The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship's basic “why” questions

It is suggested that a cognitive perspective may provide important insights into key aspects of the entrepreneurial process. Specifically, it is proposed that this perspective—which has yielded impressive results in many other fields—can help the field of entrepreneurship to answer three basic questions it has long addressed: (1) Why do some persons but not others choose to become entrepreneurs? (2) Why do some persons but not others recognize opportunities for new products or services that can be profitably exploited? (3) Why are some entrepreneurs so much more successful than others? Specific cognitive factors relevant to each of these questions are identified, and their potential effects are described. It is suggested that a cognitive perspective can prove beneficial both to researchers wishing to understand entrepreneurship as a process and to practitioners hoping to assist entrepreneurs in their efforts to create successful new ventures.     

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.     

Narcissism and learning from entrepreneurial failure

Failure of a prior business provides an opportunity for an entrepreneur to learn in the subsequent entrepreneurial endeavor, but learning from failure is not guaranteed. Why do some entrepreneurs learn less from failure than others? In this study, we propose that a narcissistic personality can create cognitive and motivational obstacles to learning. We further posit that the inhibiting effect of narcissism will be more salient when the costs of failure, especially social costs, are higher. Our analysis with a survey sample of startups provides the initial empirical evidence about the negative impact of narcissism on learning from entrepreneurial failure. The study adds to research on learning from failure and narcissism in entrepreneurship.     

To start or not to start: Outcome and ability expectations in the decision to start a new venture

This study seeks to better understand why some individuals decide to start new businesses and others do not, particularly in light of high base rates of failure. In addressing the question of “Why do some individuals choose to start new ventures?” a common perspective is that potential entrepreneurs with high levels of confidence in potential outcomes are likely to start new ventures. Alternatively, it also may be that firm creation decisions are based largely on individual expectations of one's ability. Hypotheses examining these perspectives are tested using a sample of 316 nascent entrepreneurs with the start-up decision tracked longitudinally. The results indicate that confidence in one's ability to perform tasks relevant to entrepreneurship is a robust predictor of start-up while outcome expectancies appear to play a marginal role. Theoretical and practical implications stemming from these results are discussed.     

Inclusive entrepreneurship: A call for a shared theoretical conversation about unconventional entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurship has the potential to be an inclusive space comprising many types of conventional as well as unconventional entrepreneurs. In this essay we will argue that when it comes to unconventional entrepreneurs—ranging from refugee entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs with a physical or cognitive disability, to elder entrepreneurs, former convict entrepreneurs, and many others—there are important questions we are not asking because we tend to look at each subgroup in isolation. Our central message is that looking for shared wisdom across various groups of unconventional entrepreneurs may facilitate a shared theoretical conversation that aids the transfer of knowledge, prevents silos and the unnecessary reinventing of the wheel, boosts the field's appeal and critical mass, and facilitates a broader exchange of ideas. To facilitate that conversation, we identify who unconventional entrepreneurs are; identify obstacles to a common theoretical conversation and how these obstacles could be overcome; outline a set of common theoretical themes that apply across various groups of unconventional entrepreneurs; and show how further theorizing unconventional entrepreneurs could challenge the community to reach beyond our existing knowledge horizons to develop pioneering entrepreneurship research.     

The benefits of having an entrepreneur-mother: Influence of mother's entrepreneurial status on human capital formation among children

