945028

research-article2020
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206320945028Journal of ManagementKetchen and Craighead / Research Opportunities Highlighted by COVID-19

Journal of Management
Vol. 46 No. 8, November 2020 1330­–1341
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320945028
10.1177/0149206320945028
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Editorial Commentary

Research at the Intersection of Entrepreneurship,

Supply Chain Management, and Strategic
Management: Opportunities Highlighted by
COVID-19
David J. Ketchen Jr.
Auburn University
Christopher W. Craighead
University of Tennessee

Since the early 2000s, research at the intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic manage-
ment has flourished, as has work at the intersection of strategic management and supply chain
management. In contrast, little inquiry has occurred at the intersection of entrepreneurship and
supply chain management. This presents a tremendous opportunity, as does the relative lack of
work bringing together all three fields. We seek to set the stage for exploiting these opportunities
by first describing how incorporating a series of key supply chain concepts—omni-channel,
last-mile delivery, supply chain agility, supply chain resiliency, and service recovery—could
enrich entrepreneurship research. We then explain how the boundaries of key entrepreneurship
concepts—opportunity, entrepreneurial orientation, optimal distinctiveness, bricolage, and fear
of failure—could be extended to the supply chain context. Both of these moves bring strategic
management concepts into play, as well. In accomplishing our tasks, we draw on examples from
how firms attempted to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic via moves spanning entrepreneurship,
supply chain management, and strategic management.

Keywords: entrepreneurship; strategic management; supply chain management

Acknowledgment:We gratefully acknowledge Brian Connelly’s insightful comments on an earlier version.

Corresponding author: David J. Ketchen Jr., Department of Management, Raymond J. Harbert College of Business,
Auburn University, 405 W. Magnolia Ave., Office 418, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.

E-mail: djk@auburn.edu

1330
 Ketchen and Craighead / Research Opportunities Highlighted by COVID-19   1331

Every era seems to experience painful disruptions of normalcy, but the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic on commerce were unprecedented. As the ground rules shifted like
never before, some firms failed, and many struggled to survive. As with past traumatic
events, such as the September 11, 2001, terror attacks (Kettl, 2003) and the space shuttle
Challenger disaster (Whyte, 1989), analyzing how businesses reacted to the pandemic offers
a unique opportunity to build knowledge.
Our belief is that the pandemic highlighted—for firms and researchers alike—the
importance of approaching issues of entrepreneurship, supply chain management, and stra-
tegic management in a coordinated way. For example, as a result of bans on public gather-
ings, restaurants were unable to distribute their offerings to patrons via their main
distribution channel: in-house dining. They also struggled to acquire essential supplies,
such as beef and pork, that historically have been plentiful. These two supply chain chal-
lenges led restaurants to seek out new opportunities to reach customers (i.e., entrepreneur-
ship) and to shift their business models toward new sources of potential competitive
advantage (i.e., strategic management). The innovations devised included offering curb-
side pickup and delivery, developing take-home cooking kits, and selling pantry items that
consumers were struggling to find at grocery stores, among others. Restaurants that found
solutions spanning entrepreneurship, supply chain management, and strategic management
fared better than those that did not.
Unfortunately, academic research was not adequately prepared to offer firms a full array
of insights about how to navigate the pandemic. As shown by the medium shading in Figure
1, a fair amount of work on strategic entrepreneurship has been conducted at the interface of
entrepreneurship and strategic management. Hitt, Ireland, Camp, and Sexton (2001: 481)
defined this concept as “the integration of entrepreneurial (i.e., opportunity-seeking behav-
ior) and strategic (i.e., advantage-seeking) perspectives in developing and taking actions
designed to create wealth.” Six years later, strategic entrepreneurship gained significant
legitimacy with the creation of the Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.
During roughly the same period, other scholars recognized the need for work at the inter-
section between strategic management and supply chain management (see Figure 1). Studies
on strategic supply chain management began quantifying how supply chains could serve as a
competitive weapon enabling firms to achieve sustained competitive advantages and supe-
rior profitability (e.g., Hult, Ketchen, & Arrfelt, 2007; Hult, Ketchen, & Slater, 2004). Fast
forward to today, and research on both strategic entrepreneurship and strategic supply chain
management remains vibrant.
In contrast, there has been little work at the intersection between entrepreneurship and
supply chain management and at the intersection among all three fields (as denoted by the
lightly shaded regions of Figure 1). This presents an opportunity that needs to be leveraged
given how important these overlaps were during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scholars must
build knowledge about how to coordinate across entrepreneurship, supply chain manage-
ment, and strategic management in order to better understand organizational success and
failure and to better guide managers, especially in times of dire trouble. We take initial steps
in this direction by outlining how scholars can build and extend knowledge cutting across
these important domains. In doing so, we draw on observations about firm behavior during
the pandemic as launching points for our ideas.
1332   Journal of Management / November 2020

