterprises in 1999 to 576 in 2004. This programme
was exclusively targeting Emirati citizens (Roomi & Ibrahim, 2004).
After that, in 2002, “Dubai SME” also known as the “Mohammed bin
Rashid Establishment for SMEs” was formed as a division of the DED
with the aim of equipping new start-ups and SMEs with the required
knowledge and outreach support to further diversify the UAE economy
from oil revenue (The UAE’s startup ecosystem and opportunities for US
investors, 2017). To this end, business incubators were established mainly
in the emirates of Dubai, and sparsely in the emirates of Sharjah and Abu
Dhabi. Some of the prominent UAE-based BIs are represented in
Table 8.1.
About 80% of enterprising ventures in the UAE are micro enterprises.
In 2008, the UAE Ministry of Labour announced the number of regis-
tered and successful micro enterprises (with less than ten employees) to
be near 200,000 business ventures (Tong et al., 2012). This illustrates the
success of governmental strategies in promoting entrepreneurial culture,
diversifying the economy from hydrocarbon revenue, fostering wealth
creation, and creating job opportunities. Based on data retrieved from the
Dubai Statistics Centre, early-stage start-ups contribute up to approxi-
mately 50% of newly registered companies in the emirate of Dubai.
Furthermore, such appeal demonstrates the importance of Dubai becom-
ing a global centre for entrepreneurship, knowledge transfer, and innova-
tion (Entrepreneur, 2019).
Table 8.1 The trend of BIs establishment in the UAE from 2002 to 2016
BIs name Established in Location Website
Hamdan Innovation 2002 Dubai http://hi2.ae/
Incubator (HI2)
Dubai Silicon Oasis 2004 Dubai https://www.arabnet.me/english/ecosystem/Incubators/
Founders Silicon-Oasis-Founders
Faster Capital 2010 Dubai http://www.tradearabia.com/news/EDU_311986.html
HoneyBee Tech Ventures 2011 Dubai http://hbtventures.com/#news
Afkar.me 2013 Dubai http://afkar.me
in5 Innovation Centre 2013 Dubai http://infive.ae
Masdar Incubator Building 2013 Abu Dhabi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City
The Kitchen Nation 2015 Dubai https://kitchennation.ae
1776 2016 Dubai https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/275839
The Cribb 2016 Dubai https://www.dubaichamber.com/dubaistartuphub/tag/
the-cribb/
ShjSEEN Incubate Program 2016 Sharjah http://mystartupworld.com/
(“The Whole”) shjseen-plans-to-expand-its-activities-to-cover-the-entire-
gcc-region/
Source: Authors
8 Exploring the Enterprise Landscape for Business Incubators…
199
In 2019, a new business incubator programme known as “Bedayat”, in

partnership with the Sustainable City (a city with net zero energy con-
sumption, in the emirate of Dubai), launched its support for entrepre-
neurship and to further strengthen the start-up entrepreneurial ecosystem
in food technology, energy, water, building materials, transportation, and
waste treatment (The National, 2019). The authority has backed more
than 7000 business start-ups since 2002. The UAE government has suc-
cessfully developed a range of initiatives that support the development of
new start-ups such as Area 2071 that is governed by the Dubai Future
Foundation to nurture global talents and grow businesses in the UAE. This
platform provides strategic partners, entrepreneurs, and investors with a
common network for its members, and provides subsidized licencing fees
for commercial licencing. More recently, the Fazaa Centre for Business
Incubators and Accelerators, established in 2020, provides logistical sup-
port, training, qualifications, studies, and consultancies to Emirati entre-
preneurs. This enables the tenants of the incubator to establish projects
through a range of services and overcome the challenge of managing,
financing, and marketing entrepreneurial business ventures. Some of the
leading incubators and accelerators include Dubai Smart City Accelerator,
Turn8, Impact Hub, in5, Flat6Labs, Dtec, and Dubai Future Accelerator.
The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research has also
made progressive steps towards contributing to the national vision for
greater emphasis on creative, enterprising, and innovative future gradu-
ates. In collaboration with the Stanford Center for Professional
Development, academics from each institution have been trained with
contemporary and emergent procedures for the effective delivery of enter-
prise education. The importance of enterprise education in higher educa-
tion is increasingly being recognized. For example, the Canadian University
of Dubai hosted a Young Entrepreneurs Showcase with an aim to help
small businesses and future start-ups from students to showcase their
enterprises to the University community. In addition, the University also
launched mandatory courses for all students to develop awareness of the
importance of enterprising and entrepreneurial skills (Canadian University
Dubai, 2019). Furthermore, Canadian University Dubai endeavours to
create its own student and graduate business incubator to support stu-
dents in their entrepreneurial aspirations and encourage spin offs.
The Future for Business Incubators in the UAE

Over the past few decades, the UAE government exhibited remarkable
support of advancing entrepreneurial culture through knowledge trans-
ferring and knowledge sharing training programmes, financial and legal
assistance, and access to required social capital. The impressive eco-
nomic revolution since 1971 transformed this desert to having the larg-
est share in hosting start-ups in the MENA (Middle East and North
Africa) region—accommodating 35% of all start-ups in MENA
countries.
The UAE’s vision 2021 was to prioritize entrepreneurship and innova-
tion as a national mission to “form the pillars of a knowledge-based,
highly productive and competitive economy, driven by entrepreneurs in
a business-friendly environment where public and private sectors form
effective partnership” (UAE vision 2021, 2018). Now, as we get closer to
2021, it is obvious that the UAE initiated a variety of innovative strate-
gies in order to bring this vision into reality.
Moving forward, the UAE’s vision for 2021 to 2030 will elevate the
UAE to become the global manifestation of sustainable, knowledge-
based, and innovative-oriented business hub through the following
strategies:
1. Dubai 3D Printing Strategy

with the objective to ensure that by 2030, about 25% of buildings in
Dubai are constructed based on 3D printing technology.
2. Dubai Industrial Strategy 2030
with the key goal to make Dubai the main centre for environmentally
friendly and energy-efficient manufacturing, based on deep industrial
knowledge and innovation.
3. Dubai Autonomous Transportation Strategy
with the aim to transform 25% of the transportation sector in Dubai
by 2030 to autonomous vehicle features, reduce traffic accidents by
12% and increase individual vehicle productivity by 13%.
4. Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park in Dubai
as the largest solar park in the world, this project, that was launched
in 2013, has a plan to raise the clean solar energy consumption in
Dubai by 25% and build the world’s tallest solar tower by 2030.
The UAE vision for 2021 has mainly evolved to blossom in Dubai and
make this emirate the hub of entrepreneurship with a friendly and
dynamic business environment. Thus, to make this massive progress fur-
ther transmissible, the UAE appears to have started focusing on other
emirates as well. Beginning with the emirate of Abu Dhabi for its 2021
to 2030 vision, through these master plans:
1. Surface Transport Master Plan (Abu Dhabi)

with the main goal to achieve a world-class sustainable transportation
system in Abu Dhabi that utilizes solar power, decreases carbon emis-
sions, and encourages walking and biking to maintain and respect the
unique environment and nature of this city.
2. Abu Dhabi Transportation Mobility Management Strategy
with the intention to promote public transportation and create a mul-
timodal transportation system to reduce traffic growth and congestion
in Abu Dhabi.
3. Plan Abu Dhabi 2030
with the purpose of bringing conceptual solutions regarding land use,
environment, open spaces, transportation, and the image of the capi-
tal city into a reality.
4. Environment Vision 2030 (Abu Dhabi)
with the main objective to address climate change, waste manage-
ment, water resource management, clean air and noise reduction, and
conservation of habitat and cultural heritage.
5. Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030
with the aim to focus further on the diversification of Abu Dhabi’s
economy from oil revenue towards knowledge-based industrial sectors
by building an open and efficient business environment, developing
strong financial markets and business infrastructure, and improving
the efficiency of the labour market.
The simultaneous progress of Abu Dhabi and Dubai as it has been

planned can be interpreted from different perspectives. From one view-
point it will create another emirate to transfer to a knowledge-based and
innovation-focused economy, and also, diversify the access to business-
related opportunities and entrepreneurial-focused facilities from Dubai.
On the other hand, it will create a bipolar economic blueprint in two
distinct centres that may empower each other through positive and con-
structive competition. This will even further promote the emirate of
Dubai as a symbol of national inspiration for business success and eco-
nomic transformation for other emirates of the UAE.
Conclusion
The United Arab Emirates has made impressive strides in developing its
entrepreneurial ecosystem, fuelled with a wide range of supporting ser-
vices for business incubators and aspiring entrepreneurs to launch their
businesses. Based on this exploration of the entrepreneurial ecosystem,
there is a greater need for the development of academic business incuba-
tors within Universities in Dubai. This will inevitably develop enterpris-
ing and entrepreneurial graduates who will be at the forefront of the next
generation of creative innovators in social and commercial entrepreneur-
ship activities. However, to achieve this outcome, Universities will need
to engage with the entrepreneurial ecosystem, adopt innovative peda-
gogical approaches (Yasin & Hafeez, 2018) and develop a facilitating
environment that is conducive for creative, strategic, and design thinking.
Due to the evident emphasis of the UAE’s vision for 2021 to 2030 on
knowledge-based and innovative industries and technologies, these sig-
nificant strategies will be the propellant force that will create more start-
ups and engage more BIs to accommodate knowledge-based businesses.
Based on the UAE’s achieving the goals mentioned in their 2021 vision,
and glancing at its future vision, the next few decades will be an era of
growth, development and maturation of high-tech businesses, clean
energy evolution, economic sustainability, and cultural and social trans-
formation towards a more dynamic, lively, and vigorous UAE. Based on
the analysis of the historical and contemporary developments for a
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem, and the dynamism among busi-

ness incubators, Dubai is an attractive destination for both budding and
seasoned entrepreneurs who wish to capitalize on the next generation of
innovation and commercial opportunities.
References
Aboud, B. (2000). Re-reading Arab world’s new world immigration history:
Beyond the prewar/postwar divide. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
26(4), 653–673.
Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2001). The emergence of the entrepreneurial soci-
ety. Foundation for Small Business Research.
Adkins, D. (2002). A brief history of business incubation in the United States.
National Business Incubation Association.
Allahar, H., & Brathwaite, C. (2016). Business incubation as an instrument of
innovation: The experience of South America and the Caribbean. International
Journal of Innovation, 2(1), 71–85.
Al-Mubaraki, H., & Busler, M. (2012). A comparative study of incubators land-
scapes in the Europe and Middle East. European Journal of Business and
Al-Mubaraki, H. M., & Busler, M. (2017). Challenges and opportunities of
innovation and incubators as a tool for knowledge-based economy. Journal of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6(15), 1–18.
Apa, R. (2017). The social and business dimensions of a networked business
incubator: The case of H-Farm. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 24(2), 198–221.
Ayatse, F., Kwahar, N., & Iyortsuun, A. S. (2017). Business incubation process
and firm performance: An empirical review. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship
Research, 7(2), 1–17.
Bahoshy, P. (2019). The startup ecosystem in the Arab world. https://magnitt.
com/research/45361/startup-ecosystem-arab-world
BBC. (2020). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14703998
Bøllingtoft, A., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2005). The networked business incubator—
leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2),
265–290.
Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. (2012). The evolution of
business incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation
services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32(2), 110–121.
Busler, M. (2014). Incubator successes. World Journal of Science, Technology and
Sustainable Development, 11(1), 44–52.
Campbell, C., Kendrick, R. C., & Samuelson, D. S. (1985). Stalking the latent
entrepreneur: Business incubators and economic development. Economic
Development Review, 3(2), 43–49.
Canadian University Dubai. (2019). https://www.cud.ac.ae/news/cud-young-
entrepreneurs-showcase-their-businesses
Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incu-
bators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.
Corm, G. (2009). Labor migration in Middle East and North Africa: A view from
the region. Background paper for Shaping the Future. World Bank.
Dubai Statistics Centre. (2019). https://www.dsc.gov.ae/en-us/Themes/Pages/
Population-and-Vital-Statistics.aspx?Theme=42
Dvoultey, O. (2018). Are publicly funded Czech incubators effective? The com-
parison of performance of supported and non-supported firms. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 21(4), 543–563.
Ennis, C. (2013). Rentier 2.0: Entrepreneurship promotion and the (re) imagina-
tion of political economy in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Ennis, C. A. (2015). Between trend and necessity: Top-Down entrepreneurship
promotion in Oman and Qatar. The Muslim World, 105(1), 116–138.
Entrepreneur. (2019). https://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2019/
Gozali, L., Masrom, M., Haron, H. N., & Zagloel, T. Y. M. (2015). A frame-
work of successful e-business incubator for Indonesian public universities.
The Asian Journal of Technology Management, 8(2), 120–314.
Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A systematic review of business incuba-
tion research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.
Ingram, P., Luo, J., & Eshun, J. P. (2010). Institutional rivalry and the entrepre-
neurial strategy of economic development: Business incubator foundings in
three states. In W. D. Sine & R. J. David (Eds.), Institutions and
Entrepreneurship (Research in the sociology of work) (Vol. 21, pp. 127–155).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Jonek-Kowalska, I. (2018). Method for assessing the development of under-
ground hard coal mines on a regional basis: The concept of measurement and
research results. Energies, 11(6), 1370.
Jones, G., Fleming, S., & Laugharne, J. (2020). The challenge of enterprise/
innovation: A case study of a modern university. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 44(1), 126–142.
Lalkaka, R., & Bishop, J. (1996). Business incubators in economic development—
an initial assessment in industrialising countries. United Nation Development
Programme, New York.
Lesáková, L. (2009). Determinants of Innovation activities in small and medium
enterprises in Slovakia. In Innovations—Factor determining competitiveness of
small and medium enterprises in the global business environment (pp. 214–223).
Faculty of Economics, Matej Bel University.
Lesáková, L. (2012). The role of business incubators in supporting the SME
Start-up. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 9(3), 85–95.
Lose, T., & Tengeh, R. K. (2015). The sustainability and challenges of business
incubators in the Western Cape Province. South Africa. Sustainability, 7(10),
14344–14357.
Malindžák, D., Pacana, A., & Pačaiová, H. (2017). Effective model of environ-
mental and logistics system quality improvements for cement factory vessels.
Przemysł Chemiczny, 9, 1958–1962.
McCrohan, D., Erogul, M. S., Vellinga, N., & Tong, Q. (2009). Global entrepre-
neurship report on entrepreneurship in the United Arab Emirates. Zayed
University.
Mouallem, A. (2019). Startups incubators in the UAE are boosting entrepre-
neurs. https://atiejelmouallem.com/startup-incubators-in-the-uae/
OECD. (2018). https://www.oecd.org/countries/unitedarabemirates/
Olkiewicz, M., Wolniak, R., Eva-Grebski, M., & Olkiewicz, A. (2017).
Comparative analysis of the impact of the business incubator center on the
economic sustainable development of regions in USA and Poland.
Sustainability, 11(1), 2199–2201.
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators:
Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing,
20(2), 165–182.
Pratono, A. H., & Mahmood, R. (2015). Mediating effect of marketing capabil-
ity and reward philosophy in the relationship between entrepreneurial orien-
tation and firm performance. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-015-0023-x
Preiss, K., & McCrohan, D. (2007). Global entrepreneurship report on entrepre-
neurship in the United Arab Emirates. Zayed University.
Ramírez, V. C. L., Flores, C. L. V., Borbón, M. R., del Río, S. V., & Ramírez,
M. A. N. (2018). Absorptive capacities and innovation in graduated compa-
nies from a business incubator in the North of Mexico. International Journal
of Advanced Corporate Learning, 11(2), 11–15.
Roomi, O. A., & Ibrahim, M. (2004). Performance determinants of home-
based businesses in Dubai. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences,
20(2), 61–82.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge
flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy,
34(3), 305–320.
Tabutin, D., Shoumaker, B., Godfrey, R., Mandelbaum, J., & Dutreuilh, C. (2002).
The demography of the Arab world and the Middle East from the 1950s to the
2000s. A survey of changes and a statistical assessment. Population,
60(5/6), 505–615.
The Federal Competitiveness and Statistics Authority. (2018). https://fcsa.
gov.ae/en-us
The National. (2019). https://www.thenational.ae
The UAE’s startup ecosystem and opportunities for US investors. (2017). http://
usuaebusiness.org/wp-c ontent/uploads/2017/03/Invest-U AE_EE_
digital.pdf
Tong, Q., McCrohan, D., & Erogul, M. (2012). An analysis of entrepreneur-
ship across five major nationality groups in the United Arab Emirates. Journal
of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 1250007.
UAE Fact Sheet. (2020). https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/fact-sheet
UAE National Bureau of Statistics. (2010). UAE population estimates
2006–2010. www.uaestatistics.gov.ae/ReportPDF/Population%20
Estimates%202006%20-%202010.pdf
UAE vision 2021. (2018). http://dubai.ae/SiteCollectionDocuments/UAE_
Vision_2021_English.pdf
UAE vision 2021 to 2030. (2019). https://u.ae/en/more/uae-future/2021-2030
Wolniak, R., & Grebski, M. E. (2017). Functioning of the business incubator
center in Gliwice. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki S ́la ̨skiej. Seria Organizacja
i Zarza ̨dzanie, 105, 569–580.
World Population Review. (2020). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-
east-14703998
Yasin, N., & Hafeez, K. (2018). Enterprise simulation gaming: Effective prac-
tices for assessing student learning with SimVenture Classic and VentureBlocks.
In D. Hyams-Ssekasi & E. Caldwell (Eds.), Experiential learning for entrepre-

