opportunity creation: entrepreneurial …epubs.surrey.ac.uk/814168/1/opportunity creation.docx ·...

Opportunity creation: Agency, interaction and affect

OPPORTUNITY CREATION: ENTREPRENEURIAL AGENCY, INTERACTION AND AFFECT

David Goss

Surrey Business School

University of Surrey

Guildford

GU2 7XH

UK

Eugene Sadler-Smith

Surrey Business School

University of Surrey

Guildford

GU2 7XH

UK

Keywords: affect; agency; emotional energy; interaction ritual; opportunity creation

1


OPPORTUNITY CREATION: ENTREPRENEURIAL AGENCY, INTERACTION AND AFFECT

Abstract.

Research summary. This article addresses opportunity creation with particular focus on the interplay between social context and individual agency. Using ideas grounded in contemporary micro-sociology we offer a conceptual framework that articulates opportunity-creating agency as the outcome of socially-situated subjectivity, supportive or challenging interactions, and the circulation of emotional energy. This dynamic process is illustrated with references to entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson (founder of Virgin). Our article contributes to opportunity creation research by: offering a conception of individual opportunity creating propensities rooted in social situations and consistent with constructionist assumptions; specifying role played by affect/emotion in opportunity creation and positing a novel creative role for negative affect; and connecting opportunity creation with other areas of theoretical interest in entrepreneurship such as creativity, frustration and hubris.

Managerial summary. This article examines how social relationships and emotions can, together, influence the ways in which entrepreneurs initiate and shape opportunities. Using examples from the career of Sir Richard Branson (founder of Virgin) we suggest ways in which the emotional intensity of social interactions can motivate entrepreneurs to act decisively to initiate opportunities for business formation and development. We suggest how this may help us to understand not just opportunity creation but also key entrepreneurial issues such as creativity, frustration and hubris.

Keywords: affect; agency; emotional energy; interaction ritual; opportunity creation

Introduction

Whether opportunities are created or discovered is an issue of continuing interest for

entrepreneurship researchers (e.g., Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Alvarez, Barney and

Anderson, 2013; Foss and Foss, 2008; McMullen and Shepherd, 2006; Wood and McKinley,

2010). The creation position asserts that opportunities cannot exist independently of an

entrepreneur’s constructive agency. The discovery position, in contrast, treats opportunities

as objective features of the economic system, needing to be ‘found’ before they can be acted

upon (Ardichvili, Cardozo and Ray, 2003; Eckhardt and Shane, 2003; Ramoglou and Tsang,

2


2016). As interest in social constructionism has grown within entrepreneurship so too has

concern with opportunity creation; it is to this debate that we aim to contribute. Opportunity

creation for us entails the interplay of social context and individual motivated action;

following sociological usage, we refer to the latter as agency (Barnes, 2000; Giddens, 1984;

Spreitzer et al., 2005). We explain the nature and strength of an individual’s agency in terms

of situated subjectivity and intersubjectivity, specifically ‘emotional energy’ and ‘interaction

rituals’ respectively.

Proposing this novel treatment of individual agency as a form of socially situated

subjectivity contributes to the opportunity creation debate in three ways. First, it extends the

breadth of opportunity creation research by introducing social antecedents as a necessary

underpinning for the usual focus on opportunity enactment. Second, incorporating the

construct of ‘emotional energy’ enriches opportunity creation research by aligning it with the

growing recognition of affect’s significance for understanding entrepreneurial processes.

Third, the constructionist approach to opportunity creation is strengthened theoretically by

explaining differences in agency from a relational rather than an individualist standpoint.

Following an overview of the literature on opportunity creation, agency and

entrepreneurial emotion, we introduce our approach to situated subjectivity and

intersubjectivity. We then offer a conceptual framework combining interaction ritual chains,

emotional energy (Collins, 2004) and energy-texts (Quinn and Dutton, 2005), elaborating this

with illustrations from biographies of the UK entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, founder of

the Virgin brand. We conclude our paper with a discussion of how this approach contributes

to opportunity creation and related concerns in entrepreneurship (such as creativity,

frustration and hubris).

Opportunity creation: Social construction, agency and emotion.

Underpinning many opportunity creation approaches is the assumption that:

3


‘opportunities are social constructions that do not exist independently of those perceptions and human action . . . . this does not mean that “reality” is unimportant in understanding creation opportunities. After all, actors test their beliefs about an opportunity against the market—itself a social construction—and based on feedback, they refine those beliefs and continue to do so until they either give up or form an opportunity . . . .’ (Alvarez, Barney and Anderson, 2013: 306-308).

Limiting the ‘knowability’ of an opportunity in advance of the activity through which it is

constructed, this view posits that even if starting with a clear idea of a desired objective, the

very process of its realization is likely to transform it into something quite different to the

original intention (Dimov, 2007; Tocher Oswald and Hall, 2015; Wood and McKinley,

2010). Opportunities are ‘emergent’ because their realization (if not their initial conception)

is through others’ collaboration or resistance, embedded within an ongoing flow of more or

less structured social interactions. Rather than awaiting discovery by an alert individual, their

‘reality’ is an intersubjective accomplishment. It is, nevertheless, undeniable empirically that

some individuals are considerably more adept at conceiving opportunities and bringing them

to fruition than others. In short, even if opportunity creation is an intersubjective process,

individuals’ highly variable propensities towards it must be explained.

Most attention has focused on variations in entrepreneurs’ cognitive processes such as

information processing, uncertainty reduction, perceptual accuracy, adaptability, decision

making, etc. (e.g., Baron and Markman, 2003; Haynie et al., 2010; Shepherd, McMullen and

Jennings, 2007; Shepherd, Williams and Patzelt, 2015). Although much of this research

acknowledges that variations in entrepreneurial propensity involve an interaction between

cognition and an individual’s social situation, the latter usually takes a backseat to cognition’s

driving role, i.e., conceived contextually rather than causally (Clarke and Cornelissen, 2011;

Robbins and Aydede, 2009). This offers a valuable but individually-centered analysis:

variations in opportunity creating propensity are explained by the different ways in which

individuals process information from their environment (Brigham, De Castro and Shepherd,

4


2007). And because ‘environment’ is usually treated as passive, it focuses on the question of

how individual’s react differently towards it, rather than why they do so.

We believe that a full understanding of the opportunity creation process needs to

address the latter question as well as the former, and to do so in a way that is consistent with

the view of opportunities as social constructions (not, for instance, by reducing difference

solely to innate capacities). This richer understanding can, we believe, be achieved by

recognizing more explicitly the social situation’s causal role in shaping differences in

opportunity creating propensity.

To avoid confusing our approach with the established literature on the role of individual

differences in entrepreneurial behavior (e.g., Allinson, Chell, and Hayes, 2000; Bird, 1988;

Brigham et al., 2007; Kickul et al., 2009) we introduce the term ‘agency’ to capture

variations in opportunity creating propensity. In sociological usage agency broadly refers to

an individual’s ability ‘to make a difference’, to exercise volition in the face of external

constraint (Barnes, 2000; Spreitzer et al., 2005). Although the subject of some debate, for

our purposes we follow Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998: 963) usage:

‘agency [is] a temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past . . . . but also oriented toward the future (as a capacity to imagine alternative possibilities) and toward the present (as a capacity to contextualize past habits and future projects within the contingencies of the moment). The agentic dimension of social action can only be captured in its full complexity, we argue, if it is analytically situated within the flow of time.’

Thus, individuals will display differing degrees of agency towards opportunity creation (a

future possibility) that must be understood not just in terms of cognitive processes – although

these are important – but by reference to their previous social experiences and the ways in

which these inform ongoing interactions. Through this lens of agency, opportunity creating

propensity involves an extended process encompassing the biographical shaping of

capabilities and motivation, the imagining of future possibilities, and the attempted enactment

5


of these through social engagement. This comprehensive treatment adds breadth and depth to

the study of opportunity creation which has largely focused on the process of opportunity

enactment (McMullen and Shepherd, 2006; Shepherd, McMullen and Jennings, 2007; Wood

and McKinley, 2010).

