TOWARD THE EMERGENCE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL OPPORTUNITIES: ORGANIZING EARLY-PHASE NEW VENTURE CREATION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

迈向创业机会的出现：组织早期新企业创建支持系统

SUJITH NAIR MEDHANIE GAIM Umeã University SUJITH NAIR MEDHANIE GAIM 马埃大学（注：Umeå University 正确译名为“乌梅奥大学”，“梅迪亚尼”“梅德哈尼”等为音译变体，此处统一按标准译法“乌梅奥大学”处理）

（注：原输入中“Umeã University”的正确拼写应为“Umeå University”，“Umeå”是瑞典城市名“乌梅奥”，大学以此命名。“SUJITH NAIR MEDHANIE GAIM”为个人或机构名称，音译保留原拼写。）

（注：根据用户要求，仅输出翻译结果，上述括号内内容为说明，实际输出应为：SUJITH NAIR MEDHANIE GAIM 乌梅奥大学）

最终输出：SUJITH NAIR MEDHANIE GAIM 乌梅奥大学

DIMO DIMOV University of Bath Reykjavik University DIMO DIMOV 巴斯大学 雷克雅未克大学

Support systems for early venturing efforts need to be harmonious with the emergent nature of those efforts. With the current literature treating the conceptions of new ventures as exogenous, there has been a limited focus on the transition of venturing efforts from nebulous, open-ended, and accidental toward becoming scalable, focused, and deliberate. We develop a dynamic model for organizing support systems for the early phases of new venture creation, where scattered ideas evolve into venture concepts as tokens, frames, and premises for further action. By viewing venturing efforts and opportunities as emergent and drawing on the literature on complexity and organizational space, we propose openness, self-selection, visibility, and connectivity as the defining characteristics for organizing support systems. In contrast to the literature’s predominant focus on a predictive, linear approach, we expand the theoretical scope of support systems to include organizing that is more attuned to the uncertain and nonlinear nature of new venture creation that they support. Our work has broader implications for organizing uncertain early-phase development processes. A video abstract of this paper can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDUZgGapMnM. 早期创业活动的支持系统需要与其新兴的本质相协调。当前的文献将新企业的概念视为外生的，因此对创业活动从模糊、开放式和偶然的状态向可扩展、聚焦和刻意的方向转变的关注有限。我们为新企业创建早期阶段开发了一个动态的支持系统组织模型，在该模型中，分散的想法会演变为企业概念，作为进一步行动的符号、框架和前提。通过将创业活动和机会视为新兴的，并借鉴复杂性和组织空间的相关文献，我们提出开放性、自我选择、可见性和连通性作为组织支持系统的定义特征。与文献中主要关注预测性、线性方法的做法不同，我们扩展了支持系统的理论范围，将更适应它们所支持的新企业创建过程的不确定性和非线性本质的组织方式纳入其中。我们的工作对组织不确定的早期阶段开发过程具有更广泛的意义。本文的视频摘要可在 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDUZgGapMnM 观看。

Every great entrepreneur can point to several coffee chats that opened doors, sparked ideas, and formed important new relationships. The StartUp HERE Toronto Café is focused on helping to easily build relationships between entrepreneurs and drive Toronto’s startup community. It is a place to connect with peers, funders, and investors, subject matter experts, and just generally great people who have an interest in growing Toronto’s startup community. (StartUp HERE Toronto Café, 2018) 每一位伟大的企业家都能指出几次咖啡会面，这些会面打开了机遇之门、激发了创意，并促成了重要的新关系。多伦多创业中心咖啡馆（StartUp HERE Toronto Café）致力于帮助创业者轻松建立联系，推动多伦多创业社区的发展。这里是与同行、资助者、投资者、行业专家以及所有对推动多伦多创业社区发展感兴趣的优秀人士交流的场所。（多伦多创业中心咖啡馆，2018年）

If we play the story of a new venture backward, we would see its gradual shrinking, the disappearance of its organizing elements or structures, the dissolution into ideas and discourse among founding team members and early supporters, and—beyond the point at which various places, events, or situations bring those members together—their scattering into disparate individual experiences and life stories. In this rewinding process, the precise structure and purpose of the venture dissolve into its disjointed preexistence in which no reliable tokens of its future existence can be found. Indeed, the further back we go, the more obscure the eventual pathway becomes. The progressive unfolding and forward revelation of the venturing process poses the question of how it can be supported and facilitated. This represents a significant organizing challenge given the uncertainty under which new ventures and opportunities inextricably emerge from amorphous yet purposeful interactions between entrepreneurs and their scattered ideas (Alvarez & Barney, 2005; Dimov, 2011). Therefore, in line with the principle of requisite variety (Ashby, 1956), any support system for early venturing efforts requires consonance with the uncertain and nonlinear nature of those efforts. Not every effort will succeed, but entrepreneurial success can come from anywhere. 如果我们将一个新企业的发展历程倒过来讲述，会看到它逐渐萎缩，组织要素或结构消失，创始团队成员和早期支持者的想法与讨论也随之瓦解——在各种地点、事件或情境将这些成员聚集起来之后，他们会分散成不同的个人经历和人生故事。在这个倒带过程中，企业的确切结构和目标会融入其碎片化的先前存在状态，其中找不到其未来存在的可靠迹象。事实上，我们追溯得越远，最终的路径就越模糊。创业过程的逐步展开和向前揭示提出了一个问题：如何支持和促进这一过程。考虑到新企业和机遇不可避免地从创业者与其零散想法之间的模糊但有目的的互动中产生的不确定性（Alvarez & Barney，2005；Dimov，2011），这代表了一个重大的组织挑战。因此，根据必要多样性原则（Ashby，1956），任何早期创业努力的支持系统都必须与其不确定性和非线性本质相协调。并非所有努力都会成功，但创业成功可能来自任何地方。

Support systems are organizations, such as incubators, accelerators, maker spaces, and startup cafés, within an entrepreneurial ecosystem that facilitate new venture creation by providing essential resources (Amezcua, Grimes, Bradley, & Wiklund, 2013; Autio, Nambisan, Thomas, & Wright, 2018; Feldman, Siegel, & Wright, 2019). When considering support for new venture creation, we can distinguish two qualitatively different, yet conflated, phases to the process. An early phase culminates with an articulation of the elements of a concept for a venture— that emerges from the scattered ideas, behaviors, and intentions of prospective entrepreneurs—as a holistic token, frame, and premise for further action (Dimov, 2020; Vogel, 2016). The venture concept’s role as a token enables the entrepreneurs to refer to what they are doing; as a frame, it serves to organize their further actions and define aspirational milestones, and its nature as a premise suggests that it is tentative and likely to evolve with new developments. A subsequent late phase involves developing elements of the venture concept toward achieving what the entrepreneurial community calls “productmarket fit” as a gateway to ultimate opportunity realization (McDonald & Ga0, 2019; Shankar & Shepherd, 2019). 支持系统是创业生态系统中的各类组织，例如孵化器、加速器、创客空间和创业咖啡馆，它们通过提供必要资源来促进新企业的创建（Amezcua, Grimes, Bradley, & Wiklund, 2013；Autio, Nambisan, Thomas, & Wright, 2018；Feldman, Siegel, & Wright, 2019）。在考虑对新企业创建的支持时，我们可以将这一过程区分为两个本质不同但又相互交织的阶段。早期阶段以对创业概念要素的阐述为标志——这些要素源于潜在创业者零散的想法、行为和意图——并将其作为进一步行动的整体象征、框架和前提（Dimov, 2020；Vogel, 2016）。创业概念作为象征的作用使创业者能够指代他们正在做的事情；作为框架，它有助于组织后续行动并定义理想的里程碑；而其作为前提的性质表明，它具有试探性，可能会随着新发展而演变。随后的后期阶段涉及完善创业概念的要素，以实现创业社区所谓的“产品-市场契合”，这是最终机会实现的关键（McDonald & Ga0, 2019；Shankar & Shepherd, 2019）。

Ignoring the vital distinction between early and late phases and the resulting conflation will result in a mismatch where the nature of “organizing” the support system will not reflect the “organized” and the “organization” of what it supports. Research has focused (see, for example, Clayton, Feldman, & Lowe, 2018; Cohen, Bingham, & Hallen, 2019; Pauwels, Clarysse, Wright, & Van Hove, 2016) on organizing in terms of supporting new ventures along their more deliberate trajectories and overlooked the early phases, such as those taking place at the StartUp HERE Toronto Café. Accordingly, the venture conceptions have been treated as exogenous, as given, and ready to be picked up by late-phase support systems, such as incubators. This raises essential questions about the formation and quality of their selection pool. Without a clear and in-depth discussion of how the two phases differ and corresponding knowledge on how to organize support systems, scholars might treat them as congruent phenomena and overlook the distinctive processes underlying each. In this regard, we direct attention to the underlying processes that help us understand the behavior and organizing features of early-phase support systems and pose the following research question: How can support systems be organized to enable the actions and interactions of prospective entrepreneurs toward the emergence of venture concepts? 忽视早期和晚期阶段之间的重要区别以及由此产生的混淆，会导致一种不匹配，即“组织”支持系统的本质无法反映其支持对象的“组织”和“组织化”。研究主要关注（例如，Clayton, Feldman, & Lowe, 2018；Cohen, Bingham, & Hallen, 2019；Pauwels, Clarysse, Wright, & Van Hove, 2016）在支持新企业沿着更审慎的轨迹发展的过程中进行组织，却忽视了早期阶段，例如在多伦多创业咖啡馆（StartUp HERE Toronto Café）发生的那些阶段。因此，创业概念被视为外生的、既定的，随时可以被晚期支持系统（如孵化器）采纳。这引发了关于其筛选池的形成和质量的关键问题。如果没有对这两个阶段如何不同的清晰深入讨论，以及如何组织支持系统的相应知识，学者们可能会将它们视为一致的现象，而忽视每个阶段背后独特的过程。在这方面，我们关注有助于理解早期支持系统的行为和组织特征的潜在过程，并提出以下研究问题：支持系统应如何组织，才能使潜在企业家的行动和互动促成创业概念的形成？

The focus on early-phase support systems, defined as organizations facilitating the emergence of venture concepts as gateways to entrepreneurial efforts, invites attention to a wide range of empirical phenomena such as startup cafés, startup weekends, startup campuses, innovation boot camps, and hackathons, which remain undertheorized. The earlyphase development processes in these settings are vital to new venture creation because they give rise to requisite variety, integration across ideas, and success in uncertain environments (Adner & Levinthal, 2008; Alvarez, Barney, & Anderson, 2013; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Dougherty & Dunne, 2012). The early phase of new venturing is uncertain (Alvarez & Barney, 2005; Townsend, Hunt, McMullen, & Sarasvathy, 2018) and nonlinear, where changing one part of the configuration generates unpredictable outcomes (McMullen & Dimov, 2013; Selden & Fletcher, 2015). As such, our conception of the early-phase support system reflects the nature of new venturing that it supports. This conception differs from that of the existing literature that has predominantly focused on organizing around predictive selection and matching (Aaboen, 2009; Aerts, Matthyssens, & Vandenbempt, 2007), where new ventures progress toward set goals following sequential and often standardized processes (Bergek & Norrman, 2008; Clayton et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2019). 对早期阶段支持系统的关注（这类系统被定义为促进创业概念产生、作为创业努力入口的组织），引发了对一系列广泛经验现象的关注，例如创业咖啡馆、创业周末活动、创业园区、创新训练营和黑客马拉松等，这些现象仍缺乏理论支撑。在这些环境中的早期发展过程对新企业创建至关重要，因为它们能产生必要的多样性、整合不同想法，并在不确定环境中取得成功（Adner & Levinthal, 2008；Alvarez, Barney, & Anderson, 2013；Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997；Dougherty & Dunne, 2012）。新企业创建的早期阶段具有不确定性（Alvarez & Barney, 2005；Townsend, Hunt, McMullen, & Sarasvathy, 2018）且呈非线性特征，在这种情况下，改变配置中的一个部分会产生不可预测的结果（McMullen & Dimov, 2013；Selden & Fletcher, 2015）。因此，我们对早期阶段支持系统的概念化反映了其支持的新企业创建的本质。这一概念与现有文献有所不同，现有文献主要围绕预测性选择和匹配进行组织（Aaboen, 2009；Aerts, Matthyssens, & Vandenbempt, 2007），其中新企业遵循顺序且通常标准化的流程向既定目标推进（Bergek & Norrman, 2008；Clayton et al., 2018；Cohen et al., 2019）。

We conceptualize how nonlinear and nonpredictive (Packard & Clark, 2019) ways of organizing early-phase support systems enable the actions and interactions of prospective entrepreneurs toward the emergence of venture concepts as gateways for further, more deliberate, action. Our framework generates insights for organizational interventions that facilitate the simultaneous self-selection of entrepreneurs (Lazar, Miron-Spektor, Agarwal, Erez, Goldfarb, & Chen, 2020) and the nonpredictive emergence of opportunities in the new venture creation process. It demonstrates how the interplay between the organizing characteristics of openness, self-selection, visibility, and connectivity creates the potential for venture concepts to emerge. Further, our theorizing has broader implications for organizing in settings where uncertain early-phase development processes are prominent. 我们将非线性和不可预测（Packard & Clark, 2019）的早期支持系统组织方式概念化，这些方式如何促进潜在创业者的行动和互动，从而催生创业概念作为进一步、更审慎行动的途径。我们的框架为组织干预提供见解，这些干预既能促进创业者的同时自我选择（Lazar, Miron-Spektor, Agarwal, Erez, Goldfarb, & Chen, 2020），又能在新企业创建过程中促成机会的不可预测涌现。它展示了开放性、自我选择、可见性和连通性这些组织特征之间的相互作用如何为创业概念的涌现创造可能性。此外，我们的理论化对于在不确定的早期开发过程占主导地位的环境中进行组织具有更广泛的意义。

ENTREPRENEURIAL OPPORTUNITIES

创业机会

Given a focal new venture as a productive entrepreneurial effort, the sense of entrepreneurial opportunity arises from the desire to understand and explain the venture’s emergence when some while ago it did not exist. First, from the perspective of creating a new venture, various elements need to come together (i.e., a product or service and the processes, materials, and actors involved in its production and market exchange). Thus, the opportunity can be described in terms of a specific business model or arrangement of artifacts that make the business viable (Berglund, Bousfiha, & Mansoori, 2020; Dimov, 2016; Selden & Fletcher, 2015). Second, from the perspective of the venture’s competitive viability, the opportunity can be described as a competitive imperfection that cannot necessarily be identified beforehand but arises concurrently with the endogenous actions of entrepreneurial actors (Alvarez & Barney, 2005, 2007). Third, from a time perspective, the opportunity is expressed in the entrepreneurial intent of an acting individual or team on an openended, nonlinear journey in which such evolving intent may be the only constant (McMullen & Dimov, 2013). In combination, these points suggest that an opportunity emerges endogenously through path-dependent and causally ambiguous processes (Alvarez et al., 2013). 给定一个作为富有成效的创业努力的焦点新企业，创业机会的感知源于当该企业不久前尚不存在时，对其出现的理解和解释的渴望。首先，从创建新企业的角度来看，各种要素需要汇聚在一起（即产品或服务以及参与其生产和市场交换的流程、材料和参与者）。因此，机会可以用特定的商业模式或使企业可行的人工制品安排来描述（Berglund, Bousfiha, & Mansoori, 2020；Dimov, 2016；Selden & Fletcher, 2015）。其次，从企业的竞争可行性角度来看，机会可以被描述为一种竞争缺陷，这种缺陷不一定能事先识别，而是与创业参与者的内生行动同时出现（Alvarez & Barney, 2005, 2007）。第三，从时间角度来看，机会体现在一个行动中的个人或团队的创业意图上，这是一段开放式的、非线性的旅程，在这段旅程中，这种不断演变的意图可能是唯一的不变因素（McMullen & Dimov, 2013）。综合来看，这些观点表明，机会通过路径依赖且因果模糊的过程内生地出现（Alvarez et al., 2013）。

Viewing such gradual emergence alongside the acting entrepreneur—without whose action the journey would not unfold—it becomes clear that the opportunity’s articulation evolves from a tentative idea prone to attracting skepticism to a focused pitch eliciting confidence and commitment. While initial ideas are scattered and incomplete representations of the possible future venture and thus vague in regard to their value-creation potential, a venture concept represents an intermediary articulation of that potential, inviting evaluation and refinement. In this regard, the venture concept—as the earliest articulation of the valuecreation elements—represents a milestone in opportunity emergence (Vogel, 2016). At this early point, it serves as a reference to what the entrepreneur is doing that can be articulated. 观察到这种渐进式的出现与创业家的行动相伴而生——没有其行动，这一过程便无法展开——可以发现，机会的表述从一个容易招致怀疑的初步想法，演变为一个能够激发信心和承诺的明确方案。虽然最初的想法是零散且不完整的，只是对可能的未来创业项目的初步呈现，因此在其创造价值的潜力方面较为模糊，但创业概念代表了这种潜力的中间表述，促使人们对其进行评估和完善。在这方面，创业概念作为创造价值要素的最早表述，是机会出现过程中的一个里程碑（Vogel，2016）。在这一早期阶段，它作为一个参照，说明创业家正在做的事情是可以被表述出来的。

To the extent that we cannot know exactly which opportunity will ultimately emerge from the entrepreneur’s efforts, we refer to it as a venture concept. It acts as a watershed between an early phase of the venturing process, in which opportunities are but scattered, initial, and tentative ideas that coalesce in venture concepts, and a late phase, with deliberate efforts to refine, evaluate, and develop a specific venture concept. Thus, the venture concept creates a focal meaning for other actors (Garud & Giuliani, 2013), provides a frame for further action, and can be leveraged to acquire commitments or resources from them (Dimov, 2020). The early phase of opportunity emergence thus captures how scattered ideas are combined, recombined, and transformed into a more ordered and articulate venture concept. By emergence, we mean: 在我们无法确切知晓创业者的努力最终会催生何种机会的程度上，我们将其称为创业概念。它是创业过程早期阶段与后期阶段之间的分水岭：在早期阶段，机会只是零散、初步且试探性的想法，这些想法会凝聚成创业概念；而在后期阶段，人们会刻意努力完善、评估并发展特定的创业概念。因此，创业概念为其他参与者创造了核心意义（Garud & Giuliani, 2013），提供了进一步行动的框架，并可被用来获取他们的承诺或资源（Dimov, 2020）。因此，机会出现的早期阶段捕捉了零散想法是如何被组合、重新组合并转化为更有序和清晰的创业概念的。关于“出现”，我们的定义是：

the process by which patterns or global-level structures arise with interactive, local-level processes. This “structure” or “pattern” cannot be understood or predicted from the behavior or properties of the component units alone [ … ] In the doctrine of emergence, the combination of elements with one another brings with it something that was not there before. (Mihata, 1997:31) 通过交互式的局部过程产生模式或全局结构的过程。这种“结构”或“模式”无法仅从组成单元的行为或属性来理解或预测[……]在突现论中，元素之间的组合带来了某种之前不存在的东西。（Mihata，1997：31）

As emerging artifacts, opportunities can only be understood by considering how individuals and their knowledge are transformed (Lichtenstein, Dooley, & Lumpkin, 2006). This transformation, which occurs through serendipitous and purposeful intersubjective interactions between heterogeneous actors, is uncertain and complex (Alvarez & Barney, 2005; Augier & Sarasvathy, 2004; Roundy, Brockman, & Bradshaw, 2017; Selden & Fletcher, 2015). We illustrate the notion of opportunity emergence through a stylistic and hypothetical example. Our reconstruction retrospectively traces events leading to realized opportunities from venture concepts and venture concepts from initial scattered ideas, although we present the emergence prospectively for ease of analytical presentation, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2. 作为新兴的产物，机会只能通过考虑个体及其知识如何被转化来理解（Lichtenstein, Dooley, & Lumpkin, 2006）。这种转化通过异质行为体之间偶然且有目的的主体间互动发生，具有不确定性和复杂性（Alvarez & Barney, 2005; Augier & Sarasvathy, 2004; Roundy, Brockman, & Bradshaw, 2017; Selden & Fletcher, 2015）。我们通过一个风格化且假设性的例子来说明机会涌现的概念。我们的重构回顾性地追溯了从创业概念和初始零散想法中产生已实现机会的事件，尽管为便于分析呈现，我们前瞻性地展示了这种涌现过程，如图1和图2所示。

Consider a chef $\left( A \right)$ who has recently arrived in a city with dreams of becoming a food entrepreneur. At the city’s university, a food scientist $( B )$ has recently developed a new preservation technology as part of her study. She is considering how to make her technology useful. At the same university, a plant scientist $( C )$ is independently working on forest microenvironment technologies. In a nearby institute, a forester $( D )$ has been working for many years on new tree-planting patterns to improve their survival. All four individuals attend an initiative for startup creation hosted at the university. 考虑一位刚刚来到城市、梦想成为食品企业家的厨师（A）。在该市的大学，一位食品科学家（B）最近开发了一项新的保鲜技术，作为她研究的一部分。她正在考虑如何让自己的技术发挥作用。在同一所大学，一位植物科学家（C）正在独立研究森林微环境技术。在附近的一个研究所，一位林业工作者（D）多年来一直在研究新的植树模式以提高树木的存活率。这四个人都参加了大学举办的创业促进活动。

At time $^ { t 0 }$ , the assumption is that all four $( A 1 , B 1$ $C 1$ , and $D 1$ )have initial ideas and intentions (represented by “1”) before they interact. Some of them intentionally explore the possibilities their ideas present, while others do so by chance. At t1, because of their similar professions, an interaction ensues between the two scientists but does not produce a shared idea. However, the food scientist receives a new input from this interaction $( B 1 { } B 2 )$ , while the plant scientist does not $\left( C 1 { - } C 1 \right)$ . At t2, the food scientist interacts with the chef, while the plant scientist converses with the forester. At t3, the chef and the food scientist connect at some level and manage to create a shared idea. As a result of this interaction, their ideas evolve $. A 1 { } A 2$ and $B 2 { } B 3$ . At this stage, an industrial designer $( E )$ joins the conversation and takes the shared idea of the chef and the food scientist to the next level. Because the plant scientist and the forester do not connect, their interaction ends, but the forester has gained new insights into resolving some of the challenges she has been facing $( D 1 { } D 2 )$ . At $t 4$ , the interactions between the chef, the food scientist, and the industrial designer lead to shared ideas $( A 3 , B 4 , E 2 )$ , represented by the intersection of the three circles in Figure 1. This intersection of ideas, wherein they combine, recombine, and transform, gives rise to a venture concept “ABE”; this concept might be a subjective conceptualization in the three individuals’ minds, but it may also be inscribed as an artifact, such as a concept paper or a sketched diagram. The interactions between the chef, the food scientist, and the industrial designer might not have occurred automatically because of their disconnectedness and inherent heterogeneity. However, although random and nonlinear, their interactions were facilitated through interventions (e.g., through spatial dimensions). Early-phase support systems can, therefore, catalyze the emergence of venture concepts. 在时间 \( t_0 \) 时，假设所有四个（A1、B1、C1 和 D1）在互动前都有初始想法和意图（用“1”表示）。其中一些人有意探索其想法带来的可能性，而另一些人则是偶然这样做。在 \( t1 \) 时，由于他们职业相似，两位科学家之间发生了互动，但并未产生共同想法。然而，食品科学家从这次互动中获得了新的输入（B1 → B2），而植物科学家没有（C1 → C1）。在 \( t2 \) 时，食品科学家与厨师互动，植物科学家与护林员交谈。在 \( t3 \) 时，厨师和食品科学家在某个层面上建立联系，并成功创造了一个共同想法。作为这次互动的结果，他们的想法得到了发展：A1 → A2，B2 → B3。在这个阶段，一位工业设计师（E）加入了对话，并将厨师和食品科学家的共同想法提升到了新的水平。由于植物科学家和护林员没有建立联系，他们的互动结束了，但护林员从这次互动中获得了解决她一直面临的一些挑战的新见解（D1 → D2）。在 \( t4 \) 时，厨师、食品科学家和工业设计师之间的互动产生了共同想法（A3、B4、E2），如图1中三个圆圈的交集所示。这种想法的交集——其中他们进行组合、重组和转化——催生了一个创业概念“ABE”；这个概念可能是三个人心中的主观概念化，但也可能被记录为一种人工制品，例如概念文件或草图。厨师、食品科学家和工业设计师之间的互动可能不会自动发生，因为他们彼此孤立且本质上存在异质性。然而，尽管这些互动是随机且非线性的，但它们通过干预（例如通过空间维度）得到了促进。因此，早期阶段的支持系统可以催化创业概念的出现。

FIGURE 1 From Scattered Ideas to Venture Concepts
图1 从零散想法到创业概念

A: Chef B: Food Scientist C: Plant Scientist D: Forester E: Industrial designer A：厨师 B：食品科学家 C：植物科学家 D：林务员 E：工业设计师

FIGURE 2 From Scattered Ideas to Venture Concepts and Then Realized Opportunities 图2 从零散想法到创业概念再到实现的机会

The new venturing phase, from the venture concept to realized opportunity, is well researched from the perspective of late-phase support systems, such as business incubators and accelerators. As Figure 2 shows, both internal and external interactions advance opportunities from venture concepts to their ultimate realization (Dimov, 2016). Internal interactions, such as interventions by business coaches, can enhance external interactions with potential customers, funders, and suppliers and lead to acquiring new team members. These interactions might eventually lead to market desirability, operational or technical feasibility, and financial viability, thereby transforming an opportunity from an initial venture concept to something actually instituted in the market. 从创业概念到已实现的机会，新的创业阶段从后期支持系统（如企业孵化器和加速器）的角度得到了充分研究。如图2所示，内部和外部互动都推动了创业概念向最终实现的发展（Dimov，2016）。内部互动（如商业教练的干预）可以增强与潜在客户、资助者和供应商的外部互动，并有助于招募新的团队成员。这些互动最终可能带来市场需求、运营或技术可行性以及财务可行性，从而将一个机会从最初的创业概念转变为市场中实际建立的事物。

LINEAR AND PREDICTIVE VIEW OF SUPPORT SYSTEMS

支持系统的线性与预测性视图

An entrepreneurial ecosystem consists of multiple and overlapping sets of attributes and institutions, including physical spaces, networks, startup culture, and financing, that encourage entrepreneurial activity within a region (Spigel, 2017; Spigel & Harrison, 2018). Late-phase support systems, such as incubators and accelerators, are essential components of an ecosystem that facilitates new venture creation by providing critical tangible and intangible resources (Clayton et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2019; Spigel, 2017: 54). The temporal processes underlying incubators and accelerators are premised on new venture creation as a staged life cycle (Cardon, Zietsma, Saparito, Matherne, & Davis, 2005). Such a staged life cycle view of organizing brings with it the notion of a prefigured trajectory from the beginning to the end stage based on institutional rules or programs that progress in a prescribed sequence (van de Ven & Poole, 1995). 创业生态系统由多个相互重叠的属性和机构集合构成，包括物理空间、网络、创业文化和融资等，这些因素在一个地区内促进创业活动（Spigel, 2017；Spigel & Harrison, 2018）。后期支持系统，如孵化器和加速器，是生态系统的重要组成部分，它们通过提供关键的有形和无形资源来促进新企业的创建（Clayton et al., 2018；Cohen et al., 2019；Spigel, 2017: 54）。孵化器和加速器背后的时间过程以新企业创建为阶段性生命周期为前提（Cardon, Zietsma, Saparito, Matherne, & Davis, 2005）。这种组织的阶段性生命周期观点带来了基于制度规则或项目按规定顺序推进的从起始阶段到结束阶段的预设轨迹概念（van de Ven & Poole, 1995）。

In both design and function, incubators and accelerators support startups in which a team has supposedly formed around a “scalable idea” (Nair & Blomquist, 2019). The venture concepts are supposed to be formed already with limited effort made to increase the diversity and quality of the ideas on which they are based. Incubators mostly rely on selection criteria such as a written business plan, the idea’s innovativeness, growth prospects, team members’ coachability, and the team’s technical, managerial, and financial skills (Aaboen, 2009; Aerts et al., 2007). Moreover, incubators rely on market interest and commercial viability (Bruneel, Ratinho, Clarysse, & Groen, 2012; Nair & Blomquist, 2020; Rubin, Aas, & Stead, 2015) as a means of moving the incubatees along the process. Accelerators employ a predesigned curriculum and highly organized schedule for a cohort of competitively selected startups (Pauwels et al., 2016). All these point to a linear and predictive approach where support system managers make decisions regarding feasibility and scalability in a structured sequential process. Viewing new venture creation as a staged life cycle process profoundly influences how incubators and accelerators are organized. Although such organizing is meritorious on its own way, it leaves little room for emergence. 在设计和功能上，孵化器和加速器都支持那些据称已围绕“可扩展理念”组建团队的初创企业（Nair & Blomquist，2019）。这些创业概念据称在形成时已投入有限精力去提升其所基于理念的多样性和质量。孵化器主要依赖书面商业计划、理念的创新性、增长前景、团队成员的可教导性以及团队的技术、管理和财务技能等筛选标准（Aaboen，2009；Aerts等人，2007）。此外，孵化器还依赖市场兴趣和商业可行性（Bruneel、Ratinho、Clarysse & Groen，2012；Nair & Blomquist，2020；Rubin、Aas & Stead，2015）作为推动孵化对象推进流程的手段。加速器则为一组经过竞争性选拔的初创企业采用预先设计的课程和高度组织化的日程安排（Pauwels等人，2016）。所有这些都指向一种线性且可预测的方法，即支持系统管理者在结构化的顺序流程中就可行性和可扩展性做出决策。将新企业创建视为分阶段的生命周期过程，会深刻影响孵化器和加速器的组织方式。尽管这种组织方式本身有其价值，但它几乎没有为“涌现性”（emergence）留下空间。

In contrast, instead of support system managers or gatekeepers trying to predict feasibility and team members’ ability—which is the predominant view— we promote a nonpredictive approach where opportunities emerge in nonlinear interactions. We argue that a nonpredictive approach is better suited to the fast-changing and uncertain early phase of new venture creation (Alvarez & Barney, 2005; Alvarez et al., 2013; Dew, Read, Sarasvathy, & Wiltbank, 2008; Packard & Clark, 2019; Sarasvathy, 2001). Such a focus has the potential to increase the quality of venture concepts that reach late-phase support systems—something that has been neglected in the predominant organizing of support systems. In this area, we agree with Anderson, Meyer, Eisenhardt, Carley, & Pettigrew’s (1999: 233) notion that “organizational scholars seldom come to grips with nonlinear phenomena; instead, they tend to model phenomena as if they were linear in order to make them tractable.” This reductionist approach might constrain the natural emergence and flow of processes; attempting to harness the underlying complexities instead is desirable (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Garud, Tuertscher, & Van de Ven, 2013). As highlighted above, in the staged life cycle model of a support system, the nonlinear interactions that characterize opportunities’ emergence are abstracted away for the sake of analytical tractability despite nonlinear interactions being key to the emergence of patterns (in our case, opportunities). Our paper thus aims to theorize the organizing of early-phase support systems that enable prospective entrepreneurs to interact toward the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities. 相比之下，我们不采用占主导地位的观点，即支持系统管理者或守门人试图预测可行性和团队成员的能力，而是倡导一种非预测性的方法，在这种方法中，机会在非线性互动中涌现。我们认为，非预测性方法更适合新企业创建的快速变化和不确定的早期阶段（Alvarez & Barney, 2005; Alvarez et al., 2013; Dew, Read, Sarasvathy, & Wiltbank, 2008; Packard & Clark, 2019; Sarasvathy, 2001）。这种关注有可能提高进入后期支持系统的创业概念的质量——而这一点在占主导地位的支持系统组织中一直被忽视。在这一领域，我们同意Anderson, Meyer, Eisenhardt, Carley, & Pettigrew (1999: 233)的观点，即“组织学者很少能把握非线性现象；相反，他们倾向于将现象建模为线性的，以便使其易于处理。”这种简化论方法可能会限制流程的自然涌现和流动；相反，尝试驾驭潜在的复杂性是可取的（Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Garud, Tuertscher, & Van de Ven, 2013）。如上所述，在支持系统的分阶段生命周期模型中，尽管非线性互动是模式（在我们的案例中，即机会）涌现的关键，但为了分析的便利性，抽象掉了构成机会涌现特征的非线性互动。因此，我们的论文旨在构建理论，阐述早期支持系统的组织方式，这些组织方式使潜在企业家能够互动，从而涌现出创业机会。

TOWARD A NONLINEAR AND NONPREDICTIVE VIEW OF EARLY-PHASE SUPPORT SYSTEMS

关于早期阶段支持系统的非线性与不可预测性视角

We conceptualize the early-phase support system as complex and adaptive, given: (a) the heterogeneity among actors, (b) actors’ interrelationships and interactions, (c) openness to its environment, and (c) its capacity to learn, change, and adapt from experience. Complex adaptive systems comprise many interacting parts that evolve and adapt over time (Holland, 1992). Because the causeeffect relationships are nonlinear and the actions of some parts affect those of others, the overall system shows emergent properties that cannot be understood by referring to individual behaviors (Cilliers, 2002; Holland, 1992; Kauffman, 1996; Waldrop, 1992). 我们将早期阶段的支持系统概念化为复杂且自适应的，原因如下：(a) 行动者之间的异质性，(b) 行动者之间的相互关系和相互作用，(c) 对环境的开放性，以及(c) 其从经验中学习、改变和适应的能力。复杂自适应系统由许多相互作用的部分组成，这些部分会随时间演变和适应（Holland，1992）。由于因果关系是非线性的，且某些部分的行动会影响其他部分的行动，整个系统表现出涌现性属性，这些属性无法通过参考个体行为来理解（Cilliers，2002；Holland，1992；Kauffman，1996；Waldrop，1992）。

When applying the complex adaptive systems view to organizing (Axelrod & Cohen, 1999; Lewin, 1999; Miller & Page, 2007; Stacey, 2007), it is crucial to consider four interrelated elements (Anderson, 1999): first, the presence of actors with a cognitive structure in a system, who, given their perception of the environment, could be purposive and responsive rather than constrained by fixed rules. Second, maintaining a self-organized state that requires importing energy and information into the system (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Stacey, 2007: 194). Third, as the actors coevolve together, the system moves toward the “edge of chaos”; in other words, it acquires the “ability to bring order and chaos into a special kind of balance” (Eisenhardt & Brown, 1998; Waldrop, 1992: 12). Finally, as a complex adaptive system, it will evolve through the entry, exit, and transformation of actors (Anderson, 1999: 225). We now discuss how these elements, when taken together, inform our conceptualization of the early-phase support system. 当将复杂自适应系统视角应用于组织研究时（Axelrod & Cohen, 1999；Lewin, 1999；Miller & Page, 2007；Stacey, 2007），必须考虑四个相互关联的要素（Anderson, 1999）：首先，系统中存在具有认知结构的行动者，他们基于对环境的感知，可能具有目的性和响应性，而非受固定规则的约束。其次，维持自组织状态需要向系统输入能量和信息（Prigogine & Stengers, 1984；Stacey, 2007: 194）。第三，随着行动者共同进化，系统会趋向“混沌边缘”；换句话说，它获得了“将秩序与混沌带入一种特殊平衡状态的能力”（Eisenhardt & Brown, 1998；Waldrop, 1992: 12）。最后，作为复杂自适应系统，它将通过行动者的进入、退出和转化而进化（Anderson, 1999: 225）。我们现在讨论这些要素如何共同影响我们对早期阶段支持系统的概念化。

In our conceptualization of the early-phase support system, there are two main sets of actors. The first is comprised of “prospective entrepreneurs” who enter the support system to access its resources and engage in interactions with others, hoping for a role in the opportunities and ventures emerging within. The second is comprised of “moderators” who intervene and facilitate interactions within the support system. The actors’ cognitive structure determines what actions they take as they follow their own implicit rules informed by their experience, emotions, and beliefs. However, being adaptive actors, these initial rules transform in interactions via feedback as the actors learn and improve themselves based on what other actors are doing (Hazy & Uhl-Bien, 2015; Stacey, 2007: 152; Waldrop, 1992: 147). As the actors coevolve, experience strengthens their useful behavioral rules, weakens unhelpful ones, and causes new rules to emerge from combinations and recombination of old ones (Holland, 1992; Waldrop, 1992: 193). Accordingly, the support system moves toward the edge of chaos. The equilibrium that results from such coevolution is dynamic—always unfolding and in transition (Waldrop, 1992: 147). Such a process helps the support system to maintain a self-organized state because it maintains enough balance for “its components [to] never quite lock into place, and yet never quite dissolve into turbulence” (see also Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Stacey, 2007: 194; Waldrop, 1992: 12). 在我们对早期阶段支持系统的概念化中，主要有两类行动者。第一类是“潜在创业者”，他们进入支持系统以获取资源并与他人互动，希望在其中出现的机遇和创业项目中扮演角色。第二类是“调解者”，他们介入并促进支持系统内的互动。行动者的认知结构决定了他们在遵循自身经验、情感和信念所形成的隐性规则时会采取哪些行动。然而，作为适应性行动者，这些初始规则会在互动中通过反馈发生转变，因为行动者会根据其他行动者的行为进行学习和自我提升（Hazy & Uhl-Bien, 2015；Stacey, 2007: 152；Waldrop, 1992: 147）。随着行动者共同进化，经验会强化有用的行为规则，弱化无用的规则，并促使新规则从旧规则的组合与重组中产生（Holland, 1992；Waldrop, 1992: 193）。因此，支持系统会向混沌边缘移动。这种共同进化带来的平衡是动态的——始终处于展开和转变之中（Waldrop, 1992: 147）。这一过程有助于支持系统维持自组织状态，因为它保持了足够的平衡，使得“其组成部分既不会完全固定，也不会完全陷入混乱”（另见Prigogine & Stengers, 1984；Stacey, 2007: 194；Waldrop, 1992: 12）。

As shown in Figure 1, the ideas of prospective entrepreneurs metaphorically bounce: when they intersect, they create a synergetic outcome; even when they do not intersect, they create a lasting effect on some, while not changing others. These initially unforeseen interactions tend to shift the nonlinear into patterns creating emergent substructures within the support system (Lewin, 1999: 215). Substructures are, therefore, transient patterns that take shape within the space of the support system, self-organizing en route to forming venture concepts (and eventually new ventures). As they form in interactions, these substructures give rise to the emergent property of a venture concept as a holistic token, frame, and premise for further action. Figure 1 shows the substructure of individuals A, B, and E forming the venture concept " ABE" as the interaction transforms actors and their ideas. Together, the evolving inner substructures and the outer support system form an emergent whole where they mutually influence each other, and one’s existence might be indispensable to the other (Walloth, 2016: 2225). 如图1所示，潜在创业者的想法可以比喻为相互碰撞：当它们相交时，会产生协同效应；即使不相交，也会对一些人产生持久影响，而对另一些人则毫无改变。这些最初无法预见的相互作用往往会将非线性关系转化为模式，在支持系统中形成新兴的子结构（Lewin，1999：215）。因此，子结构是在支持系统空间内形成的短暂模式，在形成创业概念（最终形成新企业）的过程中进行自组织。随着这些子结构在相互作用中形成，它们产生了创业概念作为整体象征、框架和进一步行动前提的涌现属性。图1展示了个体A、B和E的子结构如何在互动中转变参与者及其想法，从而形成创业概念“ABE”。不断演变的内部子结构和外部支持系统共同构成了一个涌现的整体，它们相互影响，彼此的存在可能不可或缺（Walloth，2016：2225）。

Spatial Dimensions of the Support System

支撑系统的空间维度

Central to complex systems is the concept of space within which relationships emerge (Nonaka, Von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006) and opportunities form as actors act and interact (Axelrod & Cohen, 1999: 73). Space is casually interpreted as a dimension “inside which things happen” (Hernes, 2004a: 64), formed through a “boundary-setting … distinction-drawing operation” (Hernes, Bakken, & Olsen, 2006: 45; Luhmann, 1995). Organizational space could be analyzed along its different types (i.e., physical, social, and mental) (Hernes, 2004a) or different conceptions (i.e., as distance, the materialization of power, and experience) (Taylor & Spicer, 2007). Taken together, they explain access, control, inclusion, exclusion, and acceptability within tangible and intangible boundaries (Hernes, 2004b, 2004a; Taylor & Spicer, 2007; 复杂系统的核心是“空间”这一概念，关系在其中涌现（Nonaka, Von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006），而行动者的行动与互动则在此形成机会（Axelrod & Cohen, 1999: 73）。空间常被解读为“事物发生的维度”（Hernes, 2004a: 64），其形成源于“设定边界……区分界定的操作”（Hernes, Bakken, & Olsen, 2006: 45；Luhmann, 1995）。组织空间可从不同类型（即物理、社会和心理空间）进行分析（Hernes, 2004a），或从不同概念视角（即距离、权力的物化及经验）解读（Taylor & Spicer, 2007）。综合来看，这些分析解释了在有形与无形边界内的可及性、控制权、包容性、排斥性及可接受性（Hernes, 2004b, 2004a；Taylor & Spicer, 2007；

Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019). Moreover, as much as space affects how interactions occur, interactions also inform how spaces are configured (Hernes, 2004a; Kornberger & Clegg, 2004). This recursive relationship between actions and space helps us explain (later in the paper) how substructures emerge within the support system. Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019年）。此外，正如空间会影响互动的发生方式，互动也会影响空间的配置（Hernes, 2004a；Kornberger & Clegg, 2004）。行动与空间之间的这种递归关系有助于我们解释（本文稍后部分）支持系统内子结构是如何形成的。

Physical space refers to “tangible structures created principally … to regulate work and interaction” (Hernes, 2004a: 71). Within a support system, space can be designed—in terms of proximity and accessibility—to facilitate spontaneous interactions between two prospective entrepreneurs with different expertise and interests. In our example, the startup event could be equally accessible to the chef unfamiliar with the university and the scientist working there. Social space involves trust, identity, and behavioral norms (Hernes, 2004a: 71-72) and is relationsbased" as a “network of relations… [it] regulates much of what is going on” (Hernes, 2004a: 71). Within support systems, social space gives signals about hierarchy, status, and appropriate behavior that members come to adopt (Hernes, 2004a; Taylor & Spicer, 2007). Mental space is the spac of thought," inclding “knowledge, learning, and sensemaking” (Hernes, 2004a: 72). Actors might differ in how they make sense of space. In our example, the organized space in the university startup event is experienced differently by the scientist, the forester, and the chef.1 物理空间指的是“主要为调节工作和互动而创建的有形结构”（Hernes，2004a：71）。在支持系统中，空间可以从邻近性和可及性的角度进行设计，以促进具有不同专业知识和兴趣的两位潜在企业家之间的自发互动。在我们的例子中，创业活动对不熟悉大学的厨师和在那里工作的科学家同样具有可及性。社会空间涉及信任、身份和行为规范（Hernes，2004a：71-72），并且是“基于关系”的，如“关系网络……[它]调节着大部分正在发生的事情”（Hernes，2004a：71）。在支持系统中，社会空间会传递关于等级、地位和适当行为的信号，成员会逐渐接受这些信号（Hernes，2004a；Taylor & Spicer，2007）。心理空间是“思维的空间”，包括“知识、学习和意义建构”（Hernes，2004a：72）。行动者对空间的理解可能会有所不同。在我们的例子中，大学创业活动中的结构化空间在科学家、林务员和厨师那里的体验各不相同。

The configuration of space within the support system brings its boundaries to the forefront because boundaries make different spaces distinct (Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019: 14). Boundaries “demarcate distinct organizational spaces and can thus determine the inclusion or exclusion of actions and influence organizations and organizing” (Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019: 4). The early- and later-phase support systems can be explained as two distinct spaces, for example. It is within such space that interactions occur through collaboration and converging interests between various actors (Coenen, Benneworth, & Truffer, 2012; Hernes, 2004a). In our setting of support systems, when the boundary is permeable, it allows a continuous flow of energy and a critical mass to develop toward self-organizing (Anderson, 1999: 223; Smith & Comer, 1994; Stacey, 2003). Whether permeable or otherwise, boundaries define the space that actors create, recreate, and reside in (Hernes, 2004b) and express what is “needed” to enter the space. The support system’s boundaries are, therefore, related to the space that is defended, promoted, and integrated (Hernes, 2004a) as they are constructed and reconstructed. 支持系统内的空间配置使其边界凸显出来，因为边界能使不同空间相互区分（Weinfurtner & Seidl，2019：14）。边界“划分出不同的组织空间，因此能够决定行动的纳入或排除，并影响组织及组织活动”（Weinfurtner & Seidl，2019：4）。例如，早期和后期阶段的支持系统可被解释为两个不同的空间。正是在这样的空间中，不同行动者通过协作和利益趋同发生互动（Coenen, Benneworth, & Truffer，2012；Hernes，2004a）。在我们的支持系统设定中，当边界具有渗透性时，它能使能量持续流动，并形成朝着自组织发展的临界质量（Anderson，1999：223；Smith & Comer，1994；Stacey，2003）。无论边界是否具有渗透性，它们都定义了行动者创造、重塑和栖居的空间（Hernes，2004b），并明确了进入该空间所需的条件。因此，支持系统的边界与其所捍卫、推广和整合的空间相关（Hernes，2004a），因为这些边界是被构建和重构的。

Interventions in the Support System

支持系统中的干预措施

The support system does not stand alone; its functioning requires some form of intervention to influence behavior. Intervention should reflect the characteristics of the targeted phenomenon (Lewin, 1999), namely the emergent and uncertain nature of new venture creation. We conceptualize “moderators” as the actors who intervene by facilitating interactions in the bottom-up emergence of opportunities within the support system. Importantly, the moderators neither control top-down nor create a priori conditions for emergence. In our case, moderators can neither predict the consequences of their actions (Axelrod & Cohen, 1999: 13) nor control the direction or envision the specifics or outcome of emergence (Anderson, 1999; Drazin & Sandelands, 1992). However, their role is not inert (Hazy & Backström, 2013; Plowman et al., 2007): their raison d’être is to facilitate, so they constrain the support system by, for example, setting simple rules that might lead to emergent behavior (Cilliers, 2002: 97; Waldrop, 1992: 266). Without moderators, the support system would be too chaotic, producing so much activity that nothing is stable, and structures would collapse almost immediately after forming (Waldrop, 1992: 226).2 支持系统并非孤立存在；其运作需要某种形式的干预来影响行为。干预应反映目标现象的特征（Lewin，1999），即新企业创建的涌现性和不确定性本质。我们将“调节者”概念化为通过促进支持系统内机会自下而上涌现过程中的互动来进行干预的行动者。重要的是，调节者既不进行自上而下的控制，也不为涌现创造先验条件。在我们的案例中，调节者既无法预测其行动的后果（Axelrod & Cohen，1999：13），也无法控制涌现的方向或设想其具体细节或结果（Anderson，1999；Drazin & Sandelands，1992）。然而，他们的角色并非被动（Hazy & Backström，2013；Plowman et al.，2007）：他们的存在理由是促进，因此他们通过设定可能导致涌现行为的简单规则等方式约束支持系统（Cilliers，2002：97；Waldrop，1992：266）。如果没有调节者，支持系统将过于混乱，产生大量活动以至于没有任何事物是稳定的，结构在形成后几乎会立即崩溃（Waldrop，1992：226）。

Actors initially follow their own interaction rules; as a result, their diverse interaction patterns could make the system too chaotic and liable to be overwhelmed by change (Burnes, 2005). Intervention should prevent interactions based solely on the actors’ own rules; at the same time, it should also allow for the chance and randomness in entrepreneurial interactions that those rules could generate (Bouchikhi, 1993; Peterson & Meckler, 2001). The individual entrepreneur’s behavioral characteristics are significant because resource allocation is driven by the “dynamic, institutionally embedded interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, ability, and aspirations” (Ács, Autio, & Szerb, 2014: 479). Furthermore, it is also crucial to facilitate the right context—such as acceptance of failure and risk-taking and creating and maintaining an atmosphere of trust and proximity—that encourages the sharing of scarce resources. Thus, there should be an openness to bottom-up processes, acceptance of effective equifinal outcomes, and moderation of dysfunctional tension. 演员最初遵循自身的互动规则；因此，他们多样化的互动模式可能会使系统过于混乱，容易被变化所淹没（Burnes，2005）。干预措施应防止仅基于演员自身规则的互动；同时，还应允许企业家互动中那些规则可能产生的偶然性和随机性（Bouchikhi，1993；Peterson & Meckler，2001）。个体创业者的行为特征至关重要，因为资源分配是由“创业态度、能力和抱负之间动态的、受制度约束的互动”驱动的（Ács，Autio，& Szerb，2014：479）。此外，促进正确的环境——例如接受失败和冒险精神，营造和维护信任与亲近的氛围——以鼓励稀缺资源的共享，这也至关重要。因此，应该对自下而上的过程持开放态度，接受有效的等效结果，并适度调节失调的紧张状态。

As adaptive actors, the moderators learn, change, and store this knowledge. Since the support system is a nondeterministic system, rules change as people learn (Stacey, 2007: 222), preventing it from settling down to best practices. This is of consequence because, given the heterogeneity of prospective entrepreneurs and their ideas and the nonlinear interactions that take place, the patterns of opportunity they create might differ each time, making the moderators’ role dynamic. The substructures and the venture concepts emerge from lower-level interactions in which moderators intervene to facilitate (Axelrod & Cohen, 1999; Gupta, Tesluk, & Taylor, 2007; Hazy & Uhl-Bien, 2015; Kogut, 2000). For moderators, the pursuit of a support system existing at the edge of chaos means utilizing simple emergent adaptive rules and learning-centered evolution (Waldrop, 1992: 184) rather than fixed rules, allowing for interesting interactions to take place. Therefore, it is not the outcome but instead the propensity or potential for desirable interactions that are facilitated. Under such circumstances, spatial arrangements could induce interactions between individuals whom under normal circumstances would not have interacted; this can be as simple as placing a coffee machine at a specific corner to create the potential for spontaneous interactions (Fayard & Weeks, 2007; Gaim, Wåhlin, & Jacobsson, 2019; Kornberger & Clegg, 2004). Although interactions and their outcomes cannot be predicted, the potential for them can and can thus be created by design. In combination, these factors either enable or constrain human interaction, thus influencing the emergence of venture concepts. 作为适应性行动者，主持人会学习、改变并存储这些知识。由于支持系统是一个非确定性系统，规则会随着人们的学习而变化（Stacey, 2007: 222），这使得它无法稳定到最佳实践状态。这一点很重要，因为考虑到潜在创业者及其想法的异质性，以及其间发生的非线性互动，他们创造的机会模式每次可能都不同，这使得主持人的角色具有动态性。子结构和创业概念源自低层次互动，在这些互动中，主持人会进行干预以促进互动（Axelrod & Cohen, 1999; Gupta, Tesluk, & Taylor, 2007; Hazy & Uhl-Bien, 2015; Kogut, 2000）。对于主持人而言，在混沌边缘存在的支持系统意味着要利用简单的涌现适应性规则和以学习为中心的进化（Waldrop, 1992: 184），而非固定规则，从而允许有趣的互动发生。因此，关键并非结果，而是促进理想互动的倾向或潜力。在这种情况下，空间布局可能会引发原本不会互动的个体之间的互动；这可以很简单，比如将咖啡机放置在特定角落以创造自发互动的可能性（Fayard & Weeks, 2007; Gaim, Wåhlin, & Jacobsson, 2019; Kornberger & Clegg, 2004）。尽管互动及其结果无法预测，但它们的可能性是可以被设计创造的。综合来看，这些因素要么促进要么限制人类互动，从而影响创业概念的涌现。

ORGANIZING EARLY-PHASE SUPPORT SYSTEMS

组织早期阶段支持系统

In this section, we discuss our model of organizing support systems that enable the emergence of venture concepts en route to realized entrepreneurial opportunities, as depicted in Figure 3. 在本节中，我们讨论我们的支持系统组织模型，该模型能使创业概念在实现创业机会的过程中得以形成，如图3所示。

Before discussing our model, we first outline the assumption that underlies our core arguments. Actors in the entrepreneurial process display “an openness, orientation, and drive toward seeking out new situations and possibilities and trying new things” (Mitchell, Smith, Seawright, & Morse, 2000: 978) and in doing so are willingly susceptible to social influence and persuasion (Augier & Sarasvathy, 2004; Secchi, 2009; Simon, 1959, 1993). In this regard, they place trust on the other and thereby make themselves vulnerable to the actions of another (Korsgaard, Brower, & Lester, 2015; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). While engaging in an uncertain and boundedly rational process such as early-phase new venture creation, this behavior brings “a possible fitness advantage to be realized in social organizations and societies that transmit useful instructions to individuals” (Knudsen, 2003: 240). In general, therefore, we assume that there will be an inclination among prospective entrepreneurs to be trustful of others and engage in interactions with them. However, how this initial trusting behavior further develops depends on the dynamic nature of trust and how it is shaped by the interventions and interactions within the support system. 在讨论我们的模型之前，我们首先概述支撑我们核心论点的假设。创业过程中的行动者展现出“对探寻新情境、新可能性以及尝试新事物的开放性、倾向性和驱动力”（Mitchell, Smith, Seawright, & Morse, 2000: 978），在此过程中，他们愿意接受社会影响和劝说（Augier & Sarasvathy, 2004; Secchi, 2009; Simon, 1959, 1993）。从这个角度来看，他们会信任他人，从而使自己容易受到他人行为的影响（Korsgaard, Brower, & Lester, 2015; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995）。在进行早期新企业创建等不确定且受限于理性的过程中，这种行为会“在向个体传递有用指令的社会组织和社会中带来可能实现的适应性优势”（Knudsen, 2003: 240）。因此，总体而言，我们假设潜在创业者会倾向于信任他人并与他们互动。然而，这种初始信任行为如何进一步发展取决于信任的动态性质，以及它如何受到支持系统内干预和互动的影响。

Given the uncertain and temporary nature of the entrepreneurial process in the early phases, our assumption rests on the notion that without trust, there will not be a support system or any form of organizing. In a context where different parties have to fulfill their role (albeit unspecified) for a relationship to work, trust plays a significant role. Given the context where the outcome is not predetermined, using a contract to safeguard those involved from opportunism (Lui & Ngo, 2004) would be near impossible. For instance, the benefits from a “good” idea shared and developed within the support system could ultimately be disproportionately appropriated by someone else. Conversely, there might be costs for not entering, or even exiting prematurely, given the high search costs outside (Dew, 2009; Fiet, 1996) and the missed possibility of being part of an emerging opportunity (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005; Sarasvathy & Venkataraman, 2011). Not participating for fear of opportunism would be similar to not entering a tournament due to the risk of losing, which does not characterize either personal or organizational life. 考虑到创业初期过程的不确定性和临时性，我们的假设基于这样一种观念：没有信任，就不会有支持体系或任何形式的组织。在不同方必须履行其角色（尽管未明确说明）才能使关系正常运作的情况下，信任发挥着重要作用。在结果并非预先确定的情况下，使用合同来保护相关方免受机会主义行为的侵害（Lui & Ngo，2004）几乎是不可能的。例如，在支持体系内共享和开发的“好”想法所带来的收益，最终可能被他人不成比例地占有。相反，由于外部搜索成本高昂（Dew，2009；Fiet，1996）以及错失参与新兴机会的可能性（Sarasvathy & Dew，2005；Sarasvathy & Venkataraman，2011），不参与或过早退出可能会产生成本。因担心机会主义而不参与，就类似于因害怕输掉比赛而不参加比赛，这并不符合个人或组织生活的特征。

FIGURE 3 A Model of Organizing Support Systems 图3 组织支持系统模型

The nature of opportunism faced within the support system could be real or perceived. Opportunism, in the real sense, is related to free riders—takers who “try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully guarding their own expertise and time” (Grant, 2013: 90). However, any rent to be opportunistically realized from the emergence of venture concepts might be nonexistent initially as the “cake is not yet baked,” reducing the chance for opportunism. Moreover, in the early phase, initial disparate ideas have less chance of being stolen because ideas are cheap, and it is the stock of means to realize their potential that is the valuable asset (Sarasvathy, 2001; Wiltbank, Dew, Read, & Sarasvathy, 2006). 支持系统中可能面临的机会主义本质可能是真实的，也可能是被感知到的。从真正意义上讲，机会主义与搭便车者有关——这些人“试图让其他人服务于自己的目的，同时小心翼翼地保护自己的专业知识和时间”（Grant，2013：90）。然而，随着创业概念的出现，任何可能被机会主义地利用的租金最初可能不存在，因为“蛋糕尚未烘焙”，这降低了机会主义发生的可能性。此外，在早期阶段，最初零散的想法被窃取的可能性较小，因为想法本身成本较低，而实现其潜力的资源储备才是有价值的资产（Sarasvathy，2001；Wiltbank，Dew，Read，& Sarasvathy，2006）。

As interactions within the support system progress, and as a learning and adapting system, it will eventually drive out free riders because those who feel taken advantage of might seek to exit relationships over time (Korsgaard et al., 2015). The interactions within the support system will create enough memory of their opportunistic behavior (Cilliers, 2002: 95) to prevent them from further engagement. Moreover, besides cooperation, there will be competition among prospective entrepreneurs to participate in what they consider the best ideas and behaviors; because they are limited, the bad ones would be selected out based on expressed behavior (Levinthal & Marino, 2015). Thus, a cooperative and mutually trusting (Korsgaard et al., 2015) environment emerges over time, where the behavioral repertoires of prospective entrepreneurs “are biased toward cooperation, rather than opportunism” (Hill, 1990: 511). Despite this, the perception that opportunism exists is inherent in uncertain early-phase relationships. The moderators could intervene to reduce the perception of opportunism by creating a trustful environment that would reassure prospective entrepreneurs. We elaborate on these interventions in later sections. We now discuss the core of our model in relation to organizing support systems, along with our propositions. 随着支持系统内的互动不断推进，作为一个学习和适应系统，它最终会驱逐搭便车者，因为那些感觉自己被利用的人可能会随着时间的推移寻求退出关系（Korsgaard等人，2015）。支持系统内的互动会对他们的机会主义行为形成足够的记忆（Cilliers，2002：95），以阻止他们进一步参与。此外，除了合作之外，潜在创业者之间还会为参与他们认为最好的想法和行为而展开竞争；由于这些机会是有限的，不良行为会根据其表现出来的行为被筛选掉（Levinthal & Marino，2015）。因此，一个合作且相互信任的环境会随着时间的推移形成（Korsgaard等人，2015），在这个环境中，潜在创业者的行为模式“偏向于合作而非机会主义”（Hill，1990：511）。尽管如此，对机会主义存在的感知在不确定的早期关系中是固有的。调节者可以通过营造一个值得信赖的环境来减少对机会主义的感知，这将让潜在创业者感到安心。我们将在后面的章节中详细阐述这些干预措施。现在，我们将讨论我们模型的核心内容，即与组织支持系统相关的内容，以及我们的假设。

Openness and Self-Selection

开放性与自我选择

Openness relates to the nature of the boundaries demarcating an organization’s social structure (Kogut, 2000). The degree of openness implies an organization’s membership in terms of inclusion and exclusion (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2005). Although organizations are generally variety-reducing entities (Kogut, 2000), their boundaries are open to the extent needed to generate heterogeneity for divergent perspectives and ideas. In general, heterogeneity refers to the differences between individuals in terms of their knowledge, prior experience, behavior, traits, and preferences. Openness allows for not only heterogeneity but also the similarities sought by prospective entrepreneurs engaging in new venture creation (Lazar et al., 2020). 开放性与界定组织社会结构的边界性质相关（Kogut，2000）。开放性程度体现了组织成员在包容与排斥方面的归属（Dutton、Dukerich & Harquail，1994；Santos & Eisenhardt，2005）。尽管组织通常是减少多样性的实体（Kogut，2000），但为了产生用于不同视角和想法的异质性，其边界会在必要范围内保持开放。一般而言，异质性指个体在知识、过往经验、行为、特质和偏好方面的差异。开放性不仅能带来异质性，还能满足参与新企业创建的潜在创业者所寻求的相似性（Lazar等人，2020）。

In the support system, openness refers to the conditions enabling the inclusion of heterogeneous prospective entrepreneurs within its boundaries. The meeting of these heterogeneous actors’ divergent ideas, perceptions, skills, knowledge, experience, and abilities is desirable because the synthesis of what emerges from these interactions is typically superior to individually held ideas. Moreover, the heterogeneity generated by open boundaries of the support system reduces the search, communication, and coordination costs of the social interactions. As a complex adaptive system, setting the boundaries to allow the flow of resources—in the form of people and their ideas—promotes a conducive environment for spontaneous self-organization into complex structures such as teams, which concomitantly evokes the emergence of venture concepts. Too much openness, however, will result in unmanageable heterogeneity, with highly random interactions and chaos ensuing (Carroll & Burton, 2000). Moreover, as resources such as moderators and space would be limited, unmanageable openness would reduce the support system’s effectiveness. Given these limitations, the moderators could use simple rules that facilitate openness but restrict its degree of freedom (Cilliers, 2002: 97; Waldrop, 1992: 266) using spatial configurations. 在支持系统中，开放性指的是使不同背景的潜在创业者能够纳入其边界内的条件。这些异质行为体的不同想法、认知、技能、知识、经验和能力的交汇是有益的，因为这些互动产生的综合成果通常优于个体持有的想法。此外，支持系统开放边界产生的异质性降低了社会互动中的搜索、沟通和协调成本。作为一个复杂的自适应系统，设定边界以允许资源（以人员及其想法的形式）流动，会促进自发自组织形成复杂结构（如团队）的有利环境，这同时也会催生创业概念。然而，过度的开放性会导致难以管理的异质性，随之而来的是高度随机的互动和混乱（Carroll & Burton, 2000）。此外，由于主持人和空间等资源有限，难以管理的开放性会降低支持系统的有效性。考虑到这些局限性，主持人可以使用简单规则，通过空间配置来促进开放性但限制其自由度（Cilliers, 2002: 97；Waldrop, 1992: 266）。

Heterogeneity is also reflected in the varying intentions of prospective entrepreneurs: systematic exploration, spontaneous recognition, and prediscovery (Dew, 2009). Systematic exploration happens when a potential entrepreneur actively searches for an invention or an inventor actively seeks innovation possibilities. In spontaneous recognition, an individual might encounter a scientific invention that they recognize as a potential innovation. Prediscovery is when contingency and search overlap without prior knowledge. An individual might be unaware of the potential commercialization of their invention and so store it for potential future use (Garud & Nayyar, 1994) or never ultimately commercialize it. In the context of openness creating the potential for interactions between these heterogeneous prospective entrepreneurs, it is necessary to identify ways in which they can be brought together to interact within the support system. 异质性也体现在潜在创业者不同的意图中：系统性探索、自发性识别和预发现（Dew，2009）。系统性探索发生在潜在创业者主动寻找发明或发明者主动寻求创新可能性时。在自发性识别中，个人可能会遇到一项科学发明，并意识到它可能是一项创新。预发现是指偶然性和搜索在缺乏先验知识的情况下重叠。个人可能没有意识到其发明的潜在商业化可能性，因此将其储存起来以备将来可能使用（Garud & Nayyar，1994），或者最终从未将其商业化。在开放性创造这些异质潜在创业者之间互动可能性的背景下，有必要找出让他们能够在支持系统内互动的方式。

Following the complexity sciences literature, we argue that a sufficiently open support system allows the entry, exit, and transformation of prospective entrepreneurs, with the resulting dynamism leading to evolving patterns of interconnections and therefore a sense of emergent order (Anderson, 1999; Carlile, 2004; Chiles, Meyer, & Hench, 2004; Plowman et al., 2007). Prospective entrepreneurs self-select into support systems driven by their knowledge, aspirations, or serendipitous circumstances. They do so with nothing more than the resources they control, often in the form of prior knowledge or networks (Dimov, 2007; Read, Sarasvathy, Dew, & Wiltbank, 2016). An actor’s self-selection is motivated by the chance to shape emerging opportunities or allow their ideas to be shaped into opportunities by other self-selected actors. As Rogers, Medina, Rivera, and Wiley (2005: 5) articulated, they gravitate “to the basin-like water flowing to a valley.” The support system could channel this similized flow and prevent it from being a trickle or a deluge, as both impede new venture creation. 根据复杂科学文献，我们认为一个足够开放的支持系统允许潜在创业者的进入、退出和转型，由此产生的动态性导致互联模式的演变，进而形成一种涌现秩序（Anderson, 1999；Carlile, 2004；Chiles, Meyer, & Hench, 2004；Plowman et al., 2007）。潜在创业者基于自身的知识、抱负或偶然情况，自主选择进入支持系统。他们仅凭借自身掌控的资源（通常以先前知识或网络的形式存在）就能做到这一点（Dimov, 2007；Read, Sarasvathy, Dew, & Wiltbank, 2016）。行动者的自主选择动机在于有机会塑造新兴机会，或让自己的想法被其他自主选择的行动者塑造成机会。正如Rogers, Medina, Rivera, 和Wiley（2005: 5）所阐述的，他们会“流向山谷般汇聚的水流”。支持系统可以引导这种类似的流动，防止其变成涓涓细流或洪水泛滥，因为这两种情况都会阻碍新企业的创建。

The notions of self-selection and inclusion bring us to the boundaries defining the space the actors enter, create, inhabit, and recreate. Permeable boundaries allow a continual flow of energy into a system, as illustrated by the later entry of the industrial designer in Figure 1. Although the moderators cannot fully control the support system’s boundaries to define the heterogeneity within, because they do not know what the right composition should be, moderators could still rely on multiple mechanisms to facilitate the desired openness. They can regulate the space’s degree of permeability to set thresholds for entry, which could be malleable in order to allow people and their ideas to move in and out (Hernes, 2004a) easily. 自我选择和包容性的概念将我们引向定义参与者进入、创造、居住和重新创造的空间的边界。渗透性边界允许能量持续流入系统，如图1中工业设计师的后续加入所示。尽管主持人无法完全控制支持系统的边界以定义内部的异质性（因为他们不知道正确的组成应该是什么），但主持人仍然可以依靠多种机制来促进期望的开放性。他们可以调节空间的渗透程度以设定进入阈值，这些阈值可以灵活调整，以便人们及其想法能够轻松进出（Hernes，2004a）。

Interventions to manipulate boundaries can take different shapes and forms. For instance, the moderators could announce a simple “rule” that “on Monday, we discuss food entrepreneurship; all interested are welcome.” This rule would allow enough heterogeneity to attract the chef, a food scientist, and a forester, as well as actors from other industries who might want to contribute (such as an industrial designer) while filtering out those who are not sufficiently interested in the topic. With open physical boundaries, prospective entrepreneurs benefit from the possibility of seeing the available resources within and the potential of what could be achieved by taking part. This is analogous to signaling the availability of an “oven” and a “variety of ingredients” for baking but not predetermining who will bake, what they will bake, or how they will bake it. 干预边界的方式可以有不同的形式和形状。例如，版主可以宣布一条简单的“规则”：“周一我们讨论食品创业；所有感兴趣的人都欢迎参与。”这条规则将允许足够的多样性，吸引厨师、食品科学家和林业工作者，以及其他行业中可能希望参与的人士（如工业设计师），同时过滤掉那些对该主题兴趣不足的人。在开放的物理边界下，潜在的创业者可以看到内部可用的资源以及参与其中可能实现的潜力。这类似于发出“烤箱”和“多种烘焙原料”可用的信号，但不预先确定谁会烘焙、烘焙什么或如何烘焙。

Social boundaries can also be manipulated to signal that diversity is welcome or to showcase the social assimilation of newcomers, thereby inducing other newcomers to join. Similarly, mental boundaries can be manipulated to import people by availing and making accessible ideas (visions or beliefs) that others might share, such as green technology or data protection and online privacy. If a topic is too esoteric for someone outside the space (or substructure) to participate in the discussion, the boundaries appear impenetrable, thus dissuading them from seeking to move into the space. Esoteric topics can be translated into more accessible terms to enable the majority within the support system to understand them. From these arguments, we derive the following proposition: 社会边界也可以被操纵，以表明多样性是受到欢迎的，或展示新成员的社会融入，从而吸引其他新成员加入。同样，心理边界也可以通过利用并使他人可能认同的理念（如绿色技术或数据保护及在线隐私）变得易于获取来吸引人们。如果某个话题对空间（或子结构）外的人来说过于晦涩难懂，无法参与讨论，那么这些边界就显得难以逾越，从而阻止他们试图进入该空间。晦涩的话题可以被转化为更易理解的术语，以使支持系统内的大多数人能够理解。从这些论点中，我们得出以下命题：

Proposition 1a. Modifying the support system’s openness by manipulating its boundaries facilitates the self-selection of heterogeneous prospective entrepreneurs. 命题1a. 通过操纵边界来改变支持系统的开放性，有助于异质性潜在创业者的自我选择。

As prospective entrepreneurs self-select into the support system and form substructures (e.g., “ABE” in Figure 1), boundaries emerge and reproduce through lower-level interactions (Giddens, 1979; Hernes, 2004a). At the substructure level, openness refers to the boundaries being permeable for interactions between substructures within the support system (see Figure 4). Within a given space, actors create their own space, as illustrated by the substructure created by A, B, and E at t4 in Figure 1. These emerging substructures exhibit similar characteristics to their overarching support system with similar complexity and adaptability but at a lower level (Zimmerman & Hurst, 1993). Within the support system, moderators could facilitate a general atmosphere of openness with permeability across levels for selfselected actors. To achieve this, the moderators could intervene to place the substructures in a state of flux before they stabilize temporarily or permanently. Interaction across boundaries can be created by design and is manifest in the physical space (e.g., open workspace), mental space (e.g., promoting generosity of sharing ideas and beliefs), and social space (e.g., culture and informal interactions), which are often tied together. For instance, open space symbolizes munificence (Taylor & Spicer, 2007) and might lead to more interactions, whereas a closed space symbolizes privacy and control (Hatch, 作为潜在的创业者，他们会自行选择加入支持系统并形成子结构（例如图1中的“ABE”），边界会通过底层互动而出现并复制（吉登斯，1979；赫恩斯，2004a）。在子结构层面，开放性指的是支持系统内子结构之间的互动边界具有渗透性（见图4）。在特定空间内，行动者会创造属于自己的空间，这一点在图1中t4时刻由A、B和E创建的子结构中得到了体现。这些新兴的子结构与其总体支持系统具有相似的复杂性和适应性特征，但层级更低（齐默尔曼与赫斯特，1993）。在支持系统内部，主持人可以营造一种总体的开放氛围，使各层级之间具有渗透性，以惠及自行选择加入的行动者。为实现这一点，主持人可以进行干预，在子结构暂时或永久稳定之前使其处于动态变化状态。边界间的互动可以通过设计来创造，并体现在物理空间（例如开放工作区）、心理空间（例如鼓励慷慨分享想法和信念）以及社会空间（例如文化和非正式互动）中，而这些空间往往相互关联。例如，开放空间象征着丰裕（泰勒与斯派塞，2007），可能会促进更多互动，而封闭空间则象征着隐私和控制（哈奇，

FIGURE 4 The Boundaries and Actors of the Support System 图4 支持系统的边界与参与者

1990. and is less likely to facilitate spontaneous interactions. 1990年），并且不太可能促进自发的互动。

Openness makes the substructures dynamic—initially fuzzy, shifting, continually recombining, and changing shape until a semblance of stability is reached through learning and adaptation. At the beginning of their formation, the substructures are evolving and in a constant state of flux as heterogeneous prospective entrepreneurs with varying emotions, beliefs, interests, and preferences interact. Based on these heterogeneous factors, they may decide to stay or leave a substructure and explore options in other emerging substructures as they engage in interactions. At this stage, it is less costly to leave than to stay in a nascent substructure because a prospective entrepreneur would not have invested much time and energy, and staying in a substructure with less potential for contributing and gaining is futile. Also, at this stage, the openness of substructures is important because it allows actor interactions and movement across boundaries. Without openness and cross-boundary interactions, the only option would be to stay in a subpar environment or leave the support system entirely. The substructures’ fluidity enables prospective entrepreneurs to learn and select a substructure where their contribution would be more valuable. 开放性使子结构具有动态性——最初是模糊的、不断变化的，并且持续重组、改变形态，直到通过学习和适应达到一种稳定的表象。在子结构形成之初，它们处于不断演变和持续变化的状态，因为具有不同情感、信念、兴趣和偏好的异质潜在创业者之间会发生互动。基于这些异质因素，他们可能会决定留在某个子结构中或离开，并在参与互动的同时探索其他新兴子结构中的选择。在这个阶段，离开比留在一个新兴子结构中成本更低，因为潜在创业者不会投入太多时间和精力，而留在一个贡献和收益潜力较小的子结构中是徒劳的。此外，在这个阶段，子结构的开放性很重要，因为它允许行动者之间的互动以及跨边界的流动。如果没有开放性和跨边界互动，唯一的选择要么是留在一个质量低下的环境中，要么是完全离开支持系统。子结构的流动性使潜在创业者能够学习并选择一个他们的贡献会更有价值的子结构。

The spatial configuration of the support system can be designed to encourage members to move and spontaneously interact while maintaining a sense of order. As prospective entrepreneurs in the complex, adaptive support system change to their advantage, they coevolve to the edge of chaos. Thus, with openness, naturally occurring self-organization results from nonlinear interactions which themselves occur as substructures and import energy in from other substructures and the surrounding space3 (as shown in Figure 4). This leads to the following proposition: 支持系统的空间配置可以设计成鼓励成员移动并自发互动，同时保持秩序感。随着复杂、适应性支持系统中的潜在创业者调整以利用自身优势，他们共同进化至混沌边缘。因此，在开放性条件下，非线性相互作用会自然产生自组织现象，而这些相互作用本身又作为子结构存在，并从其他子结构和周围空间引入能量⁠³（如图4所示）。这引出以下命题：

Proposition 1b. Modifying the substructures’ openness by manipulating their boundaries facilitates the self-selection of heterogeneous prospective entrepreneurs. 命题1b。通过操纵子结构的边界来改变其开放性，有助于异质性潜在创业者的自我选择。

Visibility and Connectivity

可见性与连通性

Openness creates the potential for bringing together actors with varying intentions and means of contributing. However, for this potential to be realized, they should interact with each other, which the intervention should aim to bring about. Providing exact and filtered matches would be a unidimensional and deterministic approach, overlooking that opportunities emerge during serendipitous moments and deliberate searches (Murphy, 2011; Shane, 2008: 6970). Enough information about active searching could exist only in the form of systematic exploration (see Dew, 2009) because actors with such intentions could have predefined notions about what they are seeking. Nevertheless, moderators might not have the required knowledge to evaluate search needs, leaving limited available options to bring them together. In the complex and uncertain situation that characterizes earlyphase support systems, moderators could facilitate nonlinear interactions by helping actors to reveal their entrepreneurial intentions. The visibility created through the revelation of entrepreneurial intentions would induce interested prospective entrepreneurs to converge and interact. 开放性创造了汇聚具有不同意图和贡献方式的参与者的可能性。然而，要实现这种潜力，他们需要彼此互动，而干预措施应旨在促成这种互动。提供精确且经过筛选的匹配将是一种单向且确定性的方法，忽视了机会会在偶然时刻和刻意搜索中出现（Murphy, 2011; Shane, 2008: 6970）。关于主动搜索的足够信息只能以系统性探索的形式存在（见Dew, 2009），因为有此类意图的参与者可能对自己的搜索目标有预设的概念。尽管如此，主持人可能不具备评估搜索需求的必要知识，这使得将他们聚集在一起的可用选择有限。在早期阶段支持系统所特有的复杂且不确定的环境中，主持人可以通过帮助参与者揭示其创业意图来促进非线性互动。通过揭示创业意图而产生的可见性将促使感兴趣的潜在创业者汇聚并互动。

The open and free sharing of ideas will not be practical if the necessary conditions, such as a trustful environment that helps reduce the perception of opportunism, do not exist (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003). In general, people are willing to place their trust in an institutional environment, even without prior experience of dealing with the participants (McKnight & Chervany, 1998; Welter, 2012). Given its bidirectional nature (Korsgaard et al., 如果缺乏必要条件（例如能够帮助减少机会主义感知的信任环境），思想的开放和自由共享将不切实际（Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003）。一般而言，人们愿意信任一种制度环境，即使他们没有与参与者打交道的先前经验（McKnight & Chervany, 1998; Welter, 2012）。考虑到其双向性（Korsgaard et al.,

2015), trust “is neither chosen nor embedded, but is instead learned and reinforced as a product of ongoing interaction and discussion” (Powell, 1996: 63). However, in uncertain environments with few antecedents, this adaptive generation of trust takes place only in an atmosphere of early and swift collective trustworthiness (Kramer, 1999). 2015年），信任“既非选择也非嵌入，而是作为持续互动和讨论的产物被学习和强化”（Powell，1996：63）。然而，在缺乏先例的不确定环境中，这种信任的适应性生成仅发生在早期且迅速建立集体可信度的氛围中（Kramer，1999）。

