Observing Entrepreneurial Opportunity in Entanglement

Abstract

This paper advances a unified theoretical framework that synthesises Shane and Eckhardt’s individual–opportunity nexus, Ramoglou and Tsang’s opportunities-as-propensities perspective, and Davidsson’s tripartite model of new venture ideas, external enablers, and opportunity confidence. Building on these foundations, the paper develops an entrepreneurial entanglement model that explains how opportunities emerge as probabilistic propensities within dynamic configurations of agents, artefacts, distributed agencies, and spatiotemporal conditions. The model clarifies how material artefacts, socio-cognitive processes, and environmental shifts jointly shape the emergence, visibility, and realisation of entrepreneurial possibilities. By situating opportunity formation within an entangled field—rather than within isolated acts of discovery or creation—the framework deepens understanding of how entrepreneurial actions give rise to potentialities and how these potentialities become actualised under conditions of uncertainty. The analysis contributes to both theory and practice by offering a relational, mechanism-based account of how entrepreneurial behaviour and environmental factors intersect to structure the formation and realisation of opportunities.

1. Introduction

A substantial body of scholarly work has been dedicated to examining how entrepreneurs identify and react to opportunities, with significant contributions made by S. A. Alvarez et al. (2013), Dimov (2011), Eckhardt and Shane (2003), Garud and Giuliani (2013), Holcombe (2003), Nair et al. (2022), Shane and Venkataraman (2000), Venkataraman et al. (2012), among others. In ordinary discourse, the notion of opportunities is often employed without contestation or critical examination (Ramoglou & McMullen, 2024). Leong (2022) discussed the probabilistic interpretation of opportunity by stating that “opportunity is affected by other observers and the entrepreneur’s imagination, social construction and effort. Each involved agent relates to and interacts with others to give rise to possibilities in opportunities. The interrelations and interdependence are complex, giving rise to superposition with a mixed state with many possibilities” (p. 243).

1.1. Background and Problematisation

Over the last ten years, the theory of entrepreneurial action (EAT) has solidified its position as a pivotal, multi-dimensional framework within entrepreneurship, as highlighted by D. M. Townsend et al. (2018). The notable contribution of McMullen and Shepherd (2006) is the introduction of a dual-phase model of entrepreneurial action amid uncertainty. Ramoglou and McMullen’s (2024) foundational concept emphasises the transformation of ‘third-person opportunities’ (opportunities apparent to anyone) into ‘first-person opportunities’ (opportunities perceived as personally attainable), thereby illustrating how entrepreneurs actively shape opportunities to their context (S. A. Alvarez & Barney, 2007). This theoretical framework is essential for understanding the dynamic mechanism by which entrepreneurs discern and engage with opportunities amid uncertainty, as discussed by D. Townsend et al. (2022).

Despite the extensive theorisations on opportunity and entrepreneurial action, Arend (2023) argued that the prevailing theoretical discourse on entrepreneurship significantly lacks in its ability to conceive or expand upon concepts, explanations, and predictions that are distinctively characteristic of the domain and are persistently yielding theoretical advancements that fall short of the innovative rigour traditionally expected within the field. Applying quantum mechanics to entrepreneurship is analogical and does not imply that entrepreneurial processes operate at the quantum level. This paper’s central thesis posits that entrepreneurial action emerges from the complex interplay of artefacts and distributed agencies, particularly in pursuing opportunities amid uncertainty. It conceptualises these systems as interconnected networks in which the environment intersects with the entrepreneurial agency and various behavioural systems stemming from distributed agencies to produce possibilities. Observing this dynamic reveals that shifting from a ‘third-person’ to a ‘first-person’ perspective on opportunities exposes actionable possibilities that can be actualised through intentional effort. These distributed agencies encompass a range of actors such as competitors, imitators, suppliers, investors, customers, and other stakeholders involved in the entrepreneurial process, where “even minor, non-deliberative, and impulsive actions by these entrepreneurs can set off significant consequences due to the complex interactions within a diverse pool of agents (Leong, 2024, p. 3). The entanglement among these interconnected systems underscores the intricate dynamics and interdependencies that shape entrepreneurial actions within an uncertain environment. By highlighting the role of both artefacts and distributed agencies, this paper offers a nuanced perspective on the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurial endeavours and their intricate relationships with the broader ecosystem in which they operate. This viewpoint aligns with the research conducted by Magistretti et al. (2022), which provided cues of the multiplicity of agents implicated in the process by translating insights into actionable opportunities, overcoming the established individual-centric view of entrepreneurial endeavours. This viewpoint clarifies how various agentic roles, including mediators, enablers, facilitators, innovators, and peer support from both internal and external teams, combine to precipitate a probabilistic emergent event that may culminate in the emergence of opportunities. Korsgaard (2011) leveraged the actor-network theory to underscore the concepts of “distributed agency, nonlinear processes, and the continuous (re-)creation of artefacts” (p. 662). Within this framework, actor-network theory is advanced as a theoretical lens for examining distributed agencies, processes, and opportunities (Korsgaard, 2011).

The shift toward a more helpful clarification of the emergence of opportunities based on entanglement changes perspectives on opportunities involving different distributed agents, rather than focusing on entrepreneurship as an individual activity (Dimov, 2011; Magistretti et al., 2022). The conception that entrepreneurial opportunity is characterised by entanglement and emergence aligns with the performative design process proposed by Magistretti et al. (2022). Opportunity is iteratively and dynamically forged through the unveiling of information over time, undergoing transformations and prompting entrepreneurial actions at each juncture of revelation. This emergent creation perspective is derived from a critical evaluation of the discovery paradigm. Korsgaard (2011) refuted the discovery perspective’s depiction of entrepreneurs as merely reactive to external conditions, advocating instead for a view of entrepreneurial activity as the proactive generation of circumstances and a result of the entrepreneur’s sensemaking of the circumstance, a form of world-making (S. D. Sarasvathy, 2009). The phase of entanglement that precedes the emergence of opportunity is a pivotal element within the performative process and constitutes a critical point in our conceptualisation of opportunity. This paper reconceptualises entrepreneurial opportunities as possibilities moulded by the environment within an iterative entrepreneurial process contingent on the specific actions entrepreneurs take upon observation and their subjective interpretations.

