Group conditions for entrepreneurial visions: role confidence, hierarchical congruences, and the imagining of future in entrepreneurial groups [original]

Vol.:(0123456789)

1 3

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00566-6

Group conditions forentrepreneurial visions: role

confidence, hierarchical congruences, andtheimagining

offuture inentrepreneurial groups

IsabellStamm · MarieGutzeit

Accepted: 27 September 2021

entrepreneurial visions come from by emphasizing

politics of expectations within groups and calling to

consider group conditions as a relevant context for

entrepreneurial visions.

Plain English Summary Entrepreneurs make

futures! To do so, they have to be confident in their

role within an entrepreneurial group or they will be

caught up in thinking about how the group should

work together rather than drafting a future for the

business. This is a key finding of the study put for-

ward by Stamm and Gutzeit on the practice of imag-

ining the future. Family members, friends, or former

colleagues who jointly engage in an entrepreneurial

venture form such a group, with its own history,

structure, and culture. The authors’ qualitative study,

based on group interviews, reveals that these group

conditions influence the content of entrepreneurial

visions. For entrepreneurship research, this study

implies that an entrepreneurial vision is a product of

group political processes rather than individual men-

tal images. This study further implies that entrepre-

neurial groups and their advisors should reflect on

group conditions before engaging in the drafting of an

entrepreneurial vision.

Keywords Entrepreneurship· Economic sociology·

Future· Groups· Roles· Collective agency

JEL Classifications D8 · L26

Abstract An essential part of entrepreneurial

activity is the drafting and narrating of an entrepre-

neurial vision. This study is premised on the obser-

vation that entrepreneurial groups form an interac-

tion arena for the practice of imagining the future

and asks how the content of entrepreneurial visions

is shaped by the conditions of the group. Taking an

entrepreneurship-as-practice lens, which we enrich

with sociological theory on the future (Beckert) and

small groups (Fine), we engage in an in-depth case

study of 12 entrepreneurial groups. We show how

the content of entrepreneurial visions is configured

by four elements (i.e., fictional expectation for the

business or the group; future orientation that is con-

tinuing or divergent) and name two group conditions

(i.e., role confidence and hierarchical congruence)

that direct their configuration. We propose that lack-

ing role confidence can impede thinking about the

future of a business and that narrative hierarchies that

challenge structural hierarchies can open a window

for divergent future orientation. This study contrib-

utes to a novel theoretical understanding of where

Supplementary Information The online version

contains supplementary material available at https:// doi.

org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 021- 00566-6.

I.Stamm(*)· M.Gutzeit

Department forSociology, Technische Universität Berlin,

Berlin, Germany

e-mail: [email protected]; mail@isabellstamm.

Small Bus Econ (2022) 59:1023–1041

/ Published online: 30 November 2021

I.Stamm, M.Gutzeit

1 3

1 Introduction

Entrepreneurial visions have been shown to provide

entrepreneurial action with direction and to con-

tribute to entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurs

act under the condition of uncertainty (Alvarez &

Barney, 2007; McKelvie et al., 2011; McMullen &

Shepherd, 2006; Packard et al., 2017; Wood et al.,

2021). In this situation, they formulate an individual

entrepreneurial vision for their ventures, which Fil-

ion has defined as “an image projected into the future

of the market space to be occupied by the products

and the type of organization needed to achieve this”

(Filion, 1991, pp.109–110). Gartner has referred to

these entrepreneurial visions as “elaborate fictions

of a proposed possible future state” (Gartner etal.,

1992, p.17), which reduce uncertainty and make it

possible to “act as if’ these fictions were real.” An

entrepreneurial vision helps to identify opportunity

(Filion, 2004; Kammerlander etal., 2016) and impact

organizational performance (Jaskiewicz etal., 2015;

Kantabutra, 2009), as well as continuity and growth

(Baum et al., 1998; O’Connell et al., 2011; Ruvio

etal., 2010; Barbera et. al, 2018).

