Download 22.3. Discourses of entrepreneurship

22.3. Discourses of
entrepreneurship
The construction of entrepreneurial
agency on farms
K.M.Vesala 2010
22.3. Discourses of entrepreneurship
• Write down for yourself detailed answers to the
following questions, so that you will be prepared
to take part in the discussion:
• How, according to Perren & Jennings (2005), do
governmental discourses present entrepreneurs
and entrepreneurship?
• How do Perren & Jennings portray
entrepreneurs?
• What is the main point that Perren & Jennings
make?
Perren & Jennings 2005
• Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
• Power; legitimation and subjugation (p.174)
• Power relation between governments and
entrepreneurs
• ”and it is antipatriotic of any small business ownermanager to fail to grow their own business” (178)
• Contradictory discourses of important function and
dependency (179)
Perren & Jennings 2005
• ”removes the possibility of entrepreneurs
creating personal agency” (179,181)
• This is clearly a discourse of the supremacy of
structure over entrerpeneurial agency (178)
Questions
• In cultural images the agency of entrepreneur
is praised and highlighted. How to interpret P
& J regarding this? (e.g. Carland et al. 1983)
• How could this agency be realized and
manifested? (e.g. not growing? Other aims?
Personal, shared, economic, non-economic
aims?)
Ogbor (2000) Mythicizing and reification in
entrepreneurial discourse: ideology-critique of
entrepreneurial studies (journal of management studies 37:5)
• Deconstruction of discourses (dichotomies), ”how ideology has
penetreted, and perhaps contaminated, the discourse on
entrepreneurship” (609)
• ”conventional discourse on entrepreneurship is rooted in the heroic
myth which defines the dominant, rational, European/North
american male model” (609) (research discourse)
• Origins of the ´Entrepreneur´ -concept in research:
• Cantillon (1755): e acts in the face of risk and uncertainty
• Schumpeter (1945). E has the strenght and the courage to challenge
the accepted ways of doing things and sweep aside the forces of
tradition
Ogbor 2000
• ”Following these classical contributions to the
understanding of entrepreneurs as agents of
the capitalistic system, researchers have
focused their attention to the individual
entrepreneur and sought to understand not
only his roles in the economic system, but also
the masculine personality attributes that are
supposedly congruent with these roles,
namely his psychological or personality traits.”
(616)
Ogbor 2000, 617
• Following these heroic, and sometimes Darwinian, notions, Collins
and Moore’s (1964) conceptualization of an entrepreneur is nearly
poetical:
“What we have learned is that the way of the entrepreneur is a
long, lonely and difficult road. The men who follow it are by
necessity a special breed . . . The road they can follow is one that is
lined with difficulties, which most of us could not even begin to
overcome. As a group they do not have the qualities of patience,
understanding, and charity many of us may admire and wish for in
our fellows. This is understandable. In the long and trying way of
the entrepreneur such qualities may come to be so much excess
baggage. What is necessary to the man who travels this way is great
imagination, fortitude, and hardness of purpose . . . The men who
travel the entrepreneurial way are, taken in balance, not
remarkably likeable people . . . As any one of them might say in the
vernacular of the world of the entrepreneur, ‘Nice guys don’t win’. (
p. 244)
Ogbor 2000
•
•
Praxis: Gender issues:
”The discourse on entrepreneurship, following a pattern within a general
‘Eurocentric’ character of Western thought, has sustained traditional dichotomies,
oppositions and dualities – between male and female – where the male-oriented
definition of reality is upheld as the legitimate world-view celebrating masculine
concepts of control, competition, rationality, dominance, etc. Not surprisingly,
Collins and Moore (1964) posit that:
However we may personally feel about the entrepreneur, he emerges as
essentially more masculine than feminine, more heroic than cowardly . . . His
values and activities have become part of the character of America and
intimately related to our ideas of personal freedom, success, and, above
all, individualism . . . The myth of the entrepreneur is a drama in which the
protagonists challenge the established order . . . (pp. 5–6, italics added)
In this world-view, males are seen as the archetype of entrepreneurs whereas
females, at best, are restricted to what Bowen and Hisrich (1984) termed as
‘entrepreneurial ghettos’. Female participation in entrepreneurship is reasoned to
be the antithesis of entrepreneurial norms as a result of gender qualities: male
achievement versus female subjugation; male dominance versus female
submissiveness; male control versus female appreciation; male autonomy versus
female support; male aggression versus female co-operation; male independence
versus female dependence; male idiosyncrasy versus female conformity.
Ogbor 2000, 624, 625
•
•
Fay and Williams’s (1993) study of women’s participation in entrepreneurship
shows how widely held perceptions about women have led to gender
discrimination when seeking start-up capital. Such discriminatory behavior by
loan officers and other practitioners, according to Fay and Williams, may not
be, and probably is not, intentional.
Fay and Williams (1993, p. 374) report that ‘there was a tendency for loan
officers to have a gender-stereotypic view of women that emphasizes
nurturance and caring, and de-emphasizes those personality traits that are
stereotypical malemanagerial: dominance and achievement’. Riding and Swift
(1990) also showed that women seeking business loans are required to
provide a higher level of security than male applicants. An interesting point
made by Riding and Swift is that without the benefit of some differentially
acting mediating factor, a female applicant of objectively equal merit to a male
applicant was likely to be judged a poorer risk. Through gender-biased
practices women are restricted to what Bowen and Hisrich (1984) termed as
‘entrepreneurial ghettos’. The reasons given for this restriction reinforce the
dominant myth: women’s lack of self-confidence (Humphreys and McClung,
1981), ‘least confident of their abilities’ (Hisrich and Brush, 1984), starting
small and staying small (Charboneau, 1981), avoidance of innovation in
products or services, preference in competing in existing markets (Hisrich and
Brush, 1984), suffering from a math anxiety (Carter, 1981), or as graduate
products of liberal arts programs (Hisrich and Brush, 1984).
Ogbor 2000, 626
• ”Individuals are also asked to admit their responses to
questions dealing with, for example, selfconfidence, control
over one’s life, number of children one has, propensity to
take risks, etc. The process of self-examination is then
followed by a process of identity transformation through
various forms of entrepreneurial ‘developmental programs’.
For instance, the American Women’s Economic
Development (AWED) program for female entrepreneurs
focuses its efforts on ‘building women’s confidence and
assertiveness’ (Charboneau, 1981).
The reason for the application of these ‘developmental
programs’ is clear: to cultivate desired norms and values in
the individuals, tying them to ‘appropriate identities’ by
proscribing certain aspects of identity.”
Ogbor 2000, 626-627
• To illustrate the import of the preceding discussion we
need to look at the experience of ethnic minorities in the
world of entrepreneurship. The fact that AfricanAmericans’ and other minority-groups’ participation in
entrepreneurship have been historically restricted to a
narrow range of services such as small-scale retailing,
personal services, etc., is widely recognized by
entrepreneurial researchers. However, this limited
restriction has been erroneously explained, in the
traditional discourse, as a result of either psychological
characteristics (De Carlos and Lyons, 1979; Feagin, 1987) or
else as problems of inefficiency in management and
financial performance (Scott, 1983). The idea that their
entrepreneurial space has already been defined by
institutional and historical conditions seems to have no
bearing in mainstream entrepreneurial discourses.
Ogbor 2000; conclusions
• For Ogbor, crucial questions seem to be: who can
become entrepreneur? Who are restricted to
entrepreneurial ghettos?
• And one of the main points, that entrepreurship
discourse is dominated by psychological
reductionism and methodological individualism,
”by remaining uncritical to the social, ideological and institutional
forces shaping the pattern and development of entrepreneurship in
contemporary society, the traditional discourse has not only served
to sustain prevailing societal biases, but has equally operated as
techniques of power, domination, promotion of a monolithic
knowledge and the backgrounding of entrepreneurial diversity.
(629)
Conclusions
• Ogbor does not question the assumption that
entrepreneurship is fundamentally economic
behaviour (founding and running a business), the
aim of which is (only or mainly) economic gain
• He does not offer conceptual tools to approach
the agency of individual, but emphasises the
importance of analysing structures
• He does not problematisise the (uniform) nature
of the agency conforming to the cultural model
displayed in the dominant discourse
• Variety in governmental discourses; towards
the issue of principals
Chell 2007: Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship. Towards a
Convergent Theory of the Entrepreneurial Process (ISBJ 25:1)
“There does appear to be more of a
consensus that ‘opportunity recognition’ is an
entrepreneurial attribute (Gaglio, 1997, 2004;
Hills, 1995; Kirzner, 1979, 1985) as is the goaloriented behaviour that may be summed up in
the phrase the ‘creation of something (of
value)’. In this way, the ‘creation of something
of value’ to a given community or a cause is
the possible link to the social enterprise.” (6)
Chell 2007, 6-7
“Sociological approaches focus on structure and ‘agentic’ aspects of
entrepreneurial behaviour; this has led to consideration of how
signals from the environment may infl uence entrepreneurs’ actions
and also how they might think about or represent images of those
situations to themselves (Thornton, 1999). Not only has social
constructionism emerged as an important paradigm in which to
understand entrepreneurs but also theoretical constructs like social
embeddedness have enabled one to develop insights into the social
and structural relations in which entrepreneurs operate(Aldrich and
Zimmer, 1986; Granovetter, 1985). Furthermore, sociologists that
focus on societal issues have started to consider the relations
between business and society and what is needed to reduce
fragmentation and begin to knit the frayed structure of society
together (Kent and Anderson, 2003). This thinking suggests that
theories about entrepreneurs as agents of change and the creation
of social as well as material value should enter our theories of
entrepreneurship.”
Chell: discourse of enterprise
Many authors have suggested this sense of
entrepreneurship; going beyond the technical
skills of, for example, business founding – the
ability to make fi ne judgements in business and
the marketplace, envision opportunities that
others cannot and create incredible wealth as a
consequence. It is this sense of entrepreneurship
that distinguishes the entrepreneur from the
owner-manager or life-style business founder
(Carland et al., 1984; Chell, 2000; Chell et al,
1991).
Chell 2007, 8
“‘Enterprise’, however, appears to have a relatively recent English
history to it. The term enterprise was adopted in the 20th century
to identify economic zones in depressed areas identifi ed by
government for industrial and commercial renewal”
“Here enterprise took on a particular meaning or rather set of
meanings, a philosophy and underpinning economic theory – that
of the free market. Enterprise culture as an element of Thatcherism
was indeed an oxymoron. Enterprise stood for the values of
individualism, personal achievement, ambition, striving for
excellence, effort, hard work and the assumption of personal
responsibility for actions. ‘Culture’ refers to attitudes and values
that are socially derived, usually associated with a particular society
or civilization.”
Chell 2007, 10
• “Since the enterprise culture of the Thatcher era, politically, policies have
moved on. Post-1997, the Labour government has attempted to develop,
on the one hand, a culture of science enterprise and, on the other, that of
social enterprise. Science enterprise policies have specifi cally been
targeted at the UK’s competitive position on the world stage; the
underperformance of R&D expenditure in producing innovative products
and processes; and, the preference of university-based scientists to pursue
‘blue-sky’ research rather than the development of the applications of
technology and the creation of economic wealth (DTI, 1998). The
government’s social enterprise strategy, in contrast to its science
enterprise policy, attempts to address a ‘wide range of social and
environmental issues’; it defines a social enterprise as:
… a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are
principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the
community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profi t
for shareholders and owners. (DTI, 2002: 14)”
Chell 2007, 11
“The point is that social enterprises may need to make a
surplus that will assure their survival, and to do so in the
long term they should become entrepreneurial. However,
there may be differences in economic and social
perspectives of the incumbents working for social
enterprises. The culture and ethos of the social enterprise
are based on principles of voluntarism, ethical behaviour
and a mission with a social cause. This, on the face of it,
gives the appearance of a culture clash with the
entrepreneurially led, for profi t organization that is based
on an employment contract, pragmatism and instrumental
actions, with a view to creating shareholder value. Is it
possible to reconcile these disparate socio-economic
standpoints?”
Chell 2007, 13
“If social enterprises are to behave entrepreneurially then arguably we
should apply the same defi nition of their entrepreneurial behaviour, as
we would to economic enterprises. Taking one particular definition, we
would mean that the social enterprise would ‘create and pursue
opportunities relentlessly, without regard to alienable resources currently
controlled, with a view to both creating wealth that may be reinvested in
the business to assure its sustainability, and social value’. This definition,
based on the Harvard defi nition of entrepreneurial behaviour (Hart et al.,
1995; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990), raises some issues in respect of social
enterprise. The examples where social enterprises operate in a
competitive environment suggest that they do need to pursue
opportunities. There is though a question over the usage of the term
‘relentlessly’ as this may convey a sense of mindlessness. However, if we
mean by relentlessly, ‘persistently, having carefully evaluated the
opportunity’, then the need for not only the economic but also the social
entrepreneur to be fleet of foot, is clearly apparent.”
Chell 2007, 13
”It is thus possible to apply the same definition to
the economic and social entrepreneur in these
general behavioural respects. Moreover, we
might question the belief that entrepreneurs are
driven by pure economic motives. Entrepreneurs
are primarily driven by challenges, the funds
generated often being viewed as a measure of
their success, and many do consider themselves
to have mixed motives, including those of
attempting to ‘make a difference’ – as they might
phrase their pro-social motivation.”
Chell 2007, 16
• “However, our argument suggests that the
entrepreneur is able to frame a situation in
both an economic and/or social way; the
drivers and differential emphases may vary
depending upon circumstances such as the
primary mission of the enterprise and the
ability to make sufficient to sustain the
enterprise, reinvest in the business and create
stakeholder value.”
Chell 2007, 17-18
“Social and community enterprises aim to create social value rather than personal
wealth for the leader-manager. Because they have valued social ends, such
enterprises have been able to attract grant aid to pump-prime their activity. So is
the process of social and community enterprise different from that of a privately
owned entrepreneurial venture? Should such businesses necessarily operate
differently?”
“Social entrepreneurs within this model have the intellectual capacity, the thought
processes and the imagination to recognize opportunity based on their technical
and/or professional experience; they have the social and personal networks that
add non-material, human and social capital resources; and they have the personal
ability to make judgements about appropriate courses of action that will result in
the pursuit of an opportunity of socio-economic value based on the realization of a
competitive advantage. All business opportunities involve customer choice.
Competitive advantage confers rarity or some other socio-economic value that
social entrepreneurs can create. In these ways social and community enterprises
can become self-sustainable; indeed they can create social and economic change
through the development of a vibrant form of doing business.”
Construction of agency (of individual
entreprepreneur
• Social psychology as contributing to the study
of how, and if, individuals in different contexts
and settings construct entrepreneurial agency
for themselves?
•
Construction of agency (of individual
entreprepreneur
• 1. Discources as tools and constraints; 2. individuals
as constructors of their agency; 3. social contexts as
arenas in which the construction process occurs and
is realized
• 1: structure-discourse position of the individual;
variety of available discourses
• 2. discoursive practices (action-talk), selfconstruction
• 3. networks, transactions, markets,
Construction of agency (of individual
entreprepreneur
• Three aspects of self
• A relational conception of agency: executive
and principal side in the agency aspect (comp.
Baumeister, Milgram);
”Making it happen …
…. for whom?”
• -> Framing the principal side of agency as a
self-reflection process and as a relational
function
2. Social construction approach… Conclusion
• Social construction of entrepreneurial self? (comp. Baumeister)
-Reflection: Individual reflects upon her action and agency, on her
relations with others, (e.g. identity, self-efficacy)
-Relation: individual must relate to others and to the fact that others
perceive and define her (e.g. self-presentation, transaction)
-Agency: Individual regulates and governs herself, attempts to influence
and control her situation and environment (e.g. utilising contacts and
networks, managing impressions)
• In doing all this,
-individual uses socially shared tools for thought and communication
(language etc.), which include criteria for entrepreneurship
(=entrepreneurship discourses, e representations etc.)
-and is embedded in social system, which includes transaction relations,
controversies, and negotiation processes.