Call for Papers

“If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.”

We live in a time of weakening institutions in which many people experience a diminished sense of community (Fisher et al., 2002) triggered by conceptions of society in which individualization and institutionalized individualism (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002) have become “our fate” (cf. Bauman, 2013). This social phenomenon is invasive and is not without consequences, as it leads to enhanced loneliness and stress at work (Stephan et al., 2023) and a desperate search for meaning (Lips-Wiersma et al., 2022). It also has consequences on value creation by increasing venture vulnerability and volatility – e.g., in the United States, it is estimated that 95% of new firms last less than six years (Yang & Aldrich, 2012) and the longevity of established firms is declining precipitously (Garelli, 2016).
 
Despite these repercussions, the prevailing narrative surrounding value creation often emphasizes individualism, glorifies short-term objectives, and applauds hyper-individualistic entrepreneurs who champion the ethos of 'moving fast and breaking things' (Boutillier & Uzunidis, 2014; Drakopoulou Dodd & Anderson, 2007; Ogbor, 2000). Research on value creation too often follows the popular, western cultural account of entrepreneurship as focusing squarely on heroic individuals detached from communities and places. The entrepreneurial hero is theorized with the pluck, creativity, and resourcefulness to transform alone his or her surroundings (e.g., Achtenhagen & Welter, 2011; Radu & Redien-Collot, 2008). However, these focal individuals, quite frankly, are often ineffective at saving everything, everyone, all the time – especially in a time when the sense of community is eroded. After all, “only a small part is played in great deeds by any hero” (Tolkien, 1973, p. 323). As scholars and pedagogues, we need to help the rising generation at reviving and leveraging a sense of community through which they can think and act together with others (e.g., Cyr et al., 2023) in order to build and manage ventures capable of creating and sharing value over the long run (Dimov, 2007; Hytti & Heinonen, 2013).
 
In this sub-theme, we challenge the methodological individualism and reductionism of prevailing theories of value creation and their intense focus on the interests, motives, and action of “the entrepreneur”. Our received theories of value creation imply a largely individualistic, disembedded, and consequently, short-term view of what value creation means, and how value is created together and for others, over time. This sub-theme calls for theory and more critical inquiries on longer-term, collective forms of value creation. In so doing, we are less concerned with categorizing or characterizing entities (e.g., individuals, families, businesses, non-profits, communities, etc.) and instead much more interested in the underlying dynamics through which processes of value creation are initiated, institutionalized, maintained, and modified over time. We, thus, see opportunities for understanding enduring value creation from across a variety of recognized phenomena such as: community-based enterprise (e.g., Peredo & Chrisman, 2006), family/transgenerational enterprise (e.g., Zellweger, Nason, & Nordqvist, 2012), craft (e.g., Sirmon et al., 2022), and indigenous organizing (e.g., Dana & Anderson, 2007), among others. Though manifestly distinct, such phenomena share an underlying latent dynamic where value is created not only through market transactions but also by building an enduring (often intergenerational) social fabric that unites stakeholders around a mission larger than individual interests.
 
To help scaffold the understanding of collective value creation over extended periods of time, we draw inspiration from the idiom: “If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.” This idiom invites us to reimage the scope and target of value creation by focusing on how value is co-created over the long run and how this affects and is affected by communities, in places. We call for research which explores, investigates, and theorizes the mechanisms, processes, and practices through which a sense of community can be cultivated to can sustain value creation beyond individual interests or lifespans. Additionally, we seek research on the conditions that hinder value creation, even in instances where a sense of community is cultivated.
 
Within this sub-theme, the phrase “if you want to go far, go together” is intended to be polysemantic. It may be interpreted in terms of the role of enduring social relationships for processes of value co-creation. It may also be interpreted in terms of the historically-situated purposes which bring stakeholders together in efforts intended to create and share value. Dynamics contributing to a sense of community in value creation may, thus, include synchronic relational practices (such as dialogue, mutuality, reciprocity, debate, contention, forgiveness, etc.) as well as diachronic institutional sources of stakeholder cohesion and conflict (such as history, tradition, legacy, heritage, identity, and values).
 