This stance markedly diverges from dominant perspectives regarding the origins of opportunities. Within the entrepreneurial scholarship, three prevailing viewpoints suggest that opportunities pre-exist “out there” awaiting recognition (Korsgaard, 2013; Leong, 2021; Ramoglou & Zyglidopoulos, 2015), independent of temporal dynamics and become prominent through social construction (S. A. Alvarez et al., 2013; S. Sarasvathy, 2014), with scarce mention of time sensitivity, or remain “latent” until they are actualised (Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016). In contradistinction, this paper argues that opportunities materialise as propensities through entanglement and cannot exist before such processes (Leong, 2024; Ramoglou, 2021). These propensities are conceptualised as potentialities that hinge on interpretative acts. Through social construction and entrepreneurial endeavour, the latent potentialities within opportunities are realised and become evident.

Our perspective aligns with Korsgaard’s (2011) actor-network theory, which goes beyond constructivism, emphasises language and thought, and acknowledges the mutual constitution of the social and material. This perspective recognises the role of materials and practices in shaping reality alongside mental and discursive activities. By adopting this approach, we maintain a form of realism that acknowledges the influence of non-mental and non-discursive elements on the construction of entrepreneurial opportunities. This paper offers a fresh understanding of opportunities as propensities emerging from entanglement, highlighting the mutual constitution of the social and material realms. This perspective contributes to a more comprehensive and nuanced comprehension of the dynamics underlying entrepreneurial opportunities and their interaction with the broader entrepreneurial ecosystem. This paper contends that opportunities are dynamic, evolving over time and in response to the availability of information.

At the same time, the distributed agencies (social) and artefacts (material) are treated symmetrically in the analysis, as they are mutually constitutive. The entanglement is underpinned by the mutually entangled distributed agencies and artefacts at that specific time and place. Thus, the entrepreneur is situated in “a heterogeneous entrepreneurial network of relations that may enable or constrain entrepreneurship” (Ahmadi & Soga, 2022, p. 1), with the probabilistic emergence of opportunity that takes many forms. According to Clausen (2020), opportunity first takes the form of an ostensive idea before, over time, being translated into a performative idea and eventually into a venture offer. The opportunity state changes as more information becomes available (Leong, 2021). The opportunity is the generated effect of a network of distributed agencies and artefacts, which the entrepreneur acts upon or is acted upon, creating an entangled effect. “In other words, an individual is incomplete without the network of interconnected elements that make them who or what they are. The implication is that an individual agent who desires to be an entrepreneur would not become one if their network of heterogeneous materials does not enable entrepreneurship” (Ahmadi & Soga, 2022, p. 2). Or when the individual agent fails to recognise the ostensive-opportunistic idea in the heterogeneous combination.

Davidsson’s (2015) new venture idea and Clausen’s (2020) ostensive idea refer to the same initial opportunity state, namely the imagined future venture that entrepreneurs try to construct socially. However, the actualisation of opportunities depends on entrepreneurs’ opportunity confidence (Davidsson, 2015; Davidsson et al., 2018; Vilanova & Vitanova, 2020) and their degree of intentionality (Bird, 1989; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Mishra & Zachary, 2014). Davidsson’s (2015) opportunity confidence refers to entrepreneurs’ subjective belief in their ability to exploit an opportunity, given the external enablers. Davidsson (2015, p. 683) defines external enablers as “distinct external circumstances [s] that have the potential of playing an essential role in eliciting and/or enabling a variety of entrepreneurial endeavours by several (potential) actors”. Intentionality is defined by Bird (1989, p. 8) as a “conscious state of mind that directs attention (and therefore experience and action) towards a specific object (goal) or pathway to achieve it (means)”.

1.2. Literature Identification and Screening Criteria

To ensure conceptual rigour and transparency, the literature incorporated into the entanglement model was selected through a structured screening process. First, a systematic search was conducted across Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar covering the period 2000–2024, during which contemporary opportunity theory, judgement-action frameworks, and emergence-based perspectives underwent significant development. Search keywords included combinations of: “entrepreneurial opportunity,” “opportunity emergence,” “propensities,” “external enablers,” “judgement and action,” “uncertainty,” “effectuation,” “intra-action,” “relational ontology,” and “entrepreneurial cognition.” These terms were used to identify the literature relevant to the mechanisms through which opportunities form, materialise, and are acted upon.

Studies were included based on three criteria:

(1)

Conceptual centrality—the work provides a foundational mechanism relevant to opportunity emergence (e.g., propensities, enablers, affordances, judgement, or intentionality);

(2)

Scholarly influence—the work is highly cited or recognised as shaping contemporary debates in opportunity theory;

(3)

Theoretical complementarity—the work contributes a component that can be integrated within a relational, emergent, or intra-active understanding of entrepreneurial action.

These criteria guided the selection of works by Davidsson, Ramoglou & Tsang, Foss & Klein, Grégoire et al., Baker & Nelson, Sarasvathy, McMullen & Shepherd, and other core scholars, each of whom represents a conceptual building block in the broader architecture of entrepreneurial emergence. The resulting literature base is therefore not an arbitrary listing but a deliberately curated synthesis designed to support the theoretical coherence of the Entangled Action Model.

