SBD Summaries articles
Lecture 1................................................................................................................................................... 3
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of
entrepreneurial action ......................................................................................................................... 3
Partzsch, L., & Ziegler, R. (2011). Social entrepreneurs as change agents: A case study on power
and authority in the water sector ........................................................................................................ 4
Jackson, T. (2012). Cross-cultural management and the informal economy in sub-Saharan Africa:
Implications for organization, employment and skills development .................................................. 8
Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D., & Kolk, A. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in sub-
saharan Africa .................................................................................................................................... 10
Lecture 2................................................................................................................................................. 13
Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and
improvisational competencies in the founding process .................................................................... 13
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency
in technology entrepreneurship ........................................................................................................ 14
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resources construction
through entrepreneurial bricolage .................................................................................................... 16
Chua, R. Y. (2011). Innovating at the World’s Crossroads: How Multicultural Networks Promote
Creativity ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Lecture 3................................................................................................................................................. 20
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital .............................................. 20
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of
embeddedness ................................................................................................................................... 23
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas ........................................................................... 27
Uzzi, B., & Dunlap, S. (2005). How to build your network ................................................................. 28
Lecture 4................................................................................................................................................. 30
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work
group diversity, conflict, and performance ....................................................................................... 30
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. (2000). Social Identity, Self-categorization, and Work
Motivation: Rethinking the Contribution of the Group to Positive and Sustainable Organisational
Outcomes ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., Swann, W. B., (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence
in small work groups .......................................................................................................................... 35
Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource........................................ 37
Cheng, C.-Y., & Lee, F. (2009). Multiracial Identity Integration: Perceptions of Conflict and Distance
among Multiracial Individuals ............................................................................................................ 40
,Lecture 5 - Institutional legitimacy and the informal sector ................................................................. 42
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation .... 42
Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a
product market .................................................................................................................................. 44
Hsu, G. (2006). Evaluative schemas and the attention of critics in the US film industry .................. 46
Godfrey, P. C. (2011). Toward a Theory of the Informal Economy .................................................... 48
Mcgahan, A. M. (2012). Challenges of the Informal Economy for the Field of Management .......... 51
Lecture 6................................................................................................................................................. 53
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities:
The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers.................................................................................... 53
Fielding, K. S., & Hogg, M. a. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and leadership: A field
study of small interactive groups ....................................................................................................... 56
McEvily, B., Soda, G., & Tortoriello, M. (2014). More formally: Rediscovering the missing link
between formal organization and informal social structure ............................................................. 57
Wuebker, R., Hampl, N., & Wustenhagen, R. (2015). The strength of strong ties in an emerging
industry: Experimental evidence of the effects of status hierarchies and personal ties in venture
capitalist decision making .................................................................................................................. 60
,Lecture 1
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative
theories of entrepreneurial action
Two internally consistent theories of how entrepreneurial opportunities are formed – discovery
theory and creation theory – are described. Implications of these theories for seven entrepreneurial
actions are described.
When opportunities need to be discovered (the mountain waits to be climbed), the task of
entrepreneurs is to discover them. When opportunities need to be created (like building mountains),
entrepreneurs have to create them. This has implications for strategy, because discovery calls for a
concrete business plan, whereas creation calls for an emergent strategy.
When different teleological theories generate different predictions about the same human actions,
these different predictions usually turn on one or more differences in three critical assumptions.
Therefore, the following three assumptions are used as a basis for comparing discovery and creation
theory. Teleological theories come with three critical assumptions about the nature of:
1. Human objectives (exogenously vs. endogenously)
2. Individuals (in discovery: ability to spot opportunities and exploit them, alertness; in creation:
ability to form opportunities and exploit them, small differences could generate large
differences over time)
3. The decision making context within which individuals operate (risky means that anticipation
is possible, uncertain means not)
These assumptions for discovery and creation theory are contradictory; however, this debate is not
likely to be solved ex post since it will always be possible to interpret the formation of a particular
opportunity as either a discovery or creation process. The actions that entrepreneurs actually take
can be thought of as a manifestation of the assumptions they make about the nature of the context
within which they are operating (discovery vs. creation). If their hypothesis about the nature of this
context is correct, then that activity will be relatively effective in the formation and exploitation of an
opportunity. Implications of discovery and creation assumptions for seven entrepreneurial actions
are displayed in table 2.