Recently, researchers have raised the question of

where such entrepreneurial visions actually come

from (Gartner, 2016; Preller etal., 2020; Wood etal.,

2021). This puzzle pertains to both the content of the

image of the future as well as the process of imagin-

ing the future. Commonly, an entrepreneurial vision

is argued to be personal (Preller etal., 2020) or inter-

nal (Wood etal., 2021), and hence, the content of the

image of the future needs to be treated as the property

of individuals (e.g., Brush, 2008; Miller & Le Bre-

ton-Miller, 2017; O’Connell etal., 2011). From this

perspective, imagining the future appears as a cog-

nitive process during which individuals draft inter-

nal narratives based on the individual’s knowledge

frame (Haynie etal., 2010; Wood etal., 2021). This

approach strongly ties an entrepreneurial vision to the

entrepreneurial individual.

Such a personal view of entrepreneurial visions,

however, only provides a partial understanding of

where these visions come from. When engaging

in venturing activity, entrepreneurs are prompted

at some stage to share their entrepreneurial vision

with others (e.g., Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Garud etal.,

2014; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001). Wood etal. (2021)

consider this to be “externalization”—through the

verbalization of what were previously internal nar-

ratives that entrepreneurs crafted for themselves; the

image of the future for the venture now enters social

interaction.

Preller etal. (2020) point out that entrepreneurial

teams are an important interaction arena in which

a personal entrepreneurial vision is shared. They

thus follow a growing stream of research within the

field of entrepreneurship (Klotz etal., 2014), which

points towards teams as important social units col-

lectively acting entrepreneurially and shaping the

venture (Ruef, 2010). More specifically, Preller etal.

(2020) critique previous research for assuming that

there is only one image of the future, which is defined

by the lead entrepreneur (e.g., Ashford etal., 2018)

or resembles agreement within the founding team

(Knockaert etal., 2011). Instead, they argue, in line

with Ensley etal. (2003), that an individual’s image

of the venture’s future enters a team-level interaction

arena and needs to be aligned at least to some extent

with others. Each individual can hold a different

entrepreneurial vision and the overlapping content of

these future images sets the venture on different tra-

jectories for opportunity development (Preller etal.,

2020). Wood etal. (2021) agree that there can be sig-

nificant agonizing over these entrepreneurial visions.

These insights indicate that the content of entre-

preneurial visions is not static (Filion, 2004), but con-

tinues to form and morph during social interaction.

Narrative approaches to entrepreneurship even argue

that an entrepreneurial vision is socially constructed

during such social interaction (e.g., Aldrich & Fiol,

1994; Garud etal., 2014; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001).

These social interactions, however, are not limited to

those holding a formal position in the newly emer-

gent organization as the concept of entrepreneurial

teams implies (Harper, 2008). Rather, the small

number of individuals emotionally, socially, or finan-

cially engaged in the venturing activities (independ-

ent of their formal position) may weigh in and be an

important source for the shaping of an entrepreneurial

vision. Needed is thus a more inclusive small-group

perspective on imagining future, and in the follow-

ing, we utilize the term entrepreneurial group (Ruef,

2010) to make this point. In entrepreneurial groups,

as a specific and relevant interaction arena, images of

the venture’s future are filtered and negotiated, and

the conditions of the group may constrain innovative

1024

Group conditions forentrepreneurial visions: role confidence, hierarchical congruences,…

1 3

potential and visions for the venture. Yet to date, we

do not have a theory that adequately describes the

link between entrepreneurial groups and the content

of entrepreneurial visions in general, and the effect

of group conditions on images of the future in par-

ticular. Such a theory, however, is essential in order

to develop a holistic understanding of where entrepre-

neurial visions come from.