The core interest of this sub-theme is in the underlying dynamics through which a sense of community in value creation is achieved, sustained and/or lost. In sum, the sub-theme seeks to understand forms of long-term, collective value creation that can exhibit a resilient and innovative capacity to marshal stakeholder support and commitment. In so doing, the sub-theme aspires to extend our understanding of ‘value creation’ as a social, historical, psychological, and multi-level phenomenon not limited to economic interests but encompassing relational, cultural as well as political dimensions and consequences.
 
In particular, we welcome submissions that speak to questions such as:

• How does a sense of community foster / impede value creation over time?

• What does “community” mean in the twenty first century? How does the cohesion and/or conflict associated with “communities” play out in value creation?

• When and how might relational practices which are understood to foster strong ties contribute to and/or impede value creation?

• When and how might intergenerational linkages (such as legacy, tradition, heritage, etc.) contribute to and/or impede value creation?

• What similarities and differences exist among enduring value creators such as community-based enterprise, family/transgenerational enterprise, crafts and trades, indigenous entrepreneurship, religious organizations, professions, philanthropic foundations, iconic corporations, etc.?

• How can the notion of “value creation” be conceptualized from a temporally-extended and/or socially embedded perspective?

• What are some of the thorny conceptual and/or practical problems introduced by adopting a long-term perspective for understanding value creation? And how can these be addressed?

References

• Achtenhagen, L., & Welter, F. (2011): “‘Surfing on the ironing board’ – The representation of women’s entrepreneurship in German newspapers.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23 (9–10), 763–786.
• Bauman, Z. (2013): The Individualized Society. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002): Individualization. Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. London: SAGE Publications.
• Boutillier, S., & Uzunidis, D. (2014): “The theory of the entrepreneur: from heroic to socialized entrepreneurship.” Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 14 (2), 9–40.
• Cyr, A.A., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2023): “Organizational Social Relations and Social Embedding: A Pluralistic Review.” Journal of Management, 49 (1), 474–508.
• Dana, L.-P., & Anderson, R.B. (2007): International Handbook of Research on Indigenous Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Dimov, D. (2007): “Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (5), 713–731.
• Drakopoulou Dodd, S., & Anderson, A.R. (2007): “Mumpsimus and the mything of the individualistic entrepreneur.” International Small Business Journal, 25 (4), 341–360.
• Jones, C., & Spicer, A. (2005): “The sublime object of entrepreneurship.” Organization, 12 (2), 223–246.
• Fisher, A.T., Sonn, C.C., & Bishop, B.J. (eds.) (2002): Psychological Sense of Community. Research, Applications, and Implications. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
• Garelli, S. (2016): Why You Will Probably Live Longer Than Most Big Companies. Lausanne: IMD, https://imd.widen.net/view/pdf/8v0g7haiih/tc096-16_why-you-will-probably-live-longer-than-most-big-c.
• Hytti, U., & Heinonen, J. (2013): “Heroic and humane entrepreneurs: identity work in entrepreneurship education.” Education + Training, 55 (8/9), 886–898.
• Lips-Wiersma, M., Bailey, C., Madden, A., & Morris, L. (2022): “Why We Don’t Talk About Meaning at Work.” MIT Sloan Management Review, 63 (4), 33–38.
• Ogbor, J.O. (2000): “Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: Ideology‐critique of entrepreneurial studies.” Journal of Management Studies, 37 (5), 605–635.
• Peredo, A.M., & Chrisman, J.J. (2006): “Toward a theory of community-based enterprise.” Academy of Management Review, 31 (2), 309–328.
• Radu, M., & Redien-Collot, R. (2008): “The social representation of entrepreneurs in the French press: Desirable and feasible models?” International Small Business Journal, 26 (3), 259–298.
• Sirmon, D.G., Suddaby, R., Chirico, F., Dacin, M.T., Kroezen, J., Ganzin, M., & Graebner, M. (2022): “Strategic Entrepreneurship in Craft-Based Ventures.” Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.
• Stephan, U., Rauch, A., & Hatak, I. (2023): “Happy entrepreneurs? Everywhere? A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship and wellbeing.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47 (2), 553–593.
• Yang, T., & Aldrich, H.E. (2012): “Out of sight but not out of mind: Why failure to account for left truncation biases research on failure rates.” Journal of Business Venturing, 27 (4), 477–492.
• Zellweger, T.M., Nason, R.S., & Nordqvist, M. (2012): “From longevity of firms to transgenerational entrepreneurship of families: Introducing family entrepreneurial orientation.” Family Business Review, 25 (2), 136–155.