Prior research shows that childcare is a unique driver for female entrepreneurship, as entrepreneurship allows women to increase time allocation on child supervision. Yet, whether female entrepreneurship actually promotes childrearing outcomes remains contentious in extant literature. This study focuses on child human capital formation as a key childrearing outcome. Drawing on the occupational inheritance literature, we suggest that, in addition to supervision, entrepreneur-mothers may foster child human capital formation through value transmission—in particular, transmitting self-direction values to children. Using nationally representative data from China, we find that children with entrepreneur-mothers exhibit better human capital formation outcomes—especially when they are younger and female. We further show that both supervision and value transmission are present, with the latter being a more important mechanism. Reconciling conflicting views in the literature, our study has both theoretical and practical implications.Executive summaryPrior female entrepreneurship research suggests that women often choose to be entrepreneurs out of family, particularly childrearing, considerations. Entrepreneurship offers work autonomy and scheduling flexibility, allowing entrepreneur-mothers to better allocate time to childrearing activities. Given that numerous studies document a positive relationship between maternal time allocation and childrearing outcomes, conceivably entrepreneur-mothers should achieve favorable childrearing outcomes. Entrepreneurial research focusing on the business-family interface, however, suggests female entrepreneurs often face unanticipated pressures that limit their ability to care for family members. In addition, some female entrepreneurs may be motivated more by career than by childcare considerations. As such, the relationship between female entrepreneurship and childrearing outcomes remains conceptually and empirically ambiguous. Given the foregoing situation, we examine this relationship both theoretically and empirically, focusing on child human capital formation as a specific and important childrearing outcome.Examining how female entrepreneurship relates to child human capital formation is of both scholarly and practical importance. First, it brings enhanced clarity to our understanding of the family- and child-related consequences of female entrepreneurship, thus affording reconciliation of the ambiguous predictions found in extant theories. Accordingly, we advance research on female entrepreneurship. Exploring the relationship also adds to the family embeddedness perspective in the broader entrepreneurship literature, because child development is a crucial component within the family domain.Second, our research has practical values and policy implications. Prospective female entrepreneurs may, regardless of their pre-entry intentions, be interested in learning how entering entrepreneurship could affect childrearing outcomes. Policymakers worldwide have been actively promoting entrepreneurship in the past few decades, mainly driven by economic and technological considerations. Because such efforts likely increase female participation in entrepreneurial activities, they should be evaluated to account for their family or childrearing consequences in addition to the economic and technological implications. Therefore, we provide evidence which prospective female entrepreneurs and policymakers can use to make informed decisions.To study the effect of female entrepreneurship on child human capital formation, we note that the ambiguous predictions in extant work arise because it predominantly focuses on whether entrepreneur-mothers can allocate more time to childrearing activities, which we call “supervision”. We suggest that this supervision mechanism is not the only way in which the intergenerational impact occurs. Drawing on sociological research in occupational inheritance, we propose that entrepreneur-mothers could foster child human capital formation through transmitting self-direction values, thus promoting children's aspirations and achievements. To test these theoretical hypotheses, we use data from a nationally representative Chinese household survey, which contains separately surveyed parent and child data.Our empirical analyses reveal that children with entrepreneur-mothers outperform those with non-entrepreneur-mothers in both cognitive and noncognitive skills. The effect is stronger for daughters and younger children. Additional analyses verify the presence of both supervision and value transmission mechanisms, with value transmission being more importantly in explaining the entrepreneur-mother effect.Findings in this study deepen our knowledge on whether and how entrepreneur-mothers foster children's human capital formation. They highlight that—in addition to supervision—value transmission is a crucial channel through which entrepreneur-mothers exert an intergenerational impact on children. Our results also indicate that women running larger businesses—likely those with career motives and targets of policies that promote entrepreneurship—see better child human capital formation outcomes despite having potentially limited supervision capacity. Finally, our findings not only shed light on female entrepreneurship in China, a context with growing relevance in the global economy and rate of entrepreneurial activities, but also offer generalizable insights to other economies.     

Ethics Through an Entrepreneurial Lens: Theory and Observation

Recent work in the fields of ethics and entrepreneurship has raised the possibility that entrepreneurs may differ from other individuals in the moral issues they face, in their moral judgements and behaviors concerning those issues, and even in their level of cognitive moral development. While this work has been exploratory and its conclusions tentative, the findings raise two interesting questions: do entrepreneurs actually differ from non-entrepreneurs in their ethical orientations and, if so, why? We propose a model of ethical decision making for small business entrepreneurs. We suggest some ways in which the ethical framework of entrepreneurs may differ systematically from that of other business people and propose some areas for future research.     