An atmosphere of trust is necessary because moderators need to intervene in ways that accentuate the quality of interaction rather than merely increase interaction frequency. To facilitate an atmosphere of early trust within the support system, the moderators could use multiple mechanisms. Trust as behavior could flow across levels; organization-level trust could be internalized and cascade down to create trust between individuals (Kramer, 1999; Miller & Smith, 1993). Thereby, openness at the supportsystem level could induce trust, as the system’s trust in prospective entrepreneurs could lead them to trust other actors. Initial trust can also be generated by having, for instance, a common name tag that identifies each individual entering the support system as an “entrepreneur.” Being an entrepreneur, as a shared social identity, could increase trust among the individuals by fostering a collective identity (Korsgaard et al., 2015). Previous participants—preferably successful ones——could also be asked to convey to newcomers how they benefited from a trustful environment that enabled the open sharing of ideas. Thus, establishing swift early trust could help moderators facilitate each prospective entrepreneur to reveal their ideas and intentions. 信任氛围是必要的，因为版主需要以强调互动质量而非仅仅增加互动频率的方式进行干预。为了在支持系统内促进早期信任氛围，版主可以使用多种机制。信任作为一种行为可以在不同层级间流动；组织层面的信任可以被内化并向下传递，从而在个体之间建立信任（Kramer, 1999；Miller & Smith, 1993）。因此，支持系统层面的开放性可以引发信任，因为系统对潜在创业者的信任可能会促使他们信任其他参与者。初始信任也可以通过例如使用共同的身份标签来建立，该标签将每个进入支持系统的人标识为“创业者”。作为创业者，这种共同的社会身份可以通过培养集体认同感来增进个体之间的信任（Korsgaard et al., 2015）。还可以邀请先前的参与者——最好是成功的参与者——向新成员传达他们如何从一个信任的环境中受益，这种环境使得想法能够开放分享。因此，建立快速的早期信任可以帮助版主促进每个潜在创业者揭示他们的想法和意图。

Keeping the level of visibility in mind, the moderators could take advantage of the early collective trust by using simple rules like “post your interests, skills, strengths, and competencies on the common board” or by asking prospective entrepreneurs to introduce themselves, their intention, and skills on the podium, thus ensuring visibility across the support system. The visibility so created could spur interactions. For instance, although a chef with minimal social ties entering the support system could be initially overwhelmed by its diversity, the heightened visibility of a food scientist seeking to commercialize new food preservation technologies could elicit the chef’s engagement. In the atmosphere of trust established, prospective entrepreneurs share, thereby collectively and synergistically creating a generative space that fosters otherwise unavailable options. 考虑到可见度水平，版主可以利用早期的集体信任，采用简单的规则，比如“在公共板块发布你的兴趣、技能、优势和能力”，或者要求潜在创业者在讲台上介绍自己、说明意图和技能，从而确保在整个支持系统中都能被看到。如此创造的可见度可能会激发互动。例如，尽管一个社交关系极少的厨师进入支持系统时可能最初会因系统的多样性而不知所措，但一位寻求将新食品保鲜技术商业化的食品科学家的高度可见性可能会引发这位厨师的参与。在建立的信任氛围中，潜在创业者会进行分享，从而集体且协同地创造一个生成性空间，孕育出原本无法获得的机会。

Proposition 2a. Self-selected prospective entrepreneurs are more likely to reveal their entrepreneurial intentions as moderators foster an atmosphere of early trust, spurring interactions at the support system level. 命题2a。自我选择的潜在创业者更有可能表露其创业意向，因为主持人营造了早期信任的氛围，从而在支持系统层面促进了互动。

Visibility of intentions could occur first at the level of the support system and then at the level of its substructures. Consideration of both levels is important because of the risks involved in sharing and revealing one’s intentions. Sharing early-phase ideas and intentions need not necessarily be risky for prospective entrepreneurs; on the contrary, it could lead to individual intentions becoming commonly shared goals as ideas develop. Paradoxically, sharing an idea can also protect it by establishing attribution. However, there is a cost associated with sharing vital information at the support-system level; potential entrepreneurs should probably avoid this until they have established some sense of trust within the substructure.4 意图的可见性可能首先出现在支持系统层面，然后出现在其亚结构层面。对这两个层面的考量都很重要，因为分享和揭示个人意图存在风险。对于潜在创业者而言，分享早期阶段的想法和意图不一定有风险；相反，随着想法的发展，这可能会使个人意图转变为共同的目标。矛盾的是，分享一个想法也可以通过建立归属来保护它。然而，在支持系统层面分享重要信息是有代价的；潜在创业者可能应该在亚结构内部建立一定的信任感之前避免这样做。4

The early collective trust that is created within the support system would set the stage for interactions within the substructures. For the support system to function, the transfer of trust across all levels is paramount. There is, however, a risk that trust might not naturally cascade: this is where the role of the moderator comes in handy to save the system from falling apart. In this regard, Korsgaard et al. (2015) described trust as a state that is influenced by context and interactions. Social space, as a network of relations, is where norms of behavior regulate much of what occurs (Hernes, 2004a: 71). Trust among actors within substructures, given its bidirectional nature (Korsgaard et al., 2015), will be either enhanced or reduced as an outcome of interactions (Mayer et al., 1995; Powell, 1996: 63). As early trust is established, people will share ideas, although they may refrain from sharing their best ideas. However, with time, and as interactions continue and further trust is established in terms of the others’ perceived knowledge, ability (competence trust), and integrity (goodwill trust) (Das & Teng, 2004), people would consider sharing better ideas as interactions strengthen. Dynamics emerge where interactions strengthen early trust, which in turn furthers interactions. However, this does not mean that all interactions within the substructures should converge. If the necessary trust is not generated—because of skepticism, perception of incompetence, or lack of enthusiasm, for example—actors could exit the substructures or the support system altogether. In the process, the substructures could dissolve and feed into others, enabling further interactions within the support system. 支持系统中建立的早期集体信任将为子结构内的互动奠定基础。为使支持系统正常运作，跨所有层级的信任传递至关重要。然而，存在信任可能无法自然传递的风险：这正是主持人的作用所在，能避免系统崩溃。在这方面，Korsgaard等人（2015）将信任描述为受情境和互动影响的状态。社会空间作为关系网络，其行为规范调节着大部分发生的事情（Hernes，2004a：71）。子结构内行动者之间的信任，由于其双向性（Korsgaard等人，2015），会作为互动的结果而增强或减弱（Mayer等人，1995；Powell，1996：63）。随着早期信任的确立，人们会分享想法，尽管可能会保留最佳想法。然而，随着时间的推移，以及互动的持续和对他人感知知识、能力（能力信任）和正直（善意信任）的进一步信任的确立（Das & Teng，2004），随着互动的加强，人们会考虑分享更好的想法。互动会形成加强早期信任的动态，进而促进更多互动。但这并不意味着子结构内的所有互动都应趋同。如果必要的信任未产生——例如由于怀疑、能力不足的感知或缺乏热情——行动者可能会退出子结构或整个支持系统。在此过程中，子结构可能会瓦解并融入其他结构，从而在支持系统内促进进一步互动。

In principle, asymmetries of trust in relationships exist and need both time (Korsgaard et al., 2015) and interventions to converge. At the substructure level, relationship-based trust among actors could be further strengthened through belonging mechanisms (Hazy & Uhl-Bien, 2015), including activities that generate a specific collective identity (Sheppard & Tuchinsky, 1996) and reciprocity (Hernes, 2004a: 119; Kreiner & Schultz, 1993). Interventions in such cases might include physically isolating substructures, thus increasing their potential for interaction within, encouraging them to identify synergies and to establish a collective mission, facilitating feedback sessions, and encouraging substructures to celebrate milestones. Thus, collective identity and reciprocity could be central to long-term trust, which could potentially reduce the risk of opportunism. Within the substructures, as members spend more time together, the sense of shared identity is reflected, for instance, through a team name and logo which would lead to the emergence of a semblance of stability. A sense of belonging and collective mission takes root for the prospective entrepreneurs within, driving them to share their best ideas and enabling further interactions around them. 原则上，关系中的信任不对称现象普遍存在，需要时间（Korsgaard等人，2015）和干预措施来实现收敛。在亚结构层面，行为体之间基于关系的信任可通过归属感机制（Hazy & Uhl-Bien，2015）进一步强化，包括能够形成特定集体认同的活动（Sheppard & Tuchinsky，1996）和互惠行为（Hernes，2004a：119；Kreiner & Schultz，1993）。在此类情况下，干预措施可能包括对亚结构进行物理隔离，从而增加其内部互动的可能性，鼓励它们识别协同效应并确立集体使命，促进反馈会议，并鼓励亚结构庆祝里程碑。因此，集体认同和互惠可能是长期信任的核心，这可能潜在地降低机会主义风险。在亚结构内部，随着成员相处时间增加，共同身份的认同感会得到体现，例如通过团队名称和标志，这将带来一种稳定的表象。归属感和集体使命在未来的创业者心中扎根，促使他们分享最佳想法，并促进围绕这些想法的进一步互动。

Proposition 2b. Self-selected prospective entrepreneurs are more likely to reveal their entrepreneurial intentions as moderators help strengthen early trust, spurring further interactions at the substructure level. 命题2b。自我选择的潜在创业者更有可能透露其创业意向，因为主持人有助于加强早期信任，从而在子结构层面促进进一步互动。

Drawing from connectionism (see Waldrop, 1992: 291), we argue that surprising and sophisticated outcomes occur from the way that prospective entrepreneurs interact within the support system. In our context, we define connectivity within the support system as the quality of interactions between prospective entrepreneurs. We use the quality of interaction to separate connectivity from the amount of interaction: more interaction does not necessarily mean that the interactions are of high quality that could lead to meaningful outcomes. Within the support system, prospective entrepreneurs interact spontaneously and purposively, although the details of that purpose or where that interaction might lead to (e.g., " ABE" in Figure 1) are not defined or cannot be articulated in detail. Thus, the intervention could aim to increase connectivity, although the specific outcome of actors as a collective is not predefined but emergent. Connectivity, therefore, entails transforming, rather than adding, to produce something new and different (Born, Frankel, & Thygesen, 2006: 134). The question that arises is how that “transforming” occurs. We argue that the moderators could intervene in two related ways: lowering associative barriers and moderating power asymmetry. 借鉴联结主义（见Waldrop, 1992: 291）的观点，我们认为，令人惊讶且复杂的成果源于潜在创业者在支持系统内的互动方式。在我们的研究语境中，我们将支持系统内的联结性定义为潜在创业者之间互动的质量。我们通过互动质量来区分联结性与互动数量：更多的互动并不一定意味着这些互动具有高质量，从而能带来有意义的成果。在支持系统内，潜在创业者会自发且有目的地进行互动，尽管这种目的的具体细节或互动可能带来的结果（例如图1中的“ABE”）并未被明确界定，也无法详细阐述。因此，干预措施可以旨在提高联结性，尽管作为一个整体的行动者的具体成果并非预先设定，而是自然形成的。因此，联结性需要的是转化而非简单叠加，以产生新的、不同的事物（Born, Frankel, & Thygesen, 2006: 134）。随之而来的问题是，这种“转化”是如何发生的。我们认为，调节者可以通过两种相关方式进行干预：降低联想障碍和调节权力不对称。

First, lowering associative barriers occurs when the interacting actors break boundaries (Benedek, Könen, & Neubauer, 2012). Thus, association across ideas, problems, disciplines, events, and trends is central to connectivity and, ultimately, to the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities. As people connect concepts that initially appear unconnected, it produces outcomes that were hitherto unpredictable and are likely to be innovative (Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2008; Sternberg & Davidson, 1995). Sailer (2011: 8) argued that “the potential to meet and interact with people holding differing sets of knowledge or beliefs has been argued to be an essentially spatial problem.” Therefore, intervention could aim to reduce associative barriers between actors (Johansson, 2004) by designing a space with a suitable spatial configuration in terms of openness, proximity, and density. 首先，当互动的参与者打破界限时，会降低联想障碍（Benedek, Könen, & Neubauer, 2012）。因此，跨理念、问题、学科、事件和趋势的关联是连通性的核心，最终也是创业机会出现的关键。当人们将最初看似不相关的概念联系起来时，会产生此前难以预测且可能具有创新性的结果（Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2008；Sternberg & Davidson, 1995）。Sailer（2011: 8）认为，“与拥有不同知识或信仰体系的人相遇和互动的潜力本质上是一个空间问题。”因此，干预措施可以通过设计一个在开放性、邻近性和密度方面具有适当空间配置的场所，来减少参与者之间的联想障碍（Johansson, 2004）。

Studies have shown that high visibility triggers more cross-functional interactions (Coradi, Heinzen, & Boutellier, 2015). As such, open space could increase the visibility of prospective entrepreneurs and their intentions, creating the potential for spontaneous interactions across boundaries. This could generate interactions across substructure boundaries and is highly likely to enhance their creative potential. Hence, with the potential for equal opportunity for the contribution of heterogeneous actors, lowering associative barriers brings a higher likelihood of emergent entrepreneurial opportunities through the fusion of divergent thinking. Relatedly, by creating a space where failure and the related learning from it is celebrated, a moderator can create a psychologically safe (Edmondson, 1999) environment with “freedom to err” (Gaim, 2018: 512), arguably lowering associative barriers and facilitating trial and error, reciprocity, generation of multiple models, and subsequent iterations, such that actors start looking for points of intersection without having to define an anticipated outcome. Associating seemingly unrelated questions, problems, or ideas from different fields becomes central to the emergence of venture concepts. 研究表明，高可见度会引发更多跨职能互动（Coradi、Heinzen 和 Boutellier，2015）。因此，开放空间可以提高潜在创业者及其意图的可见度，为跨边界的自发互动创造可能性。这可能会在子结构边界之间产生互动，并极有可能提升他们的创造力。因此，由于不同背景参与者有平等的贡献机会，降低关联障碍会通过不同思维的融合带来更高的新兴创业机会。与此相关的是，通过营造一个庆祝失败并从中学习的空间，主持人可以创造一个心理安全的环境（Edmondson，1999），并拥有“犯错的自由”（Gaim，2018：512），这无疑降低了关联障碍，促进试错、互惠、多种模型的生成以及后续迭代，使参与者开始寻找交叉点，而无需预先定义预期结果。将看似无关的问题、难题或不同领域的想法联系起来，对于创业概念的形成至关重要。

Second, because power asymmetry is bound to arise amid heterogeneity, moderation places actors in the same ground. Moderating power does not mean avoiding conflict, because constructive conflict is essential for creativity and generating new ideas. However, it is undesirable for individual actors to try to gain influence at other actors’ expense, thus leading to group disruptions (Amason, 1996) and destructive conflict, especially with power asymmetries between interacting actors (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). Through spatial configuration and moderators’ intervention, a prospective entrepreneur who feels overwhelmed in the others’ presence could be induced by exposure to different social stimuli to engage in spontaneous interaction and the rapid transfer of ideas. When those who would have abstained are stimulated to interact, the intervention is said to increase both the quantity and quality of ideas within the collective. 其次，由于异质性必然会导致权力不对称，调解使行动者处于相同立场。调解权力并不意味着避免冲突，因为建设性冲突对于创造力和产生新想法至关重要。然而，个别行动者试图损害其他行动者的利益来获取影响力是不可取的，这会导致群体混乱（Amason，1996）和破坏性冲突，尤其是在互动行动者之间存在权力不对称的情况下（Eisenhardt & Bourgeois，1988）。通过空间配置和调解者的干预，一个在他人面前感到不知所措的潜在企业家，可能会因接触到不同的社会刺激而被诱导参与自发互动和思想的快速传递。当那些本会弃权的人受到刺激而参与互动时，这种干预被认为能提高集体内部想法的数量和质量。

Consider a hypothetical encounter within the support system that occurs between a multinational company’s representative seeking new technologies that could disrupt their industry and a first-time technology entrepreneur. Their power dynamic might be asymmetrical, rendering the entrepreneur powerless and hence hindering interaction. In practice, intervening to moderate such power asymmetry could involve practices akin to “management by wandering around” in the sense that the mere presence of the moderators, whose main task is to facilitate interaction, could change the power dynamics of those engaged in interaction. By just being “there,” the moderators could engage in ongoing interactions, albeit as neutral observers, to ensure that power relations do not hamper actors’ organic interaction. Thus, we argue that the moderators could use their presence (in the sense of facilitating instead of monitoring) to change the power dynamics where there is power asymmetry and create a safe space for all involved. Moderation, therefore, aims at creating an atmosphere where connectivity around already visible entrepreneurial intentions of equally valued actors could lead to emergent new opportunities. 考虑支持系统中可能发生的一种假设性互动：一方是寻求可能颠覆其行业的新技术的跨国公司代表，另一方是首次创业的技术企业家。他们之间的权力动态可能是不对称的，这会使企业家处于弱势地位，从而阻碍互动。在实践中，干预以缓和这种权力不对称可能涉及类似“走动式管理”的做法——即调解者的单纯在场（其主要任务是促进互动）就可能改变参与互动者的权力动态。通过“在场”，调解者可以以中立观察者的身份参与持续互动，确保权力关系不会阻碍参与者的自然互动。因此，我们认为，调解者可以利用其在场（即促进而非监控）来改变存在权力不对称的权力动态，并为所有相关方创造一个安全的空间。因此，调解的目标是营造一种氛围，使具有同等价值的参与者围绕已显现的创业意图建立联系，从而催生新的机会。

Taken together, by moderating associative barriers and power asymmetry within an emerging heterogeneous substructure, the support system could enable prospective entrepreneurs to take the road less traveled. This entails forging a new path outside their specialized areas of expertise and focusing on areas that intersect specialized fields. Hence: 综合来看，通过调节新兴异质子结构内的联想壁垒和权力不对称，支持系统能够使潜在创业者走上少有人走的道路。这需要在其专业领域之外开辟新路径，并专注于跨专业领域的交叉地带。因此：

Proposition 3. Higher visibility of the prospective entrepreneurs’ intentions could lead to increased connectivity as moderators (a) reduce associative barriers and (b) manage power asymmetry. 命题3。潜在创业者意图的更高可见性可能会通过以下方式增加连通性：（a）减少关联障碍；（b）管理权力不对称。

Connectivity represents the quality of interactions; therefore, the higher the connectivity, the better, because without connectivity, “nothing can proceed from something else” (Hernes, 2007: 78). However, this does not mean that all (or more) interactions are fruitful and of high quality. Not all interactions necessarily establish connectivity. The key message is that the nature and quality of such interactions lead to emergent outcomes. As the connectivity increases within the support system, the substructures begin to take shape, the boundaries of which shield actors from conventional ways of thinking and doing. This emergent space “allows them to act and interact in ways in which they would not be able to interact outside that isolated space” (Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019: 14), which then goes on to affect how the interactions occur further. As the connectivity increases, the emerging team “evaluates” the opportunity in time and space, and therefore their boundaries relatively solidify and permeability decreases. In this case, an open space’s advantage of divergence hampers the process as teams reach a stage where there is a need for convergence, which demands a relatively closed space. 连通性代表了互动的质量；因此，连通性越高越好，因为没有连通性，“没有什么能从其他事物中产生”（Hernes，2007：78）。然而，这并不意味着所有（或更多）互动都是富有成效且高质量的。并非所有互动都必然建立连通性。关键信息是，此类互动的性质和质量会导致涌现性结果。随着支持系统内连通性的增加，子结构开始形成，其边界使参与者免受常规思维和行为方式的影响。这种涌现空间“使他们能够以在孤立空间之外无法进行的方式行动和互动”（Weinfurtner & Seidl，2019：14），进而影响后续互动的发生方式。随着连通性的增加，新兴团队会及时和在空间中评估机会，因此他们的边界相对固化，渗透性降低。在这种情况下，开放空间的发散优势会阻碍这一过程，因为团队会进入一个需要收敛的阶段，而收敛需要相对封闭的空间。

