Socio-cognitive traits and entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic institutions

We examine how country-level institutional context moderates the relationship between three socio-cognitive traits—entrepreneurial self-efficacy, alertness to new business opportunities, and fear of failure—and opportunity entrepreneurship. To do this, we blend social cognitive theory (SCT) with institutional theory to develop a multi-level model of entrepreneurial entry. We merge data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) surveys and the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index for 45 countries from 2002 to 2012. Our results, which are based on a multi-level fixed-effects model, suggest that entrepreneurs' self-efficacy and alertness to new opportunities promote opportunity entrepreneurship while fear of failure discourages it. However, the strength of these relationships depends on the institutional context, with entrepreneurial self-efficacy and alertness substantially more likely to lead to new opportunity-driven ventures in countries with higher levels of economic freedom. These results provide suggestive evidence that economic freedom not only channels individual effort to productive entrepreneurial activities, but also affects the extent to which individuals' socio-cognitive resources are likely to mobilized and lead to high-growth entrepreneurship.     

Conceptualizing knowledge-based entrepreneurship networks: perspectives from the literature

Efforts to promote and support knowledge-based entrepreneurship as a vehicle for economic development are increasingly focused on the importance of networks to entrepreneurial success. This article reviews the extant empirical literature and finds a striking consensus among multiple disciplinary perspectives: not only are networks important, network characteristics also mediate resources important to entrepreneurial performance. Unfortunately, current conceptual frameworks do not adequately account for the unique nature of knowledge spillovers and their role in innovation and economic dynamism. The article suggests that scholars embrace the nascent knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship to guide future empirical research on entrepreneurship networks and focus intently on their impact on entrepreneurial performance—and therefore economic growth.     

Burst Bubbles or Build Steam? Entrepreneurship Education,Entrepreneurial Self‐Efficacy,and Entrepreneurial Intentions

This paper contextualizes the relationship between student's self‐efficacy beliefs and entrepreneurial intentions in the content and pedagogy of the entrepreneurship course. Using the logic of regulatory focus theory, we argue that the nature of the entrepreneurship course—whether theoretically or practically oriented—creates a distinct motivational frame for entrepreneurship in promotion or prevention terms. When coupled with students' self‐efficacy beliefs, this frame can strengthen or weaken their intentions for future entrepreneurial efforts. We test this hypothesis through a survey of 114 students enrolled in different entrepreneurship courses at a major British university. Our results show that higher self‐efficacy is associated with lower entrepreneurial intentions in the theoretically oriented courses and higher entrepreneurial intentions in the practically oriented courses. We draw a number of implications for the theory and practice of entrepreneurship education.     

Entrepreneurs as intermediaries

This paper sketches the contours of a theory of entrepreneurship focusing on the nature of entrepreneurship as intermediation under information asymmetries. While entrepreneurship, strategy, and finance researchers have studied the relationship between entrepreneurs and intermediaries, they tend to treat intermediaries, such as venture capitalists, as a separate organizational form that is parallel with (start-up) entrepreneurs. In this paper, we consider entrepreneurs as intermediaries who discover, create, and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities by bearing uncertainties stemming from intermediation between potential buyers and sellers under information asymmetries. Specifically, we focus on two key questions in entrepreneurship research: (1) Why do entrepreneurs arise and exist at all? (2) Why do some entrepreneurs perform better than others in creating entrepreneurial opportunities and ultimately creating wealth? Our discussion culminates in a new research agenda with four testable propositions.     

Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams

This article examines the role of entrepreneurial teams in processes of entrepreneurial discovery. It addresses two main questions. The first investigates the implications of economic theory for the possibility of team entrepreneurship. Because leading economic theories focus almost exclusively upon individual decision-makers, we propose a broader notion of entrepreneurship that includes enterprising teams as well as individuals. We define entrepreneurship as a profit-seeking problem-solving process that takes place under conditions of structural uncertainty.The second question examines the conditions that are conducive to joint entrepreneurial action and the formation of entrepreneurial teams. We suggest that bounded structural uncertainty and perceived strong interdependence arising from common interest can jointly “prime” team entrepreneurship.     

