Search results

In this volume, we examine how the institutional environment affects entrepreneurial organizations, and vice-versa. This includes not only how the institutional environment constrains both founding processes and the type of organizations founded, but also how institutional dynamics construct new entrepreneurial opportunities, empower and facilitate action, and how entrepreneurs manipulate the institutional environment to serve their own ends. This institutional approach to entrepreneurship shifts attention away from the personal traits and backgrounds of individual entrepreneurs, and towards how institutions shape entrepreneurial opportunities and actions; how entrepreneurs navigate their cognitive, normative, and regulatory environments; and how actors modify and build institutions to support new types of organizations.

Through a study of the emergent U.S. wind energy sector, 1978–1992, this paper examines how large-scale social movements external to an industry can influence the creation of new market opportunities and hence encourage entrepreneurship. We theorize that through the construction and propagation of cognitive frameworks, norms, values, and regulatory structures, and by offering a preexisting social structure, social movement organizations influence whether entrepreneurs attempt to start ventures in emerging sectors. We find that the direct and indirect effects of social resources (e.g., environmental groups) had a larger impact on entrepreneurial activity in this sector than the availability of natural resources such as land with high-quality wind. Greater numbers of environmental movement organization members increased nascent entrepreneurial activity, and this effect was mediated by favorable state regulatory policy. Greater membership numbers also enhanced the effects of important natural resources, market conditions, and skilled human capital on entrepreneurial activity. Taken together, these results have important implications for the study of social movements, entrepreneurship, and institutional theory.

We draw on the early history of the management consulting field to build theory about how institutional entrepreneurs legitimate new kinds of organizations in emerging fields. We study the professional form of management consulting organization, which came to dominate other alternatives. Pioneers of this organizational form seized opportunities arising from broad institutional change to discredit the status quo and legitimate their model of how to advise organizations on strategic and operational issues. Similar to institutional entrepreneurs seeking to change mature fields, those in this emerging field engaged in theorization, undertook collective action, and established affiliations with recognized authorities and elites. But unlike institutional entrepreneurs in mature fields, the actors we studied could not leverage logics, positions, or collectivities within their emerging field; instead, they drew on logics from outside their field, sought affiliations with external authorities and elites, and emphasized the benefits of their activities for society at large. Our analysis thus suggests important differences in how actors legitimate novel organizational forms in emerging versus mature fields and underscores the need for theories of institutional entrepreneurship that explicitly account for field context.