Search results

Middle managers’ intrapreneurial actions can be a powerful source of organizational adaptation and strategic renewal. Better understanding what drives such intrapreneurial actions is important, yet requires data, which allows testing directional claims. For example, whereas autonomy and supportive leadership might be antecedents to such intrapreneurial behavior, it equally seems possible that firms delegate more autonomy to individuals behaving entrepreneurially (rather than being “lazy”) or that senior managers are more inclined to show support for individuals engaging in entrepreneurial action. Lagged or longitudinal survey evidence to test whether autonomy and leadership support are antecedents of intrapreneurship or consequences, is – like for many other questions in research on strategic responsiveness – hard and expensive to collect. Vignette experiments (also called factorial surveys or conjoint studies) may be a way out – especially when combined with cross-sectional evidence. The present chapter illustrates this approach by studying the relations among autonomy, supportive leadership, and intrapreneurship by means of a vignette experiment and a cross-sectional field survey. The findings suggest that autonomy and supportive leadership are indeed antecedents to intrapreneurial behavior and illustrate the value of vignette experiments for research on strategic responsiveness.

Entrepreneurship education has been largely treated as a pedagogical “black box.” Despite the emergence of popular entrepreneurship models such as business planning, the lean startup, or business model canvas, neither theoretical nor pedagogical foundations are typically evident. This limits the accumulation of useful evidence that could inform better teaching practices. In this chapter, we develop a set of conceptual models anchored in learning theory regarding how entrepreneurship education should be taught to students. These conceptual models are built on the techniques of entrepreneurship pedagogy such as experiential education. They are developed for three groups of students: students without any entrepreneurship experience, students with previous entrepreneurship experience, and students who are currently running their start-ups. A set of potential variables that could be used for course evaluation purposes is also included. The proposed models meet the needs of students with different levels of entrepreneurship experience. Theoretically, we demonstrate that entrepreneurship students should not be treated as a homogeneous group, as they have different levels of startup experience and different educational needs. Lecturers of entrepreneurship programs could choose the suitable model proposed in this chapter in teaching based on the characteristics of their students. The chapter provides novel insights with regard to how entrepreneurship programs should be designed for students with different levels of entrepreneurship experience.

In this study we focus on how conditions of uncertainty shape the entrepreneurial action that underlies opportunity creation. We utilize the basic structure of economic exchange in the context of opportunity creation theory to further investigate the conditions under which an entrepreneur might be expected to act to bring an opportunity into existence. Specifically, we suggest that uncertainty, that is manifest as relational uncertainty and resource uncertainty, shapes the entrepreneurial actions that underlie the creation of opportunities. In a laboratory experiment we test this hypothesis by observing 56 three-person groups engaged in an opportunity creation-focused exchange task. The results of the experiment support the hypothesis that variability in the conditions of uncertainty (relational uncertainty and resource uncertainty) affects the entrepreneurial action that results in opportunity creation. These results lead us then to propose that there exists a theoretically specifiable set of key entrepreneurial actions (one that is others-focused and another that is works-focused). From this analysis we suggest potential directions for future research in the areas of entrepreneurial action and opportunity creation.

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.

A corporate entrepreneurship (CE) strategy implies that a firm’s strategic intent is to continuously leverage entrepreneurial opportunities for growth- and advantage-seeking purposes. CE has gained greater research attention with a focus on the factors that influence an organization’s willingness to initiate and sustain a CE strategy. In the current disruptive age, firms acknowledge the importance of CE (also referred to as corporate innovation) as the critical element for sustained competitive advantage in the global economy. Yet, so many organizations struggle with the actual implementation of an innovative strategy. There are key challenges that must be addressed by today’s corporate entrepreneurial leaders in this age of disruptive innovation. These include framing the innovation, developing the internal architecture, coordinating the managerial levels, integrating design thinking, recognizing the grief associated with project failure, and demanding ethical standards. As research on corporate innovative activity has evolved, numerous researchers have acknowledged the importance of these leadership activities to enhance the effectiveness of corporate entrepreneurial activity. In this chapter, the authors discuss these critical elements confronting corporate entrepreneurial leaders.

With behavioral experiments and protocol analysis, researchers can capture cognition in action. Using behavioral experiments, they can study realized behavior, not perception or self-reports. And they can do that in a controlled laboratory environment to establish causality, curbing spurious relationships. With protocol analysis, a method to elicit decision-makers’ thoughts, researchers can tap into cognitive processes. In combination, the two methods offer a novel approach to grasp mental processes alongside behavior, to reach causality and replicate findings. We describe the methods, demonstrate how researchers can apply them, and share practices from the design of experimental instruments to the replication of findings.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how the process that occurs before an entrepreneurial failure event provides a coached learning setting that creates entrepreneurial expertise.

This is a conceptual paper drawing on the literatures of expert information processing theory and deliberate-practice expertise development to suggest a model and propositions that flow from the analysis.

Adding to the expert performance literature – specifically the introduction of the notion of emergent practice – this paper proposes that the intensity of the fight to avoid entrepreneurial failure, the duration of the fight, the content required in that fight, and the clarity and rapidity of feedback received, are associated with the creation of entrepreneurial expertise.

This paper complements research on learning from failure by exploring how significant learning before entrepreneurial failure either occurs or is avoided, can lead to the creation of entrepreneurial expertise.

This research provides guidance for entrepreneurs engaged in the fight to avoid entrepreneurial failure, and suggests ways for prospective supporters to better assess entrepreneurs with failed ventures in their history.

The paper applies the deliberate-practice concept, common in sports, games, and the arts, to an “emergent practice” setting; that is, within a real-life (marketplace) setting within which the “fight” to avoid entrepreneurial failure functions as the “coach”; and it describes how the learning necessary for the creation of entrepreneurial expertise likely takes place.

Current issues of Publishers' Weekly are reporting serious shortages of paper, binders board, cloth, and other essential book manufacturing materials. Let us assure you these shortages are very real and quite severe.

Simon Cowell, the impresario behind The X Factor, a popular television talent show, has often been compared to P.T. Barnum, the legendary nineteenth century showman. This paper aims to examine the alleged parallels in detail and attempts to assess this “Barnum reborn” argument.

Putative parallels between the impresarios are considered under the aegis of two long‐standing, if contentious, historical “theories”: time's cycle and the great man thesis.

Seven broad similarities between the showmen are identified: vulgarity, hyperbole, rivalry, publicity, duplicity, liminality and history. In each case, the arguments pro and con are explored, as is humanity's propensity to personify.

In accordance with the iconic literary critic Harold Bloom, who “strikes texts together to seek if they spark”, this paper strikes two celebrated showmen together to generate historical sparks.