Research SummaryThe emotional rollercoaster of entrepreneurship is characterized by encounters with challenges that impede venture progress. Consequently, resilience, which is reflected in the ability to maintain functioning through such challenges, has become of particular interest to scholars. Existing research emphasizes the ability of resilient individuals to use positive emotions to overcome challenges. Yet, scholarship has largely overlooked the role of affective fluctuations in resilience processes, which is problematic for entrepreneurs facing the chahighs and lows of venturing. This daily diary study of technology entrepreneurs reveals that those who are more resilient report smaller day‐to‐day fluctuations in their affective state over the course of two working weeks. This finding suggests that theory on self‐regulation may serve as an important key in understanding the microprocesses underlying resilience.Managerial SummaryEntrepreneurship is often considered an emotional rollercoaster. For this reason, many entrepreneurs are interested in understanding resilience and its role in managing the ups and downs of business venturing. This research examines the relationship between resilience and fluctuations in affect by studying entrepreneurs over the course of two working weeks, as they confront a challenge in their venture. The results show that entrepreneurs who are more resilient also report smaller changes in affect day‐to‐day. This suggests that entrepreneurs looking to enact resilience may need to turn the emotional rollercoaster of entrepreneurship into a train ride.
{"title":"Rethinking the rollercoaster: Resilience and affect in entrepreneurship","authors":"Lauren A. Zettel","doi":"10.1002/sej.1533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1533","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThe emotional rollercoaster of entrepreneurship is characterized by encounters with challenges that impede venture progress. Consequently, resilience, which is reflected in the ability to maintain functioning through such challenges, has become of particular interest to scholars. Existing research emphasizes the ability of resilient individuals to use positive emotions to overcome challenges. Yet, scholarship has largely overlooked the role of affective fluctuations in resilience processes, which is problematic for entrepreneurs facing the chahighs and lows of venturing. This daily diary study of technology entrepreneurs reveals that those who are more resilient report smaller day‐to‐day fluctuations in their affective state over the course of two working weeks. This finding suggests that theory on self‐regulation may serve as an important key in understanding the microprocesses underlying resilience.Managerial SummaryEntrepreneurship is often considered an emotional rollercoaster. For this reason, many entrepreneurs are interested in understanding resilience and its role in managing the ups and downs of business venturing. This research examines the relationship between resilience and fluctuations in affect by studying entrepreneurs over the course of two working weeks, as they confront a challenge in their venture. The results show that entrepreneurs who are more resilient also report smaller changes in affect day‐to‐day. This suggests that entrepreneurs looking to enact resilience may need to turn the emotional rollercoaster of entrepreneurship into a train ride.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143401230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryThis study reviews four decades of fragmented and contradictory empirical literature on the real effects of private equity (PE) buyouts on portfolio companies, differentiating between efficiency and growth outcomes. We hypothesize how institutional forces, including regulatory, cognitive, and normative institutions explain heterogeneity in post‐buyout efficiency and growth across time and countries. We argue that competition and population‐level learning have shifted the cognitive frame underlying value creation in buyouts from financial engineering toward operational engineering and strategic entrepreneurship. Using meta‐analysis, we find support for several of our hypotheses using samples from 66 empirical studies across the finance, management, economics, and entrepreneurship disciplines.Managerial SummaryThis study delves into four decades of fragmented private equity (PE) literature to unravel the practical implications for post‐buyout efficiency and growth. Using meta‐analysis, we explore the role of institutional forces—regulatory, cognitive, and normative—in shaping outcomes across diverse temporal and geographical contexts. We observe an overall paradigm shift in PE value creation over time, transitioning from focusing on financial engineering to operational value creation and strategic entrepreneurship. This transformation is driven by heightened competition and widespread population‐level learning. Validating our hypotheses through a thorough examination of 66 empirical studies spanning finance, management, economics, and entrepreneurship disciplines, our findings offer insights for policymakers and practitioners navigating the nuanced landscape of PE buyouts.
{"title":"Institutions and the real effects of private equity buyouts: A meta‐analysis","authors":"Jeroen Verbouw, Miguel Meuleman, Sophie Manigart","doi":"10.1002/sej.1532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1532","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis study reviews four decades of fragmented and contradictory empirical literature on the real effects of private equity (PE) buyouts on portfolio companies, differentiating between efficiency and growth outcomes. We hypothesize how institutional forces, including regulatory, cognitive, and normative institutions explain heterogeneity in post‐buyout efficiency and growth across time and countries. We argue that competition and population‐level learning have shifted the cognitive frame underlying value creation in buyouts from financial engineering toward operational engineering and strategic entrepreneurship. Using meta‐analysis, we find support for several of our hypotheses using samples from 66 empirical studies across the finance, management, economics, and entrepreneurship disciplines.Managerial SummaryThis study delves into four decades of fragmented private equity (PE) literature to unravel the practical implications for post‐buyout efficiency and growth. Using meta‐analysis, we explore the role of institutional forces—regulatory, cognitive, and normative—in shaping outcomes across diverse temporal and geographical contexts. We observe an overall paradigm shift in PE value creation over time, transitioning from focusing on financial engineering to operational value creation and strategic entrepreneurship. This transformation is driven by heightened competition and widespread population‐level learning. Validating our hypotheses through a thorough examination of 66 empirical studies spanning finance, management, economics, and entrepreneurship disciplines, our findings offer insights for policymakers and practitioners navigating the nuanced landscape of PE buyouts.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"75 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143071866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tommaso Minola, Davide Hahn, Giuseppe Criaco, Daniel Pittino, Francesca Visintin
Research SummaryThis study draws on the behavioral theory of the firm and a duality perspective to investigate the impact of founders' focus on academic goals on the financial performance of academic spin‐offs (ASOs)—a specific type of hybrid venture. We theorize that such relationship follows an inverse U‐shaped curve and is moderated by the degree of academic ownership. These hypotheses are tested using a sample of 179 Italian ASOs. Our findings indicate that when academic ownership is low, the relationship displays an inverted U‐shape. Moreover, as academic ownership increases, the relationship flattens and eventually shifts to a U‐shape. These results challenge the prevailing notion of inherent conflicts between economic and non‐economic logics in hybrid ventures, demonstrating when focusing on non‐economic (e.g., academic) goals enhances financial outcomes.Managerial SummaryAcademic spin‐offs (ASOs) play a pivotal role in science commercialization and often pursue academic goals due to their academic origins. However, the extent to which founders' focus on academic goals benefits or hinders ASOs' financial performance has remained largely underexamined. In this study of 179 Italian ASOs, we investigate the relationship between a focus on academic goals and firm performance. Our findings reveal that at lower levels of academic ownership, a moderate focus on academic goals is optimal for ASOs' financial performance. Conversely, at higher levels of academic ownership, either a low or high focus on academic goals proves optimal for financial performance. These insights can help practitioners improve ASO performance by aligning goal and ownership structures.
{"title":"Are non‐economic goals and financial performance friends or foes in hybrid ventures? A duality perspective on academic spin‐offs","authors":"Tommaso Minola, Davide Hahn, Giuseppe Criaco, Daniel Pittino, Francesca Visintin","doi":"10.1002/sej.1529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1529","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis study draws on the behavioral theory of the firm and a duality perspective to investigate the impact of founders' focus on academic goals on the financial performance of academic spin‐offs (ASOs)—a specific type of hybrid venture. We theorize that such relationship follows an inverse U‐shaped curve and is moderated by the degree of academic ownership. These hypotheses are tested using a sample of 179 Italian ASOs. Our findings indicate that when academic ownership is low, the relationship displays an inverted U‐shape. Moreover, as academic ownership increases, the relationship flattens and eventually shifts to a U‐shape. These results challenge the prevailing notion of inherent conflicts between economic and non‐economic logics in hybrid ventures, demonstrating when focusing on non‐economic (e.g., academic) goals enhances financial outcomes.Managerial SummaryAcademic spin‐offs (ASOs) play a pivotal role in science commercialization and often pursue academic goals due to their academic origins. However, the extent to which founders' focus on academic goals benefits or hinders ASOs' financial performance has remained largely underexamined. In this study of 179 Italian ASOs, we investigate the relationship between a focus on academic goals and firm performance. Our findings reveal that at lower levels of academic ownership, a moderate focus on academic goals is optimal for ASOs' financial performance. Conversely, at higher levels of academic ownership, either a low or high focus on academic goals proves optimal for financial performance. These insights can help practitioners improve ASO performance by aligning goal and ownership structures.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142989791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Eduard Esau, Christina Lara Kannegießer, Manuel Reppmann, Erk P. Piening, Laura Marie Edinger‐Schons
Research SummarySustainable new ventures seeking to tackle grand challenges such as climate change or biodiversity loss through new business models face the difficult task of reconciling social and ecological goals with profit. To provide a better understanding of how founders balance such tensions and develop viable business models, this longitudinal case study traces the evolution of business models in six nascent sustainable ventures. We find that depending on the founding team's cognitive configuration (i.e., narrow vs. paradoxical), sustainable new ventures develop business models along two alternative paths. Reflecting different approaches to business model design in terms of what is done, how it is done, and when it is done, these trajectories explain why some ventures survive beyond the proof‐of‐concept phase while others do not.Managerial SummaryOur study of six sustainable new ventures provides several insights for entrepreneurs on creating viable business models that meet social, ecological, and commercial goals. Founders should pursue a patient, experimental approach to business model design, avoiding early commitments while seeking stakeholder feedback for deeper insights into the challenges at hand. Furthermore, the team's mindset (narrow or paradoxical), influenced by members' value concepts (idealistic or pragmatic), determines the venture's design path. Teams with a paradoxical mindset, simultaneously integrating social, ecological, and economic goals, are more likely to navigate beyond the proof‐of‐concept phase successfully. Moreover, having idealistic and pragmatic perspectives within the team fosters cognitive diversity, which is crucial to dealing with complex challenges effectively.
{"title":"Stairway to impact or highway to failure? A cognitive perspective on business model design processes in nascent sustainable ventures","authors":"Eduard Esau, Christina Lara Kannegießer, Manuel Reppmann, Erk P. Piening, Laura Marie Edinger‐Schons","doi":"10.1002/sej.1531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1531","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummarySustainable new ventures seeking to tackle grand challenges such as climate change or biodiversity loss through new business models face the difficult task of reconciling social and ecological goals with profit. To provide a better understanding of how founders balance such tensions and develop viable business models, this longitudinal case study traces the evolution of business models in six nascent sustainable ventures. We find that depending on the founding team's cognitive configuration (i.e., narrow vs. paradoxical), sustainable new ventures develop business models along two alternative paths. Reflecting different approaches to business model design in terms of what is done, how it is done, and when it is done, these trajectories explain why some ventures survive beyond the proof‐of‐concept phase while others do not.Managerial SummaryOur study of six sustainable new ventures provides several insights for entrepreneurs on creating viable business models that meet social, ecological, and commercial goals. Founders should pursue a patient, experimental approach to business model design, avoiding early commitments while seeking stakeholder feedback for deeper insights into the challenges at hand. Furthermore, the team's mindset (narrow or paradoxical), influenced by members' value concepts (idealistic or pragmatic), determines the venture's design path. Teams with a paradoxical mindset, simultaneously integrating social, ecological, and economic goals, are more likely to navigate beyond the proof‐of‐concept phase successfully. Moreover, having idealistic and pragmatic perspectives within the team fosters cognitive diversity, which is crucial to dealing with complex challenges effectively.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142912019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Paola Rovelli, Michael Razen, Carlotta Benedetti, Nina Schweiger, Alfredo De Massis, Kurt Matzler
Research SummaryWe investigate family CEO birth order as an antecedent of family firms' CSR behavior. Despite psychology literature recognizing it as a key predictor of individual behavior, birth order has been largely neglected in management research. Drawing on behavioral economics and evolutionary psychology—specifically, the Family Niche Model—we identify economic and social preferences as two competing channels through which birth order effects propagate to CSR behavior. An unbalanced panel dataset of 550 firm‐year observations from 84 family firms between 2010 and 2022 reveals a negative relationship between family CEO birth order and CSR behavior, pointing to the dominance of the economic channel, whereby the higher risk tolerance among later borns manifests. This relationship is positively and negatively moderated by family CEO sibship size and age, respectively.Managerial SummaryWe examine the role of family CEO birth order in shaping family firms' CSR behavior considering that individuals' economic and social preferences are strongly influenced by their birth order. The results show that family CEO birth order negatively relates to CSR behavior. We argue that this relationship is driven by higher risk tolerance among later‐born family CEOs, who are consequentially less inclined to adopt CSR behavior as a risk‐mitigating strategy. The relationship is attenuated by family CEO sibship size and amplified by CEO age. Our study cautions family firms concerned with CSR to carefully consider the implications of birth order when selecting family members for the CEO position. Concurrently, family CEOs should be aware that their early family experiences may affect their CSR decisions.
{"title":"Is Cain more able? A behavioral perspective on the relationship between family CEO birth order and family firms' CSR","authors":"Paola Rovelli, Michael Razen, Carlotta Benedetti, Nina Schweiger, Alfredo De Massis, Kurt Matzler","doi":"10.1002/sej.1530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1530","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryWe investigate family CEO birth order as an antecedent of family firms' CSR behavior. Despite psychology literature recognizing it as a key predictor of individual behavior, birth order has been largely neglected in management research. Drawing on behavioral economics and evolutionary psychology—specifically, the Family Niche Model—we identify economic and social preferences as two competing channels through which birth order effects propagate to CSR behavior. An unbalanced panel dataset of 550 firm‐year observations from 84 family firms between 2010 and 2022 reveals a negative relationship between family CEO birth order and CSR behavior, pointing to the dominance of the economic channel, whereby the higher risk tolerance among later borns manifests. This relationship is positively and negatively moderated by family CEO sibship size and age, respectively.Managerial SummaryWe examine the role of family CEO birth order in shaping family firms' CSR behavior considering that individuals' economic and social preferences are strongly influenced by their birth order. The results show that family CEO birth order negatively relates to CSR behavior. We argue that this relationship is driven by higher risk tolerance among later‐born family CEOs, who are consequentially less inclined to adopt CSR behavior as a risk‐mitigating strategy. The relationship is attenuated by family CEO sibship size and amplified by CEO age. Our study cautions family firms concerned with CSR to carefully consider the implications of birth order when selecting family members for the CEO position. Concurrently, family CEOs should be aware that their early family experiences may affect their CSR decisions.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142887367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Max Ganzin, Francesco Chirico, Jochem J. Kroezen, M. Tina Dacin, David G. Sirmon, Roy Suddaby
Research SummaryThis work explores the intersection of strategic entrepreneurship and craft‐based ventures, focusing on the integration of materiality, authenticity, and tradition in the creation of competitive advantage. Craft, historically rooted in artisanal, small‐scale production, has evolved into “advanced craft,” requiring high expertise while also engaging with modern economic goals such as scaling, technological adoption, and global value chains. Craft‐based strategic entrepreneurship embraces creativity and innovation, alongside traditional values and high‐quality production, to engage with the modern economy without the alienating effects of industrialization. We highlight how craft entrepreneurs balance the pursuit of innovation with the preservation of authenticity and heritage. By examining the materiality, authenticity, and tradition embedded in craft, our work contributes to the understanding of how these elements influence competitive advantage and the broader relationship between economy and society in entrepreneurial ventures.Managerial SummaryWe offer practical insights for owners and managers in craft‐based ventures seeking to balance tradition with modern business strategies. As the craft sector evolves into “advanced craft,” entrepreneurs must integrate artisanal expertise with scalable operations, technology adoption, and global market engagement. We highlight how successful craft ventures maintain high quality, authenticity, and cultural heritage while embracing strategic entrepreneurship practices like innovation, planning, and partnerships with larger organizations. For owners and managers, the key takeaway is the importance of preserving the unique values of craftsmanship—such as materiality, authenticity, and tradition—while also adopting modern tools like advanced technology and marketing strategies to scale and compete. By understanding these dynamics, craft‐based businesses can enhance their competitive advantage, foster meaningful customer engagement, and navigate challenges like technological disruption and market expansion without losing their core identity.
{"title":"Craft and strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring and exploiting materiality, authenticity, and tradition in craft‐based ventures","authors":"Max Ganzin, Francesco Chirico, Jochem J. Kroezen, M. Tina Dacin, David G. Sirmon, Roy Suddaby","doi":"10.1002/sej.1528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1528","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis work explores the intersection of strategic entrepreneurship and craft‐based ventures, focusing on the integration of materiality, authenticity, and tradition in the creation of competitive advantage. Craft, historically rooted in artisanal, small‐scale production, has evolved into “advanced craft,” requiring high expertise while also engaging with modern economic goals such as scaling, technological adoption, and global value chains. Craft‐based strategic entrepreneurship embraces creativity and innovation, alongside traditional values and high‐quality production, to engage with the modern economy without the alienating effects of industrialization. We highlight how craft entrepreneurs balance the pursuit of innovation with the preservation of authenticity and heritage. By examining the materiality, authenticity, and tradition embedded in craft, our work contributes to the understanding of how these elements influence competitive advantage and the broader relationship between economy and society in entrepreneurial ventures.Managerial SummaryWe offer practical insights for owners and managers in craft‐based ventures seeking to balance tradition with modern business strategies. As the craft sector evolves into “advanced craft,” entrepreneurs must integrate artisanal expertise with scalable operations, technology adoption, and global market engagement. We highlight how successful craft ventures maintain high quality, authenticity, and cultural heritage while embracing strategic entrepreneurship practices like innovation, planning, and partnerships with larger organizations. For owners and managers, the key takeaway is the importance of preserving the unique values of craftsmanship—such as materiality, authenticity, and tradition—while also adopting modern tools like advanced technology and marketing strategies to scale and compete. By understanding these dynamics, craft‐based businesses can enhance their competitive advantage, foster meaningful customer engagement, and navigate challenges like technological disruption and market expansion without losing their core identity.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142849109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryDrawing on social cognitive theory, this study develops and tests a model to clarify the boundary conditions and mechanisms through which coworker entrepreneurship influences employee entrepreneurship. Two time‐lagged field studies support our predictions: employee moral attentiveness moderates the effect of coworker entrepreneurship on employee entrepreneurship, with coworker entrepreneurship reducing employee entrepreneurship among those with high moral attentiveness and increasing it among those with low attentiveness. Additionally, deontic injustice mediates the negative relationship when moral attentiveness is high, while vicarious learning mediates the positive relationship when attentiveness is low. These findings indicate that interpersonal influence in organizations is much more complex than the simple “Monkey see, Monkey do” explanation of social learning and emphasize the need to integrate moral and justice considerations into entrepreneurship research.Managerial SummaryThis study provides a comprehensive understanding of the dual impact of coworker entrepreneurship on employee entrepreneurship. It suggests that employees characterized by high moral attentiveness are more likely to perceive deontic injustice when witnessing coworker entrepreneurship, thus prompting resistance to imitating such behavior. Conversely, employees with low moral attentiveness are prone to engage in vicarious learning, potentially leading them to mimic their coworkers' entrepreneurial actions. These findings highlight crucial factors that may deter employees from replicating their coworkers' entrepreneurial endeavors and offer valuable insights for managers seeking to mitigate the negative influence of coworker entrepreneurship and its spread within organizational contexts.
{"title":"To learn or to resist? Employee reactions to coworker entrepreneurship and the moderating role of employee moral attentiveness","authors":"Qingyan Ye, Ji Hao, Weize Huang, Duanxu Wang","doi":"10.1002/sej.1527","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1527","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryDrawing on social cognitive theory, this study develops and tests a model to clarify the boundary conditions and mechanisms through which coworker entrepreneurship influences employee entrepreneurship. Two time‐lagged field studies support our predictions: employee moral attentiveness moderates the effect of coworker entrepreneurship on employee entrepreneurship, with coworker entrepreneurship reducing employee entrepreneurship among those with high moral attentiveness and increasing it among those with low attentiveness. Additionally, deontic injustice mediates the negative relationship when moral attentiveness is high, while vicarious learning mediates the positive relationship when attentiveness is low. These findings indicate that interpersonal influence in organizations is much more complex than the simple “Monkey see, Monkey do” explanation of social learning and emphasize the need to integrate moral and justice considerations into entrepreneurship research.Managerial SummaryThis study provides a comprehensive understanding of the dual impact of coworker entrepreneurship on employee entrepreneurship. It suggests that employees characterized by high moral attentiveness are more likely to perceive deontic injustice when witnessing coworker entrepreneurship, thus prompting resistance to imitating such behavior. Conversely, employees with low moral attentiveness are prone to engage in vicarious learning, potentially leading them to mimic their coworkers' entrepreneurial actions. These findings highlight crucial factors that may deter employees from replicating their coworkers' entrepreneurial endeavors and offer valuable insights for managers seeking to mitigate the negative influence of coworker entrepreneurship and its spread within organizational contexts.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"259 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142849085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryFollowing a growing body of research indicating that most high‐growth entrepreneurial firms are “one hit wonders,” this article leverages Canadian survey and administrative data to investigate the relationship between recent entrepreneurial income and growth barriers, on the one hand, and the growth intentions of established firms, on the other. We draw on the theory of planned behavior to develop hypotheses on how salient information resulting from entrepreneurial experience may shape growth intentions. As anticipated, we find that higher incomes negatively associate with intentions. The picture for barriers is more mixed, such that recently experienced human resources and financial barriers positively associate with growth intentions and barriers related to competition and regulations negatively associate with intentions. The implications for policy and for further research are discussed.Managerial SummaryOur study investigates factors associated with growth expectations among small firms, utilizing descriptive and multivariate analyses. In doing this, we extend the theory of planned behavior into a study of established firms, recognizing that intentions are dynamic and will be shaped by experience of entrepreneurship. Key findings indicate that past performance significantly affects future growth expectations, while higher personal income correlates with lower growth intentions, suggesting entrepreneurs become “satisficers” as income increases. In addition, perceptions of external barriers are negatively associated with future expectations, while internal barriers do not significantly hinder them. This result implies that entrepreneurs perceive external challenges as beyond their control, affecting their confidence in future growth.
{"title":"Growing gains and growing pains: Examining the growth intentions of established entrepreneurs","authors":"Mark Freel, Anoosheh Rostamkalaei, Hien Tran","doi":"10.1002/sej.1526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1526","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryFollowing a growing body of research indicating that most high‐growth entrepreneurial firms are “one hit wonders,” this article leverages Canadian survey and administrative data to investigate the relationship between recent entrepreneurial income and growth barriers, on the one hand, and the growth intentions of established firms, on the other. We draw on the theory of planned behavior to develop hypotheses on how salient information resulting from entrepreneurial experience may shape growth intentions. As anticipated, we find that higher incomes negatively associate with intentions. The picture for barriers is more mixed, such that recently experienced human resources and financial barriers positively associate with growth intentions and barriers related to competition and regulations negatively associate with intentions. The implications for policy and for further research are discussed.Managerial SummaryOur study investigates factors associated with growth expectations among small firms, utilizing descriptive and multivariate analyses. In doing this, we extend the theory of planned behavior into a study of established firms, recognizing that intentions are dynamic and will be shaped by experience of entrepreneurship. Key findings indicate that past performance significantly affects future growth expectations, while higher personal income correlates with lower growth intentions, suggesting entrepreneurs become “satisficers” as income increases. In addition, perceptions of external barriers are negatively associated with future expectations, while internal barriers do not significantly hinder them. This result implies that entrepreneurs perceive external challenges as beyond their control, affecting their confidence in future growth.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"201 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142753570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryHow should decision‐making be organized in entrepreneurial teams pursuing competing economic and noneconomic goals? Using a computational model, we examine how four archetypical decision‐making structures—unanimous approval, individual autonomy, majority voting, and lead entrepreneur—shape the performance of entrepreneurial firms when team members hold varied preferences for how to tradeoff economic and noneconomic goals. In stable environments, we find that majority voting generates highest economic performance, while unanimous approval generates highest noneconomic performance. Conversely, unanimous approval outperforms in fast‐changing contexts. Although goal diversity generally reduces economic performance, it enhances it in fast‐changing settings when teams operate under unanimous approval. This study thus underscores the critical role of decision‐making structures for the success of entrepreneurial teams.Managerial SummaryHow should entrepreneurial teams make decisions when balancing economic and noneconomic goals? We examine four decision‐making approaches—unanimous approval, individual autonomy, majority voting, and lead entrepreneur—and their impact on economic and noneconomic performance. In stable environments, majority voting leads to highest economic performance, while unanimous approval excels in achieving noneconomic goals. In fast‐paced environments, unanimous approval consistently delivers superior outcomes, enhancing both economic and noneconomic performance. Notably, teams with diverse goals can improve their economic performance in high‐velocity settings when using unanimous approval. These findings highlight the importance of choosing the right decision‐making structure to optimize performance in varying conditions. For entrepreneurial teams, adapting decision‐making processes to the pace of the environment is essential for success.
{"title":"Decision‐making in entrepreneurial teams with competing economic and noneconomic goals","authors":"Jeroen Neckebrouck, Thomas Zellweger","doi":"10.1002/sej.1524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1524","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryHow should decision‐making be organized in entrepreneurial teams pursuing competing economic and noneconomic goals? Using a computational model, we examine how four archetypical decision‐making structures—unanimous approval, individual autonomy, majority voting, and lead entrepreneur—shape the performance of entrepreneurial firms when team members hold varied preferences for how to tradeoff economic and noneconomic goals. In stable environments, we find that majority voting generates highest economic performance, while unanimous approval generates highest noneconomic performance. Conversely, unanimous approval outperforms in fast‐changing contexts. Although goal diversity generally reduces economic performance, it enhances it in fast‐changing settings when teams operate under unanimous approval. This study thus underscores the critical role of decision‐making structures for the success of entrepreneurial teams.Managerial SummaryHow should entrepreneurial teams make decisions when balancing economic and noneconomic goals? We examine four decision‐making approaches—unanimous approval, individual autonomy, majority voting, and lead entrepreneur—and their impact on economic and noneconomic performance. In stable environments, majority voting leads to highest economic performance, while unanimous approval excels in achieving noneconomic goals. In fast‐paced environments, unanimous approval consistently delivers superior outcomes, enhancing both economic and noneconomic performance. Notably, teams with diverse goals can improve their economic performance in high‐velocity settings when using unanimous approval. These findings highlight the importance of choosing the right decision‐making structure to optimize performance in varying conditions. For entrepreneurial teams, adapting decision‐making processes to the pace of the environment is essential for success.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142753571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mark T. Bolinger, Katrina M. Brownell, Jeffrey G. Covin
Research SummaryAcross three studies (N = 300, 141, 188), we apply impression management theory to examine if and how entrepreneurs can strategically disclose risk while facilitating beneficial audience perceptions. In the crowdfunding context, we show that intentionally packaging positive information with risk disclosures—a strategy we describe as “compensation”—enhances financing outcomes. Furthermore, we conducted two follow‐up randomized experiments (N = 141, 188) to test intervening mechanisms (i.e., perceived authenticity, project quality) and boundary conditions (i.e., information specificity, gender) of the relationship between compensation and crowdfunding performance. Our research has implications for the strategic disclosure of risk, extends our understanding of contextual factors that influence the effectiveness of impression management tactics, and provides guidance for entrepreneurs engaged in crowdfunding efforts.Managerial SummaryShould early‐stage entrepreneurs disclose risk to potential investors? In our study, we examine the effects of making the choice to disclose risks associated with a new venture. While risk disclosure may harm financing efforts, we reveal that using a tactic we call “compensation”—in which risk disclosures are packaged with information meant to mitigate the risk—enhances financing efforts for early‐stage entrepreneurs by cultivating perceptions of authenticity. Furthermore, we found that the benefit of this tactic appears to be even greater for female entrepreneurs than male entrepreneurs. Overall, our research shows that entrepreneurs should disclose risk, but should take care to do so in a specific manner.
{"title":"Keeping it real: How entrepreneurs effectively disclose risk","authors":"Mark T. Bolinger, Katrina M. Brownell, Jeffrey G. Covin","doi":"10.1002/sej.1525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1525","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryAcross three studies (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 300, 141, 188), we apply impression management theory to examine if and how entrepreneurs can strategically disclose risk while facilitating beneficial audience perceptions. In the crowdfunding context, we show that intentionally packaging positive information with risk disclosures—a strategy we describe as “compensation”—enhances financing outcomes. Furthermore, we conducted two follow‐up randomized experiments (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 141, 188) to test intervening mechanisms (i.e., perceived authenticity, project quality) and boundary conditions (i.e., information specificity, gender) of the relationship between compensation and crowdfunding performance. Our research has implications for the strategic disclosure of risk, extends our understanding of contextual factors that influence the effectiveness of impression management tactics, and provides guidance for entrepreneurs engaged in crowdfunding efforts.Managerial SummaryShould early‐stage entrepreneurs disclose risk to potential investors? In our study, we examine the effects of making the choice to disclose risks associated with a new venture. While risk disclosure may harm financing efforts, we reveal that using a tactic we call “compensation”—in which risk disclosures are packaged with information meant to mitigate the risk—enhances financing efforts for early‐stage entrepreneurs by cultivating perceptions of authenticity. Furthermore, we found that the benefit of this tactic appears to be even greater for female entrepreneurs than male entrepreneurs. Overall, our research shows that entrepreneurs should disclose risk, but should take care to do so in a specific manner.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142684276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：