Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategic Entrepreneurs at Work: The Nature, Discovery, and Exploitation of Entrepreneurial Opportunities

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What do entrepreneurial opportunities look like? How do firms discover and exploit these opportunities to create value and sustain competitive advantage? This paper reviews the strategic management and entrepreneurship literatures to identify the nature and character of entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurial strategies that firms employ to seize and commercialize these opportunities. Three emerging schools are identified. The economic school argues that entrepreneurial opportunities exist as a result of the distribution of information about material resources in society. The cultural cognitive school argues that entrepreneurial opportunities exist as a result of environmental ambiguity and the cultural resources available to interpret and define these opportunities. Finally, the sociopolitical school stresses the role of network and political structures in defining entrepreneurial opportunities. We integrate these perspectives to offer a way to improve understanding of the opportunity creation and exploitation process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afuah A. (2000). How Much Do Your Co-opetitors’ Capabilities Matter in the Face of Technological Change? Strategic Management Journal 21(3):387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja G. (2000). Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3):425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja G., Katila R. (2004). Where Do Resources Come From? The Role of Idiosyncratic Situations. Strategic Management Journal, 25:887–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja G., Lampert C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the Large Corporation: A Longitudinal Study of How Established Firms Create Breakthrough Inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7):521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich H. E. (1999). Organizations Evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich H. E., Fiol C. M. (1994). Fools Rush In? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4):645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K. J. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in: R. Nelson (eds). The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banfield E. (1961). Political Influence. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley S. R. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterley, 31(1):78–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney J. B. (1986). Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy. Management Science, 32(10):1231–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhide A. V. (2000). The Origins and Evolution of New Businesses. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J. S., Duguid P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science, 2(1):40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown S. L., Eisenhardt K. M. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns T., Stalker G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt R. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell J. L., Hollingsworth J. R., Lindberg L. N. (1991). Governance of the American Economy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll G. R., Hannan M. T. (2002). The Demography of Corporations and Industries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casson M. (1982). The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casson M. (2003). The Entrepreneur. New York, NY: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen C. M., Bower J. L. (1996). Customer Power, Strategic Investment, and the Failure of Leading Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3):197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1):128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • David P. A., Foray D. (2003). Economic Fundamentals of the Knowledge Society. Policy Futures in Education, 1:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell J., Fang C, Winter S. G. (2003). The Economics of Strategic Opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24:977–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx I., Cool K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Management Science, 35(12):1504–1511.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio P. J., Powell W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48:147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K. M., Schoonhoven C. B. (1990). Organizational Growth: Linking Founding Team, Strategy, Environment, and Growth Among U. S. Semiconductor Ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3):504–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K. M., Martin J. A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11):1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K. M., Schoonhoven C. B. (1996). Resource-Based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms. Organization Science, 7(2):136–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein N. (1996). Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions. American Sociological Review, 61(4):656–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein N. (2002). The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First Century Capitalist Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galunic D. C., Eisenhardt K. M. (1996). The Evolution of Intracorporate Domains: Divisional Charter Losses in High-Technology, Multidivisional Corporations. Organization Science, 7(3):255–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galunic D. C., Eisenhardt K. M. (2001). Architectural Innovation and Modular Corporate Forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6):1229–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garud R., Nayyar P. R. (1994). Transformative Capacity: Continual Structuring by Intertemporal Technology Transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5):365–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon H., Xuereb J. (1997). Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1):77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick C. J. G. (1994). Pacing Strategic Change: The Case of a New Venture. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1):9–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91:481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(10):109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R., Gargiulo M. (1999). Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5):1439–1493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan M. T., Freeman J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review, 49(2):149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon A. B., Douglas Y. (2001). When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46:476–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon A., Sutton R. I. (1997). Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4):716–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson R., Cockburn I. (1994). Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research. Strategic Management Journal, 15:63–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson R. M., Clark K. B. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1):9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hite J. M., Hesterly W. S. (2001). The Evolution of Firm Networks: From Emergence to Early Growth of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3):275–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt M. A., Ireland R. D., Camp M. S., D. L. Sexton. (2001). Guest Editors’ Special Introduction to the Special Issue on Strategic Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Strategies for Wealth Creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22:479–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook D., Cohen W. M., Hounshell D. A., S. Klepper. (2000). The Nature, Sources, and Consequences of Firm Differences in the Early History of the Semiconductor Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11):997–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans G. C. (1964). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson R. (1992). The “Austrian School” of Strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 17(4):782–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe A. B. (1986). Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms, Patents, Profits, and Market Value. The American Economic Review, 76(5):984–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1):60–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B., A. Spicer. (2002). Capital Market Development and Mass Privatization are Logical Contradictions: Lessons from Russia and the Czech Republic. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1):1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latane B., J. Darley (1968). Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 10:215–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leblebici H., Salancik G. R., Copay A., T. King. (1991). Institutional Change and the Transformation of Interorganizational Fields: An Organizational History of the U.S. Radio Broadcasting Industry. Administrative Science Quarterley, 36:333–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman M. B., Montgomery D. B. (1988). First-Mover Advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9:41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury M., Glynn M. A. (2001). Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7):545–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1):71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • March J. G., Simon H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam D. (1999). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullen J. S., Shepherd D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial Action and the Role of Uncertainty in the Theory of the Entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1):132–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrill C. (2005). Institutional Change Through Interstitial Emergence: The Growth of Alternative Dispute Resolution in American Law, 1965–1995. In: W. W. Powell, D. L. Jones (eds). How Institutions Change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosakowski E. (1997). Strategy Making under Causal Ambiguity: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 8(4):414–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosakowski E. (1998). Entrepreneurial Resources, Organizational Choices and Competitive Outcomes. Organization Science, 9(6):625–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R. R., S. G. Winter (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noda T., D. J. Collis (2001). The Evolution of Intraindustry Firm Heterogeneity: Insights from a Process Study. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4):897–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony S. C. (2002). The Emergence of a New Commercial Actor: Community Managed Software Projects. Management Science and Engineering Department. Stanford University: Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4):404–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett J. F., C. K. Ansell (1993). Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6):1259–1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf M. A. (1993) The Cornerstone of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piore M. J., C. F. Sabel (1984). The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porac J. F., Thomas H. (1990). Taxonomic Mental Models in Competitor Definition. Academy of Managament Review, 15(2):224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell W. W., Koput K. W., Smith-Doerr L. (1996). Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1):116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao H., Morrill C., Zald M. N. (2000). Power Plays: How Social Movements and Collective Action Create New Organizational Forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22:237–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway C. L., Boyle E. H., Kuipers K. J., Robinson D. T. (1998). How Do Status Beliefs Develop? The Role of Resources and Interactional Experience. American Sociological Review, 63(3):331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway C. L., Erickson K. G. (2000). Creating and Spreading Status Beliefs. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3):579–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova V. P., Fombrun C. J. (1999). Constructing Competitive Advantage: The Role of Firm-Constituent Interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20:691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P. and C. J. Fombrun, 2001, ‚Entrepreneurial Action in the Creation of the Specialty Coffee Niche’, in C. B. Schoonhoven and E. Romanelli (eds.), The Entrepreneurship Dynamic: Origins of Entrepreneurship and the Evolution of Industries. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 236–261.