Figure 1
Research Intersections Among Entrepreneurship, Supply Chain Management, and
Strategic Management

How Supply Chain Management Concepts Can Inform

Entrepreneurship Research
Table 1 offers a summary of how incorporating certain key supply chain management
concepts could advance entrepreneurship inquiry. For each concept, we offer a series of
research questions grounded in entrepreneurship research streams. The first concept is omni-
channel, which refers to seeking to seamlessly integrate flows of the three main items that
move through supply chains: products (e.g., finished goods, materials, operating supplies),
information (e.g., product information, marketing material), and financial resources (e.g.,
 Ketchen and Craighead / Research Opportunities Highlighted by COVID-19   1333

Table 1
How Supply Chain Management Concepts Can Enhance Entrepreneurship Research
Concept and Definition Example Research Questions

Omni-channel: “The synergetic
management of various channels
and customer touchpoints to enrich
customer value and improve
operational efficiency” (Song,
Wang, Liu, & Li, 2020: 995)
Last-mile delivery: The
transportation and fulfillment of
online orders to the consumer
(Esper, Jensen, Turnipseed, &
Burton, 2003)
Supply chain agility: The ability to
respond to customer needs when
faced with a turbulent market
(Swafford, Ghosh, &
Murthy, 2006)
Supply chain resiliency: A firm’s
ability to recover from supply
chain disruption (Blackhurst,
Dunn, & Craighead, 2011)
Service recovery: “Actions designed
to resolve problems, alter negative
attitudes of dissatisfied consumers,
and to ultimately retain these
customers” (Miller, Craighead, &
Karwan, 2000: 388)
How should entrepreneurial firms orchestrate product and information
flows across multiple distribution channels and other customer contact
points in normal times and during a severe crisis, like COVID-19?
How can entrepreneurial firms transition from using one distribution
channel to multiple ones (or vice versa)?
How can an omni-channel approach enhance corporate entrepreneurship?
To what extent does the outsourcing of last-mile delivery affect
various dimensions of entrepreneurial firms’ performance, including
profitability and customer satisfaction?
Which last-mile approaches work best during extreme conditions, such as
a pandemic?
How might various last-mile strategies facilitate corporate
entrepreneurship?
To what extent does supply chain agility affect entrepreneurial firms’
performance?
How did COVID-19 affect the value of agility among entrepreneurial
firms? How can they augment agility to better cope with potential
future events?
Can supply chain agility serve as a weapon for entrepreneurial firms to
more effectively compete with their larger counterparts?
How can various types of entrepreneurial firms create and maintain
supply chain resiliency?
What factors fostered resiliency to COVID-19-induced supply chain
disruptions among entrepreneurial firms?
What norms and practices followed by large companies can
entrepreneurial firms adapt in order to enhance resiliency?
To what extent should preplanned versus customized recoveries be used
across various types of entrepreneurial firms?
What service recovery mechanisms were effective for entrepreneurial
firms during and after COVID-19?
What contextual factors influence the cost/benefit of retaining versus
losing customers for entrepreneurial firms?