Entrepreneurial fear of failure: Scale development and validation

Fear of failure is an important part of the experience of entrepreneurship. Yet past research has mainly investigated fear of failure in entrepreneurship among non entrepreneurs or nascent entrepreneurs and has done so by asking for reactions to hypothetical future failure. This approach to operationalizing the construct limits our capacity for understanding how entrepreneurs actually experience fear of failure while practicing entrepreneurship. In this paper, we conceptualize entrepreneurial fear of failure as a negative affective reaction based in cognitive appraisals of the potential for failure in the uncertain and ambiguous context of entrepreneurship. We use multiple samples to develop and validate a multidimensional, formative measure to assess entrepreneurial fear of failure as a state that is both cognitive and affective in nature. In addition to evidence of the psychometric properties of the new scale across multiple studies, we present a nomological network analysis with respect to measures of theoretically derived psychological outcomes and perceived behavioral tendencies of entrepreneurial fear of failure. We then discuss the theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications of this new measure of entrepreneurial fear of failure with an eye towards use of this scale in future research.     

The effect of human capital, social capital, and perceptual values on nascent entrepreneurs�� export intentions

This study investigates the influence of human capital, social capital, and cognition on nascent entrepreneurs' export intentions. The results indicate that while human capital and social capital influence the level of intended export, cognitive characteristics, such as self-efficacy and risk aversion, do not seem to influence entrepreneurs' intended level of export. The study makes three original contributions to international entrepreneurship research. The first one is the focus on “Real” Born Globals, i.e. entrepreneurs who express export intentions in the prefounding phase. The second is the focus on the individual-level factors rather than firm-level factors that explain export. Finally, the effect of experience is investigated from a path-dependency perspective rather than a “the-more-the-better” perspective. Our study suggests that it may be productive for researchers to look further into the concept of intention, as entrepreneurs' decision to internationalize presupposes a conscious intention of carrying out the action. Thus, the factors influencing the decision to internationalize may have been present prior to the founding of the venture.     

How Do Risk Attitudes Differ within the Group of Entrepreneurs? The Role of Motivation and Procedural Utility

Starting a business involves risk and, thus, requires a risk‐taking attitude. The concept of risk and entrepreneurship has been widely discussed in the entrepreneurship literature; most studies compare entrepreneurs with nonentrepreneurs such as managers or bankers. So far, little research exists on the risk attitudes of the different types of entrepreneurs—those who pursue a new business because of opportunity and those who do so through necessity. This study aims to fill this gap. Our particular focus is on individuals' motivations to start their businesses and the nonmonetary returns from entrepreneurship. The results show that opportunity entrepreneurs are more willing to take risks than necessity entrepreneurs. In addition, those who are motivated by creativity are more risk tolerant than other entrepreneurs. The study contributes to the literature about both risk attitudes of entrepreneurs and necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship.     

Can prosocial motivation harm entrepreneurs' subjective well-being?

Entrepreneurship research on prosocial motivation has outlined its positive impact on well-being, but still little is known about its power, which may have deleterious personal consequences under certain conditions. In this study, we ask whether prosocial motivation can harm entrepreneurs' subjective well-being when they run a commercial venture. Embedded within a contingency perspective informed by self-determination theory, we build on longitudinal survey data to explain the effect of prosocial motivation on entrepreneurs' overall life satisfaction. Our analysis demonstrates that prosocial motivation has a negative effect on entrepreneurs' life satisfaction due to increased levels of stress. However, our findings show that the negative effect of prosocial motivation dissipates when perceived autonomy at work is high compared to when it is low. Overall, our research raises questions on the role of prosocial motivation for entrepreneurs' subjective well-being and, in particular, discusses its potential “dark side” in the context of commercial entrepreneurship.Executive summaryCan there be a “dark side” in helping others? If so, how can we better understand under what conditions it emerges? Entrepreneurship research conventionally presents prosocial motivation as a positive driver for social venture creation and entrepreneurs' well-being. However, we have little knowledge about the consequences of prosocial motivation when we move outside the social entrepreneurship context. When prosocially motivated entrepreneurs lead a commercial venture, they face the difficult task of balancing the desire to help others with the financial requirements of the business. The challenge of simultaneously accomplishing commercial and prosocial goals can result in a stressful experience that is detrimental to the entrepreneur's well-being. In this study, we ask whether and under what circumstances prosocial motivation can harm entrepreneurs' well-being.Embedded in a contingency perspective informed by self-determination theory, this article expands our knowledge on the effects of prosocial motivation in the context of commercial entrepreneurship. We draw from original longitudinal survey data on 186 entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom to demonstrate that prosocial motivation causes entrepreneurs stress and through that stress has a negative effect on their life satisfaction. We also show that the negative effect of prosocial motivation diminishes when the degree of autonomy entrepreneurs perceive in the pursuit of daily work tasks is high. To explore the uniqueness of the entrepreneurial context, we run a comparative analysis with a sample of 544 employees. This analysis confirms that stress fully mediates the negative relationship between prosocial motivation and subjective well-being, but for employees, this negative effect disappears when their level of intrinsic motivation—the desire to expend effort based on enjoyment of the work itself—is high.Building on our findings, we generate several important contributions. First, we help develop an understanding of the “dark side” of prosocial motivation by demonstrating that under certain circumstances, the desire to help others can be detrimental to entrepreneurs' subjective well-being. Second, we expand knowledge about the link between prosocial motivation and well-being by considering the boundary conditions (perceived autonomy and intrinsic motivation) that influence the dynamics of their relationship. Third, we set the stage for further investigations that aim to clarify the relationship between motivation and perceived autonomy and its effect on personal outcomes across different work domains.The key insight of the study is that prosocial motivation creates a dilemma for entrepreneurs when operating a commercial business such that the desire to help others outside the context of immediate work tasks can harm their personal well-being. We also find that the perception of autonomy is key for commercial entrepreneurs to be able to realize their prosocial motivation without creating stressful situations. Extending our understanding of the conditions that shape the relationship between prosocial motivation and well-being among entrepreneurs would help in developing a more holistic notion of prosocial business venturing, one that includes the role of both commercial and social enterprising activities in contributing to personal and societal well-being.     

