Empirical investigation of Relationality theory to determine the role of relationality in opportunity development.

Empirical investigation of Relationality theory to determine the role of

relationality in opportunity development.

Stefano Tosi S4060830 s.m.tosi@student.rug.nl

Supervisor: Sean White (s.r.white@rug.nl) 22/06/2020

Co-assessor: Samuele Murtinu (s.murtinu@rug.nl)

Master’s Thesis

MSc Small Business & Entrepreneurships Faculty of Economics and Business

2 Abstract

Among entrepreneurship research there has been growing attention to opportunities.

Past theories have tried to establish the origin and evolution of opportunities, in particular the

relationality theory applied to entrepreneurship sustains that opportunities are dynamic, enacted

by social interactions, and that the outcomes of opportunities are unknowable in advance. We are

interested in understanding how will the process that originates and shapes opportunities will look

from a relational perspective in real cases? This case-study will use semi-open questions to

interview entrepreneurs and obtain precious information about the processes that shape

opportunities. We have found empirical evidence, which proves that relationality’s paradigm

applied to entrepreneurship is correct. We conclude by evidencing that opportunities are subject

to a dynamic process, are shaped by the actors involved, and the outcomes are unknowable in

advance by the entrepreneurs.

Introduction

Entrepreneurs and the important role they cover in the society has been studied and

researched extensively in the last decades, especially in the management and economic fields

(Block, Fisch, and van Praag, 2017). The contributions of entrepreneurial activities are multiple:

they influence positively job creation, aid and stimulate economic growth, increase competition

leading to improved products and services, they grant workplaces for individuals who struggle in

finding job, and finally, thanks to the flexibility of the environment they create the, are able to

innovate at a faster pace than larger and established companies. Therefore, due to their influence

on the above-mentioned fields, entrepreneurs and the ventures they create have been the focus, not

only of academic research, but also of policies designed to stimulate and boost their development

3

resources in providing assistance for entrepreneurship and new venture creation (Shane, 2009; Acs

et al., 2006). Entrepreneurship is undoubtedly important in modern societies, otherwise, scholars

and politicians would not misuse energies and resources into this field. However, it is relevant to

note that policies address mainly the followings: preparation of future entrepreneurs, access to

finance, business transfer facilities, reducing the fear of failure by protecting them in case of

bankruptcies, increasing the speed of administrative processes, and lastly, countries and especially

European Union at increasing innovation and innovative entrepreneurship (European Commission,

2015).

The great scope of entrepreneurship, from individual job creation, to wealth creation to

escape poverty (Ssendi and Anderson, 2009) is astonishing, nevertheless, the versatile

characteristics of entrepreneurship may also be the reason that explains why it is so fragmented

and has multiple meanings, therefore, the notion of entrepreneurship is both contingent and

contextualized (Anderson, Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012). Due to the importance of

entrepreneurial opportunities in entrepreneurship (Shane, 2000) a great deal of researcher is trying

to understand and pinpoint the origin of opportunities: where do they come from? Who creates

them and under what conditions?

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) proposed the “discovery theory” where entrepreneurs

discover opportunities, they are seen as objective and empirically present, the role of the

entrepreneur is to scan the environment, detect them, seize them, and, subsequently exploit them.

This theory is based on the level and claims that opportunities are to be found in the

macro-level, mainly within institutions, such as market, government, and environment. However, it seems

4

This second theory is advanced by Alvarez and Barney (2007) and it is based on the

micro-level. The assumption is that opportunities are deliberately created by purposive actions of

the entrepreneurs, therefore, the whole concept of opportunities and their origination has to be

found in the entrepreneur herself and not in the external environment. Nonetheless, this theory is

incomplete and seem to not fully capture the process that originates and shapes opportunity

(McMullen, Plummer, and Acs, 2007). Consequently, a third stream of scholars came forward and

proposed the relationality paradigm and applied it to entrepreneurship.

The general paradigm of relationality applied to entrepreneurship is based on the notion

that entrepreneurship is versatile, it embodies and articulates change (Bradbury &

Bergman-Lichtenstein, 2000; Anderson, Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012; Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani,

2018). The core concept is that change is part of entrepreneurship. Change provokes new products,

new services, new firms, and opportunities. In addition to change, this theory implies that the

patterns of formation are unknowable in advance (Anderson and Atkins, 2001). In this stance,

entrepreneurship is a complex sum of a great deal of micro-processes, where each one is unique,

self-organizing, and different (Aldrich and Martinez, 2001). The relationality theory adopts a

stance between the micro-level of the creation theory and the macro-level of the discovery theory

which is called meso-level. This level implies that there are material discursive forces that shape

and constitute phenomena or opportunities (Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018). Additionally, it

considers entrepreneurship as an ongoing emergent process that involves a great deal of actors,

and while actors may act with intention, there is a likelihood that they will encounter events and

outcomes not of their making.

Struck by the elegance and apparent completeness of this theory and by understanding

5

found in real cases of entrepreneurship. Since this theory, as far as we know, has not yet been

tested, we are interested in researching, through interviews, whether is possible to find the dynamic

and social processes described in this theory. From here our research question: how will the process

that originates and shapes opportunity will look from a relational perspective in real

entrepreneurial cases?

Literature review

Entrepreneurship is a promising field of study. A great deal of papers found a positive

correlation between entrepreneurship, economic growth and development (Herrington, Turton,

and Kew, 2013; Naudé, 2013; Meyer, Neck, and Meeks, 2017). There are no doubts that

entrepreneurship contributes vastly to countries’ GDP (Tamilmani, 2009; Toma, Grigore, and

Marinescu, 2014). The addition of this field to the economic growth of countries has motivated a

great deal of studies, in particular, entrepreneurship contributes to the generation of employment,

innovation, productivity, and growth (van Praag and Versloot, 2007). Three reasons why the study

of entrepreneurship is important can be drawn from past literature. Firstly, entrepreneurship is a

mechanism used by society to convert information into products and services (Arrow, 1972).

Secondly, inefficiencies are discovered and then mitigated thanks to entrepreneurship (Kirzner,

1997). Thirdly, entrepreneurship is the driving mechanism of innovation and change in society

(Schumpeter, 1934).

A fundamental part of entrepreneurship, that motivates venture creation, is represented

by the product or service proposed by the entrepreneur and this derives from an idea of a product

6

there would be no agent that exploits opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).

