Beyond Homo Entrepreneurus: Judgment and the Theory of Cultural Entrepreneurship

• Author: Joel Gehman,Mary Ann Glynn,Michael Lounsbury
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12429
• Published date: 01 September 2019
• Date: 01 September 2019

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Lt d and Society for the Adva ncement of Management Stud ies

Beyond Homo Entrepreneurus: Judgment and the

Theory of Cultural Entrepreneurship

Michael Lounsburya, Joel Gehmana and Mary Ann Glynnb

aUniversity of Alber ta School of Business; bCarroll School of Man agement, Boston College

ABST RACT In this paper, we embrace the cr itique of the contemporary entrepreneurship

literature of fered by Foss, Klein, and Bjørn skov, and applaud their advance of the Judg ment-

Based Approach ( JBA) as a way to broaden our understand ing of entrepreneurial processes by

contextuali zing entrepreneurial action. However, we believe that to at tain the promise of the

JBA, a broader inter-d isciplinary engagement beyond economics i s required. Drawing on

theory and arg uments in the cultural entrepreneur ship literature, we emphasize the fr uitful-

ness of foregrounding t he role of culture – a theoret ical focus that i s marginalized both i n the

mainstrea m entrepreneurship literature and in t he JBA. We compare the JBA and the Theory

of Cultural Ent repreneurship and outline how a wider inter-d isciplinary research ag enda

could be advanced in entr epreneurial studies.

Keywo rds: cultural entrepreneurship, culture, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial

opportunity

INTRODUCTION

Although entrepreneurship research has had a long, multi-disciplinary history (Aldrich

and Ruef, 2006; Gartner et al., 1992; Thornton, 1999), in recent years, it has been

increasingly dominated by economic ideas, narrowing its focus to the ‘individual-

opportunity nexus’ (Shane, 2003; Shane and Venkataraman, 20 00) and the related

debate about whether entrepreneurial opportunities are discovered or created (Alvarez

and Barney, 2007, 2010; Alvarez et al., 2013). Echoing Foss and Klein’s (2012) com-

plaints about biases in the entrepreneurship literature – a start-up bias, an opportuni-

ty-discovery bias, and a sole-individual bias – Foss et al. (2019; FKB hereafter) offer a

useful correction by advocating for the contextualization of entrepreneurship. We agree.

Journal of Man agement Studi es 56:6 September 2019

doi:10. 1111/jo ms.1 2429

Address for re prints: Michae l Lounsbury, University of A lberta School of Business, 3-23 Bu siness Building,

Edmonton, Alber ta T6G 2R6 Canada (ml37@ualb erta.ca).

Cultural Entrepreneurship 1215

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Lt d and Society for the Adva ncement of Management Stud ies

We propose that such contextualization can move scholars beyond atomized, ratio-

nal choice conceptualizations of entrepreneurs – an approach we refer to as homo entre-

preneurus – which, like the homo economicus focus in neoclassical economics, assumes that

individuals are rational and narrowly self-interested, thereby favouring a reductive ex-

planatory engine (Granovetter, 1985, 2017). Indeed, homo entrepreneurus may be conceptu-

alized as a particular species of homo economicus in that it directs attention to the rational,

self-interested behavior of individuals, but also endows those individuals with the powers

to assess and take risks under conditions of Knightian uncertainty by exercising judg-

ment and engaging in experimentation.

Although we agree wholeheartedly with FKB’s critique of the entrepreneurship lit-

erature and applaud their effort to broaden scholarship to include organizational and

institutional dynamics, we lament their restricted emphasis on the economics discipline

which we fear empowers a narrower scholarly focus on the trials and tribulations of homo

entrepreneurus. There is no doubt that economists have importantly contributed to the study

of entrepreneurship (e.g., Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1934), but as suggested by FKB,

the richness of more heterodox economic ideas (like theirs) often remains hamstrung

by the logic of mainstream economics. As Baumol (1983) highlighted, entrepreneurs in

mainstream economics are virtually invisible since no entrepreneurial variable exists in

econometric models of productivity. Despite FKB’s tripartite embrace of context in the

form of the institutional, task, and intra-firm environments, their restricted focus on the

discipline of economics unnecessarily hinders the development of a more fully contextu-

alized understanding of entrepreneurship as socially and culturally embedded, thereby

limiting the potential impact of their own work.

In our view, FKB do not go far enough in developing the implications of their

Judgment-Based Approach (JBA). In the spirit of revitalizing a broader entrepreneurial

research agenda that moves away from homo entrepreneurus and the overworked individ-

ual-opportunity nexus, we advocate for engagement with developments in the cultural

entrepreneurship literature that complement and extend the JBA to inspire a richer, in-

ter-disciplinary agenda on how context shapes entrepreneurial processes. Our objective is

one of integration across disciplines, rather than giving primacy to any one in particular.

To adequately contextualize entrepreneurship, we believe that it is imperative to open

up a broader social scientific dialogue that can catalyse the development of inter-disci-

plinary knowledge. In this regard, we have been part of a growing community of schol-

ars engaged in promoting the development of cultural entrepreneurship (e.g., Garud

et al., 2014b; Gehman and Soublière, 2017; Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Martens et

al., 2007; Wry et al., 2011). As laid out by Lounsbury and Glynn (2001), the Theory

of Cultural Entrepreneurship (TOCE) was conceptualized as a way to bridge multiple

theoretical strands, including the resource based view of the fir m (Barney, 1991; Penrose,

1959; Teece et al., 1997; Wernerfelt, 1984), institutional theory (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994;

DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995; Zucker, 1989), and organizational identity

(Albert and Whetten, 1985; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Elsbach and Kramer, 1996; Gioia

et al., 2000; Glynn, 2000), among others.

This initial statement focused on how the process of entrepreneurship fundamentally

involves symbolic management and communication as a way to gain legitimacy in the