Introduction
The chosen area of interest for this literature review is entrepreneurial opportunity. In general, the consensus of the term recognizes that the phenomenon exists at the intersection between observable customer demand and the ability to provide the sought product or service. Indeed, it is hard to disagree that not all businesses have the necessary resources to properly meet the demands and needs of their client base, which highlights the value of this phenomenon. In the world of entrepreneurship, several conditions must be satisfied for a concept to become an opportunity.
Overall, the concept under question starts with creating the correct attitude. The latter refers to a mindset in which the prospective entrepreneur sharpens their sense of customer requirements and desires and does research to see whether the concept has the potential to become a successful new company. However, the research on entrepreneurial opportunity varies in the scope and specialization of application. Some researchers are concerned with the elusive nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, and some focus on the identification of the phenomenon via real-world examples.
Literature Review
The purpose of this section is to provide a synthesis and evaluation of various articles that explore the identified topic. Since the concept under research is quite broad, different authors examine it from various sides and perspectives. At the same time, there are common conclusions, findings, and statements that can be found in the available studies, and their analysis can provide a clear understanding of the most common trends and beliefs regarding entrepreneurial opportunities.
Similar Topics
First of all, it is essential to define the concept under discussion and see whether researchers have similarities in the definitions they provide. Thus, as stated by Wood and McKinley (2020), an entrepreneurial opportunity is the possibility for companies and business persons to bring new products, services, or organizational techniques to a market. These new offerings should be based on the tools, resources, knowledge, and competency available to companies. What is more, it is essential to estimate whether these resources are enough to satisfy customers’ demands, and if so, an entrepreneurial opportunity emerges (Wood and McKinley, 2020). Almost the same views on this concept were highlighted by Gur et al. (2020) and Clark and Ramachandran (2020). Entrepreneurial opportunity can also be post-crisis, which means that the newly emerged needs of people and the remaining access to resources can still allow businesses to address the demand (Salvato et al., 2020). In this context, it is evident that both resources that firms have and the clients’ demands change due to adverse external circumstances, and this information can add to the definition of the concept or become its variation.
Interestingly, the connection between disasters and their aftermath with entrepreneurial opportunities is a rather common topic. To be more precise, Gur et al. (2020) and Salvato et al. (2020) conducted their research on post-crisis entrepreneurship, believing that valuable facts can be identified. For example, Salvato et al. (2020) were certain that there was a transformational ability of family-owned businesses to create entrepreneurial opportunities after natural disasters, and precisely such firms are more successful after crises. Their research recognized an ongoing need to comprehend the endurance of multigenerational family businesses and their capacity to preserve an entrepreneurial mindset. The stronger capacity of family businesses to adapt to adversity, such as natural disasters and mass situations, was frequently cited as a repeating factor (Salvato et al., 2020). Thus, how controlling families act and succeed in post-disaster entrepreneurship may be an underappreciated indicator of their resilience (Salvato et al., 2020). The empirical test examined the pre- and post-event performance of all family and non-family businesses situated in the earthquake-affected region and a control sample. The results of this natural experiment implied that family businesses did much better following the earthquake (Salvato et al., 2020). This finding was related to a combination of family social capital – close ties between family members – industry placement, and family company closeness to the government.
At the same time, the second article also looked in this direction, but not all of its findings correlated with the ones mentioned above. Thus, Gur et al. (2020) failed to recognize the increased success of family-owned businesses. One of their findings was that “to build on the opportunities regional firms recognized, they planned other actions such as focusing on new markets (i.e. aid workers and volunteers) or lawsuits to survive the crisis” (Gur et al., 2020, p. 689). At the same time, these authors managed to come to the same conclusion regarding the valuable role of government, not in relation to family-owned businesses but in general. Gur et al. (2020, p. 688) stated that “material support such as assistance from government agencies and industry associations as well as community support were among the most important factors that contributed to recognizing opportunities and small business survival.” Overall, both articles found that disasters did not always mean failures and crises in companies. Instead, via a mix of internal and external linkages and industry positioning, family and non-family businesses might transform challenges into entrepreneurial opportunities.