Theory building in the entrepreneurship paradigm

Ever since Newton's Principia set mathematical models at the pinnacle of a scientific paradigm, scientists in all disciplines—not just the physical sciences—have striven to express their theories mathematically. In the social sciences, mathematical models are more often than not a little more than a Laplacian fantasy. Nevertheless, mathematics is being used more and more extensively by social scientists—none more so than economists and business researchers. This paper focuses on one area of social science, entrepreneurship, and examines the difficulties of trying to use mathematics to model entrepreneurship processes.The entrepreneurial process is a dynamic, discontinuous change of state. It involves numerous antecedent variables. It is extremely sensitive to initial conditions. To build an algorithm for a physical system with those characteristics would be daunting to the most gifted applied mathematician. But when you add the requirement that the entrepreneurial process is initiated by the volition of a unique human being, mathematical modeling may be impossible, because there is “an essential non-algorithmic aspect to conscious human action.” This article argues that today's most prominent mathematical representation of entrepreneurship, population ecology, falls far short of Penrose's specification for a “useful theory.”Some observers believe that the answer to entrepreneurship theory may be found in the chaos theory—a relatively new science that was popularized by Gleick in his book Chaos: Making a New Science. This article explores the chaotic zones of several algorithms that provide alluringly simple representations for the entrepreneurial process. One of them is the fundamental equation for population ecology theory. It shows how under some conditions that equation exhibits some wild, chaotic behavior that gives an observer the feel of entrepreneurship. But it is no more than a mathematical metaphor because the accuracy of the measurements that are needed to observe true scientific chaos in the entrepreneurial process are unattainable in practice.     

“I know I can,but I don't fit”: Perceived fit,self-efficacy,and entrepreneurial intention

While extant literature generally suggests a positive relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention, several moderators have been identified – suggesting possible boundary conditions on that relationship. This paper introduces perceived person-entrepreneurship fit to entrepreneurship and shows that it moderates the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. Three studies are conducted which illuminate the utility of randomized experiments and methodological approaches to address limitations in the interpretation of empirical results. Studies 1 and 2 are randomized experiments to examine causality; Study 3 contains two correlational surveys to triangulate the results by examining whether the proposed effects withstand the influence of confounding variables in real-life. The findings indicate that when a strong perception of fit with entrepreneurship is achieved, entrepreneurial intention is strongly predicted by entrepreneurial self-efficacy. In contrast, if one perceives a low level of fit or no fit, entrepreneurial intention will be low, regardless of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.     

Entrepreneurship and well-being: The role of psychological autonomy,competence, and relatedness

Drawing upon the self-determination theory, we develop a two-stage multi-path mediation model in which psychological autonomy mediates the relationship between active engagement in entrepreneurship and well-being partially through its effect on psychological competence and relatedness. We test this model on a representative sample of 1837 working individuals (251 early-stage entrepreneurs) from Sweden. We find active engagement in entrepreneurial work tasks to be strongly associated with well-being relative to non-entrepreneurial work. Thus, we highlight the importance of individual self-organization—with autonomy at its core—which makes entrepreneurial work more beneficial in terms of basic psychological needs compared to other work alternatives.     

Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration view

We propose structuration theory as a useful lens through which to view the entrepreneurial process. Extending Shane and Venkataraman's work (Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25, 217–226), entrepreneurship is presented as the nexus of opportunity and agency, whereby opportunities are not singular phenomena, but are idiosyncratic to the individual. Entrepreneurial ventures are the medium and outcome of the entrepreneurs' actions. The traditional view of entrepreneurship is that entrepreneurs fill market gaps. A structuration view proposes that the entrepreneur and social systems co-evolve. The presentation of structuration theory offers a robust, and hereto underrepresented, perspective of the entrepreneurial process.     

Individualism,collectivism, and entrepreneurship: A framework for international comparative research

