How did your passion for the particularly complex fields of entrepreneurship, innovation and business strategy emerge? Was there any particularly significant moment in your academic and scientific path that helped consolidate this direction?
My engagement with these areas arose less from a single moment and more from a cumulative path of observation and questioning. The truth is that, since my undergraduate studies, this was always an area that interested me, particularly because studying companies goes far beyond organised accounting or auditing which is the analytical side, so to speak. There was a particularly influential person, my thesis supervisor, whom I chose even before choosing the topic, because I wanted to work with someone who thought strategy and strategic management. He is someone I still work with today: Professor João Ferreira from the University of Beira Interior. I accepted the challenges he set me, including applying in Portugal a questionnaire related to the location factors of technology‑based firms. For many years, I have been dedicated to this field of study, which ultimately revolves around the challenge of understanding why, in similar contexts, there are variations in success – we might draw an analogy with an aquarium, where several fish coexist with different behaviours: some survive longer, others do not. Early on, I became interested in understanding why organisations exposed to similar contexts evolve in such distinct ways. Therefore, the overarching “umbrella” is always entrepreneurship and innovation; within it there are many themes that we explore, offering a particularly fertile ground to examine this diversity by crossing strategic decisions, institutional constraints and human action, always under uncertainty. A pivotal moment was my deeper contact with institutional theories, which allowed me to articulate micro, meso and macro levels of analysis and consolidate a research agenda oriented towards complex and dynamic phenomena.

Organisational phenomena are inevitably impacted by contexts of uncertainty, pressure and change. Which types of organisational decisions or behaviours do you consider most decisive for ensuring long‑term stability?
Organisational stability does not stem from the absence of change but from the ability to integrate it consistently. Decisions that promote continuous learning among entrepreneurs, strategic alignment and informed adaptation to the institutional context are central. I would also highlight organisational behaviours that value critical reflection, cognitive diversity and the development of internal capabilities, rather than reactive or merely imitative responses. In the long term, these are the choices that enable organisations to maintain strategic coherence without compromising their flexibility. The key to dealing with crises (and we can predict several in the future, even though we do not know what the future holds) lies in adaptability and resilience: companies must be aware of this and build greater adaptive and dynamic capacity. This is what we witnessed during the COVID‑19 pandemic, when many textile companies began producing masks, gowns and medical equipment, maintaining their operations through adaptation.

In management, “best practices” are often mentioned, not always critically. How do you view the risk of research being used simplistically or out of context?
I remember that, a few years ago, we interviewed an entrepreneur from a large company that produces fabrics for major brands, in order to apply the ‘strategic clock’ tool. He would often say, “I don’t care about theory, I have this feeling.” How do you explain to an entrepreneur that behind that feeling there is theoretical support that validates results? The risk is therefore real and especially relevant in applied fields such as management. Concepts like “best practices” tend to be decontextualised, ignoring theoretical assumptions and empirical limitations. As a researcher, I consider it essential to communicate findings clearly but also rigorously, explaining the conditions under which they hold and avoiding excessive generalisations. Research should inform decision‑making, not replace it or provide universal formulas.

Organisations are also spaces of power, conflict and negotiation. How important is the human dimension when compared to the more analytical nature of management?
The human dimension is structural, not complementary, to management analysis. Organisational decisions are made by individuals embedded in power relations, social norms and institutional frameworks. In fact, a practical example that illustrates the importance of the human dimension is the reality we see in our country, where many entrepreneurs, particularly in family businesses, face generational succession problems that create difficulties for the next generations. Even when successors wish to continue the business, they often encounter resistance from those who are unwilling to relinquish decision‑making power. Ignoring this dimension compromises the understanding of the phenomena under study. Quantitative analysis and formal models are fundamental tools, but they only gain meaning when articulated with a careful reading of human behaviours, motivations and interactions.

