3. Solo Entrepreneur vs. Entrepreneurial Teams: Structural/Cultural Embeddedness and Innovation

 Structuration theory views the subjectivity and objectivity of social realities as equally important. According to structuration theory, cultural context is generated and regenerated through the interplay of action and structure. It recognizes that “man actively shapes the world he lives in at the same time as it shapes him” (Giddens 1986).

 Structuration theory and the concept of the duality of structure allow us to think about society from both a structural and a behavioral perspective without reducing the analysis to either the institutional level or to the level of everyday life (behavioral). It allows us to do our analysis on one level while we set aside the other level. It allows us to see how the two levels are connected both in theory and in social reality. Finally, it allows us to appreciate the fact that the individual actors and social groups are not simply products of their social circumstances, but they are also the producers and reproducers of these social relations and circumstances.

 As Schumpeter pointed out, “…the entrepreneurial function need not be embodied in a physical person and in particular in a single physical person” (Schumpeter 1949, p. 255).

 Shane (2000) pointed out that the same licensable invention was exploited by eight different teams. Training and expertise were distinguishing elements for the members of every team. The consequence was that everyone perceived in a different way the possible exploitation of the licensable invention and carried out extremely different innovations despite having the same basis. It is not a surprise that they were not all as successful as their promoters had imagined. In such example, simple teams are taken into account: their routines could be associated with individuals. The different training and experience of the various members of the teams generated different routines and this led to the development of different innovations starting from the same technology. In the same way, the integration of different scientific and technical disciplines was made easier by the internal governance structure. For example, in Hounshell’s and Smith’s thorough account of DuPont’s research laboratories, DuPont’s interaction with external partners or cooperators is only just mentioned. Nevertheless, there is a significant evidence of interdisciplinary integration, such as the one between engineering and chemistry.

 This also enables us to make a contribution to the literature on organizational design (Ancona and Caldwell 1992). Sociotechnical systems theorists (e.g., Trist 1981; Beekun 1989) have long argued for the use of teams as building blocks of flexible and creative organizations and have described and experimented with different organizational designs to optimize the effectiveness of these teams.

 The creation of scientific knowledge is a cultural practice. In fact, as argued by Lenoir (1995), knowledge implies productive commitments with the world and the social and economic interests of the parties involved. Therefore, for a complete comprehension of the processes of knowledge creation, which influence knowledge paths, it is essential that the cultural practice of scientists in firms is fully understood.

 Social identity is “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel 1981, p. 255). Social Identity Theory was developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979. The theory was originally developed to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel et al. (1971) attempted to identify the minimal conditions that would lead members of one group to discriminate in favor of the ingroup to which they belonged and against another outgroup. In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “personal self,” but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel, and act on basis of his personal, family, or national “level of self” (Turner et al. 1987). Apart from the “level of self,” an individual has multiple “social identities.” Social identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership of social groups (Hogg and Vaughan 2002). In other words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us” associated with any internalized group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal identity, which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes. Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/self-categorization and enhancement in ways that favor the ingroup at the expense of the outgroup. The examples (minimal group studies) of Turner and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of individuals categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display ingroup favoritism. After being categorized of a group membership, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some valued dimension. This quest for positive distinctiveness means that people’s sense of who they are is defined in terms of “we” rather than “I.” Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the emergence of ingroup favoritism is particularly important. (1) The extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup to internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept. (2) The extent to which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. (3) The perceived relevance of the comparison group, which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the ingroup. Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self-definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable.