a heart mind opportunity nexus

4
2013 Diaiogue 313 Green, S. E., Jr., & Li, Y. 2011. Rhetorical institutionalism: Language, agency, and structure in institutional theory since Alvesson 1993./ournai o/Management Studies, 48: 1662-1697. Hinings, C. R. 1988. Defending organization theory: A British view from North America. Organization Studies, 9: 2-7. Jackson, N., & Carter, P. 1991. In defence of paradigm incom- mensurability. Organization Studies, 12: 109-127. Knorr Cetina, K. D. 1991. Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. History oí Political Economy, 23: 105-122. Knorr Cetina, K. D. 2010. .The epistemics of information: A logic of knowledge consumption. Journal oí Consumer Culture, 10: 1-31. Knudsen, C. 2003. Pluralism, scientific progress and the structure of organization theory. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsden (Eds.), The Ox/ord handbook oí organization theory: 262-288. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kraatz, M. S. 2011. Two cheers for institutional work. Journal oí Management Inquiry, 20: 59-61. Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, T. 1977. The essential tension: Selected studies in sci- entiiic tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press. Law, J. 1994. Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Law, J. 1999. After ANT: Complexity, naming, and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and aiter: 1-14. Oxford: Blackwell. McNall, S., & Johnson, J. 1975. The new conservatives: Ethno- methodologists, phenomenologists and symbolic inter- actionists. Critical Sociology, 5: 49-65. Meyer, R. E., & Boxenbaum, E. 2010. Exploring European-ness in organization research. Organization Studies, 31: 737- 755. Oswick, C, Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy oí Management Review, 36: 318-337. Reed, M. 1997. In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis. Orga- nizafion Studies, 18: 21-42. Rhodes, C, & Pullen, A. 2010. Editorial: Neophilia and orga- nization. Culture and Organization, 16: 1-6. Stem, R. N., & Barley, S. R. 1996. Organizations and social systems: Organization theory's neglected mandate. Ad- ministrative Science QuarteWy, 41: 146-162. Suddaby, R., Hardy, C, & Huy, Q. N. 2011. Introduction to special topic forum—Where are the new theories of or- ganization? Academy oí Management Review, 36: 236- 246. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2011. Introduction: Why philosophy matters to organization theory. Research in fhe Socioi- ogry oí Organizations, 32: 1-21. Üsdiken, B., & Pasadeos, Y. 1995. Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: A comparison of co-citation networks. Organizafion Sfudies, 16: 503-526. Willmott, H. 1993. Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organi- zation Studies, 14: 681-719. Willmott, H. 2011. Institutional work for what? Problems and prospects of institutional theory. Journal oí Management Inquiry, 20: 67-72. John Hassard ([email protected]) Manchester University Julie Wolfram Cox ([email protected]) Monash University Michael Rowlinson ([email protected]) Queen Mary London University http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0100 A Heart-Mind-Opportunity Nexus: Distinguishing Social Entrepreneurship for Entrepreneurs I congratulate Miller, Grimes, McMullen, and Vogus on their compassionate theoretical piece on social entrepreneurship. They certainly "no- ticed, felt, and responded to the pain" (Clark, 1997) of a lack of theory in that important sub- field, where "enthusiasm has outpaced concep- tual development" (Miller et al., 2012: 35). Given that the purpose of their article was "to hone in on the role of compassion in encouraging" so- cial entrepreneurship (2012: 11), they only fo- cused on one very specific part of the "whole elephant." The purpose of my commentary is to complement their work by suggesting alterna- tive approaches to building social entrepreneur- ship theory that will be effective in advancing that subfield as well as the larger entrepreneur- ship domain. I formulate the alternatives by highlighting concerns arising from the choices made in their article, including their choices of explanatory variable, of the type of explanatory variable, and of the level modeled. While the explanatory variable of compassion is certainly worthy of research in management, it is a questionable choice in a study of social entrepreneurship, for several reasons: it is a poorly distinguished concept because it is only a "borderline emotion" (Lazarus, 1991: 827), it overlaps heavily with more basic concepts like empathy, and it can be fleeting. It can involve many negative consequences that Miller et al.