neurship. Palgrave Macmillan.
Yasin, N., Tirmizi, K., & Khansari, Z. (2021). Evaluating the challenges for
entrepreneurship business incubators in the United Arab Emirates.
International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 12(2), 190–212.
Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualiza-
tion, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
9
Entrepreneurship and Culture:
Challenges and Opportunities
Mohammad Rashed Khan, Roshan Panditharathna,
Md Ismil Hossain, and David Bamber
Introduction
The world economy is constantly changing so that more and more ener-
getic and flexible young firms emerge day by day to form the “entrepre-
neurial economy” (Audretsch et al., 2002). Both developed and
developing countries experience these changes. This guides scholars and
business leaders to think about how these changes are occurring, noting
that these changes are not happening in all countries at the same time and
at the same pace. Consequently, different countries have different success
rates of entrepreneurship across the world (Freytag & Thurik, 2007;
Wennekers, 2006). This raises some very important questions, for
M. R. Khan • M. I. Hossain • D. Bamber

e-mail: r.khan3@bolton.ac.uk; m.hossain@bolton.ac.uk;
david.bamber@bolton.ac.uk
R. Panditharathna (*)
Business Academy, Newcastle University Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
e-mail: roshan.panditharathna@ncl-coll.ac.uk
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_9
210 M. R. Khan et al.
example why do countries differ remarkably in their level of entrepre-

neurial activity and why are some countries are more entrepreneurial
than others?
Despite the extensive research on the variability of entrepreneurial suc-
cess across countries, variations among nations have not been adequately
clarified by conventional economic and political approaches. National cul-
ture has been recognised to contribute to such variations, with Huntington
(1997) arguing that national cultures upon which civilisations are estab-
lished overarch current technological advances, thus providing lasting vari-
ations among cultures. Therefore, it can be assumed that culture can
contribute to uncovering the variation in entrepreneurial success levels
among nations (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004, p. 104). How national culture
impacts the degree of entrepreneurial activity is an old research question in
the entrepreneurship field. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are taken as case
countries with different profiles in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model.
Bangladesh, a country in South Asia, is located in the delta of the
Padma (Ganges) and Jamuna (Brahmaputra) rivers in the North-East of
the Indian subcontinent (Worlddata, 2019). In 1971 Bangladesh became
an independent country with its capital at Dhaka. In Bangladesh, the
main export products are clothing and knitwear, agricultural products,
seafood, jute, and leather (Worlddata, 2019). In 2020, the unemploy-
ment rate in Bangladesh was at approximately 4.15%. After a decrease
from 2010 through 2011, Bangladesh’s unemployment has been steady
at around 4.2% (Worldbank, 2021). In Bangladesh, the population liv-
ing below the national poverty line dropped to 20.5% in 2019 from
24.3% in 2016 (Worldbank, 2021). In Bangladesh, the proportion of
employed population below $1.90 purchasing power parity a day is 5.6%
in 2019 (Worldbank, 2021). In contrast, laying off the southern tip of
India, the tropical island of Sri Lanka has attracted visitors for centuries
with its natural beauty. But it has been scarred by a long and bitter civil
war arising out of ethnic tensions between the majority Sinhalese and the
Tamil minority based in the North and East. Services accounted for
58.2% of Sri Lanka’s economy in 2019 up from 54.6% in 2010, industry
27.4% up from 26.4% a decade earlier and agriculture 7.4% BBC
(2021). Sri Lanka has met the Millennium Development Goal (MDG)
target of halving extreme poverty and is on track to meet most of the
9 Entrepreneurship and Culture: Challenges and Opportunities 211
other MDGs, outperforming other South Asian countries (Worldbank,

2021). Sri Lanka’s inflation rate has been “through the wringer” and the
inflation rate fluctuated from around 7% in 2013 to a sudden slump to
around 2% in 2015 with a rapid upturn and peak at 6.5% in 2017 again
(O’Neill, 2021). Sri Lanka has among the lowest extreme poverty rates
among countries in the region, as 1.8% of the population were estimated
to be extremely poor in 2013 (Worldbank, 2021). However, living stan-
dards remain low, as nearly 45% of the population lived on less than $5
per day in 2013 (Worldbank, 2021). Key demographic comparison
between Bangladesh and Sri Lanka can be found in Table 9.1.
Methodology and Framework of the Study

This study used extensive desk research: analysing data from existing
sources. Here, desk research collected, and analysed information pro-
vided on public platforms, using sources from the Internet, newspaper
Table 9.1 Country comparison

Indicators Bangladesh Sri Lanka
Population 163,046,000 21,803,000
Inhabitants/km2 1104.40 332.3
Life expectancy males 71 years 74 years
Life expectancy females 75 years 80 years
Gross domestic product 302,571 M US$ 84,009 M US$
Gross national product 316,235 M US$ 87,694 M US$
Exported goods 44,961 M US$ 19,414 M US$
Imported goods 64,234 M US$ 24,562 M US$
Unemployment rate 5.30% 4.80%
Inflation rate 5.69% 6.15%
Cost of Living 43.05% 35.30%
Average income US $1940 US $4020
Corruption index 26 (very bad) 38 (bad)
Political stability 40/100 51/100
Civil rights 25/100 44/100
Health 43/100 59/100
Cost of living 61/100 53/100
Hospital beds per 1000 0.8 3.6
Physicians per 1000 0.53 0.96
Source: Worlddata (2019)
articles, printed magazines, market intelligence, government reports,

databases, statistics, and data sets. Then, the Hofstede 6D Model of
national culture was used to illustrate the profiles of both case countries:
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The major reason of selecting these countries
is that their governments espouse to be keen on the development of
entrepreneurship activities. Nevertheless, it is noted that there are unequal
opportunities for women in entrepreneurship in both Bangladesh and Sri
Lanka due to historical, cultural, and religious taboos (Al Mamun
et al., 2021).
Culture
Before discussing entrepreneurship, opportunities, and challenges, it is
important to have a clear idea about culture and different country cul-
tural profiles. Around seven decades ago a famous anthropologist
Kluckhohn (1951) provided some ideas and values that culture includes.
According to him “the culture consists of patterns of thinking, feeling
and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting
the distinctive achievements of human groups, including how to make
the products” (p. 86). Kluckhohn (1951) stated that the basic principle
of culture contains traditional ideas and associated values of the society.
Another anthropologist White (1959) defines culture as; “an extraso-
matic continuum (non-genetic, non-corporal) and temporal things and
dependent facts of symbolization” and simplified its contents more pre-
cisely “Culture consists of tools, implements, utensils, clothing, orna-
ments, customs, institutions, beliefs, rituals, games, art, [and] language”
(p. 3). Later Geertz (1973) briefly defined culture as: “the sets of control
mechanisms, plans, recipes, symbols, rules, [and] constructions” (p. 44).
In the meantime, Hofstede (1991) defines culture in a slightly different
way: “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the
members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede,
1991, p. 5). Here the “category” means “nations and regions within or
between nations, ethnic groups, religions, occupations, organizations or
genres” (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). In recent more years, a number of
scholars, organisations, and authors have explained culture based on
those previous definitions and basic elements of culture (Favaretto et al.,

2019; Gorodnichenko & Roland, 2021; Vitolla et al., 2021). UNESCO
also provided a definition of culture which is “the set of distinctive spiri-
tual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a soci-
ety or social group” (Kaladzavi et al., 2019, p. 2). Generally, from
Hofstede’s definition, cultural differences came into the light and
prompted others to think about how culture varies from group to group
and nations to nations. According to, George and Zahra (2002) “culture
is the set of values of a nation, a region or an organization; also, culture
shares and strengthens social institutions, and over time, these institu-
tions, reinforce cultural values” (Castillo-Palacio et al., 2017, p. 3). This
implies that culture and social institutions support each other. Russell
et al. (2010) state that culture is a combination of a country’s formal and
informal institutions which is related to that country’s citizens’ daily life
activities. Thus, culture is the system of values for a specific group or
society. It motivates and develops individuals’ behavioural qualities that
may not be observed in other societies (Pinillos & Reyes, 2011). This
implies that culture plays a very significant role in people’s values, atti-
tudes, ideas, and norms but some people can realise this, and others can-
not. This is also evident that however in every country of the world there
are diverse people from diverse cultural backgrounds but most of them
manifest a dominant culture. The research programme Global Leadership
and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) found that culture
means motives, values, beliefs, and identities shared by people in a group
or society. From these common experiences, it emerges, develops, and
spreads from generation to generation to fit the environment (House
et al., 2002). Individuals shape society by using culture. In other words,
culture helps people to give a shape or moderate the society where they
belong. If we look around there are many things that are part of our cul-
ture, but we never notice prudently. For example, the way we greet each
other, the dresses we put on ourselves, the language we use, the religion
we believe in, and our overall lifestyle all are directly intertwined in our
culture. Thus, culture involves every aspect of our daily life which neces-
sarily includes business enterprise extensively. The following section of
the chapter goes further to discuss the relationship between culture and
entrepreneurship.
Culture and Entrepreneurship
Culture plays an important role as a significant element of economic
growth. From the history of economic development, it is evident that
culture has a big impact on it (Landes, 1998). German sociologist Max
Weber first wrote about the relation between culture and economy where
he discussed how cultural values, norms, beliefs, traditions, rituals, arte-
facts, and psychological motivations affect the economy of a country
(Harutyunyan & Özak, 2017). Abaho et al. (2013) claim that culture
influences individuals’ value prepositions and their willingness to change
through values of religions, personal associations, and social eccentricity.
Consequently, culture also has effects on the acceptance and acclimatisa-
tion of observation of business opportunities. Over time it has been
stated that national cultures expressively affect countries’ productivity,
creativity, uniqueness, and invention (Harutyunyan & Özak, 2017).
Additionally, Hofstede (2001) specifically at the organisational pointed
out the effect of culture. He claims that different types of economic man-
agement behaviour are influenced by national culture. Thus, entrepre-
neurship is directly related to the national culture as the roots of
entrepreneurial attitude and behaviours take place in the structure of
socio-culture and value systems of the society. Some studies pointed out
that entrepreneurial activities are particularly related to cultural indica-
tors (Autio et al., 2013). For example, according to Minniti et al. (2006),
cultural and social norms are major factors for the nation’s different levels
of entrepreneurial activity. Although there is a link between national cul-
ture and entrepreneurial success, Cacciotti and Hayton (2017) argue that
how and to what extent culture impacts entrepreneurial attitudes is not
clear yet. On the other hand, Çelikkol et al. (2019) opine that the effects
of national culture can be identified mainly at two levels. Firstly, at the
communal level when the whole society or the group is influenced by the
national culture, and this can be in either negative or positive ways as
“national culture and its values shape the structures of social, political and
technical systems of the society which support or render entrepreneur-
ship” (Çelikkol et al., 2019, p. 780). Secondly, at the individual level
which happens when a person gets motivations, inspirations,
encouragement, or experiences barriers and hindrances from their own

culture. The socio-cultural citizens who are going to appear in the entre-
preneurship personification are generally glimpsed at a person’s value sys-
tem (Çelikkol et al., 2019). Moreover, an individual’s approach towards
entrepreneurship can be shaped through an advantageous and beneficial
culture with values which is full of inspiring entrepreneurial directions
(Krueger et al., 2013). Consequently, these values and directions influ-
ence individuals’ basic entrepreneurial characteristics, such as self-reliant
decision making, assessing, and taking risk, efficiency, and aspiration to
become an entrepreneur. Besides an extensive number of studies show
that national culture consistently affects various entrepreneurial behav-
iour (Suddle et al., 2010). National culture is a broad and elusive con-
cept. Therefore, cross- country studies that analyse the influence of
national culture widely consider Hofstede’s cultural dimensions which
are also famously known as Hofstede’s 6D Model (Kirkman et al., 2006).
The following section discusses this model.
Hofstede’s 6D Model of National Culture

Greet Hofstede was a Dutch social psychologist. At the end of the 1970s,
he came up with dimensions of the national culture and scored all the
nations across the world through their cultural traits. In the beginning,
he introduced four dimensions, and later he developed this model with
two more dimensions. These dimensions are power distance, individual-
ism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and
indulgence (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Power distance index (PDI) indicates how society accepts the unequal
distribution of power and authority. In highly accepted cultures less pow-
erful people recognise power inequality as a normal instance and they are
substantially exploited by the comparatively powerful people. Therefore,
less powerful people are dependent on more powerful people (Hofstede,
2001). Carayannis (2013) states, “Power Distance is the measure of what
extent inequality is accepted within a culture” (p. 635). This implies that
countries with a high PDI score show that power is not shared and is nar-
rowly distributed. Consequently, citizens accept and adapt to unequally
power distribution situations. In a high PDI culture, individuals’ social

status and positions significantly matter, and powerful people are rich
who mostly control the society. Hofstede’s study shows Arab countries
have PDI and their score is 80 where Austria has very low with a
score of 11.
Individualism versus collectivism (IDV) refers to the bond among the
people of the society. It also articulates how individuals in a group care
about each other and what do they think only about themselves and oth-
ers where they belong to. People in individualistic cultures are less inte-
grated into the group and emphasise “I” rather than “we”. On the other
hand, people in the collectivistic culture are loyal to the group and their
community, they show strong ties among them, and they tend to be
responsible for one another’s welfare. For that reason, in collectivistic cul-
tures, people live with their extended family members and they depend
on each other a lot (Bogatyreva et al., 2019). But individualism shows
people are living independently and live a self-controlled life (Carayannis,
2013). In this model, the USA shows high individualistic culture with a
score of 91 where Guatemala has a very strong collectivistic culture, and
its score is only 6.
The third dimension of Hofstede’s cultural model is masculinity versus
femininity (MAS). According to Favaretto et al. (2019) masculinity sig-
nifies “a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and
material rewards for success” (p. 46) and femininity indicates “a prefer-
ence for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life”
(p. 46). Basically, this dimension describes the roles of gender in society.
Roles and responsibilities of male and female are quite straightforward in
a masculine society. Men usually play an important role as self-reliant and
strong. They are responsible for material things. But women are the sym-
bol of patience, softness, and politeness. They are responsible for home-
making, looking after children and elderly people at home, and deal with
other daily life issues. On the other hand, in feminine cultures, roles of
genders are not specific and can be overlapped; however, females share
their views of modesty and caring equally with males. High masculinity
cultures “tend to be oriented toward wealth, career, independence, and
leave for work, whereas, in cultures with a low level of masculinity,
individuals prefer to work to live with an emphasis on relationships and

social interactions” (Çelikkol et al., 2019, p. 783). Japan scored 95 which
is the highest score in this dimension, while Sweden’s score is only 5
which means the country has a very high femininity culture.
Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) refers to individuals’ fear or anxiety,
remarked in uncertain situations. This dimension of culture illustrates
“the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be
known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen?” (Kraman
et al., 2018, p. 276) Different culture has different views to answer this
question. Therefore, UAI signifies how members of societies search for
truth. Au et al. (2018) claim that in high uncertainty avoidance cultures
people do not feel comfortable dealing with uncertainty and they recog-
nise uncertainty as a threat however, avoiding uncertainty does not mean
avoiding risk. Hofstede’s study found that in high-scoring countries peo-
ple get involved in risky behaviour as it diminishes uncertainties and
implies fewer chances of failure. On the other hand, in low uncertainty
avoidance cultures, individuals are comparatively more comfortable with
unfamiliar situations, and they dare to face them (Hofstede, 2001). In
this model, Greece scores the highest with 100, and the lowest score goes
to Singapore with 8.
Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation (LTO vs. STO) is
known as Confucian Dynamism too. It refers to the time horizon people
in a society that how people think about their past, present, and future
doings. Therefore, it links the association of the past with the present and
upcoming activities, actions, or challenges. In some cultures, members of
the societies consider their pasts and learn lessons from them and take
necessary steps for the present and future such as trying to be thrift and
perseverance to get a good outcome in the future. This implies that these
cultures have LTO. People also order relationships by their status and
observe this order and have a sense of shame in high LTO cultures. On
the contrary, STO gives emphasis to the qualities that are linked to the
past and present. People in this culture give importance to principles,
constancy, and truth. They show respect for customs and traditions, and
they are typically religious and nationalistic (Hofstede et al., 2010,
p. 239). Nigeria scored the lowest and China scored the highest in this
dimension with 13 and 87, respectively.
Indulgence versus restraint (IVR) is the sixth and newest dimension of
Hofstede’s 6D Model. IVR concerns about the degree of freedom that
societal standards, patterns, and norms give to its members in accom-
plishing their human desires, such as pleasure, enjoyment, fun, and
entertainment in their daily life. Indulgent society allows “relatively free
gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life
and having fun” (Favaretto et al., 2019, p. 48). On the other hand, a
restraint society “suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by
means of strict social norms” (Favaretto et al., 2019, p. 48) reflects the
determinants of a measure of happiness or what the psychologists call
“subjective well-being”. In an indulgent culture, people feel comfortable
to spend money for their personal enjoyment. They love to amuse them-
selves in social activities or alone. But in restraint culture, some different
social norms and prohibitions restrain people’s activities related to their
personal entertainments. In these societies gratifying human desires,
searching for personal happiness, spending money for individual enter-
taining activities are somehow considered improper actions (Hofstede
et al., 2010). However, there is not enough data about this dimension to
describe all countries’ culture in the world but Latin American countries,
parts of Africa, the Anglo world, and Nordic Europe scores the highest in
the Indulgence dimension. On contrary, mostly East Asian and Eastern
European countries including Russia show the restraint nature of culture.
Figure 9.1 shows the scores of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka from Hofstede’s
6D Model.
The discussion above about Hofstede’s six dimensions of national cul-
ture gives a clear idea about the nature of different countries’ cultures in
the world. It also describes how people’s behaviour changes and influ-
enced by their own culture. In the following section, we will see the
impacts of culture on entrepreneurship and consider some developing
countries that what are the opportunities and challenges there are for the
entrepreneurs in these countries.
80 80
60
Score
56
45 47 45
35
20 20
10
POWER INDIVIDUALISM MASCULINITY UNCERTAINTY LONG TERM INDULGENCE

DISTANCE AVOIDANCE ORIENTATION
Cultural dimensions
Bangladesh Sri Lanka
Fig. 9.1 Hofstede’s 6D Model, scores of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
Impact of Culture on Entrepreneurship:

Opportunities and Challenges
The number of entrepreneurs in the Sri Lankan market is very small, less
than 1.5% of the population (De Silva, 2019). This is very low compared
to other Asian countries such as Vietnam and Thailand (De Silva, 2019).
In Sri Lanka, there are many problems with entrepreneurship develop-
ment such as lack of government efforts to identify potential entrepre-
neurs, policies and business training plans are not robust, and inadequate
and difficult living environment for businesses (Balsundaram, 2010; De
Silva, 2019). In contrast, social stigma, lack of capital and gender inequal-
ity are some of the challenges of entrepreneurship in Bangladesh (Mahmud,
2018). With the development of the technology, there are upcoming
opportunities in entrepreneurship in Sri Lanka in the areas of Instagram
influencer, YouTube monetisation, travel affiliate site, ecommerce busi-
ness, and online tutoring (Wickramanayake, 2021). Government of Sri
Lanka has exempted the income generated from online entrepreneurs
(Wickramanayake, 2021). Currently Bangladesh offers the freest invest-
ment system in South Asia: legal protection for foreign investment, gener-
ous financial incentives, preferential treatment of machinery imports,
unlimited exit policies, and full return of dividends and capital

(Hasina, 2021).
PDI: Power distance dimension of culture shows people’s level of
dependence or independence in a society. This can lead the members of
this society to grow a negative mindset if there is an existence of a high
level of PDI. Hence, individuals who are less powerful may think entre-
preneurship is a restricted area that is only for the higher class. This can
affect their awareness about the opportunities to be an entrepreneur. In
addition, they may have a lack of skills and less access to resources which
are essential for becoming an entrepreneur. For that reason, it is difficult
to take benefit of profitable opportunities for prospective entrepreneurs
from underpowered groups. From some previous research, it is evident
that “entrepreneurs in cultures with low power distance will have more
autonomy and negotiate with less hierarchical bureaucracy, so they are
more involved in the behaviour of taking risks than those in cultures with
high power distance” (Castillo-Palacio et al., 2017). The entrepreneurs
are regarded as independent, risk-taking individuals who confidently
organise the people and resources necessary for starting up new busi-
nesses. There are two mandatory conditions essential for such an entre-
preneur role to appear within a culture: (1) an entrepreneur must be
approved social recognition with the aim of accepting the activities related
to the new project formation as legal and socially advantageous and (2)
an entrepreneur must have access to and control of necessary resources to
instigate a new project such as financial, material, and educational
resources. The first condition entails the validation by cultural values that
identify the lawfulness of the entrepreneurial event. The second condi-
tion involves the access to necessary resources that are provided by the
social institutions and procedures to potential entrepreneurs (Russell,
2004). Now the problem is in high PDI countries, it is very easy to meet
these conditions by powerful individuals because of social inequality. In
these cultures, people of a privileged and elite class only have the access
to educational systems and economic resources. Furthermore, lower class
members may not be allowed as entrepreneurial roles or, if they accept
such roles, most likely their activities will be undervalued or will not be
regarded as legitimate. On the contrary, the completely opposite situa-
tion in low PDI societies. In this culture social mobility is considered an
asset; relatively it is easy to access the necessary entrepreneurial resources.

Even a broad range of social groups encourage and support entrepreneur-
ial activity doesn’t matter individuals’ social position or status. It is also
noticeable that low PDI cultures have a tendency to generate more entre-
preneurial activity than high PDI cultures. According to Russell (2004),
“more people will assume the role of entrepreneur as well as be permitted
valid access to the resources necessary to engage in new venture develop-
ment” (Abzari & Safari, 2006, p. 10). Another important thing is indi-
viduals’ positions at their workplace. In high PDI organisations, less
powerful employees are seen as “submissive”. They have to be concerned
with maintaining their current position within the organisation. These
individuals will continue serving for their organisations and hardly ever
think of resigning for becoming risk-taking entrepreneurs. High PDI
cultures also do not inspire individuals in innovation. And the reasons are
again lack of awareness, less access to essential resources, and illegitimate
acceptance. All these are causing negative effects on overall
entrepreneurship.
Contrary some research findings show that high PDI increased busi-
ness activities (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003). More precisely, PDI
can affect entrepreneurial activity positively. Zhao et al. (2012) conducted
research specifically on PDI and the early stages of entrepreneurship and
this shows a positive relationship between them. From Hofstede’s study,
it is found that in high PDI cultures children are hardworking and obedi-
ent, while in countries with low PDI the children are independent.
Independence is an important criterion to become an entrepreneur. In
addition, powerful individuals are able to gain access to all necessary
access very easily. Thus, in high PDI cultures, powerful people are privi-
leged to become entrepreneur. This is right but the main problem is in a
society, majorities are the part of the less powerful region and members of
elite classes are limited.
From Hofstede’s 6D Model, in the PDI dimension shown in Fig. 9.2,
both Bangladesh and Sri Lanka scored 80 which means both countries
have high PDI. These are negative effects and their cultures do not come
across as overly supportive of entrepreneurship.
In these countries, powerful people are rich and vice-versa. So, all the
necessary resources are available for powerful people there. For example,
80
High PDI 100 0 Low PDI
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
Fig. 9.2 Power distance index (PDI)
a young entrepreneur from Bangladesh in its capital Dhaka worked for a

poultry farm for five years. After five years he intended to start his own
farm, but he could not because he did not have enough capital. However,
there are different schemes in the banks such as start-up loan, small busi-
ness loan, and agricultural loan but banks did not offer any as he did not
meet the eligibilities. He said, if he was from a powerful family, he could
easily get the loan. There are some private banks who offer business loans
with very high interest. Finally, he sold his inherited land and started his
own business. This is the scenario of Dhaka, the largest city, and the capi-
tal of the country. Most people who live rural areas even rarely think of
becoming an entrepreneur apart from taking over the family business.
The same situation but in some cases, it is worse in Sri Lanka, entrepre-
neurs from the less powerful family struggle with resource accessibility. In
Sri Lanka, only 2.8% out of the total working population recognises as
an employer or business owner, while in Bangladesh it is 11.6% (Bandara,
2019). Case studies analysed by Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium
(SLRC) show that access to all kinds of resources specifically, capitals,
access to markets, and skills training for entrepreneurs from less powerful
regions is very hard. For instance, “in order to access a loan from a state
bank one needed a government guarantor or a land deed” (Ranawana &
Senn, 2019, p. 15). Other resources such as development societies or
pooled schemes recurrently only supply equipment but not financial
resources which is beneficial in some cases but not for all. The most
important challenge underpowered entrepreneurs are experiencing is a
lack of access to markets and the problem in determining the right mar-
ket. Additionally, a spokesman said government provides support to
external traders from larger cities like Colombo to trade in less developed
areas, which affects local entrepreneurs a lot (Ranawana & Senn, 2019).
There are also some success stories of entrepreneurs such as Sarojini, a
45-year-old Sri Lankan entrepreneur is one of them. Her business pro-
duces coconut chips from the husks for the building industry. She went
to six or seven different banks, one after the other, to get a loan for run-
ning, maintaining, and making a shed for the coconut chip machine. But
could not get any then finally she got it from a bank which gave her a
breakthrough and she believes that the manager was female, which is why
she managed to get the loan. So, to sum up, in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh
there are more challenges than opportunities. Challenges are mainly
access to resources such as capital, education and training, governments,
and other organisations’ supports and proper recognitions. On the other
hand, opportunities are generally for politically and financially power-
ful people.
IDV: Individualistic cultures allow people to become independent.
They are only responsible for themselves and their family rather than
other extended family or group members. These characteristics of indi-
vidualistic cultures make them innovative and self-controlled. Thus, this
dimension of culture encourages entrepreneurship by emphasising the
individuals’ identity instead of their society which supports typical fea-
tures of an entrepreneur for instance a high level of self-confidence,
inventiveness, courage, and creativity. This implies that an individualistic
society generates a positive environment for entrepreneurs as the main
cultural values of this dimension are more consistent with entrepreneur-
ial tendencies (Mueller & Thomas, 2001). In addition, in a collectivist
culture, people are dependent and, in most cases, stay close to their fam-
ily for their entire life. They have a lot of responsibilities for their family
members, so it is hard to think about creative things. They are happy to
have a decent job, and this will have a secured, hassle- and risk-free fixed
income at the end of each month. This is why it is observed that individu-
alist cultures are more proper and appropriate for entrepreneurship than
collectivist cultures (Pinillos & Reyes, 2011). However, it is supported by
some empirical studies that there are positive impacts of individualism on
entrepreneurship (Mueller & Thomas, 2001), but there are also some
opposite opinions that claim collectivism encourages entrepreneurship
(Wu, 2007). These pieces of evidence show that there is no certain effect
of individualism on entrepreneurship as other factors are also involved
such as the level of a country’s economic development. If a country has a
low or medium level of economic development then individualism has
negative effects on entrepreneurship, and it will be a positive effect if the
35 20 0 Collectivism
Individualism 100
Sri Lanka, Bangladesh
Fig. 9.3 Individualism versus collectivism
development is high. But in general, we propose that individualism sup-

ports entrepreneurship more so than collectivism at least for for-profit
businesses. This may not be the case for not-for-profit business start-ups
and business with primarily social concerns.
Bangladesh scores 20 and Sri Lanka 35 in this dimension means both
countries have a high collectivistic culture as shown in Fig. 9.3. This
implies that the cultures of these countries are not in favour of
entrepreneurship.
People are living in joint families in both countries since their birth.
Earning members of a family have the responsibilities for other non-
earning members as well as for their extended family members. For exam-
ple, Mr Tarique while studying business management course at one of the
best universities in Bangladesh had a dream to become an entrepreneur
same as Miss Tandra from a different university. Both are from middle-
class families. In their student life, they used to buy some daily necessary
products from a wholesaler and sell them to their friends and neighbours.
It was going well, and they were making a good profit which was some-
times more than enough to cover their daily expenses. They started to
save some money too to have a business premises for the future. But after
completing their course they found that they did not enough savings for
renting a place at a good location and decorating the place with equip-
ment. Moreover, it was time to take the responsibilities of their families
as they had finished their studies, and everyone was expecting from them
to have a job and support their families. Therefore, Tarique stopped
thinking about his business and now he is a government employer. Tandra
also did the same thing and now she is teaching in a primary school. In
Sri Lanka, the majority of the people are living in a joint family, and they
are also responsible for their family members which have adverse effects
on their entrepreneurship activities. The story of Vasuki can describe this
situation. She started working since she was 12. She worked in the paddy
fields to assist her family with their maintenance. As an adult, she worked
in the healthcare and catering industries. But she had to take up self-
employment because of a health condition. Now she runs a takeaway
business which sells lunch and dinner packs by a petrol station. By being
self-employed her income has somewhat increased but that is not making
any difference at all as whatever she earns is not enough to look after her
family. She is still so poor that she does not have any savings. Moreover,
she must borrow money from a personal lender who lends money with
interest (Ranawana & Senn, 2019). Therefore, the high PDI and collec-
tivist cultures of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are causing more challenges
than opportunities for the entrepreneurs of these countries.
MAS: There is a strong relationship between masculinity and entrepre-
neurship as this dimension describes “assertiveness, the acquisition of
money and possessions, and lack of concern for others, quality of life, or
people” (Block & Walter, 2017, p. 26). In a masculine society, people
possess a “live to work” mentality and achievement are related to wealth
and position (Hayton et al., 2002). They give importance to challenges
and recognition and strive for progression and remunerations. Individuals
are educated, independent, resilient, and determined. In this culture suc-
cessful career and self-sufficiency perform as principal values. Moreover,
they consider that “failure is a pillar of success”. The masculine culture
encourages starting up rather than taking over. Thus, a high masculine
society contains entrepreneurship characteristics and supports members
of society to become entrepreneur (Gupta et al., 2009). In feminine cul-
tures, conversely, the motivation of success is comparatively inadequate,
and success is defined concerning pleasant human relationships.
Therefore, individuals will show less interest in entrepreneurial actions in
cultures with low masculinity scores. In Hofstede’s study masculinism
cultural dimension of Sri Lanka holds the value of 10, implying a very
high level of femininity while Bangladesh can be considered as a mascu-
line society with a score of 55 as shown in Fig. 9.4. Differences in this
cultural dimension are also reflected in their entrepreneurship.
Aforementioned data shows that in Bangladesh the percentages of busi-
ness owners are comparatively higher than in Sri Lanka. Literally, mascu-
linity refers to the dominance of males in the society whereas femininity
refers to the femaleness of the society (Dissanayake & Semasinghe, 2015).
Therefore, masculinity cultures can demotivate female entrepreneurs. For
55 10
Masculinity 100 0 Femininity
Fig. 9.4 Masculinity versus femininity
example, women in Bangladesh are not recognised as entrepreneurs by

society as female members of a family will be more dominant than males
if they will earn and work outside (Hamid, 2018). The Mastercard Index
of Women Entrepreneurs shows in 2019, the position of Bangladesh was
57 out of 58 economies in the world (The Daily Star, 2019). In this regard,
Sri Lankan women should perform better, and society should show posi-
tive signs for their female entrepreneurs. Women face yet another level of
difficulty there. The SLRC fieldwork contains stories of sexual harass-
ments by loan-officers, merchants, and others in the production line. As
an example, a female hotel manager described her awful experience. She
made a loan application to a state bank. The loan-officer allowed her
papers but called her later that night, telling her to meet with him in pri-
vate to secure her loan. However, Sri Lanka has a high feminine culture,
but religious prejudice is another issue in this society. For instance, female
entrepreneurs from higher castes are not allowed to have any direct col-
laborations in such male-dominated or profit-related places. Rani is an
upper-caste woman, married to an Iyer. It is improper for her even to talk
business with a trader on the high street because of her husband’s high
position in the community. So, she has to rely on her brother and brother-
in-law to accompany her on business trips and to negotiate on her behalf.
For some reason, if she is on her own then she will have to cancel all busi-
ness appointments and meetings (Ranawana & Senn, 2019). In summary,
for Bangladesh masculine culture inspires overall entrepreneurship but at
the same time, it hinders women entrepreneurship. On the other pole, the
feminine culture of Sri Lanka has a negative impact on entrepreneurship.
But the shocking thing is women are deprived by the man which is quite
unexpected in this culture.
UAI: According to Hofstede (2001), “low uncertainty avoidance sug-
gests a greater eagerness to set up unknown businesses” (p. 164).
Individuals have a tendency to be more entrepreneurial if the cultural
atmosphere encourages the acceptance of uncertainty and risk (Kreiser
et al., 2010). In low uncertainty avoidance cultures, people are creative

and they challenge the risks and take advantage of accessible opportuni-
ties which are already existing in the society where they inhabit (Busenitz
& Lau, 1996). High uncertainty avoidance culture, on the other hand,
shows small support for individuals to become entrepreneurs (Hayton
et al., 2002). As people do not feel comfortable with unstructured situa-
tions, they try to avoid them by setting up a strict set of codes and laws.
They are happy with a permanent job which has a fixed amount of wages.
This makes them certain that they will not lose anything, and they are not
at any financial risks. Mueller and Thomas (2001) state that low uncer-
tainty avoidance cultures are well-equipped and support entrepreneurs
more than high uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Bangladesh scores 60 on this dimension which implies a high uncer-
tain avoidance culture. On the other hand, Sri Lanka scores 45 as shown
in Fig. 9.5. This does not indicate a strong preference for uncertain
avoidance.
Most people in Bangladesh are not comfortable with the unstructured
situation. However, there are more than 7 million entrepreneurs in this
country, but it placed 134th position in the Global Entrepreneurship
index 2019 among 137 countries (The GEDI, 2019). Many research and
case analysis confirm that people in Bangladesh generally prefer risk-free
career to earn their livings and meet other requirements. Consequently,
they usually seek a secured job rather than trying to become entrepre-
neurs. There is an unwritten rule that to have a better life everyone must
need higher education such as honour’s or master’s degree. Thus, innova-
tion may be resisted. An analysation by Joynul Abedin discloses that
people complete their studies to get a job and to become good employees,
not to be great leaders or entrepreneurs. The education system of this
country is also more academic-based and keeps its learners far away from
practical experiences. Therefore, they are not encouraged to take new
challenges (Abedin, 2018). In Sri Lanka, the country’s members also seek
60 45
High UAI 100 0 Low UAI
Fig. 9.5 Uncertainty avoidance index

to avoid uncertainty as much as they can (Dissanayake & Semasinghe,

2015). Different cases show entrepreneurs are not planned and organised
with risk and uncertainty. Therefore, the success rate of entrepreneurship
is very low. Falling into debts is very common for businessmen and they
are not prepared for this situation. Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA)
research in the north and the east of Sri Lanka often faces anecdotal sto-
ries of individual or group suicide due to inescapable debt and over 60
suicides of entrepreneurs were reported in 2018 alone in the North and
the East (Ranawana & Senn, 2019). Therefore, facing the unorthodox
situation is a big challenge for these two countries that are particularly
from underpowered families. Irrational perception and cynical behaviour
of the society doesn’t want to recognise entrepreneurs until they can
establish themselves financially. Proper guidance, mass awareness, train-
ing, and a practical-based education system can create a good opportu-
nity for entrepreneurs in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
LTO: Some authors claim that long-term orientation dimension is
strongly related to the extraordinary business development of South
Asian countries which started in the second half of the last century
(Hofstede, 2011). There are not enough empirical pieces of evidence to
support the positive or negative impact of LTO on entrepreneurship. But
some authors argue that this dimension has an intense impact on innova-
tion (Lin, 2009; Allred & Swan, 2004). This makes the members of a
society more innovative which is a basic trait of an entrepreneur. Several
authors suggest that LTO has positive impacts on entrepreneurship as it
is a challenging, risky process concerned with future aims and the entre-
preneurs tend to have goals and objectives, vision, hopefulness, anticipa-
tion, and powers of the invention (Amiri & Marimaei, 2012). As shown
in Fig. 9.6, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka both have an intermediate score at
47 and 45, respectively, on the LTO index, which indicates not a strong
preference in either direction (Hofstede Insights, 2020).
47 45
LTO 100 0 STO
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
Fig. 9.6 Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation

People in both countries are very religious. Islam is the leading religion
in Bangladesh. The main issue with the religious effect in this country is
the taking and giving interest which is simply forbidden. This stops many
entrepreneurs to start a business as they will have to deal with banks and
interests, for example, Mr Murad who is strictly religious and hates inter-
ests. For that reason, he runs a very small corner shop and does not think
to expand this business. He also does not encourage anyone from his
family members to get involved in the business. However, there are some
Islamic banks, but their number is very low. Islam also denies the free
mixing of males and females which supports the views of masculine cul-
ture and can cause a low level of women entrepreneurship in the country
(Azim, 2008). Interest challenge can be overcome by attracting investors
by providing them part of the profit or making them shareholders. This
will also increase the entrepreneurship involvement. But women entre-
preneurship by following all Islamic restrictions will still be a big chal-
lenge in this country because of its masculine dominating society. On the
other hand, although Sri Lanka is a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, and
multilingual culture it is influenced by a caste system and people give a
lot of importance to religious values and rituals. This is another reason
that members of society have a preference to live in groups. Thus, innova-
tions are restricted, people are dependent, and the concept of individual
achievement is not a dominant concern in Sri Lanka. But in recent years
according to SLRC case study analysis, entrepreneurial behaviour is
changing because of the developmental “hope and growth” post-war
economy of the country which discourses around the dynamism of entre-
preneurship. Some of them who survived in the war are now spirited and
confident and often they do “what they have to do” are not restricted by
religion and other cultural barriers (Ranawana & Senn, 2019).
IVR: Although IVR is the latest added dimension to Hofstede’s 6D
Model and still more research is needed but its influence on entrepre-
neurship is fairly apparent and significant. Previous research found LTO
is related to individualism because personal enjoyment is quite linked
with self-sufficiency. More precisely, the individualism dimension indi-
cates the idea of happiness and happiness is involved with individuals’
control over their life and perception of independence (Minkov, 2009).
Therefore, indulgent cultures attract individuals to become entrepreneurs
as an entrepreneur is his/her own boss. In addition, entrepreneurs have

their personal value systems which help them to have financial indepen-
dency, the ability for gratification, and an enjoyable personality (Amiri &
Marimaei, 2012). Thus, the indulgent dimension has a positive influence
on entrepreneurship.
As shown in Fig. 9.7, IVR holds the value of 20 for Bangladesh, imply-
ing a restraint culture of this country. This reflects people in this country
are not very optimistic and they do not put much importance on
self-enjoyment.
This purports to show that Bangladesh’s do not know how to find time
to spend for themselves and do not realise its importance. For example,
Mr Asad was working for a private company for six years in Dhaka, the
capital of Bangladesh. He used to wake up very early in the morning and
leave his home for his work. After finishing work around 6.00 pm he has
never been at home before 8.00 pm because of long traffic on the way
back home. This was his daily routine for six days a week and Friday was
the only day he had a day off. Mostly every Friday he spent for weekly
household shopping and socialising. He blamed his social system, politi-
cians, and the government of the country. The majority of the employees
in Bangladesh are leading their life like this. A few years ago, one of Asad’s
friends Mr Majid who is an entrepreneur and runs a couple of businesses
in Sylhet, a city in eastern Bangladesh, asked him to be a partner in one
of his businesses. Majid’s businesses were spreading, and he was looking
for a reliable person. He offered Asad 10% shareholder of the business
and a decent salary so he will work sincerely and consider it as his own
business. Then Asad moved in Sylhet and found himself as his own boss.
His office time is usually 9.00 am to 5.00 pm, sometimes he stays a bit
longer, but he arrives home by 7.00 pm. Friday is his day off. On Saturday
his office is formally closed but he spends a few hours there to do some
paper works. Rest of the time he spends with his family and take them
out for having quality time. Every year once or twice he takes holiday and
20
Indulgence 100 0 Restraint
Bangladesh
Fig. 9.7 Indulgence versus restraint

visits different places in the country or abroad. He completely agrees that

he would never be able to enjoy his life like this if he was in his previous
job. He never forces his employees for overstaying and motivates them to
entertain themselves. Sometimes he rewards them with shopping or res-
taurant gift vouchers or a holiday package. He knows for the people in
Bangladesh from middle-class families, it is hard to start a business and
be a successful entrepreneur like his friend or even like him. In addition,
there are lots of entrepreneurs who also do not think about their pleasure,
and they do not have that urge. Therefore, other people do not get any
inspiration to become an entrepreneur or recognise pleasure and gratifi-
cation as their requirements.
Hofstede’s 6D Model shows that currently, Sri Lanka has no score for
this dimension. But a research conducted by Dissanayake and Semasinghe
(2014) in the two districts of this country shows the indulgent culture.
For example, the IVR values of Colombo are 54 and Kegalle 76, which
depict high indexes. These values exhibit that entrepreneurs of two dis-
tricts have a high tendency to fulfil their impulses and desires. With a
greater emphasis on leisure activities, they are more towards optimism
which can be identified as the outcome of their indulgent characteristics.
However, this is not the full picture of the entire country. High PDI and
collectivism culture, and the post-war economy of this country can direct
to a low indulgence or restraint culture.
Conclusion
In summary, it is clear that culture has significant impacts on entrepre-
neurship which have been discussed with some practical examples from
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka considering Hofstede’s 6D national cultural
model. Among the six dimensions first four, which are PDI, individual-
ism, masculinism, and uncertainty avoidance, have direct effects on
entrepreneurship. They are also related to each other. PDI makes people
tolerant to the equalities within the society and provides less opportuni-
ties for entrepreneurs. Individualism makes members of the society inde-
pendent and creative which lead them to become an entrepreneur.
Masculine culture provides motivations for entrepreneurs; however, it
controls the activities of female entrepreneurs. Uncertainty avoidance

culture creates less opportunities and more challenges for entrepreneurs.
Long-term orientation and indulgent culture have positive impacts on
entrepreneurship. Previous research might have found some contradic-
tory and provocative outcomes but examples from Bangladesh and Sri
Lanka show that effects of culture create such challenges and opportuni-
ties that can discourage or persuade members of societies to become
entrepreneurs.
References
Abaho, E., Issa, S. S., & Akisimire, F. (2013). Culture; is it relevant in the ante-
cedence of entrepreneurial values? Evidence from Zanzibar. Global Advanced
Research Journal of Management and Business Studies, 2(3), 189–198.
Abedin, J. (2018). What is holding the youths in Bangladesh back to be entrepre-
neurs? [Online]. Retrieved August 19, 2020, from https://www.daily-sun.
com/magazine/details/353597/What-Is-Holding-The-Youths-In-Bangladesh-
Back-To-Be-Entrepreneurs
Abzari, M., & Safari, A. (2006). The role of culture on entrepreneurship devel-
opment: Case study of Iran. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and
Change Management, 9(4), 135–154.
Al Mamun, M., Jabbar, M. A., & Sultana, R. (2021). Problems and opportuni-
ties of women entrepreneurship in char areas of Bangladesh. South Asian
Journal of Social Studies and Economics, 10(2), 27–38.
Allred, B. B., & Swan, K. S. (2004). Global versus multidomestic: Culture’s con-
sequences on innovation. Management International Review, 44(1), 81–105.
Amiri, S., & Marimaei, M. (2012). The concept of entrepreneurship and entre-
preneurs traits and characteristics. Scholarly Journal of Business Administration,
3(2), 20–25.
Ardichvili, A., & Gasparishvili, A. (2003). Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs
and non-entrepreneurs: A study of value differences. Organization Studies,
24(1), 29–46.
Au, K., Han, S., & Chung, H. M. (2018). The impact of sociocultural context
on strategic renewal: A twenty-six nation analysis of family firms. Cross
Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(4), 604–627.
Audretsch, D. B., Thurik, R., Verheul, I., & Wennekers, S. (2002).
Entrepreneurship: Determinants and policy in a European-US comparison (Vol.
27). Springer Science & Business Media.
Autio, E., Pathak, S., & Wennberg, K. (2013). Consequences of cultural prac-
tices for entrepreneurial behaviors. Journal of International Business Studies,
44(4), 334–362.
Azim, M. T. (2008). Socio-cultural environment for entrepreneurship develop-
ment in Bangladesh. Journal of Bangladesh Studies, 10(1), 51–60.
Balsundaram, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship development through business edu-
cation in Sri Lanka: A country profile. [Working paper]. 1–9.
Bandara, N. (2019). How can Sri Lanka effectively support youth entrepreneurship?
[Online]. Retrieved September 5, 2020, from https://lki.lk/blog/
how-can-sri-lanka-effectively-support-youth-entrepreneurship/
BBC. (2021). World south Asia [Online]. Retrieved June 19, 2021, from https://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11999611
Block, J. H., & Walter, S. G. (2017). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and modes
of entry into entrepreneurship. In Exploring the entrepreneurial society.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bogatyreva, K., Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T. S., Osiyevskyy, O., & Shirokova,
G. (2019). When do entrepreneurial intentions lead to actions? The role of
national culture. Journal of Business Research, 96, 309–321.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford University Press.
Busenitz, L. W., & Lau, C. M. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new
venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(4), 25–40.
Cacciotti, G., & Hayton, J. (2017). National culture and entrepreneurship. In
G. Ahmetoglu, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, B. Klinger, & T. Karcisky (Eds.), The
Wiley handbook of entrepreneurship (pp. 401–422). Wiley Blackwell.
Carayannis, E. G. (2013). Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation, and
entrepreneurship. Springer.
Castillo-Palacio, M., Batista-Canino, R. M., & Zúñiga Collazos, A. (2017). The
relationship between culture and entrepreneurship: From cultural dimen-
sions of GLOBE project. Espacios, 38(34), 12–27.
Çelikkol, M., Kitapçi, H., & Döven, G. (2019). Culture’s impact on entrepre-
neurship and interaction effect of economic development level: An 81 coun-
try study. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20(4), 777–797.
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2014). Business research: A practical guide for under-
graduate and postgraduate students (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
De Silva, N. (2019). Entrepreneurship and the future focus of Sri Lanka [Online].
Retrieved June 19, 2021, from https://www.ft.lk/columns/Entrepreneurship-
and-the-future-focus-of-Sri-Lanka/4-690092
Dissanayake, D. M. N. S. W., & Semasinghe, D. M. (2014). Does the innate
culture make all failures to entrepreneurs? an existing context specific prob-
lem. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(11), 1–13.
Dissanayake, D. M. N. S. W., & Semasinghe, D. M. (2015). Is culture a restrain-
ing or a driving force for entrepreneurship in Sri Lanka? African Journal of
History and Culture, 7(1), 8–15.
Favaretto, R. M., Musse, S. R., & Costa, A. B. (2019). Emotion, personality and
cultural aspects in crowds: Towards a geometrical mind. Springer Nature.
Freytag, A., & Thurik, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship and its determinants in a
cross-country setting. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(2), 117–131.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019).
Basic Books.
Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2021). Culture, institutions and democrati-
zation. Public Choice, 187, 165–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-020-
00811-8.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of gen-
der stereotypes in the perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become
an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 397–417.
Hamid, A. (2018). Challenges of women entrepreneurship in BD [Online].
Retrieved August 15, 2020, from https://www.observerbd.com/details.
php?id=120421
Harutyunyan, A., & Özak, Ö. (2017). Culture, diffusion, and economic devel-
opment: The problem of observational equivalence. Economics Letters,
158, 94–100.
Hasina, S. (2021). Bangladesh is booming—and here’s why, says the Prime Minister
[Online]. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2019/10/bangladesh-is-booming/
Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entre-
preneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 26(4), 33–52.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-
tions, and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in
Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.
org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking
traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88.
Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organiza-
tions: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede Insights. (2020). Country comparison [Online]. Retrieved August 21,

2020, from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/
bangladesh,sri-lanka/
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cul-
tures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to
project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3–10.
Huntington, S. P. (1997). ‘The Clash of Civilizations’-A Response. Millennium,
26(1), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298970260010201.
Kaladzavi, G., Diallo, P. F., Béré, C., Corby, O., Mirbel, I., Lo, M., & Kolyang,
D. T. (2019). Ontologies-based architecture for sociocultural knowledge co-
construction systems. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management,
6(1), [Online] Retrieved September 20, 2020, from https://arxiv.org/ftp/
arxiv/papers/1904/1904.05596.pdf
Kelley, D. J., Singer, S., & Herrington, M. (2012). 2011 Global report. Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor, London Business School. London.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of
culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating
Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies,
37(3), 285–320.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). The study of culture. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell
(Eds.), The policy sciences. Stanford University Press.
Kraman, S., Huling, A. M., Qin, S., Zhang, W., Jiang, A., Xu, J., Xu, L., &
Mathew, M. (2018). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions & ethics among accoun-
tants in the USA and china. Copyright 2018 by Institute for Global Business
Research, Nashville, TN, USA, p. 275.
Kreiser, P., Marino, L., Dickson, P. & Weaver, K. (2010). Cultural Influences
on Entrepreneurial Orientation: The Impact of National Culture on Risk
Taking and Proactiveness in SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
34, 959 –983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00396.x.
Krueger, N., Liñán, F., & Nabi, G. (2013). Cultural values and entrepreneur-
ship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9–10), 213–245.
Landes, D. S. (1998). The wealth and poverty of nations: Why are some so rich and
others so poor. W. W. Norton & Company Ltd.
Lin, L. H. (2009). Effects of national culture on process management and tech-
nological innovation. Total Quality Management, 20(12), 1287–1301.
Mahmud, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship challenges in Bangladesh [Online]. Retrieved
June 20, 2021, from https://www.lightcastlebd.com/insights/2018/05/
entrepreneurship-challenges-in-bangladesh
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. D. Van Norstrand Company. Inc.
Minkov, M. (2009). Predictors of differences in subjective well-being across 97
nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(2), 152–179.
Minniti, M., Bygrave, W. D., & Autio, E. (2005). Global entrepreneurship moni-
tor. 2004 report on women and entrepreneurship. Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor. London Business School.
Minniti, M., Bygrave, W. D., & Autio, E. (2006). Global entrepreneurship moni-
tor: 2005 Executive Report. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. London
Business School.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential:
A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of busi-
ness venturing, 16(1), 51–75.
O’Neill, A. (2021). Inflation rate in Sri Lanka [Online]. Retrieved June 20,
2021, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/728516/inflation-rate-in-
sri-lanka/
Pinillos, M. J., & Reyes, L. (2011). Relationship between individualist–collec-
tivist culture and entrepreneurial activity: Evidence from Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor data. Small Business Economics, 37(1), 23–37.
Ranawana, A., & Senn, A. (2019) ‘We do what we have to do’ cultures of indebted-
ness among women entrepreneurs in the east of Sri Lanka, [Online]. Retrieved
August 25, 2020, from https://securelivelihoods.org/publication/
we-d o-w hat-w e-h ave-t o-d o-c ultures-o f-i ndebtedness-a mong-w omen-
entrepreneurs-in-the-east-of-sri-lanka/
Russell, D. R. (2004). The impact of national culture on the mergence of entrepre-
neurship. Penn State—Harrisburg.
Russell, S. S., Nabamita, D., & Sanjukta, R. (2010). Does cultural diversity
increase the rate of entrepreneurship? The Review of Austrian Economics,
23(3), 269–286.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business
students (7th ed.). Pearson Education Ltd..
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Schumpeter: Theory of economic development.
Harvard University Press.
Suddle, K., Beugelsdijk, S., & Wennekers, S. (2010). Entrepreneurial culture
and its effect on the rate of nascent entrepreneurship. In Entrepreneurship
and culture (pp. 227–244). Springer.
The Daily Star. (2019). Index on women entrepreneurs, Bangladesh far behind
peers [Online]. Retrieved August 5, 2020, from https://www.thedailystar.net/
business/news/bangladesh-far-behind-peers-1832332
The GEDI. (2019). Global entrepreneurship index [Online]. Retrieved August