This article presents a theoretical framework and seven related propositions linking national culture—specifically individualist and collectivist orientations—to entrepreneurship. The framework identifies how both orientations affect the functions of entrepreneurship. This perspective casts new light on cross-cultural research that, while generally confirming individualism-entrepreneurship ties, has had less success accounting for the entrepreneurial vitality of largely “collectivist” nations—especially Japan.There are two main streams of research on the effects of individualism and collectivism on entrepreneurship. The micro-level stream finds that those who generate variety—founders and corporate entrepreneurs—tend to be individualistic. This work does not identify proclivities for the other entrepreneurial function, leveraging resources. The macro-stream associates both individualism and collectivism with national levels of economic growth and innovation.The framework comprises two dimensions depicting (1) levels of individualism and collectivism, and (2) the entrepreneurial functions. I conceive of individualism and collectivism as two characteristic orientations distributed in varying proportions within and between cultures and individuals. These characteristic are not polar ends of a continuum, as commonly described. The second dimension recognizes that entrepreneurship requires two activities: generating variety through innovation or new ventures, and leveraging resources internally or by establishing external ties.This paper's main contribution comes from the recognition that two entrepreneurial functions are very different processes. Variety generation requires mostly individual creativity and initiative; resource leverage depends on efficient relationships that thrive under collectivism, but can be induced contractually between individualists. These differences reveal that individualism and collectivism neither categorically encourage nor discourage entrepreneurship; rather they influence how its functions are accomplished.The propositions outlined in this paper can sharpen future research on individualism, collectivism, and entrepreneurship. In short, the paper claims individualists produce breakthroughs that collectivists implement and improve. Individualists show proclivities for new venture formation and making major innovations. They tend to leverage their resources through contract-based relations. For example, resources are stretched internally using contingent, performance-based incentives, and outside funds can be acquired through venture-capital agreements. In contrast, collectivists generate variety through group-based, incremental improvements and changes. Collectivists leverage their own resources by harnessing “clanlike” affiliations, and securing the use of the resources of other firms by building close relational ties, like keiretsu. Theory acknowledging that individualism and collectivism are not negatively related allows us to recognize that both orientations can contribute to entrepreneurship.The framework has key implications for entrepreneur/managers and policymakers. Recognizing that individualism and collectivism both contribute to entrepreneurship can guide decision-makers to examine the inventory of these orientations in their firms or regions, and implement policies to address shortfalls. For example, Americans can concentrate more on building close network ties while Japanese can focus on encouraging individual innovations.     

Knowledge and entrepreneurial employees: a country-level analysis

According to the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship, knowledge created endogenously results in knowledge spillovers, which allow independent entrepreneurs to identify and exploit opportunities (Acs et al. in Small Bus Econ 32(1):15–30, 2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship ignores entrepreneurial activities of employees within established organizations. This ignorance is largely empirical, because there has been no large-scale study on the prevalence and nature of entrepreneurial employee activities. This article presents the outcomes of the first large-scale international study of entrepreneurial employee activities. In multiple advanced capitalist economies, entrepreneurial employee activity is more prevalent than independent entrepreneurial activity. Innovation indicators are positively correlated with the prevalence of entrepreneurial employee activities, but are not or even negatively correlated with the prevalence of independent entrepreneurial activities.     

Empathy-driven entrepreneurial action: Well-being outcomes for entrepreneurs and target beneficiaries

Empathy is a primary driver of social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial action. However, empathizing individuals can arrive at different conclusions about what targets need. This variance in entrepreneurs' empathy for targets is important because it will help explain the type of interventions they initiate to help targets and the production of a range of benefits and costs for the targets and the entrepreneur. This study builds on and extends the theory of empathic interpersonal emotion regulation to construct an empathy-driven entrepreneurial-action model of well-being. We explore how an entrepreneur's empathy orientation for entrepreneurial action—the patterned way entrepreneurs focus their attention on a target's problems and then seek to enact this position through entrepreneurial action to help the target—shapes the organizing of an entrepreneurial intervention and the likely outcomes. We theorize entrepreneurial orientation of entrepreneurial action manifests as a hedonic paternalistic, counterhedonic, paternalistic, hedonic cooperative, or counter-hedonic cooperative. This empathy-driven entrepreneurial-action model of well-being contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature and inter-personal theories of empathy.     

A personal adversity model of justifying the costs of entrepreneurial action: The case of oil thieves in the Niger DELTA

While entrepreneurship can generate economic and social benefits, it can also be a source of negative outcomes. We need to gain a deeper understanding of how individual entrepreneurs interpret their context and engage in entrepreneurial action that can generate substantial negative outcomes. In this paper we shed light on the entrepreneurial process at the micro-level by exploring how bunkerers—oil thieves—engage in, justify, and persist with entrepreneurial action that, while generating some benefits for the entrepreneurs and the local community, causes substantial destruction to the local environment, community, and the entrepreneurs' health. By inductively generating a personal adversity model of justifying entrepreneurial action that generates substantial negative outcomes (for the local community and environment), we provide new insights into (1) the link between aspects of entrepreneurship under adversity and substantial costs (and some benefits) experienced by local communities already facing adverse conditions, (2) how entrepreneurs' claim varying levels of agency in the same justification of the same action and its negative consequences, and (3) how entrepreneurs entangle the self and others to justify their actions and its costs.     

Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: an individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship

Previous studies suggest that entrepreneurial activity tends to be greater in contexts where investment in new knowledge is relatively high (e.g., entrepreneurial universities). However, in this specific knowledge context, only a few academics recognize opportunities and act on them through entrepreneurial activities (e.g., spin-offs). A plausible explanation could be the existence of several filters that limit the total conversion of knowledge into economically useful knowledge. The vehicle to knowledge transfer is entrepreneurship. Therefore, the main actor is the academic entrepreneur, but no empirical study has highlighted the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship at the individual level. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters on the knowledge transfer process within entrepreneurial university. Adopting the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship and the planned behavior theory, a proposed model was tested with a sample of 207 academics enrolled in entrepreneurial universities in Spain using structural equation modeling. Our findings could provide insights for policy-makers to design policies that bring further benefits to society and educational organizations as well as significant contributions to the literature.     

Entrepreneurship and the theory of taxation

A review of the literature on firm taxation reveals that the economics of entrepreneurship has not sufficiently been taken into consideration. We discuss how this affects conclusions derived from standard models of capital taxation when applied to entrepreneurial income. Some defining features of entrepreneurship important for analyzing the effects of taxation of owner-managed firms are identified. These include the lack of a well-functioning external market for entrepreneurial effort, limited access to external capital and complementarities between entrepreneurial innovation, effort and capital. Due to these constraints, the entrepreneurial project is tied to the individual owner–manager. The entrepreneur is unable to decouple saving decisions from investment decisions, and makes joint decisions on the supply of effort and capital. The return from successful entrepreneurial ventures can therefore not be readily divided into labor and capital income, in deep contrast to what is typically assumed in taxation theory. It is argued that when distinct attributes of entrepreneurship are taken into account, certain conclusions of capital taxation models may no longer hold, including the neutrality of capital taxation in owner-managed firms. Cost of capital formulas derived from the behavior of public firms could underestimate distortions when applied to the investment behavior of entrepreneurial firms. For tax purposes and otherwise, it becomes useful to analyze return to entrepreneurial activity as income of a distinct factor of production. In this context, conceptual issues and the difficulties of measuring entrepreneurial income are discussed.     

Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial intentions: distinct constructs with different antecedents

We posit that entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship are distinct entrepreneurial behaviors that differ in terms of their salient outcomes for the individual. Since individuals are likely to differ in their attitudes to these salient outcomes, and in their entrepreneurial self-efficacy, we hypothesize that a different strength of intention for entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship will be due to individual differences in self-efficacy and in their attitudes to the outcomes from entrepreneurial, as compared to intrapreneurial, behavior. We find that while self-efficacy is significantly related to both entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions, attitudes to income, ownership, and autonomy relate only to entrepreneurial intentions, while attitude to risk relates only to intrapreneurial intentions.     

Market imperfections,opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship

This research develops the argument that four types of market imperfections (i.e., inefficient firms, externalities, flawed pricing mechanisms and information asymmetries) at once contribute to environmental degradation and that they also provide significant opportunities for the creation of radical technologies and innovative business models. We show that these opportunities establish the foundations for an emerging model of sustainable entrepreneurship, one which enables founders to obtain entrepreneurial rents while simultaneously improving local and global social and environmental conditions. To advance this new field, we offer suggestions for a research agenda focusing on two areas: the relationship between market imperfections and entrepreneurial opportunities, and the emerging field of sustainable entrepreneurship.     

Calling Baumol: What telephones can tell us about the allocation of entrepreneurial talent in the face of radical institutional changes