Opportunities and entrepreneurs are deeply involved in a nexus and without the interconnection of

these two terms it would be difficult to provide a definition of entrepreneurship. For this reason,

the paper follows the inclusive definition “Entrepreneurship as a scholarly field seeks to

understand how opportunities to bring into existence future goods and services are discovered, created, and exploited, by whom, and with what consequences” (Venkataraman, 1997, p. 119).

Entrepreneurial opportunities are economic situations where goods, services, raw

materials, and organizing methods are introduced, modified, and, subsequently sold at a greater

price than its production value (Casson, 1982). The outcome of the exploitation of opportunities

is unknown, therefore, only entrepreneurs with a higher tolerance for uncertainty will seize them.

The academics, interested in opportunities, have tried to determine the origin of opportunities and

different theories have been proposed. This paper will analyse three theories: discovery theory,

creation theory, and relationality paradigm applied to entrepreneurship.

Discovery and creation theories are two competing concepts regarding entrepreneurial

opportunities. Discovery theory was introduced by Shane and Venkataraman (2000), whereas,

Alvarez and Barney (2007) proposed the creation theory. The first theory implies that opportunities

exist and can be found empirically, however, they can be labelled as opportunities only when a

subject recognizes the value in them and have the necessary tools to exploit them, moreover,

opportunities are not obvious and evident to every actor in the market, there are some

pre-conditions, called asymmetry of beliefs, therefore, only a certain amount of actors will detect a

given opportunity (Kirzner, 1973).

Two conditions are deemed to explain why some do discover opportunities and why

7

evaluate it (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). The first condition is due to the specialization of

information, this concept implies that information is not widely distributed among the population

(Hayek, 1945). The second condition argues that even though an actor possess the information to

detect an opportunity he or she can still fail in exploiting it because of the inability to understand

the new mean-end relationships. To exploit the opportunity an entrepreneur has to overcome the

ignorance that an opportunity exists, subsequently, the doubts about the feasibility and desirability

of action have to be reduced. This will produce a third-person opportunity belief that initiates the

attempt to overcome doubt: information about the environment, relevant knowledge to give

meaning to the information, and motivations are the next steps of the opportunity formation belief.

However, a first-person opportunity belief yields a decision to commit to an opportunity only if he

or she can overcome sufficient doubt, in this context the entrepreneur will act in the face of

uncertainty after evaluating the risk, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the opportunity based on his or

her knowledge and motivation (Shepherd, McMullen, and Deveraux Jennings; 2007). A successful

entrepreneur is the one who is able to spot opportunities where others only perceive risks.

In light of the above, entrepreneurial opportunities exist and are independent from the

action of the entrepreneurs, are exogenous and await to be discovered and, subsequently, exploited

(McKelvey, 1999). Although opportunities exist, they need the action and intervention of the

entrepreneurs to be brought to life (Shane, 2003).

On the other hand, the creation theory suggests that opportunities are deliberately

created by purposive actions of the entrepreneurs, thus, the mission of entrepreneurs is not to scan

markets and environment to detect opportunities, like in the discovery theory, but they need to take

action and create those opportunities. The main task for an entrepreneur interested in creating

8

entrepreneurial actions are active and essential source of opportunities, whereas, in the discovery

theory the entrepreneur is passive and her role is to research and find existing, exogenous,

opportunities (Alvarez and Barney, 2007).

Discovery theory is rooted in the macro-level spectrum, the context where the

entrepreneur is able to detect opportunities in the external environment: market and institutions.

She does not interact with it, she simply finds opportunities and exploit them. In opposition the

creation theory takes place in the micro-level, where opportunities derive uniquely from the

entrepreneurs and, therefore, the theory’s focus is on the psychological side of the entrepreneur

and downplays external environment (Baker and Nelson, 2005; Sahlman et al., 1999; Sarasvathy,

2001; Alvarez and Barney, 2007). Both of these theories create confusion and do not explain the

process of opportunity formation and the modifications of opportunities over time (Holcombe,

2003). Due to the incompleteness of the above-mentioned theories a third stream of researchers

have investigated a middle ground between those theories: the relationality paradigm (Bradbury

& Bergman-Lichtenstein, 2000).

Relationality places itself in the meso-level, a stance between the macro-level proposed

by the discovery theory and the micro-level advanced by the creation theory (Anderson,

Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012; Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018). The aim of this theory

is to resolve the growing fragmentation that has been afflicting entrepreneurship, what

entrepreneurs actually do seem to be obscured by the different theoretical concepts applied to

entrepreneurship (Ucbasaran, Westhead, and Wright, 2009). Different disciplines failed to connect

the different parts of entrepreneurship, previous theories had considered entrepreneurs in a

9

theory suggests that entrepreneurship is a large and complex adaptive system (Anderson,

Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012). The element of change is pivotal in relationality:

entrepreneurship captures change, employs it, and creates change. Although, change is deeply

rooted in entrepreneurship: its shapes, its patterns, and the outcomes are unknowable in advance

(Anderson and Atkins, 2001). This theory suggests a dynamism that was previously not consider

or was unknown. The interaction between actors shapes the meanings (Chell, 2007), this concept

allows us to see entrepreneurship under a new lens of relatedness, a recursive dynamic of

relationships (Anderson, Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012), in this way the becoming is

co-produced. Hence, entrepreneurship should be considered as a complex adaptive system “a system

of individual agents, who has the freedom to act in ways that are not predictable and whose actions are interconnected such that one agent’s action change the context for other agents” (Plsek, 1995,

p. 2). Moreover, entrepreneurship’s concept is not merely economic and individual act, but it is

embedded in the society (Anderson & Drakopoulou-Dodd, 2007). In addition, entrepreneurship

should be seen as a process that evolves throughout time (Baxter and Jack, 2008).

In light of the above, relationality theory suggests that entrepreneurship is an ongoing

dynamic process, involving multiple actors, that change over time (Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani,

2018). The social and material elements of the network mutually “define and shape one another”

(Law, 2009, p. 146). This theory implies the presence of material forces that shapes the constitution

of phenomena, such as opportunities (Barad, 2003). Even though actors may act with intention,

there is a strong possibility that they will produce outcomes not of their making and entrepreneurs

will try to generate meaning with multiple actors producing outcomes that shift over time (Garud,

Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018). We can label this theory as “entrepreneurial performativity” and

10

solve the dilemma of entrepreneurial opportunities raised by the discovery and creation theories.