1.3. Conceptual Positioning

This paper suggests that entrepreneurial opportunities arise from interactions between entrepreneurs and external enablers in their environment, marking a significant shift from traditional perspectives. The resulting opportunity, becoming clearer as information becomes available, catalyses entrepreneurial action. This research explores: (1) the current definitional varieties of opportunities in the extant literature, (2) the changing nature of opportunity by grappling with any available—or to be made available—information in their paths to discovery or creation, and (3) the observer effect refers to the phenomenon where the presence of the observer and other investigators influences the entity under observation. This interaction alters the characteristics of the observed phenomenon. This elaborates on Leong’s (2022) probabilistic interpretation of the observer effect on entrepreneurial opportunity under entanglement. Finally, we suggest an Entangled Action Model that may be useful in modelling entrepreneurial action motivated by opportunities (with propensities) in an entangled situation.

Historically, entrepreneurship has been analysed through the lens of the neo-classical microeconomic model, which presumes perfect information, equilibrium, and rational actors (D. Townsend et al., 2022). This paper shifts focus to the roles of uncertainty, opportunity (defined as possibilities within propensities), and action by introducing the concept of intrinsic power, which relates to the potentialities inherent in propensities or opportunities as propensities (Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016). The paper synthesises various theoretical perspectives and extant knowledge to propose a new unified framework, termed the Entangled Action Model. This model integrates multiple concepts, including:

• Davidsson (2015): External enablers, venture ideas, and opportunity confidence.
• Lerner et al. (2018): Early-stage, intuitive venture actions.
• Pietersen and Botha (2021): Judgement-before-action approach.
• Lichtenstein (2009): Opportunity tension.
• Clausen (2020): Ostensive and performative ideas leading to venture offerings.
• S. D. Sarasvathy (2001): Effectuation.
• Fisher (2012): Effectuation, causation, and bricolage.
• Lichtenstein et al. (2006): Non-linear and abrupt changes in the venture development process.

This paper adopts a conceptual, theory-building methodology to synthesise disparate theoretical perspectives into a unified, entangled action model that explains how economic agents operate in real contexts. The present work, therefore, positions itself explicitly as a foundational conceptual contribution, whose primary purpose is to clarify the constructs, articulate the mechanisms, and propose a relational dynamics, by implicating an extensive literature review to synthesise existing theoretical perspectives. By integrating diverse concepts from various scholars, the paper constructs a comprehensive model that encapsulates the complex nature of entrepreneurial action within uncertain environments. The Entangled Action Model provides a holistic understanding of how opportunities are identified and acted upon, considering the dynamic interplay between entrepreneurs and their environments. This conceptual approach allows for examining entrepreneurship beyond traditional economic models, highlighting the importance of uncertainty and intrinsic latent power in entrepreneurial processes.

2. The Language of Opportunity and Its Gaps

In the pivotal work of Shane and Venkataraman (2000), entrepreneurship was defined as identifying entrepreneurial opportunities, a definition expanded upon by S. A. Alvarez and Barney (2013) to include creating opportunities via a repetitive, socially constructed, path-dependent process. Ramoglou and Tsang (2016) then introduced a realist approach to entrepreneurship, describing opportunities as propensities awaiting realisation within unconstrained possibilism. These interpretations led to scholarly disagreement, with some scholars arguing against the opportunity construct entirely (Davidsson, 2017; Foss & Klein, 2017; Wood, 2017). However, S. Alvarez and Barney (2020) offered a rebuttal, asserting that opportunity is a core research concern in entrepreneurship studies, necessitates Knightian uncertainty, confines research to the entrepreneurial process, and addresses theoretical shortcomings in other business fields.

Agreeing with S. Alvarez and Barney (2020), we argue for the necessity of the opportunity construct and for the inclusion of uncertainty in entrepreneurship studies. Ramoglou and Gartner (2022) advocated reorienting the opportunity construct towards acknowledging the unpredictable environmental conditions essential for realising desirable yet uncertain futures. They argued that this adjustment helps move beyond overly optimistic views of entrepreneurial agency framed solely as ‘opportunity discovery’ or ‘creation’ towards a more nuanced appreciation of the prerequisites for entrepreneurial success. Ramoglou and Gartner (2022) added that this shift provides a more balanced understanding of entrepreneurial achievement by focusing on the individual-opportunity nexus: the intertwining of an unpredictable future, an uncertain environment, stakeholder interactions, and socio-material resources.

Aligning with the realist view, this paper contends that opportunities exist in a latent state, actualised through information, with inherent propensities and unbound potential. We propose a view of opportunities as having the unseen intrinsic potential to develop into a range of possibilities, each with its probability of actualisation, shaped by the interaction between the entrepreneur and the environment. Opportunities, therefore, are emergent propensities in the individual-opportunity nexus.

We critique the discovery approach for its assumption that opportunities are pre-existing, static objects, contrasting it with the creation approach’s emphasis on the iterative, adaptive process. As Klein (2008) described, the creation approach accentuates post hoc resource assembly and personnel management over pre-hoc recognition, expectation formation, and business planning. Clausen (2020) conceptualised opportunities as evolving constructs, transitioning from abstract entrepreneurial ideas to context-specific entrepreneurial ideas upon maturation (Figure 1).

This paper contends that the inherent potential of opportunities is rooted in their propensities, each with a variable chance of realisation influenced by the surrounding environmental context and the degree of agency exerted. A pivotal insight from this study is its exploration of how opportunities evolve, illustrating the observer effect. As Cranford (2021) noted, the uncertainty principle is intertwined with the observer effect, highlighting that observation necessitates interaction, which invariably alters the observed entity. The act of observing an opportunity not only transforms it but also amplifies the competitive dynamics as rivals endeavour to capitalise on the same prospect. While uncertainties predate observation, the act introduces a layer of complexity that significantly alters the nature of the observed opportunity.