To capture the processes of social engagement within which agency is embedded, we

work within a theoretical context informed by contemporary micro-sociology (Collins, 2004;

Scheff, 1990, 1997). This has the added advantage of connecting the study of opportunity

creation with the growing recognition of affect’s role in entrepreneurship (e.g., Baron 2008,

1998; Baron and Tang, 2009; Foo, 2011; Krueger, 2008, 2009; Michl et al., 2009; Welpe et

al., 2008). However, although emotion and affect1 are ‘hot topics’ for entrepreneurship

(Cardon et al., 2012), they too have been viewed predominantly through a cognitive lens and

focused more on the consequences of affective processes (e.g., for decision making

behaviors) than with their antecedents (i.e., the processes that give rise to emotional states).

Affect has been most usually deployed to understand entrepreneurial decision making via the

process of cognition (e.g. Baron, 1998, 2004; Luthans, Stajkovic and Ibrayeva, 2000;

Mitchell et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 2002). Baron (2008), for example, summarizes various

ways in which affect influences cognition. Broadly speaking, positive affect stimulates

entrepreneurial behaviors such as promoting opportunity identification, network building,

flexible problem solving, and stress management, whereas negative affect has the opposite

effects, i.e. militating against opportunity identification, limiting social networks,

encouraging rigid thinking, and creating a proneness to stress (Baron, 2008: 334).

Recent interest has extended into the link between affect, motivation, energy, vitality

and vigor (e.g., Shirom, 2011; Kark and Carmeli, 2009). Murnieks, Mosakowski and Cardon,

1 We treat affect as a portmanteau term encompassing ‘both moods, which are often relatively long-lasting in nature but not focused on specific events or objects (e.g., cheerfulness, depression), and emotions (e.g., anger, sorrow, joy) which are often shorter in duration and are more specifically directed toward a particular object’ (Baron and Tang, 2011: 50). Our use in this paper will depend on the context of discussion.

6


(2014: 1584), for example, point to passion as an emotion that ‘energizes motivation and

inspires individuals to persist through the trials and tribulations associated with

accomplishing difficult [entrepreneurial] tasks.’ Likewise, Hahn et al. (2011) demonstrate a

relationship between ‘eudaimonic affective wellbeing’ (such as feelings of vigor and vitality)

and entrepreneurs’ use of ‘personal initiative’.

The interest in affect as a motivating force has encouraged a broader concern with its

embodied and socially situated dimensions, thus moving away from an exclusive focus on the

individual entrepreneur (Cardon et al., 2012) and towards what Jennings et al. (2014: 3) refer

to as ‘the interpersonal side of this topic; that is, about how others involved in the

entrepreneurial process perceive, respond to and potentially come to share the entrepreneur's

subjective feelings’. In this vein, Doern and Goss (2014) show how differences in power due

to state corruption can reduce entrepreneurs’ emotional energy and their business

development (see also: Doern and Goss, 2013; Goss et al., 2011). This mirrors work in

microsociology such as Lawler’s (2001) ‘affect theory of social exchange’, Scheff’s (1997)

‘deference emotion system’, Collins’ (2004) ‘interaction ritual chain theory’, and Quinn and

Dutton’s (2005) notion of ‘energy in conversation’. These approaches share the assumption

that social interaction is an inherently emotional experience which can ‘oscillate between

energizing and de-energizing’ and, in consequence, shape the direction in which subsequent

interactions unfold for individuals and groups (Quinn and Dutton, 2005: 36). As such, these

approaches are fully compatible with our adopted notion of agency as ‘a temporally

embedded process of social engagement’ and will be incorporated within our theory.

Applying the notion of embedded agency effectively to the broad field of opportunity

creation also requires a specific empirical context. For this purpose our analysis focuses on a

type of opportunity creation where differences in individual agency can be expected to be

especially relevant, namely under conditions of uncertainty where the success of a novel

7


venture is difficult or impossible to predict (Knight, 1921; Runde, 1998). Normally, inertia,

indecisiveness and extreme caution are the most widespread responses among individuals

faced with such uncertain conditions (Akerlof and Schiller, 2010; McKelvie, Haynie and

Gustavsson, 2009). But there are individuals who buck this trend, who are spurred to ‘make

something happen’ in the face of others’ hesitancy. Such apparently egregious behavior is

usually attributed to individual traits such as over-confidence, hubris or achievement need,

etc. (Hayward, Shepherd and Griffin, 2006; Hayward et al., 2010; McMullen and Shepherd,

2006) but we believe our focus on embedded agency can yield a more comprehensive and

context-sensitive understanding.

In the remainder of this paper we develop an account of socially generated ‘emotional

energy’ that—along with its relational underpinnings—provides a social constructionist

account of opportunity creation and the differences in individual agency towards it. We root

our analysis in Collins’ (2004) theory of ‘interaction ritual chains’. This offers our position

the following advantages. Firstly, its core concept of the interaction ritual chain draws

attention to the socially structured but emergent nature of opportunities as processes that

consolidate or dissipate over time. Secondly, it provides an account of individual agency that

is consistent with social constructionist assumptions. Finally, it introduces an explicit role for

affect, alongside more rational cognitions, as a crucial component of opportunity creation.

Interaction ritual chain theory

A growing body of research suggests that the nature and intensity of emotion and cognition

are shaped by individuals’ involvement in social situations. Oullier and Basso (2010), for

instance, show that the physical inter-relating of bodies in social settings can create

affectively driven behaviors in business venturing settings (see also: Basso, Guillou, and

Oullier, 2010; Spreitzer, Lam and Quinn, 2012). Situated cognition (Mitchell et al., 2011;

Clarke and Cornelissen, 2011; Haynie, et al., 2010; Robbins and Aydede, 2009) and micro-

8


sociological and social network theories (Scheff, 1990; Collins, 2004; Lawler, 2001; Gerbasi

et al., 2015; Baker, Cross and Wooten, 2003) also support this position. Collins’ (2004)

theory of ‘interaction ritual chains’ offers one of the most explicit and comprehensive

formulations of this intersubjective and affective grounding of individual and collective

agency.

For Collins (2004) interaction rituals (hereafter IRs) represent a way in which

encounters between two or more actors consolidate into the structured patterns of social

interaction that endure and expand over time and space (Collins, 1981). Participating in an

effective IR provides a sense of collective identity and, importantly, an individual emotional

motivation to act to further the ritual’s purpose. Collins (2004) specifies IRs as a set of

ingredients and outcome variables connected by feedback loops. Ingredients comprise: the

physical co-presence of participants; a perception of separation from non-participants; a

mutual focus of attention on an activity that becomes the object of ritual interaction; and a

shared mood among participants reflecting the level of excitement about the activity. When

successfully combined, these ingredients translate into the outcomes of: collective solidarity;

individual emotional energy; group symbols; and standards of morality (see Collins, 2004:

48; Goss, 2008). The level of positive feedback between ingredients determines the intensity

of the ritual – ‘collective effervescence’ – and the extent to which its outcomes will either

decay or consolidate over time.