In his seminal contribution, Baumol (1990) proposes that the direction of entrepreneurial effort towards its productive (e.g., start-up activity) or unproductive (e.g., rent-seeking) use in a society depends on institutions or the “rules of the game”. We focus on an important micro-foundation of Baumol's theory namely that certain individuals change the direction of entrepreneurial efforts with institutional change. Our research contrasts with previous work on the role of institutions, which mostly focuses on the aggregate macro-level, while not observing individual behavior. We analyze who decides to start a venture in East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall and find that many individuals who demonstrated commitment to the anti-entrepreneurial communist regime in the GDR were active in launching new ventures soon after German re-unification. We argue that commitment to communism among post-communist entrepreneurs reflects rent-seeking. Once institutions change radically, entrepreneurial efforts are directed towards start-up activity. We rely on the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) that includes information on whether East German respondents had a telephone before German re-unification, which was one of the most sought-after rewards for commitment to the regime. We find that telephone owners had a higher propensity of becoming successful firm founders. Telephone owners were also more likely to have an entrepreneurship-prone personality profile and value orientation. Our results confirm Baumol's theory and suggest that alertness to entrepreneurial arbitrage opportunities is guiding the redirection of entrepreneurial effort in the face of drastic institutional change.Executive summaryThere is a large body of literature on the effect of institutions on entrepreneurship. A good share of this literature is rooted in the seminal contribution by Baumol (1990) who argues that the shape of institutions determines whether people direct entrepreneurial effort to productive, unproductive or destructive entrepreneurial activities. Despite the fact that Baumol‘s main argument is at the individual micro-level, most of the literature focuses only on the macro-level implications of his theory. In contrast to most previous studies, we are not focusing on the aggregate level of entrepreneurship but explore the micro-foundations of Baumol's theory and analyze how (drastic) institutional change affects the entrepreneurial choice at the individual level.In our discussion of Baumol's work, we also introduce Kirzner's concept of individual alertness to arbitrage opportunities which he originally formulated for market economies. We extend Kirzner's insights on the role of alertness to other institutional contexts (e.g., socialism) and forms of arbitrage (e.g., engagement in socialist organizations) other than start-up activity, and highlight the role of institutional change in shaping processes of opportunity formation.It is important to understand how individuals allocate their entrepreneurial effort in times of major historical shocks and institutional changes for several reasons. First, since entrepreneurship is an important driver of economic growth and development, it is crucial to understand how institutional change affects entrepreneurial behavior at the individual level for designing policy measures targeted at increasing the entrepreneurial propensity of people. Second, the share of people with an entrepreneurial talent in a society is an enormous resource to cope with socio-economic change. Third, it is also important to understand the micro-foundations of Baumol's work as vast empirical evidence on the impact of institutions on entrepreneurial activities that is available at the macro-level relies on the validity of the micro-foundations.We find that people who demonstrated commitment to one of the most anti-entrepreneurial institutional regimes in history—communism—were more likely to start a firm after transition to a market economy. Our analysis is based on the case of East Germany that saw a sudden shift from an anti-entrepreneurial communist regime that did not reward start-up activities towards an entrepreneurship-facilitating market economy after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Those people who were actively committed to the regime as evidenced by material rewards obtained in the GDR were more likely to become (successful) self-employed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We also observe that people with an entrepreneurship-prone personality profile and those who put a strong emphasis on entrepreneurial values were more likely to have obtained material rewards in communism that indicate a strong commitment to the system.We argue that applying and extending Baumol's and also Kirzner's ideas helps understanding this puzzling phenomenon. In essence, regime commitment can be seen as a form of rent-seeking activity, which is a classic example of unproductive entrepreneurial activity discussed by Baumol. Rent-seeking in the context of communism could be expressed, for example, in enthusiastic engagement in public organizations (e.g., party councils, youth organizations, state-owned enterprises) in exchange for specific material rewards. Their pronounced alertness to new arbitrage opportunities may have enabled these same individuals to switch to start-up activity once this option became available to them and if it was more profitable than rent-seeking.We contribute to the literature by supporting the idea that the institutional framework conditions determine the type of entrepreneurial activity to which entrepreneurially talented people devote their efforts. So far, this claim found support mainly in aggregated macro-level data. Another important insight from our analysis is that entrepreneurs are flexible and agile economic agents who are alert to arbitrage opportunities and able to promptly adapt themselves to even radical changes, such as the shock transition from a socialist command economy to a market economy. Alertness to opportunities in a market economy context could hardly be learned in an anti-entrepreneurial context. Hence, an immediate re-allocation of entrepreneurial efforts indicates that alertness to arbitrage opportunities emerging in a market economy does not necessarily require experience in a market economy context.Our assessment also suggests that institutional change is shaping subjective processes of opportunity formation. Hence, the debate on whether opportunities are ‘out there’ or they have to be created should take into consideration how institutions and institutional change set the boundaries for opportunities. In particular, identifying and pursuing new opportunities brought about by institutional change could represent a specific form of “entrepreneurship talent.”     