Early-stage business model experimentation and pivoting

Recent literature suggests entrepreneurs struggle to pivot—or fundamentally change aspects of their venture—due to identity-based resistance to change. Yet, when entrepreneurs receive negative feedback, overcoming this resistance may be important to pivoting their business model. We adopt a convergent, mixed methods research design to explore when and why some entrepreneurs overcome resistance to change in response to negative feedback during early-stage business model experimentation. Building upon qualitative data that we gathered and analyzed, we theorize entrepreneurs may resist pivoting their value proposition relative to other business model components despite receiving negative feedback on this aspect of their business model. However, we find three factors – entrepreneurial experience, startup mentoring, and team size – may enable entrepreneurs to pivot in response to negative feedback. We theorize that these factors broaden a startup team's perspective, enabling value proposition pivoting during early-stage business model experimentation. We test these relationships with quantitative data from 80 startups engaged in business model experimentation and find support across hypotheses. We contribute to understanding when and why entrepreneurs pivot aspects of their business models in response to negative feedback during early-stage business model experimentation.Executive summaryThe entrepreneurship literature suggests startups may benefit from experimentation and pivoting different parts of their business model in response to negative feedback from stakeholders (Andries et al., 2021; Camuffo et al., 2020; Shepherd and Gruber, 2021). In early stages of starting a new venture, a business model refers to a cognitive schema or belief about an activity system that could potentially create and capture value (Massa et al., 2017; Shepherd and Gruber, 2021). Business model experimentation is the process of testing assumptions underlying this potential business model and pivoting business model assumptions in response to negative feedback (Andries et al., 2013; McDonald and Eisenhardt, 2020; Leatherbee and Katila, 2020). Building upon prior literature, we define business model pivoting as a fundamental change to parts of the business model (Berends et al., 2021; Snihur and Clarysse, 2022; Shepherd and Gruber, 2021). Yet, literature also suggests founders often struggle to pivot assumptions despite negative feedback. Motives to preserve and protect certain assumptions relevant to founders' identities can interfere with pivoting (Grimes, 2018; Kirtley and O'Mahony, 2023; Zuzul and Tripsas, 2020). Despite the general understanding that founders struggle to change their ideas, however, the entrepreneurship literature currently lacks precise insight into when and why founders can overcome resistance to pivoting.In this research, we explore when and why startups pivot different parts of their business model. We do so within the context of early-stage business model experimentation, where founders explicitly state assumptions about different parts of their potential business model, test those assumptions against stakeholder feedback, and are encouraged to pivot business model components in response to negative feedback. Through a mixed methods research design, we find (1) founders tend to resist pivoting their value propositions relative to other parts of a business model in response to negative feedback; and (2) entrepreneurial experience, startup mentoring, and team size enables startups to overcome this resistance to pivoting in response to negative feedback. We theorize these factors broaden founders' perspectives (Warshay, 1962), contributing to a greater willingness to pivot during experimentation.We contribute to the literature on entrepreneurial pivoting by explaining nuanced variation in pivoting distinct business model components during experimentation. This contribution is important because it reveals that resistance to pivoting the business model may be more complex than previously thought. We also contribute to the literature at the nexus of business model experimentation and entrepreneurial cognition by finding that entrepreneurial experience, startup mentoring, and team size enable startups to pivot despite psychological resistance to pivoting in response to negative feedback because it broadens founders' perspectives. This insight is important theoretically because it advances what we know about enabling experimenting with business models under conditions of uncertainty. The research presented here has clear and important implications for practice. This research suggests founders often resist changing the value proposition versus other components of their business models in early stages of venture development. This resistance can impede experimentation and pivoting in response to negative feedback. To the extent founders want to broaden their perspective to enable pivoting their value propositions in response to negative feedback during early stages of venture development, our data suggest they may be able to do so by recruiting members with entrepreneurial experience on their team (or gain entrepreneurial experience themselves), engage frequently with startup mentors, and increase the size of their team. Overall, we view the breath of perspective that comes from experience and interactions with others as an advantage for entrepreneurs when experimenting with their business models during early stages of venture development.     