15, 2020, from https://thegedi.org/global-entrepreneurship-and-
development-index/
Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M., & Garegnani, G. M. (2021). Do cultural
differences impact ethical issues? Exploring the relationship between national
culture and quality of code of ethics. Journal of International Management,
27(1), 100823.
Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge.
Wennekers, S. A. (2006). Entrepreneurship at country level: Economic and non-
economic determinants (No. 81). Rotterdam.
White, L. A. (1959). The concept of culture. American anthropologist,
61(2), 227–251.
Wickramanayake, L. (2021). Social media use by adolescent students of Sri
Lanka: Impact on learning and behavior. Global Knowledge, Memory and
Communication. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-08-2020-0123
Worldbank. (2021). Sri Lanka [Online]. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://
www.worldbank.org/en/country/srilanka/overview
Worlddata. (2019). Country comparison [Online]. Retrieved June 20, 2021,
from https://www.worlddata.info/country-comparison.php?country1=BGD
&country2=LKA
Wu, S. (2007). The relationship between national culture and national entrepre-
neurial activity. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development, 3(2), 127–141.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review,
Reconceptualization, and Extension. The Academy of Management Review,
27(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351.
Zhao, X., Li, H., & Rauch, A. (2012). Cross-country differences in entrepre-
neurial activity: The Role of cultural practice and national wealth. Frontiers of
Business Research in China, 6(4), 447–474.
10
Unravelling Entrepreneurship
and Innovation Within the Hospitality
Industry: A Case Study of Selected
Hotels in Cyprus
Eirini Daskalaki and Denis Hyams-Ssekasi
Introduction
There is a plethora of literature published about the hospitality industry
in the past few years and a recognition of the work done to keep the busi-
nesses going. Particular attention is given to the hospitality industry
without clear differentiation and examination of the complexity between
tourism, hotels and leisure. Emphasis is placed on tourism and entrepre-
neurship (Ateljevic & Page, 2009; Ateljevic, 2009; Szivas, 2001) whilst
others focus on entrepreneurship in restaurants and café industry (Berger
& Bronson, 1981; Chell & Pittaway, 1998). Ramos-Rodríguez et al.
E. Daskalaki (*)
Hotel Administration, ACC Akademia College, Deryneia, Cyprus
e-mail: eirini@akc.ac.cy
D. Hyams-Ssekasi
e-mail: dh4@bolton.ac.uk
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3_10
240 E. Daskalaki and D. Hyams-Ssekasi
(2012) argue that tourism is diverse and could be considered as having

the quality of heterogeneity, comprising a variety of businesses including
hotel and restaurants. They further confirm that fewer researchers have
embraced entrepreneurship in both hotels and restaurants respectively.
The hotel industry is perceived a service industry which is highly
acknowledged as of utmost importance in the world. It is an industry that
strives to maintain its quality provisions to customers in a form of rooms
and restaurants. Subsequently, the industry has had to uphold its position
in the lucrative market to maintain the status quo. In view of this, the
customer quality service has been at the forefront of hotels and more
effort is made to ensure that this service is well catered for to the highest
level of the industry. Businesses spend a lot of time and energy in training
their customer service personnel. In their study, Saleem and Raja (2014)
point out that service quality and customer satisfaction is paramount
especially in the hotel industry.
Despite the service provisions, the hotel industry worldwide has
changed dramatically over the years. Saleem and Raja (2014) concur that
there has been a drastic change of hotels from traditional to the current
conditions which require more attention in terms of demand and supply
of hotel services. Such changes require innovative and entrepreneurship
mind on the part of managers to stay in business such a premier inn ver-
sus higher end hotels. Hoteliers have realised that the traditional promo-
tions of “sun and sea” beaches is no longer considered the panacea for
holiday makers and especially during the economic crisis. The ability to
persuade customers with various incentives and quality services is way
forward in the hotel industry.
The tourism industry in Cyprus is among the most significant sectors
which contributes to the growth of the national economy and to the
GDP. Cyprus has experienced turmoil years; despite the 1974 invasion
Cypriots managed to make the tourism industry to flourish from 1980s
and afterwards. According to the Statistical Service in 2019 Cyprus wel-
comed 3.976 million tourists—a 1% increase over the previous year and
setting a new record for the next years to come (Phileleftheros, 2020).
This study looks specifically at the seven selected hotels in Cyprus, an
island in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. According to Krambia-Kapardis
and Thomas (2006), the hotel industry is one of the major economical
contributors to Cyprus economy. A hotel as we know it today belongs to
10 Unravelling Entrepreneurship and Innovation… 241
the group of hospitality and is perceived as an establishment held out by

the proprietor as offering sleeping accommodation to any person present-
ing himself who appears able and willing to pay a reasonable sum for the
services and facilities provided and who is in a fit state to be received (UK
Public General Acts, 2020).
Hotels in essence prosper generally in a stable economy and higher
competition whether international or domestic. In a view of this perspec-
tive, the chapter focuses on the selected resort hotels in Cyprus that are
located in picturesque, sometimes remote places. Customers that are
attracted to such resorts travel long distances and often stay longer—
minimum two weeks to appreciate the holiday resort. For this reason, the
hotel industry dominates the Cyprus landscape.
Within the current literature there is a plethora of information per-
taining to entrepreneurship focusing specifically on innovation, funda-
mental roles of managers, customisation and entrepreneurial skills.
Despite this there is very little in the literature that discusses the link
between innovation and entrepreneurship and its associated impact on
the hospitality sector. It is therefore imperative for this study to unravel
the correlation between innovation and entrepreneurship. Given the
nature of the study new theories will be developed to add to the existing
theoretical knowledge in this area.
The study acknowledges that due to the pandemic situation and the
ongoing restrictions worldwide, the hotel industry in Cyprus is strug-
gling and therefore radical and transformational changes have to be made.
This will require application of business skills, innovative capacity and
continuous entrepreneurship orientation to attract more customers and
for hotel to remain in business during and after the economic crisis.
In an era when competition and economic crisis are paramount,
understanding innovation and entrepreneurship plays a key role espe-
cially in the hotel industry. Organisations are expected to be more inno-
vative and to have an entrepreneurial mindset. According to DTI (1998),
entrepreneurship and innovation are central to the creative processes in
the economy to promote growth, increase productivity and create jobs.
This is echoed by McGrath and MacMillan (2000) that innovation and
entrepreneurship are interlinked in a sense that an entrepreneurial mind-
set is essential for founding new businesses as well as rejuvenating the
already established one.
The Department of Health (2009) defines innovation as
[s]ignificant change that makes a large difference in performance whether

achieved by creation of new ideas or the adaptation of proved ideas from
elsewhere. It can take a variety of forms whether relating to improvement
of service, new technology, new information systems or new workforce
practices. It can be enacted through an incremental series of changes that
builds over time or step change that quickly transforms a process or sys-
tem. (p. 39)
Innovation can be considered to exist along a continuum stretching

from the incremental to the radical (McFadzean & O’Loughlin, 2005).
In terms of innovation strategy, service and process innovations are closely
related to technological developments (Gunday et al., 2011). The mar-
keting of commercial services represents a radical innovation within the
hotel industry as traditionally the focus has been on incremental rather
than emergent change. It could be argued that innovation is an integral
part of the organisation strategy. It provides direction of the organisation
(Hamel, 2000; Germany & Muralitharan, 2001), a key driver to value
creation (Amit & Zott, 2001), an amalgamation of old idea or unique
approach that is seemingly new by individual involved (Van de Ven et al.,
1999). Tidd et al. (2005) view innovation as a major driver of success that
is utilised in all sectors. It can also be embraced in service sectors (Tidd &
Hull, 2003). They argue that service sectors provide around three-quarters
of added value and employment in more economically developed coun-
tries, and innovation remains fundamentally vital to the overall perfor-
mance of these services in both the private and public sectors.
The concept of managers being innovative in the hospitality industry
remains new and innovation is less emphasised as most hotels depend on
coping from each other (Zaridis et al., 2019). Considering that behav-
ioural segmentation is fundamental for the understanding of customer
needs and for the attraction of specific consumer types, different market-
ing strategies have to be applied. “As a result, new services and even new
chain hotels are starting to emerge specifically targeting baby Boomers
(BB), Generation X (Gen-X), Generation Y (Gen-Y), Generation Z
(Gen-Z), or most recently Generation a (Gen-a)” (Sima, 2016, p. 471).
Most managers are concerned with maintaining the status quo alongside
structural and procedure reforms to facilitate innovation as only a trans-
formation of culture that will enable the installation of new belief, values
and assumptions that underpin new and innovative ways of working.
In view of innovation, Francis and Bessant (2005) describe the 4Ps
Model of Process, Product, Position and Paradigm as the four key areas of
innovation focus. Process innovation: changes in the things/service that
the organisation delivers. Product innovation: changes the way existing
things/services are delivered. Customisation of products and services
should form an important part of the customer service experience and
service delivery as part of an innovation strategy. In her study, Guango
(2017) defines customisation as “a situation where the customer receives
a tailor-made service product designed specifically on his[her] personal
needs” (p. 32). Customisation increases satisfaction because the custom-
ers can specify their preferences and it can bring many advantages to the
firms, such as reduction of inventory, opportunity to improve customer
loyalty and avoid the pitfalls of commoditisation (Wind & Rangaswamy,
2001). On the other hand next to customisation stands standardisation,
“the situation when the outcomes of a service production look exactly the
same, regardless the number of services or experiences produced”
(Guango, 2017, p. 32). “Hotel staff are the key agents with whom cus-
tomers are coming into contact on the first instance, therefore, organiza-
tions wish to make the very best impression on their customers by
utilizing hotel’ staff’s specific emotional behaviour and attitude”
(Daskalaki, 2016, p. 58).
Jones et al. (1994) suggest that standardisation is utilised to aid man-
agement to check unexpected errors in order to take discrete corrective
actions and to minimise any deviations from the expected outputs.
Position innovation: changes in the context in which the product/service
is produced. Paradigm innovation: changes the underlying mental mod-
els which frame what the organisation does: “the way we do things around
here” (Deal & Kennedy, 1982) and “pattern of shared basic assumption”
(Schein, 1992). Such perspectives and changes require the involvement
of the manager to execute them and also a grasp of the culture and gen-
eral ethos of the organisation which are often influenced by the structure
leadership, rituals and routines of the organisation.
Change management has been defined as “the process of continually

renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve
the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers” (Moran &
Brightman, 2001, p. 111). According to Burnes (2004) change is an ever-
present feature of organisational life both at operational and at strategic
level. Organisational change as an action entails deep insight of an organ-
isation’s strengths and weaknesses and it might be the key to success and
to the achievement of organisational goals; therefore, adaptability and
flexibility should be part of operations. Due to the importance of organ-
isational change, its management is becoming a highly required manage-
rial skill (Senior, 2002).
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship has been the subject of many researchers for the past
few decades as it is considered as being a driving force behind contempo-
rary economy and also seen by different governments as a promoter of
economy growth (Matlay & Carey, 2006; Gurol & Astan, 2006). It is
noted that there is no single definition or interpretation of entrepreneur-
ship being universally accepted (Ball, 2005). This is emphasised by
Morrison (1998) who recognises the definitional conflicts and argues
that entrepreneurship in general relates to creating value by combining
specific resources to build on or exploit the available market opportuni-
ties. In essence, the meaning is attached to entrepreneurship as value cre-
ation and finding ways to explore and exploit business opportunities. It
can be argued that entrepreneurship is one of the most powerful forces in
the economy in a sense that it permeates every aspect of the business
thinking and planning. Kuratko (2020) views entrepreneurship as “a
dynamic process of vision, change, and creation. It requires an applica-
tion of energy and passion toward the creation and implementation of
innovative ideas and creative solutions” (p. 5). Hence the essence of
entrepreneurship is the initiation of change via innovation.
Entrepreneurship is not a new term that has cropped up recently. This
term was used for the first time in 1732 when Richard Cantillon, an Irish
economist, was referring to entities as “a willingness to carry out forms of
arbitrage involving the financial risk of a new venture” (Minnti &

Lėvesque, 2008, p. 603). The term is derived from the word “entrepre-
neur” and can be defined as “undertaking or starting something”.
According to Minnti and Lėvesque (2008) the most prominent people in
coining the term entrepreneurs are researchers and economists such as
Mill (1848), Knight (1921), Schumpeter (1954), Kirzner (1997) and
Baumol (2002). This indicates the richness of the term especially in the
business environment. Entrepreneurship is also perceived as a way of
applying enterprise skill and identifying opportunities that help the
organisation grow (QAA, 2012). Most common competencies cited as
major capabilities leading to an entrepreneurial mindset and success
include conceptual, analytical and negotiation skills (Hynes &
Richardson, 2007; Robles & Zárraga-Rodríguez, 2015). Furthermore,
entrepreneurial competencies relate to strategic planning, marketing,
financial and economic issues, health and safety, recruitment, customer
relationship management and leadership (Mitchelmore & Rowley, 2013).
Given the nature and the changes in the economy, there has been push
and pull factors for managers to understand how important entrepre-
neurial skills are important to an economy and business at large.
There are clear links between innovation and entrepreneurship: Hebert
and Link (2006) argue that innovation play an important role in entre-
preneurship. Others have identified innovation as the main principle of
hotel’s organisation performance (Lin, 2013; Grissemann et al., 2013;
Lee et al., 2016). In view of innovation, Agarwal et al., 2003 have noted
the need for the continuous product innovation in hotel industry as a
way of keeping the industry operational. Enz and Siguaw (2003) on the
other hand believe that the hotel industry needs to innovate all its daily
operations in order to maintain a competitive edge. Innovation is no
longer a product or service offering to a customer but rather a co-creation
exercise with an emphasis on the value offered/perceived by the customer
(Vargo & Lusch, 2008). This can be done if managers pursue innovation-
and entrepreneurship-related activities that are in the hotels.
As the hotel industry continues to operate during the economic crisis
and so is the need for innovation and entrepreneurship. Innovation is
perceived as mediator and an important driver in enhancing business
performance in hotels (Grissemann et al., 2013); Chen et al. (2009)
point out where innovation is encouraged, hotel managers are able to

enhance their services and increase the ability to fulfil quality require-
ments in order to meet the ongoing customer needs and also to increase
the market share and profitability. Hotels that understand customer
needs and preferences towards hotel facilities and service attributes per-
form well and have the ability to maintain the competitive advantage
(Zhou et al., 2007). Hotel’s websites play a significant role in terms of
competitiveness and attracting customers. Quality of information and
service, system use, playfulness and system design quality are some web-
site quality dimensions (Liu & Arnett, 2000). Barnes and Vidgen (2001)
acknowledge that usability, design, information, trust and empathy can
be classified as criteria in terms of website quality.
Digital Marketing
The academic literature has been paying increasing attention on the
importance of digital marketing and most organisations have embraced
to the highest level socially during this economic downturn. “A business
that understands the advantage of social media is well aware that social
media is essential in developing new business in the current competitive
and online driven marketplace” (Al-Msallam & Allhadad, 2016, p. 1).
There is now a clear recognition of positive impact of the use of informa-
tion technology and/or digital marketing. Morrison et al. (1999) argue
that in ever-changing business world, information technology (IT) plays
a vital role in terms of added value for both businesses and customers,
respectively. “Guest oriented technological amenities are typically intro-
duced to enhance guest satisfaction as well as the performance and func-
tionality of hotel staff” (Cobanoglu et al., 2011, p. 275).
Entrepreneurial companies need to recognise the power of IT or they
risk of lagging behind their competitors. In a business environment that
is so dynamic, the innovative way of reaching customers at their conve-
nience is worth a consideration. This is reflected in marketing of the ser-
vices and products to customers. According to Kotler and Armstrong
(2017, p. 6), marketing is “a process by which companies create value for
customers and build strong customer relationships in order to capture
value from customers in return”. Such definition provides a twofold goal

of marketing: to attract new customers by promising superior value and
to grow current customers by delivering satisfaction. As businesses grow
in strength and so are the advancement of communication channels to
reach the customers. As it is viewed by Ryan and Jones (2009, p. 9) digi-
tal marketing is defined as “the marketing of products or services using
digital channels to reach consumers” whilst Chaffey and Ellis-Chadwick
(2012, p. 15) view it as “the application of the Internet and related digital
technologies in conjunction with traditional communications to achieve
marketing objectives”.
In view of e-communication, businesses have resorted to social media
to create a positive influence on consumers or customers towards their
products. Such social media fully utilised include Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram and YouTube. Sundbo (2002) argues that despite the advance-
ment and utilisation of technology in the service industry to develop
standards and procedures, it does not always lead to an increase of pro-
duction. Digital marketing contributes to the formation and influence of
human perceptions. The American Psychological Association defines per-
ception as “the process or result of becoming aware of objects, relation-
ships, and events by means of the senses, which includes such activities as
recognizing, observing, and discriminating. These activities enable organ-
isms to organize and interpret the stimuli received into meaningful
knowledge and to act in a coordinated manner” (2020).
Managerial and Leadership Repertoire

Working in the hotel sector requires a combination of skills especially on
a key managerial level where the individual needs to develop people’s
skills, understanding and expertise in employee management, service
delivery, sales and marketing, finance as well as in identifying and provid-
ing anticipatory service to guests. Being a manager entails different char-
acteristic traits from being a leader and this can be seen on performance
management which makes it possible to identify the extent to which
there is alignment between an organisation and its employees with the
organisation’s goals. Accordingly, managers and leaders’ approach and
function are based on different criteria and policies which potentially will
contribute to the operation of an organisation. “Managers do things by
the book and follow policy, moving up in the organisation based on their
actions and successes whereas, a leader provides opportunities for people
to grow, both personally and professionally” (Turk, 2007, pp. 20–21).
Leaders are required to have the necessary skills to improve their busi-
ness. Skills and competencies are vital in a sense that it helps both manag-
ers and leaders to make changes to perform a specific task. Hollenbeck
et al. (2006) argue that the abilities to perform tasks efficiently and effec-
tively to meet the given objectives require skills and competencies. Major
skills expected in a leader to possess include organising, problem-solving,
communicating and interpersonal (Johansson et al., 2014). Effective
managers as leaders provide guidance that encourages employees to take
ownership of tasks, to think outside the box to solve business problems,
and to make decisions that can enhance the good of the team and com-
pany (Bennett, 2009).
In this sense, leadership skills are a combination of so many skills
which can be learnt (Northouse, 2016). Johansson et al. (2014) identify
communication skill as an important skill which should not be ignored.
No matter what job position held in an organisation, communication
skills especially verbal and non-verbal play a major role at every level;
considering that at the service encounter it is desirable a standardisation
of social behaviour involving specific emotional displays on the part of
employees.
With the advancement in technology, conveying messages through
digital platforms has come into action and managers have to embrace
technical know-how amidst other skills such people and cognitive (Katz,
1955) if they are to succeed. Strong leaders respond to various people by
making choices based on a wider view. They often understand and
acknowledge that their staff has expertise who might know more than
they do regarding a specific task. A successful manager in this regard
ought to empower, delegate, listen, help, set SMART (simple, measur-
able, attainable, relevant and time-based) goals and encourage all staff to
take control over their own decisions (dealing with customers), in lieu of
endeavouring to monitor and control particular individuals in the organ-
isation (Cole & Kelly, 2020).
Methodology
This study utilised semi-structured interviews entailing, description and
interpretation of data. “The collection of qualitative data in evaluation is
common. However, knowledge about strategies for efficient and defend-
able procedures for analysing qualitative data is less common” (Thomas,
2006, p. 37). The selected hotels were chosen based on their functional-
ity, star category, popularity and geographical location. All were classified
as beach hotels/resorts so this contributed to have some homogeneity.
Different star categories were chosen on purpose to see if there are major
differences regarding the scope of entrepreneurship practices and innova-
tion. In terms of their location was fundamental as Famagusta/
Ammochostos and Paphos are among the most popular and attractive
tourist destinations in Cyprus. “The districts of Ammochostos and
Paphos together constitute over two-thirds of the accommodation offer
(63.8% of total bed capacity). Ammochostos is the district with the high-
est bed capacity (41.3%) whereas Paphos has the greatest number of
accommodation units (33.8%)” (THR, Innovative Tourism Advisors
2017, p. 32). The fact that tourism is seasonal in Cyprus and considering
the pandemic, some hotels which we would have researched were closed
in October. Despite that, access to the selected hotels was not challenging.
Qualitative Research
in an Entrepreneurial Study
Within this context of organisational research, seven semi-structured
interviews were conducted with hotel management staff from seven dif-
ferent hotels ranging 3-, 4- and 5-star hotel categories falling under the
type of resorts/beach hotels in two cities in Cyprus: Famagusta and
Paphos. The interviewees, six males and one female, were working across
different departments (General Management, Operations, Food and
Beverage, PR, Events and Entertainment and Accounting) and their
working experience was varying from 17 years to 45 years as it can be
seen in Table 10.1. The sample was appropriate because hotel
Table 10.1 Interviews with hotel management staff

Years of
Job Role experience Star category City Gender
General Manager (HM 1) 25 3-star hotel Ayia Napa Male
Operations Manager (HM 2) 20 3-star hotel Ayia Napa Male
Bars Manager (HM 3) 45 5-star hotel Ayia Napa Male
Service Manager (F&B) (HM 4) 28 4-star hotel Protaras Male
PR and Events Manager (HM 5) 25 5- star hotel Protaras Female
General Manager (HM 6) 29 4-star hotel Paphos Male
Financial Manager (HM 7) 17 3-star hotel Paphos Male
management staff possessed not only substantial work experience but

also were holding key managerial positions which contributed signifi-
cantly to the transferability of data and how their responses could
enhance findings. In addition to this, the diversity in job roles of inter-
viewees made it possible to have an adequate amount of information
coming from different specialties which possibly could indicate a differ-
ent approach or understanding in terms of entrepreneurship. In relation
to entrepreneurship Bygrave (2007) argues that its status is a practical
professional discipline in which the fundamental questions are, “what
should entrepreneurs do?” and “how can we improve entrepreneurial
practice?”.
The semi-structured interviews were composed of 15 open-ended
questions as can be seen in Table 10.2 and considered the 6 aspects that
Patton (2015) regards as necessary for a quality interview: experience/
behaviour, opinion/values, feeling, knowledge, sensory and background/
demographic questions. For instance, Question 5 reflects aspects of expe-
rience/behaviour, opinion/values and knowledge; Question 7 reflects
experience/behaviour and knowledge. The specific questions were chosen
aiming to identify the extent to which innovative changes are taking place
in the hotel sector. Some interview questions were able to attach more
than one meaning to their content which contributed to richer data.
Interviews were conducted face to face.
Table 10.2 Interview questions

1. How many years have you worked in the hospitality industry?
2. How many stars is your current hotel?
3. What is your current job title?
4. What is your educational level?
5. What are some of the innovative or creative activities that your
organisation has been involved in since the pandemic?
6. What do you understand by the term entrepreneurship?
7. How do you assess your business?
8. How do you encourage entrepreneurial ideas from employees?
9. What sort of new ideas do you have in mind to implement? If yes, why
those ideas?
10. What skills are important to become an entrepreneur?
11. What skills personally you use to keep the business going?
12. Before you make an entrepreneurial decision in your organisation what
type of factors do you consider?
13. For every entrepreneurial decision you make to what extent do you engage
in a cost-benefit analysis?
14. How have your entrepreneurial practices helped you to improve your
business?
15. What do you see as a future of the hospitality industry?
Discussion and Findings
The selected hotels were familiar with the theoretical concept of entrepre-
neurship: what it is and what it entails; however, the application of it was
not encountered to a great extent and the areas of use were limited and
not unique. Social media was the predominant area where entrepreneur-
ship was utilised so as to promote hotel activities and to influence the
potential customer’s perception so as to increase hotel’s bookings; yet
there is the need for further enhancement. Interviewees identified that a
combination of soft and hard skills is necessary in hospitality and most of
them identified themselves as leaders and not managers.
Considering the limited utilisation of entrepreneurial spirit and prac-
tices it could be supported that hoteliers are acting mostly as managers
rather as leaders because leadership brings innovation, creativity and
motivation to share entrepreneurial ideas which was encountered to a low
degree in the selected hotels. Food and beverage department and house-
keeping department were regarded by interviewees as areas of innovation
in terms of entrepreneurship. Cashless payments and specific apps were

also applied aiming at customer satisfaction and linked with the entrepre-
neurial spirit. Most hotels tended to standardise rather than customise
their products and services and this reflects the need to boost the hospi-
tality product in Cyprus and to make it more competitive towards other
popular destinations, Croatia, Egypt, Turkey, Malta, Mallorca, Greece,
Turkey and so on. Making Cyprus a brand destination needs to offer a
competitive advantage towards potential guests and this can be achieved
by enhancing, improving and enlarging its products, services and assets.
If this gets achieved it can lead to greater service quality, to the attraction
of new markets and to greater customer retention in the hotel sector. The
need for organisational change is crucial; however, it is impeded by the
fact that Famagusta and Paphos are greatly dependable and used to col-
laborate with tour operators, that’s why among others the hotel product
is not innovative enough.
Social Media as an Innovative Activity

Some interviewees highlighted the important role of social media not
only for the better promotion of their hotel establishment, their services
and products but also as an attempt to gain new customers. Social media
has been linked as an innovative activity based on the sayings of inter-
viewees when they were asked which are some of the innovative activities
that their organisation has been involved in since the pandemic. Quite
often hoteliers did not rely only on their own human resources in terms
of digital marketing but also on the contribution of their guests as it can
be seen on the HM1 and HM7 statements.
Very active on social media about products and services (Facebook, Instagram,
and Twitter) by the hotel manager, owners and guests. Aggressive social media
marketing. … Social media are very important and growing marketing tool
and is practically free. (HM1)
We, therefore, designed special offers and advertised through channels specifi-
cally addressing the local market. (HM7)
The awareness of each business that the contribution of social media is

fundamental in the development of a new business within a competitive
environment (Al-Msallam & Allhadad, 2016) signifies the multidimen-
sional advantages of social media and the drastic influence that they can
achieve in customer perception. As noted by HM1 social media act as a
tool for the attraction of the right market segment, either on a local or
international level at a low cost. It can be supported that the age of con-
sumers defines which type of social media they are using when it comes
to the consumption of products and services in the hotel sector as they
have the power to influence their decision-making. Different genera-
tional cohorts baby Boomers (BB), Generation X (Gen-X), Generation Y
(Gen-Y), Generation Z (Gen-Z) or most recently Generation a (Gen-a)
have accelerated the demand for the creation of new services and even of
new chain hotels (Sima, 2016). Variety in the use of social media is
regarded as fundamental on the part of hotels to increase their customer
reach as we can see from the statement of HM7.
Social media offers multiple benefits to hotels and potential customers.
In the case of hotels, it is a tool to promote their services and products
and also to target the right consumers. On the part of consumers, it
allows them to compare and form their perceptions as to whether or not
a specific hotel establishment and its philosophy live up to their expecta-
tions based on their needs. Many important factors form consumers’ per-
ceptions among others lifestyle, work and life experience, family
composition and cultural factors. It is fundamental for the hotel industry
to endorse and gain a deep understanding of these aspects so as to opti-
mise marketing approaches based on preferable consumer behaviours.
echnological Entrepreneurial Activities

T
as an Innovative Product
Technology entrepreneurship relates to the ways in which entrepreneurs
draw on resources and structures to exploit emerging technology oppor-
tunities (Liu et al., 2005). It could be supported that the reason that most
entrepreneurs resort to the use of technological tools in the hospitality
industry aims both for customer experience optimisation and for success
of the organisation. An innovative product or service aims primarily at
the profitability of an organisation and next to customer satisfaction. As
Vargo and Lusch (2008) have highlighted innovation is a co-creation
exercise that can enhance the guest experience but also it can contribute
to the profit of an organisation by adding more value to its services and
products and enable them to set their prices higher. Interviewees acknowl-
edged technology as an innovative tool which was initiated due to the
pandemic as it can be seen below from participants’ responses. In view of
this technology acted as a solution to the problems of Covid-19.
Recently we even learned how to adjust to unexpected factors as the pandemic

of covid 19, and technology acted as a solution to the problems encoun-
tered. (HM6)
QR reader menu … thoughts to introduce online check in and outlet reserva-
tions. (HM2)
[T]he use of technology (tablets) when taking customer orders. (HM4)
Contactless payments, interactive application (app) customers can order through
this app to book services and ask questions. (HM5)
Reducing the contact and money exchange between staff and clients (important
in the Covid-19 era) as the clients will only pay once at the end of their
stay. (HM7)
Based on the participants’ responses it suggests that technological devel-

opments can be applied as part of an innovation strategy to enhance ser-
vice. This is echoed by (Gunday et al., 2011) who argue that there is no
dichotomy between technological and innovative activities. Acceleration of
the hotel sector through technology can cater to all the phases of the guest
cycle: pre-arrival, arrival, stay and departure. The role of technology is seen
as an essential component-tool that facilitates not only internal customers
(employees) during customer service but also external customers (guests)
by providing higher levels of guest satisfaction potentially. Guest satisfac-
tion is often enhanced by technological amenities which can facilitate the
operation of an organisation (Cobanoglu et al., 2011).
Customisation
Customers are perceived as “royals” and as such they are becoming more
sophisticated in their demands and expectations. As it has been acknowl-
edged by Frame (1994, p. 95), “Customers must be seen as kings and
queens. Customer satisfaction must be touted as the highest goal”. “For
the achievement of excellent customer service, customer satisfaction and
retention positive displays and behaviors have to be performed from ser-
vice employees Roles, actions and emotions are features which form the
customer service experience” (Daskalaki, 2016, p. 57).
Hoteliers are compelled to meet the customers’ increasing demands by
being innovative and entrepreneurial in their approaches not only to sat-
isfy customer needs but also to achieve financial profit as it is noted by
most participants.
Personal interest and care for customers, repeaters, honeymooners (special bed-
ding, balloons, chocolates, fruits, wine). Pandemic promote direct booking at
low and lower cost. (HM1)
Hotel in future will offer separate experiences for different kind of guests. We
will see a more personalized product according to customer needs. (HM4)
Creativity and innovation management inspired our employees with new
methods. Whether these new ideas will be successful it remains to be seen on the
implementation procedures. With new innovations you must be flexible and
ready to recalculate when the results are no reaching better customer service and
further financial ones. (HM6)
This has forced hoteliers to use customisation methods when this is

required in to achieve the best performance and to retain customers.
Conversely, customisation is a distinct feature of services that adds value
to both customer and hoteliers and the outcomes ultimately fit the cus-
tomer’s needs (Bettiol et al., 2015). Hotel management staff goes the
extra mile by offering additional traditional services in terms of food and
beverages as an attempt to meet customer expectations and ensure cus-
tomer loyalty. Customisation has the potential to improve customer sat-
isfaction because it is given the opportunity to customers to indicate their
preferences and it can bring organisational advantages to the firms such

as reduction of inventory, higher customer engagement and avoid the
pure commercialisation (Wind & Rangaswamy, 2001). Hence there is
need to ensure that customisation is utilised well in order to achieve the
best organisational outcomes. As Drucker (1993, p. 79) has highlighted
“to satisfy the customer is the mission and purpose of every business”.
Health and Safety Protocols
Health is commonly related with the protection of the bodies and minds
of people from illness resulting from the materials, processes or proce-
dures used in the workplace and safety refers to the protection of people
from physical injury (Hughes & Ferrett, 2016, pp. 2–3). Broadly the
terms health and safety are used interchangeably. Organisational prac-
tices that relate to health and safety were emphasised by interviewees due
to the Covid-19 pandemic. The specific protocols had a bilateral action
to protect front line staff and guests. Hence, the hotel sector had to adhere
by law as it is stated by (HM1) and (HM2).
Tour operators and potential customers should be aware that we will follow all
health and safety measures in order to provide a healthy and safe environment
in which they will spend their holidays. (HM1)
Purchase of special equipment that produces vapour with the correct chemicals
to disinfect the entire room upon departure. (HM2)
Putting individual salads, soups, fruit salads, ice creams, desserts, etc. to avoid
the use of tongs on buffet and overcrowding. (HM2)
Disinfection of seats and tables on each sitting due to Covid-19 needs to be
taken seriously by the managers to protect the customers therefore put as many
disinfection points as possible extra than the ones instructed by the state in order
to protect the economy and the businesses as a whole. (HM2)
In general, hotel operations due to the Covid-19 outbreak have forced

the managers to change the attitudes with the aim to protect guests not
only for health and safety reasons but also for the customer satisfaction
with a view to improving customer confidence. In these anxious and

uncertain times of Covid-19, as noted by (HM2) customers, the econ-
omy in general and the prosperity of organisations are getting affected
negatively; therefore, every organisation is taking all the necessary and
extra measures so as to respond successfully to the situation.
The Essence of Entrepreneurial Spirit

Interviewees approached the term of entrepreneurship under different
criteria and trends and based on the data analysis two different approaches
arose. The first approach towards entrepreneurship is more traditional,
and it includes economic criteria. It takes as back to the initial meanings
of entrepreneurship, and Cantillon’s theory which was among the earliest
ones which related the concept of the entrepreneur as someone who takes
risks. Frederick and Kuratko (2010) acknowledge the issues that sur-
round financial risks; behaviours and abilities to manage psychological
and career-related paths. Interviewees linked entrepreneurship with risks,
uncertainty and profit as stated here.
Create a new business or manage one, take the risks, and enjoy the
rewards. (HM1)
I understand any investment with lower risk to bring the maximum
profit. (HM5)
The process of managing a business to excel in its field so it is more successful and
efficient in its operations and most importantly profitable, any recurrence risks
should be avoided. (HM7)
On the other hand, a few interviewees related creativity and innova-

tion as part of entrepreneurship in connection with profitability and not
risks per se; but viewed it as an integral element of doing business in the
hotel sector.
The concept of creating, developing and managing a business with targets and
innovations with the goal to be financially successful with all the risks that are
involved. In simple words the will to make a business and make it suc-
cessful. (HM2)
An innovation; making an idea, planning and implementing the idea itself. In
order to take a risk, once we are confident in ourselves and know exactly what
we want, then nothing can stop us. (HM3)
Being creative and innovative helps you to set up your business … taking all the
risks and most importantly the financial one. (HM6)
It can be argued that there are similarities of innovative entrepreneurial

practices in the studied hotels. Notably interviewees stated same compo-
nents which is an indication for hotel management change if they are to
remain more competitive. The entrepreneurial spirit is obstructed if there
are no certain policies and the appropriate organisational mindset from a
leader’s perspective which will encourage hotel management staff to gen-
erate and share their entrepreneurial ideas if any. Most interviewees
acknowledged that they are eager to listen to new ideas and entrepreneur-
ial practices but it is questionable to what extent there is space and free-
dom to realise those ideas in each hotel’s working environment. It can be
supported that there is a close interrelationship between effective leader-
ship as a concept and how the entrepreneurial spirit and practices are
fostered and reflected through it. Below it can be seen an account as to
how the selected hotels are approaching entrepreneurial practices and
which are some potential organisational advantages of them based on the
sayings of HM4, HM5 and HM7, that is increase of sales, improvement
of productivity and increase of customer satisfaction through service
quality.
We encourage employees to give us any entrepreneurial ideas by giving them the

freedom and the flexibility to try new ideas which will make their job easier
and at the same time improve our product. (HM4)
We do not encourage but we listen to them through meetings, departmental
meetings once per month, and managerial once per week. (HM5)
We try and listen to their suggestion and opinion. For example, we encourage
employees’ suggestions for changes in the food & beverage menus so it can
increase sales. (HM7)
Managers-leaders should embrace organisational change and its man-

agement is regarded as an essential managerial feature and skill (Senior,
2002). The role of a leader lies in the principle to nurture a culture of
growth, inspire employees, influence mentalities and change attitudes. A
hotel working environment which is characterised by such a leadership
style and includes the aforementioned elements allows hotel employees
to display potentially a more entrepreneurial mentality. Effective
managers-leaders should guide appropriately their employees by inspir-
ing and motivating them to be creative and thinking outside the box in
terms of problem-solving but also in decision-making so as to benefit the
organisational effectiveness of the company (Bennett, 2009).
Skillset for Entrepreneurs
Interviewees stated the importance of soft skills for an entrepreneur in

combination with some hard skills. In particular, in terms of soft skills
they related to as follows: communication and listening, problem-solving,
social skills, critical and strategic thinking, organisation and planning,
time management skills; and in terms of hard skills, there is a smaller
representation of marketing, costing-budgeting, research and financial
skills as it can be seen from the participants statements.
Financial skills, monitoring, leading by example, costing-budgeting, negotiate-

communicate, motivating, bravo, marketing, planning, staffing, problem-
solving, entertainer, psychologist. (HM3)
Management skills, good communicator—listener, customer service, problem
solver, financial strategy, planning skills. (HM4)
Be yourself and be an excellent communicator. Manage problems and give effec-
tive and quick solutions to your guests and your employees. Market your product
by know it very well and sell it with confidence that you will succeed. (HM6)
Critical thinking, visioner, think out of the box, logical, enthusiastic, spontane-
ous, risk taking. (HM7)
They also interrelated the desirable skillset during customer service

