Content uploaded by Karl Jonas Wennberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karl Jonas Wennberg on Aug 13, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
WHAT ARE WE EXPLAINING?
A REVIEW AND AGENDA ON INITIATING, ENGAGING, PERFORMING, AND
CONTEXTUALIZING ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Dean A. Shepherd
University of Notre Dame
Karl Wennberg
Linköping University
Roy Suddaby
University of Victoria, and
University of Liverpool
Johan Wiklund
Syracuse University
To be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Management
Acknowledgements: We are grateful for comments from Bill Schulze, Jeffrey McMullen,
Frederic Delmar, Per Davidsson, and four anonymous reviewers. We thank Kurian George
and Chris Cummings for help in classifying the studies. Wennberg acknowledges funding
from the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities.
Corresponding author: Dean A. Shepherd, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame, IN
Email: dshepherd@nd.edu
ABSTRACT
Entrepreneurship is multifaceted. The purpose of this review is to acknowledge and critically
assess the many and varied dependent variables (DVs) of entrepreneurship over the last 17
years. By focusing exclusively on systematically reviewing entrepreneurship’s DVs, this
paper maps out, classifies, and provides order to the phenomena that scholars consider part of
this self-defined field of research. Using a systematic selection process and an inductive
approach to categorization, we offer a meta-framework for organizing entrepreneurship’s
DVs. Based on this meta-framework, entrepreneurship involves the (a) initiation, (b)
engagement, and (c) performance of entrepreneurial endeavors embedded in (d)
environmental conditions, in which an entrepreneurial endeavor is the investment of resources
into the pursuit of a potential opportunity. For each category, we offer both a review of the
different DVs and opportunities for future research.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship; Dependent Variables; Initiating; Engaging; Performing;
Contextualizing
WHAT ARE WE EXPLAINING?
A REVIEW AND AGENDA ON INITIATING, ENGAGING, PERFORMING, AND
CONTEXTUALIZING ENTREPRENEURSHIP
In 2001, Bill Gartner noted that “entrepreneurship espouses a diverse range of theories
applied to various kinds of phenomena. There is no theory of entrepreneurship that can
account for the diversity of topics that are currently pursued by entrepreneurship scholars”
Gartner, 2001: 34). The situation is similar today. Each scholar contributes to the knowledge
of entrepreneurship but more so if the pieces of the puzzle come together. By reviewing the
different pieces and starting to put them together, each scholar gains a more general
understanding that informs his or her subsequent investigations. The purpose of this paper is
to give a big picture perspective to highlight what we know and what we do not know about
entrepreneurship research. Rather than contributing to any specific theory or sub-field of
entrepreneurship (a piece of the puzzle), we intend to contribute to the wider entrepreneurship
literature (the puzzle as a whole). This is a challenging task given entrepreneurship’s many
dependent variables (DVs).
Indeed, at a gathering of strategy and entrepreneurship scholars, a strategy scholar
approached the first author with the following: “You [entrepreneurship] have many different
DVs [dependent variables]. Strategy has performance as its DV. Entrepreneurship needs an
overall DV.” It appeared that he felt sorry for us entrepreneurship scholars representing a field
that lacked a single unifying DV. The first author’s response was along the lines of, “Yes, we
have many different DVs; isn’t it great!” The conversation ended as quickly as it started, but
its gist was impactful. Yes, strategic management relies primarily on explaining firm
performance or some antecedent thereof (e.g., Wiersema & Bowen, 2009). But
entrepreneurship is different; it is multifaceted and manifested in many different ways. And
that is a good thing! The purpose of this review is to organize the many and varied DVs of
entrepreneurship and to offer some important opportunities for future research. Thus, it is an
examination of what entrepreneurship scholars attempt to explain. It is not a review of the
relationships involving these DVs—such a review would involve the field’s entire body of
knowledge. It does not explain the creation or formation of these DVs. Rather, we hope that
this filtered snapshot of the entrepreneurship field’s terrain can provide a basis for making
sense of where the field currently stands, the position of a study vis-à-vis other studies, and
identify relatively unexplored terrain.