The entrepreneurial performativity will evidence the process that leads to opportunities and how

they are shaped over time (Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018).

On the one hand, the performativity theory derives from relationality and argues that

social and material entities are co-fabricated by the actors with different degrees of involvement

(Latour, 2004). The individuals interact with each other, interact with materials, and

transformational shifts occur during these interactions. Therefore, the opportunities emerge from

the intra-actions (Barad, 2003) that unfold between the elements forming the network of the

entrepreneur (Callon, 1998a; Latour, 2005). Similarly to relationality, networks are deemed

dynamic and as they change the entrepreneur also changes its ability to interpret and act on them

(Callon, 1998b). On the other hand, the connectivity theory, gives more emphasis to the social

setting where the entrepreneur operates and similarly to the performativity this theory is rooted in

the relationality and claims that the social constructions are capable of shaping and influencing the

directions where the actors orient their conduct (Nicholson and Anderson, 2005). The idea is that

opportunities do not arise independently but they come from the social interactions that occur

between actors and in this setting entrepreneurship is seeing as the connecting force (Anderson et

al., 2009). Seeing entrepreneurship through this lens of connectedness enables us to notice that

entrepreneurship is shaped by its context and it is processual (Anderson, 2005). The results of

entrepreneurship are always connected, related, and co-determined by the social setting, the

becoming is co-produced. This notion of connectedness is helpful in understanding what

entrepreneurs actually do (Anderson, Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012).

The process theorized by the relationality applied to entrepreneurship, to understand

11

Both terms are in line with the idea that entrepreneurship is versatile and articulates change.

Changes shape the formation of phenomena that are unknowable in advance (Anderson and

Atkins, 2001) and this constitution of phenomena occur through time. As such, the whole idea of

process encapsulates the notion of temporality. Without this, the phenomena will not exist since it

originates throughout the social interaction of actors which occur throughout time. The concept of

discursive force is the ability of entrepreneurs to adjust, switch from one subject to the other and

in our paper, it presupposes the skill of entrepreneurs to modify the opportunity following

interactions with other actors. This is a peculiar characteristic that distinguish entrepreneurs from

non-entrepreneurs, since the former are able to transform a change into an opportunity, while the

latter sees change as a negative element that threatens their routines (Anderson,

Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012).

Our desire is to test this theory through empirical cases We will try to identify and

recognize the different elements of the process theorized and assess if relationality theory holds in

the real world. How will the process that originates and shapes opportunity will look from a

relational perspectivein real entrepreneurial cases?

Although, the relationality theory is complete, some may say that it is broad and

generic. For this reason, it is interesting to investigate empirical cases in order to understand how

this theory applies to actual entrepreneurial cases, find and investigate the micro-processes that

shape opportunities, obtain empirical examples of how the relationality looks in real life and how

it may aid entrepreneurs and policy makers that desire to enhance and stimulate entrepreneurial

12

Methodology

This paper will look for empirical evidences of performativity and connectivity theories

and to do so we will analyse empirical cases. The data is collected thanks to semi-structured

interviews where the critical incident technique (CIT) is used. This technique will be used as an

evidence of the micro-processes that occurred in the cases and those will be compared to the

relationality theory in order to find commonalities. This qualitative research method is widely used

by scholars and academics, popular for being an effective exploratory and investigative tool (Chell,

2004; Woolsey, 1986). Although, it is possible to utilize this technique in a variety of fields, its

validity in organizational learning has been proved by Ellinger and Bostrom (2002). The CIT

process involves five steps: (1) ascertain the general aim of the activity understudy; (2) making

plans and setting specifications; (3) collecting data; (4) analyse the collected data; (5) interpret the

data and report the results of the investigation (Butterfield, 2004). These fourth steps are

considered to be the most complex and crucial for a positive outcome of the research and the

difficulty, generally involves the huge amount of data under investigation (Heming and Flanagan,

1953; Oaklief, 1976; Woolsey, 1986). To solve this issue those authors propose to create a

categorization scheme, however, due to the amount of interviews in this paper and to the fact that

the analysis is done simultaneously with the interviews this was not necessary in our case.

Regarding the reliability of the CIT, it is proved that this technique stresses out observable and

objective behaviours allowing adequate test-retest reliability (Ronan and Latham, 1974). Literature

has confirmed that CIT is one of the correct data collection methods to understand and underpin

important features of entrepreneurship and, as such, a process-oriented approach is suitable

13

comes from the review of Low and MacMillan (1988) where the importance of investigating

contexts and processes of entrepreneurship was emphasized. When exploring social phenomena,

social networks, opportunities, and ties, qualitative studies are to be preferred because they provide

a rich deal of details to the research (Blackburn et al., 1990) In this way the paper will benefit from

the richness of qualitative methods and, simultaneously, be able to explore the dynamics of

networks (Greve and Salaff, 2003; Hoang and Antoncic, 2003).

To address the research question of the paper a qualitative approach is used to explore

in-depth the network content, processes, and relational dynamics of eight entrepreneurs: five of

them in the Netherlands, one Italian, one Slovak, and one Colombian. The diversity of the sample

will enrich the paper since particular country conditions and limitations will be removed from the

equation. The sample of respondents was chosen among the author’s personal network,

furthermore, they were selected because: (1) they are founding entrepreneurs who continue to be

owners and are directors of their ventures, (2) they have significant growth ambitions, (3) they

were perceived as individuals who would be willing to share and discuss sensitive matters in an

open, detailed, and trusting manner, and (4) the venture had been established no more than ten

years ago. The study is not limited to inter-firm relationships but is aimed to discuss the whole

network of the entrepreneur, the ties, and the opportunity that provide the input to starting the

venture. In addition, the geographic dispersion of our sample data enriches the paper with

information, since conditions differ across countries and continents. Even though the sample may

be considered limited by some, the study draws on the principles of Interpretative

Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) founded by Jonathan Smith (1999), and this type of analysis

enables competent theoretical perspectives to be developed if the contextualization is preserved

14

about the participants’ unique lived experiences (Smith and Osborn, 2008), as the “the aim of the

phenomenological inquiry is to understand the subjective nature of lived experience from the

perspective of those who lived it, by exploring the meanings and explanations that individuals

attribute to their experience” (Cope, 2005, p. 168). Due to the goal of this kind of methodology we

believe that it will evidence the micro-processes the entrepreneurs are living and will enable us to

clearly understand the process and find similarities between the information obtained and the

relationality theory.