Rags to riches? Entrepreneurs' social classes,resourceful time allocation,and venture performance

Social classes shape entrepreneurial pursuits in that entrepreneurs from lower social class groups face more resource deficiencies compared to those from higher social class groups. In this study, we theorize that being resourceful with a particular resource—time—helps ventures run by lower-class entrepreneurs achieve better performance. However, we further argue that the extent to which entrepreneurs use time resourcefully is affected by the cognitive schemas stamped on them by their social class backgrounds. Our empirical analysis of 8663 Chinese private entrepreneurs between 2006 and 2010 lends robust support to these arguments. By revealing both material and cognitive constraints stemming from entrepreneurs' social classes, our study contributes to research on social classes and entrepreneurial resourcefulness and has important implications for understanding the persistence of inequality in entrepreneurship.     

The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship

There is an on-going debate in the entrepreneurship academy about whether we can actually teach students to be entrepreneurs. Its resolution is inextricably connected with our theoretical assumptions because they affect how and what we teach. This article is the first in a set of two contained in this issue that argues that we should develop more refined, cumulative theory and teach it to students in a way that emphasizes learning by doing, which should accelerate student mastery. This first article treats the theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship, whereas the second addresses the pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory.Those who advocate that entrepreneurship can be understood and taught to students assume that researchers will eventually develop a more general theory of entrepreneurship. Theory is an essential part of what we teach because we do not know any other way to help students anticipate the future, which is a key to entrepreneurial success, unless we counsel them to rely on luck or intuition. The limitation of luck and intuition is that we do not know how to teach either of them. If students could accurately anticipate the future, they could allocate their resources in the most productive manner, which would ensure their survival, satisfaction and prosperity. Despite the current limitations of our theorizing, theory still offers the most promise as course content for students.This article sides with Kuhn (1970) who argued that theory is the most practical thing that we can teach to students. Its purpose is to comment on the progress to date in developing entrepreneurship theory. It begins by analyzing the contents of 18 syllabi provided by participants at a retreat for entrepreneurship scholars. It notes a wide divergence in topics, and possible causes for this divergence, which seem to be characteristic of a developing academic discipline. It appeals for more theory in our courses and suggests questions to which entrepreneurship scholars can provide distinctive answers when compared with those offered by scholars from other disciplines.One way to add more theoretical content to entrepreneurship courses is to teach students what they ought to do, which is coded language for theory. In addition, instructors should not merely describe what entrepreneurs do, particularly in light of the observation that most of them fail and accordingly have been described as ill-fated fools. Finally, assuming that scholars can offer a more general theory of entrepreneurship, they would be able to emphasize more deductive approaches as opposed to inductive ones.These appeals for more theoretical content depend on several assumptions, which include: (1) the improbability that students can encounter circumstances that would be similar to anecdotal lessons learned in entrepreneurship school; (2) the existence of a process that can be explained theoretically; (3) studying ideal types can be discouraging to aspiring entrepreneurs if they do not fit a special profile; (4) the high failure rate among entrepreneurs makes suggesting to students that they ought to pattern their activities after them seem illogical; (5) studying average profiles, anecdotal recommendations, rules of thumb or war stories can only lead to average returns, given semi-strong information efficiency; and (6) leveraging the motivational benefits of studying successful entrepreneurs may have detrimental, unintended consequences, among others.This article notes possible causes of non-cumulative theory building and suggests several opportunities to build cumulative theory. Although it acknowledges that the field of entrepreneurship currently lacks cumulative theory, it offers a contingency approach for teaching entrepreneurship, which is actually very similar to the scientific method used by scholars to develop hypotheses about the future.     

