When words fail: An entrepreneurship glossolalia

Abstract

This article offers a lexicon of mash-ups to describe Bengt Johannisson's research contributions: Otherpreneur: A person who is not the primary ‘founder’ of an organization, yet plays an important role in the creation of the organization: a ‘significant other’; Interactment: Actions that are both informed by others and are responded to; Senseability: When insight and action are combined; Narraction: When stories and action are combined; and Clevoyance: Ingenious insight about the future.

Keywords:

• Bengt Johannisson
• otherpreneur
• interactment
• senseability
• narraction
• clevoyance

Notes

1. The author apologizes for an article that may be interpreted as self-indulgent (Mykhalovskiy 1997). I have come to believe that an important way to think in new ways about entrepreneurship is to write in new ways (Hartman 1988). Some of my recent work (Gartner 2008a, 2008b, 2009) has been attempts at this. But, also, writing, for me, has the sensibility expressed in Eliot (1943, 30):

• So here I am, in the middle way …

• Trying to learn to use words, and every attempt

• Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure

• Because one has only learnt to get the better of words

• For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which

• One is no longer disposed to say it.

So, I am at a loss for words. That is the beginning of writing. Starting with the words that you do not need, looking for words you do not have, and, then, trying/hoping to find these words along the way.

2. I have been asked to focus on the process of enactment in Bengt Johannisson's scholarship as well as speak to my relationship with Bengt. (I am not sure what conventions to use in addressing Bengt. Is Bengt too familiar? Is Bengt Johannisson too formal? So, for brevity's sake, I will use ‘Bengt’ throughout the article). I thought about how I might write such an article, and, it seemed that it needed to be ‘enacted’ as well as be a discussion of enactment. The enactment, here in this article, occurs through a reflexive use of footnotes (reflexive as in: Alvesson, Hardy, and Harley 2008; Johnson and Duberley 2003; Parker 1999). The footnotes, stylistically, are intended to mimic the kinds of asides and reflections that Bengt often uses in his conversations and presentations, and, to offer a sense of how the enactment process reveals itself. I fear that the article may be read as something on the order of ‘stream of consciousness’. But, my intention, actually, is to present some of the challenges I faced when attempting to write an article that seeks to both recognize prior scholarly contributions and also work to extend this contribution in a new way. I hope, then, that this effort is seen an intellectual ‘enactment’ (probably not). The intellectual segue into this is that the act of scholarship involves acting (reading and writing, and, a bit more than that, but, for now, reading and writing) and then attempting to make sense of it (by rewriting and, a bit more than that), that is: ‘How do I know what I think until I see what I say?’ (Weick 1979, 5, 133, 155, 165, 175, 185, 207). Scholarship does not come about in a fully formed way. It is worked and reworked: organized. But, the process of how this kind of work occurs does not often get voiced (Brannigan 1981; Geertz 1988; Latour 1999; Latour and Woolgar 1986). So, given the chance to write an invited article that would be an exploration of the nature of enactment, I thought it might be worth trying out a format that might reflect some of the issues involved in generating and presenting ideas about how the process of enactment comes about, and to reflect on a sense of Bengt (note 3).

3. You might be asking, why is William B. Gartner writing a celebratory tribute about Bengt (Steyaert and Landström 2010)? I have wondered that myself: I do not think I have a fine grasp of enactment in entrepreneurship. I use the word as a label, actually more like an expectation of what I might see as what entrepreneurs do (Gartner 1985, 1988, 1993). Certainly, my experience and knowledge of enactment is not the way Bengt has been able to play it out (particularly the practice of enactment). And, I have a poor memory, well, I have a memory that re-members some events, but, few others. So, there is both the question of when I encountered his scholarship and when I encountered Bengt Johannisson. The encounter with his scholarship plays out in the article, itself. The encounter with Bengt plays out, more so, in these footnotes, but not always (see section 4). In terms of meeting Bengt, I cannot say as to when, exactly, I met him: Probably in the 1980s, surely in the 1990s, and certainly, at the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management, Doctoral Seminar on Entrepreneurship Research, Barcelona, Spain, October 25–29, 1999. That experience, I remember vividly. I presented the first 2 days of the seminar, and Bengt showed up for the remainder. On Bengt's first night in Barcelona, we had paella at the seven Portes (doors) and talked about many things, but I remember most vividly talk about dogs and sheep. And, there was the subway ride. If I recall stories of Bengt, they will invariably involve travel: in a car, on a train, in a plane, on the subway.

4. For those who are not familiar with ‘hip-hop’ jargon, a ‘mash-up’ would be an audio recording that is a composite of samples from other audio recordings. A mash-up often includes many different musical styles. Yet, to listen to a mash-up is to hear a new song, a sort of postmodern auditory experience.

5. Glossolalia: ‘speaking in tongues’, 1879, from Gk. glossa ‘tongue, language’ + lalia ‘a speaking’, from lalein ‘to speak, prattle’, of echoic origin. n. Incomprehensible speech in an imaginary language, sometimes occurring in a trance state, an episode of religious ecstasy, or schizophrenia. Also, n. The ability or phenomenon to utter words or sounds of a language unknown to the speaker, especially as an expression of religious ecstasy. Note: Definitions of the words used in this article come from www.dictionary.com, with an emphasis on the word origins provided in the Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian.

6. A mash-up of other and entrepreneur: Otherpreneur. Other: Oth"er\, pron. & a. [AS. [=o][eth]er; akin to OS. [=a][eth]ar, [=o][eth]ar, D. & G. ander, OHG. andar, Icel. annarr, Sw. annan, Dan. anden, Goth. an[thorn]ar, Skr. antara: cf. L. alter; all orig. comparatives: cf. Skr. anya other. [root]180. Cf. Alter.] Adj – additional or further; different or distinct from the one mentioned or implied; different in nature or kind Entrepreneur: 1875–80; < F: lit., one who undertakes (some task), equiv. to entrepren(dre) to undertake (< L inter- INTER- + prendere to take, var. of prehendere) + -eur -EUR.

7. Whenever I think about the word ‘entrepreneurship’ I have, in the back of my mind, Bierce's (1911/1996) definition of this kind of ‘ship’: – FRIENDSHIP, n. A ship big enough to carry two in fair weather, but only one in foul. So, I wonder, from a Biercian perspective, what would be a definition of the ‘ship’ of entrepreneurship?

8. I struggled about whether to have quotes from Bengt's writings, or not. I think readers wonder whether the author was just too lazy to figure out a way to understand the quote by summarizing it. I include the quotes, primarily because they are such lovely examples of his words, how he plays with them to evoke subtle but powerful images (e.g. resource bank – I can see such a place, a stately place with pillars, secure and strong, where people make deposits and withdrawals of their ‘capital’ (human and social). I begin to imagine aspects of the bank as a ‘savings and loan’ where their capital can be stored for later, used by others, invested, risked, gained and lost.)

9. Here is an odd example of how an ‘otherpreneur’ can significantly influence entrepreneurial activity. In Gartner, Liao, and Frid (2009), we asked entrepreneurs for reasons for why they stopped their involvement in the entrepreneurial process. One entrepreneur gave up because: ‘husband stung by bee and almost died’. Who would have thought that a bee sting would be the reason that an entrepreneur stopped the startup process? But, this response is not that out of the ordinary. Many of the reasons for quitting involved very personal reasons that had nothing to do with the business venture, itself. I think of the bee sting example in connection to the idea of the ‘complete human being’. Entrepreneurs are involved with other people in very deep ways that have nothing to do with the entrepreneurship, per se, but because entrepreneurs are ‘complete human beings’ these relationships have everything to do with the entrepreneur. I believe that parsing this out is the conundrum of the networking literature.

10. Do these quotes and the citations I have offered provide a sense to the reader that I have a somewhat comprehensive knowledge and a thoughtful grasp of Bengt's scholarship on networking? I have read nearly everything he has written on networking. I have read some of these articles over and over and over again. Yet, I feel inadequate as to whether this section really captures the imagination of Bengt's work to any degree, particularly about the process of networking. I keep re-reading Jack, Drakopoulou, and Anderson (2008) and realize how thorough and thoughtful their understanding and grasp of networking is compared to mine. They demonstrate a level of mastery and expertise about networking that demonstrates the craft of scholarship (Sennett 2008) that takes years to acquire. I am a networking dilettante. So, I am not sure that I have developed a sufficient foundation of text to now segue into what the article was essentially to be about: enactment. I think the ‘other’ is made obvious in the networking literature, but I am not sure whether readers will have made the connection. At the basis of this connection, between ‘others’ and entrepreneurs in the networking literature, for me, is whether what I said about ‘others’ in entrepreneurship is interesting (Davis 1971). I find Davis’ framework of categories of what is interesting to be really helpful in attempting to write articles that others might actually read. An interesting article, will, for the reader, challenge a taken-for-granted assumption. The challenge is in writing an article in a way so that the taken-for-granted assumptions are presented so that the reader buys into what the reader should know, so, at that point, challenges to these assumptions can then be offered. This is not always an easy task, as Davis indicates, since what is ‘taken-for-granted’ varies depending on who the reader is (expert, novice, practitioner, insider, outsider, etc.). So, part of the process of writing this article is framing what I would like the reader to ‘take-for-granted’ about the nature of networking and their knowledge about the role and relationships of others vis-à-vis networking and organizing. I do not think I have set up enough of the ‘taken-for-granted’ in this section of the article. But, I need to move on.

11. A mash-up of inter- and enactment: Interactment Inter-: a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin, where it meant ‘between’, ‘among’, ‘in the midst of’, ‘mutually’, ‘reciprocally’, ‘together’, ‘during’ (intercept; interest); on this model, used in the formation of compound words (intercom; interdepartmental). 1303, from O.Fr. enterer, from M.L. interrare ‘put in the earth, bury’, from L. in- ‘in’ + terra ‘earth’. Enactment: –noun, the act of enacting; the state of fact of being enacted; a law or statute; a single provision of a law. Origin: 1810–20; ENACT + -MENT.