A Model of Social Entrepreneurial Discovery

Social entrepreneurship activity continues to surge tremendously in market and economic systems around the world. Yet, social entrepreneurship theory and understanding lag far behind its practice. For instance, the nature of the entrepreneurial discovery phenomenon, a critical area of inquiry in general entrepreneurship theory, receives no attention in the specific context of social entrepreneurship. To address the gap, we conceptualize social entrepreneurial discovery based on an extension of corporate social responsibility into social entrepreneurship contexts. We develop a model that emphasizes mobilization and timing as underpinnings of social entrepreneurial discovery and offer distinct conceptual aspects and theoretic propositions instrumental to future social entrepreneurship research.     

The community dynamics of entrepreneurship: The birth of the american film industry, 1895–1929

This paper provides insight for practitioners by exploring the collective process of entrepreneurship in the context of the formation of new industries. In contrast to the popular notions of entrepreneurship, with their emphasis on individual traits, we argue that successful entrepreneurship is often not solely the result of solitary individuals acting in isolation. In many respects, entrepreneurs exist as part of larger collectives. First and foremost, there is the population of organizations engaging in activities similar to those of the entrepreneurial firm, which constitute a social system that can affect entrepreneurial success. In addition, there is also a community of populations of organizations characterized by interdependence of outcomes. Individual entrepreneurs may be more successful in the venturing process if they recognize some of the ways in which their success may depend on the actions of entrepreneurs throughout this community. Thus, we urge practitioners and theorists alike to include a community perspective in their approach to entrepreneurship. We also suggest that one way of conceptualizing the community of relevance might be in terms of populations of organizations that constitute the value chain. For example, in the early film industry a simple value chain with three functions—production, distribution, and exhibition—is a convenient heuristic for considering what populations of organizations might be relevant. As we show in our case study of that industry, a community model offers insights into the collective nature of entrepreneurship and the emergence of new industries.Our basic thesis is that the role of entrepreneurship in the creation of new industries can be conceptualized in terms of the dynamics of a community of organizational populations. At least three implications of this view may be important for practitioners. First, the kind of widespread and fundamental economic and social change that has often been linked with entrepreneurship requires a variety of behaviors. While most definitions of entrepreneurship have recognized that entrepreneurship requires the introduction of innovation, they have tended to ignore the importance of behaviors that subsequently support that innovation. To encompass these important behaviors, we believe that a broad definition of entrepreneurial behaviors is justified. To capture this, the framework of entrepreneurial behaviors that we develop includes the variety of behaviors that are important to the success of a collective process of entrepreneurship. We believe that recognition of a variety of different behaviors that are important to the success of the entrepreneurial process can help practicing entrepreneurs to understand more fully the complex dynamics of new industry creation. In terms of our framework, the range of behaviors of potential importance to entrepreneurship includes all of the following: creating a firm that innovates, creating a new business that imitates the practices of others, innovating within an existing business, and imitating by creating change in an existing business. In addition, we recognize that the kinds of innovative change that support entrepreneurship in the context of new industry creation are not narrowly technological; other kinds of product and service changes as well as administrative innovations may also be relevant.Second, entrepreneurship in one part of the community often creates the opportunity for entrepreneurial activity elsewhere in the community. For example, the founding of movie palaces did not begin until feature length films appeared. The challenge for entrepreneurs is to recognize these opportunities and act on them. Third, and related, the long-term success of entrepreneurial behaviors in one population of the community frequently requires that supportive entrepreneurial behaviors occur in other populations in the community. For example, the success of feature length films was hastened by the development of distribution organizations to replace traveling shows and localized markets. Their success was also hastened by the movement away from nickelodeons towards larger, more comfortable exhibition outlets, such as theaters and show palaces. When the interdependence among populations in the community is stated this way, another challenge to entrepreneurs becomes clear: the facilitation and encouragement of supportive behaviors in other populations.We are not the first to propose that the community is important, but we contribute to this idea by showing in a specific context how various types of behaviors interact and ultimately promote entrepreneurship throughout the community. Our contribution for practitioners is twofold. We would urge practitioners to consider the variety of behaviors necessary to create, reinforce, and maintain fundamental and widespread change. Further, we would suggest that practitioners consider how activities in a broad community of organizations can set the stage for entrepreneurship and have a high impact on its ultimate success or failure. Thus, we would suggest that practitioners who seek to innovate should search broadly for opportunities and understand the importance of relations with businesses elsewhere in the community. The success of their entrepreneurial efforts may depend on the occurrence of supportive entrepreneurial changes in those businesses as well. Their ability to do this will be enhanced by a broad understanding of entrepreneurial behaviors and sensitivity to the opportunities that their entrepreneurial behaviors may create for others.