One of the most critical outputs of an IR is the emotional energy (EE) which is the basis

of individual motivated action. It is important to note that EE is experienced individually but

is generated through participation in social interaction. EE is conceived as a long-term

emotional tone ranging from an up-tone of excitement and happiness to a down-tone of

depression and sadness (Collins, 2004: 102ff) and which may signal ‘approach’ or ‘avoid’

behaviors. This relatively enduring feeling of pleasantness or unpleasantness is well-

9


supported in the literature (see, for example, Baker, Cross and Wooten, 2003; Boyns and

Luerie, 2015; Gerbasi et al., 2015; Lawler, 2001; Quinn and Dutton, 2005; Spreitzer, Lam,

and Quinn, 2012; Owens et al., 2016), and along with its implications for agency: ‘EE gives

energy, not just for physical activity ... but above all for taking the initiative in social

interaction, putting enthusiasm into it, taking the lead in setting the level of emotional

entrainment’ (Collins (2004: 107). An individual’s experience of gaining and losing EE

underpins the notion of interaction ritual chain history, essentially a theory of biographical

development and learning where agentive power, both in terms of direct experience and

future-oriented motivation, is shaped emotionally over time:

‘The relative degree of emotional intensity that each [interaction ritual] reaches is implicitly compared with other [interaction rituals] within those persons’ social horizons, drawing individuals to social situations where they feel more emotionally involved, and away from other interactions that have a lower emotional magnetism or an emotional repulsion.’ (Collins, 2004: xiv).

In this regard, an actor’s EE-driven attraction to or repulsion from particular sorts of

situations can be seen to motivate their sense of individual agency. The intensity of the EE

they experience and the sorts of situations within which it is generated provide both valence

and direction for their actions (Summers-Effler, 2002).

In summary, EE is generated through social interaction although, by its embodied

nature, is experienced individually. An individual whose interactions have allowed them to

accumulate high levels of EE reflects this in their subsequent interactions, through their

readiness to act, the excitement they convey through their speech and their physical

demeanor, i.e., their agency:

‘A person’s fund of EE is one of the key resources that determines his or her ability to produce further interaction rituals. Individuals who have stored up a high level of EE can create a focus of attention around themselves, and stir up common emotions among others. Such high-EE persons are sociometric stars; at the extreme they are charismatic leaders’ (Collins, 2004: 150; emphasis added).

10


The common emotions stirred up by EE-charged interactions are the basis of the other output

from a successful IR (relevant to our current analysis): the emotionally-laden symbols that

come to represent group solidarity (Kangasharju and Nikko, 2009). IRs approaching high

levels of intensity encourage participants to develop symbols that capture both the

membership status of participants and the sense of solidarity evoked through participation

(Huddy and Gunnthorsdottir, 2000). These can range from totemic objects (such as team

mascots) to discourses employing the IR’s unique terminology. For participants this creates a

symbolic repertoire that carries an emotional charge (so-called ‘affective tags’) stored in

long-term memory (Slovic et al., 2004), allowing members to maintain a sense of energized

anticipation between encounters and encouraging repetition of the IR over time (Collins,

2004: 86).

To give this particular aspect of IRs greater specificity, we introduce Quinn and

Dutton’s (2005) notion of ‘energy texts’ (a construct they reference to Collins’ EE):

‘By referring to energy as “texts,” we mean that (1) a person can read his or her own energy as a bodily signal that summarizes how desirable he or she perceives a situation to be . . . and that (2) people can read another person’s expressions to interpret how much energy that person feels. . . . . People interpret felt energy and expressive gestures as texts and experience changes in their energy based on their interpretation of texts.’ (2005: 43).

In our framework energy texts (hereafter N-texts2) provide a link between the subjective

(Quinn and Dutton’s mode 1 above) and intersubjective (their mode 2) dimensions of agency,

connecting the social production of an individual’s disposition to act with the social situations

in which this can be brought to fruition. Energy texts also connect with psychological

research on interoception and interoceptive awareness, i.e. sensing physiological signals

emanating from within the body (Craig, 2002; Kandasamy et al., 2016; Sadler-Smith, 2016).

2 We use the abbreviation N-text in preference to the more obvious E-text to avoid confusion with our abbreviation for emotional energy (EE) and the tendency to read ‘E’ as ‘emotion’. N, of course, has the added advantage of providing a phonetic clue to energy (N-ergy).

11


The social process of opportunity creation

Drawing from interaction ritual chain theory we offer a systematic account of individual

agency towards opportunity creation that, by incorporating social antecedents and situational

interaction, is consistent with social constructionist assumptions. Figure 1 sets this out,

making a conceptual distinction between aspects of the creation process that operate at the

individual level and those that represent the social context for the expression of these

individual feelings, thoughts and actions (in practice, the transition between the two will

appear as a seamless flow of experience for participants).

Our opportunity creation framework posits interconnected circuits through which EE

is generated, internalized, and projected as individual agency into social encounters. The

force of such agency (its valence and direction), and other participants’ compliance or

opposition with or to it, shapes the development of an IR with sufficient energy and solidarity

to support or suppress the enactment of an opportunity.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

Figure 1’s left hand box captures predominantly individual level processes. The

innermost circle represents an individual’s stock of EE and the propensities they have for

engaging in particular types of IR. These stocks and propensities are the outcome of previous

IRs – the individual’s interaction ritual chain history (IRCH) – and this circle can be

imagined to extend back in time, encapsulating the chain of interactions that constitute an

individual’s biography. An individual’s IRCH constructs their preferences for and aversions

to particular types of IR and provides them with an emotionally charged symbolic repertoire

reflecting this (i.e., agency’s past dimension; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; see also Slovic et

al., 2004). The subjective playing and replaying of this is represented by Figure 1’s outer

circle, i.e., Quinn and Dutton’s ‘mode 1’ N-text. The replaying amplifies existing EE and

fosters a sense of agency directed towards whatever IR-propensity an individual’s IRCH has

12


formed. Together these circuits encapsulate the antecedent conditions for the enactment of

this agency. Because they incorporate previous social interactions, we refer to this box as

‘situated subjectivity’ (rather than just subjectivity) 3.

Figure 1’s right hand boxes represent situational and intersubjective processes.

Informed by an individual’s sense of agency arising from the antecedent conditions outlined

above, they engage with others who are perceived to be potential participants in the type of

IR they seek to enact. Here the individual’s subjective (mode 1) N-text is translated into a

form that can be projected to others (mode 2). The extent to which this projection meets with

support, opposition or indifference from others validates or challenges the individual’s sense

of agency and the type of emotional returns they receive from this intersubjective

engagement. In situations with little or no potential for individual decisiveness (e.g., an

established bureaucracy) such agency is likely to confront rejection, leading to a loss of EE

and (eventual) disengagement. In situations where decisive agency is viable (even if not

exercised widely, such as, e.g., an emerging market), others are likely either to support or

oppose it. In this paper we concern ourselves only with the latter situation (i.e. where

decisiveness is viable, whether supported or opposed).

Where support is encountered, the EE so-generated will carry positive affect and

feedback to strengthen agency towards the desired IR. However, where an individual with a

strong sense of agency encounters opposition to their desired outcome, we propose that EE

with negative affect will be produced. This also, somewhat counter-intuitively, feeds back to

strengthen an individual’s sense of agency, directing it antagonistically towards removing

opponents from the path of their endeavor. We elaborate the latter dynamic more fully below

as it runs contrary to the assumption in many approaches to human energy that conflict and

3 We use the term situated subjectivity in preference to situated cognition because although we recognize that cognitive processes are involved and could, in principle, be specified in detail, this is not our main concern here. Our principal interest is with the broader processes connecting social experience with agentive action.

13


opposition are de-energizing rather than energizing (Baker, Cross and Wooten, 2003; Hahn et

al., 2011; Spreitzer, Lam and Quinn, 2012).

The following section applies this framework specifically within the context of

opportunity creation under conditions of uncertainty, i.e., where high levels of agency are

needed to counter others’ inertia or indifference. Illustrative vignettes are offered to help

clarify the substantive aspects of our framework rather than as rigorous tests of its validity;

these are taken from various autobiographies and biographies of the founder of the Virgin

brand, Sir Richard Branson (Bower, 2001; 2014; Branson, 2000; Brown, 1998).

Opportunity creating propensity: Interaction ritual chain history and subjective N-texts.