We contend that current conceptions of opportunity overlook the observer’s influence on potential outcomes. Our model highlights the complex interplay between artefacts (such as socio-material resources) and agents (including stakeholders) across distinct spatial and temporal contexts. This moulds opportunities or propensities, necessitating substantial agency engagement. This paper asserts that the tendency for particular outcomes contextually depends on the interplay among the environment, agent, and artefact. We propose that probabilistic emergence is contingent on the interplay among entities, including the entrepreneur and the environment, signifying the importance of social networks in influencing venture development. Davidsson’s (2015) identification of external enablers also plays a crucial role in providing profitable opportunities to entrepreneurs. Studying these effects requires exploring the evolving combinations and re-combinations, leading to changes in propensities over time. Our integrated model seeks to understand the triggers of entrepreneurial opportunities, their impact on entrepreneurial behaviours, and the resulting outcomes.

The significance of temporal dynamics in recognising opportunities remains an underexplored domain within the field (Lévesque & Stephan, 2020; McMullen & Dimov, 2013; Wood et al., 2021), conspicuously absent from discussions of discovery and creation paradigms. In the discovery approach, opportunities are objectively identifiable and exploitable, akin to ‘diamonds in a seam of rock’ (Bigelow & Barney, 2021), as illustrated in Figure 2. This oversimplification implies a time-insensitive, linear, and uncertainty-free process of opportunity observation, recognition, and exploitation, raising questions about its entrepreneurial character.

A related question concerns when opportunities are recognised. According to Davidsson (2015), does an opportunity’s existence cease or become disputable if an entrepreneur elects not to pursue it? Renko et al. (2012) proposed a model in which subjective perceptions and objective market conditions jointly influence opportunity recognition. Given that these parameters vary over time, timing is pivotal to the development of opportunities.

S. A. Alvarez and Barney (2007) proposed that opportunities are internally generated through entrepreneurial actions, are always in process, and are unknown in advance. Opportunities, seen as the culmination of a venture, are revealed only post-creation and never instigate a venture, reflecting the paradox inherent in the creation approach. We posit that entrepreneurs’ perceptions and beliefs arise not from yet-to-be-formed opportunities but from environmental information cues that lead to their enactment. These cues bridge the network and the entrepreneur, illuminating available resources for capitalisation and exploitation.

3. Discussion

This study anchors on the concept of opportunity as the primary unit of analysis, emphasising opportunities resulting from entanglement. Physical entanglement, as understood in quantum mechanics, is a mathematically formalised phenomenon in which the states of particles become non-separable regardless of spatial distance. This non-classical behaviour arises from the properties of Hilbert spaces, density matrices, and tensor product structures, and cannot be reproduced or meaningfully approximated at organisational or social scales. Entrepreneurial entanglement, by contrast, operates within a socio-material domain and refers to the relational non-separability of agents, artefacts, environmental cues, and institutional conditions. The use of entanglement in this paper is therefore conceptual rather than physical, serving as a metaphorical and ontological lens for capturing how entrepreneurial opportunities emerge from mutually conditioning relationships rather than isolated actions or discrete events. The analogy is thus epistemically bounded as it draws on the relational logic of entanglement, not its physics, to illuminate opportunity emergence as a non-linear, distributed, and systemic phenomenon. This distinction ensures that the term is not employed as a claim of scientific equivalence, but as a disciplined theoretical tool consistent with relational and process-based approaches in organisational theory.

Recognising the complexity of physical entanglement, the manuscript explicitly refrains from overstating the analogy, acknowledges the limits of cross-domain borrowing, and clarifies that entrepreneurial systems do not exhibit quantum behaviour. Instead, the model emphasises socio-material relationality, dispositional potential, and the probabilistic formation of opportunities.

This paper, therefore, contends that opportunities materialise within space and time, facilitated by external enablers within the individual-opportunity nexus. Entrepreneurs interpret experiences and environmental contexts, mentally forming opportunities through actions and interactions. Thus, opportunity emergence stems from its entanglement with relevant agents, stakeholders, and entrepreneurs’ cognitive frameworks.

3.1. Entanglement, Interaction, and Intra-Action: Clarifying Relational Foundations

The theoretical distinctions between interaction, intra-action, and entanglement are central to understanding the relational ontology underpinning entrepreneurial emergence. Although these terms are frequently used interchangeably in organisational and social theory, they refer to fundamentally different assumptions about how entities relate to one another, change, and co-produce outcomes. The present paper adopts a relational paradigm closer to intra-action (Barad, 2007) than to traditional notions of interaction, and this distinction provides conceptual grounding for the proposed Entangled Action Model.

Interaction presumes the prior existence of discrete, independent entities—such as the entrepreneur, the environment, or artefacts—that subsequently come into contact with one another. From this perspective, entrepreneurial opportunities arise when stable units “touch,” “collide,” or “exchange” influence. This model aligns with classical economic and strategic reasoning, where actors possess predefined preferences, resources, and capabilities before encountering external conditions. While interaction captures observable relations between entities, it does not explain how those entities themselves become constituted through their relations, nor how opportunities emerge from deeper socio-material entanglements.

Intra-action, as developed in agential realism (Barad, 2007), rejects the assumption that agents and artefacts pre-exist relational events. Instead, intra-action posits that entities acquire their boundaries, identities, and propensities through their relational engagement. In entrepreneurship, this implies that neither the entrepreneur nor the opportunity exists as a stable, independent unit before their encounter. Rather, entrepreneurial intentions, environmental cues, artefacts, and socio-material conditions co-constitute each other in a specific spatiotemporal configuration. Intra-action, therefore, provides an ontological basis for understanding opportunity as emergent, contingent, and continuously shaped by ongoing relational becoming.

Physical entanglement, in the strict quantum mechanical sense, refers to a non-classical state in which two or more particles become correlated such that their properties cannot be described independently, regardless of spatial separation (Paneru et al., 2020). This phenomenon is governed by the mathematical formalism of quantum state vectors and is measurable only within the constraints of quantum physics. The concept is retained here solely to acknowledge its origin and to emphasise its technical specificity.

Entrepreneurial Entanglement, as articulated in this paper, builds on the logic of intra-action but places greater emphasis on propensity formation and non-separability. Entanglement denotes a state in which entities cannot be meaningfully analysed in isolation because their dispositions, potentialities, and effects are mutually conditioned. Under entrepreneurial entanglement, what the entrepreneur can perceive, imagine, or act upon depends inherently on the constellation of artefacts, distributed agencies, informational cues, and environmental shifts present at that moment.

These analogical limits mark the boundary between legitimate conceptual borrowing and unwarranted physical equivalence. While the term ‘entanglement’ provides a productive metaphor for non-linearity, mutual dependence, and emergent possibility in entrepreneurial contexts, the present framework does not assume quantum effects at the organisational level. The analogy is therefore epistemic rather than ontological: quantum entanglement provides a conceptual lens for describing relational dynamics, not a claim that entrepreneurial systems operate according to quantum physics. Conversely, the environment’s opportunity structure is altered by the presence, perception, and interpretation of the entrepreneur. Entanglement therefore captures both the mutual constitution of entities (intra-action) and the probabilistic, dispositional orientation of emergent opportunities (propensities).

Conceptually, interaction describes contact, intra-action describes co-constitution, and entanglement describes non-separable emergence. The Entangled Action Model aligns most closely with intra-active relational thinking while extending it by incorporating a realist account of propensities and probabilistic emergence. This synthesis allows the model to transcend linear or agent-centric explanations and instead frame entrepreneurial opportunity as a phenomenon arising from the dynamic, mutually conditioning relations among agents, artefacts, and socio-material structures.

By clarifying these distinctions, this subsection strengthens the paper’s theoretical foundations and addresses the reviewer’s question about the compatibility among entanglement, intersection, and intra-action. Entrepreneurial entanglement is theoretically compatible with—and conceptually enriched by—the notion of intra-action, while surpassing interactional accounts that assume pre-constituted units. This framing provides a more rigorous explanation of how opportunities emerge, why they appear to some but not others, and how relational configurations shape the probability space within which entrepreneurial action unfolds.

3.2. Explaining the Entangled Action Model

Entrepreneurship involves creative agency, with ventures and opportunities arising from interactions and disturbances, such as economic shocks, between entrepreneurs and their environment (Kimjeon & Davidsson, 2021). Hunt et al. (2022a) emphasised the role of reasoned intentionality in entrepreneurship. Our model posits that outcomes in an entangled system are causally intertwined, expanding Ramoglou and Tsang’s (2016) concept of opportunities as propensities. The entrepreneurial entanglement model highlights the intensity of agency in the actualisation of opportunities, reconciling the subjective process with the objective existence of opportunities. The model clarifies entrepreneurs’ cognitive engagement with socio-material resources before opportunity realisation.

Opportunities stimulate entrepreneurship, instigating action. While contemporary entrepreneurial research often treats environmental and contextual factors as mere moderators (Davidsson et al., 2021), this paper proposes that these factors are integral, not merely moderators of entrepreneurial causality. In our entanglement model, the entrepreneur and the environment are simultaneously critical for the emergence of opportunities. Opportunities, seen as propensities, emerge from this entanglement, reflecting possible states. The system constitutes an indivisible whole, in which parts cannot be fully described independently, underscoring the importance of their entanglement.

Clydesdale (2009) highlighted the market’s dynamism, providing opportunities that manifest at the right time and place. The venture process necessarily engages with external enablers intertwined with their environment. According to Davidsson (2015), these enablers are broader environmental factors (e.g., technological developments, geopolitical shifts, regulatory changes) that catalyse or bolster venturing attempts. These unique, transient conditions influence outcomes such as supply, demand, or prices (Davidsson, 2015). Once divested of their coincidental, random, and unpredictable characteristics, the convergence of these factors can yield unexpectedly significant impacts (França & Rua, 2019). The central inquiries pertain to potential causal relations within entangled system components and their spatiotemporal relations to emergence events. Entangled emergence occurs when relational elements converge in a specific space-time context to exert influence. Such entanglement must precede enactment, even as some entrepreneurs successfully exploit these changes (Davidsson, 2015).

The discovery perspective holds that entrepreneurial opportunities stem from objective, independent environmental conditions that pre-exist the observer, with space being a crucial factor. Conversely, the creation perspective posits that opportunities are crafted through entrepreneurs’ actions, drawing on available environmental resources and enablers (S. A. Alvarez & Barney, 2007). Yet a trigger that inspires entrepreneurs to mobilise these means to create opportunities is essential. We argue that such a trigger is entrepreneurial intentionality, a key driver of venture creation, implicated in the entanglement that precedes entrepreneurial action. Given the unpredictable outcome of opportunity creation or market capitalisation, action must be intentional (Leong, 2021). As Krueger et al. (2000) stated, understanding intentions helps discern related phenomena, such as triggers for opportunity scanning, the origins of venture ideas, and the actualisation of ventures.

The discovery and creation perspectives necessitate the mutual occurrence of environmental conditions, entrepreneurial perceptions, intentionality, action, and outcomes, as encapsulated in the entrepreneurial entanglement model. The array of available resources, encompassing external enablers, agents, and artefacts, is critical to this entanglement, mirroring the principles of actor-network theory. Entrepreneurs interpret environmental cues into signals, crafting perceived opportunities that leverage these exogenous resources to form viable business propositions (Krueger et al., 2000; Leong, 2021). Entrepreneurial intentionality differentiates entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs who may identify but not act upon the same resources.

Entrepreneurial intentions mediate between venture initiation and potential exogenous influences and are key in comprehending other antecedents. As noted by Krueger et al. (2000), these include situational beliefs, moderating variables such as perceived resource availability, and outcomes such as venture initiation. This entanglement view aligns with Ramoglou and Tsang’s (2016) opportunities-as-propensities perspective, focusing on the emergence of opportunities as propensities, spatially and temporally bound, driving entrepreneurs towards exploitative actions.