At the same time, the overall openness at the support system-level has to be maintained for the potential for interactions to remain (e.g., the industrial designer could come in later as such a potential exists; see Figure 1). The openness that characterizes the support system allows substructures to disband or for particular actors to leave, thereby maintaining interactions across substructures. The emergence of the substructures could be facilitated by allowing for temporary islands of closed spaces within the overall open space that the support system promotes, where the emerging venture concepts could incubate. Therefore, the support system could have different kinds of spaces within: (a) open spaces where people can freely move around, where the proximity of the various clumps of interactions are within reach and visible; and (b) closed working spaces where some interactions purposely move to secluded areas and away from the chaos as they reach some level of stability. 同时，必须保持支持系统层面的整体开放性，以维持互动的可能性（例如，由于存在这种可能性，工业设计师可能会在后期参与进来；见图1）。支持系统所具有的开放性允许子结构解散或特定参与者离开，从而维持子结构之间的互动。通过在支持系统所营造的整体开放空间中允许存在临时的封闭空间岛，子结构的出现可能会得到促进，新兴的创业概念可以在其中孵化。因此，支持系统内部可以包含不同类型的空间：(a) 开放空间，人们可以在其中自由活动，各种互动集群的近距离接触是可及且可见的；以及(b) 封闭工作空间，当某些互动达到一定稳定水平时，会有意转移到隐蔽区域，远离混乱。

As the substructures become less open, the prospective entrepreneurs could make use of systematic exploration wherein they seek new possibilities for emerging opportunities. However, it should also be open enough for others to recognize or discover the potential for engaging with the emerging opportunity. The visibility of the emerging opportunity could be selectively revealed for other actors within the support system. To do so, moderators could modify the spatial dimensions of the substructure by making them designated hotspots, thereby manipulating their boundaries. For instance, if the emerging opportunity is related to food technologies and is designated as such, it would attract the industrial designer or a multinational company’s representative who takes an interest in designing food products and not random interactions from other actors. In interactions with the moderators, the emerging team could evaluate its progress and allow for targeted interactions with other actors (such as the industrial designer) whereby opportunities could evolve. Given the iterative nature of the process, once a substructure becomes relatively stabilized by establishing higher connectivity, the openness of the boundaries declines. The increased connectivity reduces the degree of openness as the focus is on targeted interactions based on the best fit. As substructures emerge, dissipate, and cross feed, multiple stable substructures emerge within the support system that concurrently give rise to multiple venture concepts. 随着子结构的开放性降低，潜在企业家可以利用系统性探索，在其中为新兴机会寻求新的可能性。然而，子结构也应保持足够的开放性，以便其他人能够识别或发现参与新兴机会的潜力。新兴机会的可见性可以被有选择地向支持系统内的其他参与者揭示。为此，主持人可以通过将子结构指定为热点来调整其空间维度，从而操纵其边界。例如，如果新兴机会与食品技术相关并被如此指定，它将吸引对设计食品产品感兴趣的工业设计师或跨国公司代表，而非来自其他参与者的随机互动。在与主持人的互动中，新兴团队可以评估其进展，并允许与其他参与者（如工业设计师）进行有针对性的互动，从而使机会得以发展。考虑到该过程的迭代性质，一旦子结构通过建立更高的连通性而相对稳定下来，边界的开放性就会下降。连通性的增强降低了开放性程度，因为重点转向基于最佳匹配的有针对性互动。随着子结构的出现、消散和交叉影响，支持系统内会出现多个稳定的子结构，同时产生多个创业概念。

Proposition 4. Increasing connectivity bounds the emerging entrepreneurial opportunities, decreasing the substructures’ degree of openness. 命题4. 增强的连通性限制了新兴的创业机会，降低了子结构的开放度。

Our central argument, therefore, is that the dynamic interplay between openness and connectivity increases the likelihood of venture concepts emerging. Such venture concepts that so emerge might be pursued later by all or some of the prospective entrepreneurs within a substructure. At the early phase, the venture concepts have observable manifestations, such as a concept note or a prototype, but these extend beyond the individually held ideas or interactions that have occurred. After transitioning from scattered ideas to venture concepts, the next step is to interact with the external environment and adapt, transform, or perish. The venture concept’s fitness or realizability (see Figure 2) will depend on its niche, what other opportunities exist, and what resources it can gather: this is the territory for late-phase support systems such as incubators and accelerators. 因此，我们的核心论点是，开放性与连通性之间的动态相互作用会增加创业概念出现的可能性。这样出现的创业概念之后可能会被子结构内的所有或部分潜在创业者所追求。在早期阶段，创业概念具有可观察到的表现形式，例如概念说明或原型，但这些表现形式超出了个人持有的想法或发生的互动。在从零散想法转变为创业概念之后，下一步是与外部环境互动并进行适应、转变或消亡。创业概念的适应性或可实现性（见图2）将取决于其所处的利基市场、存在的其他机会以及它能够获取的资源：这是后期支持系统（如孵化器和加速器）的作用领域。

DISCUSSION

讨论

Our paper inquired how support systems can be organized to enable the actions and interactions of prospective entrepreneurs toward the emergence of venture concepts as tokens, frames, and premises for further action. In answering our research question, we demonstrated how the interplay between the organizing characteristics of openness, self-selection, visibility, and connectivity creates the potential for venture concepts to emerge (see Figure 3). By exploring the organizing of support systems, we make significant contributions to theory and practice. 我们的论文探讨了如何组织支持系统，以促成潜在创业者的行动和互动，从而催生作为进一步行动的标志、框架和前提的创业概念。在回答我们的研究问题时，我们展示了开放性、自我选择、可见性和连通性这些组织特征之间的相互作用如何为创业概念的产生创造可能性（见图3）。通过探索支持系统的组织方式，我们为理论和实践做出了重大贡献。

Implications for Research

对研究的启示

We contribute to organizing support systems that are more attuned to the nature of new venture creation that they support. Entrepreneurship scholars have emphasized the pervasive uncertainty and nonlinearity in the early phases of new venture creation, where opportunities emerge in interactions (Alvarez & Barney, 2005; Alvarez et al., 2013; Dimov, 2011; Edelman & Yli-Renko, 2010; Sarasvathy, 2001; Selden & Fletcher, 2015). However, the support systems literature has failed to incorporate these crucial characteristics and has instead predominantly focused on organizing based on a linear and predictable future (Bruneel et al., 2012; Clarysse, Wright, Lockett, Van de Velde, & Vohora, 2005; Clayton et al., 2018; Mian, Lamine, & Fayolle, 2016; Rubin et al., 2015). 我们致力于构建更契合新企业创建本质的支持体系，以助力其发展。创业学学者强调，新企业创建早期阶段存在普遍的不确定性和非线性特征，在此阶段，机会在互动中涌现（Alvarez & Barney, 2005；Alvarez et al., 2013；Dimov, 2011；Edelman & Yli-Renko, 2010；Sarasvathy, 2001；Selden & Fletcher, 2015）。然而，支持体系相关文献未能纳入这些关键特征，反而主要聚焦于基于线性且可预测的未来进行组织（Bruneel et al., 2012；Clarysse, Wright, Lockett, Van de Velde, & Vohora, 2005；Clayton et al., 2018；Mian, Lamine, & Fayolle, 2016；Rubin et al., 2015）。

Therefore, we argue that the paradoxical nature of “organizing for the emergence of opportunities” has not been adequately integrated into the support systems literature. Consequently, the literature has not explained the early phase of opportunity emergence that is characterized by uncertainty (with viability yet to be determined) and complexity (given the range of actors with outcomes contingent on who engages in the process and their possible interactions). In this regard, we extend the literature that has so far concentrated on organizing support systems for transitioning opportunities from venture concepts to their realization (Autio & Levie, 2017; Clayton et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2019; Dutt, Hawn, Vidal, Chatterji, McGahan, & Mitchell, 2016) by including the phase in which venture concepts emerge from scattered ideas (see Figures 1 and 2). Our findings bridge the gap between the support systems literature and the entrepreneurial opportunities literature, with implications for organizing support systems more attuned to the distinct characteristics of the new venturing phase they aim to support. 因此，我们认为“为机会的出现而组织”这一悖论性本质尚未被充分纳入支持系统文献中。因此，该文献尚未解释机会出现的早期阶段，这一阶段的特征是不确定性（可行性尚未确定）和复杂性（考虑到参与者的范围，结果取决于谁参与该过程以及他们可能的互动）。在这方面，我们扩展了迄今为止专注于为从创业概念到实现的过渡机会组织支持系统的文献（Autio & Levie, 2017; Clayton et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2019; Dutt, Hawn, Vidal, Chatterji, McGahan, & Mitchell, 2016），纳入了创业概念从零散想法中涌现的阶段（见图1和图2）。我们的研究结果弥合了支持系统文献与创业机会文献之间的鸿沟，对组织更能适应其旨在支持的新创业阶段的独特特征的支持系统具有启示意义。

First, the support systems literature has predominantly focused on exogenous top-down selection mechanisms at various stages of the support process in determining “who” or “what” progresses in the new venture creation process (Aaboen, 2009; Aerts et al., 2007; Clayton et al., 2018). In contrast, we described the organizational processes by which nonlinear outcomes emerge as heterogeneous actors navigate the various levels of early-phase support systems’ spatial boundaries (Hernes, 2004b, 2004a; Taylor & Spicer, 2007; Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019). These nonlinear outcomes could substitute for (or at least complement) exogenous selection mechanisms, resembling endogenous evolutionary selection (Read et al., 2016). Given that entrepreneurial opportunities form endogenously (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Alvarez et al., 2013), wherein prospective entrepreneurs self-select into the new venture creation process (Lazar et al., 2020; Read et al., 2016), we, therefore, suggest a new direction for the support systems literature that explores the facilitation of this process. 首先，支持系统文献主要关注在新企业创建过程中各个阶段的外生自上而下选择机制，以确定“谁”或“什么”能够推进（Aaboen, 2009；Aerts et al., 2007；Clayton et al., 2018）。相比之下，我们描述了这样的组织过程：在该过程中，异质性行动者在早期支持系统空间边界的不同层级间进行导航，从而产生非线性结果（Hernes, 2004b, 2004a；Taylor & Spicer, 2007；Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019）。这些非线性结果可以替代（或至少补充）外生选择机制，类似于内生演化选择（Read et al., 2016）。由于创业机会是内生形成的（Alvarez & Barney, 2007；Alvarez et al., 2013），在这一过程中，潜在创业者会自我选择进入新企业创建过程（Lazar et al., 2020；Read et al., 2016），因此我们为支持系统文献提出了一个新方向，即探索对这一过程的促进作用。

Second, whereas most research has concerned teams and ideas based on homophily (Aldrich & Kim, 2007), aspects such as heterogeneity, trust creation, power moderation, and self-disclosure need to be considered in the shift toward the concurrent selfselection of actors and their self-organization in the early phase of venturing. Because support systems are the result of human choice and intervention, there are decisions that go into affecting how they are organized. Existing research on organizational emergence has either ignored interventions of actors in facilitating emergence (Child & Rodrigues, 2011; Poulis & Poulis, 2016) or considered those who intervene as standing apart from the complexity involved and thereby having a unidirectional influence over compliant others (Tourish, 2019). In contrast, by elaborating on the role of moderators as learning and adaptive actors, we showed how they intervene in the nonpredictive emergence of opportunities within support systems, thereby conceptualizing how interventions could play out within the realm of complex organizing (Byrne, 2013; Regine & Lewin, 200o). Those facilitating do not need to stand apart from the processes they try to facilitate, which is an insight from which the current support systems literature, with its predominantly linear view of organizing, could benefit. 其次，尽管大多数研究关注基于同质性（Aldrich & Kim, 2007）的团队和想法，但在创业早期阶段，随着参与者同时进行自我选择和自我组织，异质性、信任建立、权力调节和自我披露等方面也需要加以考虑。由于支持系统是人类选择和干预的结果，因此存在影响其组织方式的决策。现有的关于组织涌现的研究要么忽视了参与者在促进涌现过程中的干预（Child & Rodrigues, 2011; Poulis & Poulis, 2016），要么将干预者视为与所涉及的复杂性隔离开来，从而对顺从的他人产生单向影响（Tourish, 2019）。相比之下，通过详细阐述调节者作为学习和适应性参与者的角色，我们展示了他们如何在支持系统内干预机会的非预测性涌现，从而概念化干预措施在复杂组织领域中可能如何发挥作用（Byrne, 2013; Regine & Lewin, 200o）。那些促进者不需要置身于他们试图促进的过程之外，这一见解正是当前支持系统文献（其组织观主要为线性视角）可以受益的地方。

Further, our theorizing has broader implications for the literature on organizing early-phase development processes. It speaks to a wide range of organizational settings, such as strategy-making, creativity, corporate entrepreneurship, and innovation, where managerial gatekeepers engage in the selection of ideas in the evolutionary process between idea generation and its eventual outcome (Adner & Levinthal, 2008; Benner & Tushman, 2003; Berg, 2016; Burgelman, 1991; Shankar & Shepherd, 2019). Our research has highlighted increasing accessibility, heterogeneity, and nonlinear interactions as means to create the requisite variety (Ashby, 1956; Van de 此外，我们的理论化对关于组织早期阶段发展过程的文献具有更广泛的意义。它涉及广泛的组织环境，例如战略制定、创造力、企业创业和创新，在这些环境中，管理者作为守门人在想法生成与其最终结果之间的进化过程中参与想法的选择（Adner & Levinthal, 2008; Benner & Tushman, 2003; Berg, 2016; Burgelman, 1991; Shankar & Shepherd, 2019）。我们的研究强调了增加可获得性、异质性和非线性相互作用作为创造必要多样性的手段（Ashby, 1956; Van de

Ven, 1986) and facilitate endogenous evolutionary selection in uncertain and resource-constrained environments. We argue that such an understanding could inform early-phase development processes by embracing, rather than reducing, the complexity and uncertainty that characterize their organizing. Ven，1986）并促进在不确定和资源受限环境中的内生进化选择。我们认为，通过拥抱而非减少其组织特征的复杂性和不确定性，这种理解可以为早期开发过程提供信息。

Our contributions set the stage for empirical developments in exploring design features of organizing to elucidate the micro-foundations of support systems by focusing predominantly on the uncertain early phases. Specifically, future research could investigate how the design features in different support system contexts (e.g., startup cafés, innovation boot camps, corporate-startup initiatives, hackathons, and new venture creation courses) emerge, develop, and sustain themselves. Our contribution could also spur research on late-phase support systems to reexamine and tightly integrate opportunity emergence in their organizing. Future research could refine our model by manipulating its design features (in terms of boundaries, distance, and movement, for example) and the moderators’ simple rules and improving its applicability in broader settings, perhaps by using experimental studies. We also envisage future research that will empirically study moderators’ actions that facilitate desirable openness and connectivity as they learn from and adapt to the diverse actors and their interactions in different organizational settings. 我们的研究成果为探索组织设计特征以阐明支持系统微观基础的实证发展奠定了基础，重点关注不确定的早期阶段。具体而言，未来的研究可以调查不同支持系统情境（例如，创业咖啡馆、创新训练营、企业-创业合作项目、黑客马拉松和新企业创建课程）中的设计特征如何出现、发展并自我维持。我们的研究成果还可能推动对后期支持系统的研究，以重新审视并紧密整合机会在其组织中的出现。未来的研究可以通过操纵模型的设计特征（例如，边界、距离和流动性）以及调节因素的简单规则来完善我们的模型，并通过实验研究等方式提高其在更广泛场景中的适用性。我们还设想未来的研究将实证研究调节因素的行动，这些行动在不同组织环境中从各种参与者及其互动中学习并适应时，能够促进理想的开放性和连通性。

Implications for Practice

实践意义

The example of the StartUp HERE Toronto Café shows that informal chats and unplanned interactions in different settings can open doors, spark ideas, and establish critical new relationships that shape the emergence and development of entrepreneurs’ ventures. Our model proposes specific organizing principles for the design of such early-phase systems as feeders into later-stage incubation and acceleration processes. Expedient interventions can keep such systems relevant and attuned to the changing external environment by focusing on bridging scattered ideas and venture concepts (see Figures 1 and 2). In particular, moderators could respond to the demands for the openness and closedness of boundaries, both at the support-system and team levels. For instance, they could shift the support space from one that facilitates spontaneity and unplanned interactions that could lead to venture concepts and opportunities to one that facilitates deep work as teams converge around ideas and need to flesh out the venture concepts that need to be incubated. 多伦多创业中心（StartUp HERE Toronto）咖啡馆的案例表明，在不同场景中的非正式交流和意外互动能够打开机遇之门、激发创意，并建立关键的新关系，这些关系会影响创业者项目的出现和发展。我们的模型为这类早期系统的设计提出了具体的组织原则，使其能够作为后续孵化和加速流程的“供给源”。权宜性干预措施可以通过聚焦于整合分散的想法和创业概念（见图1和图2），让这类系统保持相关性并适应不断变化的外部环境。特别是，主持人需要回应支持系统和团队层面上对开放性和边界封闭性的需求。例如，他们可以将支持空间从一个促进自发性和意外互动（可能催生创业概念和机会）的环境，转变为一个促进深度工作的环境——当团队围绕想法凝聚并需要完善待孵化的创业概念时，深度工作便成为必要。

Our propositions can also inform policymakers who have taken a keen interest in support systems as a means of strengthening the entrepreneurial ecosystem within a region (Harper-Anderson & Lewis, 2018). They can complement their emphasis on the late-phase support systems such as incubators and accelerators with enabling early-phase interventions that ensure a stable, vibrant flow of entrepreneurial ideas and initiatives. Given the importance of earlyphase support systems in acting as necessary organizational forms within entrepreneurial ecosystems, our contribution should drive awareness among policymakers of the relevance of investing in them. 我们的建议还可以为那些对支持系统抱有浓厚兴趣、将其作为加强区域创业生态系统手段的政策制定者提供参考（Harper-Anderson & Lewis, 2018）。他们可以在强调孵化器和加速器等后期支持系统的同时，辅以支持早期阶段的干预措施，以确保创业理念和举措能够稳定、活跃地流动。鉴于早期支持系统在创业生态系统中作为必要组织形式的重要性，我们的贡献应提高政策制定者对投资于这些系统的相关性的认识。

CONCLUSION

结论

The origins and development of new ventures can be traced to many incidents—some designed, others coincidental. Our paper advocates creating the potential for more coincidental actions and interactions, paradoxically within an organized mode, to feed existing support systems. The entrepreneurial ecosystem contains different shapes and forms of support systems, the presence of which is integral to effectively organizing various actors with different intentions, resources, and capabilities. Meeting places such as the StartUp HERE Toronto Café focus on the early phase of new ventures, increasing the quality and quantity of venture concepts that reach the current support systems. As such, the support systems literature could benefit from the increased focus on the early phases in which scattered ideas become venture concepts. Whereas prior research assumed these are generated automatically and then explained how to develop them into realized opportunities, we elucidated the organizing features behind the emergence of such venture concepts as gateways into the further process. In conjunction with existing support systems research, our study treads a conceptually uninhabited terrain, contributing toward establishing a more holistic view of entrepreneurial ecosystems. 新企业的起源和发展可追溯至许多事件——有些是刻意为之，有些则是偶然发生。我们的论文主张，在有组织的模式中创造更多偶然行动和互动的可能性，以滋养现有的支持系统。创业生态系统包含不同形式和类型的支持系统，这些支持系统的存在对于有效组织具有不同意图、资源和能力的各类参与者至关重要。像“Startup HERE 多伦多咖啡馆”这样的聚会场所专注于新企业的早期阶段，提高了进入现有支持系统的创业概念的质量和数量。因此，支持系统相关文献可以从对早期阶段的更多关注中受益，在这些阶段中，零散的想法会转化为创业概念。以往的研究假设这些概念是自动生成的，然后解释如何将其发展为可实现的机会，而我们阐明了此类创业概念作为进一步发展过程入口的出现背后的组织特征。结合现有的支持系统研究，我们的研究探索了一个概念上尚未被充分研究的领域，有助于建立对创业生态系统更全面的认识。

REFERENCES

参考文献

Aaboen, L. 2009. Explaining incubators using firm analogy. Technovation, 29: 657670.
Aaboen, L. 2009. 用企业类比解释孵化器。《技术创新》，29：657-670。

Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. 2003. Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17: 6477.
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. 2003. Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17: 6477.

Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. 2014. National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43: 476494.
Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. 2014. 国家创业系统：测量问题与政策启示。《研究政策》，43：476-494。

Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. A. 2008. Doing versus seeing: Acts of exploitation and perceptions of exploration. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10: 4352.
Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. A. 2008. Doing versus seeing: Acts of exploitation and perceptions of exploration. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10: 4352.

Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. 2007. Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation, 27: 254267.
Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. 2007. 欧洲企业孵化器的关键作用与筛选实践。《技术创新》，27：254-267。

Aldrich, H. E., & Kim, P. 2007. Small worlds, infinite possibilities? How social networks affect entrepreneurial team formation and search. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 147165.
奥尔德里奇（Aldrich, H. E.）和金（Kim, P.），2007年。小世界，无限可能？社交网络如何影响创业团队的组建与搜索。《战略创业期刊》，1：147-165。

Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. 2005. How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31: 776793.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. 2005. 企业家如何在不确定条件下组织企业？《管理杂志》，31: 776-793.

Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. 2007. Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 1126.
阿尔瓦雷斯，S. A.，& 巴尼，J. B. 2007. 发现与创造：创业行动的替代理论。《战略创业杂志》，1：1126。

Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. 2013. Forming and exploiting opportunities: The implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization Science, 24: 301317.
阿尔瓦雷斯，S. A.，巴尼，J. B.，& 安德森，P. 2013. 形成与利用机会：发现与创造过程对创业和组织研究的影响。《组织科学》，24：301-317。

Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 123148.
Amason, A. C. 1996. 区分功能性冲突和非功能性冲突对战略决策的影响：解决高层管理团队的一个悖论。《管理学会期刊》，39：123148。

Amezcua, A. S., Grimes, M. G., Bradley, S. W., & Wiklund, J. 2013. Organizational sponsorship and founding environments: A contingency view on the survival of business-incubated firms, 1994-2007. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 16281654.
Amezcua, A. S., Grimes, M. G., Bradley, S. W., & Wiklund, J. 2013. 组织赞助与创业孵化环境：1994-2007年商业孵化企业生存的权变视角。《管理学会期刊》，56：16281654。

Anderson, P. 1999. Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10: 216232.
安德森，P. 1999. 视角：复杂性理论与组织科学。《组织科学》，10: 216-232.

Anderson, P., Meyer, A., Eisenhardt, K., Carley, K., & Pettigrew, A. 1999. Introduction to the special issue: Applications of complexity theory to organization science. Organization Science, 10: 232236.
安德森（P.）、迈耶（A.）、艾森哈特（K.）、卡利（K.）和佩蒂格鲁（A.）。1999年。特刊介绍：复杂性理论在组织科学中的应用。《组织科学》，10: 232-236。

Ashby, R. W. 1956. Requisite variety. An introduction to cybernetics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
阿什比，R. W. 1956. 必要多样性：控制论导论。恩格尔伍德克利夫斯，新泽西州：普伦蒂斯-霍尔出版社。

Augier, M., & Sarasvathy, S. D. 2004. Integrating evolution, cognition and design: Extending Simonian perspectives to strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 2: 169204.
奥吉埃，M.，& 萨拉维蒂，S. D. 2004. 整合进化、认知与设计：将西蒙的视角扩展到战略组织。《战略组织》，2：169204。

Autio, E., & Levie, J. 2017. Management of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In G. Ahmetoglu, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, B. Klinger, & T. Karcisky (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of entrepreneurship: 423449. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.
奥蒂奥（Autio, E.）和莱维（Levie, J.）. 2017. 创业生态系统的管理. 载于G. 艾哈迈托格鲁（G. Ahmetoglu）、T. 查莫罗-普雷穆济奇（T. Chamorro-Premuzic）、B. 克林格（B. Klinger）与T. 卡尔基斯基（T. Karcisky）编著的《创业学威利手册》：423449. 英国奇切斯特：约翰·威利父子出版公司.

Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wright, M. 2018. Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12: 7295.
奥蒂奥（Autio, E.）、南比桑（Nambisan, S.）、托马斯（Thomas, L. D. W.）和赖特（Wright, M.）。2018。数字赋能、空间赋能与创业生态系统的起源。《战略创业杂志》，12：7295。

Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. 1999. Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. Cambridge, U.K.: Basic Books.
阿克塞尔罗德（R.）和科恩（M. D.）. 1999. 驾驭复杂性：科学前沿的组织启示. 英国剑桥：Basic Books.

Benedek, M., Könen, T., & Neubauer, A. C. 2012. Associative abilities underlying creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6: 273281.
Benedek, M., Könen, T., & Neubauer, A. C. 2012. 创造力背后的联想能力。《美学、创造力与艺术心理学》，6: 273-281。

Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28: 238256.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. 开发、探索与流程管理：生产力困境再探。《管理学会评论》，28：238-256。

Berg, J. M. 2016. Balancing on the creative highwire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61: 433468.
伯格，J. M. 2016. 在创意钢丝上保持平衡：预测组织中新想法的成功。《行政科学季刊》，61：433468。

Bergek, A., & Norrman, C. 2008. Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation, 28: 2028.
Bergek, A.， & Norrman, C. 2008. 孵化器最佳实践：一个框架。《Technovation》，28：2028。

Berglund, H., Bousfiha, M., & Mansoori, Y. 2020. Opportunities as artifacts and entrepreneurship as design. Academy of Management Review. Published online ahead of print. doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0285.
Berglund, H., Bousfiha, M., & Mansoori, Y. 2020. 机会作为人工制品，创业作为设计。《管理学会评论》。在线优先出版。doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0285.

Born, A. W., Frankel, C., & Thygesen, N. T. 2006. The hours: A gaze, a kiss and the lapse between them. An eventalization. Ephemera, 6: 121140.
Born, A. W., Frankel, C., & Thygesen, N. T. 2006. The hours: A gaze, a kiss and the lapse between them. An eventalization. Ephemera, 6: 121140.

Bouchikhi, H. 1993. A constructivist framework for understanding entrepreneurship performance. Organization Studies, 14: 549570.
Bouchikhi, H. 1993. 理解创业绩效的建构主义框架。组织研究，14：549-570。

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and timepaced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 134.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and timepaced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 134.

Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. 2012. The evolution of business incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32: 110121.
布鲁内尔（Bruneel, J.）、拉蒂尼奥（Ratinho, T.）、克莱里塞（Clarysse, B.）和格伦（Groen, A.）。2012年。商业孵化器的演变：比较不同代际孵化器中商业孵化服务的供需。《技术创新》（Technovation），32卷：110121。

Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2: 239262.
伯格曼，R. A. 1991. 战略制定与组织适应的组织内生态：理论与实地研究。《组织科学》，2：239-262。

Burnes, B. 2005. Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7: 7390.
Burnes, B. 2005. 复杂性理论与组织变革。《国际管理评论》，7：7390。

Byrne, D. 2013. Evaluating complex social interventions in a complex world. Evaluation, 19: 217228.
Byrne, D. 2013. Evaluating complex social interventions in a complex world. Evaluation, 19: 217228.

Cardon, M. S., Zietsma, C., Saparito, P., Matherne, B. P., & Davis, C. 2005. A tale of passion: New insights into entrepreneurship from a parenthood metaphor. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 2345.
Cardon, M. S., Zietsma, C., Saparito, P., Matherne, B. P., & Davis, C. 2005. 激情的故事：从为人父母的隐喻中获得的创业新见解。《创业期刊》，20：2345。

Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15: 555568.
Carlile, P. R. 2004. 转移、翻译与转化：跨边界知识管理的整合框架。《组织科学》，15: 555568。

Carroll, T., & Burton, R. M. 2000. Organizations and complexity: Searching for the edge of chaos. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 6: 319337.
卡罗尔（Carroll, T.）和伯顿（Burton, R. M.）. 2000. 组织与复杂性：探寻混沌边缘. 《计算与数学组织理论》, 6: 319-337.

Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. B. 2011. How organizations engage with external complexity: A political action perspective. Organization Studies, 32: 803824.
Child, J. 和 Rodrigues, S. B. 2011. 组织如何应对外部复杂性：从政治行动视角。《组织研究》，32：803824。

Chiles, T. H., Meyer, A. D., & Hench, T. J. 2004. Organizational emergence: The origin and transformation of Branson, Missouri’s musical theaters. Organization Science, 15: 499519.
Chiles, T. H., Meyer, A. D., & Hench, T. J. 2004. Organizational emergence: The origin and transformation of Branson, Missouri’s musical theaters. Organization Science, 15: 499519.

Cilliers, P. 2002. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London, U.K.: Routledge.
西利尔斯，P. 2002. 复杂性与后现代主义：理解复杂系统。英国伦敦：劳特利奇出版社。

Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. 2005. Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 183216.
克莱里瑟（Clarysse, B.）、赖特（Wright, M.）、洛克特（Lockett, A.）、范德维尔德（Van de Velde, E.）和沃霍拉（Vohora, A.）。2005年。《孵化新企业：欧洲研究机构孵化策略的类型学》。《创业期刊》，20: 183216。

Clayton, P., Feldman, M., & Lowe, N. 2018. Behind the scenes: Intermediary organizations that facilitate science commercialization through entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32: 104124.
克莱顿（Clayton, P.）、费尔德曼（Feldman, M.）和洛（Lowe, N.）。2018年。幕后：通过创业促进科学商业化的中介组织。《管理学会展望》，32：104124。

Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. 2012. Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41: 968979.
科恩（Coenen, L.）、本诺沃思（Benneworth, P.）和特鲁弗（Truffer, B.）。2012。迈向可持续性转型的空间视角。《研究政策》，41：968979。

Cohen, S. L., Bingham, C. B., & Hallen, B. L. 2019. The role of accelerator designs in mitigating bounded rationality in new ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 810854.
科恩, S. L., 宾厄姆, C. B., & 哈伦, B. L. 2019. 加速器设计在缓解新企业有限理性中的作用. 《行政科学季刊》, 64: 810854.

Coradi, A., Heinzen, M., & Boutellier, R. 2015. A longitudinal study of workspace design for knowledge exploration and exploitation in the research and development process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24: 5571.
科拉迪（Coradi, A.）、海因岑（Heinzen, M.）和布特利尔（Boutellier, R.）。2015年。研发过程中知识探索与开发的工作空间设计纵向研究。《创造力与创新管理》（Creativity and Innovation Management），24卷：5571页。

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. 2004. The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19: 85116.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. 2004. The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19: 85116.

Dew, N. 2009. Serendipity in entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 30: 735753.
Dew, N. 2009. 创业中的意外发现。《组织研究》，30: 735-753。

Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Wiltbank, R. 2008. Outlines of a behavioral theory of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66: 3759.
Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Wiltbank, R. 2008. 创业企业行为理论纲要。《经济行为与组织杂志》，66：3759。

Dimov, D. 2007. From opportunity insight to opportunity intention: The importance of person-situation learning match. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31: 561583.
Dimov, D. 2007. 从机会洞察到机会意向：人与情境学习匹配的重要性。《创业理论与实践》，31：561-583。

Dimov, D. 2011. Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35: 5781.
Dimov, D. 2011. 应对创业机会难以捉摸的本质。《创业理论与实践》，35：5781。

Dimov, D. 2016. Toward a design science of entrepreneurship. In J. S. Katz & A. C. Corbett (Eds.), Models of start-up thinking and action: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical approaches, vol. 18: 131. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing.
Dimov, D. 2016. 迈向创业设计科学。载于 J. S. Katz 与 A. C. Corbett（编），《初创思维与行动模型：理论、实证与教学方法》，第 18 卷：131 页。英国宾利：Emerald Group Publishing。

Dimov, D. 2020. Opportunities, language, and time. Academy of Management Perspectives. Published online ahead of print. doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0135.
Dimov, D. 2020. 机遇、语言与时间。《管理学会展望》。在线优先出版。doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0135.

Dougherty, D., & Dunne, D. D. 2012. Digital science and knowledge boundaries in complex innovation. Organization Science, 23: 14671484.
道格蒂，D.，& 邓恩，D. D. 2012. 复杂创新中的数字科学与知识边界。《组织科学》，23：14671484。

Drazin, R., & Sandelands, L. 1992. Autogenesis: A perspective on the process of organizing. Organization Science, 3: 230249.
Drazin, R., & Sandelands, L. 1992. 自发生成：组织过程的视角。《组织科学》，3：230-249。

Dutt, N., Hawn, O., Vidal, E., Chatterji, A., McGahan, A., & Mitchell, W. 2016. How open system intermediaries address institutional failures: The case of business incubators in emerging-market countries. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 818840.
达特（Dutt, N.）、霍恩（Hawn, O.）、维达尔（Vidal, E.）、查特吉（Chatterji, A.）、麦加汉（McGahan, A.）和米切尔（Mitchell, W.）。2016年。开放系统中介如何解决制度性失灵：以新兴市场国家的企业孵化器为例。《管理学会期刊》，59卷：818840。

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239263.
达顿，J. E.，杜克雷奇，J. M.，& 哈奎尔，C. V. 1994. 组织形象与成员认同。《行政科学季刊》，39：239-263。

Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. 2008. Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 317338.
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. 2008. 企业家行为、机会识别与创新企业的起源。《战略创业杂志》，2：317-338。

Edelman, L., & Yli-Renko, H. 2010. The impact of environment and entrepreneurial perceptions on venturecreation efforts: Bridging the discovery and creation views of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34: 833856.
埃德尔曼（Edelman, L.）和伊利-伦科（Yli-Renko, H.），2010年。环境与创业认知对创业努力的影响：弥合创业发现与创造视角的鸿沟。《创业理论与实践》，34卷：833-856。

Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350383.
Edmondson, A. 1999. 工作团队中的心理安全与学习行为。《行政科学季刊》，44：350383。

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. 1988. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 737770.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. 1988. 高速环境中的战略决策政治：迈向中层理论。《管理学会期刊》，31：737-770。

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Brown, S. L. 1998. Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Long Range Planning, 31: 786789.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Brown, S. L. 1998. 在边缘竞争：作为结构化混沌的战略。《长期规划》，31：786-789。

Fayard, A.-L., & Weeks, J. 2007. Photocopiers and watercoolers: The affordances of informal interaction. Organization Studies, 28: 605634.
费亚尔，A.-L.，& 威克斯，J. 2007. 复印机与饮水机：非正式互动的功能. 《组织研究》，28: 605634.

Feldman, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. 2019. New developments in innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28: 817826.
Feldman, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. 2019. 创新与创业生态系统的新发展。《产业与公司变革》，28: 817-826。

Fiet, J. O. 1996. The informational basis of entrepreneurial discovery. Small Business Economics, 8: 419430.
Fiet, J. O. 1996. The informational basis of entrepreneurial discovery. Small Business Economics, 8: 419430.

Gaim, M. 2018. On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms. European Management Journal, 36: 497- 518.
Gaim, M. 2018. 论矛盾张力的出现与管理：以建筑公司为例。《欧洲管理杂志》，36：497-518。

Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N., & Jacobsson, M. 2019. The role of space for a paradoxical way of thinking and doing: A study of idea work in architectural firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28: 265281.
盖姆，M.、瓦林，N.、雅各布松，M. 2019. 空间在矛盾性思维与行动方式中的作用：建筑公司创意工作研究。《创造力与创新管理》，28: 265-281.

Garud, R., & Giuliani, A. P. 2013. A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Review, 38: 157160.
加鲁德（Garud, R.）和朱利亚尼（Giuliani, A. P.），2013年。创业机会的叙事视角。《管理学会评论》，38：157-160。

Garud, R., & Nayyar, P. R. 1994. Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 365385.
加鲁德（Garud, R.）和纳亚尔（Nayyar, P. R.），1994年。转型能力：通过跨期技术转移进行持续构建。《战略管理杂志》，15：365-385。

Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Perspectives on innovation processes. Academy of Management Annals, 7: 775819.
加鲁德（Garud, R.）、图特舍尔（Tuertscher, P.）和范德芬（Van de Ven, A. H.）. 2013. 创新过程的视角. 《管理学会年鉴》, 7: 775819.

Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
吉登斯，A. 1979. 社会理论中的核心问题。加利福尼亚州伯克利：加利福尼亚大学出版社。

Grant, A. 2013. In the company of givers and takers. Harvard Business Review, 91: 9097.
Grant, A. 2013. In the company of givers and takers. Harvard Business Review, 91: 9097.

Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E., & Taylor, M. S. 2007. Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science, 18: 885897.
古普塔（Gupta, A. K.）、特斯拉克（Tesluk, P. E.）和泰勒（Taylor, M. S.）。2007年。多层面分析中的创新。《组织科学》，18：885-897。

Harper-Anderson, E., & Lewis, D. A. 2018. What makes business incubation work? Measuring the influence of incubator quality and regional capacity on incubator outcomes. Economic Development Quarterly, 32: 6077.
哈珀-安德森（Harper-Anderson），E.，& 刘易斯（Lewis），D. A. 2018. 什么让企业孵化成功？衡量孵化器质量和区域能力对孵化成果的影响。《经济发展季刊》，32: 6077.

Hatch, M. J. 1990. The symbolics of office design: An empirical exploration. In P. Gagliardi (Ed.), Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape: 129146. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hatch, M. J. 1990. The symbolics of office design: An empirical exploration. In P. Gagliardi (Ed.), Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape: 129146. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hazy, J. K., & Backström, T. 2013. Human interaction dynamics (HID): Foundations, definitions, and directions. Emergence, 15: 91111.
Hazy, J. K., & Backström, T. 2013. Human interaction dynamics (HID): Foundations, definitions, and directions. Emergence, 15: 91111.

Hazy, J. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. 2015. Towards operationalizing complexity leadership: How generative, administrative and community-building leadership practices enact organizational outcomes. Leadership, 11: 79104.
Hazy, J. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. 2015. 走向复杂性领导力的可操作性：生成性、行政性和社区建设领导力实践如何实现组织成果。《领导力》，第11卷：79104。

Hernes, T. 2004a. The spatial construction of organization, vol. 12. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hernes, T. 2004a. The spatial construction of organization, vol. 12. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.

Hernes, T. 2004b. Studying composite boundaries: A framework of analysis. Human Relations, 57: 929.
Hernes, T. 2004b. 研究复合边界：一种分析框架。《人际关系》，57：929。

Hernes, T. 2007. Understanding organization as process: Theory for a tangled world. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Hernes, T. 2007. 将组织理解为过程：混乱世界的理论。英国伦敦：Routledge。

Hernes, T., Bakken, T., & Olsen, P. I. 2006. Spaces as process: Developing a recursive perspective on organizational space. In S. Clegg and M. Kornberger (Eds.), Space, organizations, and management theory: 4463. Copenhagen, Denmark: Liber and Copenhagen Business School.
Hernes, T., Bakken, T., & Olsen, P. I. 2006. 空间作为过程：发展组织空间的递归视角。见 S. Clegg 和 M. Kornberger（编），《空间、组织与管理理论》：4463。丹麦哥本哈根：Liber 和哥本哈根商学院。

Hill, C. W. L. 1990. Cooperation, opportunism, and the invisible hand: Implications for transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 15: 500513.
希尔，C. W. L. 1990. 合作、机会主义与看不见的手：对交易成本理论的启示。《管理学会评论》，15：500-513。

Holland, J. H. 1992. Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121: 1730.
Holland, J. H. 1992. 复杂适应系统。《代达罗斯》，121: 1730.