Starting in Figure 1’s left hand box we begin with the process whereby biographical

experience – interaction ritual chain history (IRCH) – builds an individual’s propensity to

regard uncertain situations as a potential site of opportunity creation. We propose that such a

propensity will emerge where an individual’s past interaction rituals have yielded an EE gain

through displays of decisive action: decisiveness, as inertia’s counterpoint, affords the

entrepreneur social recognition in situations where most others are reluctant initiative takers

(Akerlof and Schiller, 2010). Formatively, rituals rewarding decisiveness with EE are likely

to be articulated in terms of ‘winning’ or ‘leadership’, with others’ deference towards these

qualities providing the source of EE (Scheff, 1990, 1994, 1997). The commonest example is

competitive sport, but others could include challenges of physical or intellectual bravery

(Collins, 2004: 122ff).

Accounts of Sir Richard Branson’s early life provide several such examples. His

mother, Eve, appeared adept at engineering opportunities for her son to secure public

recognition for his initiative and daring:

14


‘Neighbors recall her position under a high tree .... . . which had attracted stern warnings by all the other parents, forbidding their children to climb beyond a low height. “Right to the top,” urged Eve Branson as her son perilously balanced on the highest branches. “Higher,” shouted the woman famous for hyperactively urging, “Do something, Ricky!”’ (Bower, 2001: 13).

Branson himself describes the energizing effect of being set difficult physical challenges in

childhood (Brown, 1998: 9ff) and the emotional satisfaction of being recognized as a winner:

‘That summer [sports] day I couldn’t put a foot wrong, and my parents and [sister] sat and

clapped in the white marquee as I went up to collect every cup’ (Branson, 2000: 32).

Persistent activity and high personal energy constitute themes throughout his autobiography:

‘I always renew my search for new opportunities. . . . . I suspect this is more down to

inquisitiveness and restlessness than sound financial sense’ (2000: 203). Through

deliberately attention-grabbing situations, ranging from powerboat and ballooning record

attempts to business launches with risqué or outlandish performances, and ‘high octane’

parties for staff and journalists, Branson has demonstrated a relish for being the center of

attention and the focus for others’ expressions of deference (Bower, 2001; 2014; Brown,

1998).

Branson’s autobiography also provides numerous formulations of his personal

business credo – his subjective N-text – focusing on the excitement he feels as a decisive risk

taker, challenge-maker, and ‘fun-seeker’ (Branson, 2000). In his accounts he seems to

deploy this N-text as a way of confirming his own distinctiveness: ‘My interest in life comes

from setting myself huge, apparently unachievable, challenges and trying to rise above them .

. . . Fun is at the core of the way I like to do business and it has informed everything I’ve

done from the outset’ (2000: 219 and 490). Another dimension of this N-text is his focus on

winning, reflected in exceptionally hard-nosed (some would say ruthless) deal-making, his

willingness to challenge decisions against him, and his ready use of litigation to enforce

contracts ‘to the letter’ (Brown, 1998; Bower, 2001; 2014).

15


Brown’s (1998) account of how the idea of business could energize the young

Branson (and protect him from the potentially de-energizing effects of others’ demands)

resonates strongly with our account of EE-seeking propensity: ‘Business gave him a

vocabulary, a framework and set of references he otherwise lacked, and which galvanized

him in a way normal conversation never could . . . he acquired a fluency invariably absent in

the exchange of social pleasantries, or social intimacies’ (p.130). And with this came a

striking willingness to act decisively in business. Here Branson recounts his unilateral

decision to commit—with no previous domain-relevant experience—£3m to starting a

transatlantic airline: ‘I make up my mind about whether a business proposal excites me within

about 30 seconds of looking at it. I rely far more on gut instinct than researching huge

amounts of statistics’ (Branson, 2000: 216; emphases added).

In summary, we suggest that biographical social experience shapes a propensity

towards particular types of IR and styles of engagement within them, based on their capacity

to yield EE. We identify decisiveness in the face of uncertainty as one source of EE and a

precondition for the type of opportunity creation we are interested in. N-texts are constructed

from this raw material of experience: replaying these affectively charged texts subjectively

amplifies EE and stimulates agency towards other ‘decisiveness opportunities’. But to

engage other potential collaborators, this sense of agency has to be projected beyond the

situated subjectivity of the agent, i.e., the N-text’s (mode 2) intersubjective translation.

Intersubjective N-texts and opportunity creation rituals

An N-text’s subjective component amplifies an individual’s EE, but capitalizing on the

resultant agency requires others to enlist their effort and support to the projected opportunity.

Deploying an N-text intersubjectively can help to meet this need by communicating to others

the initiator’s enthusiasm to develop an opportunity and the energy they will bring to this

project. These others’ own energy levels will change in response to this N-text (Quinn and

16


Dutton, 2005: 43), as will their level of support or opposition to the project. An

intersubjective N-text’s key function is to project an individual’s EE-enthused agency into

social encounters. Grabbing attention in situations where other participants are unaware or

skeptical of decisive agency’s efficacy requires projections of considerable intensity.

Intensity can be conveyed emotionally through expressive non-verbal gestures and verbal

excitement and more rationally articulated in narrative structures (albeit with many an

emotive twist; Katz, 1999: 309ff).

An analytic distinction between bodily demeanor and patterns of vocalization allows

us to dissect these N-text projections (here focusing only on those projections accessible to

other participants rather than a scientifically trained observer). Bodily demeanor conveys

vitality and vigor, physical stamina and fearlessness, all of which can underpin the credibility

of an individual’s claims to act decisively – and effectively (Burgoon and Dunbar, 2006).

High levels of vitality and vigor are taken commonly as indicators of the capability to

perform above-the-norm (graphically illustrated in the 2016 Clinton-Trump contest; in an

entrepreneurial context, see also Goldsby, Kuratko and Bishop, 2005). Stamina too is readily

projected as a sign of persistence and the capacity to overcome obstacles—an impression

reinforced if displays of fearlessness and even controlled aggression are involved. The latter

are well established in popular entrepreneurial discourse as prerequisites for competitive

struggle (Baron, 2007; Dodd, 2002; Reid, 2016).

We noted previously that Collins sees EE as giving both physical energy (as above)

and initiative-taking energy in social encounters. Interactional dominance is one

manifestation of the latter. Invading others’ personal space, initiating unexpected or overly

intimate physical contact, and disrupting conversational turn-taking are some of the less

subtle ways in which this may appear (Burgoon and Dunbar, 2006). Often enacted, at the

expense of a ‘target’ individual, as a deliberate tactic for gaining attention from a wider group

17


of spectators (Collins, 2004: 112f), such behaviors can be contrasted with those where an

individual is made the sole focus of ‘special’ attention. Here bodily engagements signaling

reassurance, encouragement or approachability can cement dominance and personal loyalty,

as Immergut and Kosut’s (2014) analysis of the ‘charismatic touch’ demonstrates in which

‘leader and followers exchange mutual recognition through verbal, visual and physical touch’

(p. 272).

Bodily demeanor in such situations also contextualizes forms of speech: eye contact

and posture when speaking and listening indicate interest or disinterest, and signal social

relatedness or distance (Goss, 2005; Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005). When perceived through

conversational speech acts, feelings of ‘relatedness’, alongside ‘autonomy’ and ‘competence’

serve as energy amplifiers (Quinn and Dutton, 2005: 45). When recipients perceive that a

speaker’s intention is to increase their relatedness, autonomy and competence, the energy

levels of speaker and listeners are likely to increase as is the latter’s willingness to contribute

their effort to the speaker’s enterprise (and vice versa). Non-verbal behaviors serve to

amplify these effects.

Examining how intersubjective N-text projections can create the ingredients for an

interaction ritual (physical co-presence; mutual focus of attention; shared mood; and barriers

to outsiders), makes it possible to establish their role in the opportunity creation process: an

IR enabling an entrepreneur’s decisive action provides a social platform for mobilizing

individual and collective agency as a means to enact a potential opportunity.