A minimum of six participants up to eight is considered an appropriate number of

candidates for the interviews and Cope (2001) similarly has conducted a case study with six

practising entrepreneurs. Note that the names have been anonymized to guarantee privacy and

improve the quality of the analysis.

RESULTS

Within-case analysis

Audacious Sports- Jack

The case of “Audacious Sports” is rich in information and seems to evidence that

opportunities are dynamic and socially constructed: “material discursive forces” shapes the

constitution of phenomena. Additionally, entrepreneurship is an ongoing process that involves

multiples actors, and even though actors may act with intention, there is a likelihood that they may

encounter events and outcomes not of their making (Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018, p. 63).

As evidenced by the interview, the opportunity is shaped dynamically by the interactions of

15

Let’s now analyse the case, Audacious Sports, an Italian gym, created with the purpose

of improving people’s performance in sports. It is unique in its style and it has been, partially,

inspired by some facilities in the USA, country in which the science behind sports is considered

fundamental and, therefore, vastly researched. It is unique in its genre because it is a combination

of American high-tech gyms and the most advanced physiotherapy centres. It is updated in the

technology utilized, high-tech systems to control body movement, balance, strengths, and more;

and completed thanks to the unique combination of skills employed in the gym. The founder, that

will be called Jack in this paper, is a golf teacher with a great deal of certifications in physiotherapy:

he did attend a high number of seminars, conventions, day-masters, and other specific events in

this field in order to keep improving and enriching his knowledge about the topic. It seems clear

that Jack is passionate about everything that concerns body movements and improving people’s

performance in sports. In the beginning of his career he was travelling around Italy to meet students interested in improving golf’s performance. His customers were, usually, people he encountered

during his career as a professional golf player. One day he had the chance to work steadily for a

golf club in Lombardy, which is the one of the most developed regions of Italy and, therefore, rich

in potential customers. This opportunity granted him the possibility of becoming more stable in a

determined environment and helped him to understand that this particular region was rich of golfer

with substantial financial resources. In Lombardy he had the possibility to work in a small gym,

but this facility was limited and inadequate compared to the idea that Jack had in mind of what a future “dream” gym could look like. In this gym Jack would take care of customers, in particular

golf players with body issues, such as backpains and more problems caused by a sedentary

lifestyle. In 2017, Jack met Michael, a golf player working in the city as businessmen and investor.

16

Jack and Michael was a professional one, they saw each other once a week and, in that time, Jack

did his best to help Michael. However, the relationship started to evolve, the passion and

knowledge of Jack impressed Michael to the point where a liaison based on trust was formed

between the two. One day, Michael asked Jack if the gym where Jack was employed was his dream

job. This question triggered something in Jack, as he understood that the dream of opening a

specialised centre for sports and fitness could become real for him. It is interesting to note how

this question would not have happened without the trust derived from the professional expertise

proven by Jack, without his personal experiences, passion, knowledge, and connections this

opportunity may not have occurred. In order to consider the idea of opening a centre Jack had to

write a business model, basic spreadsheet with cost-revenue analysis about the gym. The

information gathered in the file was convincing to Michael and he accepted the offer and became

business partner of Jack.

The relationships between the two clearly evolved over time, from a professional one

into a partnership. Furthermore, in the interview Jack revealed that he would never had thought about opening the structure, it was merely a “dream in the closet” of his. However, Michael,

influenced and enabled this opportunity for Jack. The personal experience, the frequent travels

around the world to enrich himself granted Jack with a great deal of knowledge concerning sports

and biomechanics, but the real deal-breaker for the success of this project is the network of Jack.

All the time spent on voyages, seminars, and other related activities created a network rich of

people with different skills and all of this actors had complementarity skills that would later be

used in the centre. Moreover, as seen in the American gyms, Jack chose to not offer monthly or

annual membership but to sell a pack of lessons in order to provide a service where the customers

17

since revenues are high and after the first year of opening, they doubled the predictions of the

revenues they were going to make with the activity.

In light of above, the opportunity that brought to life Audacious Sports is a process that

can be analysed and split into its single components and phases. Firstly, passion and knowledge

put Jack in the position of working in Milan, and perform the job efficiently, which enabled him to obtain Michael’s trust. Secondly, without the previous experiences and network created

throughout his career, Jack would not be able to combine the particular jack of all trade workers

in the centre. Thirdly, without the trustful relationship with Michael, the idea might not have

happened. Michael is the external enabler that gave Jack the opportunity to pursue his dream. In

conclusion, the opportunity has been influenced by: the previous experiences of Jack, his personal

network that put him in the position of having highly specific and technical skills, the strengthening

of the relationship with Michael that gave the input for the opportunity to start, and lastly, the

passion of Jack for his work.

Different themes from the literature review did emerge from this analysis: the element

of change is present throughout the whole experience of Jack. This is in line with the concept that

relationality theory is an adaptive system (Anderson, Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012),

furthermore, the outcomes of the different relationships and experiences accrued by Jack were

unknowable in advance (Anderson and Atkins, 2001), and the interactions that did occur shaped

the meanings (Chell, 2007). The dynamism of the relationality theory is proved by the content of

the case. The opportunity did shift over time, through interactions between the actors (Garud,

Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018).

Audacious Sports case: specialised gym centre

18

Creation theory: opportunity is not completely internal to the entrepreneurs, however, the sole Jack would not be able to pull it off without Michael, the whole idea is a combination of different

elements.

Connectivity theory: the opportunity is a combination of external and internal elements, a meso-level between the macro and the micro, some elements are: prior knowledge of Jack, social network of the entrepreneurs, encounter with Michael, passion for the idea, and network to enable it.

Great Stone Energy Solutions- John

Great Stone Energy Solutions, relationality theory’s themes are recurrent and appear to

coincide with the content of the interview conducted with the CEO and co-founder of the firm

John (fictitious name). According to relationality’s paradigm: opportunities come to be thanks to “material discursive forces” that shapes the constitution of phenomena, moreover,

entrepreneurship is an ongoing distributed emergent process involving multiple actors (Garud,

Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018). The opportunity came to be thanks to the cooperation and interaction

between four partners that met while working on a project for a larger company, therefore, it is

possible to say that the opportunity derived from an emergent process that involved multiple actors.