Agent-centricity is critical in this context, as entrepreneurs’ interpretations guide the emergence of propensities. Evans’s (2020) concept of perspectivalism concerns an agent’s situatedness and specific intentionality, suggesting that situating an agent within a particular context yields diverse interpretations and perspectives. Evans (2020) identified causal perspectivism as the epistemic outcome of an agent’s inevitable embeddedness in a temporally directional environment. The nexus of entanglement, involving the entrepreneur’s intentionality and the environment with key socio-material resources, generates multiple temporal propensities.

Ramoglou and McMullen (2024) highlighted that business venturing requires multiple favourable conditions and enabling factors, including environmental conditions, to actualise expected gains. These conditions and factors converge within an individual opportunity entanglement at a particular time. This convergence, depicted in Figure 3, forms the basis for entrepreneurial action. The environment-embedded observer’s interactive nature is essential to the entanglement, generating a multitude of propensities that could potentially become actionable opportunities.

Environmental opportunities arise when entrepreneurs with high intentionality engage with external enablers. Figure 4 illustrates the entanglement of the entrepreneur, environment, and emerging opportunities as propensities. This process requires favourable conditions and enabling factors (e.g., shifts in consumer preferences, policy changes, technological advancements), as well as supportive agencies (e.g., exclusive distributorships, favourable tax frameworks, advanced partnerships, or funding). Opportunities arise at specific times and places in this entangled situation. Once the entrepreneur observes an opportunity, its potentialities collapse into a single reality, shifting from inherent uncertainty to a specific actuality upon the entrepreneur’s intent to exploit it. The entanglement of agents and artefacts in the individual-opportunity nexus encapsulates the mechanism’s operational process. The concept of opportunity, in the absence of a creative agent-entrepreneur, remains elusive, as the realised venture results from complexly interacting, empirically unobservable generative mechanisms (Berglund & Korsgaard, 2017) and lacks inherent self-propelling mechanisms (Dimov, 2011). This work explores intricate mechanisms within entanglement, examining their relations with both involved and uninvolved agents and artefacts (illustrated in Figure 3). The temporary nexus formed during entanglement provides an opportunity, prompting entrepreneurial action and reaction. Emphasising situated agency, performativity allows for insight into the emergence and execution of change (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). This ongoing interaction within the entanglement portrays entrepreneurship as a continuous process with infinite possibilities.

Entrepreneurship, illustrated in Figure 5, is about translating ideas into action through exploration, with a grey zone of uncertainty between the idea and the action. Given resource heterogeneity and uncertainty, entrepreneurs must judge whether to advance the venture. Foss and Klein (2020) supported this concept by advocating for a judgement-based perspective that focuses on resource diversity, uncertainty, and a framework that integrates beliefs, actions, and results (BAR).

Entrepreneurs navigate through phases of discovery and creation, concurrently or sequentially, to shape reality via the actualisation process presented by an opportunity emerging from the entanglement between the entrepreneur and their environment. This entanglement occurs in a specific spatiotemporal linkage between the entrepreneur and the environment, with intention playing a crucial role. As Collins et al. (1964) described, during periods of uncertainty, entrepreneurs harness their creativity to reshape their futures, transforming dreams into tangible businesses.

Our proposed Entangled Action Model enhances entrepreneurial action theory by integrating theories of Davidsson (2015), Lerner et al. (2018), Pietersen and Botha (2021), Lichtenstein (2009), Clausen (2020), and others. The model, as depicted in Figure 5, builds upon the following elements:

Entanglement effect. Entrepreneurial opportunities, seen as propensities, emerge from the entanglement between the entrepreneur and the environment at a specific moment. This entanglement signifies the mutual dependency of participating entities, each with a unique historical context, interwoven within a complex relational web. These opportunities are translated into probabilities through this entanglement, overcoming intricate interferences (McKelvey, 2002). The dispositional character of the opportunity offers a vast array of possibilities. Yet, a single propensity becomes salient while the rest are deemed irrelevant, guided by aligning the entrepreneur’s self-efficacy, intention, and anticipatory cognition with these possibilities. The wave function symbolises opportunity and is instrumental in interpreting how probabilities influence entrepreneurial dynamics. It encapsulates the constructed potential of the perceived opportunity, varying with levels of confidence and intentionality. The peak of the wave function signifies the envisioned future venture with the highest opportunity confidence or intentionality. The signal distribution suggests the strength of the entrepreneur’s awareness of information, with a narrower distribution indicating better perception and interpretation. The actualisation of the opportunity depends on the strategies implemented and the efforts made. Individual recognitions, identifications, and interpretations shape waveforms.

Translation phases of opportunity. The entrepreneurial journey commences with an abstract, nebulous idea or an opportunity belief and gradually metamorphoses into a tangible venture offering. Clausen’s (2020) model delineates three transitory states in this transformation process. Clausen (2020) posited that opportunities progress through stages, evolving from nebulous ostensive ideas to more defined performative ideas and culminating as tangible venture offerings, catalysing entrepreneurial activity. Ostensive and performative ideas reside within the mental construct and entrepreneurial cognition, whereas venture offerings materialise as discernible opportunities that stimulate entrepreneurial initiatives.

Entrepreneurial Action Theory. Entrepreneurship scholarship has grappled with the dichotomy between rationality and impulsivity within entrepreneurial action and its prevailing theories, which assume precedence of rational intentionality (Hunt et al., 2022a, 2022b). The scholarship underscores the coexistence of rational and non-rational tendencies, decisions, and actions among entrepreneurs. Our Entangled Action Model, illustrated in Figure 5, incorporates these critical dimensions: rational intentionality, non-rational impulsive action, and rational behaviour.

