Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose This study aims to introduce tenacity as a transformation-oriented construct for entrepreneurial adaptation under conditions of permanent disruption and polycrisis. It reconceptualises adaptation not as a return-to-reference recovery, but as continuous reconfiguration driven by foresight, iterative learning and structural redesign. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual study based on an integrative review spanning entrepreneurship, strategy, and complexity science and contemporary resilience scholarship. It develops a multidimensional model of tenacity and derives propositions, supported by illustrative cases (e.g. Estonia, SpaceX, Slack) as conceptual warrants rather than empirical validation. Findings Tenacity is specified as a mechanist-based construct with three dimensions, cognitive (reframing and prospection), strategic (recombination and business-model morphing) and structural (modularity and distributed decision rights). The model yields observable implications (e.g. pivot cadence, reconfiguration lead-time, functional persistence under stress) that enable prospective empirical testing. Research limitations/implications As a conceptual contribution, this study does not test the tenacity model empirically. Future research should operationalise tenacity and examine boundary conditions distinguishing episodic disruption (where resilience may suffice) from entangled, irreversible crises (where tenacity is expected to dominate). Practical implications Entrepreneurs, investors and policymakers can use tenacity indicators to diagnose adaptive capacity and design experimentation routines, modular infrastructures and adaptive governance instruments, while monitoring ethical risks in AI-augmented decision-making where relevant. Originality/value The study offers a novel multilevel framework that connects entrepreneurial cognition, strategic reconfiguration and ecosystem design, extending transformation-oriented resilience debates through explicit operationalisation pathways.
Leite et al. (Thu,) studied this question.