COVID 19 and Entrepreneurship: Time to Pivot?

I thank JMS for this invitation to explore how COVID 19, and its aftermath, leads us to question some of the fundamental assumptions of entrepreneurship research. In this dialogue, I highlight five fundamental assumptions of the field that are challenged by COVID 19 that may require a research pivot, that is, that may require a change in research direction on specific topics. First, entrepreneurship research assumes that entrepreneurs are a main force of disruption (e.g., Schumpeter, 1950). In the current case, it is a virus that caused the disruption. The disruption will dissipate (I hope), and there will be a new normal (eventually), but presently the environment is highly fluid. What role do entrepreneurial endeavours (either as independent or corporate ventures) play in establishing a new normal? In our study of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Trent and I found that local entrepreneurs expressed the desire to ‘build back better’ (Williams and Shepherd, 2016). However, it is unclear how the ‘fluidity of everything’ affects entrepreneurial actions to build back a new and better equilibrium, which raises the following: (1) What will be the ‘better’ as entrepreneurs build it back and from whose perspective? (2) How do entrepreneurs establish some stability as a foundation for opportunity co-construction when prior assumptions appear to no longer apply, and the environment is both highly dynamic and complex? (3) Who represents the community of inquiry for opportunities in constructing this new, better normal, and how are they engaged? (4) How are resources acquired and deployed under such extreme fluidity? (5) Over time, which elements (of the opportunity, business, community, and environment) are stabilized and which remain fluid, why, and to what effect? Second, prior research assumes that technologies and markets have extended periods of stability that are only infrequently punctuated by disruptions. The spread of COVID may signal that the magnitude and frequency of adverse events – as disruptions – are on the rise, and there will be a series of ‘new normals’ rather than an extended period of a new normal. Entrepreneurship scholars are well-positioned to explore how people, organizations, and nations effectively respond to these adverse events, and in doing so, contribute to the knowledge of resilience at and across multiple levels of analysis. Indeed, essential contributions can be made by further researching the following questions: (1) What are the forms of resourcefulness given the destruction often caused by adverse events, how are new bundles of resources created, and how do entrepreneurs circumvent prior and new constraints (legal, organizational, cultural, and so on) (consistent with bricolage Baker and Nelson, 2005) to initiate, engage, and perform entrepreneurial endeavours? (2) How does the localness of entrepreneurial action and coordination with outsiders influence the effectiveness of the effort given that many adverse events are geographically bound? (3) How are new ventures created so rapidly (hours and days rather than months and years) in the chaos caused by adverse events, what are the consequences of this rapid emergence for their effectiveness and survival (which may be negatively correlated), and is this a new normal in which we will see ventures that, by design, are only temporary – ‘pop up’ ventures? (4) How can people shift their emotions from negative to positive (or negative adding positive) to enhance creativity and energize entrepreneurial actions in the context of the suffering, destruction, and separation caused by adverse events, and how do these entrepreneurial actions create positive emotions and reduce negative emotions in the entrepreneurs and others? (5) How do communities foster entrepreneurial action to build community resilience? Third, scholars have assumed that entrepreneurs are exceptional individuals – an extra-ordinary combination of attitudes, experiences, motivations, cognitions, decision making, and actions. However, it appears that in the face of disasters, such as COVID, it is ordinary people that step up to do extra-ordinary things through entrepreneurial action. By ordinary, I simply mean that an individual’s (or an organization’s) attributes are commonplace, and, as a result, entrepreneurial action is possible anywhere. For example, local victims of the Black Saturday Bushfires in Australia quickly created new ventures to rapidly deliver customized products and services that helped alleviate other community members’ suffering (Shepherd and Williams, 2014). Focusing on ordinary entrepreneurs offers the following research questions: (1) What triggers the ordinary to take entrepreneurial action – is it only local, negative shocks, or are there other motivators and triggers? (2) How are ordinary attributes deployed for entrepreneurial action that generates extra-ordinary outcomes – what are the mechanisms and how do they differ from ‘special’ entrepreneurs? (3) What is the aggregate impact of ordinary individuals’ entrepreneurial actions within a community, and to what extent are these actions coordinated, mutually dependent, or competitive? (4) How does engaging in entrepreneurial action change the attributes of the ordinary – do they become less ordinary – and if they do change, in what ways and to what effect? (5) How do communities generate, nurture, and deploy ordinary people’s entrepreneurial endeavours for community benefits? Fourth, prior research has assumed that entrepreneurial careers generate considerable loneliness (e.g., Gumpert and Boyd, 1984). During the response to the pandemic, we have all suffered isolation and found ways of dealing with it (with varying success), which stimulates the following research questions: (1) How can entrepreneurs use recent innovations in making ‘remote’ social connections to eliminate loneliness and thereby enhance their psychological well-being? (2) To what extent had entrepreneurs developed capabilities for dealing with the loneliness pre-COVID that has helped them cope with the social distancing required by COVID, and do these capabilities promote social connections that enhance venture performance? (3) Because entrepreneurs have traditionally depended on their social skills in face-to-face meetings, how are entrepreneurs able to ‘remotely’ create and maintain business connections, that is, what are the ‘remote’ social skills that are critical in a physically restricted business environment and how might they apply in a new normal ‘physical context’? (4) Can we learn from adaptations made to online dating and prosocial platforms for helping entrepreneurs create new relationships, especially for prosocial purposes, such as, entering new markets, recruiting human talent, accessing financial resources, and so on? (5) While entrepreneurs may have been well placed to deal with the loneliness of COVID (vis-à-vis the population), what are the new vulnerabilities that diminish their psychological wellbeing? Finally, prior research assumes that when entrepreneurs fail, it is because of their poor decisions and actions. In the aftermath of the pandemic (and response), a lot of businesses have failed, but there is little they could have done to avoid this outcome, which presents a different set of issues. (1) How can entrepreneurs deploy their ego-protective mechanisms in the face of business failure to ensure that they maintain high self-esteem and are motivated to try again? (2) To what extent does the recognition that failure was beyond their control contribute to entrepreneurs’ feelings of helplessness and hopelessness that ultimately diminish self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions? (3) Does COVID wipe out a generation of entrepreneurs, rejuvenate this generation, and/or make way for the next generation of entrepreneurs, that is, as devastating as the failures are, is there a long-run economic, social, and environmental phoenix that arises from the ashes of its predecessor? (4) In the context of so many other forms of suffering (e.g., deaths), what are the emotional reactions to business failure, how are these emotions regulated, and how do these feelings impact the entrepreneurs and their families? (5) Despite the harsh conditions, why were some businesses able to survive (and even thrive) – was it that the survivors were agile and frequently pivoted, or was it simply that they were lucky? Entrepreneurship has a strong tradition of studying the more fortunate, helping the less fortunate. However, in the shadow of a pandemic where everyone is negatively impacted (obviously some worse than others), I hope that future research focuses on how victims of adversity engage in entrepreneurial actions that help themselves and others. In doing so, these victim entrepreneurs can eventually drop the label victim and build back a better future for themselves and enhance resilience in the process. I hope scholars will focus their attention on the entrepreneurial mechanisms for equilibrating around a new, better future, and the building of society’s resilience; the ordinary (and unsung) heroes of entrepreneurship; the broader implications of entrepreneurial action (benefits and costs to a diverse set of stakeholders); the social innovations that enhance entrepreneurial endeavours and entrepreneurs’ wellbeing; and the self-regulation of entrepreneurs whose failures are beyond their personal control.