Search results

“The effect of a firm's dividend policy on the current price of its shares is a matter of considerable importance, not only to the corporate officials who must set the policy, but to investors planning portfolios and to economists seeking to understand and appraise the functioning of capital markets. Do companies with generous distribution policies consistently sell at a premium over those with small payments ? Is the reverse ever true ? If so, under what conditions ? Is there an optimum payment ratio or range of ratios that maximises the current worth of the shares ?”. Although these questions of fact have been the subject of many empirical studies in recent years, no concensus has yet been achieved. Not only does the empirical evidence seem to conflict, but the underlying theory of share price determination cannot be agreed upon. This chapter surveys current theories concerning dividend policy, and seeks to reconcile them under a common set of assumptions. Then the relevant empirical evidence is presented and criticised, and finally a piece of research carried out by the author is discussed.

“The effect of a firm's dividend policy on the current price of its shares is a matter of considerable importance, not only to the corporate officials who must set the policy, but to investors planning portfolios and to economists seeking to understand and appraise the functioning of capital markets. Do companies with generous distribution policies consistently sell at a premium over those with small payments ? Is the reverse ever true ? If so, under what conditions? Is there an optimum payment ratio or range of ratios that maximises the current worth of the shares?”.Although these questions of fact have been the subject of many empirical studies in recent years, no concensus has yet been achieved. Not only does the empirical evidence seem to conflict, but the underlying theory of share price determination cannot be agreed upon. This chapter surveys current theories concerning dividend policy, and seeks to reconcile them under a common set of assumptions. Then the relevant empirical evidence is presented and criticised, and finally a piece of research carried out by the author is discussed.

Scholars have begun calling for broader conceptualisations of moral disengagement processes that reflect the interaction of dispositional and situational antecedents to a predilection to morally disengage. The authors argue that collective leadership may be one such contingent antecedent. While researching leaders from the Gilded Age of American business history, the authors encountered a compelling historical case that facilitates theory elaboration within these intersecting domains. Interpreting evidence from the embittered leader dyad of Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick, the authors show how leader egoism can permeate moral identity to promote symbolic moral self-regard and moral licensing, which augment a propensity to morally disengage. The authors use insights developed from our analysis to illustrate a process conceptualisation that reflects a dispositional and situational interaction as a precursor to moral disengagement and explains how collective leadership can function as a moral disengagement trigger/tool to reduce cognitive dissonance and support the cognitive, behavioural, and rhetorical processes utilised to justify unethical behaviour.

Judgments and decision are central to entrepreneurship, but capturing them empirically is challenging. Shepherd and Zacharakis (1997) addressed this challenge by identifying metric conjoint analysis as an experimental method capable of capturing the decision policies of actors engaged in entrepreneurial task, creating a “window of opportunity” for entrepreneurship research. On the twentieth anniversary of this chapter, the authors reflect on the impact the ideas had on their own work and careers, while, at the same time, address the possibility that the “typical” conjoint study may have reached the end. From this platform, the authors identify unknown attributes, interactive effects, rich media, mixed methods, and sophisticated data analysis as potential pathways by which conjoint analysis can continue to advance understanding of entrepreneurship. Their conclusion is that when coupled with impactful research questions, innovative uses of conjoint analysis have an important role to play in the future of entrepreneurship research. Hence, the authors believe that Dean A. Shepherd’s and Zach Zacharakis’s bold effort will continue as a quintessential resource for those researchers who wish to tap the mind of entrepreneurs, investors, and other key actors as they traverse the journey of business venturing.

This chapter is a reflection on the Shepherd and Zacharakis (1997) paper, which starts with a review of citations in the intervening 20 years, and dives more deeply into these works to better describe and consider the evolution and use of conjoint analysis in entrepreneurship research. The proliferation of new uses for a conjoint analysis are identified, such as more studies of entrepreneurial decision making, which came to supplant the early efforts, which focused on venture capital decisions. Additional expansions into other entrepreneurship stakeholder groups are also reviewed. The use of conjoint as an accelerator of multilevel research is also noted, as are the improvements and challenges in conjoint methodologies as the field has matured.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has emerged as a core concept in the field of entrepreneurship. Yet, there continue to be questions about the nature of EO and how best to conceptualize and measure it. This chapter makes the case that EO has grown beyond its roots as a firm-level unidimensional strategy construct and that a new multidimensional version of EO is needed to capture the diverse manifestations and venues for entrepreneurial activity that are now evident around the world – global entrepreneurial orientation (GEO). Building on the five-dimension multidimensional view of EO set forth when Lumpkin and Dess (1996) extended the work of Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991), the chapter offers an updated definition of EO and a fresh interpretation of why EO matters theoretically. Despite earnest efforts to reconcile the different approaches to EO, in order to move the study of EO and the theoretical conversation about it forward, we maintain that as a group of scholars and a field, we need to acknowledge that two different versions of EO have emerged. Given that, we consider original approaches to measuring EO, evaluate formative measurement models, consider multiple levels of analysis, call for renewed attention to EO configurations, and discuss whether there is a theory of EO.

Studies of entrepreneurial action often distinguish between different phases such as opportunity identification, evaluation, and exploitation. Yet, the richness of past contributions masks the absence of an integral framework to organize, in a theoretically consistent ensemble, the different kinds of cognitive processes that underpin entrepreneurial action. In this chapter, we draw from research on human action and cognition to offer an integrative model of the cognitive processes that foster entrepreneurial action. By presenting a more specific articulation of when, how, and why different cognitive processes operate, we provide theorists and empiricists with a more complete picture of how entrepreneurs’ thinking evolves from the emergence of an opportunity idea to the initiation of concrete entrepreneurial acts. In addition, our framework draws attention to cognitive inflection points that entrepreneurs must navigate in their journey toward entrepreneurship. By explicitly locating these inflection points and specifying the changes in mental processing that occurs at each point, we highlight that for entrepreneurial action to ensue, entrepreneurs must shift from one type of cognitive processing to another. Along this line, our model draws attention to the entire set of cognitive “skills” entrepreneurs must master for successful completion of each phase and successful transitions between phases.

Tucked in the back of Venkataraman’s 1997 work on the distinctive domain of entrepreneurship (DDE) lies a pointer to a question each individual must face when choosing to start a new venture; “is entrepreneurship worth it?” Inventorying costs associated with risk, uncertainty, and illiquidity against surpluses from financial and psychological factors unique to entrepreneurship, Venkataraman tempts readers to tally entrepreneurial returns. The authors summarize and integrate an academic study of these various cost and return components over the past 20 years using Venkataraman’s original framework. The authors find the answer to the question of “is entrepreneurship worth it?” varies with time. Researcher’s answer to the question has shifted from an early view that entrepreneurs sacrifice financial gain in exchange for soft psychological benefits to a more positive view that entrepreneurs are rewarded both financially and psychologically for the unique costs borne in the DDE. But the rewards are not immediate. In entrepreneur time, break-even emerges by gradually overcoming an initial deficit. As surpluses accrue, returns to entrepreneurs likely eventually exceed those of their wage-earning peers.

The world is changing very rapidly with events that alter the landscape for students during a time when entrepreneurs are needed more than ever. This chapter explores trends in entrepreneurship research that are focused in areas of the entrepreneurial mindset, alleviation of poverty through entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, portfolio thinking about entrepreneurial venture types, the crucial nature of racial diversity, and the drive of women entrepreneurs. It also examines COVID-19’s disparate impact on smaller ventures and Black entrepreneurs, while highlighting its impact on spurring entrepreneurial innovations causing an entrepreneurial explosion. Most importantly, this chapter focuses on how the emerging research trends amidst the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted entrepreneurship educators to enact educational innovations. The chapter includes tools and tips to integrate into the changing nature of university programs and entrepreneurship curriculums facing a dynamic future.