Johansson, F. 2004. The Medici effect. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
约翰森，F. 2004. 美第奇效应。马萨诸塞州波士顿：哈佛商业评论出版社。

Kauffman, S. 1996. At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
考夫曼，S. 1996. 《在宇宙中安身：寻找自组织与复杂性的规律》。纽约，纽约州：牛津大学出版社。

Knudsen, T. 2003. Simon’s selection theory: Why docility evolves to breed successful altruism. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24: 229244.
Knudsen, T. 2003. 西蒙的选择理论：为何顺从会演化为成功的利他主义。《经济心理学杂志》，24: 229-244.

Kogut, B. 2000. The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 405425.
科古特，B. 2000. 网络即知识：生成性规则与结构的涌现。《战略管理杂志》，21：405-425。

Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. R. 2004. Bringing space back in: Organizing the generative building. Organization Studies, 25: 10951114.
Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. R. 2004. Bringing space back in: Organizing the generative building. Organization Studies, 25: 10951114.

Korsgaard, M. A., Brower, H. H., & Lester, S. W. 2015. It isn’t always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust. Journal of Management, 41: 4770.
Korsgaard, M. A., Brower, H. H., & Lester, S. W. 2015. It isn’t always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust. Journal of Management, 41: 4770.

Kramer, R. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 569598.
克莱默，R. 1999. 组织中的信任与不信任：新兴视角，持久问题。《心理学年度评论》，50：569-598。

Kreiner, K., & Schultz, M. 1993. Informal collaboration in R&D. The formation of networks across organizations. Organization Studies, 14: 189209.
Kreiner, K.，& Schultz, M. 1993. 研发中的非正式合作：跨组织网络的形成。《组织研究》，第14卷：189-209。

Lazar, M., Miron-Spektor, E., Agarwal, R., Erez, M., Goldfarb, B., & Chen, G. 2020. Entrepreneurial team formation. Academy of Management Annals, 14: 2959.
拉扎尔（Lazar, M.）、米隆 - 斯佩克特（Miron - Spektor, E.）、阿加瓦尔（Agarwal, R.）、埃雷兹（Erez, M.）、戈德法布（Goldfarb, B.）和陈（Chen, G.）。2020。创业团队组建。《管理学会年鉴》，14：2959。

Levinthal, D. A., & Marino, A. 2015. Three facets of organizational adaptation: Selection, variety, and plasticity. Organization Science, 26: 743755.
莱文瑟尔（Levinthal, D. A.）和马里诺（Marino, A.）. 2015. 组织适应的三个方面：选择、多样性与可塑性. 《组织科学》（Organization Science）, 26: 743755.

Lewin, A. Y. 1999. Application of complexity theory to organization science. Organization Science, 10: 215376.
勒温，A. Y. 1999. 复杂性理论在组织科学中的应用。《组织科学》，10：215376。

Lichtenstein, B. B., Dooley, K. J., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2006. Measuring emergence in the dynamics of new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 153175.
Lichtenstein, B. B., Dooley, K. J., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2006. Measuring emergence in the dynamics of new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 153175.

Luhmann, N. 1995. Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
卢曼，N. 1995. 社会系统。加利福尼亚州斯坦福：斯坦福大学出版社。

Lui, S. S., & Ngo, H.-Y. 2004. The role of trust and contractual safeguards on cooperation in non-equity alliances. Journal of Management, 30: 471485.
Lui, S. S., & Ngo, H.-Y. 2004. 信任与契约保障在非股权联盟合作中的作用。《管理杂志》，30: 471-485。

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709734.
梅耶尔，R. C.，戴维斯，J. H.，& 斯科曼，F. D. 1995. 组织信任的整合模型。《管理学会评论》，20: 709734.

McDonald, R., & Gao, C. 2019. Pivoting isn’t enough? Managing strategic reorientation in new ventures. Organization Science, 30: 12891318.
McDonald, R.，& Gao, C. 2019. 仅靠转型是不够的吗？新企业的战略重新定位管理。《组织科学》，30: 12891318.

McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23: 473490.
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. 1998. 新组织关系中的初始信任形成。《管理学会评论》，23：473-490。

McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. 2013. Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50: 14811512.
麦克马伦，J. S.，& 季莫夫，D. 2013. 时间与创业历程：将创业研究视为一个过程的问题与前景。《管理研究杂志》，50：1481-1512。

Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. 2016. Technology business incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50: 112.
Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. 2016. 技术企业孵化：知识现状概述。Technovation, 50: 112.

Mihata, K. 1997. The persistence of ’emergence’. In R. Eve & L. Mary (Eds.), Chaos, complexity $\pmb { \delta }$ sociology: Myths, models $\pmb { \delta }$ theories: 3038. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mihata, K. 1997. ‘涌现’ 的持续性。载于 R. Eve 与 L. Mary（编），《混沌、复杂性与社会学：神话、模型与理论》，第 3038 页。千橡市，加利福尼亚州：塞奇出版公司。

Miller, G. J., & Smith, R. W. 1993. Managerial dilemmas: The political economy of hierarchy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
米勒，G. J.，& 史密斯，R. W. 1993. 管理困境：层级制的政治经济学。英国剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。

Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. 2007. Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
米勒，J. H.，& 佩奇，S. E. 2007. 复杂适应系统：社会生活计算模型导论。新泽西州普林斯顿：普林斯顿大学出版社。

Mitchell, R. K., Smith, J. B., Seawright, K. W., & Morse, E. A. 2000. Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 974993.
米切尔（Mitchell, R. K.）、史密斯（Smith, J. B.）、西弗莱特（Seawright, K. W.）和莫尔斯（Morse, E. A.）。2000年。跨文化认知与创业决策。《管理学院期刊》，43: 974993。

Murphy, P. J. 2011. A $2 \times 2$ conceptual foundation for entrepreneurial discovery theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35: 359374.
Murphy, P. J. 2011. 创业发现理论的2×2概念基础。《创业理论与实践》，35：359-374。

Nair, S., & Blomquist, T. 2019. Failure prevention and management in business incubation: Practices towards a scalable business model. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 31: 266278.
奈尔（Nair, S.）和布洛姆奎斯特（Blomquist, T.），2019年。企业孵化中的失败预防与管理：可扩展商业模式的实践。《技术分析与战略管理》，31：266278。

Nair, S., & Blomquist, T. 2020. The temporal dimensions of business incubation: A value-creation perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 21: 3846.
奈尔，S.，& 布洛姆奎斯特，T. 2020. 商业孵化的时间维度：从价值创造视角. 《国际创业与创新杂志》，21: 3846.

Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. 2006. Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27: 11791208.
Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. 2006. 组织知识创造理论：演化路径与未来发展。《组织研究》，27：11791208。

Packard, M. D., & Clark, B. B. 2019. On the mitigability of uncertainty and the choice between predictive and non-predictive strategy. Academy of Management Review, 45: 766786.
帕卡德（M. D.）、克拉克（B. B.）. 2019. 论不确定性的可缓解性及预测性与非预测性策略的选择. 《管理学会评论》, 45: 766786.

Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J. 2016. Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50: 1324.
Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J. 2016. 理解新一代孵化模型：加速器。《技术创新》，50：1324。

Peterson, M. F., & Meckler, M. R. 2001. Cuban-American entrepreneurs: Chance, complexity and chaos. Organization Studies, 22: 3157. January
Peterson, M. F., & Meckler, M. R. 2001. 古巴裔美国企业家：机遇、复杂性与混乱。《组织研究》，22：3157。2001年1月

Plowman, D. A., Solansky, S., Beck, T. E., Baker, L., Kulkarni, M., & Travis, D. V. 2007. The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 341356.
Plowman, D. A., Solansky, S., Beck, T. E., Baker, L., Kulkarni, M., & Travis, D. V. 2007. The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 341356.

Poulis, K., & Poulis, E. 2016. Problematizing fit and survival: Transforming the law of requisite variety through complexity misalignment. Academy of Management Review, 41: 503527.
Poulis, K.，& Poulis, E. 2016. 问题化适配与生存：通过复杂性错位转变必要多样性法则。《管理学会评论》，41：503527。

Powell, W. W. 1996. Trust-based forms of governance. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, vol. 51. London, U.K.: Sage.
鲍威尔, W. W. 1996. 基于信任的治理形式。载于 R. M. 克莱默与 T. R. 泰勒（编），《组织中的信任：理论与研究前沿》，第 51 卷。英国伦敦：塞奇出版社。

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. 1984. Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York, NY: Bantam New Age Books.
普里戈金，I.，& 斯唐热，I. 1984. 无序中的有序：人类与自然的新对话。纽约，纽约州：班坦新时代图书公司。

Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Wiltbank, R. 2016. Response to Arend, Sarooghi, and Burkemper (2015): Cocreating effectual entrepreneurship research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 41: 528536.
Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Wiltbank, R. 2016. 对 Arend, Sarooghi 和 Burkemper (2015) 的回应：共创效果创业研究。《管理学会展望》, 41: 528536.

Regine, B., & Lewin, R. 2000. Leading at the edge: How leaders influence complex systems. Emergence, 2: 523.
雷吉娜（Regine, B.）和莱文（Lewin, R.）. 2000. 边缘领导：领导者如何影响复杂系统. 《涌现》, 2: 523.

Rogers, E. M., Medina, U. E., Rivera, M. A., & Wiley, C. J. 2005. Complex adaptive systems and the diffusion of innovations. Innovation Journal, 10: 126.
罗杰斯, E. M., 梅迪纳, U. E., 里维拉, M. A., & 威利, C. J. 2005. 复杂适应系统与创新扩散。《创新期刊》, 10: 126.

Roundy, P. T., Brockman, B. K., & Bradshaw, M. 2017. The resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8: 99104.
Roundy, P. T., Brockman, B. K., & Bradshaw, M. 2017. 创业生态系统的韧性。《创业洞察杂志》，8：99 - 104。

Rubin, T. H., Aas, T. H., & Stead, A. 2015. Knowledge flow in technological business incubators: Evidence from Australia and Israel. Technovation, 41: 1124.
鲁宾（Rubin, T. H.）、阿斯（Aas, T. H.）和斯特德（Stead, A.），2015年。技术企业孵化器中的知识流动：来自澳大利亚和以色列的证据。《技术创新》（Technovation），第41卷：1124页。

Sailer, K. 2011. Creativity as social and spatial process. Facilities, 29: 618.
Sailer, K. 2011. 创造力作为一种社会和空间过程。设施，29：618。

Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2005. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16: 491508.
桑托斯（Santos, F. M.）和艾森哈特（Eisenhardt, K. M.），2005年。组织边界与组织理论。《组织科学》（Organization Science），16卷：491-508页。

Sarasvathy, S. 2001. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26: 243263.
Sarasvathy, S. 2001. 因果关系与效应逻辑：从经济必然性到创业偶然性的理论转变。《管理学会评论》，26：243-263。

Sarasvathy, S. D., & Dew, N. 2005. Entrepreneurial logics for a technology of foolishness. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21: 385406.
Sarasvathy, S. D., & Dew, N. 2005. 愚蠢技术的创业逻辑。《斯堪的纳维亚管理杂志》，21: 385406。

Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. 2011. Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35: 113135.
Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. 2011. 创业作为一种方法：创业未来的开放性问题。《创业理论与实践》，35：113135。

Secchi, D. 2009. The cognitive side of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 88: 565581.
塞基，D. 2009. 社会责任的认知层面。《商业伦理杂志》，88：565-581。

Selden, P. D., & Fletcher, D. E. 2015. The entrepreneurial journey as an emergent hierarchical system of artifactcreating processes. Journal of Business Venturing, 30: 603615.
塞尔登，P. D.，& 弗莱彻，D. E. 2015. 创业历程作为一个新兴的、由人工制品创造过程构成的层级系统。《商业风险期刊》，30: 603-615。

Shane, S. A. 2008. The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that entrepreneurs, investors, and policy makers live by. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shane, S. A. 2008. 创业的错觉：创业者、投资者和政策制定者所信奉的代价高昂的神话。康涅狄格州纽黑文：耶鲁大学出版社。

Shankar, R. K., & Shepherd, D. A. 2019. Accelerating strategic fit or venture emergence: Different paths adopted by corporate accelerators. Journal of Business Venturing, 34: 119.
Shankar, R. K., & Shepherd, D. A. 2019. 加速战略契合或创业企业涌现：企业加速器采用的不同路径。《商业风险期刊》，34: 119.

Sheppard, B. H., & Tuchinsky, M. 1996. Micro-OB and the network organization. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 140165. London, U.K.: SAGE.
Sheppard, B. H., & Tuchinsky, M. 1996. Micro-OB与网络组织。In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 140165. London, U.K.: SAGE.

Simon, H. A. 1959. Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49: 253283.
西蒙，H. A. 1959. 经济学与行为科学中的决策理论。《美国经济评论》，49: 253283.

Simon, H. A. 1993. Altruism and economics. American Economic Review, 83: 156161.
西蒙，H. A. 1993. 利他主义与经济学。《美国经济评论》，83: 156161。

Smith, C., & Comer, D. 1994. Self-organization in small groups: A study of group effectiveness within non-equilibrium conditions. Human Relations, 47: 553581.
Smith, C., & Comer, D. 1994. 小群体中的自组织：非平衡条件下群体有效性研究。《人际关系》，47：553-581。

Spigel, B. 2017. The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41: 4972.
Spigel, B. 2017. The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41: 4972.

Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. 2018. Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12: 151168.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. 2018. 迈向创业生态系统的过程理论。《战略创业杂志》，12：151168。

Stacey, R. D. 2003. Complexity and group processes: A radically social understanding of individuals. New York, NY: Brunner-Routlege.
Stacey, R. D. 2003. 复杂性与群体过程：对个体的彻底社会性理解。纽约，纽约州：Brunner-Routledge。

Stacey, R. D. 2007 . Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations (5th ed.). Harlow, U.K.: Prentice Hall.
Stacey, R. D. 2007. 战略管理与组织动态：复杂性对组织思维方式的挑战（第5版）。英国哈洛：培生教育（Prentice Hall）。

StartUp HERE Toronto Café. 2018. StartUp HERE Toronto Café. Retrieved from https://startupheretoronto.com/ startup-here-toronto-cafe/.
StartUp HERE 多伦多咖啡馆。2018年。StartUp HERE 多伦多咖啡馆。取自 https://startupheretoronto.com/ startup-here-toronto-cafe/。

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. 1995. The nature of insight. Cambridge, U.K.: The MIT Press.
斯滕伯格，R. J.，& 戴维森，J. E. 1995. 洞察力的本质。英国剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社。

Taylor, S., & Spicer, A. 2007. Time for space: A narrative review of research on organizational spaces. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9: 325346.
泰勒, S., & 斯派塞, A. 2007. 时间与空间：组织空间研究的叙事综述。《国际管理评论》, 9: 325-346.

Tourish, D. 2019. Is complexity leadership theory complex enough? A critical appraisal, some modifications and suggestions for further research. Organization Studies, 40: 219238.
Tourish, D. 2019. 复杂性领导力理论是否足够复杂？批判性评估、一些修改及进一步研究建议。《组织研究》，40: 219238。

Townsend, D. M. Hunt, R. A., McMullen, J. S., & Srasvathy, S. D. 2018. Uncertainty, knowledge problems, and entrepreneurial action. Academy of Management Annals, 12: 659687.
汤森德, D. M. 亨特, R. A. 麦克马伦, J. S. & 斯拉斯瓦特希, S. D. 2018. 不确定性、知识问题与创业行动. 《管理学会年鉴》, 12: 659-687.

Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32: 590607.
范德芬（Van de Ven, A. H.）. 1986. 创新管理中的核心问题. 《管理科学》（Management Science）, 32: 590-607.

van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 510540.
范德温（Van de Ven, A. H.）、普尔（Poole, M. S.）. 1995. 解释组织中的发展与变革. 《管理学会评论》, 20: 510-540.

Vogel, P. 2016. From venture idea to venture opportunity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41: 943972.
Vogel, P. 2016. 从创业想法到创业机会。《创业理论与实践》，41：943972。

Waldrop, M. M. 1992. Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
沃尔德罗普，M. M. 1992. 复杂性：秩序与混沌边缘的新兴科学。纽约，纽约州：西蒙与舒斯特出版公司。

Walloth, C. 2016. Emergent nested systems: A theory of understanding and influencing complex systems as well as case studies in urban systems. New York, NY: Springer.
Walloth, C. 2016. 涌现嵌套系统：理解和影响复杂系统的理论及城市系统中的案例研究。纽约，纽约州：施普林格。

Weinfurtner, T., & Seidl, D. 2019. Towards a spatial perspective: An integrative review of research on organisational space. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35: 130.
Weinfurtner, T., & Seidl, D. 2019. Towards a spatial perspective: An integrative review of research on organisational space. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35: 130.

Welter, F. 2012. All you need is trust? A critical review of the trust and entrepreneurship literature. International Small Business Journal, 30: 193212.
Welter, F. 2012. All you need is trust? A critical review of the trust and entrepreneurship literature. International Small Business Journal, 30: 193212.

Wiltbank, R., Dew, N., Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. 2006. What to do next? The case for non-predictive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 981998.
威尔特班克（Wiltbank, R.）、杜（Dew, N.）、里德（Read, S.）、萨拉维蒂（Sarasvathy, S. D.）. 2006. 下一步该怎么做？非预测性战略的案例. 《战略管理杂志》, 27: 981-998.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Hurst, D. K. 1993. Breaking the boundaries: The fractal organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2: 334355. Zimmerman, B. J., & Hurst, D. K. 1993. 打破边界：分形组织。《管理探究杂志》，2：334-355。

X

X

Sujith Nair (sujith.nair@umu.se) is an associate professor of entrepreneurship at Umeã School of Business, Economics and Statistics, Umeå University, Sweden. His research focuses on new venture creation, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and the emergence of technological innovations. 苏吉特·奈尔（sujith.nair@umu.se）是瑞典于默奥大学于默奥商业、经济与统计学院的创业学副教授。他的研究重点是新企业创建、创业生态系统以及技术创新的出现。

Medhanie Gaim (medhanie.gaim@umu.se) is an assistant professor of management at Umeã School of Business, Economics and Statistics, Umeå University, Sweden. His research focuses on paradox theory, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and new venture creation. Medhanie Gaim (medhanie.gaim@umu.se)是瑞典于默奥大学于默奥商业、经济与统计学院的管理学助理教授。他的研究重点是悖论理论、创业生态系统和新企业创建。

Dimo Dimov (d.p.dimov@bath.ac.uk) is a professor of entrepreneurship and innovation at the University of Bath, U.K., and a visiting professor at Reykjavik University, Iceland. His research focuses on entrepreneurial thinking, processes, and practice. Dimo Dimov（d.p.dimov@bath.ac.uk）是英国巴斯大学的创业与创新教授，同时也是冰岛雷克雅未克大学的客座教授。他的研究重点是创业思维、过程与实践。

Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 《管理学会评论》的版权归管理学会所有，未经版权所有者明确书面许可，其内容不得复制、通过电子邮件发送至多个网站或发布到电子讨论组。不过，用户可打印、下载或通过电子邮件发送文章供个人使用。