We start our review in the year 2001. Apart from marking the start of the new
millennium, this allows us to take off from where the influential special issue published in
ETP in 2001 “Low and MacMillan ten years on: Achievements and future directions for
entrepreneurship research” finished. We encourage readers to consult this special issue
(including Gartner [2001] that provided our opening quote) to gain a complete picture of the
intellectual foundation on which current research rests. 2001 also marks the year following
Shane and Venkataraman (2000), which was influential in subsequent scholarly conversations
in entrepreneurship, and thus the results of our review. The research reviewed does not occur
in a vacuum; it built on prior insights and embedded in larger societal trends and
developments. Both are important in explaining why scholars focus on the DVs that they do.
The extensive scope of our review does not allow us to systematically explicate all such
connections to past research and current trends. However, when appropriate to contextualize
our analysis, we offer such connections. For example, we note that crowdfunding is a recent
phenomenon and therefore related DVs have only been studied in the last few years.
This review of entrepreneurship’s DVs provides three primary contributions. First, we
offer a meta-framework that synthesizes the DVs of entrepreneurship research over the past
17 years. Based on the literature, we identify three overarching themes and label and sort DVs
into categories within each theme. This framework allows us to organize an unwieldy field
and assist scholars in situating their research within the existing body of knowledge. Second,
the review allows us to identify gaps regarding our current understanding of the phenomena
and offer a number of future research opportunities. Third, previous research has largely taken
a top-down approach to define the field (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), its uniqueness
(Gartner, 1990), and what should (Shepherd, 2015) and should not (Davidsson, 2017) be the
focus of entrepreneurship research. In this review, we offer a different approach. Our meta-
framework arises from an inductive review of the studies that self-report as entrepreneurship.
Therefore, we do not enforce our opinion of what constitutes entrepreneurship; rather we
reflect the opinions of those who create the knowledge. Of course, the review still involves
judgment and choices especially in proposing future research opportunities. We do not seek to
distinguish entrepreneurship from other scholarly domains because we have a different
purpose—we want to capture and represent the “lay of the land” currently staked out by self-
reported entrepreneurship studies and also identify fertile lands for future exploration. Finally,
we highlight how entrepreneurship’s DVs provide vitality to a field that draws on a diverse set
of theories, methods, and scholars.
REVIEW APPROACH
We started by casting a wide net: all papers that self-report as entrepreneurship (using
the term “entrepreneur*”) in the title, keywords, or abstract of top journals in entrepreneurship
(Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Small Business
Economics, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal) and in management (Academy of
Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, and Organization Science) since
2001. This search produced 1,041 papers. We reviewed the abstract of each paper to
determine its suitability for inclusion in the review. We rejected 101 papers because they were
introductions to special issues, review papers, research methods papers, or did not have
entrepreneurship as their stated focus. Because variance-based papers focus on DVs and
process papers do not (Langley, et al., 2013), we excluded 22 papers that were exclusively
process oriented. We reviewed each of the remaining 918 papers to generate a meta-
framework to organize the review and provide a springboard for future research.
We made a number of decisions in conducting the review. First, we focused on the
primary DV of a particular study (when applicable). For example, while a mediating variable
is the DV for one variable and the IV of another, we focused on the ultimate outcome variable
for the study. For studies that had multiple DVs (as ultimate outcomes), we included each of
the DVs in the review. Second, we focused our review on papers from 2001 and onwards.
Although this somewhat limits our ability to detect and discuss long-term trends, much has
happened over the last 17 years, and we offer some discussion of changes over this period.
Finally, although we reviewed all papers, we did not cite them all because doing so would
increase the length of the article without a corresponding increase in information.
Organizing the Review
In Figure 1a, we offer a meta-framework for organizing entrepreneurship’s DVs.
Based on this meta-framework, we offer the following
Entrepreneurship involves the initiation, engagement, and performance of
entrepreneurial endeavors embedded in environmental conditions, where an
entrepreneurial endeavor is the investment of resources (i.e., cognitive, behavioral,
financial, and/or other resources) into the pursuit (exploration and/or exploitation) of
a potential opportunity.
This meta-framework of entrepreneurship research serves the purpose of offering a
parsimonious, big picture of entrepreneurship research to organize the current literature. In
Figure 1b, we build on the meta-framework of entrepreneurship’s DVs to highlight the
opportunities for future research discussed in our review. The bullet points represent our
suggestions for future entrepreneurship research. We also highlight suggestions for future
entrepreneurship research across stages by the dashed arrows, which indicate the iterative and
dynamic nature of entrepreneurship and how the DVs of one stage can be the IVs of future
studies of different stages (and vice versa).