The firm was established in 2016 by four ex-workers of a large oil and gas multinational

company. They provide calculations to determine the quantity of gas corresponding to each firm,

since investments are enormous companies buy simultaneously the same location in order to

reduce their costs. In particular, the firm is composed by four people that met while working

together in a long (more than five years) project for one of the main company in this sector and

during this time they had the chance to get to know each other and obtain knowledge in a very

specific sector (oil and gas). At the end of the project, John proposed to three former workers of

the group to create a firm and be independent, as due to the complementarity of the skills of each

one it was possible to establish a company. While working for company, John, made a great deal

19

companies. The idea of the firm was that he would be in charge of the business development while

the three others, all mathematicians, would work on the software and mathematical operations

necessary to determine the corresponding amount of gas extracted by each company. When the

configuration of Great Stone Energy Solutions (GSES) was set-up all the members contributed

with five thousand pounds and the firm was established. In order to ensure the survival of the firm,

GSES, needed contracts and to ensure them John did use the network he acquired while working

at the previous company. He contacted managers and other people in charge of companies that, he

knew, had to renovate their software. After three weeks since the establishment of the firm the first

contract was signed.

Throughout the interview, John admitted multiple times that without the prior working

experience and network this new firm would never exist, and if it would exist it would not be

successful. Therefore, the prior working experience and network is proved to be fundamental in

two different spheres: (1) to contact firms and ensure the survival of the firm thanks to contracts,

and (2) he met mathematician with complementary skills that altogether could make a successful

venture. Regarding the dynamic and emergent side of the opportunity it is relevant to note that in

the first year following the foundation of the firm they did approach another company who was offering the service “energy builder” and since they saw potential of that service they learnt how

to use this software and this product became part of their offering. This is a proof of the dynamicity

of opportunities, they do evolve over time as now this new service represents their main product.

The opportunity process that occurred to Great Stone Energy Solutions is composed by

different steps. Firstly, the importance of the prior working experience, obtained while working

for a large company, where John, met the team and part of that project team would later become

20

other companies. Secondly, after enough experience John decided to create his firm using part of

the project team of the former company he was working for. The four of them strengthened their

relationship and together founded a venture, thanks to the network created previously he was able

to close deal with oil and gas companies. Thirdly, from the interaction with another firm in the

same sector, their learnt how to use a new software and with that they did modify their service

offering making it vaster and interesting for further business contracts. The result of all of those

processes is a firm that is striving and modifying their opportunities according to new possibilities

that come from the interaction with the environment. John, enriched by his previous working

experience obtained a highly specific and valuable knowledge that he would later exploit for the

new venture they created, moreover, the people he was working with became co-founders. One

the one hand, the network created while working for the larger company proved to be fundamental

to make GSES profitable, and on the other hand, the experience accrued while working on the

project for the large company strengthened his relationship with the other members and later then

became co-founders of GSES.

The most important theme of this case is presence of social and material elements that

did define and shape opportunities (Law, 2009). The social factor is the group of co-founders that

met while working for a previous company, whereas, the material elements is the knowledge and

network that they obtained throughout the years and that they were able to use to operate their

venture.

GSES case: a technical service for oil and gas companies

Discovery theory: the firm satisfies an existing need, so we can say that the opportunity is external to the actors, however, they would not be able to exploit it without other elements.

21

Connectivity theory: although, the opportunity already exist in the environment, a combination of features made GSES able to exploit it: the network created while working previously, the combination of skills of the co-founders. This opportunity came to be thanks to a combination of internal features (network, know-how, previous experience) and external.

Publibears- Daniel & Martin

The case of Publibears is particularly interesting since it offers a concrete example of how “material discursive forces” shape the constitutions of phenomena, such as opportunities. In

this case the opportunity came to be thanks to the interaction between the firm and their first,

unexpected, customer. The desire of one customer modified the business idea that Daniel and the

other co-founder Martin had in mind for Publibears, from the goal of creating a marketing company

that would enhance the promotion capabilities of companies they re-directed this mission into the

creation of custom-made mascots and similar products, since the market was interested in this

rather than their former business idea. Publibears was founded in 2009 by Daniel and Martin

(fictitious names), two former students whom met while studying at the university and this firm

has its headquarters in the Netherlands. Nowadays, it is specialized in the creation of custom-made

mascots that are sold worldwide, however, it is interesting to analyse how this became their main

product. Freshly graduated from University, the two co-founders wanted to make a difference by

helping small businesses to promote their products and ventures, the aim was to enhance the

visibility of local companies thanks to digital marketing tools. In order to advertise their services

they purchased a mascot, wearable costume of animals (usually), and went to the centre of their

town, shop-by-shop, handling fliers and their contact information. However, nobody seemed to be

interested in their product, but at this point somethings unexpected, an event out of their making

(Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018), happened. A television broadcast who was filming in the

22

if they were able to create a mascot for its business. At this point, Daniel and Martin, noticed that

this product was not as common as marketing services, there are potential customers in the

Netherlands for this particular kind of product, and there is no other company which delivers the

same product in Europe. Therefore, they did acknowledge this opportunity and started looking for

a procedure on how to create mascots and started scanning producers of mascots to find a reliable

partner for future operations. The idea and business model were established, Publibears became a

mascot on-demand producer for multiple customers, it started in the Netherlands and,

subsequently, went to Germany, Belgium, and Switzerland. Nowadays, it sells worldwide and has

sold more than 4000 mascots over the years.

Linked to the fact that opportunities and entrepreneurship is an ongoing distributed

emergent process involving multiple actors (Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018), it is interesting

to point out that the product of Publibears did not remain static throughout the years. On the one

hand, it improved the quality of their mascots by putting pressure on their supplier to improve the

quality of their product and efficiency, and on the other hand, they increased the offering of

Publibears by adding plush toys, merchandise related to mascots, inflatable archways, and others.

This was possible because of the interaction between Publibears and their customer’s needs. It is

evident that the opportunity was shaped and changed over time thanks to the active interaction

between the venture and the market, in which they operate.

In light of above, the opportunity process that interested Publibears is composed by

multiple steps: firstly, the idea of helping other companies lead them to purchase a mascot that

gave them visibility, secondly, the first customer who asked for a mascot instead of their marketing

services completely modified the mission of Publibears, thirdly, actively listening to customers

23

say that the discursive force that engaged with the venture did shape the opportunity and modified

it overtime.