  • Rindova V. P., Kotha S. (2001). Continuous ‚Morphing’: Competing Through Dynamic Capabilities, Form and Function. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6):1263–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova V. P., Pollock T. G., M. Hayward. (2003). Celebrity Firms: The Social Construction of Market Popularity. Academy of Management Conference: Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts P. W., Eisenhardt K. M. (2003). Austrian Insights on Strategy: From Market Insights to Implications for Firms. Strategic Organization, 1(3):345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodan S., Galunic C. (2004). More Than Network Structure: How Knowledge Heterogeneity Influences Managerial Performance and Innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal 25:541–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef M. (2002). Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Islands: Structural and Cultural Predictors of Organizational Innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3):427–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F. M. 2003, `Constructing Niches and Shaping Boundaries: Entrepreneurial Action in Nascent Markets’, Unpublished Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

  • Scheiber H. N. (1969). World War I as Entrepreneurial Opportunity: Willard Straight and the American International Corporation. Political Science Quarterly, 84(3):486–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer F. M., Harhoff D., J. Kukies. (2000). Uncertainty and the Size Distribution of Rewards from Technological Innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1):175–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane S. (2000). Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Organization Science 11(4):448–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane S. (2001). Technology Regimes and New Firm Formation. Management Science, 47(9):1173–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane S., Venkataraman S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1):218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson B., Macy M. W. (2001). Collective Action and Power Inequality: Coalitions in Exchange Networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(1):88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater S. F., Narver J. C. (1998). Customer-Led and Market-Oriented: Let’s Not Confuse the Two. Strategic Management Journal 19(10):1001–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow D. A., Rochford Jr. E. B., Worden S. K., R. D. Benford. (1986). Frame Alignment and Mobilization. American Sociological Review, 51(4):464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart A. (1990). The Bigman Metaphor for Entrepreneurship: A “Library Tale” with Morals on Alternatives for Further Research. Organization Science, 1(2):143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang D., Macy M. (2001). In Search of Excellence: Fads, Success Stories, and Adaptive Emulation. American Journal of Sociology, 107:147–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swidler A. (1986). Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review 51(2): 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C., 2004, ‚Move Over DaVinci: How Design Guru David Kelley Is Bringing Fresh Thinking to Big Business’, Time Magazine, A8–A12.

  • Teece D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7):509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton P. H. (1999). The Sociology of Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25:19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman M. L., Anderson P. (1986). Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3):439–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi B. (1996). The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect. American Sociological Review, 61:674–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel E. (1986). Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science, 32:791–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick K. E. (1993). The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38:628–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal 5(2):171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B. (1995). The Resource-Based View of the Firm: Ten Years After. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3):171–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetten D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4):490–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yakubovich, V., M. Granovetter and P. McGuire, 2005, ‘Electric Charges: The Social Construction of Rate Systems’, Theory & Society 34(5/6), 579–612

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper greatly benefited from discussions with colleagues at the Max Planck Institute; the Stanford Technology Ventures Program; the Stanford Center for Work, Technology and Organization; and the Economic Sociology Research Group at Stanford University. We also gratefully acknowledge the insights of Zoltan Acs, Howard Aldrich, David Audretsch, Stephen Barley, Kathy Eisenhardt, Neil Fligstein, Mark Granovetter, Riitta Katila, Frederick Lehmann, Peter Murmann, Larry Plummer, Violina Rindova, Carlos Rodriguez-Lluesma and Bob Sutton during the development of this project. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Yosem E. Companys

  2. Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, TX, 76798-8006, USA

    Jeffery S. McMullen

Authors
  1. Yosem E. Companys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffery S. McMullen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffery S. McMullen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Companys, Y.E., McMullen, J.S. Strategic Entrepreneurs at Work: The Nature, Discovery, and Exploitation of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Small Bus Econ 28, 301–322 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9034-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9034-x

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation