A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision‐making: Large‐scale replication and extension

IF 6.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Strategic Management Journal Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI:10.1002/smj.3580
Arnaldo Camuffo, Alfonso Gambardella, Danilo Messinese, Elena Novelli, Emilio Paolucci, Chiara Spina
{"title":"A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision‐making: Large‐scale replication and extension","authors":"Arnaldo Camuffo, Alfonso Gambardella, Danilo Messinese, Elena Novelli, Emilio Paolucci, Chiara Spina","doi":"10.1002/smj.3580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis article runs a large‐scale replication of Camuffo and colleagues in 2020, involving 759 firms in four randomized control trials. The larger sample generates novel and more precise insights about the teachability and implications of a scientific approach in entrepreneurship. We observe a positive impact on idea termination and results that are consistent with a nonlinear effect on radical pivots, with treated firms running few over no or repeated pivots. We provide a theoretical interpretation of the empirical results: the scientific approach enhances entrepreneurs' efficiency in searching for viable ideas and raises their methodic doubt because, like scientists, they realize that there may be alternative scenarios from the ones that they theorize.Managerial SummaryThe findings of this article, based on four randomized control trials involving 759 firms, offer new insights into how entrepreneurial practices can benefit from a scientific approach to decision‐making. Key outcomes include an increase in the termination of ideas and a nuanced influence on the tendency to make strategy changes. Specifically, firms that adopted a scientific approach made a few strategic shifts, as opposed to either not changing or constantly changing their strategy. We suggest that this is due to the scientific approach helping entrepreneurs be more efficient when searching for valuable ideas, as well as being more careful in selecting those ideas.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strategic Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3580","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research SummaryThis article runs a large‐scale replication of Camuffo and colleagues in 2020, involving 759 firms in four randomized control trials. The larger sample generates novel and more precise insights about the teachability and implications of a scientific approach in entrepreneurship. We observe a positive impact on idea termination and results that are consistent with a nonlinear effect on radical pivots, with treated firms running few over no or repeated pivots. We provide a theoretical interpretation of the empirical results: the scientific approach enhances entrepreneurs' efficiency in searching for viable ideas and raises their methodic doubt because, like scientists, they realize that there may be alternative scenarios from the ones that they theorize.Managerial SummaryThe findings of this article, based on four randomized control trials involving 759 firms, offer new insights into how entrepreneurial practices can benefit from a scientific approach to decision‐making. Key outcomes include an increase in the termination of ideas and a nuanced influence on the tendency to make strategy changes. Specifically, firms that adopted a scientific approach made a few strategic shifts, as opposed to either not changing or constantly changing their strategy. We suggest that this is due to the scientific approach helping entrepreneurs be more efficient when searching for valuable ideas, as well as being more careful in selecting those ideas.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创业决策的科学方法:大规模复制和推广
研究摘要本文大规模复制了卡马福及其同事在 2020 年的研究成果,在四项随机对照试验中涉及 759 家公司。更大的样本为科学方法在创业中的可教性和影响提供了新颖、更准确的见解。我们观察到了科学方法对创意终止的积极影响,其结果与激进转向的非线性效应一致,即接受治疗的企业很少转向,而不转向或反复转向。我们对实证结果进行了理论解释:科学方法提高了创业者寻找可行想法的效率,并提高了他们对方法的怀疑,因为像科学家一样,他们意识到在他们理论化的想法之外,可能还有其他的方案。管理总结本文的研究结果基于四项随机对照试验,涉及 759 家公司,为创业实践如何从科学决策方法中获益提供了新的见解。主要成果包括提高了想法的终止率,以及对战略变化趋势的细微影响。具体来说,采用科学方法的企业只进行了几次战略转变,而不是不改变或不断改变战略。我们认为,这是由于科学方法帮助企业家更有效地寻找有价值的想法,并在选择这些想法时更加谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
8.40%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: At the Strategic Management Journal, we are committed to publishing top-tier research that addresses key questions in the field of strategic management and captivates scholars in this area. Our publication welcomes manuscripts covering a wide range of topics, perspectives, and research methodologies. As a result, our editorial decisions truly embrace the diversity inherent in the field.
期刊最新文献
More is (sometimes) merrier: Heterogeneity in demand spillovers and competition on a digital platform How do US firms grow? New evidence from a growth decomposition Strategic restraint: When do human‐capital‐intensive companies choose (not) to use noncompete agreements? Organizational adaptation in dynamic environments: Disentangling the effects of how much to explore versus where to explore Is knowledge really the most important strategic resource? A meta‐analytic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1