By way of illustration of this point, we focus on a key incident from Richard

Branson’s own account of the development of his Virgin Atlantic airline. After persistent

government lobbying Branson had secured a limited number of flight slots at London

Heathrow, the UK’s air transport hub, enabling him to shift the focus of operations from the

more regional London Gatwick airport. This lobbying had created the basis for a major

18


opportunity for the fledgling airline, but compared to his main UK competitor, British

Airways, the limited number of slots was insufficient to establish Virgin Atlantic as a major

player. To fully realize the opportunity, Branson set about a campaign targeting tabloid press

journalists to generate publicity that could be used to bring further pressure to bear on the

flight-allocating authorities. We focus on one incident at the start of this campaign which

demonstrates the deployment of a physical and verbal intersubjective N-text to engage and

energize others in an IR that would focus their effort on furthering Branson’s opportunity

creation project.

In the wake of a lavish party to celebrate the move to Heathrow, the ‘stunt’ began at

4.00 am when Branson and some associates arrived at the airport’s main road interchange

dominated by a large statue of a British Airways Concorde jet. Using a chartered mobile

crane they covered the statue with a flag in Virgin livery. Significantly, Branson had also

bussed-in the tabloid journalists and photographers – all of whom had been lavishly

entertained at the party. He takes up the story:

‘To celebrate the occasion I was wearing a brocaded frock coat and had a stuffed parrot wobbling on one shoulder. I had a patch on one eye and a sword hanging off a sash. As the traffic started to get busier, the passing cars all paused to hoot their horns . . . I had dressed as a pirate because Lord King [BA’s chairman] had called me one. . . . One of the reasons why I dress up is to give the press photographers a good picture that will make it into the papers and promote the Virgin brand name. . . . A pleasant by-product is that it makes people smile.’ (2000: 389).

Branson’s willingness to engage in often outrageous and energized verbal and non-verbal

performances provides a clear focus of attention. Although unusual, the real key to success is

ensuring that the right audience is, indeed, physically co-present: not only do the journalists

benefit from their marketable stories and pictures, they are also part of the shared mood, an

exciting highlight to the party atmosphere. Bussing the journalists in directly from the party

creates a barrier to outsiders and defined the journalists as a chosen audience, ‘in on the

19


joke’, and with privileged access to a newsworthy story. And as the quote’s final sentence

suggests Branson was keenly aware that there would be an emotional impact beyond the IR

itself in the journalists’ retelling of the event.

The success of this IR was manifest in the extensive press and media coverage that

followed as the emotionally energized journalists relayed the story to their readers. In this

they were helped by Branson’s verbal projection of his N-text in the form of an ongoing

emotive narrative portraying his attempts to create opportunities as a battle between a brave,

buccaneering underdog and a powerful and privileged bully, David vs Goliath or, in this case,

the romantic pirate challenging the complacent monopolist. Constantly repeated in party

conversations, Branson’s narrative engaged listeners, casting them as fellow campaigners for

justice: ‘I’m fighting for the consumer. BA’s arguments are bollocks. Justice is on my side’

(Branson cited by Bower, 2001: 116). As Quinn and Dutton (2005: 48) note, narratives are

usually ‘told from only one point of view at a time – making only one subject. . . . people

who perceive themselves to be adopting the role of the subject – a superordinate role – often

experience increased energy’.

Here we have an instance of an intersubjective N-text that, through the exercise of

decisive physical engagement and emotive narrative, creates the conditions for a successful

IR and projects the potential for relatedness, autonomy and competence (Quinn and Dutton,

2005). The initiator’s active excitement draws potentially relevant people into physical

proximity and creates an emotionally intense ‘happening’ (relatedness). By sharing in the

drama participants experience gains in their own personal EE (autonomy) and leave with a

tangible resource (e.g., a picture/story) relevant to their future performance (competence).

Branson’s decisive intersubjective E-text deployment, we would suggest, illustrates

how creating the right IR conditions can enhance the initiator’s own EE-level and that of

20


other participants, fueling the former’s motivation to persist with the expansion of their

opportunity and the latter to contribute their support and effort to the cause.

Exercising decisive agency in this instance involves the circulation of EE with a

positive affective charge: in the illustration above, a clear sense of enjoyment and fun and

little, if any, opposition. But in our model (see Figure 1) we also recognize that decisive

agency may meet opposition, leading to a more complex emotional dynamic whereby a

contested intersubjective N-text generates EE with a negative affective charge, and turns the

IR formation process into a struggle for control and dominance as well as for the opportunity

itself.

The circuit originating in the opposition side of the ‘N-text exchange box’ in Figure 1

represents EE’s darker side. Human energy and the quality of social relations are most

usually regarded as correlating positively: strengthening relations increases energy and

weakening them decrease it (Collins, 2004; Davenport, 2015; Parker, Gerbasi and Porath,

2012; Quinn and Dutton, 2005). Boyns and Luery’s (2015) notion of ‘negative emotional

energy’ challenges this assumption by positing that conflictual social encounters can escalate

(rather than diminish) EE, giving it a negative affective charge (see also Scheff, 1990):

‘it is not simply the case that individuals who experience social alienation from salient interaction rituals lose emotional energy and become deflated because of their exclusion. Instead, they become spirited by such positional experiences and develop emotions like resentment, shame, or vengeance. Such oppositional emotions are not necessarily low emotional energy states of being …. but rather, they can produce highly energized but antagonistic experiences’ (Boyns and Luery, 2015: 158).

Figure 1 allows us to recognize how opposition to an individual’s decisive agency and its

associated intersubjective N-text acts as a source of negative EE. This is likely to be

experienced subjectively as spirited and righteous indignation, turning to angry self-

righteousness as it is recirculated as a subjective N-text. The effect is most pronounced

21


where the threatened actor is motivated strongly to exercise their decisive agency. When

translated intersubjectively, this N-text projects physical and verbal hostility towards actual

or perceived opponents. Where support and opposition is divided, negative and positive

flows of EE may run together, strengthening an individual’s sense of agency and their

determination to defeat or remove opposition to the desired opportunity.

One of Branson’s most notable opportunity creations—the founding of the Virgin

Atlantic airline in 1983 with no previous experience of the industry and at a time when small

airlines were perceived as unviable—illustrates how this works. Approached by US lawyer

Randolph Fields with a proposition to start a transatlantic airline – a proposal rejected by

numerous investors before it reached him – Branson claims to have decided to finance the

venture (£3m) over the course of a single weekend. At this time Virgin Music, the company

founded by Branson but now with two other main directors, provided the bulk of his income

and would need to fund the airline investment. Creating the airline was a decision he took

unilaterally, only telling his other directors once he had made up his mind (and had even

approached Boeing about leasing a plane). He recounts his meeting with his fellow directors,

Simon and Ken, as follows:

‘I called up Simon on Sunday evening. ‘What do you think about starting an airline?’ . . . . ‘For God’s sake!’ he cut across me. ‘You’re crazy. Come off it.’ . . . ‘OK,’ I said. . . . ‘But I think we should have lunch.’ . . . . The lunch the next day was not a success. After I told them . . . that Boeing had planes to lease, they looked shocked. I think they realized I . . . . had made up my mind. They were right: I had worked myself up into a state about it. . . . Simon said . . . ‘What I’m telling you is that you go ahead with this over my dead body.’ (Branson, 2000: 219; emphases added).

In the anticipation of opposition Branson seems to have replayed a subjective N-text of

confidence in his decisiveness: ‘At times like those, the more people disagree with me, the

more obstinate I become’ (Branson, 2000: 200). That he ‘worked himself into a state’ (op

22


cit., p. 219) and initiated steps to secure an aircraft indicates raised EE and intensified agency

towards the opportunity.

The negative affective tone of this EE is apparent intersubjectively in the account of the

lunch and Branson’s apparent willingness to lose acrimoniously the services of the man

(Simon), whose musical expertise was largely responsible for the success of Virgin Music,

rather than abandon ‘his’ opportunity: ‘the argument that lunchtime was a turning point in my

relationship with Simon . . . From that lunchtime onwards a tension sprang up in our

relationship that has never fully dissolved’ (Branson, 2000: 219).