Upload: hayek1984

Post on 16-Dec-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

-

TRANSCRIPT

  • 2013 Diaiogue 313

    Green, S. E., Jr., & Li, Y. 2011. Rhetorical institutionalism:Language, agency, and structure in institutional theorysince Alvesson 1993./ournai o/Management Studies, 48:1662-1697.

    Hinings, C. R. 1988. Defending organization theory: A Britishview from North America. Organization Studies, 9: 2-7.

    Jackson, N., & Carter, P. 1991. In defence of paradigm incom-mensurability. Organization Studies, 12: 109-127.

    Knorr Cetina, K. D. 1991. Epistemic cultures: Forms of reasonin science. History o Political Economy, 23: 105-122.

    Knorr Cetina, K. D. 2010. .The epistemics of information: Alogic of knowledge consumption. Journal o ConsumerCulture, 10: 1-31.

    Knudsen, C. 2003. Pluralism, scientific progress and thestructure of organization theory. In H. Tsoukas & C.Knudsden (Eds.), The Ox/ord handbook o organizationtheory: 262-288. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Kraatz, M. S. 2011. Two cheers for institutional work. Journalo Management Inquiry, 20: 59-61.

    Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure o scientific revolutions (2nd ed.).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Kuhn, T. 1977. The essential tension: Selected studies in sci-entiiic tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

    Law, J. 1994. Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.Law, J. 1999. After ANT: Complexity, naming, and topology. In

    J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and aiter:1-14. Oxford: Blackwell.

    McNall, S., & Johnson, J. 1975. The new conservatives: Ethno-methodologists, phenomenologists and symbolic inter-actionists. Critical Sociology, 5: 49-65.

    Meyer, R. E., & Boxenbaum, E. 2010. Exploring European-nessin organization research. Organization Studies, 31: 737-755.

    Oswick, C, Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. 2011. From borrowingto blending: Rethinking the processes of organizationaltheory building. Academy o Management Review, 36:318-337.

    Reed, M. 1997. In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinkingagency and structure in organizational analysis. Orga-nizafion Studies, 18: 21-42.

    Rhodes, C, & Pullen, A. 2010. Editorial: Neophilia and orga-nization. Culture and Organization, 16: 1-6.

    Stem, R. N., & Barley, S. R. 1996. Organizations and socialsystems: Organization theory's neglected mandate. Ad-ministrative Science QuarteWy, 41: 146-162.

    Suddaby, R., Hardy, C, & Huy, Q. N. 2011. Introduction tospecial topic forumWhere are the new theories of or-ganization? Academy o Management Review, 36: 236-246.

    Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2011. Introduction: Why philosophymatters to organization theory. Research in fhe Socioi-ogry o Organizations, 32: 1-21.

    sdiken, B., & Pasadeos, Y. 1995. Organizational analysis inNorth America and Europe: A comparison of co-citationnetworks. Organizafion Sfudies, 16: 503-526.

    Willmott, H. 1993. Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organi-zation Studies, 14: 681-719.

    Willmott, H. 2011. Institutional work for what? Problems andprospects of institutional theory. Journal o ManagementInquiry, 20: 67-72.

    John Hassard ([email protected])Manchester University

    Julie Wolfram Cox([email protected])

    Monash UniversityMichael Rowlinson ([email protected])

    Queen Mary London Universityhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0100

    A Heart-Mind-Opportunity Nexus:Distinguishing Social Entrepreneurshipfor Entrepreneurs

    I congratulate Miller, Grimes, McMullen, andVogus on their compassionate theoretical pieceon social entrepreneurship. They certainly "no-ticed, felt, and responded to the pain" (Clark,1997) of a lack of theory in that important sub-field, where "enthusiasm has outpaced concep-tual development" (Miller et al., 2012: 35). Giventhat the purpose of their article was "to hone inon the role of compassion in encouraging" so-cial entrepreneurship (2012: 11), they only fo-cused on one very specific part of the "wholeelephant." The purpose of my commentary is tocomplement their work by suggesting alterna-tive approaches to building social entrepreneur-ship theory that will be effective in advancingthat subfield as well as the larger entrepreneur-ship domain. I formulate the alternatives byhighlighting concerns arising from the choicesmade in their article, including their choices ofexplanatory variable, of the type of explanatoryvariable, and of the level modeled.

