Content uploaded by Philip Roundy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Philip Roundy on May 23, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Where are the entrepreneurs? A call to theorize the micro-foundations and strategic
organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems
Philip T. Roundy
UC Foundation Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship
Gary W. Rollins College of Business
University of Tennessee (Chattanooga)
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Tel: +1 423-425-4422
Email: philip-roundy@utc.edu
Thomas S. Lyons
Clarence E. Harris Chair of Excellence in Entrepreneurship
Gary W. Rollins College of Business
University of Tennessee (Chattanooga)
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Tel: +1 423-425-5725
Email: thomas-lyons@utc.edu
Forthcoming in Strategic Organization
Roundy, P.T. and Lyons, T. (2021). Where are the entrepreneurs? A call to theorize the micro-
foundations and strategic organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Organization,
doi.org/10.1177/14761270211056240
2
Where are the entrepreneurs? A call to theorize the micro-foundations and strategic
organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems
Abstract
The “entrepreneurial ecosystem” (EE) has become the dominant metaphor in theories explaining
how location-specific forces influence entrepreneurship. Despite the progress made by scholars
studying EEs, in this essay we contend that the ecosystem metaphor has created an implicit
tendency in entrepreneurship theory to emphasize macro-, ecosystem-level dynamics rather than
the causal and mediating mechanisms linking entrepreneurs and their local ecosystems. To
accompany the macro-dynamics focus in EE theory, we call for a micro-foundations approach
that emphasizes the bi-directional connections between entrepreneurs’ strategizing and
organizing activities and their ecosystems. We offer an agenda of theory development
opportunities at the intersection of strategic organization and EEs.
Keywords: entrepreneurship theory; entrepreneurial ecosystems; micro-foundations; strategic
organization
I. Introduction
Entrepreneurship theory increasingly acknowledges that entrepreneurial activity does not
occur in a contextual vacuum but is place-based, location-specific, and embedded in
entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs)—the interconnected factors that support entrepreneurship
within geographic areas (Nair et al., 2020; Spigel & Harrison, 2018; Stam & van de Ven, 2021).
EE research studies how entrepreneurial activity is influenced by complex systems of local
actors (e.g., startup employees, investors, incubators, accelerators, mentors, government officials,
universities, co-working spaces, maker-spaces, local customers) and socio-economic forces (e.g.,
values, norms, institutions, narratives) in entrepreneurs’ immediate environments and that extend
beyond organizational and industry boundaries (Roundy et al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2018). In
the past decade, the “entrepreneurial ecosystem” has become the dominant metaphor in theories
explaining how cities and regions, such as Silicon Valley, Bangalore, and Stockholm, enable
high levels of entrepreneurial activity (Adams, 2020; Goswami et al., 2018; Kuckertz 2019).
Despite the substantial progress made by scholars studying EEs, in this essay we contend that the
3
ecosystem metaphor has created an implicit tendency in EE theory to focus on macro-,
ecosystem-level dynamics and not explain the micro-foundations of EEs.
The espoused benefit of the ecosystem metaphor is that it spurs researchers to create a
more complete picture of entrepreneurship by expanding the lens of theorizing beyond the
entrepreneur and venture (Brown & Mason, 2017). However, in embracing the ecosystem
metaphor, we argue that EE theory has become focused on explaining the system-level dynamics
of ecosystems (i.e., ecosystem emergence, elements, and outcomes) and has underemphasized
entrepreneurs and their connections to EEs. As a result, EE research has not theorized the
specific causal and mediating mechanisms linking entrepreneurs and ecosystems, which is
contributing to criticisms that EE research is “undertheorized,” (Cantner et al., 2021: 407) and
that there is “no universal agreement about […] the causal links within the system” (Alvedalen &
Boschma, 2017: 887).
We generally agree with these assessments of EE theory and assert that the most
significant implication of the macro-dynamics tendency in EE research is that it is not clear how
EEs influence entrepreneurs’ capabilities, organizational structures, competitive advantages, and
performance and, in turn, how these factors influence EE dynamics. Thus, fundamental questions
related to how entrepreneurs strategize and organize in EEs and how these activities are
connected to EE functioning remain unanswered and undertheorized.
To expand the predominantly macro-dynamics focus in EE theory, we call for a micro-
foundations approach to EE research that embraces the strategic organization perspective. We
contend that the breadth of EE theory can be enriched by considering both macro-dynamics and
micro-foundations and, in fact, that EE theory will have difficulty explaining the activities and
organization of ecosystems and their participants if it does not seek to explain the causal
4
mechanisms connecting entrepreneurs and their ecosystems. Indeed, although the main insight of
EE research is that “where entrepreneurship occurs matters,” we assert that it has become critical
to ask, “where is the entrepreneur in EE theory?”
In making our case for the opportunities created in ecosystems theory by considering the
micro-foundations and strategic organization of EEs, our essay proceeds as follows. First, we
seek to understand the evolution of EE theory by exploring how the emphasis on ecosystem-
level, macro-dynamics has manifested. Next, we describe the implications of the macro approach
and argue that, despite its strengths, it does not address core questions about the specific
mechanisms linking entrepreneurs and their ecosystems. Finally, we offer recommendations for
how, by leveraging a micro-foundations approach, EE theory can embrace a unique aspect of
entrepreneurial ecosystems: the interplay between the micro-dynamics of entrepreneurs and the
meta-organizational characteristics of the local ecosystems in which they are embedded.
