Search results

Understanding how international business opportunities (IBOs) are recognized and developed is critical to the study of international entrepreneurship.

We draw on entrepreneurial cognition research broadly and the entrepreneurial judgment perspective specifically to develop a model of the recognition and development of IBOs by considering three theoretically important sets of drivers – social networks, international experience and a proactive mindset. We use a sample of 92 small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to test the model empirically.

We find robust support. Entrepreneurial judgment surrounding IBOs and uncertain international business environments entails tapping social networks, international experience and a proactive mindset to both recognize third-person opportunities for someone as well as to act upon and develop IBOs as first-person opportunities from which a focal firm can profit.

Conceptually and empirically, we peer inside the black box of IBO entrepreneurial judgment processes by jointly evaluating the abstract recognition of third-person opportunities as well as the concrete actions and interactions that develop the IBOs into first-person opportunities.

In recent years there has been a growth of interest in the role played by intuition in entrepreneurial cognition and behavior. However, the significance of the role of affect in intuitive judgment has been underplayed by entrepreneurship researchers. In response to this theoretical and empirical shortcoming we propose recognition-primed decision-making (RPD), the somatic marker hypothesis (SMH), and dual-process theories (in particular Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory: CEST) as complementary frameworks for advancing understanding of the dynamic interplay of cognition and affect in entrepreneurial judgment and decision-making.

To contribute to the knowledge of factors that shape entrepreneurial beliefs, the purpose of this paper is to theorize and empirically test how individuals’ general attitudes toward entrepreneurship based on exposure to others’ prior entrepreneurial activities are related to beliefs surrounding current entrepreneurial opportunities. Positive attitudes based on prior exposure can lead to bias in the beliefs about current opportunities being evaluated, suggesting that positive affect can be a negative influence in the entrepreneurial process.

The sample is the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics I, a nationally representative, longitudinal data set of US adults in the process of starting businesses. Regression analyses demonstrate how general attitudes are associated with beliefs about level of future sales, probability of venture survival, and levels of financial, competitive, and operational uncertainty.

Nascent entrepreneurs with more positive general attitudes toward entrepreneurship form more optimistic estimates of the financial performance and survival likelihood of their future ventures. They also estimate lower levels of environmental uncertainty.

This research extends understanding of the impact of prior exposure to entrepreneurship in the entrepreneurial process. It also contributes to increasing understanding of the determinants of entrepreneurial beliefs and extends prior work that has considered cognitive determinants (knowledge and motivation) to consider emotional determinants (affect-infused attitudes), consistent with the heightened recent interest in the role of emotion in entrepreneurship. This research provides a different perspective on the role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. While prior work addressing affect in entrepreneurship has explored the positive aspects of affect, the present study suggests that affect may not have a uniformly positive influence.

The central question of this paper is, “What determines an entrepreneur's effort on different tasks?” The paper aims to address this question.

Propositions about the impact cognitive processes have on entrepreneurial effort across different tasks are developed. These propositions draw on self‐regulatory theory, in particular our understanding of regulatory focus and self‐efficacy.

It is argued that a promotion orientation motivates effort on explorative tasks, and a prevention orientation motivates effort on exploitative tasks. Further, it is proposed that high self‐efficacy motivates effort on action tasks, but high self‐efficacy reduces effort on judgment tasks.

One implication of these propositions for entrepreneurs is to understand self‐regulatory processes and to consciously decide how much effort to put into different tasks, rather than relying on (hidden) preferences. Another implication is for those involved in selecting and developing entrepreneurs. That implication is that entrepreneurs' self‐regulatory processes can inhibit effective effort. These processes can be managed to increase effectiveness.

By introducing task type into the discussion of self‐regulation and entrepreneurial effort, a more fine‐grained understanding of cognitive processes in actual entrepreneurial activities is developed.

The purpose of this paper is to expand the recent lines of inquiry into entrepreneurial cognition by focusing on the structure of values as an important aspect of cognition. Value theory, or axiology, posits that the capacity to value and to make value judgments is a distinctly human function – one that is a higher order process than is pure cognition alone.

This study is designed as a quantitative discovery. A well-established assessment instrument from the field of value science is used to measure deep-seated, evaluative thought patterns for a sample of founders of early stage startups and a comparative sample of senior managers. Value structures underlying cognition for individuals across these samples are compared to reveal both similarities and differences between the groups.

This study identifies a cognitive process underlying opportunity recognition, evaluation and exploitation, known as integration. This study finds that entrepreneurs have stronger capacities for integrative thinking than do managers. In contrast to other published research, this study finds that early stage entrepreneurs are not characterized by hubris, an inflated sense of self-efficacy, nor an exceptional capacity for action.

This paper extends the study of entrepreneurial cognition by applying an empirical measure of the foundational levels of cognition. It reveals heretofore unarticulated differences, as well as similarities, between entrepreneurs and managers.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that an implication of Holcombe’s (2002) model is a “revolution trap.” This paper extends Holcombe’s model adding Klein’s concept of entrepreneurship as judgment concerning the use of heterogeneous political capital. The authors use the case of the USA presidential election of 1800 to demonstrate the utility of the extension, and to discuss how political entrepreneurship served to prevent a revolution trap. The political entrepreneurship of 1800 established the precedent of peaceful transition of power in the USA, which opened the door to the rapid economic development of the early nineteenth century.

This is a historical case study using letters, newspapers, pamphlets, and other pieces of empirical evidence to highlight an important moment of political entrepreneurship.

Many contemporary observers predicted that the USA would devolve into continuous revolution, which the authors argue Holcombe’s (2002) model predicts. However, political entrepreneurship ended the revolutionary period in the former British North America. Moreover, the political entrepreneurship ending the election crisis established the precedent of peaceful political succession. This precedent comparatively elevated the returns of productive, market entrepreneurship (Baumol, 1990). As a result, the USA experiences a prolonged period of entrepreneurially driven economic growth.

To the authors knowledge, no one has developed the implication of a “revolution trap” from Holcombe’s (2002) model, nor has anyone applied Klein’s (2008) model to extend Holcombe’s model of political entrepreneurship. Although the disputed presidential election of 1800 has been extensively researched, no one has analyzed the election and its resolution from the perspective of political entrepreneurship.

Purpose – In this chapter, we address the lack of sufficient entrepreneurship in multinational enterprises (MNEs) that seek to improve their ability to achieve national responsiveness. The main reason for this deficiency appears to be the transfer of proven routines from the home country, even when it is clear from the outset that these routines will simply not work and will require much more than a quasi-mechanistic ‘adaptation’ to the new environment.

Methodology/approach – Conceptual

Practical implication – This chapter suggests that MNEs need to close their entrepreneurial deficits in host countries, by allowing novel resource recombinations. These resource recombinations should lead to accessing fully the coveted host country location advantages that triggered entry in these countries and to success in the market place.

Originality/value of the chapter – Most of the contemporary international business literature has studied subsidiary entrepreneurship in the context of established affiliates abroad. Here, we argue that entrepreneurship is equally important in the setting of new foreign market entry. We identify entrepreneurial deficits as the main source of MNEs' failure when trying to achieve national responsiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate into the conditions under which founders’ human capital (HC) benefits new venture growth (NVG). One such condition is investigated in this study – initial assets at founding. Specifically, founding assets are hypothesized to moderate the relationship between founders’ HC and NVG.

The longitudinal panel database from the Kauffman Firm Survey for the period 2004–2011 was used to test the hypotheses. The final sample consisted of 4,923 firms, with 34,461 observations made over seven years.

The regression analysis found the effect of founders’ HC on NVG and the moderating role of founding assets in the HC–NVG relationship.

New ventures benefit even more from founders’ education level, industry and startup experiences when the startups have larger assets at founding. The effect of founders’ education and experiences on startup growth is contingent upon the initial assets at founding.

The results of this study can help practitioners and policy makers to understand the drivers of NVG and the interactions among these drivers. Growth-oriented startups may require a large investment in founding assets such as production facilities. Startups with fewer founding assets may find it particularly difficult to negotiate with external stakeholders and may face unusually intense competitive responses from competitors. Policy makers should tailor the support to the founding conditions of new firms.

The prior literature has shown mostly the independent positive effects of various resources on firm growth. This study argues and empirically shows that startups grow faster when founders with high HC have more assets to utilize. The resource-based view literature was expanded by adding important new causal mechanisms, enriching our understanding of how founders’ HC interact with founding assets, jointly affecting NVG. Like a big fish in a small pond, even highly educated and experienced entrepreneurs have limited opportunities to utilize their talents in a startup with a lower initial resource position.

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) suggest “the field [of entrepreneurship] involves the study of sources of opportunities; the processes of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities; and the set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit them” (p. 218). However, the study of the judgment required for opportunity evaluation has been greatly overshadowed by interest in opportunity recognition and to a lesser extent opportunity exploitation. This is surprising considering the number of economic theories of the entrepreneur that recognize sound judgment as a principal quality of entrepreneurship (Cantillon, 1755; Kirzner, 1973; Knight, 1921; Mises, 1949; Say, 1840; Schumpeter, 1934; Shackle, 1955). In fact, the first recognized theory of the entrepreneur defined the entrepreneur as someone who exercises business judgment in the face of uncertainty (Cantillon, 1755/1931, pp. 47–49). Similarly, Knight (1921, p. 271) suggests that the essence of entrepreneurship is judgment, born of uncertainty, and argues that it is this judgment that delineates the function of entrepreneur from that of manager. He goes on to point out that the function of manager does not in itself imply entrepreneurship but that a manager becomes an entrepreneur when he exercises judgment involving liability to error (Knight, 1921, p. 97). However, the judgment referred to by these theorists is not just any form of judgment, it is judgment exercised in the decision of whether to take action.