purchases, refunds) (Song, Wang, Liu, & Li, 2020). This approach is usually associated with
large corporations, but some small entrepreneurial firms use it, too.
Many entrepreneurial firms rely on a single distribution channel, but those that were able
to shift channels during the COVID-19 pandemic had an edge on others that could not. We
wonder when new channels should be pursued and how. Should a sequential approach to
adopting new channels be used? If so, what sequences work better than others under various
conditions? These are challenging questions given that almost 80% of firms that attempt to
create an effective omni-channel approach struggle to do so (Periscope, 2016). This creates
an opportunity for researchers to identify the underlying causal issues that drive omni-chan-
nel success and failure among entrepreneurial firms. Resource orchestration theory (Sirmon,
Hitt, & Ireland, 2007), for example, suggests that adopting an omni-channel approach would
make managing a firm’s resources more complex but also would create new venues to reap
value from those resources. How firms weigh this trade-off and decide whether to take the
proverbial plunge into omni-channel waters could be an issue worth examining.
1334   Journal of Management / November 2020

Last-mile delivery refers to the final leg of a product’s journey to the consumer, especially
within online distribution channels (Boyer, Prud’homme, & Chung, 2009). A variety of fac-
tors make the last mile quite costly. Meanwhile, customers have been trained by Amazon and
others to expect free delivery (Dolan, 2018). Absorbing last-mile delivery costs can be par-
ticularly daunting for small entrepreneurial firms that lack the scale and distribution capabili-
ties of their larger counterparts. Thus, one research question that arises is, How should
entrepreneurial firms adjust their strategic business models, such as by setting minimum
purchase levels to receive free shipping, bundling shipping costs within product pricing,
offering yearly paid memberships that include free shipping, or adopting subscription models
that make delivery more predictable and easier to manage?
Last-mile challenges became magnified during the COVID-19 pandemic because stay-at-
home orders forced large and small firms alike to rely more heavily on online distribution.
Scholars could build valuable knowledge at the intersection of entrepreneurship, supply
chain management, and strategic management by examining how some entrepreneurial firms
effectively navigated last-mile delivery while others struggled. Relatedly, interesting ques-
tions surround the entrepreneurial firms that solve the last-mile delivery problem for other
firms. During COVID-19, many restaurants shifted their business models to include food
delivery. Some handled deliveries themselves, while others relied on delivery services, such
as Grubhub, DoorDash and Uber Eats. Given that the performance of these third-party firms
varied (Duprey, 2020), scholars could examine the COVID-19 context to examine under
what circumstances entrepreneurial firms benefit from making deliveries themselves and
when outsourcing last-mile delivery is the better option.
Last-mile delivery during the pandemic happened in two spatial dimensions, but adding
the third dimension may be possible. In 2020, a Japanese startup, Terra Drone, partnered with
Unilever to explore using drones to execute last-mile delivery of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream
within New York (Kan, 2020). Scholars can aid entrepreneurial firms by uncovering the cir-
cumstances under which it makes sense to be a first mover, a fast follower, or a late adopter
of novel technologies associated with last-mile delivery.
Supply chain agility refers to how well firms and their supply chains respond to customer
needs when facing shifts in supply and demand (Swafford et al., 2006). Much like omni-
channels, the pursuit of agility involves more effectively intertwining information and product
flows in new and different ways. Given this need to innovate, we wonder to what degree
entrepreneurship can and should pursue supply chain agility. In particular, we believe scholars
should consider embracing the awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) framework (Chen,
1996) to examine the degree to which entrepreneurial firms recognize the existence of supply
chain agility (awareness), understand its importance (motivation), and are developing the
technologies to achieve it (capability) and whether this in turn is related to their outcomes.
The importance of supply chain agility was front and center during COVID-19. The prev-
alence of stock-outs and lethargic replenishment caused by the pandemic unveiled how far
many companies had to go on the agility dimension. Yet, as famously proclaimed by Albert
Einstein, “In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity,” and in turn, opportunity sets a
path toward entrepreneurship (Short, Ketchen, Shook, & Ireland, 2010). When asked about
COVID-19-induced improvements, 72% of chief financial officers ranked better agility and
resiliency as the number-one long-term outcome (Mitchell-Guthrie, 2020). Yet, the overarch-
ing question arises as to how to best accomplish these improvements and what role could
entrepreneurship play in seizing these opportunities.
 Ketchen and Craighead / Research Opportunities Highlighted by COVID-19   1335