,There are several implications that become apparent in this article. First, the distinction between
these two theories helps in answering several questions posed with regard to entrepreneurship,
since these answers are often context-dependent. Second, creation theory may provide a link
between micro-level processes of enactment and macro-level processes of variation, selection, and
retention. Third, creation theory may also answer the question where heterogeneous resources and
capabilities (RBV) come from, since creation processes involve tacit learning. Finally, creation
processes make it hard to estimate the relative value of transaction specific investments or who has
the most to gain.
Partzsch, L., & Ziegler, R. (2011). Social entrepreneurs as change agents: A
case study on power and authority in the water sector
We examine the role and authority of a new type of actor that has recently emerged on the global
stage—the social entrepreneur, who tackles social and ecological problems with sustainable
entrepreneurial means. We consider them as agents that perform functions and provide services that
have been considered to be the sole authority of states (water services). We propose that their
innovative potential serves as their main source of authority to pursue their goals. Their local
embeddedness along with their educational efforts, participatory goals, and accreditation as ‘‘social
entrepreneur’’ provide additional sources of authority.
Social entrepreneurs are change agents in the sense that they aim at systemic solutions to structural
problems rather than aid, which leaves the respective structures in place. Social entrepreneurs have
innovative solutions to pressing social problems, they are ambitious and persistent, they do not rely
on business and government for the realization of their ideas, and they aim at largescale, systemic
change. Ashoka fellows (incubatees) are selected according to the following criteria: (a) a new idea
(the knockout criterion), (b) creativity, (c) entrepreneurial quality, (d) social impact of the idea, and
(e) ethical fiber. This pragmatic definition resonates with an important stream of research on social
entrepreneurship, the so-called social innovation school of thought. Joseph Schumpeter, the classic
theorist of entrepreneurship, singles out entrepreneurship as the driver of economic development
, and in turn views innovation as the core of entrepreneurship. Innovation is not the same as
invention; it is rather the carrying out, the pushing through of an invention.
Our sample originates from civil society (with www.org addresses); they are in the first place social
innovators rather than economic or political innovators. We attempt to articulate ‘the social’ at issue
via an analysis of social entrepreneurship vis-a`-vis a governance structure. Studying social
entrepreneurs against this background leads to an account of the social beyond the trivial good and
bad, which Cho correctly points out as problematic.
While an actor only participates in decision making and has himself or herself no authority, an ‘‘agent
of earth system governance is an actor who possesses the ability to prescribe behavior and to obtain
the consent of the governed”. Agents do not only affect, but are also affected by, spaces created by
governance missions. On the one hand, social entrepreneurs shape human-natural systems (in our
case, human–water interaction) by promoting their goals; on the other hand, they are shaped by the
dominant systems of governance (in our case, water governance). However, while state actors can
pass on functions and power to non-state actors such as social entrepreneurs, their democratic
legitimacy is not simply transferable.
Legitimacy, and thereby authority, can be achieved through both a fair democratic process and the
solution of a commonly perceived problem or the provision of public goods. While state agents
legitimately act on behalf of the people, non-state actors are justified by utility or problem-solving
capacity, for example, providing drink water to the poor. The innovative capacity of entrepreneurs,
i.e. their new ideas, can be considered as their main source of authority (output-oriented legitimacy).
Second, the quality of their ideas is often explained by their local embeddedness and knowledge of
the local context, which makes them informally accountable. Third, social entrepreneurs are
transition agents who seek institutional change (and who might also no longer be needed when this
change is achieved). Finally, the title ‘social entrepreneur’ increases local recognition of the agents
vis-à-vis other agents.
With regard to water governance, there are three dominant missions: the hydraulic mission (every
drop counts), the neo-liberal mission (financing water for all), and Integrated Water Resources
Management (some for all forever)(table 1). This article focuses on the hydraulic mission. Two types
of change relations are likely for achieving or contributing to this mission:
1. Responding to a commonly perceived problem, which the respective mission recognizes but
cannot solve, struggles to solve, or struggles to implement. The social entrepreneur accepts
the aims of the respective mission (but might disagree with the approach).
2. Responding to a problem with regard to sustainable development, which the respective
mission has created, though possible only as an unintended side effect. Impacts on existing
ecosystems and social systems range from the intended to the unintended.