II. The emergence of ecosystem theorizing in entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship research has historically placed entrepreneurs, their ventures, and
opportunities at the center of theorizing (McMullen et al., 2021). However, the “contextual turn”
in organization studies (Johns, 2006) and, more recently, in entrepreneurship (Welter, 2011)
draws attention to the forces in entrepreneurs’ local environments and contends that these forces
should not be relegated to generic boundary conditions (e.g., “environmental munificence”). The
burgeoning interest in entrepreneurs’ contexts has been informed by concepts that preceded EEs,
including entrepreneurial environments (Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994), systems (Lichtenstein &
Lyons, 2001), infrastructure (van de Ven, 1993), the Triple Helix (Leydesdorff, 2012), and the
closest conceptual forerunner to EEs, entrepreneurial communities (Lyons et al., 2012). The
history of these concepts is found in earlier work on agglomeration effects in industrial districts,
clusters, regional innovation systems, and economic gardening (cf. Cooke, 2009).
5
The “entrepreneurial ecosystem” metaphor first appeared in Iansiti and Levien (2004)
and soon became the central concept in studies adopting a systemic and placed-based approach
to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship’s use of the metaphor is inspired by work on business
ecosystems (Moore, 1993) and the subsequent proliferation of “ecosystem” concepts in business
research (e.g., platform-, innovation-, services-, and sales-ecosystems; Scaringella & Radziwon,
2018). The EE concept was legitimized further by the practitioner popularity of using the
ecosystem metaphor to describe regional entrepreneurship (e.g., Feld, 2012; Isenberg, 2010).
How EE theory developed a macro-dynamics focus
The ascendance of EEs as the prevailing metaphor for describing the location-based
forces that influence entrepreneurship has been coupled with a growing focus in entrepreneurship
theory on explaining macro-level dynamics: the connections between ecosystem characteristics
and ecosystem (or regional) outcomes. We refer to this emphasis as a “macro-dynamics focus”
because it aims to explain how macro-level attributes influence aggregated ecosystem- and
territory-level outcomes. Studies taking this approach often seek to explain how an EE’s system-
level factors (e.g., the ecosystem’s regulatory institutions, culture, or market infrastructure)
influence its overall levels of entrepreneurial activity and/or aggregate regional (or national)
economic performance (e.g., Content et al., 2020; Hechavarría, & Ingram, 2019; Iacobucci &
Perugini, 2021; Mikic et al., 2020; Nicotra et al., 2018; Szerb et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2021). We
posit that EE theory’s tendency to focus on macro-dynamics has multiple origins: the proclivities
of EE scholars, the ecosystem metaphor, and data availability.
First, an obvious driver of the macro-dynamics focus is EE scholars’ academic
backgrounds. EEs are studied by researchers with eclectic orientations, including economic
geography, community development, public policy, regional studies, and rural sociology. Many
6
of these disciplines build on intellectual traditions that do not prioritize theorizing strategic,
managerial, and organizational dynamics. A less apparent factor contributing to the macro-
dynamics focus is the prominence of the ecosystem metaphor. The metaphor’s vividness and
popularity has made EE theorists increasingly inclined to emphasize the “ecosystem” rather than
the “entrepreneurial” aspect of EEs. Finally, empirical issues have also fueled macro EE
research. Collecting rich, primary data at the entrepreneur- and venture-levels is more time
intensive than using secondary data, often collected by governments and economic development
agencies. This practice creates challenges because, as Spigel et al. (2020: 485) argue,
much of the most important data [used in EE research] are only available at national levels, while
ecosystems function predominantly at the sub-national (e.g. city, city-region, regional) scale.
Nation-level data hide a great deal of variation between and within city-regions, which makes it
difficult to understand the reality of the situation on the ground.
Relying on aggregated, secondary ecosystem data has conceptual implications. Theories based
on such data tend to emphasize ecosystem-level elements, such as territory-level entrepreneurial
activity, because data measuring these elements are readily available.
In sum, the ecosystem metaphor has brought much-needed attention to how entrepreneurs
are embedded in interconnected, local, and place-based forces and how ecosystem attributes can
influence important aggregated entrepreneurial outcomes. However, we contend that the
individual-environment “pendulum” in EE theory has swung too far from entrepreneurs and their
ventures, which has created opportunities to expand the field’s explanatory power in the ways
summarized in the next section.
III. The consequences of the macro-dynamics focus in EE theory
EE scholars’ disciplinary and empirical tendencies and the ecosystem metaphor have
produced theories that, primarily, explain ecosystem-level characteristics, processes, and
outcomes. The predominant macro-dynamics focus has not sought to explain the specific, cross-
7
level connections between ecosystems, entrepreneurs, and their ventures, which raises issues
that, we later explain, can be addressed by considering the micro-foundations and strategic
organization of EEs.