A similar, but more extreme negative EE dynamic emerged shortly afterwards in a

dispute with Randolph Fields, then a director of Virgin Atlantic, which Branson claims put

their relationship ‘on a war footing’ (Branson, 2000: 226). The antagonistic and energized

nature of Branson’s ‘campaign’ against Fields is apparent from his confident disclosure to

other staff that ‘He [Fields] won’t be here much longer’ (2000: 226), the appointment of

another director to outvote Fields, and changing the locks on his office to exclude him from

the building. Within six months of floating the idea to Branson, and despite securing a court

injunction, Fields was reduced to selling his shares back to Virgin Atlantic for £1 million

(Bower, 2001: 63).

But alongside this ruthless direction of agency towards removing an opponent, Branson

was simultaneously making Virgin Atlantic a location for IRs focused on high-energy ‘fun’,

starting with the inaugural flight:

‘34,000 feet above the Atlantic . . . to the sound of Madonna’s hit, ‘Like a Virgin’, [Branson] was wearing a steward’s hat and pouring eight hundred bottles of champagne into the glasses of four hundred guests . . . The party was more than memorable, it was unique . . . a triumph of Branson’s presentational skills. His tenacity had transformed a rejected proposal . . . into a major media event. When the boisterous guests returned to London . . . the capital buzzed that flying Branson was fun.’ (Bower, 2001: 60)

23


Branson’s Virgin Atlantic venture illustrates an opportunity that was created (not discovered)

under uncertain conditions by the exceptional agency of a single entrepreneur. Many others

contributed indispensable ideas, expertise and resources, but it is unlikely these would have

been brought together or given the necessary focus without Branson’s energy, initiative and

persistence. We have argued that this extreme form of agency towards opportunity creation

can be understood in terms of chains of IRs within which EE is generated and given direction

through the interplay of subjective and intersubjective processes. The apparently single-

minded determination of such agency, we would suggest, arises from the combination of

positive and negative EE, the former creating intersubjective attachment and enthusiasm

among supporters, the latter directing interpersonal antagonism towards perceived opponents

and ‘clearing the path’ for decisive agency.

Discussion and contributions

This article has set out a framework for understanding opportunity-creating

entrepreneurial agency in terms of interaction rituals and emotional energy. We now discuss

three areas where we believe additional research opportunities can be created or expanded

within entrepreneurship –hubris; creativity; and frustration – prior to summarizing our

approach’s contribution to the general field of opportunity creation research.

Hubris

Entrepreneurship research has often touched on the issue of hubris (and interest is likely to

rise in response to the recent emergence of flamboyant populist politicians) where it is

usually associated with over-confidence (Hayward, Shepherd and Griffin, 2006; Hayward et

al. 2010; Miller, 2014) as well as over-ambition, overweening pride and contempt for the

advice and criticism of others (Sadler-Smith et al., 2017). In the guise of over-confidence,

hubris has often been seen as a stimulus to opportunity creation (Knight, 1921). We would

suggest a more nuanced interpretation, treating hubristic behavior as ‘over-energized’ (for

24


example in terms of confidence and ambition on the positive side, and hubristic pride and

contempt for others on the negative side) rather than just over-confident. Positing

simultaneous excesses of positive and negative EE could explain one of the apparent

intersubjective paradoxes of hubristic behavior: the rapid switching between charm and

aggression, creating adoring supporters alongside embittered enemies (Goss, 2005). Hubris,

on this view, is not simply a subjective pathology but an intersubjective dynamic of attraction

and rejection. Successful entrepreneurs may be especially susceptible to this, not as the result

of a personality defect or acquired personality condition (Owen, 2006), but because the social

situations they inhabit create excesses of positive and negative EE, the escalation of which

invites extreme forms of intersubjective engagement. As Goss (2005) notes, success in

business attracts a following of those who want to share in, or aspire to, similar success but

who lack the agentive drive to achieve it. Such followers can benefit vicariously from their

leader’s reputation:

to be known as the associate of a powerful person is to invite deference from others less well connected, even if the price is the abasement of one’s self to the will of the leader. Whether “kept in their place” by fear or self-interested awe for the leader’s ruthlessness, these followers’ deference stimulates [EE] . . . in the leader, and they, in turn, become the recipients of the charismatic charm thereby induced (Goss, 2005: 630).

Goss (2005) also notes that one false interactional step, perceived by the leader as

challenging or denying deference renders this position precarious. Hubris, as current events

amply demonstrate, cannot be understood simply from the perspective of (or towards) the

individual (see Claxton, Owen and Sadler-Smith, 2016). Our framework allows it to be

approached as a ‘temporally embedded process of social engagement’.

Creation and creativity

It seems intuitively sensible to equate opportunity creation with creativity – ‘the production

of novel and useful ideas’ (Zhou, 2008: 3) – and our account, like most others, has worked

25


with this assumption. Our focus on affect also connects our framework with insights from

cognitive psychology, summarized by Baron and Tang (2011: 51):

‘positive affect enhances creativity . . . . when it is combined with high levels of activation (e.g., enthusiasm, elation) and a promotion regulatory focus (a focus on aspirations or accomplishments . . . . . Further, negative affect accompanied by high activation (e.g., fear, anxiety) has been found to be associated with actual reductions in creativity.’

Our framework links opportunity creating agency to a combination of positive and negative

affect, both with high levels of activation. On the one hand, it can accommodate both of the

relationships above (between creativity and either positive or negative affect), but, on the

other, it points to more complex outcomes when positive and negative affect are combined

and embedded intersubjectively. We outline briefly each of these three relationships in turn.

A situation involving supportive intersubjective N-text exchanges and escalating

positive EE would be expected to enhance creativity. Positive EE gives the confidence to

imagine new possibilities and to initiate agency to enact these by, for instance, expanding

social networks (i.e., bridging structural holes; Goss, 2010). As all participants in this

positive cycle potentially gain EE, we would also expect team creativity to be supported and

amplified (Shalley and Perry-Smith, 2008). The potential downside of this position is that

energy may be directed into overly-imaginative creativity at the expense of the action

necessary to translate it into something with realizable utility.

In contrast, a situation involving strong opposition and escalating negative EE would

be expected to diminish creativity or to constrain it within a very narrow focus. This type of

EE’s antagonistic and aggressive negative valence gives it a polarizing quality, defining

participants as either friends or foes of the opportunity, and creating a tendency for a closing

of ranks rather than the embracing of new ties (Boyns and Luery, 2015). Because negative

EE comes from interactional conflict between actors its focus tends to target winning the

26


current battle rather than exploring new possibilities. As a form of aggressive competition it

may secure dominance within a specific field but the orientation will be defensive rather than

creative (see, for example, Bower’s [1993] account of the tycoon ‘Tiny’ Rowland for an

example of this pattern). Although laboratory experiments have pointed to experiences of

negative affect as a stimulus to creativity (e.g., Akinola and Mendes, 2008), we would argue

that when situated within an ongoing stream of hostile interactions, creativity – where it does

occur – will focus narrowly on new ways to establish dominance rather than open innovation.

Finally, we propose that in the presence of both high positive and high negative EE (as

we have outlined in our illustration of Branson’s Virgin Atlantic expansion above) creativity

could be enhanced: positive EE fuels idea/solution generation and negative EE drives this

forward in the face of obstruction (George and Zhou, 2002), thereby providing a strong basis

for realizing creative opportunities. But in addition to suggesting an elaboration on the

established relationship between affect and creativity our framework—as well as focusing on

the consequences of creativity—also adds an explanation of why, how and when the

underpinning affective states are generated.