    While the explanatory variable of compassionis certainly worthy of research in management,it is a questionable choice in a study of socialentrepreneurship, for several reasons: it is apoorly distinguished concept because it is onlya "borderline emotion" (Lazarus, 1991: 827), itoverlaps heavily with more basic concepts likeempathy, and it can be fleeting. It can involvemany negative consequences that Miller et al.

  • 314 Academy o Management Review April

    mostly ignored, which would complicate the re-lationships argued:

    Compassion, by itself, can be ill-informed, evenstupid, wrongly directed and even self-servingcompassion may make worse an already hopelesssituation and may hurt its recipients by concentrat-ing too much on [their] plight. It can be . . . mis-guided, grounded in a superficial understandingof the situation {Solomon, 1998: 530).

    It does not appear to be a basis for differenti-ating which individuals will engage in socialentrepreneurship and which will not, sincecompassion "lies at the core of what it meansto be human" (Kanov et al., 2004: 808). It has aseemingly tautological connection to the mainrelationships proposed in the article; for ex-ample, compassion, integrative thinking, andsocial entrepreneurship are all defined as in-tegrating two perspectives. Its complete char-acterization is not used, making theorized re-lat ionships based upon it as a "whole"construct questionable (e.g.. compassion is re-active while social entrepreneurship need notbe). Given these concerns, I suggest alterna-tive future theoretical work that focuses onbetter-defined and more iully characterizedconceptsemotions or otherand their non-obvious relationships with social entrepre-neurship outcomes.

    Affective explanatory variables are valuableto include in social entrepreneurship researchbecause all decisions by individuals-as-entrepreneurs entail emotional and social influ-ences (Polman & Emich, 2012). That said, I con-sider several concerns related to this type ofvariable's being focal in this research. Emotionsare conceptually difficult to capture, which cre-ates an unnecessary challenge for theory build-ing in an infant field"there has never beenany agreement about which emotions should bedistinguished" {Lazarus, 1991: 820). Using re-search on a common individual attributelikean emotionto distinguish entrepreneurial ac-tivity {e.g., to answer who is and who is not asocial entrepreneur) seems to be following thesame questionable approach as the four-plusdecades of "traits" literature that led to incon-clusive results {Busenitz & Barney, 1997). Thefocus on an emotion rather than what drives itignores the "most useful theory" involving emo-tions {Lazarus, 1991: 832); concepts such as "jointattention" {Seemann, 2011) and the neurobiolog-ical structures and processes that underlie com-

    passion may be more appropriate targets fortheory. When the study of an affective variablesimply means adding one more factor to a utilityfunction {e.g., to increase the benefits) or makingone more adjustment to a behavioral explana-tion {e.g., to increase the particular bias), thereis no change to the mechanics of the existingrelationships imderlying basic entrepreneurship-related choices {e.g., to start a new venture).While value exists in accounting for these ad-justments, fledgling fields may be better servedwith theory that first focuses on a "usual out-come" that serves as a baseline for such adjust-ments. From this analysis, the alternative forfuture work that uses affective explanatory vari-ables is to build theory that accounts for whatdrives the emotion and that distinguishes therole the emotion plays in the "big picture" of thefocal phenomenon. Another alternative is sim-ply to use a difierent type of explanatoryvariable.

    Finally. I also consider the level of approachchosen for an article that theorizes in an infantsubfield. Miller et al. approach social entre-preneurship from a peculiar perspectivefocusing on, at the margin, what might "tip" anindividual toward the pursuit of a specifictype of "doing good" and on what processesthat tipping would act. This approach fails tofocus on the many differentiated aspects of thephenomenon, as well as on many of the cen-tral aspects that define entrepreneurial activ-ity. The approach focuses on motivation, ig-noring the awareness and capability aspectsof the process (e.g.. it ignores how the socialent repreneur-oppor tuni ty nexus evolves[Shane & Venkataraman, 2000] and where thecapability emerges for building new institu-tions). The approach avoids an analysis of thechoice of opportunity exploitation mode. Be-cause the "three mechanisms" that are pre-sented as preconditions for social entrepre-neurship actually support several modes ofdoing good, there is no clear explanation ofwhen it is a better choice.