Lecture 1................................................................................................................................................... 3
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of
entrepreneurial action ......................................................................................................................... 3
Partzsch, L., & Ziegler, R. (2011). Social entrepreneurs as change agents: A case study on power
and authority in the water sector ........................................................................................................ 4
Jackson, T. (2012). Cross-cultural management and the informal economy in sub-Saharan Africa:
Implications for organization, employment and skills development .................................................. 8
Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D., & Kolk, A. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in sub-
saharan Africa .................................................................................................................................... 10
Lecture 2................................................................................................................................................. 13
Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and
improvisational competencies in the founding process .................................................................... 13
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency
in technology entrepreneurship ........................................................................................................ 14
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resources construction
through entrepreneurial bricolage .................................................................................................... 16
Chua, R. Y. (2011). Innovating at the World’s Crossroads: How Multicultural Networks Promote
Creativity ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Lecture 3................................................................................................................................................. 20
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital .............................................. 20
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of
embeddedness ................................................................................................................................... 23
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas ........................................................................... 27
Uzzi, B., & Dunlap, S. (2005). How to build your network ................................................................. 28
Lecture 4................................................................................................................................................. 30
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work
group diversity, conflict, and performance ....................................................................................... 30
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. (2000). Social Identity, Self-categorization, and Work
Motivation: Rethinking the Contribution of the Group to Positive and Sustainable Organisational
Outcomes ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., Swann, W. B., (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence
in small work groups .......................................................................................................................... 35
Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource........................................ 37
Cheng, C.-Y., & Lee, F. (2009). Multiracial Identity Integration: Perceptions of Conflict and Distance
among Multiracial Individuals ............................................................................................................ 40
,Lecture 5 - Institutional legitimacy and the informal sector ................................................................. 42
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation .... 42
Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a
product market .................................................................................................................................. 44
Hsu, G. (2006). Evaluative schemas and the attention of critics in the US film industry .................. 46
Godfrey, P. C. (2011). Toward a Theory of the Informal Economy .................................................... 48
Mcgahan, A. M. (2012). Challenges of the Informal Economy for the Field of Management .......... 51
Lecture 6................................................................................................................................................. 53
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities:
The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers.................................................................................... 53
Fielding, K. S., & Hogg, M. a. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and leadership: A field
study of small interactive groups ....................................................................................................... 56
McEvily, B., Soda, G., & Tortoriello, M. (2014). More formally: Rediscovering the missing link
between formal organization and informal social structure ............................................................. 57
Wuebker, R., Hampl, N., & Wustenhagen, R. (2015). The strength of strong ties in an emerging
industry: Experimental evidence of the effects of status hierarchies and personal ties in venture
capitalist decision making .................................................................................................................. 60
,Lecture 1
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative
theories of entrepreneurial action
Two internally consistent theories of how entrepreneurial opportunities are formed – discovery
theory and creation theory – are described. Implications of these theories for seven entrepreneurial
actions are described.
When opportunities need to be discovered (the mountain waits to be climbed), the task of
entrepreneurs is to discover them. When opportunities need to be created (like building mountains),
entrepreneurs have to create them. This has implications for strategy, because discovery calls for a
concrete business plan, whereas creation calls for an emergent strategy.
When different teleological theories generate different predictions about the same human actions,
these different predictions usually turn on one or more differences in three critical assumptions.
Therefore, the following three assumptions are used as a basis for comparing discovery and creation
theory. Teleological theories come with three critical assumptions about the nature of:
1. Human objectives (exogenously vs. endogenously)
2. Individuals (in discovery: ability to spot opportunities and exploit them, alertness; in creation:
ability to form opportunities and exploit them, small differences could generate large
differences over time)
3. The decision making context within which individuals operate (risky means that anticipation
is possible, uncertain means not)
These assumptions for discovery and creation theory are contradictory; however, this debate is not
likely to be solved ex post since it will always be possible to interpret the formation of a particular
opportunity as either a discovery or creation process. The actions that entrepreneurs actually take
can be thought of as a manifestation of the assumptions they make about the nature of the context
within which they are operating (discovery vs. creation). If their hypothesis about the nature of this
context is correct, then that activity will be relatively effective in the formation and exploitation of an
opportunity. Implications of discovery and creation assumptions for seven entrepreneurial actions
are displayed in table 2.