Supply chain resiliency refers to a firm’s ability to recover from supply chain disruptions,
which are events that negatively alter planned product flow (Craighead, Blackhurst,
Rungtusanatham, & Handfield, 2007). Disruptions arise from many types of events, includ-
ing natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes), manmade events (e.g., strikes,
terrorism, information breaches), industrial accidents (e.g., plant fires, safety incidents), and
quality problems (e.g., defective products, counterfeiting). It is inevitable that a firm will face
disruptions; thus strong resiliency is vital.
The emphasis of supply chain research on resiliency among large firms (e.g., Blackhurst
et al., 2011) leads us to wonder to what extent resiliency could benefit smaller entrepreneur-
ial firms. While maintaining multiple suppliers for the same product improves resiliency by
lowering the risk of a shortage, it also increases transaction costs and forgoes volume dis-
counts. While these costs can be challenging for larger firms, they would seem to be prohibi-
tive for some smaller ones. Smaller firms thus need to find creative solutions to achieve
resiliency. Scholars could examine the conditions under which it is better for smaller firms to
create alliances—even with competitors (i.e., coopetition)—versus using supply chain inter-
mediaries (e.g., distributors) to foster resiliency.
COVID-19 fueled the most far-reaching and devastating supply chain disruptions in
modern history. Despite past efforts to build supply chain resiliency, companies were ill
prepared for the huge swings in supply and demand that spread across industries around the
world. This led Craighead, Ketchen, and Darby (2020) to contend that pandemics are “qual-
itatively different than typical disruptions” and that scholars need to examine “transiliency
(i.e., the ability to simultaneously restore some processes and change—often radically—
others).” It seems likely that research could benefit from examining the transiliency concept
in the context of COVID-19 to gain insight as to what worked best to restore and change
processes among entrepreneurial firms. Examining which strategic pivots endured postpan-
demic would also be interesting. Some firms changed their product/service offerings (e.g.,
some restaurants added simpler menu items), others altered their channels of product distri-
bution (e.g., curbside pickup), and some pivoted along both dimensions. Thus, the question
arises as to which of these pivots were simply a means of survival versus being an emergent
innovation.
Service recovery centers on how to repair relationships within the supply chain when
some sort of failure occurs. Specifically, it involves some type of company failure (e.g.,
product/service quality problem, late delivery), a dissatisfied customer (either a firm or an
end consumer), and an accompanying response (e.g., apology, fix/replace product, financial
compensation) attempting to repair the damage (Cheng, Craighead, Wang, & Li, 2020; Miller
et al., 2000). For example, if a hotel makes a customer unhappy by not adequately cleaning
a room, the service recovery response could involve an apology from the manager, a room
switch, and/or a discount on the bill.
Entrepreneurial firms would be an interesting context to examine service recovery. For
example, scholars could examine the effectiveness of service recovery under varying levels
of entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). In particular, high levels of innova-
tiveness and risk taking, while valuable, could also result in more frequent failures. To the
degree these failures trigger dissatisfied customers, service recovery strategies would seem
to be paramount. Along this line of inquiry, scholars could examine firms’ failed innovations
during COVID-19 and the degree to which service recovery mechanisms were effectively
used.
1336   Journal of Management / November 2020

While service failures are undesirable, they often reveal an opportunity to improve the
relationship via effective service recovery—a concept known as the service recovery para-
dox (Cheng et al., 2020; De Matos, Henrique, & Alberto Vargas Rossi, 2007). These acciden-
tal but important opportunities could shed new light on the opportunity concept that is central
to entrepreneurship, given that they are neither discovered nor created in the traditional
sense. In thinking about COVID-19, it would be interesting to examine which of the many
service failures it caused ultimately led to strengthening of buyer-suppler relationships due to
the service recovery paradox.