We devote our study to developing grounded the-

ory on entrepreneurial groups as interaction arenas

for imagining the future. To do so, we connect to an

“entrepreneurship as practice” perspective (Gartner

etal., 2016; Thompson etal., 2020) and frame imag-

ining the future as an entrepreneurial practice, which

is independent of the stage and context of the ven-

ture. We then turn to Beckert’s sociological theory of

“imagined futures” (Beckert, 2013, 2016, 2021) and

to Fines’ sociological theory of “group action and

culture” (Fine, 2012) to emphasize how the practice

of imagining the future within small groups is politi-

cal in the sense of a discursive negotiation and com-

petition that shapes the content of entrepreneurial

visions. As an exemplary context, we turn to ventures

in German crafts, where entrepreneurial groups are

under pressure to draft entrepreneurial visions in the

light of massive sectoral changes, including a skilled

worker shortage, increased competition, digitaliza-

tion, and a looming succession wave. We probe how

entrepreneurial groups generate and modify their

images of the future. We utilize a methodological

approach that fulfills the demands of a practice per-

spective by capturing interactions and group practices

in situ (Johannisson, 2011); we conducted a com-

parative study of 12 cases, featuring group interviews

complemented by additional expert interviews and

document research. We analyzed the data material

using a Gioia-inspired approach to grounded theory

(Gioia et al., 2012), and integrated documentary

method (Bohnsack, 2010) and visualizing techniques,

which allowed us to analyze the content of the entre-

preneurial visions, the discursive and group dynam-

ics, and their interlinking.

Contributing to entrepreneurship as a science of

imagining (Gartner, 2007), we present a model that

shows how the content of the entrepreneurial vision

and its imagined potential for change is moderated

at large by two group conditions. We find that entre-

preneurial visions encompass not only images for

the future of the business, but also for the group.

We firstly propose that the group condition of role

confidence affects the ability to focus on the future

of the business rather than being preoccupied with

the future of the group. We secondly propose that

the group condition of incongruence between struc-

tural and narrative hierarchy opens a window to

formulate change-oriented entrepreneurial visions.

In other words, we unveil essential group condi-

tions that need to be met in order for entrepreneurial

groups to draft an entrepreneurial vision and for this

future to diverge from established paths. By provid-

ing a more complex approach to both imagining the

future and entrepreneurial groups, this study makes

leeway in understanding where entrepreneurial

visions come from. Knowledge of how an entre-

preneurial vision is shaped sheds light on mediat-

ing factors of entrepreneurial activity and ultimately

contributes to learning about diverging entrepre-

neurial pathways in terms of innovativeness, perfor-

mance, and growth.

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Imagining the future as practice

Entrepreneurship scholars increasingly turn to the

emerging “entrepreneurship as practice” perspective

(EaP) as a way to approach the collective action of

venturing. This perspective neither reduces proper-

ties of practices to individual behaviors, cognitions,

or motivations, nor overemphasizes the structuring

power of contextual factors.

EaP calls for scholars to approach venturing from

entrepreneurial practices, defined as bundles of activ-

ities targeted towards “getting things done” (Gartner

et al., 2016; Johannisson, 2011). Previous studies

have examined a variety of entrepreneurial practices,

including entrepreneurial marketing (Gross et al.,

2014), new venture legitimation (Clercq & Voronov,

2009), networking (Johannisson, 2011), or pitching

(Chalmers & Shaw, 2017). In venturing, multiple

practices interconnect to form a continuous unfolding

and genuinely collective process (Johannisson, 2011;

Steyaert, 2007).

Following the EaP perspective, we frame imagin-

ing the future as an important venturing practice that

1025

I.Stamm, M.Gutzeit

1 3

consists of drafting and narrating an entrepreneurial

vision, i.e., images of the venture’s future. As such,

this practice binds entrepreneurial activities that have

been elaborated upon in previous research, such as

entrepreneurial imagination (Keating & McLough-

lin, 2010; Kier & McMullen, 2018; Miller & Le

Breton-Miller, 2017) and entrepreneurial storytelling

(Downing, 2005; Johansson, 2004). The in-practice

constructed and reconstructed entrepreneurial vision

guides entrepreneurial activity and motivates oth-

ers to engage with the venture (Gartner etal., 1992;

Garud etal., 2014). It is important to note that entre-

preneurs as agents arise in the process of venturing,

and that their bodily and mental activities are ele-

ments of these collective entrepreneurial practices

and not qualities of entrepreneurs themselves (Stey-

aert, 2007).