,There are several implications that become apparent in this article. First, the distinction between
these two theories helps in answering several questions posed with regard to entrepreneurship,
since these answers are often context-dependent. Second, creation theory may provide a link
between micro-level processes of enactment and macro-level processes of variation, selection, and
retention. Third, creation theory may also answer the question where heterogeneous resources and
capabilities (RBV) come from, since creation processes involve tacit learning. Finally, creation
processes make it hard to estimate the relative value of transaction specific investments or who has
the most to gain.
Partzsch, L., & Ziegler, R. (2011). Social entrepreneurs as change agents: A
case study on power and authority in the water sector
We examine the role and authority of a new type of actor that has recently emerged on the global
stage—the social entrepreneur, who tackles social and ecological problems with sustainable
entrepreneurial means. We consider them as agents that perform functions and provide services that
have been considered to be the sole authority of states (water services). We propose that their
innovative potential serves as their main source of authority to pursue their goals. Their local
embeddedness along with their educational efforts, participatory goals, and accreditation as ‘‘social
entrepreneur’’ provide additional sources of authority.
Social entrepreneurs are change agents in the sense that they aim at systemic solutions to structural
problems rather than aid, which leaves the respective structures in place. Social entrepreneurs have
innovative solutions to pressing social problems, they are ambitious and persistent, they do not rely
on business and government for the realization of their ideas, and they aim at largescale, systemic
change. Ashoka fellows (incubatees) are selected according to the following criteria: (a) a new idea
(the knockout criterion), (b) creativity, (c) entrepreneurial quality, (d) social impact of the idea, and
(e) ethical fiber. This pragmatic definition resonates with an important stream of research on social
entrepreneurship, the so-called social innovation school of thought. Joseph Schumpeter, the classic
theorist of entrepreneurship, singles out entrepreneurship as the driver of economic development
, and in turn views innovation as the core of entrepreneurship. Innovation is not the same as
invention; it is rather the carrying out, the pushing through of an invention.
Our sample originates from civil society (with www.org addresses); they are in the first place social
innovators rather than economic or political innovators. We attempt to articulate ‘the social’ at issue
via an analysis of social entrepreneurship vis-a`-vis a governance structure. Studying social
entrepreneurs against this background leads to an account of the social beyond the trivial good and
bad, which Cho correctly points out as problematic.
While an actor only participates in decision making and has himself or herself no authority, an ‘‘agent
of earth system governance is an actor who possesses the ability to prescribe behavior and to obtain
the consent of the governed”. Agents do not only affect, but are also affected by, spaces created by
governance missions. On the one hand, social entrepreneurs shape human-natural systems (in our
case, human–water interaction) by promoting their goals; on the other hand, they are shaped by the
dominant systems of governance (in our case, water governance). However, while state actors can
pass on functions and power to non-state actors such as social entrepreneurs, their democratic
legitimacy is not simply transferable.
Legitimacy, and thereby authority, can be achieved through both a fair democratic process and the
solution of a commonly perceived problem or the provision of public goods. While state agents
legitimately act on behalf of the people, non-state actors are justified by utility or problem-solving
capacity, for example, providing drink water to the poor. The innovative capacity of entrepreneurs,
i.e. their new ideas, can be considered as their main source of authority (output-oriented legitimacy).
Second, the quality of their ideas is often explained by their local embeddedness and knowledge of
the local context, which makes them informally accountable. Third, social entrepreneurs are
transition agents who seek institutional change (and who might also no longer be needed when this
change is achieved). Finally, the title ‘social entrepreneur’ increases local recognition of the agents
vis-à-vis other agents.
With regard to water governance, there are three dominant missions: the hydraulic mission (every
drop counts), the neo-liberal mission (financing water for all), and Integrated Water Resources
Management (some for all forever)(table 1). This article focuses on the hydraulic mission. Two types
of change relations are likely for achieving or contributing to this mission:
1. Responding to a commonly perceived problem, which the respective mission recognizes but
cannot solve, struggles to solve, or struggles to implement. The social entrepreneur accepts
the aims of the respective mission (but might disagree with the approach).
2. Responding to a problem with regard to sustainable development, which the respective
mission has created, though possible only as an unintended side effect. Impacts on existing
ecosystems and social systems range from the intended to the unintended.