Publibears case: marketing mascots to promote businesses

Discovery theory: the opportunity came to be thanks to a potential customer who was attracted by the mascot itself rather than the marketing services they provided. Therefore, the opportunity can be considered external to the entrepreneurs.

Creation theory: the opportunity is not internal to the entrepreneurs, it was a necessity present in the external environment, the action of the entrepreneurs was to exploit it and not to create it. However, it can be argued that without their intention of promoting their business the potential customer would never see the mascot and, therefore, the opportunity is a consequence of a purposive action of the entrepreneurs. This outcome was completely unknown, and this feature is in line with

relationality and connectivity theory.

Connectivity theory: although the opportunity is external and seem to be mainly discovered, it did change and evolve over time. Therefore, it is a dynamic opportunity. They did increase the offer of Publibears thanks to feedback from customers and did improve the process. Dynamicity is confirmed.

Clothes for Everyone, CrossGym- Juan

This case is about Juan (fictitious name), a young entrepreneur originally from South

America. This interview is divided between two different businesses set-ups by Juan, and each one

of them obtain evidence of the relationality theory. The first business idea is the franchise he

set-up with his mother and step-father. This case has similarities with the concept of entrepreneurship

as an ongoing emergent process involving multiple actors (Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018),

and the interaction between the actors will shape the meanings (Chell, 2007). The second is the

gym he took-over and transformed into a cross fit one, which re-connects to the idea that even

though actors may act with intentions they will encounter events and outcomes not of their making.

The becoming is co-produced by the changes in the dynamic of the relationships between Juan,

the gym owner, and his friend (Anderson, Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012).

Juan, freshly graduated from mechanical engineering joined the business of his father,

24

fundamental for the young entrepreneur since he learnt notions about business and how to

efficiently improve production processes: how to be more efficient and save costs. Similarly to the

father, the mother of Juan had a clothing multi-brand store where Juan started working. In this venture there were: Juan, the mother, and Juan’s step-father. Together, they decided to start a

limited liability company. In this period of time, the previous working experience accrued by Juan

enabled him to actively monitor and control the finance of the store and use advanced software to

check the process of the firm. While looking at the data collected of the clothing store he noticed

that one of the brands they selling was contributing for more than 70% of the total revenues. This

brand is a famous American clothing company. Pushed by the motivation to increase the reach of

the business, Juan, approached the firm and started a franchise collaboration with the brand. They

completely changed the mission of the clothing store, from a multi-brand strategy to a single-brand

strategy and this is in line with the fact that opportunities are dynamic and emergent processes

(Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018). As a matter of facts, this change in direction would not have

happened without the knowledge acquired by Juan in the previous work-experience and without

the possibility to start a franchise with the former company. From one store in the city the franchise

network now includes twenty stores.

To summarize the process of this opportunity, we can say that without the knowledge

acquired and process optimization tools, Juan, would never be able to spot the opportunity to

collaborate and successfully modify the mission of the business he started with his mother and

father-in-law. Furthermore, Juan, mentioned that this whole idea of collaborate was an ongoing

process, and the outcomes could not have been predicted before the events itself manifested. This

explanation of the opportunity given by Juan, is in line with the relationality theory since the

25

the process evidenced by Juan is in opposition from the creation and discovery theories: firstly, if

we would have considered the creation theory, the opportunity should have been created uniquely

by Juan, instead the idea of the collaboration was evidenced by the data collected and by the

interaction and possibility to start a franchise with the American firm. Secondly, if considering the

discovery theory, the opportunity should have been present in the market waiting for it to be seized,

however, this did not happen since the opportunity came to be thanks to the experience coming

from the retail stores formed by Juan and his team.

The gym, this case is proof that opportunities come to be thanks to discursive force that

will shape the constitution of phenomena, those discursive force are element out of the control of

the entrepreneur that shapes, creates, and modifies the opportunities. Juan, passionate about fitness,

was member of a local gym. One day, while talking with a worker employed in the gym, he heard

that the gym was about to close due to economic difficulties. Juan then asked to speak with the

owner in order to understand the situation of the gym and determine if actions could be undertaken

to save it. After a long talk with the owner, he decided that he was able to become an investor and

co-owner of the gym. Juan, used his personal network and chose to nominate a friend of his as

managing director of the gym, as he knew that this person was a good fit for the gym. Years have

passed and the gym is profitable and able to survive thanks to its revenues.

Some factors that created this opportunity are worth to be mentioned, on the one hand,

the word of mouth. Without the talk with the employee of the gym, Juan, would never be able to

discover the financial issues of the gym. Additionally, without his network, he would not have

invested in the gym because he would not have the time necessary to operate it. Lastly, the

experience in the previous businesses granted Juan the possibility to re-design a business model

26

emergent process that involved multiple actors: Juan, his friend, gym owner, and the gym

employee.

In light of above, themes emerged that are in line with the relationality theory. First of

all, the interaction between the actors, Juan and his relatives, did shape the opportunity (Chell,

2007). Moreover, the franchise with the American brand did start a few years after the creation of

the venture and, therefore, it is possible to see that the opportunity is adaptive and dynamic

(Anderson, Drakopoulou-Dodd, and Jack, 2012).

Clothes for everyone case: the successful franchise

Discovery theory: even though, the possibility of starting a franchise is external, without, some characteristics acquired by Juan over time it would not be possible to exploit the opportunity Creation theory: the opportunity is external and present in the environment, however, the internal characteristics of Juan enabled him to exploit the opportunity, therefore, it can be said that it is a combination of internal and external environment.

Connectivity theory: the source of the opportunity derives from the macro-environment, however, the internal characteristics of Juan enabled him to detect and exploit the opportunity. Therefore, it is the combination of the macro and the micro environments that shaped the opportunity. This

combination is in line with the idea of meso-level where the connectivity theory belongs.

Furthermore, the social interaction and dynamicity of the theory is proven by the evolution of the case.

Cross-Gym case: a new start for an old gym

Discovery theory: the opportunity is external to the figure of the entrepreneur.

Creation theory: suggests that the opportunity are internal to the entrepreneurs, however, in this case it is external since the gym was already open and operating. The opportunity is external to the mind of the entrepreneur and objective

27

Starting-Up- Tom & Alex

Starting-Up is a consultancy firm founded in the Netherlands by Tom and Alex. The

opportunity that has motivated the start of this venture is to be found in different components.