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.     

Roles of Social Capital in Venture Creation: Key Dimensions and Research Implications*

This study was built upon Nahapiet and Ghoshal's three dimensions of social capital—structural, relational, and cognitive. It addresses three research questions: (1) Are there significant differences in social capital between nascent entrepreneurs and the general public (control group)? (2) Are there significant differences in social capital between technology and nontechnology nascent entrepreneurs? (3) How do the three dimensions of social capital interact among themselves across different sample groups? These questions were examined by using the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics data set. Results suggest that there are no significant differences in various dimensions of social capital between nascent entrepreneurs and the general public. What differentiates the two groups is not the amount of social capital but the patterns of association among its different dimensions. Additionally, the authors found that technology‐based nascent entrepreneurs tend to have a higher degree of relational capital than their nontechnology counterparts. Implications and future research directions are discussed.     

Fake it ‘til you make it: Hazards of a cultural norm in entrepreneurship

Fake it ‘til you make it—that is, deceptively claiming a new endeavor exhibits characteristics of successful entrepreneurial ventures to gain support from others—has become an accepted practice in entrepreneurship. One overlooked hazard of this strategy is that entrepreneurs’ efforts to fake it can become a slippery slope in which the deception escalates to a point where stakeholders accuse entrepreneurs of committing fraud. We delineate that the responsible use of faking it in entrepreneurial endeavors rests on entrepreneurs’ full appreciation of the determinants that make turning fiction into fact less and not more difficult. Leveraging prior research to offer new insights, we outline these determinates as controllable vs. uncontrollable elements, sole vs. contingent entrepreneurial action, and limited vs. extensive stakeholder interactions. We also look at faking it examples Lordstown Motors and uBiome, two startups whose founders engaged in and escalated faking it to the point where stakeholders accused them of fraud.     

A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex,gender, and entrepreneurship