    The biggest concern, however, is that this ap-proach misses a significant opportunity to focuson the differentiating aspects of social entrepre-neurship. While the authors consider integrativethinking, they do not focus on the particulardouble bottom line because, for example, thereis no discussion of what the optimal balance ofsocial and economic benefits should be, or of

  • 2013 Dialogue 315

    how compassion influences that optimality.There is little discussion of what occurs overtime in social entrepreneurship activity (e.g., if"success" is defined as "putting oneself out ofbusiness" by solving the focal problem, thenwhat does that mean to the economic interestsof the venture?). While Miller et al. mentionsome alternative modes to address social prob-lems, they do not sufficiently discuss when so-cial entrepreneurship is the preferred mode, letalone an appropriate mode.^ There is little dis-cussion over what "creativity" means in terms ofthe solution entailed by the mode's hybrid form(e.g., does it only mean a noncreative and basic-level technical solutioncredit, clean water,pay toilets, etc.combined with an innovativeinstitutional, distribution, or management ap-proach?). There is little discussion about whenthe mode's partial market-based mechanism inparticular addresses the target social problem.What is missing is an explicit description ofwhen a market-based mechanism (e.g., a subsi-dized usage fee) is most appropriate (e.g., tohelp target beneficiaries prioritize, learn, buy in,feel responsible, or be incentivized by upsiderewards [as in the case of microcredit]). There islittle discussion on how the exploitation modecan address the market failures that producedthe social problem pain and even less on howthat occurs in what is frequently a foreign insti-tutional setting (i.e., a setting with worse marketfailures than the compassionate entrepreneur isin). Giventhese concerns, I suggest that futurework include alternative approaches to theoriz-ing about social entrepreneurship that exploitits more differentiating and challenging as-pects, some of which I have outlined above.

    ' For example, the problem of filling an institutional voidraises a serious challenge to social entrepreneurship be-cause it often requires changing the ways, without any for-mal power to do so, of agents in nonmarket entities whohave somehow failed in their responsibilities to address the"pain." While Miller et al. speak to an institutional effect,they actually consider the flip side of this challengethat is,cases where the institutions are not broken. This appears torun counter to when social entrepreneurship is more suit-able, as acknowledged by the authors. It may have beenmore interesting for the authors to have theorized about howsocial entrepreneurship arises in the more challenging bro-ken institutional settings and about what factors (e.g., thenetworks, resources, skills, etc., rather than emotions) aremore important in making it successful.

    Miller et al.'s (2012) piece on the role of com-passion in social entrepreneurship raises theprofile of theorizing in this young and importantfield. It is a well-structured, insightful articlethat highlights many interesting dimensions,processes, and constraints of the phenomenon.To build on it, I strongly encourage alternativetheoretical research that focuses on differenttypes of explanatory variables, different levelsof analysis, and different aspects of social en-trepreneurship, especially those that distin-guish it from all other forms of business activity.It is through the latter that our best opportunityto realize "entrepreneurship as a distinctive do-main" lies, and we should not fail to exploit suchopportunities when we find them; in fact, weshould be passionate about it.

    REFERENCESBusenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. 1997. Differences between

    entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Bi-ases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Jour-nal o Business Venturing, 12: 9-30.

    Clark, C. 1997. Misery and company; Sympathy in everydayHie. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Kanov, J. M., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C, Dutton, J. E., Frost,P. J., & Lilius, J. M. 2004. Compassion in organizationallife. American Behavioral Scientist, 47: 808-827.

    Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46:819-834.

    Miller, T., Grimes, M., McMullen, J., & Vogus, T. 2012. Ventur-ing for others with heart and head: How compassionencourages social entrepreneurship. Academy o Man-agement Review, 37: 616-640.

    Polman, E., & Emich, K. J. 2011. Decisions for other are morecreative than decisions for the self. Personality and So-cial Psychology Bulletin, 37: 492-501.

    Seemann, A. (Ed.). 2011./oint attention: New developments inpsychology, philosophy o mind, and social neurosci-ence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entre-preneurship as a field of research. Academy o Manage-ment Review, 25: 217-226.

    Solomon, R. C. 1998. The moral psychology of business: Careand compassion in the corporation. Business EthicsQuarterly, 8: 515-533.

    Richard J. Arend ([email protected])University of Missouri-Kansas City

    http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0251

  • Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content maynot be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.