Issue 1: The uniqueness of EEs and their participants are often obscured
Macro-dynamics EE research has generally created and adopted theories that treat EE
actors as homogeneous within categories and has not incorporated within-group heterogeneity
among EE actors by considering different types of entrepreneurs, investors, support
organizations, and EE leaders (Brydges & Pugh, 2021). Yet, entrepreneurs, for example, vary by
skill level (Lyons et al., 2020), which suggests that all participants in an ecosystem that support
entrepreneurs (e.g., incubators) could also vary by their capability to address the needs of skill-
segmented entrepreneurs. Further, by treating EE participants as homogeneous, theories have not
acknowledged that EE actors may have wide-ranging motivations for participating in ecosystems
(cf. Sperber & Linder, 2019 for an exception). For instance, while participants may become
involved in an EE primarily to improve the success of their entrepreneurial activities, EE
participants may also have non-instrumental motivations for interacting with an ecosystem (e.g.,
the desire to help revitalize an economically depressed neighborhood; e.g., Roundy, 2019).
Ultimately, although it is a truism that theories must abstract from the phenomena they explain, a
focus on purely ecosystem-level dynamics without considering how EE forces interact with
participant heterogeneity (and homogeneity) obscures how EEs influence different types and
aspects of entrepreneurship and makes EEs simply a novel context for exploring system
dynamics and the nonspecific properties of complex systems—a noble pursuit but not the driving
purpose of entrepreneurship theory.
Issue 2: The macro-micro linkages of EEs are undertheorized
8
The prominence of EEs is based on a widely-held belief in academic and practitioner
circles that vibrant ecosystems stimulate entrepreneurial activity and improve entrepreneurial
performance (Acs et al., 2017). Based on this belief, vibrant ecosystems are expected to produce
not only high levels of entrepreneurship but higher performance outcomes than for entrepreneurs
in less-vibrant ecosystems (Cunningham et al., 2019; Tsvetkova et al. 2019). An untheorized and
largely untested assumption is that entrepreneurs who are more attuned to their ecosystems, who
make greater efforts to get “plugged into” (Stephens et al., 2019) their EEs, and who leverage
their EEs for resources will perform better than entrepreneurs who are more oblivious to their
surrounding ecosystem (Spigel & Harrison, 2018). However, the macro-dynamics focus in EE
theory has not addressed how—exactly—differences in entrepreneurial actions produce
differences in entrepreneurial performance because of interactions with EE-level characteristics.
Thus, the specific causal, mediating, and facilitating mechanisms underlying the linkages
between entrepreneurs and their EEs are expressed in imprecise terms (e.g., “increasing
entrepreneurship”) or left untheorized.
Issue 3: The practical implications of EE research for entrepreneurs are often unclear
The macro-dynamics focus in EE research has generated valuable insights for economic
development practitioners and policymakers (e.g., Hannigan et al., 2021) but has not produced
the same richness of insights for entrepreneurs. Because the connections between EEs and
entrepreneurs are unstated in theory, they are often untested. As a result, EE research has
struggled to generate concrete, theory-informed, and empirically validated recommendations for
entrepreneurs beyond vague suggestions akin to “locate in a vibrant EE” or “take advantage of
your EE.” The specific strategies entrepreneurs should use to leverage, draw resources from, and
9
become embedded in their EEs are less clear than the recommendations for how governments
and support organizations can support EEs (e.g., Hernández-Chea et al., 2021).
IV. So, what now? The micro-foundations and strategic organization of entrepreneurial
ecosystems
Although the origins of EE research have ties to strategic management and the business
ecosystem concept (Acs et al., 2017), the macro-dynamics focus has put EE theory at risk of
coming untethered from entrepreneurship, management, and other organizational disciplines. To
address the issues identified in the previous section, we submit that EE scholarship can benefit
from incorporating a micro-foundations approach. We contend that the field of strategic
organization is uniquely positioned as a starting point for such research because issues at the
intersection of strategy and organization theory are at the heart of EEs but conspicuously absent
from current theory. In calling for theory that addresses the micro-foundations of the linkages
between ecosystems, entrepreneurs, and their ventures, we offer a framework and research
questions that set an agenda for the future.
Before we describe our framework, we acknowledge that importing any primarily non-
entrepreneurship theory into an entrepreneurship context is potentially problematic (Arend,
2020). With a novel (but not new) phenomenon, like EEs, the temptation exists for scholars to
look to adjacent fields for theoretical insights. However, analyzing EEs through the
complementary lenses of micro-foundations and strategic organization is an approach that has
strong resonance with the unique characteristics of entrepreneurship phenomena (cf. Arend &
Chen, 2012; Foss & Lyngsie, 2014).
A micro-foundations approach to EE theorizing
The micro-foundations approach to strategic management and organization theory was
born from trends similar to the ones we have identified in EE theory: tendencies had developed
10
for scholars to focus on collective constructs, characteristics, and outcomes (e.g., organizational
performance, industry composition, institutional factors) without examining how macro-level,
phenomena influenced and were influenced by the actors comprising them (Felin & Foss, 2005).