How Entrepreneurship Concepts Can Extend to the Supply Chain

Context
Table 2 offers a summary of how scholars may extend the boundaries of key entrepreneur-
ship concepts into the supply chain management context. For each concept, we offer a series
of research questions grounded in supply chain management research streams. First, and
perhaps foremost, there is no concept more central to entrepreneurship research than that of
opportunity. As Short et al. (2010: 40-41) note, “A potential entrepreneur can be immensely
creative and hardworking, but without an opportunity . . . entrepreneurial activities cannot
take place.” The concept is also highly controversial, especially in terms of ontology (Alvarez
& Barney, 2007). The traditional view is that, much like gold deposited in stream beds by
receding glaciers, opportunities lie hidden and waiting to be discovered. Another camp
believes that opportunities have no preordained existence but instead are enacted by entre-
preneurs (e.g., Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003).
Parallel to the traditional approach within the entrepreneurship field, supply chain man-
agement research has largely treated opportunities for supply chain improvement as waiting
to be exploited. When the COVID-19 pandemic cut its sales by 60% and shut down its key
suppliers, menswear company Blade + Blue shifted to producing 7,000 face masks per week
using simple cotton fabric (Wallace, 2020). Blade + Blue is one of many companies to pivot
to meet the obvious demand for masks. But other supply chain improvisations appear to be
enacted ideas. For example, founder Jeff Bezos promotes an entrepreneurial mindset known
as “Day 1” whereby employees are urged to act as if each day is the first day of Amazon’s
existence (Quora, 2017). The Day 1 philosophy has birthed novel supply chain experiments,
such as delivery drones and retail stores without clerks. Acknowledging that at least some
supply chain opportunities are not preordained but rather are subject to invention opens the
proverbial door to greater creativity and flexibility of thinking for academics and practitio-
ners alike.
Beyond the foundational “discovery versus creation” debate, important advances in
knowledge could occur if scholars examine what processes make supply chain managers
more likely to recognize and exploit an opportunity. Creative supply chain solutions became
essential during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence that people with creative personalities
are more likely to identify and pursue new business opportunities (Shane & Nicolaou, 2015)
suggests that a key question is how best to leverage these creative types. For example, schol-
ars could examine within which supply chain functions (e.g., procurement, logistics) creative
personalities would pay the biggest dividends. In managing existing employees, reward sys-
tems could be shifted to more strongly incentivize creativity.
 Ketchen and Craighead / Research Opportunities Highlighted by COVID-19   1337

Table 2
How Entrepreneurship Concepts Can Extend to the Supply Chain Context
Concept and Definition Example Research Questions

Entrepreneurial opportunity: “An idea
or dream that is discovered or created
by an entrepreneurial entity and that is
revealed through analysis over time to
be potentially lucrative” (Short, Ketchen,
Shook, & Ireland, 2010: 55)
Entrepreneurial orientation: The
extent to which a firm’s processes
are characterized by autonomy,
innovativeness, risk taking,
proactiveness, and competitive
aggressiveness (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996)
Optimal distinctiveness: A state wherein
a firm is “as different as legitimately
possible” (Deephouse, 1999: 147) in
that it has balanced conforming to
norms in order to earn legitimation
while competitively differentiating itself
(McKnight & Zietsma, 2018)
Bricolage: Entrepreneurial efforts built
by “making do with what is at hand,”
such as “by exploiting physical, social,
or institutional inputs that other firms
rejected or ignored” (Baker & Nelson,
2005: 329)
Fear of failure: “A cognitive and emotional
reaction to a threatening obstacle in the
process of starting and running a new
venture” that can “cause negative self-
views, self-handicapping, and the erosion
of entrepreneurial well-being” (Engel,
Noordijk, Spoelder, & van Gelderen,
2019: 1)
To what extent are opportunities for supply chain
improvement discovered versus created?
What processes make supply chain managers more likely to
recognize and exploit an opportunity, especially during a
crisis, like COVID-19?
To what extent are opportunities revealed by key supply chain
partners (e.g., suppliers) versus the focal firm?
Under what circumstances should supply chains emphasize
autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness, and
competitive aggressiveness?
To what extent should the pursuit of autonomy,
innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness, and competitive
aggressiveness be a chainwide responsibility and be
adjusted under pandemic conditions?
How can entrepreneurial orientation be prescriptively
used across customer and supplier segments and product
families?
How much value, if any, can firms gain by designing supply
chains that are optimally distinctive?
How should firms decide in which areas of the supply chain
to conform to norms and in which areas to differentiate?
To what extent does optimal distinctiveness enhance supply
chain effectiveness during a crisis, like COVID-19?
To what extent do supply chains leverage bricolage versus
developing optimal designs?
To what extent does coping with a severe disruption, like
COVID-19, enhance the importance of bricolage within
supply chains?
Does bricolage pursued during severe disruptions bring about
enduring changes, or do chains revert to prior approaches
after the crisis?
To what extent does a fear of failure inhibit supply chain
members from pursuing new ideas, especially during a
crisis, such as COVID-19?
What steps can be taken to steer members away from negative
cognitive and emotional reactions to new ideas?
To what extent does fear of failure create a self-fulfilling
prophecy that undermines the success of supply chain
initiatives that are pursued?