12. A mash-up of the ‘sense’ of sensemaking (since sensemaking is a mash-up) and ability: Senseability Sense: (n.) c.1400, ‘faculty of perception’, also ‘meaning or interpretation’ (esp. of Holy Scripture), from O.Fr. sens, from L. sensus ‘perception, feeling, undertaking, meaning’, from sentire ‘perceive, feel, know’, prob. a fig. use of a lit. meaning ‘to find one's way’, from PIE base *sent- ‘to go’ (cf. O.H.G. sinnan ‘to go, travel, strive after, have in mind, perceive’, Ger. Sinn ‘sense, mind’, O.E. sið ‘way, journey’, O.Ir. set, Welsh hynt ‘way’). Application to any one of the external or outward senses (touch, sight, hearing, etc.) first recorded 1526. Ability: (n.) the quality of being able to perform: a quality that permits or facilitates achievement or accomplishment; possession of the qualities (especially mental qualities required to do something or get something done. c.1380, from O.Fr. ableté ‘expert at handling (something)’, from L. habilitatem (nom. habilitas) ‘aptitude’, from habilis ‘easy to manage, handy’.

13. A mash-up of narration and action: Narraction Narration: 1432, from O.Fr. narration ‘a relating, recounting, narrating’, from L. narrationem (nom. narratio), from narrare ‘to tell, relate, recount, explain’, lit. ‘to make acquainted with’, from gnarus ‘knowing’, from PIE suffixed zero-grade *gne-ro-, from base *gno- ‘to know’. Narrate is first recorded 1656, but was stigmatized as Scot. and not in general use until 19c. Action: c.1360, from O.Fr. action, from L. actionem (nom. actio), from stem of agere ‘to do’. Meaning ‘fighting’ is from 1599. As a film director's command, it is attested from 1923. Meaning ‘excitement’ is recorded from 1968. Phrase ‘actions speak louder than words’ is attested from 1845.

14. Bear with me on this. The initial awkwardness of these mash-ups is partially because of their lack of use. Words have to be called into play, over an over again, to gain the familiarity of utility.

15. What can be said about enactment when others (Downing 2005; Fletcher 2006; Steyaert 2007) have already outlined much more thoughtful insights into the process? I am failing at making the connections (Small 1982).

16. A mash-up of Clever and Clairvoyant – Clevoyant. Clever: c.1590, from E.Anglian dial. cliver ‘expert at seizing’, probably from E.Fris. klufer or Norwegian dialectic klover ‘ready, skillful’, perhaps infl. by O.E. clifer ‘claw, hand’ (early usages seem to refer to dexterity); extension to intellect is first recorded 1704, or clifer a claw, perh. connected with E. cleave to divide, split, the meaning of E. clever perh. coming from the idea of grasping, seizing (with the mind). (Author's Note: I am reminded of this line: ‘A single clever person is almost bound to be superior to ten thousand fools’ – Socrates in Gorgias) Clairvoyant: ‘having psychic gifts’, 1847 (in clairvoyance), earlier ‘having insight’ (1671), from Fr. clairvoyant ‘seeing clearly’, from clair (see clear) + voyant ‘seeing’, prp. of voir, from L. videre ‘to see’. The noun is first attested 1851, from the adj.

17. Authority: c.1230, autorite ‘book or quotation that settles an argument’, from O.Fr. auctorité, from L. auctoritatem (nom. auctoritas) ‘invention, advice, opinion, influence, command’, from auctor ‘author’. Usually spelled with a -c- in Eng. till 16c., when it was dropped, in imitation of the Fr. Meaning ‘power to enforce obedience’ is from 1393; meaning ‘people in authority’ is from 1611. Authoritative first recorded 1609. Authoritarian is recorded from 1879.

18. I have certainly found, in my own work, that I have completely missed reading certain authors, and, it is only after an article has been published, that I find out about a line of thought and evidence that should have been included. Sometimes this is pointed out by the authors who I missed opportunities to recognize, sometimes it comes about because I continue to read into the field, and expand the territory I am exploring. (So, dear reader, if I missed reading your scholarship that you see as having a bearing on what I say, please make me aware of it!) But, I am not the only person to miss paying attention to prior scholarship based on how the territory of the field is defined. I make this point in a recent work on opportunity (Gartner, Shaver, and Liao 2009). For the past decade, entrepreneurship scholars have followed a pathway demarcated by Shane and Venkataraman (Shane 2000; Shane and Venkataraman 2000), yet, the opportunity literature, particularly in the strategy field, and, for those in the Academy of Management, has a long history that begins with Jane Dutton (Dutton 1990; Dutton and Duncan 1987, Dutton, Fahey, and Narayanan 1983; Dutton and Jackson 1987; Jackson and Dutton 1988). How could scholars in strategy, writing about entrepreneurial opportunity, miss the vast amount of scholarship on opportunity published by scholars writing about opportunity and strategy?

19. It appears that the territory of entrepreneurship is already expanding that way. I read the ‘Movements’ books (Hjorth and Steyaert 2004, 2009; Steyaert and Hjorth 2003, 2006) broadly, as a significant attempt to recognize the complete human being in entrepreneurship.

20. How do I know what I think until I see what I say?