Further, imagining the future is not a singular act

reserved for the early stages of a venture, but rather

an ongoing and essential element of venturing (Bird,

1988; Filion, 2004). Additionally, imagining the

future is not just tied to entrepreneurs with innova-

tion and high-growth aspirations, but is an essential

element for all everyday entrepreneurial ventures—in

the same way, Welter etal. (2016) refer to the het-

erogeneity of entrepreneurship. New technologies,

changing lifestyles, new competitors, or economic

crises, among other things, may increase uncertainty

for entrepreneurs and may make the development of

once anticipated ventures ambiguous. In such situa-

tions, the (re)drafting of an entrepreneurial vision

reduces uncertainty (Garud et al., 2014) and moti-

vates entrepreneurial activity by offering plausible

explanations for current and future developments

(Gartner etal., 1992).

Framing entrepreneurial visions as narratives

of images of the future constructed in the practice

of imagining the future expands a personal view of

entrepreneurial visions (e.g., Preller et al., 2020;

Wood et al., 2021). It situates the personal mental

images within the discursive negotiation of entrepre-

neurial visions, emphasizes the dynamic character of

the content of entrepreneurial visions, and thus cre-

ates a conceptual touchstone to study where entrepre-

neurial visions come from.

2.2 The content of entrepreneurial visions

From an EaP perspective, the content of an entre-

preneurial vision is socially constructed in the prac-

tice of imagining the future. This content is thus not

simply a product of an individual’s mind or even a

group discussion; rather, EaP scholars demand that

we include the broader contextual world to under-

stand how an entrepreneurial vision forms in this

practice (Gartner etal., 2016; Gross etal., 2014). In

this regard, Beckert’s sociological theory of imagined

futures (Beckert, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2013) is par-

ticularly informative.

Beckert starts from the assumption that all eco-

nomic actions occur under the prerequisite of funda-

mental uncertainty (Beckert, 2016), as does research

on entrepreneurial action (Alvarez & Barney, 2007;

McKelvie etal., 2011). A range of “possible futures”

exists (Uprichard, 2011), and it cannot be calculated

or predicted which of these futures will actually mate-

rialize (Beckert, 2013). He suggests that fictional

expectations, i.e., “image actors form as they con-

sider future states of the world, the way they visual-

ize causal relations, and the ways they perceive their

actions influencing outcomes” (Beckert, 2016, p.9),

reduce uncertainty and enable rational actions. Previ-

ous definitions of entrepreneurial visions (e.g., Fil-

ion, 2004; Gartner et al., 1992) thus resonate well

with this concept of fictional expectations. Beckert

pronounces that fictional does not refer to fantasies,

but rather “to assessments of future developments

that are deemed credible, even though their accu-

racy cannot be known because they relate to an un-

foreknowable future” (Beckert, 2021). Entrepreneurs

play an important role in drafting and narrating fic-

tional expectations within the market. Entrepreneurs

use fictional expectations as interpretative frames and

act “as if” the world and the market would develop

as they assume (Gartner etal., 1992). Beckert further

supports the idea that the making of the future is not

reserved for new ventures, but is a regular response to

uncertainty (Beckert, 2021).

In line with a practice theoretical approach, Beck-

ert (2013) argues that the practice of imagining the

future for a venture is socially embedded, and hence,

entrepreneurial visions cannot be understood in iso-

lation from their context. We can learn from his

theory that in their entrepreneurial visions, entre-

preneurial actors refer to and assess dominant future

1026

Group conditions forentrepreneurial visions: role confidence, hierarchical congruences,…

1 3

discourses, narratives, and stories at the level of the

market, field, and society (Beckert, 2016). Fictional

expectations thus arise within and respond to a set-

ting of shared norms and expectations towards entre-

preneurial behavior (DiMaggio etal. 1991; DiMag-

gio, 2018). The drafting and narrating of fictional

expectations motivate coordinated actions that have

real consequences for the venture, market, field, and

society (Beckert, 2016). In this perspective, entrepre-

neurial visions may thus be mental images of future

states, but instead of being personal, they are socially

constructed.