with the required skills as an entrepreneur where the role of emotional
labour and positive disposition was favourably linked. The presence of
specific emotions at the service encounter on the part of employees sup-
ports the organisational objectives of each hotel establishment (Daskalaki,
2016). It has been argued that hospitality and tourism employees par-
ticularly face demands for emotional labour, as their occupations require
them to express feelings such as enthusiasm, friendliness and cheerfulness
despite negative emotions that they may experience (Pizam, 2004; Wong
& Wang, 2009). Considering the desired and required skill set as an
entrepreneur in the hotel sector it is obvious that the right recruitment
forms a significant part of the function of an organisation as not all the
people possess people’s skills which are the principle for working in a
customer focus environment. The creation of positive customer service
experiences on the part of hotel organisations requires the establishment
of emotional connections with their customers to achieve not only cus-
tomer satisfaction but also repeat business. Repeat business was often
mentioned as a key element from interviewees in different interview
questions and also it was regarded as a skill.
Conclusion
Innovation and entrepreneurship are intimately interlinked and generally
perceived as the engines of economic growth. Understanding the relation-
ship between these two concepts is very important and should not be
ignored. Innovation as noted is a process that involves creating and also
building on the already existing ideas whilst entrepreneurship is about
applying the enterprise skills, identifying and exploiting opportunities that
would help the business grow. Innovation is a key concept in entrepreneur-
ship; it is the one that enhances creativity and aids business’ success. For
any business to keep ahead of competition and exceed in the market, it has
to acknowledge the importance of innovation. Innovation and new ways of
working are the keys to improving the quality of the service industry.
Through the hotel managers’ lenses and in particular from the selected
hotels, it was made clear that they are aware of entrepreneurship but still
raw in relation to innovation and change. Innovation is meant to be the

process for driving up and improving status quo whilst ensuring that the
hotels develop a more business focus during the economic crisis. The
application of innovation in some entrepreneurial activities within the
selected hotels encountered a low degree of uncertainties. With the
changes caused by the economic crisis, hotel managers seem to combine
both soft and hard skills considering that they occupy key managerial
positions in the organisation and identify themselves as leaders in terms
of entrepreneurial spirit. However, the fact that there is no plethora of
entrepreneurial activities apart from some typical ones which are encoun-
tered across all the selected leads us to there is a need for change both in
management and customisation in order to make the hotel sector com-
petitive. This to be achieved incorporates a series of other management
strategies which focus on the need for customisation towards guest’s
needs instead of standardisation aiming at the enhancement of guest
experience, of customer satisfaction and potentially of customer reten-
tion. The evaluation of the hotel managers in relation to innovation and
entrepreneurship is critical for learning about the processes in the hotels.
Limitations of the Study
Further research can shed light on how entrepreneurship is perceived by
global hotel brands or franchise hotels in different cities of Cyprus such
as Limassol and Larnaca. Having a representation from different cities
across Cyprus can help us improve our understanding and to which
extent entrepreneurship and innovation strategies are at the heart of the
hotel industry in Cyprus.
References
Agarwal, S., Krishna Erramilli, M., & Dev, C. S. (2003). Market orientation
and performance in service firms: Role of innovation. Journal of Services
Marketing, 17(1), 68–82.
Al-Msallam, S., & Allhadad, A. A. (2016). The effects of social media marketing
in the hotel industry: Conceptual model for development of an effective
online community. International Journal of Business and Management

Invention, 5(7), 1–12.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Perception. [Online]. Retrieved
December 03, 2020, from https://dictionary.apa.org/perception
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(6/7), 493–520.
Ateljevic, I. (2009). Women empowerment entrepreneurship nexus in tourism:
Processes of social innovation. In J. Ateljevic & S. J. Page (Eds.), Tourism and
entrepreneurship: International perspectives (pp. 75–90). Elsevier.
Ateljevic, J., & Page, S. (2009). Tourism and entrepreneurship: International per-
spectives. Elsevier.
Ball, S. (2005). The importance of entrepreneurship to hospitality, leisure, sport
and tourism. Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Network, 1(1), 1–14.
Barnes, S. J., & Vidgen, R. (2001). An evaluation of cyber-bookshops: The web
qual method. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 11–30.
Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine—Analyzing the growth
miracle of capitalism. Princeton University Press.
Bennett, T. (2009). A study of the management leadership style preferred by IT
sub-ordinates. Journal of Organizational Culture Communications and
Conflict, 13(1), 1–15.
Berger, F., & Bronson, B. (1981). Entrepreneurs: In the hospitality industry: A
psychological portrait. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant. Administration Quarterly,
22(2), 52–56.
Bettiol, M., Di Maria, E., & Grandinetti, R. (2015). Service customisation and
standardisation in combinatory knowledge-intensive business services.
International Journal Knowledge-Based Development, 6(3), 241–260.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational
dynamics (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Bygrave, W. D. (2007). The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited. In
H. Neergaard & J. Parm Ulhøi (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research meth-
ods in entrepreneurship (pp. 17–48). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Chaffey, D., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2012). Digital marketing: Strategy, implemen-
tation and practice (5th ed.). London.
Chell, E., & Pittaway, L. (1998). A study of entrepreneurship in the restaurant
and café industry: Exploratory work using the critical incident technique as a
methodology. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17(1), 23–32.
Chen, J. S., Tsou, H. T., & Huang, Y. H. (2009). Service delivery innovation:
Antecedents and impact on firm performance. Journal of Service Research,
12(1), 36–55.
Cobanoglu, C., Berezina, K., Kasavana, M. L., & Erdem, M. (2011). The
impact of technology amenities on hotel guest overall satisfaction. Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 12(4), 272–288.
Cole, G. A., & Kelly, P. (2020). Management theory and practice. South-Western
Cengage Learning.
Daskalaki, E. (2016). Communication across cultures? An intercultural approach to
customer service in the hotel industry: A study with globally branded hotels in the
United Kingdom. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. E. (1982). Corporate cultures. Addison-Wesley.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). (1998). Our competitive future:
Building the knowledge driven economy, Cm4176. HMSO, London.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.
Harper Business.
Enz, C. A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2003). Revisiting the best of the best: Innovations
in hotel practice. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant. Administration Quarterly,
44(5/6), 115–123.
Frame, J. D. (1994). The new project management. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Francis, D., & Bessant, J. (2005). Targeting innovation and implications for
capability development. Technovation, 25(3), 171–183.
Frederick, H. H., & Kuratko, D. F. (2010). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process,
practice (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning Australia.
Germany, R., & Muralitharan, R. (2001). The three phases of value capture.
Strategy and Business, 22(1), 82–91.
Grissemann, U., Plank, A., & Brunner-Sperdin, A. (2013). Enhancing business
performance of hotels: The role of innovation and customer orientation.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33(1), 347–356.
Guango, S. (2017). Standardisation, customisation and digitalisation in the inter-
national hotel industry: A European perspective. Final Thesis, Ca’ Foscari
University of Venice.
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation
types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics,
133(2), 662–676.
Gurol, Y., & Astan, N. (2006). Entrepreneurial characteristics among university
students: Some insight for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey.
Education and Training, 48(1), 25–38.
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution. Harvard Business School Press.
Hebert, R., & Link, A. (2006). Historical perspectives on the entrepreneur.
Foundations and trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(4), 261–408.
Hollenbeck, G. P., McCall, M. W., Jr., & Silzer, R. F. (2006). Leadership com-
petency models. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 398–413.
Hughes, P., & Ferrett, E. (2016). Introduction to health and safety at work.
Routledge.
Hynes, B., & Richardson, I. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A mechanism
for engaging and exchanging with the small business sector. Education and
Training, 49(8/9), 732–744.
Johansson, C., Miller, D., & V., & Hamrin, S. (2014). Conceptualizing com-
municative leadership: A framework for analysing and developing leaders’
communication competence. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 19(2), 147–165.
Jones, C., Nickson, D., & Taylor, G. (1994). Ways’ of the world: Managing
culture in international hotel chains. In R. Wood, P. Dieke, & C. L. Jenkins
(Eds.), Tourism/The state of the art (pp. 626–634). Wiley.
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review,
33(1), 33–42.
Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market
process: An Austrian Approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.
Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin Co. (quotation
taken from reprint in Putterman Louis and Randall S. Kroszner (1996). The
economic nature of the firm (pp. 60–65). Cambridge University Press.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2017). Marketing management (17th ed.). Pearson.
Krambia-Kapardis, M., & Thomas, A. (2006). Hospitality industry in Cyprus:
The significance of intangibles. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 18(1), 6–24.
Kuratko, D. F. (2020). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice (10th ed.).
Cengage Learning.
Lee, C., Hallak, R., & Sardeshmukh, R. S. (2016). Innovation, entrepreneur-
ship, and restaurant performance: A higher-order structural model. Tourism
Management, 53, 215–228.
Lin, L. (2013). The impact of service innovation on firm performance. The
Service Industries Journal, 33(15/16), 1599–1632.
Liu, C., & Arnett, K. P. (2000). Exploring the factors associated with web site
success in the context of electronic commerce. Information and Management,
38(1), 23–33.
Liu, T. H., Chu, Y. Y., Hung, S. C., & Wu, S. Y. (2005). Technology entrepre-
neurial styles: A comparison of UMC and TSMC. International Journal of
Technology Management, 29(1/2), 92–114.
Matlay, H., & Carey, C. (2006). Entrepreneurship education in the UK: A critical
perspective. Paper presented at the ISBE Conference, Cardiff, November.
McFadzean, E., & O’Loughlin, A. (2005). Corporate entrepreneurship and
innovation part 1: The missing link. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 8(3), 350–372.
McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset. Harvard
Business School Press.
Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of political economy with some of their applications to
social philosophy (9th edn.), in two volumes. Longman, Green.
Minnti, M., & Lėvesque, M. (2008). Recent development in the economics of
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(3), 603–612.
Mitchelmore, S., & Rowley, J. (2013). Growth and planning strategies within
women-led SMEs. Management Decision, 51(1), 83–96.
Moran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2001). Leading organizational change.
Career Development International, 6(2), 111–118.
Morrison, A. (1998). Entrepreneurship: An international perspective.
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Morrison, A., Rimmington, M., & Williams, C. (1999). Entrepreneurship in the
hospitality, tourism and leisure industries. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Phileleftheros Public Company LTD. (2020). 2019 tourist arrivals set new record.
[Online]. Retrieved November 21, 2020, from https://www.cyprusprofile.
com/articles/2019-tourist-arrivals-set-new-record
Pizam, A. (2004). Are hospitality employees equipped to hide their feelings?
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(4), 315–316.
QAA. (2012). Enterprise and entrepreneurship education. Guidance for UK higher
education providers. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Ramos-Rodríguez, J. A., Medina-Garrido, J. R., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2012).
Determinants of hotel and restaurant entrepreneurship: A study using GEM
data. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 579–587.
Robles, L., & Zárraga-Rodríguez, M. (2015). Key competencies for entrepre-
neurship. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23(1), 828–832.
Ryan, D., & Jones, C. (2009). Understanding digital marketing: Marketing strate-
gies for engaging the digital generation. Kogan Page.
Saleem, H., & Raja, N. S. (2014). The impact of service quality on customer
satisfaction, customer loyalty. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research,
19(5), 706–711.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. Oxford University Press.
Senior, B. (2002). Organisational change (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Sima, C. (2016). Generations BB, X, Y, Z, α—the changing consumer in the
hospitality industry. In M. Ivanova, S. Ivanov, & V. P. Magnini (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of hotel chain management (pp. 471–479). Routledge.
Sundbo, J. (2002). The service economy: Standardisation or customisation? The
Service Industries Journal, 22(4), 93–116.
Szivas, E. (2001). Entrance into tourism entrepreneurship: A UK case study.
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 163–172.
The Department of Health. (2009). Commissioning for quality and innovation.
[Online]. Retrieved October 27, 2020, from www.dh/gov.uk/publications
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative
evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.
THR, Innovative Tourism Advisors, (2017). Cyprus tourism strategy 2030: Executive
summary. [Online]. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from http://www.mcit.gov.
cy/mcit/mcit.nsf/CDF3979F7DFBA8BCC22581BC002FCEAB/file/1%20
%CE%9C%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%AD%CF%84%CE%B7%20THR.pdf
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: Integrating tech-
nological, market and organizational change (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Tidd, J., & Hull, F. (2003). The organization of new service development in the
USA and UK. In J. Tidd & F. Hull (Eds.), Service innovation; Organization
responses to technological opportunities and market imperatives (Vol. 9,
pp. 137–174). Imperial College Press.
Turk, W. (2007, July–August). Manager or leader? Defense AT&L, pp.20–22.
UK Public General Act. (2020). Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956. [Online].
Retrieved November 05, 2020, from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/
Eliz2/4-5/62/section/1
Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The inno-
vation journey. Oxford University Press.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and
convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254–259.
Wind, J., & Rangaswamy, A. (2001). Customisation: The next revolution in
mass customisation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(1), 13–32.
Wong, J., & Wang, C. (2009). Emotional labor of the tour leaders: An explor-
atory study. Tourism Management, 30(2), 249–259.
Zaridis, D. A., Soldatou, H., & Soldatou, A. I. (2019). Entrepreneurial strate-
gies and practices for innovation in the hospitality industry. Tourism and
Travelling, 2(1), 35–44.
Zhou, K. Z., Brown, J. R., Dev, C. S., & Agarwal, S. (2007). The effects of
customer and competitor orientations on performance in global markets: A
contingency analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 303–319.
Concluding Remarks
The starting point for our book is the notion of entrepreneurship and
change, and an acceptance of the bonded and hard to disassemble rela-
tionship between the two concepts. What is revealed across the chapters
are the perception that entrepreneurship is about change (Audretsch,
2002), the process of change, and the role of entrepreneurs as agents of
change. Fayolle (2007) makes the point that entrepreneurship is seen as a
process of constant and pervasive change that plays out in many different
dimensions. Among these, a key focus is on social structure and social
relations that pertain to entrepreneurship and change. Entrepreneurship
can manifest in many different forms that culminate in the creation of
new ventures and/or the creation of new value. These creations reflect a
degree of action and change on the part of the entrepreneur operating
within a given social structure that itself undergoes a level of change
because of said action. Irrespective of objective, the practice of entrepre-
neurship acknowledges this duality of structure (McMullen et al., 2021)
where social systems with specific structural properties serve as both the
medium and the outcome of entrepreneurial practice.
We see how liability of newness for new entrepreneurial ventures
brings about specific challenges around how role descriptions and role
269
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3
270 Concluding Remarks
routines are socialised within the context of the “new” firm and externally
with stakeholders who are themselves alien to the firm. What is being
highlighted here is a profound level of change that unravels each and
every time a new venture is created. A key takeaway is that both the social
structure and the social relations, internally and externally to the firm, are
simultaneously evolving and so in constant flux and negotiation. Equally,
the increasing demands for solutions to social, environmental, and public
health crisis are paving the way for greater collaboration between disci-
plines and sectors leading to accelerated innovation, entrepreneurship,
and change. The ongoing realisation of wicked problems that prevail in
society today is redefining and refining the relationship and power
dynamics between different stakeholder groups. This view is illustrated
by Oborn et al. (2021) who draw attention to how economic resources
are being channelled into non-purely economic spaces like social, envi-
ronmental, and health entrepreneurship. While acknowledging an agent
of change view of entrepreneurship in relation to the human, social, and
economic transformations, attention is also paid to entrepreneurship as
outcome of change with specific foundational elements or building
blocks that are themselves malleable. These are argued to provide the
structures that inform the very practice and social relations evident in
entrepreneurship.
There is a general agreement on the significant role of learning in the
practice of entrepreneurship and dealing change. This view is reflected in
the context of higher education institutions (HEIs) where imparting of
knowledge about entrepreneurship is being operationalised across several
spheres, including in curricular, in extra-curricular, and in the strategic
management process of these institutions. There are two broad ways in
which this manifestation is articulated including how students are being
educated for entrepreneurial practices and the ideas embodied by the
“entrepreneurial university”. As noted by Gibbs (2002, p. 142), “[T]he
common aim is to help both individual and organization to cope better
with uncertainty and complexity in the task environment, and indeed to
remove barriers to the creation of such uncertainty and complexity when
the opportunity for change presents itself ”. Due to the social and eco-
nomic pressures as we transition from the knowledge to the digital econ-
omy, perceptions within HEIs are changing, leading to greater engagement
Concluding Remarks 271
with entrepreneurship, and embracing of an entrepreneurial identity

