Search results

As good as existing measurements of entrepreneurial potential (EP) may appear in the literature, they are fragmented, suffer from the lack of theory integration and clarity, are inadequately specified and assessed and the dimensions are unordered by importance. These limitations of EP metrics have hindered entrepreneurial practice and theory advancement. There is a risk of atomistic evolution of the topic among “siloed” scholars and room for repetitions without real progress. The purpose of this paper was to take stock of existing measurements from which the authors developed a new instrument that is brief and inclusive.

The authors followed several steps to develop and validate the new instrument, including construct domain name specification, literature review, structured interviews with entrepreneurs, face validation by experts, semantic validation and statistical validation after two waves of data collected on employee and entrepreneur samples.

A clear operational definition of EP is proposed and serves as a starting point towards a unified EP theory. The new EP instrument is made up of 34 items classified into seven dimensions, which in order of importance are proactive innovativeness, management skill, calculated risk-taking, social skill, financial literacy, entrepreneurial competencies prone to cognitive and heuristic biases and bricolage. The authors provide evidence for reliability and validity of the new instrument.

Although a model is not the model, the authors discuss several ways in which the new measurement model can be used by different stakeholders to promote entrepreneurship.

The authors discuss the domain representativeness of the new scale and argue that the literature can meaningfully benefit from a non-fuzzy approach to what makes the EP of an individual. By developing a new EP instrument, the authors set an important pre-condition for advancing entrepreneurial theory and practice.

This study aims to review the stages of the traditional disaster timeline, propose an extended version of this timeline and discuss the disaster strategies relevant to the different stages of the extended timeline.

An extensive review of the existing literature was made to discuss the need for an extended version of the conventional disaster timeline and to explain the differences between the various disaster management strategies. The research approach was based on theoretical and practical reasoning underpinned by the literature.

The proposed extended disaster timeline allows better allocation of a wider range of management strategies. Successful disaster management depends on prioritisation of efforts and the use of the right strategy(s) at the right time: before, during and after an incident.

This study provides a better conceptualisation of the disaster stages and corresponding strategies. It clarifies the role of each strategy, thus linking it more effectively with the disaster timeline. Subsequently, this study is expected to improve decision-making associated with the disaster management process. In the end, it is expected to help transforming the conventional disaster timeline into a more practical one that is result-oriented more than only being a conceptual model.

Disaster management strategies are used interchangeably very often in the literature. A few attempts were made to capture multiple strategies in one study to demonstrate what constitutes effective disaster management without mixing irrelevant strategies with the different disaster stages.