Organizational micro-foundations research builds on Coleman’s call in sociology for work that
teases apart the linkages between the micro-level characteristics of individuals and macro-level
social structures (Coleman, 1990). The micro-foundations approach does not assert that
collective constructs are inconsequential, but that more attention be paid to multi-level issues
and, specifically, to how collectives influence individuals (Figure 1, arrow 1) and how individual
action “collectivizes” to create social processes and outcomes (arrows 2 and 3) (Felin et al.,
2015). The micro-foundations approach cautions against theories that focus exclusively on
macro-to-macro linkages (arrow 4) (cf. Abell et al., 2008).
--- Insert Figure 1: Micro-foundations and strategic organization ---
It is in the spirit of Coleman’s arguments and those of other proponents of micro-
foundations (Aguinis & Molina-Azorín, 2015) that we argue EEs are consequential as a
collective construct but that the tendency to focus on ecosystem dynamics and systemic
conditions has shifted EE theory away from explaining the phenomenon’s micro-macro linkages.
By contrast, a micro-foundations approach to EE theory would consider how EEs influence
entrepreneurs’ characteristics (e.g., skills) and the conditions of entrepreneurial activity (e.g.,
access to resources) (Figure 2, arrow 1). Such an approach would also consider how
entrepreneurs’ characteristics and conditions influence their actions (e.g., venture creation)
(arrow 2), and, in turn, how entrepreneurial actions influence ecosystem characteristics (e.g., EE
resilience) (arrow 5) and EE outcomes (e.g., regional entrepreneurial activity) (arrow 3). As a
rare example of this micro-macro interplay, Markley et al. (2015) identified a community
11
development strategy that combined increasing a community’s capacity for supporting an EE
with implementing a coaching system that prepared entrepreneurs to effectively use the EE by
developing their skills.
We acknowledge that the micro-foundations perspective is not a unified approach but can
manifest in at least three forms: “ideas of which level of analysis is the correct one for specifying
a theoretical explanation, which mechanism is allowable in a theoretical explanation, and which
social unit should be given actor-hood within the basic behavioral units in the theory” (Greve,
2013: 103). Given the variety of interpretations of “micro-foundations” (cf. Power, 2021), to
clarify, we are arguing that more theoretical explanations in EE research need to: take individual
ecosystem participants (entrepreneurs) as the focal level of analysis; give the individual, not the
ecosystem, “actor-hood” when parsing the behavioral units of EE theory; and emphasize the
mechanisms linking entrepreneurs and their ecosystems.
An agenda for theorizing the strategic organization of EEs
Existing at the interface of strategic management and organization theory, strategic
organization is concerned with precisely the levels of analysis underemphasized in EE theory
and is, thus, a starting point for understanding the micro-foundations of EEs. Extending
Coleman’s diagram to three levels of analysis (Figure 2), we identify three critical sets of
questions that could be addressed if our approach is adopted and explain how answering these
questions would enrich EE theory.
--- Insert Figure 2: The micro-foundations and strategic organization of EEs ---
(1) How do EEs influence entrepreneurs’ strategizing and organizing?
The most neglected area of micro-foundations theory in EE research is the connections
between EE characteristics, entrepreneurs, and their strategizing and organizing activities (Figure
12
2, arrows 1 and 2). Specifically, work is needed that teases apart the facilitating mechanisms
explaining how EE functioning directly and indirectly influences entrepreneurs’ characteristics
and conditions (arrow 1), which, in turn, influence their venture development strategies and
accompanying organizational decisions (arrow 2).
For example, a commonly promoted advantage of locating in a vibrant, high functioning
EE, such as Silicon Valley, is that it gives entrepreneurs access to community-orchestrated local
resources (talent, mentorship, investment, networks); for this reason, EEs are often
conceptualized as collective “resource allocation systems” (cf. Cao & Shi, 2021). A benefit of
receiving EE resources is that entrepreneurs do not have to coordinate or produce the resources
intra-organizationally, which reduces entrepreneurs’ costs and allows them to devote resources to
other aspects of entrepreneurship (Roundy & Burke-Smalley, 2021). However, entrepreneurs
differ in their ability to tap into their EEs for resources (Stephens et al., 2019), which stands to
create important differences in their strategic positioning (e.g., their ability to generate
entrepreneurial, relational, and other forms of rent; Chadwick & Dabu, 2009; Madhok et al.,
2015) and influences decisions related to organizational design (e.g., the degree to which
ventures rely on the “visible hand” of the entrepreneur or the “crowd” of the EE; cf. Kornberger,
2017). Micro-foundations research may reveal that being able to “outsource” certain resources,
capabilities, and organizational functions to entrepreneurs’ local EEs is, potentially, a source of
competitive advantage because it allows some entrepreneurs to implement more flexible, fluid,
and open organizational structures than those who do not have access to such collective
resources. EE-provided resources may be especially helpful to resource-strapped, early stage
ventures for which flexibility is at a premium (Brinckmann et al., 2019).