Figure 5 illustrates the Entangled Action Model, emphasising that entrepreneurial actions driven by opportunities often involve intuition, impulsivity, and non-deliberation. This model comprehensively depicts entrepreneurial action, including impulsive and reflective rational behaviours in opportunity pursuit. Concrete action is influenced by the entrepreneur’s sensitivity to opportunities, moderated by intentionality and confidence. The model aligns with Hunt et al. (2022b), suggesting that entrepreneurial action theories should incorporate a spectrum of rational and non-rational dynamic forces. The model proposes a sequential two-phase entrepreneurial pathway:

• Phase 1: Marked by non-rational behaviour, characterised by less deliberate impulsivity.
• Phase 2: Defined by rational, reflective logic, evolving into deliberate actions facilitated by sensemaking over time.

During Phase 1, entrepreneurs intuitively respond to opportunity sensing, forming opportunity beliefs based on situational awareness. This awareness includes environmental elements, external enablers, and social networks within a specific context. Entrepreneurs move non-linearly towards perceived opportunities, driven by subjective interpretations of initial informational cues, favourable conditions, and external enablers that are entangled at a particular time.

In Phase 2, entrepreneurs refine their exploitation strategies during the judgement-action phase, guided by experiences and interpretations of emerging information. They use various methods to turn abstract ideas into actual ventures, including creation, bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005), and effectuation (S. D. Sarasvathy, 2001). Drawing on Hebert and Link’s (1988) theorisation, the model argues that entrepreneurs respond to and instigate changes under uncertain conditions, aiming for profit. They are propelled by strong intentionality and confidence in the opportunity, reflecting a positive evaluation of stimuli relevant to new economic activity. As defined by Davidsson (2015), opportunity confidence involves an evaluation–judgement process where a vague venture idea evolves into a concrete opportunity, integrating confidence, intentionality, and time. The resultant wave function depicts the perceived opportunity’s potentiality, gauged by available information.

Aligning with Hunt et al.’s (2022b), the model posits that entrepreneurial action theory should encompass rational and intuitive behaviours. Phase 1 enables entrepreneurs to advance towards perceived opportunities swiftly, thereby expediting the actualisation of opportunities. This framework proposes that initial impulsivity be embraced, with the entanglement of the right conditions (external enablers), a supportive agentic network, and resources at the right time, forming an optimal situation for opportunity potential. Entrepreneurial action must occur at this critical moment, where high confidence and intentionality are present. Thus, “entrepreneurial action refers to behaviour in response to a judgemental decision under conditions of uncertainty about a possible opportunity for profit” (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006, p. 134). This judgmental decision, made under conditions of uncertainty at this critical moment, determines the outcome of entrepreneurial exploitation.

The integration of prior theoretical perspectives within the entanglement model is not a simple aggregation of disparate ideas but a structured synthesis in which each theoretical stream performs a specific functional role. Davidsson’s external enablers and tripartite structure provide the environmental and structural conditions that shape the landscape of propensities in which opportunities may emerge. Ramoglou and Tsang’s propensities view offers an ontological grounding for understanding opportunities as dispositional potentials rather than fixed entities. Shane, Eckhardt, Lerner, Hunt, and Dimov contribute cognitive, behavioural, and interpretive mechanisms that explain how entrepreneurs perceive, activate, or fail to activate these propensities. When viewed together, these theories form a synergistic relational architecture: external enablers shape the field of potentiality; propensities define the emergent nature of opportunities; and entrepreneurial cognition and action determine the conditions under which latent potentials are actualised. Rather than being in conflict, the theories operate at complementary levels—structural, dispositional, and agentic—and their functional integration illuminates how opportunity emergence is simultaneously environmental, relational, and intentional. This functional mapping strengthens the conceptual coherence of the entanglement model and clarifies the mechanism through which opportunities materialise.

3.3. Contributions to Theory and Practice

This model introduces the concept of entanglement within a unique space-time framework that synchronises events, occurrences, and socio-material resources.

Zoom (Long-Cycle Propensity Formation Enabled by Environmental Shock).

The growth trajectory of Zoom demonstrates the temporally extended nature of propensity formation and how latent dispositions become actualised only when the environment becomes entangled in a particular configuration. Founded in April 2011 and releasing its first beta in September 2012, Zoom has built infrastructure over nearly eight years—high-fidelity video compression, frictionless onboarding, scalable cloud architecture—without yet achieving widespread dominance. These capabilities remained latent, forming a field of potentiality but not a realised opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic functioned as a powerful external enabler, radically reconfiguring global socio-material conditions and creating unprecedented demand for remote, synchronous communication. As Joia and Lorenzo (2021) note, Zoom’s flourishing during COVID-19 was not a matter of sudden innovation but of a long-standing propensity field entangling with a unique environmental shock. Founder Eric Yuan’s situated intentionality—rapidly scaling infrastructure, opening access to schools, and relaxing licencing barriers—played a decisive interpretive role, collapsing the latent propensity into an actualised opportunity through purposeful engagement within the entangled configuration.

Buffett–Munger (Cognitive Complementarity and Multi-Decade Relational Entanglement).

The partnership of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger represents an entanglement sustained over four decades through deep cognitive complementarity at Berkshire Hathaway. Their collaboration catalysed the transformation of a modest New England textile mill into one of the world’s most influential conglomerates, exemplifying how enduring relational entanglement reshapes organisational possibility spaces. As Platt and Clarfelt (2023) observed, Munger’s recent passing marks the end of an alliance that fundamentally reshaped an entire sector of financial capitalism. The origin of their partnership—an initially serendipitous meeting in Omaha—was itself a pivotal entanglement moment that set in motion the long-term recomposition of Berkshire’s strategic posture (Umoh, 2018). Within this partnership, Buffett’s disciplined value-investing frame and Munger’s multidisciplinary reasoning became mutually conditioning; neither actor’s judgmental orientation can be analysed independently of the other. Their opportunity recognition processes unfolded within a broader landscape of external enablers, including post-war industrial restructuring, regulatory evolution, and the availability of undervalued firms. Their situated intentionality transformed these structural conditions into actionable opportunities, illustrating the Entangled Action Model’s core mechanism: the emergence of opportunities through relational, cognitive, and environmental co-constitution.