Further, it is also informative to explore some gaps that the researchers identified and tried to cover in their studies. As a matter of fact, all four papers under discussion indicated specific gaps in the prior research, meaning that the concept of entrepreneurial opportunity was not and is still not examined properly. For instance, Wood and McKinley (2020) argued that former researchers had focused on the ontological nature of opportunities and whether these events had been the result of external market gaps or endogenous entrepreneurial action. However, Wood and McKinley (2020) and Clark and Ramachandran (2020) considered this concept the subject of the most extensive scholarly debate. The former authors examined the future of the opportunity concept in the context of the area of entrepreneurship and concluded that the idea of entrepreneurial opportunity was tricky and involved significant conceptual and empirical difficulties (Wood and McKinley, 2020). The latter authors identified a gap in the existing studies on subsidiary entrepreneurship, stating that the identification of entrepreneurial possibilities was ignored (Clark and Ramachandran, 2020). Since this concept is much broader than prior academic and business papers revealed, numerous gaps are found.
Finally, in this paragraph, some advantages of the identified concept are discussed. First, there is no disagreement between the authors regarding the key positive impacts of entrepreneurial possibilities, but they listed them in accordance with the focus of their articles. Clark and Ramachandran (2020) managed to find that some of the advantages this concept provided to the subsidiaries are increased access to cooperative inter-organizational relationships, such as strategic partnerships, and enhanced innovation. What refers to all businesses is the growing number of clients due to the ability of firms to satisfy their demands (Wood and McKinley, 2020). Finally, in cases when urgent measures are required, ceasing entrepreneurial possibilities can allow businesses to adapt to the circumstances and make sure that their success and productivity are maintained as high as possible (Gur et al., 2020; Salvato et al., 2020). As a consequence, the four papers recognize the value of this concept and, in general, identify similar or related advantages.
Weaknesses of the Articles and Existing Research
While the articles selected for the literature review contributed greatly to the existing research, there are still some gaps and weaknesses in the topic coverage. First of all, there is still a necessity to broaden the information about subsidiary entrepreneurship and the ways they tackle entrepreneurial possibilities (Clark and Ramachandran, 2019). Then, Wood and McKinley (2020) believed that researchers could avoid the risks of ambiguity about the implementation of entrepreneurial opportunities and some difficulties related to them if they moved their focus away from problematizing the opportunity construct’s flaws. As a consequence, there are studies that are not objective or cannot look broader when exploring the topic, possibly because they focus on one side of entrepreneurial opportunities (Clark and Ramachandran, 2019). Increased attention should be paid to making the existing knowledge deeper and considering all the factors that may have an impact on entrepreneurial possibility as a phenomenon.
Summary of Material
Although some gaps exist in the literature about entrepreneurial opportunities, there is comprehensive knowledge related to its various elements and effects. It is evident that different companies can receive these opportunities, and the level of their access depends on external circumstances. All articles agree that the value of this phenomenon cannot be overestimated. It brings new partnerships, clients, and competitive advantages to businesses, and no exclusions were identified in the papers analyzed. At the same time, Wood and McKinley (2020) found that all organizations could tackle entrepreneurial opportunities properly. Salvato et al. (2020) mentioned that this was more available to family-owned companies, especially after disasters, which was also indicated by Gur et al. (2020). Finally, Clark and Ramachandran (2019) insisted on the ability of subsidiaries to cease them better than other forms of organizations. Indeed, this is a rather interesting observation, and what the research lacks is the clear determination of all factors that may provide a particular company in specific circumstances with increased access to entrepreneurial opportunities.
Conclusion
To draw a conclusion, one may say that this literature review identifies and synthesizes various topics attributable to entrepreneurial opportunity to introduce a diverse review of ongoing research in the field. Thus, Wood and McKinley (2020) insisted on treating this concept as a broader topic and avoiding the risk of developing ambiguous views by reviewing it as a whole. Salvato et al. (2020) focused on the family-owned businesses’ ability to utilize entrepreneurial opportunities after natural disasters. Together with Gur et al. (2020), the researchers explored the relationships between this concept and post-crisis situations, finding that the latter made entrepreneurial opportunities more valuable and accessible. Finally, Clark and Ramachandran (2019) managed to contribute to the existing knowledge about subsidiaries and entrepreneurial possibilities. The review of these research articles demonstrates some weaknesses in the literature, including the elusive application of the term in the academic context, limited approaches and results, and the debatable nature of the concept.
Reference List
Clark, K., and Ramachandran, I. (2019) ‘Subsidiary entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial opportunity: an institutional perspective’, Journal of International Management, 25(1), pp. 37-50.
Gur, F. A. et al. (2020) ‘Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition in the face of disasters’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(4), pp. 671–693.
Salvato, C. et al. (2020) ‘Natural disasters as a source of entrepreneurial opportunity: family business resilience after an earthquake’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), pp. 594-615.
Wood, M. S. and McKinley, W. (2020) ‘The entrepreneurial opportunity construct: dislodge or leverage?’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), pp. 352-365,