13
In contrast, unlike what is known about the effects of other types of environmental
munificence on entrepreneurial decisions (Hoehn-Weiss & Barden, 2014), EE theory cannot
explain how entrepreneurs strategize and organize their ventures differently if located in
unmunificent, peripheral, and resource-poor EEs that do not provide easy access to local
knowledge, mentors, and investment (Xu & Dobson, 2019). Beyond the effects of differences in
ecosystem munificence (Spigel & Harrison, 2018), a micro-foundations approach could reveal
valuable insights into how other forms of macro-level, inter-ecosystem heterogeneity (e.g.,
differences in EE coordination, integration, resilience; Iacobucci, & Perugini, 2021; Roundy et
al., 2017) influence entrepreneurs’ strategies and, in turn, the actions they take in designing and
operating their ventures.
(2) How do entrepreneurs tailor their strategies and organizations to leverage EEs?
In addition to explaining how entrepreneurs’ strategies and organizations are influenced
by being in vibrant (or struggling) EEs, a micro-foundations approach could allow EE theory to
explain how entrepreneurs actively develop strategies to leverage their EEs. One set of questions
for EE scholars—described in the previous section—correspond to how EE characteristics
influence entrepreneurs, irrespective of entrepreneurs’ actions and outlook towards their EEs.
That is, an EE’s forces (e.g., culture, institutions, coordinating effects) can influence
entrepreneurs even if entrepreneurs do not acknowledge the EE. However, we add another
linkage (arrow 5) to the Coleman “bathtub” diagram that connects EE characteristics and
entrepreneurial actions and represents how, as a direct and purposive response to EE
characteristics, entrepreneurs can engage in specific strategies that tailor their organizational
decisions to utilize their EEs.
14
For instance, micro-foundations EE research could shed light on how entrepreneurs
strategically manage the tension between relying on their EEs for organizational functions (e.g.,
the recruitment and provision of human capital; Stam & van de Ven, 2021) and performing the
same functions intra-organizationally, which are decisions that represent a unique type of make
or “buy” dilemma (Felin et al., 2017). Such theorizing could also address fundamental questions
about why some entrepreneurs are more attuned than others to their EEs and more likely to have
an “ecosystem mindset” (Pekkarinen et al., 2020: 1515) rather than preferring a go-it-alone
approach (Baum et al., 2000) to venture development.
Entrepreneurs receive resources based, in part, on reciprocity (Loots et al., 2021) and
their contributions to their local EEs (Roundy et al., 2019). Nevertheless, there is not yet a theory
to explain how differences in entrepreneurial and social-psychological characteristics (e.g., the
propensity to engage in prosocial inter-organizational behaviors; Ni et al., 2014) influence
entrepreneurs’ involvement in their EEs. Studies of how entrepreneurs cooperate and compete in
their general business ecosystems (e.g., Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018) might help to illuminate
how entrepreneurs navigate their EEs; however, while entrepreneurial and business ecosystems
are both meta-organizations (Gulati et al., 2012), EEs are unique in that they are geographically
concentrated, industry agnostic, and focused on supporting entrepreneurial activities and
opportunity pursuit, which makes it unclear how much of the theory derived from business
ecosystems is applicable to understanding the strategic organization of EEs. Finally, arrow 5 in
Figure 2 is double-sided to reflect that a micro-foundations approach would help EE theory to
explain how EE characteristics co-evolve with changes in entrepreneurs. For example, as
entrepreneurs develop their skills, and support providers adapt to the resultant changes in
demand for their services, EEs may change to reflect this bottom-up shift by developing support
15
niches at certain skill levels and organizing themselves to provide a seamless system that
facilitates strategic referrals and delivers support at all skill levels (Lyons et al, 2020).
(3) How do EE leaders’ strategies influence how EEs are organized?
The primary focus of our essay has been drawing attention to the unexamined
connections between entrepreneurs and EEs; we would be remiss, however, not to acknowledge
that there is another set of largely unexplored micro-foundations in EEs: the linkages between
EEs and EE leaders—i.e., individuals who engage in deliberate activities aimed at developing an
ecosystem and improving its functioning (Miles & Morrison, 2020). EE leadership is a form of
collective and distributed community leadership (cf. Eva et al., 2021) that any participant in an
ecosystem—including entrepreneurs—can step into (or out of). Incorporating the effects of EE
leadership requires a further modification of the traditional Coleman micro-foundations diagram.
A second “bathtub” is needed depicting how EEs influence EE leaders (Figure 2, arrow 6), how
EE leaders’ characteristics and conditions influence their actions (arrow 7), and how these
actions, in turn, influence EE characteristics and outcomes (arrows 8 and 9).
Although the general topic of EE leadership has received more attention than the linkages
between EEs and entrepreneurs, the strategic organization of EE leadership is largely
untheorized. A micro-foundations approach could generate insight into how EE participants
work—alone and in groups—to manage different identities in their dual roles as entrepreneurs
and ecosystem strategists (Mantere & Whittington, 2020) and develop strategies that not only
influence the trajectory of their ventures but also shape an EE’s meta-organizational structures
(e.g., EE leaders crafting discourse that promotes a regional focus on a particular set of
technologies or influencing the design of an EE’s entrepreneurship support subsystem by
organizing themselves to articulate their needs). Ultimately, theory addressing issues of EE
16
leadership would help to explain how the work of developing EEs is accomplished (Whittington,
2003) and how the individuals who comprise ecosystems play an agentic role in shaping the
emergence and outcomes of EEs.
Conclusion
The EE literature has been described as a “laundry list of relevant [ecosystem] factors
without clear reasoning of their cause and effect” and as offering “no consistent explanation of
their interdependent effects on entrepreneurship” (emphasis added) (Stam and van de Ven, 2021:
810). We elevate such criticisms but contend that the issue facing EE scholars is not that the EE
literature is entirely “undertheorized” (Colombelli et al., 2019) or “atheoretical” (Spigel and
Harrison, 2018) for there is a fertile stream of theory explaining ecosystem macro-dynamics. The
main opportunity facing EE theory is that the micro-foundations of the phenomenon have been
neglected. As a result, the micro-macro linkages in EEs, and the complex interplay between the
characteristics and actions of EE participants and an ecosystem’s factors have been largely
ignored to the detriment of theory being able to offer granular explanations of EE dynamics.
In asking, “where are the entrepreneurs?” in EE theory, we are not urging EE scholars to
abandon macro-theorizing and accept an exclusively micro perspective but, instead, to consider
that both the micro-foundations of EEs and the interdependence between micro- and macro-
dynamics are essential for developing theory that fully exemplifies an ecosystem perspective.
Fundamental to ecosystems theory is considering not just the connections among system-level
components but cross-level effects (Theodoraki & Messeghem, 2017). Thus, micro-foundations
thinking, rooted in explanations of multi-level connections, is necessary to realize the full
potential of an ecosystem approach to entrepreneurship.
17
We have argued that strategic organization is uniquely suited for exploring the micro-
foundations of EEs and addressing the macro-dynamics tendency in EE theory because it draws
explicit attention to who does the formal—and mostly informal—work of organizing and
strategizing in EEs and how this work is accomplished. Without such a focus, EE researchers are
at risk of becoming like a mechanic who has developed an acute understanding of the
competitive dynamics of the auto industry’s global supply chain but has yet to figure out how an
automobile’s engine works. Our call is for EE scholars to “lift the hood” of EEs and develop
theories to explain how the work of building entrepreneurial ventures in EEs and building EEs
themselves is actually done.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for Paula Jarzabkowski’s editorial insights and guidance and the valuable
feedback from two anonymous reviewers.
References
Abell P, Felin T and Foss N (2008) Building micro-foundations for the routines capabilities and
performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics 29(6): 489-502.
Acs ZJ Stam E Audretsch DB, and O’Connor A (2017) The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem
approach. Small Business Economics 49(1): 1-10.
Adams SB (2020) From orchards to chips: Silicon Valley’s evolving entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 33(1-2): 15-35.
Aguinis H and Molina-Azorín JF (2015) Using multilevel modeling and mixed methods to make
theoretical progress in microfoundations for strategy research. Strategic Organization 13(4): 353-364.
Alvedalen J and Boschma R (2017) A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a
future research agenda. European Planning Studies 25(6): 887-903.
Arend RJ (2020) Entrepreneurship: A theory for no theory for now. Strategic Organization. Epub ahead
of print DOI: 10.1177/1476127020979041.
Arend RJ and Chen Y (2012) Entrepreneurship as dynamic, complex, disequilibrious: A focus that
benefits strategic organization. Strategic Organization 10(1): 85-95.
18
Baum JA Calabrese T & Silverman BS (2000) Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and
startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal 21(3): 267-294.
Brinckmann J Villanueva J Grichnik D and Singh L (2019) Sources of strategic flexibility in new
ventures: An analysis of the role of resource leveraging practices. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal 13(2): 154-178.
Brown R and Mason C (2017) Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualization of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics 49(1): 11-30.
Brydges T and Pugh R (2021). Coming into fashion: Expanding the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept to
the creative industries through a Toronto case study. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien,
1–21.
Cao Z and Shi X (2021) A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and
emerging economies. Small Business Economics 57(1): 75-110.
Cantner U Cunningham JA Lehmann EE Menter M (2021) Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A dynamic
lifecycle model. Small Business Economics 57(1): 407-423.
Chadwick C and Dabu A (2009) Human resources, human resource management, and the competitive
advantage of firms: Toward a more comprehensive model of causal linkages. Organization Science 20(1):
253-272.
Cohen IB and Thomas VS (1993) The natural sciences and the social sciences: Some critical and
historical perspectives. Dordrecht The Netherlands: Springer-Science-Business-Media.
Coleman J (1990) Foundations of social theory. Boston MA: Harvard University Press.
Colombelli A Paolucci E and Ughetto E (2019). Hierarchical and relational governance and the life cycle
of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics 52(2): 505-521.
Content J Bosma N Jordaan J and Sanders M (2020) Entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial activity
and economic growth: new evidence from European regions. Regional Studies 54(8): 1007-1019.
Cooke P (2009) Technology clusters, industrial districts and regional innovation systems. In G
Becattini M Bellandi and L. De Propris (Eds.) A handbook of industrial districts (pp. 295–
306). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cunningham JA Menter M and Wirsching K (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: A principal
investigator-centered governance framework. Small Business Economics 52(2): 545-562.