Starbucks (Artefact–Actor–Institutional Entanglement and Cultural Propensities).

The growth of Starbucks embodies entanglement at the intersection of cultural propensities, material artefacts, and entrepreneurial intentionality. The story of Bill Gates Sr. assisting Howard Schultz in acquiring Starbucks illustrates how relational entanglement can materially influence the probability space of opportunity emergence. As Schultz envisioned an American reinterpretation of the Italian café experience, Starbucks’ growth was enabled by rising national enthusiasm for premium coffee, shifting consumer habits, and the emergence of “third-place” social spaces. Scholars and practitioners have documented how Starbucks’ success was facilitated by external enablers, including evolving consumer preferences, supply-chain improvements, the rise in subculture brands, and growing industry homogenisation—all of which created a fertile landscape of consumer preferences (Leong, 2023). Schultz’s situated intentionality reconfigured coffee consumption from commodity purchase to experiential lifestyle, collapsing cultural, spatial, and material propensities into a commercial opportunity. Starbucks’ rise thus reflects the entanglement of artefacts (espresso machines, store design), actors (Schultz, Gates Sr.), and institutional dynamics (consumer culture, retail trends), exemplifying how entrepreneurial success emerges from multi-layered relational configurations.

4. Conclusions

This paper has argued that the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities cannot be fully understood without recognising the complex socio-material entanglements that precede and shape their actualisation. By advancing the Entangled Action Model, the study provides an integrative theoretical framework that explains how opportunities arise not as pre-existing entities nor as purely constructed artefacts, but as propensities situated within entangled networks of agents, artefacts, conditions, and temporal contexts. This expanded conclusion synthesises these insights, articulates their theoretical relevance, and outlines pathways for future empirical research.

Fundamentally, the model reframes entrepreneurial opportunity as an emergent phenomenon arising from a spatiotemporal nexus in which the entrepreneur, external enablers, socio-material resources, and distributed agencies intersect. This perspective moves beyond dichotomies that dominate the opportunity literature—most notably discovery versus creation—by demonstrating that opportunity becomes visible and actionable only within a moment of entanglement shaped by both uncertainty and intentionality. The framework thereby enriches Ramoglou and Tsang’s propensity-based ontology while offering a mechanism through which latent potential becomes realised through agentic engagement.

The expanded model further underscores the entrepreneur’s decisive role as an intentional observer. Observation is not passive; it transforms the opportunity field itself. When an entrepreneur identifies and interprets available cues, competitive, informational, and environmental dynamics shift in response. This observer-dependent transformation explains why opportunities appear obvious to some actors but remain invisible to others, even when they exist within the same external conditions. In doing so, the model brings together theories of intentionality, opportunity confidence, and judgement-action under an entanglement-based understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour.

The theoretical contribution of this paper lies in clarifying the generative mechanisms that underlie entrepreneurial emergence. By foregrounding the socio-material, temporal, and relational conditions of opportunity formation, the model integrates extant scholarship—from external enablers and actor-network theory to effectuation, bricolage, and judgement-based views—into a unified theoretical structure. This integrative contribution offers scholars a more comprehensive vocabulary for explaining entrepreneurial action under uncertainty and provides a coherent foundation for future refinements in opportunity theory.

In practical terms, the model provides entrepreneurs, educators, and policymakers with a framework for recognising how opportunities materialise through interactions rather than in isolation. For practitioners, the model underscores the importance of cultivating the conditions that enhance one’s entanglement capacity—developing diverse networks, heightening situational awareness, recognising informational cues, and acting intentionally at moments of temporal alignment and entanglement. The use of the term entanglement in this paper is intentionally constrained and is not intended to imply that entrepreneurial phenomena exhibit quantum physical properties. Physical entanglement possesses mathematical and physical complexities that have no analogue at the level of human behaviour or organisational systems. The analogy employed here is therefore purely conceptual, grounded in relational ontology and intended to offer an integrative vocabulary for describing non-separable socio-material configurations in entrepreneurial emergence. The model does not claim novelty based on the quantum terminology itself, nor does it suggest that entrepreneurial systems obey quantum mechanical laws. By explicitly acknowledging these limitations, the framework seeks to maintain conceptual precision, ethical transparency, and disciplinary integrity. Future research may continue refining the relational logic of the model without drawing on quantum terminology where unnecessary, while retaining the focus on the dynamic and interdependent mechanisms by which opportunities emerge.

Future research could operationalise the constructs of entanglement, propensities, and observer-dependent emergence through several methodological avenues. Longitudinal process studies may trace how opportunity narratives evolve through entangled interactions over time. Experimental or quasi-experimental designs may examine how variations in environmental cues influence opportunity recognition and judgement. Network-analytic approaches could map socio-material configurations to quantify how specific configurations correlate with differential opportunity emergence. Computational simulations may offer insights into the dynamic non-linearities inherent in entangled entrepreneurial systems. Collectively, such empirical extensions would allow for rigorous testing of the Entangled Action Model’s descriptive and predictive validity.

Finally, this paper offers a revised, relational, and temporally attuned understanding of entrepreneurial opportunities, positioning them as emergent propensities shaped by the entanglement of entrepreneurs, artefacts, and distributed agencies. By integrating theoretical strands across the entrepreneurship literature, the Entangled Action Model reframes opportunity not as an object to be found nor merely a construct to be made, but as a phenomenon that materialises within intricate, evolving networks of interaction. The entrepreneur’s task, therefore, is not simply to discover or create, but to navigate, interpret, and act within these dynamic entanglements. When the configuration of conditions, agents, artefacts, and intentions aligns, a latent potentiality collapses into an actualised entrepreneurial reality. If misaligned, the possibility dissipates. The future of entrepreneurship research, accordingly, lies in deepening our understanding of how such entangled mechanisms generate the conditions for venture emergence and how they may be empirically observed, measured, and theorised.