Anti-Ideology of Entrepreneurship as an Attribute of Entrepreneurial Projects

Aim. The presented study examines and develops theoretical and methodological foundations that make it possible to distinguish innovative entrepreneurship among other economic phenomena.

Tasks. The author identifies the specific features of entrepreneurship and its qualitative differences from other types of economic activity aimed at obtaining benefits, specifies the relationship between creative destruction and economic development, determines the attributes of innovative entrepreneurship.

Methods. This study uses systematic analysis of professional literature on entrepreneurship to highlight the main attributes of entrepreneurial activity. The methodology of dialectical contradiction in its original Hegelian interpretation plays an important role in elaborating and substantiating the definition of entrepreneurship. The author considers innovative activity as creation of new values, which, according to the logic of dialectical development, destroy the old ones, triggering the process of economic development.

Results. An approach to understanding the phenomenon of entrepreneurship is proposed, making it possible to distinguish this type of activity as significantly different from other types of economic activity, which may be externally similar but have different content. During the development of this approach, the concept of “anti-ideology” of entrepreneurship is introduced, which reflects the essence of innovative activity as a process of creative destruction. The necessary and sufficient attributes of entrepreneurial innovation are identified, making it possible to reflect the meaning of this phenomenon and verify this complex defining structural element in the system of economic relations. The study substantiates that the level of anti-ideology and public benefit can be used as criteria for assessing the significance of an entrepreneurial idea. A progressive model of anti-idea realization (PMA) is proposed based on the methodological principle. It can be used to develop an efficient system for evaluating startups within the framework of venture capitalism.

Conclusions. Specification of the relationship between creative destruction and economic development is crucial to understanding the importance of innovative entrepreneurship. Each historical period creates its own demand for a specific type of entrepreneurs. The principle of anti-ideology, which lies at the heart of the PMA model, is key in identifying competitive commercial ideas, making it possible to focus resources and attention on projects that can make a significant contribution to economic development.

1. Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution. New York: Crown Business; 2016. 198 p. (Russ. ed.: Schwab K. Chetvertaya promyshlennaya revolyutsiya. Moscow: Eksmo; 2017. 208 p.).

2. Abramov N., ed. Dictionary of Russian synonyms and similar expressions. Moscow: Russkie slovari; 1999. 431 p. (In Russ.).

3. Gardner H. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books; 1993. 440 p. (Russ. ed.: Gardner H. Struktura razuma: teoriya mnozhestvennogo intellekta. Moscow: Williams; 2007. 512 p.).

4. Kiyashchenko L., Tishchenko P. The philosophy of transdisciplinarity as an experience of practical philosophizing. Praktichna filosofiya = Practical Philosophy. 2004;(2-3):11-20. (In Russ.).

5. Lepskii V. Evolution of concepts of management in the context of scientific rationality. In: Arshinov V.I., Rozin V.M., eds. Philosophy of management: Methodological problems and projects. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy RAS; 2013:68-99. (In Russ.).

6. Ehigie B.O., Umoren U.E. Psychological factors influencing perceived entrepreneurial success among Nigerian women in small-scale business. Journal of International Women’s Studies. 2003;5(1):78-95. URL: https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1523&context=jiws&httpsredir=1&referer=

7. Laureiro-Martinez D., Brusoni S., Canessa N., Zollo M. Understanding the exploration-exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2015;36(3):319-338. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2221

8. De Holan P.M. It’s all in your head: Why we need neuroentrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry. 2014;23(1):93-97. DOI: 10.1177/1056492613485913

9. Goodale J.C., Kuratko D.F., Hornsby J.S., Covin J.G. Operations management and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance. Journal of Operations Management. 2011;29(1-2):116-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2010.07.005

10. Garud R., Giuliani A.P. A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Review. 2013;38(1):157-160. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2012.0055

11. Armstrong S.J., Hird A. Cognitive style and entrepreneurial drive of new and mature business owner-managers. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2009;24(4):419-430. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-009-9114-4

12. Townsend D.M. Captains of their own destiny? Toward a theory of entrepreneurial agency in firm survival. Entrepreneurial Action. Bingley: Emerald Group Publ. Ltd; 2012:125-160. (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. Vol. 14). DOI: 10.1108/S1074-7540(2012)0000014008

13. Cornelissen J.P. Portrait of an entrepreneur: Vincent van Gogh, Steve Jobs, and the entrepreneurial imagination. Academy of Management Review. 2013;38(4):700-709. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2013.0068

14. Mitchell R.K., Busenitz L., Lant T., McDougall P.P., Morse E.A., Smith J.B. Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2002;27(2):93-104. DOI: 10.1111/1540-8520.00001

15. Shane S. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science. 2000;11(4):448-469. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602

16. Mitchell J.R., Friga P.N., Mitchell R.K. Untangling the intuition mess: Intuition as a construct in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2005;29(6):653-679. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00102.x

17. Haynie J.M., Shepherd D., Mosakowski E., Earley P.C. A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing. 2010;25(2):217-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.10.001

18. Litau E. Concept of entrepreneurship anti-ideology. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues. 2019;7(2):1308-1318. DOI: 10.9770/jesi.2019.7.2(35)

19. Shane S., Nicolaou N. Genetics, the Big Five, and the tendency to be self-employed. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010;95(6):1154-1162. DOI: 10.1037/a0020294

20. Schumpeter J.A. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge Publ.; 1976. 437 p. (Russ. ed.: Schumpeter J. Kapitalizm, sotsializm i demokratiya. Moscow: Ekonomika; 1995. 540 p.).

21. Brushlinskii A.V., Volovikova M.I., Druzhinin V.N. Subject problems in psychological science. Moscow: Academic Project; 2000. 320 p.).

22. Masloboeva O. Projective nature of the creative process. In: Creativity as a national element. The meaning of creativity: Innovation and Dasein. Proc. Int. sci. conf. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University of Economics; 2016:26-40. (In Russ.).

23. Day M., Boardman M.C., Krueger N.F. Handbook of research methodologies and design in neuroentrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2017. 336 p.

24. Litau E. Classification of economic psychotypes of subjects of management. Ekonomicheskie i gumanitarnye nauki = Scientific Notes of Orel State University. Series: Economic and Humanitarian Sciences. 2019;(2):100-110. (In Russ.).

25. Bazhanov V., Shol’ts R.V. Transdisciplinarity in philosophy and science: Approaches, problems, perspectives. Moscow: Navigator; 2015. 564 p. (In Russ.).