There are two actors involved in the actions, which shaped and constituted the phenomena, on the

one hand, the former professor of Alex and on the other hand, Alex. This case proves, again, that

entrepreneurship is an ongoing emergent process that involves multiple actors.

While studying at the University, Tom had to write his master’s thesis and he had the

possibility to do it in the start-up environment of northern Netherlands, where he had to monitor

small businesses and was in charge of founding them using a start-up development initiative.

During this internship/thesis he was closely followed by one of his professor, who was a part-time

professor/ part-time consultant for a firm located in the capital. After his graduation, the professor

asked him to join his consultancy company, Tom accepted and he worked for that firm for ten

years, during this time he made a great deal of contacts. It is important to point out that even though

the firm was in the capital he was working in a small unit of the enterprise located elsewhere,

therefore, all the contacts and the network was made in the northern area of the Netherlands. In

2016, the consultancy company chose to close the unit where Tom was working and he was asked

to continue its work and move to the capital, however, he had other plans. Living in the town he

grew-up meant a lot for Tom and, therefore, decided to start his own consultancy firm in this town.

Prior to the opening of his own firm, Tom met Alex while attending a seminar. The relationship

was normal, they would hangout for a beer every once in a while, until they started talking about

work and they soon realized that they should join their forces and start their own business, thanks

to their network in the northern area, experience, and complementarity of skills. Due to these

28

The opportunity came to be thanks to a combination of events. First of all, the professor

and first employer of Tom, he gained knowledge and he had the opportunity to work in consultancy

and created his network in the northern area. Secondly, the encounter with Alex, even though it

started as a normal relationship of friendship it did transform throughout the years in a partnership,

without this encounter Starting-Up would not have been founded. Lastly, the combination of those

provided the opportunity for Tom to become who he is today and what his company does. This

chain of events proved that opportunities come to be thanks to the interactions between actors, and

that entrepreneurship is an emergent process that involves multiple actors.

In light of the above, our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that

entrepreneurship is an ongoing dynamic process, involving multiple actors, and the opportunity

changes over time (Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018). The opportunity did change, from

employee Tom learning and creating contacts in his region to, subsequently, meeting Alex and as

the relationships strengthening the possibility of opening a venture together. A combination

between the dynamism of the opportunity and the interaction between actors shaping the meanings (Chell, 2007) did occur in Tom’s case.

Starting-Up case: consultancy venture

Discovery theory: consultancy’s services are objective and external to the figure of the entrepreneur. Creation theory: the internal elements are the know-how and network created by the entrepreneur. Connectivity theory: the opportunity for the entrepreneur came to be in a dynamic way, where external forces shaped the formation of the venture, in particular, the collaboration with his former professor and the meeting with Alex provided him the tools to open their venture.

29

This case is about custom-made printed maps designed by Jack. After graduating in

information technology in Slovakia, Jack moved to the Netherlands in search of more satisfying

job opportunities. He started working for an international IT company, and he still does. The

opportunity to start his map-printing services started randomly, pushed by the necessity to decorate

his room, Jack used special tools of google maps to design a custom made map, he then proceeded

to print it and hanged-it on his wall. One day, a friend of his saw this and told Jack that it was nice

and asked him if he ever thought of making it for others as a business. This encounter and feedback provided by Jack’s friend pushed him into analysing the situation and seized the opportunity to

sell his services. Personal background and knowledge in the IT fields are also important factors to

consider in the process of the opportunity, since without those elements he would not be able to

efficiently utilize complex software and program (like Google API) to develop his own program

that he would use to create and then print the maps in his business. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the friend’s feedback sparked the idea in Jack’s head to deliver this product and create a

side-business. In the process of creating and printing the maps, Jack improved the tools he was

using to design the maps and scan the market for a low-cost printing factory. He succeeded in both,

firstly, by designing a program to help him in creating the maps and, secondly, by finding a suitable

printer in the town he is living in that offered Jack a discount if he would print in Black & White.

Therefore, pushed by the convenience of the deal Jack started offering only B&W maps and this

feature became characteristic of Jack’s maps.

Various elements were important when this opportunity was shaped: starting from the previous experience and knowledge in the IT field, to his friend’s feedback and idea about offering

the custom-made maps as a service and offering it to public, google tools to efficiently design

30

The outcome of the opportunity was certainly not deliberate, however, interaction with actors,

knowledge, and necessity have shaped this opportunity.

Similarities with the relationality theory are to be found in the concept of

unpredictability. Jack did the first map not knowing that this could potentially lead to a venture.

The patterns and outcomes of changes and events are unknowable in advance (Anderson and

Atkins, 2001).

Maps on Demand case: custom-made maps

Discovery theory: the opportunity is somehow, external to the entrepreneur, since there are some competitors that provide similar services as Jack, however, his ways are unique.

Creation theory: the process utilized to customized the maps is made by Jack, and, therefore, he did take action to create partially his service, but without friend’s feedback the opportunity would not come to be.

Connectivity theory: even though, the process is custom-made by Jack, he would not have

commercialize it without the feedback of his acquaintances and the printing partner. Therefore, more than a single action of the entrepreneur, this opportunity came to be thanks to a combination of forces that shaped the service delivered by Maps on Demand.

31

Network, social relationships, and dynamic opportunities are elements theorized by the

relationality paradigm applied to entrepreneurship, and as evidenced by the table every element of

the theory is important to explain the development of opportunities, some more some less,

however, each case proves that opportunity development is a process, is dynamic and involves

multiple actors. Furthermore, it seems relevant to point out that oftentimes, opportunities are to be

found in the external environment and, therefore, the discovery theory gets closer to explain the

origin of the opportunities, however, it is blind in considering the dynamicity and social

interactions of those, and is, hence, incomplete and inefficient in explaining the whole process that

opportunities undergoes, the discovery theory is completed by the relationality paradigm applied

to entrepreneurship, only with the elements introduced by the latter stream of research we can

grasp a complete picture of the opportunity development process.

Three theories were considered for the paper: creation theory, discovery theory, and

relationality. The first, regards the micro-level where opportunities are deemed to be purposively

created by the single action of the entrepreneur and that those are static, and, hence, do not evolve

over time (Alvarez and Barney, 2007). However, in our cases we did not find a proof that

entrepreneurs act in an isolated way, nor that opportunities are static. The discovery theory takes

into consideration the macro-level where the entrepreneurs act and operate: market, institutions,

governments, in short terms all the external environment where the entrepreneur is set (Shane and

Venkataraman, 2000). This theory suggests that the opportunities are objective and are discernible

from the environment, every actor is able to spot them based on their personal characteristics

(Kirzner, 1973; Shane, 2003). This theory also considers that opportunities are static and only the

first individuals capable of detecting those opportunities are the ones that will make profit thanks

32

entrepreneurs scan the market, and sometimes see an opportunity to dive-in, however, this theory

fails in considering the dynamism and the emergent process that characterizes opportunities.

Despite the fact that creation and discovery theories are antagonist, they share the atomistic

conception of entrepreneurs working in an exogenous given context (Garud et al., 2014a), and the

fact that they both consider the alertness of the entrepreneurs to be crucial when detecting or

creating opportunities. This view of “given context” where the entrepreneurs operate is

problematic from a performativity and relationality perspective, because according to discovery

the external environment does not change due to the actions of the entrepreneurs. Whereas,

relationality implies that entrepreneurship is a process that transforms both the entrepreneurs and

the environment (Garud et al., 2017).

Relationality takes place in the meso-level and differs from the discovery and creation theory, it considers that “entrepreneurial opportunities are relational-temporal complexes that are

continually changing and morphing in and through discursive action and heterogenous

arrangements (Garud et al., 2017, p. 6). Relationality comes from the fact that the opportunities

derive from the combination between social and material elements. Opportunities materialize,

change, and disappear. The formation of opportunities theorized by the relationality theory is in

net contrast with both creation and discovery theory: “opportunities is a distributed accomplishment that is ongoing”. Furthermore, opportunities are: material discursive forces that

shapes and constitutes the phenomena, is an emergent process that involves multiple actors, and

lastly, even though entrepreneurs act with intention, they will encounter events and outcomes not

of their making (Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018).

The dynamic and relational process described by the relationality paradigm applied to

33

when shaping opportunities, the emergent character of opportunities, and material discursive

forces have all been recognized throughout the analysis. The various cases, evidenced how the

opportunity process is dynamic, let’s consider Audacious Sports, the opportunity, which was

shaped thanks to a combination of factors, such as the encounter with Michael, and the previous

experiences of Jack. It was dynamic and the outcomes of those interactions were not predicted and

the events developed over time thanks to the interaction between actors. Similarly, the case of

GSES shows how the opportunity comes thanks to the interaction between actors, they met while

working for a large oil and gas company and, subsequently, founded the venture. The only point

we would like to move the relationality, connectivity, and performativity is the fact that they do

not consider the origin of the opportunity, they develop their theory from the successive step which

is how the opportunity is modified by different social elements.

From the evidence, we did find that oftentimes opportunities are external to entrepreneurial’ s mind, and, therefore, following the insights of the discovery theory,

opportunities must be objective and found in the macro-environment. However, this is not

complete, since opportunities, as proven by our analysis, demand a combination of actors, that

may not know where the opportunity will lead them to, to exploit and shape that opportunity. For

this reason, we believe that the discovery theory is partially correct but should be completed by

the distinctive elements of relationality, networks, social interactions, connectivity, and discursive

forces. The two theories may be complementary instead of subsidiary, it would be wonderful to

have a feedback of the opportunity process development theorized by relationality researchers by the discovery theory’s authors. On the other hand, our findings did not provide sufficient proof of

the veracity and actuality of the creation theory, the internal origin of opportunity may be important

34

Conclusions

The aim of this paper is not to discredit any prior work on entrepreneurial opportunities,

on the contrary, we would like to persuade other people in joining this research topic since

opportunity is the foundation of any type of venture and, therefore, without it businesses would

not exist. Entrepreneurial opportunities are central theme, and the prior work by researchers gave

us a great deal of information and ideas. Without previous stream of researchers, it would have

been impossible to identify the problems inherent to entrepreneurial opportunities. First of all,

opportunities are considered an independent category by discovery theory and creation theory

researchers, and this is not how you should approach them, as proven by the research conducted

opportunities are dynamic and surrounded by interactive actions, they change over time through

constant interaction with the external environment.

According to performativity, social and material entities are co-constituted by a great

deal of actors with different degrees of involvement (Latour, 2004). The actors interact with each

other and with materials, transformational shifts occur during this interaction process. The theory

suggests that the agency is emerging from the intra-actions (Barad, 2003) that unfold between the

elements that constitute the network of the entrepreneur (Callon, 1998a; Latour, 2005), moreover,

networks are dynamics and as they change so do the ability of the entrepreneurs to interpret and

act upon them (Callon, 1998b). Although, performativity does not deny that entrepreneurs act with

specific goals and intentions it draws the attention to larger forces that constitutes phenomena that

transcend individuals (Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018). To summarize: the performative

approach is a distributed, emergent process that implicates unexpected consequences despite the

35

The discovery theory would interpret the different cases in this way: it will presuppose

that the entrepreneurs are able to detect the opportunities in the external environment

(macro-level), that those opportunities are objective, endogenous, and can be spot by every actor, the only

reason why some actors end-up discovering the opportunities is due to informational asymmetries.

However, as evidenced by our cases, although, opportunities are formed in the external

environment, they are not complete and sufficient, they need to undergo a series of modification

and steps that occur through social interactions between the actors. Moreover, the final idea or

opportunity that would be brought to the market is oftentimes different from the one who was

previously considered. Thus, opportunities are unknown to the entrepreneurs, it is a combination

of elements that will shape the opportunities. Relationality applied to entrepreneurship seem to

grasps this notion of uncertainty linked to the opportunities, since it views opportunity

development as an emergent process that involves multiple actors, and lastly, even though

entrepreneurs act with intention, they will encounter events and outcomes not of their making

(Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani, 2018). On the other hand, the creation theory, firstly, seems to fail

in understanding that opportunities are dynamic, and secondly, does not consider the modification

apported by the network and social relationships of the entrepreneurs. Moreover, from our

findings, the opportunities are drawn from the external environment and not the internal one who

is the mind of the entrepreneur.

The connectivity theory’s core idea are the social constructions that shape and influence

the direction where actors orient their conduct (Nicholson and Anderson, 2005). Ideas and

concepts are socially constructed, they do not arise independently from the environments but they

derive from the social interactions between the actors, entrepreneurship is seeing as connecting