Eva N Cox JW Herman HM and Lowe KB (2021). From competency to conversation: A multi-
perspective approach to collective leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly 32(5): 101346.
Feld B (2020) Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. John Wiley.
Felin T and Foss NJ (2005) Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic
Organization 3(4): 441-455.
19
Felin T Foss N J and Ployhart R E (2015) The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization
theory. Academy of Management Annals 9(1): 575-632.
Felin T Lakhani KR and Tushman ML (2017) Firms, crowds, and innovation. Strategic Organization
15(2): 119-140.
Foss NJ and Lyngsie J (2014) The strategic organization of the entrepreneurial established firm. Strategic
Organization 12(3): 208-215.
Frazier BJ and Niehm LS (2004) Exploring business information networks of small retailers in rural
communities. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 9(1): 23-42.
Goswami K Mitchell JR and Bhagavatula S (2018) Accelerator expertise: Understanding the intermediary
role of accelerators in the development of the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal 12(1): 117-150.
Gnyawali DR and Fogel DS (1994) Environments for entrepreneurship development: key dimensions and
research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(4): 43-62.
Greve HR (2013) Microfoundations of management: Behavioral strategies and levels of rationality in
organizational action. Academy of Management Perspectives 27(2): 103-119.
Gulati R Puranam P and Tushman M (2012) Meta‐organization design: Rethinking design in
interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal 33(6): 571-586.
Han J Ruan Y Wang Y and Zhou H (2019) Toward a complex adaptive system: The case of the
Zhougguancun entrepreneurship ecosystem. Journal of Business Research 128: 537-550.
Hannah DP and Eisenhardt KM (2018) How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent
ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal 39(12): 3163-3192.
Hannigan TR Briggs AR Valadao R Seidel MDL and Jennings PD (2021) A new tool for policymakers:
Mapping cultural possibilities in an emerging AI entrepreneurial ecosystem. Research Policy, Epub ahead
of print DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104315
Hechavarría, D. M., & Ingram, A. E. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem conditions and gendered
national-level entrepreneurial activity: a 14-year panel study of GEM. Small Business Economics 53(2),
431-458.
Hernández-Chea R Mahdad M Minh TT and Hjortsø CN (2021). Moving beyond intermediation: How
intermediary organizations shape collaboration dynamics in entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Technovation 108 102332.
Hoehn-Weiss MN and Barden JQ (2014) The influences of capital market munificence on new-venture
alliance formation in emerging industries. Strategic Organization 12(4): 225-243.
Iacobucci D and Perugini F (2021) Entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic resilience at local level.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Epub ahead of print DOI:
10.1080/08985626.2021.1888318
Iansiti M and Levien R (2004) The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems
Mean for Strategy Innovation and Sustainability. Harvard Business Press.
20
Isenberg DJ (2010) How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review 88(6) 40-50.
Johns G (2006) The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management
Review 31(2): 386-408.
Kornberger M (2017) The visible hand and the crowd: Analyzing organization design in distributed
innovation systems. Strategic Organization 15(2): 174-193.
Kuckertz A (2019) Let's take the entrepreneurial ecosystem metaphor seriously! Journal of Business
Venturing Insights 11: e00124.
Leydesdorff L (2012) The triple helix quadruple helix… and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory models
for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1): 25-35.
Lichtenstein GA and Lyons TS (2001) The entrepreneurial development system: Transforming business
talent and community economies. Economic Development Quarterly 15(1): 3-20.
Loots E Neiva M Carvalho L and Lavanga M (2021) The entrepreneurial ecosystem of cultural and
creative industries in Porto: A sub‐ecosystem approach. Growth and Change 52(2): 641-662.
Lyons TS Alter TR Audretsch D and Augustine D (2012) Entrepreneurship and community: The next
frontier of entrepreneurship inquiry. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 2(1): 1-26.
Lyons TS Lyons JS and Jolley GJ (2020) Entrepreneurial skill-building in rural ecosystems: A framework
for applying the Readiness Inventory for Successful Entrepreneurship (RISE). Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Public Policy 9(1): 112-136.
Madhok A Keyhani M and Bossink B (2015) Understanding alliance evolution and termination:
Adjustment costs and the economics of resource value. Strategic Organization 13(2): 91-116.
Markley, DM Lyons, TS and Macke, DW (2015) Creating entrepreneurial communities: Building
capacity for ecosystem development. Community Development 46(5): 580-598.
McMullen JS Ingram KM and Adams J (2021) What makes an entrepreneurship study entrepreneurial?
Toward a unified theory of entrepreneurial agency. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 45(5): 1197-
1238.
Mikic M Horvatinovic T and Kovac I (2020) Climbing up the regional intellectual capital tree: an EU
entrepreneurial ecosystem analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Epub ahead of print DOI:
10.1108/JIC-07-2020-0258.
Miles MP and Morrison M (2020) An effectual leadership perspective for developing rural
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics 54(4): 933-949.
Moore JF (1993) Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review 71(3): 75-
86.
