Search results

This paper adds to the ongoing debate on judgements, opportunity evaluation and founder identity theory and shows that founders vary in their prioritisation and combination of judgement criteria, linked to their respective social founder identity. It further reveals how this variation among founder identity types shapes their perception of distinct entrepreneurial opportunities and the forming of first-person opportunity beliefs.

This study uses a qualitative approach by presenting three business scenarios to a sample of 34 first-time founders. It adopts a first-person perspective on their cognitive processes during the evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunities using verbal protocol and content analysis techniques.

The theorised model highlights the use of similar categories of judgement criteria by individual founders during opportunity evaluation that followed two distinct stages, namely search and validation. Yet, founders individualised their judgement process through the prioritisation of different judgement criteria.

The authors provide new insights into how individuals individuate entrepreneurial opportunities through the choice of different judgement criteria that enable them to develop opportunity confidence during opportunity evaluation. The study also shows that first-time founders depict variations in their cognitive frames that are based on their social identity types as they assess opportunity-related information and elicit variations in reciprocal relationships emerging between emotion and cognition. Exposing these subjective cognitive evaluative processes provides theoretical and practical implications that are discussed as well.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on how to apply the abductive research process for developing a theoretical explanation in studies on performance management and management control systems. This is important because theoretically ambitious research tends to require explanatory study outcomes, but prior research frameworks provide little guidance in this regard, potentially facilitating ill-defined research designs and a lack of common vocabulary and criteria for evaluating studies.

The authors introduce a methodological framework that distinguishes three interwoven theoretical abstraction levels: descriptive, analytical and explanatory. They use a recently published qualitative field study to illustrate an application of the framework.

The framework and its illustrated application make the systematic logic of the abductive research process visible and accessible to researchers. The authors explain how the framework supports moving from empirical description to theoretical explanation during the research process and where the three levels might open spaces for the positioning of novel practices and conceptual and theoretical innovations.

The framework provides guidance for an explanatory research design and theory-building purpose and has been developed in response to recent criticism in the field that highlights the wide gap between leading-edge practice and the lagging state of theory. It offers interdisciplinary vocabulary and evaluation criteria that can be applied by any accounting and management researcher regardless of whether they pursue critical, interpretive or positivist research and whether they primarily use qualitative or quantitative research methods.

This study investigates how small firms develop preferences for varying levels of alliance partner diversity by applying a behavioral perspective.

Data were collected via an original survey administered by the Swedish National Bureau of Statistics (SCB) of 1,026 Swedish firms with 50 employees or less. Hypotheses were tested by specifying a series of fractional response regressions.

The results show a U-shaped relationship between experienced and preferred alliance partner diversity in small firms and further show moderating effects of firm age, prior growth and environmental dynamism. The findings suggest that preferences towards diverse alliance portfolios in small firms may arise, not only from well-informed deliberate strategic thinking based on prior experience, but also as a consequence of cognitive bias.

The findings suggest that (1) small firms considering a wide variety of alliance partners should carefully investigate whether they are, in fact, capable of mastering a highly diverse alliance portfolio or if they are overconfident novices. (2) Holders of homogenous alliance portfolios should recurringly investigate whether homogeneity is due to informed strategy or inertia.

This study contributes to the literature on alliance partner diversity and behavioral alliance portfolio configuration by shedding light on the learning mechanisms that shape alliance portfolio strategies of small firms by explicating the complexity of how different experience levels of partner variety affect current alliance portfolio preferences.

In a work environment marked by unprecedented complexity, volatility and ambiguity, managers must accomplish their objectives while navigating many challenges. This paper aims to investigate potential interrelations among environmental transformations, cognitive biases and strategic decisions. In particular, the purpose of the study is to crystallize the state of art on the impact of cognitive biases on strategic decisions, in the context of environmental transformations.

The authors have conducted a systematic literature review to identify existing relevant work on this topic and to detect potential avenues for future research.

The findings highlight how decision-making is influenced and enabled by internal (e.g. perception) and external factors (e.g. digitalization). Specifically, the strategic role of cognitive biases appears to be crucial when investigating the related impact on strategic decisions in times of environmental transformation.

Implications are drawn for scholars and practitioners interested in evaluating the role of specific decision-making determinants for the formation and implementation of strategic decisions. In this sense, we stress that decision-makers need to manage their cognitive biases and select the right information out of a wide data set in order to adapt to environmental transformations.

By systematizing the literature review, potential interrelations among environmental transformations, cognitive biases and strategic decisions are identified. Furthermore, the primary phases that drive the decision-making process are proposed (analysis, decision, onboarding and control).

Decision-making competence (DMC) of entrepreneurs and managers is a longstanding topic in this increasingly globalized world. These figures operate in conditions not within their own control, and good levels of DMC are often considered to be desirable for the flourishing of business and society. This paper reports an empirical investigation on the DMC of entrepreneurs and managers, in an attempt to inform about their tendencies to incur in risky and costly choices.

Three cognitive biases associated with operational strategies and individual characteristics of entrepreneurs and managers, namely under/overconfidence (UOC, i.e. self-confidence in taking decisions), resistance to sunk costs (RSC, i.e. propensity to take cost investments) and consistency in risk perception (CRP, i.e. how well individuals understand probability rules) were considered . Cognitive biases measures were used in a cross-sectional study on a sample of n = 639 entrepreneurs and n = 512 managers. Data collected via online survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics to determine differences among entrepreneurs and managers DMC.

Analyses reveal that entrepreneurs exhibit higher levels of UOC compared to managers with a marked presence of UOC among entrepreneurs at younger ages. Conversely, performance regarding RSC improves with higher education levels while age and RSC are positively correlated only for managers, regardless of education. Lastly, entrepreneurs and managers resulted as not being affected by CRP. This study discusses these results to provide initial insights for further avenues of research and practice.

The study offers an innovative, evidence-based viewpoint on how entrepreneurs and managers deal with risky and costly decisions. It offers an initial understanding of the role of UOC, RSC and CRP, that is specific cognitive biases associated with operational strategies and individual characteristics, in the DMC of these working figures. The study forwards avenues of scrutiny of quick-witted entrepreneurs and systematic managers.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study investigates a variety of approaches to supply disruption risk management for achieving effective responses for resilience at the supply management subunit level (e.g. category of items). Drawing on the attention-based view of the firm, the authors model the attentional antecedents of supply resilience as (1) attentional perspectives and (2) attentional selection. Attentional perspectives focus on either supply risk sources or supply network recoverability, and both are hypothesised to have a direct positive association with supply resilience. Attentional selection is top down or bottom up when it comes to disruption detection, and these are hypothesised to moderate the association between disruption risk management perspectives and resilience.

Conducted at the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study employs a hierarchical regression analysis on a multicountry survey of 190 procurement professionals, each responding from the perspective of their own subunit area of supply responsibility.

Both attentional disruption risk management perspectives are needed to achieve supply resilience, and neither is superior in terms of achieving supply resilience. Both the efficiency of the top down and exposure to the unexpected with the bottom up are needed – to a balanced degree – for improved supply resilience.

The results encourage firms to purposefully develop their supply risk management practices, first, to include both perspectives and, second, to avoid biases in attentional selection for disruption detection. Ensuring a more balanced approach may allow firms to improve their supply resilience.

The results contribute to the understanding of the microfoundations that underpin firms' operational capabilities for supply risk and disruption management and possible attentional biases.

The purpose of this study is to build a proposal for an integrated analysis / evaluation / decision / implementation framework to suit entrepreneurial companies intending to redefine their strategic behaviours and their competitive schemes in the global environment.

A conceptual approach, based on theoretical perspectives relating to globalisation-based management and decision-making of entrepreneurs, is adopted.

The paper presents a conceptual framework useful for supporting entrepreneurial decisions for global strategies, drawing on an integrated analysis of external environment and internal components, with a specific focus on the entrepreneur's characteristics in terms of cognitive and emotional profiles. It is suggested to adopt a logical process aimed at identifying which strategic levers are available for entrepreneurial players to implement their strategies.

Entrepreneurial decision-making may benefit from an integrated framework which helps entrepreneurs, who aim to compete in the global marketplace, to explore and exploit all the key factors useful to defining their strategies.

There is a lack of decision-making frameworks that put the entrepreneur at the centre and, at the same time, present a potential balance between the external factors (globalisation drivers and local opportunities) and the resources and competences required to manage risks and difficulties of the global environment (internal factors). The originality of the proposed framework consists in filling this gap. Moreover, this framework can be useful for “re-born global” or “global-again” firms that are currently a neglected typology of studied firms.

Managing projects is an important part of operations management, but many projects fail. This study focuses on attribution processes of such disruption from the underrepresented perspective of the project manager. The authors consider two types of causes: the more frequently researched environmental uncertainty (i.e. uncontrollable events) and the scarcely researched uncertainty imposed by non-collaborative project sponsors (i.e. other-controllable events).

The authors test conceptual arguments grounded in attribution theory and the notion of psychological contracts in a scenario-based experiment among 325 practicing project managers.

The findings indicate that non-collaborative project sponsors negatively affect project managers' motivation, whereas uncontrollable disruptions leave hope to achieve positive future outcomes. This latter effect is further strengthened when project managers have an internal attribution style. They tend to blame the disruption on themselves and generally feel in control of achieving success even if they are not.

These socio-psychological insights nuance the economic idea that uncertainty reduces motivation per se in the context of project disruption appraisal. The authors contribute to the behavioral project management literature and general attribution theory and help guide the allocation of resources during the recovery of failed projects.

There has been significant growth in entrepreneurship research over the past several decades. Yet with all of the knowledge gained and presumably improved training of would-be entrepreneurs, firm failure rates remain persistently high. It is argued here that the historical and continued research focus on successful entrepreneurs has limited the field. Entrepreneurs are often considered to possess uniquely positive capabilities relative to the general population; this paper explores the possibility that the majority of entrepreneurs suffer from overconfidence and that this leads most entrepreneurs to make “bad bets” that result in underperformance and firm failure.

In this paper, a qualitative review of the literature was performed.

Based on the literature review, three formal propositions are developed. The first two suggest that the majority of entrepreneurs are overconfident in their personal capabilities and the prospects for their new ventures. It is then proposed that this overconfidence leads to errors in judgment that results in financial underperformance and failure found among most new ventures.

This paper makes an important contribution to the entrepreneurship literature by arguing that overconfidence negatively impacts pre-founding decision-making such that entrepreneurs pursue flawed opportunities. Studying the issues raised in this paper may spur new lines of research and knowledge that lead to better entrepreneurial outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of founding team experience (industry and venturing) in new venture creation. This paper posits the following questions: How does founding team experience influence the likelihood of new venture creation, in the nascent stage? How does industry context moderate this relationship? The study aims to fill an important gap in the literature by unpacking the impact of different types of founding team experiences on venture outcome, and by focusing on the influence of founding team in the venture creation process, specifically at the nascent stage.

The paper utilizes data from the Second Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics, a longitudinal data set of 1,214 nascent entrepreneurs in the USA. Logistics regression was employed to analyze the effect of founding team experience on new venture creation. Post hoc analysis was conducted to ensure the confidence of the findings.

The paper provides empirical insights about how founding team experience influences the likelihood of new venture creation in the nascent stage. At the nascent stage, founding team industry experience positively affects new venture creation while founding team venturing experience does not. However, in the high-technology industry environment, the influence of the founding team’s venturing experience on new venture creation is stronger than that in the low-technology industry environment.

Due to the design of the data set, there is a risk of “right-censoring” problem. Also, because the study used archival data on founding teams, the methodology did not allow for uncovering the underlying team processes and dynamics during the venture creation process based on learning from experience. Future studies are encouraged to examine other types of founding team experience and the underlying process-level factors on venture creation.

The paper provides important practical implications for nascent entrepreneurs/entrepreneurial teams on team assembling and composition. In general, a team with higher-level industry experience is critical for venturing success. A team with higher-level venturing experience is more desired in the high-technology industry.

This paper fulfills an important gap in the entrepreneurial team literature by highlighting the complex and nuanced ways in which founding team experience influences the likelihood of venture creation in the nascent stage of the firm, especially after incorporating the additional impact of the industry context.