-----------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
-----------------------------------------
DVs FOR THE INITIATION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ENDEAVORS
Literature Review
Entrepreneurship research has been interested in explaining the initiation of
entrepreneurial endeavors—the first steps (cognitively, affectively, and/or behaviorally) of
identifying (through recognition or co-creation) and evaluating a potential opportunity before
full-scale exploitation. DVs capturing these initial steps are those related to (1) entrepreneurial
cognitions about opportunity, (2) entrepreneurial cognition on other initiations, (3)
entrepreneurial intention, (4) entrepreneurial motivation, (5) entry, and (6) distinctive groups
of initiating endeavors.
First, research on the DVs of entrepreneurial cognitions on opportunity includes
opportunity identification, opportunity evaluation, and related processes. Opportunity
identification—the belief that one has discovered or can create a new product-market (or
service-market) combination that, when exploited, will add value for the actor and/or others—
has been investigated in terms of opportunity recognition (Ardichvili, et al., 2003), discovery
(Ozgen & Baron, 2007), and formation (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). Empirically, studies
have investigated opportunity identification regarding the number of ideas (Gielnik, et al.,
2012) and the number of (potential) opportunities (Gruber, et al., 2012; Shepherd &
DeTienne, 2005). Opportunity evaluation—the assessment of the extent to which exploiting a
particular new product-market (or service-market) combination will add value for the actor
and/or others—has been investigated in terms of market attractiveness (Haynie, et al., 2009),
wealth-creating potential (Fiet, 2007), and sustainable development (Patzelt & Shepherd,
2011).
Research has also explored entrepreneurial processes—sequences of cognitions,
activities, and resources for identifying and evaluating a potential opportunity. For example,
Gregoire, Barr, and Shepherd (2010) explained the process of aligning structural relationships
of the market and a technology (vis-à-vis superficial features); Hayton and Cholakova (2012)
investigated the aspects of the entrepreneurial idea–development process; and Auerswald
(2008) modeled new combinations of organizational production routines as a potential
opportunity source. Other studies have attended to DVs highlighting heterogeneity in
entrepreneurial alertness (Ozgen & Baron, 2007; Valliere, 2013), attributions made about
opportunities (Gartner, et al., 2008), the willingness to accept risk (Mullins & Forlani, 2005)
and/or uncertainty (Wood, et al., 2014) associated with pursuing potential opportunities.
Second, research on entrepreneurial cognition has included aspects other than those
directly related to opportunity. These studies have DVs related to the cognitive construction of
business models between high- and low-profit businesses (Malmström, et al., 2015) as well as
whether entrepreneurial proclivity is inherited (Ellis, et al., 2017). Also, Baron (2008: 334-
335) proposed a series of DVs, some of which are related to cognition, including alertness and
tolerance for high stress, and Lerner (2016) explored others’ beliefs about entrepreneurs’
cognitions regarding their generative and administrative qualities. With both a cognitive and a
behavioral component, studies have investigated entrepreneurial search as a DV—activities
for detecting, accumulating, and interpreting information about the attractiveness of a
potential opportunity—including how and where to search (Fiet, 2007), when to stop
searching (Fiet, et al., 2005), and ideas generated or identified through search (Fiet & Patel,
2008). Searching for and finding venture ideas can lead to the exploitation of a potential
opportunity (De Carolis & Saparito, 2006) and increase entrepreneurs’ likelihood of acting on
subsequent potential opportunities (Wood, et al., 2017).
Third, studies of entrepreneurial intention—the commitment to take active steps
toward an entrepreneurial endeavor—an endeavor that includes self-employment (Erikson,
2002) or the pursuit of an opportunity (Lee & Venkataraman, 2006) by starting a new
business (Bullough, et al., 2014) or by conducting entrepreneurial activities in an established
organization (Fini, et al., 2012). Sometimes, scholars use entrepreneurial intention as a proxy
for behavior. This use of intention as a proxy for behavior is not necessarily a wise practice
given that many individuals form entrepreneurial intentions, but only a small minority turn
their intentions into actions (Van Gelderen, et al., 2015). Critical to entrepreneurial intention
is the notion of entrepreneurial self-belief—an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to
successfully identify, evaluate, and exploit a potential opportunity that is consistent with
perceptions of “who am I” and “who I want to be.” Such investigations have studied DVs like
entrepreneurial self-image (Verheul, et al., 2005), the ability to sustain confidence and
flexibility to adapt (Miller & Sardais, 2015), and entrepreneurs’ self-views after experiencing
failure (Shepherd & Haynie, 2011). Moreover, given its frequent use as an independent
variable, Forbes (2005) investigated entrepreneurial self-efficacy—the belief that one will be
successful at entrepreneurial tasks—as a DV.