With the rising number of women-owned businesses has come a considerable amount of research, and even more speculation, on differences between male and female entrepreneurs and their businesses. To date, these findings and speculations have been largely atheoretical, and little progress has been made in understanding whether such differences are pervasive, let alone why they might exist. Thus public policy-makers have had little guidance on such difficult issues as whether or not unique training and support programs should be designed for women versus men. Moreover, lenders who finance new and growing firms have little to go on but their own “gut instinct” in assessing whether women's and men's businesses are likely to run in similar ways, or whether they might be run in different but equally effective ways.The lack of integrative frameworks for understanding the nature and implications of issues related to sex, gender, and entrepreneurship has been a major obstacle. Two perspectives that help to organize and interpret past research, and highlight avenues for future research, are liberal feminism and social feminism.Liberal feminist theory suggests that women are disadvantaged relative to men due to overt discrimination and/or to systemic factors that deprive them of vital resources like business education and experience. Previous studies that have investigated whether or not women are discriminated against by lenders and consultants, and whether or not women actually do have less relevant education and experience, are consistent with a liberal feminist perspective. Those empirical studies that have been conducted provide modest evidence that overt discrimination, or any systematic lack of access to resources that women may experience, impedes their ability to succeed in business.Social feminist theory suggests that, due to differences in early and ongoing socialization, women and men do differ inherently. However, it also suggests that this does not mean women are inferior to men, as women and men may develop different but equally effective traits. Previous entrepreneurship studies that have compared men and women on socialized traits and values are consistent with a social feminist perspective. These studies have documented few consistent gender differences, and have suggested that those differences that do exist may have little impact on business performance.While this interpretation of past findings is relevant to the question of if and how female and male entrepreneurs differ, there are still large gaps in our knowledge. In particular, only one study (Kalleberg and Leicht 1991) has systematically explored whether or not potential differences related to discrimination or socialization affect business performance; the study used limited measures of business performance, and assessed only a restricted range of male I female differences. This article reports on a study that explored other potential differences related to discrimination and to socialization (which are hypothesized based on liberal and social feminism) and looked at their relationship to a more comprehensive set of business performance measures.The study indicates that for a large, randomly selected sample of entrepreneurs in the manufacturing, retail, and service sectors, there were few differences in the education obtained by males and females, or in their business motivations. Women entrepreneurs were, however, found to have less experience in managing employees, in working in similar firms, or in helping to start-up new businesses. Women's firms also were found to be smaller than men's, to have lower growth in income over two years, and to have lower sales per employee. Regressions undertaken to examine predictors of a range of business performance indicators suggest that women's lesser experience in working in similar firms and in helping to start-up businesses may help to explain the smaller size, slower income growth, and lesser sales per employee of their firms.For policy-makers, this article suggests that systemic factors that afford women less access to experience must be addressed. Support for classroom training or related advisory activities may not be warranted; there is little evidence that women lack access to relevant classroom education. However, programs that help increase women's access to hands-on experience in starting firms or in working in the industry in which they hope to set up business does seem advisable. In-class education or counseling would not seem to compensate for lack of real-world experience, which suggests that any available funds should be directed more toward initiatives centered on apprenticeship programs than toward those centered on classroom teaching.Implications for lenders and investors are less clear cut, but suggest that whatever innate differences may exist between men and women are irrelevant to entrepreneurship. While women's businesses do not perform as well as men's on measures of size, they show fewer differences on other, arguably more critical business effectiveness measures-growth and productivity—and no differences on returns. Discrimination against women-owned businesses based on these findings would clearly be both unethical and unwarranted. The fact that women appear to obtain similar growth, productivity, and returns, in fact, suggests that they may be compensating for experience deficits in ways that current research does not illuminate. While more systematic inquiry is required to assist in understanding why men's and women's firms may differ in some predictable ways, this study would suggest that lenders and investors wishing to assist small businesses should focus on evaluating the amount and quality of the business and non-business experience of entrepreneurs, and consider sex an irrelevant variable.For entrepreneurs, this research reinforces the notion that acquiring relevant industry and entrepreneurial experience is of considerable importance if they seek to establish large firms and/or to achieve substantial firm productivity and returns. In particular, helping in the start-up of firms and spending extended periods of time in the industry of choice appear to yield subsequent rewards in the performance of any individual's firm. Future research is needed to investigate whether or not other types of business experience or non-business experience might bring additional benefits in terms of positive impact on future business performance, but the indication of the current work is that one's sex per se is neither a liability nor an asset.     