Frustration and rejection

Figure 1 (above) identified but did not elaborate the EE circuit where EE decays in the face

of overwhelming rejection. Situations of rejection are more final and absolute than routine

opposition and likely to involve structured inequalities of power that make successful

challenge unviable. Doern and Goss (2014; 2013) document this process in the context of

small entrepreneurs confronting state corruption in Russia, pointing to the detrimental effects

of this de-energizing experience on business development. There would, we believe, be merit

in exploring this dynamic within less extreme situations such as the regulatory regimes faced

by entrepreneurs in more open market economies. Even in this weaker form, a de-energizing

dynamic could have a significant impact on levels and intensity of entrepreneurial activity

27


and, hence, on wealth creation, economic growth and social innovation. Potentially there is

much to be gained from broadening the study of opportunity creation to include not only the

process of creation itself but also the ways in which these creative dynamics are inhibited or

prevented. Our framework suggests that the processes of opportunity creation and

opportunity inhibition may be more tightly coupled than is frequently assumed.

Conclusion

In summarizing our approach’s contribution to the understanding of opportunity creation (as

opposed to discovery) through socially situated agency we point to the following. It broadens

significantly the scope of opportunity creation research by making the roles of intersubjective

and affective processes central, explicit, amenable to operationalization and, hence, empirical

testing. Many other approaches acknowledge the significance of social context but

conceptualize this in a way that lacks theoretical coherence and relies on ad hoc variable

selection. Interaction ritual chain theory provides a unified set of contextual variables (IR

ingredients and outcomes) with sufficient specificity to enable empirical identification

(Collins, 2004; Brundin and Nordqvist, 2008). Similarly, there is now a growing body of

empirical research that provides consistent methods of identifying and measuring EE or its

affective proxies (Owens et al., 2016) and including the role of interoceptive states (Craig,

2002) in entrepreneurship (Sadler-Smith, 2015).

Equally importantly, our approach leaves conceptual space for the incorporation of

existing research in entrepreneurial cognition and the prospect of cumulative knowledge

creation. Although focused on forms of social action and their association with situational

conditions, our framework’s differentiation of situational subjectivity and intersubjectivity

provides opportunity to elaborate the more detailed cognitive processes at work in these

settings and to relate these to explicitly causal rather than contextual situational variables.

Our conception of agency by introducing an explicit temporal dynamic moves analysis

28


beyond the enactment of an opportunity as an outcome and towards the recognition that

enactment is premised on social antecedents. Recognizing these antecedent conditions allows

us to articulate differences in individual agency in a way that is consistent with opportunity

creation’s social constructionist assumptions.

Finally, in making the circulation of EE a core component of our analysis we connect

opportunity creation to wider developments in entrepreneurship and introduce a novel

dynamic between positive and negative affect through which new strands of opportunity

creation research can be opened up in fields such as hubristic behavior, entrepreneurial

creativity, and barriers to opportunity creation.

29


References

Akerlof G, Schiller R. 2010. Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Akinola, M., & Mendes, W. B. (2008). The dark side of creativity: Biological vulnerability

and negative emotions lead to greater artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin 34(12): 1677-1686.

Allinson CW, Chell E, Hayes J. 2000. Intuition and entrepreneurial performance. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 9(1): 31-43.

Alvarez S, Barney J. 2007. Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial

action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1: 11-26.

Alvarez S, Barney J, Anderson P. 2013. Forming and exploiting opportunities: The

implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational

research. Organization Science 24: 301-317.

Ardichvili A, Cardozo R, Ray S. 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification

and development. Journal of Business Venturing 18: 105-123.

Baker R, Cross W, Wooten A. 2003. What creates energy in organizations? MIT Sloan

Management Review 44: 51-56.

Barnes B. 2000. Understanding Agency: London: SAGE.

Baron RA. 2004. Potential benefits of the cognitive perspective: Expanding

entrepreneurship’s array of conceptual tools. Journal of Business Venturing 19: 169-172.

Baron RA. 2007. Behavioral and cognitive factors in entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurs as the

active element in new venture creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 167-182.

30


Baron RA. 2008. The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management

Review 33: 328-340.

Baron RA. 1998. Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when enterpreneurs

think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 275-294.

Baron RA, Markman GD. 2003. Beyond social capital: The role of entrepreneurs' social

competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 41-60

Baron RA, Tang J. 2009. Entrepreneurs' social skills and new venture performance:

Mediating mechanisms and cultural generality. Journal of Management 35: 282-306.

Baron RA, Tang J. 2011. The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of

positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing 26:

49-60.

Basso F, Guillou L, Oullier O. 2010. Embodied entrepreneurship: A sensory theory of value.

In Stanton AA, Day I, Welpe IM (Eds.) Neuroeconomics and the Firm: 217-233.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Bird B. 1988. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention, Academy of

Management Review 13(3): 442-453.

Bower T. 2001. Branson. London: Fourth Estate.

Bower T. 2014. Branson: Behind the Mask. London: Faber & Faber.

Boyns D, Luery S. 2015. Negative emotional energy: A theory of the “dark-side” of

interaction ritual chains. Social Sciences 4: 148-170.

Branson R. 2000. Losing my virginity. London: Virgin Books

31


Brigham KH, De Castro JO, Shepherd DA. 2007. A person-organization fit model of owner-

managers’ cognitive style and organizational demands. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice January: 29-51.

Brown M. 1998. Richard Branson: The authorized biography. London: Headline.

Brundin E, Nordqvist M. 2008. Beyond facts and figures: The role of emotions in boardroom

dynamics. Corporate Governance: An International Review 16: 326-341.

Burgoon JK, Dunbar NE. 2006. Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in human

relationships. The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication. London: SAGE.

Cardon MS, Foo MD, Shepherd D, Wiklund J. 2012. Exploring the heart: Entrepreneurial

emotion is a hot topic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36: 1-10.

Clarke J, Cornelissen J. 2011. Language, communication and socially situated cognition in

entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review 36: 776-778.

Claxton G, Owen D, Sadler-Smith E. 2014. Hubris in leadership: A peril of unbridled

intuition? Leadership 11(1): 57-78.

Collins R. 2004. Interaction ritual chains. Princeton University Press, Oxford.

Collins R. 1981. On the microfoundations of macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology

86: 984-1014.

Craig AD. 2002. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of

the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3(8): 655-666.

Davenport TO. 2015. Thriving at work: how organizational culture affects workplace

fulfillment. People and Strategy, 38(3): 38-42.

Dimov D. 2007. Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding

entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31: 713–731.

32


Dodd SD. 2002. Metaphors and meaning: A grounded cultural model of US entrepreneurship.

Journal of Business Venturing 17: 519-535.

Doern R, Goss D. 2013. From barriers to barring: Why emotion matters for entrepreneurial

development. International Small Business Journal 31: 496-519.

Doern R, Goss D. 2014. The Role of Negative Emotions in the Social Processes of

Entrepreneurship: Power Rituals and Shame‐Related Appeasement Behaviors.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38: 863-890.

Dunbar NE, Burgoon JK. 2005. Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in

interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22: 207-233

Eckhardt J. Shane S. 2003. Opportunities and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management 29:

333-349.

Emirbayer M, Mische A. 1998. What is Agency? American Journal of Sociology 103: 962-

1023.

Foo, M. 2011. Emotions and entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice 35: 375–393.

Foss K, Foss NJ. 2008. Understanding opportunity discovery and sustainable advantage: the

role of transaction costs and property rights. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2: 191–

207.

George JM, Zhou J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones

don't: the role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 687.

Gerbasi A, Porath CL, Parker A, Spreitzer G, Cross R. 2015. Destructive de-energizing

relationships: How thriving buffers their effect on performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology 100: 1423-1433.

33


Giddens A. 1984 The Constitution of Society: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Goldsby MG, Kuratko DF, Bishop JW. 2005. Entrepreneurship and fitness: An examination

of rigorous exercise and goal attainment among small business owners. Journal of Small

Business Management 43: 78-92.

Goss D. 2005. Entrepreneurship and ‘the social’: Towards a deference-emotion theory.

Human Relations 58: 617-636.