There is often a gap between available scientific evidence and what organisations are willing to hear and implement. In which circumstances do you find this gap most evident?
This gap tends to widen in contexts of high time pressure, uncertainty, or when scientific conclusions challenge dominant narratives or established interests. It also emerges when research is perceived as excessively abstract or distant from organisational reality. Bridging science and practice requires conceptual translation, continuous dialogue and mutual recognition of limitations on both sides. And the difficulty in getting entrepreneurs to listen is real and widespread. I have participated in several international projects and we always made a point of sending the results. The companies that took part never replied, and it becomes a thankless effort because, in one specific case, for example, we demonstrated that using sustainable technology transfer and sustainable innovations can foster green growth, which in turn has a positive impact on economic growth.
I can give another example of evidence we have proven: companies that adopt green innovations achieve better financial performance than those that innovate traditionally and show stronger growth. More recently, we found that what leads companies to adopt such practices is their attention to the market and to what customers want. These are ways of leveraging investment in sustainability, making companies themselves more sustainable – economically! We present these topics at conferences, where we discuss our results, but they are academic conferences, where entrepreneurs are not present and have no interest in attending to listen to academics speak about theoretical content. And then, in practice, what actually happens with the data collected? That is what we ask ourselves.

There are many preconceived ideas about entrepreneurship. Which myths do you think research has been debunking in recent years?
Research has helped dismantle the idea of the entrepreneur as an individual hero driven solely by talent or intuition. Today we know that entrepreneurship is a collective phenomenon, shaped by institutional contexts, knowledge networks and prior trajectories. Another recurring myth is that innovation is a linear and always successful process, when in reality error, failure and incremental recombination play a central role. I believe that an entrepreneur can emerge anywhere, but having practical know‑how in a particular area does not grant the knowledge required to run a business. Before opening a company, training should be mandatory – not necessarily a higher academic qualification, but a certification that guarantees business management competence. The banking sector requires a business plan for obtaining a loan to open a company, but most people do not know what this is. Before thinking about numbers, one must think about attitudes.

You are part of the 2025 edition of the World’s Top 2% Scientists list, which recognises the most cited researchers worldwide, and you regularly collaborate with leading international scientific journals. In your view, what distinguishes relevant and lasting scientific output in the field of management?
Scientific relevance rests on the ability to formulate research questions that are theoretically anchored and empirically robust, capable of withstanding time and conceptual trends. Enduring research contributes to the cumulative advancement of knowledge, engages with different theoretical streams and maintains coherence throughout the researcher’s career.
For me, impact is not measured solely by citations, but by the ability to influence research agendas and ways of thinking about organisational phenomena. I often say I have two passions in life: my daughter and research – the ability to produce knowledge that is appealing not only to other researchers but also to businesspeople and entrepreneurs. That remains the challenge. My research group works very closely with companies, to whom we always try to demonstrate that a theoretical principle has direct practical application and can often be a guarantee of success. For me, scientific relevance is also this: producing knowledge that has direct applicability and can help those working on the ground. Even if they do not always listen to us.

After so many years studying organisations and decision‑making processes, what do you foresee for the near future of institutions, leadership and collective choices in everyday business life?
I foresee institutions subject to greater scrutiny, leaderships increasingly exposed to complexity, and collective decisions ever more conditioned by external, technological and institutional shocks. In this context, approaches that value critical thinking, adaptive capacity and collective responsibility will gain relevance. More than fixed models of leadership or strategy, the future will demand decision‑making processes grounded in reflection, informed judgement and awareness of social and institutional implications. After COVID, in our research we found that all companies with stronger adaptive capacity – the dynamic capabilities we have mentioned – were the ones that managed to survive more effectively. This adaptive capacity will always be decisive. The main message is that within shocks lie opportunities. Despite everything, even in the most dramatic crises – and the current global situation is very worrying – opportunities always emerge for those capable of reading the context and adapting. The problem is that many people hold a fatalistic perspective, and that cannot be. We cannot remain still. We must think ahead: “I do this, but what could I do differently if X happens?” We need a proactive, not reactive, approach. Being prepared is never negative: if it happens, we are ready; if it does not, we lose nothing. Ultimately, all of this returns to the same point: a focus on planning. Strategic thinking is crucial.

You can find more information on the professor and researcher here.