At the same time, fictional expectations are not

determined by their context; rather, actors need to

engage in storytelling within what Beckert calls “the

politics of expectations” (Beckert, 2013) in order

to convince potential customers, employees, inves-

tors, suppliers, and other stakeholders of new ideas

and future possibilities. While the concept of “exter-

nalization” (Wood & McKinley, 2010; Wood etal.,

2021) emphasizes a sharing of personal entrepre-

neurial visions with others, the concept of “politics of

expectations” emphasizes that entrepreneurial actors

position themselves towards expected or voiced

expectations by their stakeholders. In this sense, the

dissemination of entrepreneurial visions is political,

as actors and stakeholders compete to influence and

convince each other, and try to dominate any dis-

course on imagined futures in such a way that their

own expectations prevail (Beckert, 2016). The shared

belief that the future will develop in a certain direc-

tion and that other (market) actors will behave in a

predictable way coordinates the actions and decisions

of several actors (Beckert, 2016).

Framing the imagining of the future as a politi-

cal process enriches an understanding of the discur-

sive negotiation of entrepreneurial visions within

entrepreneurial groups. Entrepreneurial visions are

not only dynamic, but the content of these visions is

essentially interlinked with the arenas in which entre-

preneurial actors are positioned towards one another

and compete with their fictional expectations.

2.3 The entrepreneurial group as a conditioning

interaction arena

Following Preller etal. (2020), and the growing num-

ber of contributions on collective engagement in

entrepreneurship (Klotz etal., 2014), we argue that

entrepreneurial groups play a vital role in the imag-

ining of a future for the venture: the entrepreneurial

group serves as an interaction arena, in which group

members share and negotiate their observations,

assessments, and future ideas—and in this prac-

tice constitutes itself as a collective actor. On these

grounds, we can reasonably assume that the entrepre-

neurial group and its specific features (such as size,

role distribution) conditions the politics of expecta-

tion with regard to a venture’s future. The specifics of

small groups, however, remain undertheorized in the

entrepreneurship discourse. We thus enrich our theo-

retical framework with insights from Fine’s (2012)

practice-based theory of group action and culture.

Before we do so, however, some clarification

around the term entrepreneurial group is needed.

The growing research around entrepreneurial teams,

new venture teams, founding teams, and entrepre-

neurial groups has demystified the lone entrepreneur

and instead suggested that in the practice of entre-

preneuring a small number of people provide finan-

cial, labor, or emotional support to drive the venture

(Ben-Hafaïedh, 2017; Kamm etal., 1990; Klotz etal.,

2014). While this stream of research has yielded

important insights on the dynamics of entrepreneur-

ing, conceptual clarity about the social order aris-

ing from this activity is lacking (Klotz etal., 2014;

Stamm, 2021). Researchers largely agree that the

emerging business, as an organization, is distinct

from the entrepreneurial team or group, yet there

are only a few conceptualizations of this social unit

(see, for example, Cooney, 2005; Harper, 2008; Ruef,

2010).

Although the term “entrepreneurial team” is much

more common in the discourse, and is often used

interchangeably with entrepreneurial groups, we call

attention to the conceptual differences of a “team”

and a “small group” and view the latter as bringing

an essential conceptual advantage for our study: The

concept of “team” mostly describes the social rela-

tionship between individuals and team boundaries by

borrowing from their organizational position (Fine,

2012; Kühl, 2021). Top management teams, founding

teams, or new venture teams all presuppose the team

to act within an organizational frame and to share

organizational outcomes. Definitions of entrepreneur-

ial teams call for team members to be owners or to be

involved in the strategic decision making in a (newly

emerging) business and thus hold a formal role within

1027

Loading more pages...