(Kusio & Fiore, 2020).
From an organisational perspective, there is significant evidence show-
ing how, in individualised way, HEIs are involved in an endless transition
by assuming an entrepreneurial orientation across corporate, business,
and operational levels as well as in their dealings with a complex and
growing set of stakeholders. This represents a cultural shift on the part of
these institutions where communicating new entrepreneurial practices is
occasioning a change in perception amongst all stakeholders. A different
facet of ongoing learning and transformation is in the important role that
HEIs play as knowledge producers and transmitters of effective enterprise
education. Policies that promote entrepreneurship education are evident
in new curricula and corresponding environment to support and encour-
age students’ intentions to both embrace and occasion change by starting
new ventures. This is education that fosters agility, flexibility, and indi-
vidual agency of graduates as the driving force for transformation through
entrepreneurship. The goal is to churn out graduates with the ability to
understand and control their own actions, regardless of the changing cir-
cumstances of their lives and the environment they operate in. Central to
this aspiration is the adoption of digital models and modes of delivery
where emphasis is on the development of digital capital for educators and
learners to effectively participate in the previously alluded digital econ-
omy. In this way, the combination of excellence in pedagogy with tech-
nological innovations and the development of open learning environments
that occurs equip and empower graduates to transform their lives and the
lives of others in profound ways.
On a more macro scale, the notion of openness is also embodied in the
prevailing ecosystems for entrepreneurship noted across the world. In
simple terms, this concerns the many ways in which the principles of
community and a collaborative culture inform the ways entrepreneurs
relate between themselves and the other agents. The ways in which these
mechanisms are constituted in any given context can create the condi-
tions for new ventures to emerge and fulfil their potential to achieve sig-
nificant scale in a relatively short space of time (Cavallo et al., 2019). In
achieving “scale at pace”, these new firms are able to quickly transform
themselves into innovative and high growth oriented change agents
272 Concluding Remarks
(Cavallo et al., 2019, 2020). Invariably, the ideas embodied by entrepre-

neurial universities are a part of any successful entrepreneurial ecosystem,
coupled with a host of other supporting features like favourable business
policy, societal engagement, and incubators services. In relation to new
ventures, business incubators help focus attention on opportunities and
the development of skills and other resources necessary to pursue them.
Thinking of incubators from an agent of change perspective is useful
because they often serve to develop ambitious entrepreneurial individuals
at the forefront of transformational environmental, social, and commer-
cial entrepreneurship activities. One area where business incubators can
have a concerted global impact is the field of circular economy. Millette
(2020, p. 8) “proposed a framework for a circular incubator, i.e. a set of
stakeholders and interactions organized to identify and develop circular
entrepreneurial opportunities”.
To sum up, we see how through its significant transformative powers,
entrepreneurship establishes a path for a host of stakeholders, not least
entrepreneurs, who through their agency and actions challenge and rede-
fine social structures and social relationships. “Whether this structural
transformation is achieved by an enterprising individual, an entrepre-
neurial firm, or some other unit of analysis, entrepreneurial agency is
necessary. In turn, entrepreneurial agency requires a number of condi-
tions for action not only to succeed but to occur at all” (McMullen et al.,
2021, p. 1200). In all, this book acknowledges the importance of entre-
preneurship in relation to change, the role of learning in managing entre-
preneurship and change, and the nature of change in the practice of
entrepreneurship.
References
Audretsch, D. B. (2002). Entrepreneurship: A survey of the literature for the
European Commission, Enterprise Directorate General. http://europa.eu.
int/comm/enterprise/library/enterprise-papers/pdf/enterprise_paper_14_
2003.pdf
Concluding Remarks 273
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem

research: Present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., Colombelli, A., & Casali, G. L. (2020). Agglomeration
dynamics of innovative start-ups in Italy beyond the industrial district era.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(1), 239–262.
Fayolle, A. (2007). Entrepreneurship and new value creation: The dynamic of the
entrepreneurial process. Cambridge University Press.
Gibb, A. (2002). Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepre-
neurship: Living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and
complexity. Industry and Higher Education, 16(3), 135–148.
Kusio, T., & Fiore, M. (2020). The perception of entrepreneurship culture by
internal university stakeholders. European Business Review, 32(3), 443–457.
McMullen, J. S., Brownell, K. M., & Adams, J. (2021). What makes an entre-
preneurship study entrepreneurial? Toward a unified theory of entrepreneur-
ial agency. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 45(5), 1197–1238.
Millette, S., Hull, C. E., & Williams, E. (2020). Business incubators as effective
tools for driving circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121999.
Oborn, E., Pilosof, N. P., Hinings, B., & Zimlichman, E. (2021). Institutional
logics and innovation in times of crisis: Telemedicine as digital ‘PPE’.
Information and Organization, 31(1), 100340.
Index
B Competitive, 16, 105, 192, 201,

Best practice, 39, 105 245, 246, 252, 253, 258, 261
Building blocks, 45, 46, 53, 59, 270 Complementary, 47, 59
Consumer, 30, 32, 52, 168, 242,
247, 253
C Context, vi, xi, xii, 5, 6, 15, 24, 26,
Challenges, v, xi, xii, 3–7, 9–18, 30, 28, 39, 51, 52, 57, 89, 91–93,
38, 39, 52, 67, 91, 107, 113, 105–110, 112, 115, 118, 119,
119, 122, 123, 133, 150, 152, 122, 123, 132, 134, 136, 149,
168, 200, 209–232, 269, 272 150, 152, 167, 168, 172, 193,
Change, v–vii, ix–xii, 3–19, 23–39, 198–200, 243, 249, 270, 271
43–60, 67–97, 122, 130, 149, Creation, xi, 12, 24, 26, 34, 36, 38,
154, 155, 168, 179, 182, 192, 44, 47, 49, 50, 57, 87, 93, 97,
198, 202, 209, 214, 218, 129, 136, 152, 153, 168, 192,
240–245, 248, 250, 252, 256, 194, 198, 242, 244, 253, 260,
258, 259, 261, 269–272 269, 270
Change agent, 271 Creativity, ix, x, 31, 36, 43, 45,
Community, 24–29, 32–39, 119, 50–55, 57–60, 112, 115, 122,
122, 123, 172, 173, 194, 196, 123, 132, 169, 214, 223, 251,
200, 216, 226, 271 255, 257, 260
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07139-3
276 Index
Culture, vii, xii, 45–50, 53–60, 87, Empowerment, 26, 27, 154
89, 91–93, 119, 123, 131, Enterprise, v, vi, ix, 3–19, 25–29, 33,
134, 136–138, 141–143, 35, 36, 43, 45–50, 53–59, 84,
146–148, 150–152, 154, 193, 87, 104, 109, 110, 112, 113,
194, 197, 198, 201, 209–232, 122, 123, 132, 166, 170, 172,
243, 259, 271 181, 182, 191–204, 213, 245,
Curriculum, 92, 169 260, 271
Customer, x, 5–7, 12, 32–34, 52, Entrepreneurs, v, x, 6, 16, 24–26,
240–248, 251–261 30, 35, 37, 39, 43–45, 54,
106–108, 121–123, 130–133,
147, 151, 153, 166, 167,
D 169–171, 179, 182, 192, 193,
Decisions, 6, 16, 38, 58, 152, 154, 198, 200, 201, 203, 204, 215,
215, 248 218–232, 245, 250, 253, 257,
Development, vii, ix, x, xii, 4, 13, 259–260, 269, 271, 272
16, 24, 26–29, 37, 43, 45, 47, Entrepreneurship, vi, ix–xii, 3–19,
49, 50, 52–55, 67, 68, 84–89, 23–39, 43–60, 67, 68, 87, 88,
92–95, 97, 113, 122, 132, 90, 92, 97, 104, 106, 107,
133, 165–183, 191, 192, 197, 112, 119, 123, 129–136,
200, 203, 212, 214, 219, 147–150, 152–154, 165,
221–224, 228, 242, 253, 254, 167–173, 177, 179, 181, 182,
271, 272 191, 197, 198, 200–203,
Digitalisation, 105, 106 209–232, 239–261, 269–272
Discipline, 43, 45, 174, 181, 182, Entrepreneurship education (EE),
250, 270 xii, 67, 87, 92, 103–123, 154,
165–183, 271
Environment, v, ix–xii, 5, 10, 14–16,
E 18, 24, 28, 31, 32, 53–55, 57,
Economy, vi, 28, 32, 36, 46, 85, 58, 60, 84, 85, 89, 92, 107,
108, 131–133, 151, 153, 179, 108, 118, 123, 149, 150, 154,
192, 194, 196–198, 201–203, 168, 169, 171, 192, 197,
209, 210, 214, 226, 229, 231, 201–203, 213, 219, 223, 245,
240, 241, 244, 245, 256, 246, 253, 256, 258–260,
257, 270–272 270, 271
Education, xii, 6, 17, 47, 67, 87–90, Experiential learning, xii, 165–183
92, 97, 103–123, 132, 133, External, v, xi, 4–7, 10, 12, 14, 16,
151, 153, 154, 165–183, 197, 18, 19, 24, 31, 46, 108, 133,
200, 223, 227, 228, 271 136, 191, 192, 222, 244, 254
Index 277
F Innovation, ix, x, xii, 7, 26, 35–38,

Firm, xi, 4, 5, 8, 10–19, 44, 46, 58, 43–45, 47, 50, 52–55, 57–60,
194, 209, 243, 256, 270, 271 67, 68, 85, 87, 88, 104, 105,
110, 122, 129, 132, 166, 168,
169, 182, 191, 198, 201, 204,
G 221, 227–229, 239–261,
Global, 29, 30, 95, 104, 113, 148, 270, 271
166, 168, 192, 194, 198, 200, Institutions, vii, 5, 57, 67, 68,
201, 261 84–86, 89, 91–93, 95, 97,
Government, 9, 37, 38, 46, 84, 85, 104, 119–121, 131, 136, 167,
122, 131, 132, 148, 150, 153, 169, 175, 179, 200, 212, 213,
154, 166, 179, 195–198, 200, 220, 270, 271
201, 212, 219, 222–224, 230 Internal, x, xi, 3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 57,
Graduates, 106, 122, 123, 149, 167, 84, 87, 89, 91, 108, 139, 191,
169, 170, 172, 173, 195, 200, 244, 254
203, 271
Growth, 193, 194, 196, 197, 202,
203, 214, 240, 241, 244, 259, K
260, 271 Knowledge skills, xi, xii, 15, 28, 47,
132, 151, 170, 182
H
Higher Education, 67, 88–90, L
104–107, 153, 166, 168, Learning, x–xii, 15, 35, 38,
200, 227 87, 93, 97, 106–110,
112, 113, 116–118,
122, 123, 165–183,
I 261, 270–272
Incubator, xii, 36, 68, 87–89,
191–204, 272
Industry, 5–7, 14, 17, 35, 36, 38, 44, M
47, 68, 84, 85, 107–108, 112, Management, vii, 4, 6, 11–16,
121, 122, 151, 167, 194, 203, 18, 32, 52, 85, 86, 88,
210, 222, 225, 239–261 92, 132, 167, 172, 173,
Information, xi, 39, 51, 54, 57, 58, 182, 202, 214, 224,
87, 110–112, 171, 172, 176, 243–245, 247, 249,
191, 195, 196, 211, 241, 242, 250, 255, 258, 259,
246, 250 261, 270
278 Index
Market, 4, 12, 24, 30, 32–36, 44–47, P

51–53, 55, 58–60, 106, 108, Pedagogy, 93, 107, 122, 271
123, 130, 132, 149–153, 166, Performance, 6, 10, 11, 109, 146,
197, 202, 212, 219, 222, 240, 148, 194, 242, 245–247, 255
244, 252, 253, 259, 260 Phenomenon, v, ix, 95, 110, 112,
Model, vii, 15, 17, 25, 27, 33, 34, 146, 170, 171, 177
38, 55, 58, 59, 67, 68, 84–90, Policy, 68, 95, 122, 131, 132, 154,
92, 93, 120, 122, 130, 131, 166–168, 192, 197, 219, 220,
134, 136, 138–140, 142, 143, 248, 258, 271, 272
146, 152, 194, 195, 210, Process, vii, x–xii, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17,
215–217, 231, 243, 271 26, 29, 31, 34, 36–38, 44–46,
Multi-disciplinary, xi 50–55, 57–60, 67, 68, 85,
87–93, 105, 106, 109, 112,
115, 171, 174, 197, 228,
N 241–244, 246, 247, 256, 257,
Newness, v, 3–19, 43, 269 260, 261, 269, 270
O Q
Operations, 10–12, 14, 17, 32, 33, Quality, v, 23, 27, 28, 106, 112,
244, 245, 248, 249, 254, 132, 133, 192, 213, 216, 217,
256, 257 225, 230, 239, 240, 246, 250,
Opportunity, vii, x–xii, 9, 14, 15, 252, 258, 260
24, 25, 27–35, 37, 43, 46,
51–53, 55, 57, 106–109, 112,
122, 130, 136, 137, 149, 151, R
170, 194, 198, 203, 204, Research, v, vi, 19, 30, 37, 38, 68,
209–232, 243–245, 248, 253, 84–88, 90, 95–97, 103, 109,
255, 260, 270, 272 110, 121, 131, 133, 135–138,
Organisation, vii, 3–19, 24, 25, 28, 142, 146, 147, 154, 155, 168,
30–39, 44, 50, 55, 58, 59, 85, 172–175, 177, 179, 182,
87, 89, 90, 93, 112, 132, 193, 193–195, 210, 211, 213, 220,
194, 212, 213, 221, 223, 221, 227–229, 231, 232,
241–248, 252, 254, 257, 249–251, 259, 261
259–261, 270
Outcome, vi, xi, 13, 24, 26, 29,
37, 43–60, 89, 106, 109, S
143, 153, 170, 203, 217, Small enterprises, xi, 3–19, 132
231, 232, 243, 255, 256, Social relations, 4–6, 12, 16, 18, 19,
269, 270 269, 270
Index 279
Social structure, xii, 4, 5, 10–12, 18, 123, 130, 133–136, 151–153,

19, 23, 57, 269, 270, 272 193, 241, 257
Societal, vi, xi, 23–39, 56, 67, 85, Training, vii, 109, 117, 133, 152,
86, 91, 95, 119, 218, 272 154, 167, 168, 172, 197, 200,
Sociology, 4, 18, 19 201, 219, 222, 223, 228, 240
Stakeholders, xi, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18, 38, Transformation, v, xi, xii, 52, 59, 68,
86, 93, 95, 120, 121, 92, 95, 97, 182, 203,
182, 270–272 243, 270–272
Start-up, vi, 4, 12, 26, 68, 89, 105, Transformational
106, 133, 147, 150, 152, 154, technologies, 103–123
192, 197, 198, 200, 201, 203, Transition, xii, 16, 30, 67, 85,
222, 224 91–94, 97, 109, 270, 271
Strategy, 67, 69, 88, 89, 90, 93, 106,
121, 242, 243, 254
Students, 88, 92, 95, 104, 106–113, U
115–120, 122, 123, 129–155, University, 67–97, 103–123, 137,
166–171, 179, 182, 200, 224, 149, 167, 194, 224
270, 271
Sustain, xi, 33
V
Venture, v, 4–11, 16–18, 26, 28, 38,
T 49, 87, 104, 131, 133, 150,
Teaching, 57, 84, 85, 87, 93, 97, 105, 152–154, 172, 193, 194, 198,
106, 108–110, 113, 116–118, 200, 221, 245, 269–272
122, 123, 171, 179, 224 Vision, 105, 192, 195, 200–203,
Theory, ix, xi, xii, 34, 67, 68, 84–86, 228, 244
88–90, 92–94, 105, 108, 120, Volunteer, 29

Entrepreneurship and Change: Understanding Entrepreneurialism As A Driver of Transformation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Entrepreneurship and Change: Understanding Entrepreneurialism As A Driver of Transformation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edited by

ISBN 978-3-031-07138-6 ISBN 978-3-031-07139-3 (eBook)

Entrepreneurialism is a much quoted, but in many ways still a not com-

For those in the HE sectors, the chapters on entrepreneurialism in the

Like change, entrepreneurship is an ever-present and enduring feature of

change through entrepreneurship. Conversely, entrepreneurship can also

suppliers, competitors and others. Drawing on Kolb and Kolb’s (2005)

perspective. In Part II, there are four educations-based studies of change

Bolton, UK Denis Hyams-Ssekasi

Part I Entrepreneurship and Change 1

Part II Entrepreneurship and Learning 65

Part III Entrepreneurship in Practice 189

Fredrick Agboma is a senior lecturer at Liverpool Business School,

Liverpool Hope University, Canterbury Christ Church University, York

Farag Edghiem is Assistant Professor of Marketing and Retail Management

enterprise in vulnerable community groups and Black and Minority

and Innovation. Current research projects include the study of supply

of government in shaping the external environment for small firms and

Kingsley’s contribution to entrepreneurship studies relies on the use of

assistant of the Journal of Intellectual Capital and editorial board of Journal

Fig. 2.1 Entrepreneurship: a facilitator of societal change and

Table 4.1 Definitions of entrepreneurial university (elaborated from

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 3

new forms of organisation, fail more frequently than older organisations

Stinchcombe’s Liability of Newness

invest in education (including especially the cost of inefficiency until

These four facets of the liability of newness provide us with a valuable

Studying the Liability of Newness

New Organisations or Small Organisations?

Informal and ad hoc: approaches to internal operations tend to character-

In considering these characteristics in relation to the specific manage-

(c) How can we consolidate inter-personal relations among our team

We therefore frame the liability of newness as a set of problems rooted

 ersisting and Reoccurring Liability

The mortality of an organization represents its final insuperable crisis, but

This conceptualisation of a ‘rebirth’ captures a clear sense of setting the

regulations transforms the way an industry is structured and how busi-

a traditional factory or workshop environment could operate with close

owner-manager prerogative, commonly associated with small firms

characterised by Wapshott and Mallett (2021), the liability of newness

external to the organisation. It is important to understand, in turn, how

Coad, A. (2018). Firm age: A survey. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March

Society is evolutionary, often influenced by social diffusion, natural eco-

E. M. Heyworth-Thomas (*) • K. Hyslop • R. Jones

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 23

development as it grows, becoming more complex and diverse. Such soci-

community-­led, or social enterprise. Need-driven entrepreneurship tends

and entrepreneurial enterprise, exploring entrepreneurship through a

Fig. 2.1 Entrepreneurship: a facilitator of societal change and empowerment

can be improved economic development. Either model presents an

Society-Driven Economic Development

tenancy or ownership creates self-employment opportunities. Sustainable

Addressing Sociological Issues

Initiatives such as Stroke Clubs form worldwide, often run by volunteers,

Entrepreneurship: Born Out of Societal Change

often an economical and societal response to any change within the

In Disaster or Times of CRISIS, There

Fig. 2.2 Entrepreneurship: born out of societal change

created due to market disruptions. With entrepreneurship being identi-

found many organisations questioning the value and effectiveness of their

needed most (Zahra, 2021). In societal response to the pandemic, there

In summary, crises can be both a curse and a blessing in disguise. As

Bolton, UK Denis Hyams-Ssekasi

Part I Entrepreneurship and Change 1

Part II Entrepreneurship and Learning 65

Part III Entrepreneurship in Practice 189

Stinchcombe’s Liability of Newness

Studying the Liability of Newness

New Organisations or Small Organisations?

ersisting and Reoccurring Liability

community-led, or social enterprise. Need-driven entrepreneurship tends

Society-Driven Economic Development

Addressing Sociological Issues

Entrepreneurship: Born Out of Societal Change

In Disaster or Times of CRISIS, There

Fixing the World: Where Do We Go from Here?

uilding Blocks of Entrepreneurship

iew of Entrepreneurship as Outcome

nalysis of Theoretical Frameworks that

ntrepreneurial Universities in Light

ontexts of Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurship Education and Industry

he Topicality of Teaching “for”