Entrepreneurial orientation is defined as the extent to which a firm’s processes are char-
acterized by autonomy (whether organization members have the freedom to develop an idea
to completion), innovativeness (the propensity to experiment), risk taking (the inclination to
take bold actions), proactiveness (the tendency to anticipate—and act on—future opportu-
nities), and competitive aggressiveness (whether a firm directly engages its competition)
(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
Extending the entrepreneurial orientation concept to the supply chain management con-
text may paid dividends (e.g., Li, Liu, & Liu, 2011). We wonder, for example, under what
1338   Journal of Management / November 2020

circumstances supply chain activities should emphasize autonomy, innovativeness, risk tak-
ing, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness. Under pandemic conditions, for exam-
ple, autonomy and innovativeness likely would be assets given the need to creatively
improvise to navigate adverse conditions (Craighead et al., 2020). High levels of risk taking,
on the other hand, might be unwise. Regarding proactiveness, a lack of preparation for pan-
demic conditions was a widespread supply chain challenge during COVID-19, but managers
can now build on that experience in order to anticipate and prepare for similar future crises.
Last, customers and other stakeholders would likely view competitive aggressiveness as
inappropriate under such dire conditions. Adding complexity to these issues are decisions
about the extent to which addressing these dimensions should be a chainwide responsibility
versus a focal node being responsible.
Optimal distinctiveness refers to a state wherein a firm is “as different as legitimately pos-
sible” (Deephouse, 1999: 147) in that it has balanced conforming to norms in order to earn
legitimation while competitively differentiating itself (McKnight & Zietsma, 2018). Because
this concept arose within strategic management research and was extended to entrepreneur-
ship research, it holds promise for developing knowledge at the three-way intersection of
those two fields and supply chain management.
One logical research question is to what extent value is gained by designing supply chains
that are optimally distinctive. Supply chain management research often seeks to identify best
practices that in turn become widely disseminated, such as just-in-time inventory (wherein
supplies are not stockpiled but instead arrive when needed) and lean manufacturing (wherein
waste is eliminated without sacrificing productivity). Under normal circumstances, imple-
menting such concepts facilitates greater efficiency and improved margins. However, the
COVID-19 pandemic illustrated their pitfalls when unpredictable shortages and demand pat-
terns arise (Jin & Ellram, 2020). Going forward, managers must make strategic decisions
about the extent to which their supply chains should deviate from best practices, given the
potential for pandemics and other monumental disruptions (Craighead et al., 2007). Allowing
greater slack in the system, such as by maintaining greater raw materials inventory and
excess manufacturing capacity, is costly under stable conditions, but it could be a firm’s sal-
vation under duress.
Bricolage occurs when an entrepreneur focuses on “making do with what is at hand,” such
as “by exploiting physical, social, or institutional inputs that other firms rejected or ignored”
(Baker & Nelson, 2005: 329). This often takes the form of merging existing business models
in new ways. For example, Fetch Park in Atlanta, Georgia, carves out a unique strategic niche
by combining a dog park and a full-service bar in one facility. Bricolage appears to be fruit-
ful: Stenholm and Renko’s (2016) study of nearly 2,500 startups found higher levels of bri-
colage among surviving firms relative to failed ones.
The supply chain field often centers on pursuing optimal processes and designs, but we
suspect that much more supply chain improvisation happens than researchers recognize and
measure. This leads us to wonder to what extent do supply chains leverage bricolage versus
pursuing optimality. As with many research questions, part of the answer is likely “it
depends.” During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, massive and unpredictable shifts in
supply and demand forced firms to improvise even though this took many of them far outside
their comfort zone (Craighead et al., 2020). Investigating to what extent bricolage efforts
kept supply chains functioning during the pandemic could generate important insights.
Leveraging resource orchestration theory could be valuable given the theory’s emphasis on
 Ketchen and Craighead / Research Opportunities Highlighted by COVID-19   1339

