dc.contributor.author | Pehrsson, Tobias | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-09-01T10:34:35Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-09-01T10:34:35Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-09-01 | |
dc.identifier.isbn | http://hdl.handle.net/2077/66066 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2077/66066 | |
dc.description.abstract | This dissertation is concerned with the concept of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and, more specifically, the question ‘Why are firms conducting entrepreneurial actions?’ This question rests upon two premises. First, entrepreneurial actions represent an important domain of scientific inquiry. Essentially, this makes the
concept of EO, wherein entrepreneurial actions are treated as equivalent to that of
the concept of EO (i.e., engaging in innovation, proactively entering new markets, and engaging in risky ventures), relevant for investigation. Second, to adequately answer the question, the concept of EO needs to be reconceptualized. More
precisely, I argue that (1) EO represents a form of being; that is, a firm either is or is not ‘entrepreneurially oriented’, a necessary condition for conducting entrepreneurial actions; however, (2) EO is not the same as entrepreneurial actions;
that is, being entrepreneurially oriented is not the same as the actions that are to be
explained.
This dissertation consists of four appended papers that, together with seven chapters, serve to provide an answer to the question raised above. What the joint retroductive analysis clarifies has to do with the nature of being entrepreneurially
oriented. In particular, the nature of EO concerns a practitioner’s (a) belief in the existence of an opportunity to actualize profits; (b) belief that there are ways of combining resources in a profitable manner; and (c) social identity embracing such beliefs. As such, the dissertation reconceptualizes EO. Specifically, it constructs
the ‘actualization approach to entrepreneurial orientation’. It allows scholars to explain (1) why entrepreneurial actions exists, (2) that EO is not what EO does (i.e., innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking) but what it is capable of doing,
and (3) that EO is an individual-level (not firm- or unit-level) concept that matters for entrepreneurial actions at various levels. Implications for practitioners and policy makers are discussed. | sv |
dc.language.iso | eng | sv |
dc.relation.haspart | 1. Pehrsson, A., and Pehrsson, T. (2015). Competition barriers and foreign subsidiary
performance: Propositions on the moderating role of strategic orientation, International Journal of Business Competition and Growth, Vol. 4, No. 1/2, pp. 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBCG.2015.070661 2. Pehrsson, T. (2020) ‘Do types of strategic orientations make a difference? A study of
MNCs’ performance in foreign markets’, European Business Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 26-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-03-2018-0071 3. Pehrsson, T. Why are firms entrepreneurially oriented? Towards the actualization
approach of EO, To be submitted to Journal of Business Venturing. 4. Pehrsson, T. Explaining entrepreneurial re-orientation: The role of the transformative
push, To be submitted to Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. | sv |
dc.subject | entrepreneurial orientation | sv |
dc.subject | actualization approach | sv |
dc.subject | entrepreneurial actions | sv |
dc.title | Why are firms conducting entrepreneurial actions? | sv |
dc.title.alternative | Towards a reconceptualization of entrepreneurial orientation | sv |
dc.type | Text | |
dc.type.svep | Doctoral thesis | eng |
dc.gup.mail | tobias.pehrsson@gu.se | sv |
dc.type.degree | Doctor of Philosophy | sv |
dc.gup.origin | Göteborgs universitet. Handelshögskolan | sv |
dc.gup.department | Department of Business Administration ; Företagsekonomiska institutionen | sv |
dc.gup.defenceplace | Fredagen den 25 september 2020, kl. 10.15, sal B44, Handelshögskolan, Vasagatan 1 | sv |
dc.gup.defencedate | 2020-09-25 | |
dc.gup.dissdb-fakultet | HHF | |