Nair S Gaim M and Dimov D (2020) Toward the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities: Organizing
early-phase new-venture creation support systems. Academy of Management Review, Epub ahead of print
DOI: 10.5465/amr.2019.0040.
21
Nicotra M Romano M Del Giudice M and Schillaci CE (2018) The causal relation between
entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: A measurement framework. The Journal of
Technology Transfer 43(3): 640-673.
Pekkarinen S Tuisku O Hennala L and Melkas H (2020) Robotics in Finnish welfare services: dynamics
in an emerging innovation ecosystem. European Planning Studies 28(8): 1513-1533.
Power M (2021) Modelling the micro-foundations of the audit society: Organizations and the logic of the
audit trail. Academy of Management Review 46(1): 6-32.
Roundy PT (2019) Back from the brink: The revitalization of inactive entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 12: e00140.
Roundy PT Bradshaw M and Brockman B K (2018) The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A
complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Business Research 86(1): 1-10.
Roundy PT Brockman BK and Bradshaw M (2017) The resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal
of Business Venturing Insights 8: 99-104.
Roundy PT and Burke-Smalley L (2021) Leveraging entrepreneurial ecosystems as human resource
systems: A theory of meta-organizational human resource management. Human Resource Management
Review, Epub ahead of print DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100863
Mantere S and Whittington R (2020) Becoming a strategist: The roles of strategy discourse and
ontological security in managerial identity work. Strategic Organization, Epub ahead of print DOI:
10.1177/1476127020908781.
Scaringella L and Radziwon A (2018) Innovation entrepreneurial knowledge and business ecosystems:
Old wine in new bottles? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 136: 59-87.
Sperber S and Linder C (2019) Gender-specifics in start-up strategies and the role of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Small Business Economics 53(2): 533-546.
Spigel B Kitagawa F and Mason C (2020) A manifesto for researching entrepreneurial ecosystems. Local
Economy 35(5): 482-495.
Spigel B and Harrison R (2018) Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal 12(1): 151-168.
Stam E and van de Ven A (2021) Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics 56:
809-832.
Stangler D and Bell-Masterson J (2015) Measuring an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. Kauffman Foundation
Kansas City MO.
Stephens B Butler JS Garg R and Gibson DV (2019). Austin, Boston, Silicon Valley, and New York:
Case studies in the location choices of entrepreneurs in maintaining the Technopolis. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 146: 267-280.
Szerb L Lafuente E Horváth K and Páger B (2019) The relevance of quantity and quality entrepreneurship
for regional performance: the moderating role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Regional Studies 53(9):
1308-1320.
22
Theodoraki C and Messeghem K (2017) Exploring the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the field of
entrepreneurial support: a multi-level approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business 31(1): 47-66.
Thompson TA Purdy JM and Ventresca MJ (2018) How entrepreneurial ecosystems take form: Evidence
from social impact initiatives in Seattle. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12(1): 96-116.
Tsvetkova A Pugh R and Schmutzler J (2019). Beyond global hubs: Broadening the application of
systems approaches. Local Economy 34(8): 755–766.
van de Ven AH (1993) The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing 8(3): 211-230.
Welter F (2011) Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways
forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(1): 165-184.
Whittington R (2003) The work of strategizing and organizing for a practice perspective. Strategic
Organization 1(1): 117-125.
Xie Z Wang X Xie L and Duan K (2021) Entrepreneurial ecosystem and the quality and quantity of
regional entrepreneurship: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Research 128: 499-509.
Xu Z and Dobson S (2019) Challenges of building entrepreneurial ecosystems in peripheral places.
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy 8(3): 408-430.
23
Figure 1: Micro-foundations and strategic organization
(Source: Adapted from Coleman, 1990; Felin et al., 2015)
Figure 2: The micro-foundations and strategic organization of EEs
24
Author Biographies
Philip T. Roundy is the UC Foundation Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Gary W.
Rollins College of Business at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. His research focuses
on the role of entrepreneurship in economic and community revitalization. He is particularly
interested in how entrepreneurship manifests in struggling regions, “dying” industries, and
displaced technologies. He has published in journals such as Academy of Management
Perspectives, Strategic Organization, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Business
Venturing Insights, and Journal of Business Research and serves on several editorial boards,
including Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Small Business Economics, and Entrepreneurship
Research Journal. He received a Ph.D. in Strategy and Organization Theory from the University
of Texas at Austin.
Thomas S. Lyons is the Clarence E. Harris Chair of Excellence in Entrepreneurship and
Professor of Marketing & Entrepreneurship in the Gary W. Rollins College of Business at the
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. His research interests are entrepreneurship skills
measurement and development, the relationship between entrepreneurship and community
economic development, and social entrepreneurship. He is the co-author of fourteen books; has
published numerous articles, book chapters and papers on these subjects; and has edited a three-
volume set on social entrepreneurship (Social Entrepreneurship: How Businesses Can Transform
Society). In 2011, Dr. Lyons received the Ted K. Bradshaw Outstanding Research Award from
the Community Development Society. Dr. Lyons is currently Co-Editor of the Entrepreneurship
Research Journal. He is a practicing entrepreneur, who has co-founded two companies. He holds
a Ph.D. in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