Goss D. 2008. Enterprise ritual: a theory of entrepreneurial emotion and exchange. British

Journal of Management 19: 120-137.

Goss D. 2010. Putting emotion at the heart of agency: A relational perspective on

entrepreneurial action. Research on Emotions in Organizations 6: 63-84.

Goss D, Jones R, Betta M, Latham J. 2011. Power as practice: A micro-sociological analysis

of the dynamics of emancipatory entrepreneurship. Organization Studies 32: 211-229.

Hahn VC, Binnewies C, Sonnentag S, Mojza EJ. 2011. Learning how to recover from job

stress: effects of a recovery training program on recovery, recovery-related self-efficacy,

and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16: 202.

Haynie JM, Shepherd D, Mosakowski E, Earley PC. 2010. A situated metacognitive model of

the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing 25: 217-229.

Hayward ML, Shepherd DA, Griffin D. 2006. A hubris theory of entrepreneurship.

Management Science 52: 160-172.

Hayward ML, Forster WR, Sarasvathy SD, Fredrickson BL. 2010. Beyond hubris: How

highly confident entrepreneurs rebound to venture again. Journal of Business Venturing 25:

569-578.

34


Huddy L, Gunnthorsdottir AH. 2000. The persuasive effects of emotive visual imagery:

Superficial manipulation or the product of passionate reason? Political Psychology 21: 745-

778.

Immergut M, Kosut M. 2014. Visualising charisma: representations of the charismatic touch.

Visual Studies 29: 272-284.

Jennings JE, Jennings PD, Sharifian M. 2014. Living the dream? Assessing the

“entrepreneurship as emancipation” perspective in a developed region. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice 40(1): 80-110.

Kandasamy N, Garfinkel SN, Page L, Hardy B, Critchley HD, Gurnell M, Coates JM. 2016.

Interoceptive ability predicts survival on a London trading floor. Scientific Reports, 6.32986.

DOI: 10.1038/srep32986

Kangasharju H, Nikko, T. 2009. Emotions in organizations: Joint laughter in workplace

meetings. The Journal of Business Communication 46: 100-119.

Kark R, Carmeli A. 2009. Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in

the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of

Organizational Behavior 30: 785-804.

Katz J. 1999. How Emotions Work, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kickul J, Gundry LK, Barbosa SD, Whitcanack L. 2009. Intuition versus analysis: Testing

differential models of cognitive style in entrepreneurial self-efficacy and new venture

creation process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice March: 439-453.

Knight FH. 1921/2006. Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Dover Publications

Krueger NF. 2009. Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: Long live entrepreneurial intentions.

In Understanding the entrepreneurial mind (pp. 51-72). Springer New York.

35

https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fsrep32986


Krueger NF. 2008. Entrepreneurial Resilience: real and perceived barriers to implementing

entrepreneurial intentions. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1155269 or

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1155269

Lawler E. 2001. An affect theory of social exchange, American Journal of Sociology 107:

321-352.

Luthans F, Stajkovic A, Ibrayeva E. 2000. Environmental and psychological challenges

facing entrepreneurial development in transitional economies. Journal of World Business

35: 95-110.

McKelvie A, Haynie JM, Gustavsson V. 2011. Unpacking the uncertainty construct:

Implications for entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing 26: 273-292.

McMullen JS, Shepherd DA. 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the

theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review 31: 132-152.

Michl T, Welpe IM, Spörrle M, Picot A. 2009. The role of emotions and cognitions in

entrepreneurial decision-making. In Understanding the entrepreneurial mind (pp. 167-190).

Springer New York.

Mitchell RK, Busenitz L, Bird B, Gaglio CM, McMullen J, Morse E, Smith JB. 2007. The

central question in entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice 31: 1-27.

Mitchell RK, Busenitz L, Lant T, McDougall PP, Morse E, Smith JB. 2002. Toward a

theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Winter: 93-104.

Mitchell R, Randolph-Seng R, Mitchell J. 2011. Imagining new opportunities for

entrepreneurship research. Academy of Management Review 36: 774-775.

36

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1155269


Murnieks CY, Mosakowski E, Cardon MS. 2014. Pathways of passion identity centrality,

passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs. Journal of Management 40: 1583-1606.

Oullier O, Basso F. 2010. Embodied economics: How bodily information shapes the social

coordination of decision-making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365:

291-301.

Owen, D. 2006 Hubris and nemesis in heads of government. Journal of the Royal Society of

Medicine 99(11): 548-551.

Owens BP, Baker WE, Sumpter DM, Cameron KS. 2016. Relational energy at work:

Implications for job engagement and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 101:

35-49.

Parker A, Gerbasi A, Porath CL. 2012. The effects of de-energizing ties in organizations and

how to manage them. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00848027/ Accessed 26 02 2017.

Quinn R, Dutton J. 2005. Coordination as energy-in-conversation. Academy of Management

Review 30: 36–57.

Ramoglou S. Tsang E. 2016. A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as

propensities, Academy of Management Review 41: 410-434.

Reid, R. 2016. Trump as capitalist folk hero, or the rise of the white entrepreneur as political

bully. Black Renaissance 16, 92-95.

Robbins P, Aydede M. 2009. A short primer on situated cognition. In Robbins, P. and

Aydede, M. (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Runde J. 1998. Clarifying Frank Knight's discussion of the meaning of risk and uncertainty.

Cambridge Journal of Economics 22(5): 539-546.

37

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00848027/


Sadler-Smith E. 2015. The role of intuition in entrepreneurship and business venturing

decisions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25(2): 212-225.

Sadler-Smith E. 2016. ‘What happens when you intuit?’: Understanding human resource

practitioners’ subjective experience of intuition through a novel linguistic method. Human

Relations 69(5): 1069-1093.

Sadler-Smith E, Akstinaite V, Robinson G, Wray TCD 2017. Hubristic leadership: A review.

Leadership. DOI: 1742715016680666.

Scheff TJ. 1997. Emotions, the social bond and human reality. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Scheff TJ. 1994. Microsociology: Discourse, emotion, and social structure. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Scheff TJ. 1990. Micro-sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shalley CE, Perry‐Smith JE. 2008. The emergence of team creative cognition: the role of

diverse outside ties, sociocognitive network centrality, and team evolution. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal 2: 23-41.

Shepherd DA, McMullen JS. Jennings PD. 2007. The formation of opportunity beliefs:

overcoming ignorance and reducing doubt. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1: 75–95.

Shepherd DA, Williams TA, Patzelt, H. 2015. Thinking about entrepreneurial decision

making: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management 41: 11-46.

Shirom, A. 2011. Vigor as a positive affect at work: Conceptualizing vigor, its relations with

related constructs, and its antecedents and consequences. Review of General Psychology 15:

50-64.

38


Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as

feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24: 311-

322.

Spreitzer G, Lam CF, Quinn R. 2012. Human energy in organizations: Implications for POS

from six interdisciplinary streams. In Cameron KS, Spreitzer GM. (eds.). The Oxford

handbook of positive organizational scholarship: 155-167. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Summers-Effler E. 2002. The micro potential for social change: emotion, consciousness and

social movement formation. Sociological Theory 20: 41-60

Tocher N, Oswald SL, Hall DJ. 2015. Proposing social resources as the fundamental catalyst

toward opportunity creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 9: 119–135.

Welpe IM, Spörrle M, Grichnik D, Audretsch D. 2008. The role of positive and negative

emotions in opportunity evaluation and exploitation. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship

Research 28, 20.

Wood MS, McKinley W. 2010. The production of entrepreneurial opportunity: a

constructivist perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 4: 66–84.

Zhou J. 2008. New look at creativity in the entrepreneurial process. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal 2: 1-5.

39


Figure 1. Circuits of EE and opportunity creating agency

40

opportunity creation: entrepreneurial …epubs.surrey.ac.uk/814168/1/opportunity creation.docx ·...

Documents