understanding how resources are deployed and the effects of these decisions (Sirmon et al.,
2007; Sirmon, Hitt, Ireland, & Gilbert, 2011). While bricolage by entrepreneurs tends to be
an enduring approach, it remains to be seen whether supply chain bricolage pursued during
severe disruptions, such as COVID-19, brings about enduring changes or if firms later revert
to prior approaches.
Specific estimates vary, but there is no disputing that many new ventures fail. This creates
a fear of failure that fosters angst among entrepreneurs, can become a self-fulfilling proph-
ecy, and reduces the chances that potential entrepreneurs will launch a business (Cacciotti &
Hayton, 2015). Extending the fear-of-failure concept to the supply chain context raises inter-
esting questions. One is to what extent a fear of failure inhibits supply chain members from
pursuing new ideas, especially during a severe crisis, such as a pandemic. At present, schol-
ars and managers do not know how many potential improvements are not pursued simply
because the person who generates the idea is afraid of failure and associated effects, such as
ridicule, loss of reputation, and job loss. Given the cognitive and emotion factors at play, we
suspect that policy-capturing designs could make strong contributions toward assessing how
many potentially valuable supply chain ideas are left unexplored. It seems likely that fear of
failure creates self-fulfilling prophecies that undermine supply chain initiatives; policy cap-
turing could assess this possibility, as well. Once the magnitude of the problem is captured,
attention could turn to what steps can be taken to steer people away from allowing a fear of
failure to work against their ideas for supply chain improvements.

Concluding Thoughts
Looking to the future, we anticipate that each of the fields—entrepreneurship, supply
chain management, and strategic management—will prize research projects that account for
relevant concepts from the other two. From a managerial perspective, research findings that
leverage concepts from more than one field provide better guidance than those grounded in
just one. Scholars can enhance their chances of adding significant value for both audiences
by ensuring that their inquiry at the intersections of the fields is actionable (i.e., the ideas can
be implemented as opposed to being esoteric), insightful (i.e., the ideas are novel as opposed
to mundane), and measurable (i.e., the ideas’ scholarly and managerial effects can be empiri-
cally assessed as opposed to merely hoping for impact) (Craighead, Ketchen, & Darby,
2019). Strength along all of these dimensions is particularly important when firms face exis-
tential threats, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and scholars aspire to identify what
responses are most likely to work.

ORCID iD
David J. Ketchen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9861-9781

References
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. 2007. Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 11-26.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and develop-
ment. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 105-123.
1340   Journal of Management / November 2020

