Search results

This study of 216 congestive heart failure (CHF) patients at a large teaching hospital in south‐central Ontario was undertaken to determine whether the patients managed in an outpatient heart failure clinic used fewer hospital resources (as expressed in number of admissions, complexity of admission, and length of stay (LOS)) than a matched cohort who were not managed in an outpatient clinic. Statistical significance of LOS opportunities could not be demonstrated (owing to sample size), however, the heart failure clinic is making a positive impact on all types of admissions (CHF and non‐CHF) in terms of LOS and suggests that management in an outpatient setting for chronic disease states is important for acute care hospitals to consider.

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.

Max Weber called the maxim “Time is Money” the surest, simplest expression of the spirit of capitalism. Coined in 1748 by Benjamin Franklin, this modern proverb now has a life of its own. In this paper, I examine the worldwide diffusion and sociocultural history of this paradigmatic expression. The intent is to explore the ways in which ideas of time and money appear in sedimented form in popular sayings.

My approach is sociological in orientation and multidisciplinary in method. Drawing upon the works of Max Weber, Antonio Gramsci, Wolfgang Mieder, and Dean Wolfe Manders, I explore the global spread of Ben Franklin’s famed adage in three ways: (1) via evidence from the field of “paremiology” – that is, the study of proverbs; (2) via online searches for the phrase “Time is Money” in 30-plus languages; and (3) via evidence from sociological and historical research.

The conviction that “Time is Money” has won global assent on an ever-expanding basis for more than 250 years now. In recent years, this phrase has reverberated to the far corners of the world in literally dozens of languages – above all, in the languages of Eastern Europe and East Asia.

Methodologically, this study unites several different ways of exploring the globalization of the capitalist spirit. The main substantive implication is that, as capitalism goes global, so too does the capitalist spirit. Evidence from popular sayings gives us a new foothold for insight into questions of this kind.

High-growth firms (HGFs) make a considerable contribution to economic growth, and in recent years they have received increasing interest from entrepreneurship scholars. By analysing recent findings in the literature of high-growth firms, this study identifies some Stylized Facts, as well as contradictory findings, and also some unknowns regarding the determinants and internal strategies of HGFs, particularly on the persistence of their superior growth performance and the implications of recent findings for economic policy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine and explain why most small firms remain small. A new conceptual framework – the condition of smallness – is proposed.

A critical examination of the literature about the nature of being a small firm is first conducted. Employing an inductive analysis of responses from a survey of 2,521 small business owners about employment regulation, the nature and effects of smallness is examined.

It was found that owners' choice making combines with perceptions about their resources to produce a condition of smallness. The condition of smallness is conceptualised as the circularity perceptions, attitudes and consequent practices that reflect lack of knowledge, time and capability. It is argued that this condition of smallness inhibits growth to create a wicked problem that explains why most small firms don't grow.

This work is largely conceptual, albeit the argument is grounded in, and illustrated by, empirical data. The findings may not be generalisable beyond this paper's data sets, but may be generalisable conceptually.

The focus of much scholarly work has been on growth firms. Yet the typical small firm is excluded so that the issues of smallness are often overlooked. This paper, therefore contributes to understanding why small firms don't grow.

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.

The authors advance a model theorizing how new ventures elicit citizenship behaviors to cultivate dynamic capabilities that help bolster survival in their nascent years of operations—a characteristically resource-scarce and turbulent context.

Drawing on and integrating research on citizenship behaviors with dynamic capabilities, the authors develop a theory that new ventures that are better able to evoke a combination of affiliative and challenging citizenship behaviors from their wider entrepreneurial team (i.e. internal, and external stakeholders) are more adept at mitigating the liabilities of smallness and newness. As these behaviors are spontaneous and not explicitly remunerated, new ventures become stronger at utilizing their limited resource base for remaining lean and agile. Further, key boundary conditions are theorized that the sociocultural norms the venture is embedded within serve to heighten/attenuate the degree to which entrepreneurs can effectively cultivate dynamic capabilities from their team's “extra mile” behaviors.

The propositions extend a rich body of research on citizenship behaviors into the new venture domain. As all new ventures face the challenge of overcoming liabilities of newness, models that help understand why some are more adept at overcoming this and why others fail, hold substantive practical utility.

This research is the first to unpack how citizenship behaviors manifest among an extended range of stakeholders traditionally overlooked in new venture teams research and the mechanism for how this links to venture survival.

Survivability capital is a unique resource resulting from the “familiness” constituting an inherent feature of family firms. Familiness represents the ability of family members to reinforce the financial and non-financial resources of businesses facing threats to their economic existence. This work proposes and examines various dimensions of the survivability capital construct, verifying whether family firms expecting deterioration of their economic situation or problems with survival due to the COVID-19 crisis can mobilise sufficient capital to survive.

This article provides empirical evidence based on a cross-sectional online survey of 167 Polish family firms, conducted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The method (scale) of survivability capital measurement was elaborated and validated using principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Next, the mobilisation of the different dimensions of survivability capital was examined using PLS-SEM modelling.

The survivability capital of family firms is composed of two dimensions: internal (based on directly involved family members) and external (based on not directly involved family members). Family firms facing crisis-induced deterioration of the economic situation engage its internal component. Subsequently, family firms forecasting decreasing probability of survival during a crisis try to engage both the internal and the external components of survivability capital. Such behaviour is in line with the resource-based view as well as with the sustainable family business theory.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is one of the first studies to examine analytically the survivability capital construct. While previous studies mentioned the existence of survivability capital, this study attempts to introduce its various dimensions and test the mobilisation of survivability capital during the COVID-19 crisis.

To innovatively address challenges faced by corporate entrepreneurship (CE) in this modern age of globalization and digitalization, this chapter takes a fresh look at questions of learning and leadership from the perspective of organization development (OD), a field that has long studied questions of planned and emergent change. This alternate perspective adds to our knowledge and understanding of the role of individuals and teams in CE and presents opportunities to integrate learning and leadership. In particular, the OD literature provides us with multilevel measurement methods and tools to better analyze the employee and team level-of-analysis. As a result, these insights should enable us to better explain the interaction between CE strategic orientation and the performance of corporate venturing employees and teams, as well as the progress of organizational strategic renewal and market (re)creation efforts.