Exploring start-up event sequences

This research analyzed new venture start-up activities undertaken by 71 nascent entrepreneurs. Nascent entrepreneurs are individuals who were identified as taking steps to found a new business but who had not yet succeeded in making the transition to new business ownership. Longitudinal data for the study comes from a secondary data analysis of two representative samples, one of 683 adult residents in Wisconsin (Reynolds and White 1993) and the other of 1016 adult residents of the United States (Curtin 1982). These surveys were conducted between 1992 and 1993, and the nascent entrepreneurs were reinterviewed six to 18 months after their initial interview.Three broad questions were addressed: (1) What activities do nascent entrepreneurs initiate in attempting to establish a new business? (2) How many activities do nascent entrepreneurs initiate during the gestation of the start-up? and (3) When are particular activities initiated or completed?Between the first and second interview, 48% of the nascent entrepreneurs reported they had set up a business in operation. Over 20% had given up and were no longer actively trying to establish a business. Almost a third of the respondents reported they were still trying to establish a firm.As a way to summarize the results and as a springboard toward some insights into the implications of this research for practice and future research, we developed the following activity profiles of the three types of nascent entrepreneurs studied. These profiles are offered as a combination of both fact and some intuition about the findings.STARTED A BUSINESS. Nascent entrepreneurs who were able to start a business were more aggressive in making their businesses real. They undertook activities that made their businesses tangible to others: they looked for facilities and equipment, sought and got financial support, formed a legal entity, organized a team, bought facilities and equipment, and devoted full time to the business. Individuals who started businesses seemed to act with a greater level of intensity. They undertook more activities than those individuals who did not start a business. The pattern of activities seem to indicate that individuals who started firms put themselves into the day-to-day process of running an ongoing business as quickly as they could and that these activities resulted in starting firms that generated sales (94% of the entrepreneurs) and positive cash flow (50% of the entrepreneurs). What is not known is how successful or profitable these new firms will be over time. For example, 50% of the firms that were started had not reached positive cash flow and these firms may have been started by individuals who were foolhardy and rushed into operation of a business that would not be sustainable.GAVE UP. The pattern of activities for the group of entrepreneurs who gave up seem to indicate that these entrepreneurs discovered that their initial idea for their businesses would not lead to success. The finding that the activity of developing a model or prototype differentiated individuals who gave up from those who were still trying would suggest that those who gave up had “tested” their ideas out and found that they would not work according to their expectations. Nascent entrepreneurs who gave up seemed to be similar in their activity patterns compared with those who started their firms, that is, individuals who gave up pursued the activities of creating a business in an aggressive manner at the beginning of the process. But as the business unfolded over time, these entrepreneurs decreased their activities and then ceased start-up activities. This group of individuals might be seen as either having the wisdom to test their ideas out before jumping into something that might lead to failure or lacking the flexibility to find more creative ways to solve the problems that they were confronted with.STILL TRYING. It would seem that those who are still trying are not putting enough effort into the start-up process in order to find out whether they should start the business or give up. Those still trying had undertaken fewer activities than individuals in the other two groups. The still trying entrepreneurs were devoting their short-term efforts toward activities internal to the start-up process (e.g., saving money and preparing a plan) and less effort toward activities that would make the business real to others. The still trying entrepreneurs may be all talk and little action. Or these still trying entrepreneurs might be involved in developing businesses that take longer for these particular opportunities to unfold. (It should be noted that there was no industry effect across the three groups.)Our advice to individuals considering business start-up is that the results seem to provide evidence that nascent entrepreneurs should aggressively pursue opportunities in the short-term, because they will quickly learn that these opportunities will either reveal themselves as worthy of start-up or as poor choices that should be abandoned. Individuals who do not devote the time and effort to undertaking the activities necessary for starting a business may find themselves perennially still trying, rather than succeeding or failing.What entrepreneurs do in their day-to-day activities matters. The kinds of activities that nascent entrepreneurs undertake, the number of activities, and the sequence of these activities have a significant influence on the ability of nascent entrepreneurs to successfully create new ventures. This study suggests that the behaviors of nascent entrepreneurs who have successfully started a new venture can be identified and differentiated from the behaviors of nascent entrepreneurs who failed. We believe that future studies will more precisely identify the kinds of behaviors appropriate for certain new venture conditions. If such contingency information can be generated, entrepreneurship research is likely to have significant benefits for entrepreneurship practice, education, and public policy.     

Language ability and entrepreneurship education: Necessary skills for Europe’s start-ups?

Language ability and entrepreneurial education are seen as essential resources for start-ups operating in intensified landscapes of internationalisation and globalisation. Deemed as the necessary skills for corporate effectiveness vis-à-vis rivals, this paper responds to calls for increased understandings of cultural components as vital to entrepreneurship and the product of institutional forces. Thus, it explores (a) the impact language ability has on start-up expansion; (b) the perceptions of international relations as based on language ability as a tool for cross-cultural communication; and (c) the role of educational context from the entrepreneurs’ perspective. Based on interviews from European online start-ups across three discrete contexts—Finland, Portugal and Sweden—it concludes that contextual trends regarding language and education are founded upon the cultural-cognitive and normative pillars of institutionalisation. Further, by combining actor-context perspectives, it poses that language ability and education are resources borne from the domestic environment which positively moderate the start-up’s international success. Nevertheless, the notion of learnt entrepreneurship remains contested. Taken together, this study contributes by offering deeper insight into the role of context on entrepreneurial tendencies by combining resource and institutional perspectives.