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial
bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 329-366.
Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K. S., & Craighead, C. W. 2011. An empirically derived framework of global supply resil-
iency. Journal of Business Logistics, 32: 374-391.
Boyer, K. K., Prud’homme, A. M., & Chung, W. 2009. The last mile challenge: Evaluating the effects of customer
density and delivery window patterns. Journal of Business Logistics, 30: 185-201.
Cacciotti, G., & Hayton, J. C. 2015. Fear and entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. International Journal
of Management Reviews, 17: 165-190.
Chen, M. J. 1996. Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of
Management Review, 21: 100-134.
Cheng, L., Craighead, C. W., Wang, Q., & Li, J. J. 2020. When is the supplier’s message “loud and clear”? Mixed
signals from supplier-induced disruptions and the response. Decision Sciences, 51(2): 216-254.
Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. 2007. The severity of supply chain
disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38: 131-156.
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., & Darby, J. 2019. Taking AIM at theoretical and pragmatic impact: A call for
actionable, insightful, and measurable research. Journal of Business Logistics, 40: 289-298.
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., & Darby, J. L. 2020. Pandemics and supply chain management research: Toward
a theoretical toolbox. Decision Sciences, 51(4): 838-866.
Deephouse, D. L. 1999. To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic
Management Journal, 20: 147-166.
De Matos, C. A., Henrique, J. L., & Alberto Vargas Rossi, C. 2007. Service recovery paradox: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Service Research, 10: 60-77.
Dolan, S. 2018. The challenge of last mile delivery logistics & the technology solutions cutting costs. Business
Insider, May 10. https://www.businessinsider.com/last-mile-delivery-shipping-explained.
Duprey, R. 2020. Uber eats gains Grubhub lags during Coronavirus pandemic. Motley Fool, April 9. https://www.
fool.com/investing/2020/04/09/uber-eats-gains-grubhub-lags-during-coronavirus-pa.aspx.
Engel, Y., Noordijk, S., Spoelder, A., & van Gelderen, M. 2019. Self-compassion when coping with venture obsta-
cles: Loving-kindness meditation and entrepreneurial fear of failure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1042258719890991.
Esper, T. L., Jensen, T. D., Turnipseed, F. L., & Burton, S. 2003. The last mile: An examination of effects of online
retail delivery strategies on consumers. Journal of Business Logistics, 24: 177-203.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. 2001. Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strate-
gies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 479-491.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Arrfelt, M. 2007. Strategic supply chain management: Improving performance
through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1035-
1052.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Slater, S. F. 2004. Information processing, knowledge development, and strategic
supply chain performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 241-253.
Jin, Y., & Ellram, L. 2020. To prepare for the next “black swan” event, supply chains should rethink “lean.” Supply
Chain Dive, April 14. https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/coronavirus-preparing-supply-chains-next-
black-swan-event/576004/.
Kan, M. 2020. Drones may one day deliver your Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Entrepreneur, February 5. https://www
.entrepreneur.com/article/345959.
Kettl, D. F. 2003. Contingent coordination: Practical and theoretical puzzles for homeland security. American
Review of Public Administration, 33: 253-277.
Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. 2011. Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowl-
edge acquisition: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management, 29: 128-142.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Review, 21: 135-172.
McKnight, B., & Zietsma, C. 2018. Finding the threshold: A configurational approach to optimal distinctiveness.
Journal of Business Venturing, 33: 493-512.
Miller, J. L., Craighead, C. W., & Karwan, K. R. 2000. Service recovery: A framework and empirical investigation.
Journal of Operations Management, 18: 387-400.
Mitchell-Guthrie, P. 2020. Why supply chain agility needs to be the next normal. Logistics Viewpoints, June 2.
https://logisticsviewpoints.com/2020/06/02/supply-chain-agility/.
 Ketchen and Craighead / Research Opportunities Highlighted by COVID-19   1341

Periscope. 2016. Periscope research show retailers know they are not delivery omni-channel experiences fast
enough [Press release]. https://www.realwire.com/releases/Periscope-Research-Shows-Retailers-Know-They-
Are-Not-Delivering-Omnichannel.
Quora. 2017. What is Jeff Bezos’s “Day 1” philosophy? Forbes, April 21. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
quora/2017/04/21/what-is-jeff-bezos-day-1-philosophy/#3cc608f01052.
Shane, S., & Nicolaou, N. 2015. Creative personality, opportunity recognition and the tendency to start businesses:
A study of their genetic predispositions. Journal of Business Venturing, 30: 407-419.
Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Shook, C. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2010. The concept of “opportunity” in entrepreneurship
research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36: 40-65.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create
value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32: 273-292.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. 2011. Resource orchestration to create competitive
advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37: 1390-1412.
Song, P., Wang, Q., Liu, H., & Li, Q. 2020. The value of buy-online-and-pickup-in-store in omni-channel: Evidence
from customer usage data. Production and Operations Management, 29: 995-1010.
Stenholm, P., & Renko, M. 2016. Passionate bricoleurs and new venture survival. Journal of Business Venturing,
31: 595-611.
Swafford, P. M., Ghosh, S., & Murthy, N. 2006. The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: Scale develop-
ment and model testing. Journal of Operations Management, 24: 170-188.
Wallace, A. 2020. To stay in business, this company started making masks. It’s working. CNN, May 18. https://
us.cnn.com/2020/05/18/business/blade-blue-menswear-to-mask-making/index.html.
Whyte, G. 1989. Groupthink reconsidered. Academy of Management Review, 14: 40-56.