Fourth, motivation research in the initiation stage—the desire or willingness to initiate
an entrepreneurial endeavor—has explored entrepreneurial goals by examining the extent to
which wealth creation is a central goal of entrepreneurship (McCaffrey, 2014); the extent to
which businesses care for the environment (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011); and have goals to
create economic, social, or environmental value (Hechavarría, et al., 2017) or to make a
change in the world by creating something new (Wyrwich, 2015). Also, scholars have
examined the difficulty of the goals entrepreneurs set for themselves (Baron, et al., 2016).
This stream of motivation research has also explored aspirations, including the practicing
entrepreneurs’ development aspirations (Doern & Goss, 2014), aspirations for growth
(Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003), and entrepreneurs’ inclination to persevere with current
exploration activities (Muehlfeld, et al., 2015). Others have examined aspirations for
corporate entrepreneurship among engineers and scientists within established firms (Marvel &
Lumpkin, 2007) and members within family businesses (Minola, et al., 2016). Also, research
has investigated entrepreneurs’ aspirations to pursue political appointments (Li & Liang,
2015), the entrepreneurial aspirations of ethnic minorities (Thomas, 2009), and regional
differences in entrepreneurial aspirations (Harada, 2005).
Fifth, a common DV is entry—undertaking organized activities— such as individuals’
status as a self-employed person (Obschonka & Stuetzer, 2017) in both small proprietorships
or hobby firms (Kim, et al., 2015) and in incorporated (Özcan, 2011) and venture-backed
(Beckman, 2006) firms. These entry studies have investigated entrepreneurs’ creation of new
for-profit (Eesley, 2016) and non-profit (Dutta, 2017) organizations and have distinguished
between entrepreneurs’ part-time and full-time entry (Folta, et al., 2010). Studies have also
investigated team entry (Ruef, et al., 2003) to create new organizations (De Carolis, et al.,
2009) and to facilitate the emergence of new organizations (Haveman, et al., 2012; Newbert &
Tornikoski, 2012), including speed through the new venture process (Kim et al., 2015).
Research has also looked at re-entry regarding subsequent new venture creation by
individuals who become serial/habitual (Amaral, et al., 2011) or portfolio entrepreneurs
(Wiklund & Shepherd, 2008), including re-entry by those whose businesses previously failed
(Simmons, et al., 2014). Entry (or re-entry) may arise from employees deciding to participate
in corporate venturing programs (Monsen, et al., 2010) and can be into more or less difficult
markets (Cain, et al., 2015).
Finally, scholars have used DVs to reflect differences in groupings of individuals
taking the initial steps of the entrepreneurial endeavor. A large number of studies have
compared male and female entrepreneurs in their initiation of entrepreneurial endeavors in
terms of ownership rates (Bullough, et al., 2017), latent and nascent entrepreneurship rates
(Bönte & Piegeler, 2013), credit success (Kim, 2006), micro-finance borrowing (Brana,
2013), conversion of intentions to action (van der Zwan, et al., 2012), motivation (DeMartino
& Barbato, 2003), opportunity identification (DeTienne & Chandler, 2007), opportunity
evaluation (Gupta, et al., 2014), personality and other demographics (Jennings & McDougald,
2007), propensity for (Adachi & Hisada, 2017), reasons for becoming self-employed
(Saridakis, et al., 2014), and self-employment duration (Rosti & Chelli, 2005). Another stream
of studies has investigated differences in groups in terms of ethnicity (US-based studies) or
immigration status (Europe-based studies) in terms of entry (Fairchild, 2008), behavior
(Chuah, et al., 2016), personality (Aboal & Veneri, 2016), push/pull into entrepreneurship
(Constant & Zimmermann, 2006), self-employment rates (Fairlie, 2004), and repeat
entrepreneurship (Westhead, et al., 2005). Additional groupings to highlight distinctions
include corporate versus independent (Kacperczyk, 2012); and solo self-employed versus
employer entrepreneurs (Medrano-Adán, et al., 2015). Apart from making comparisons
among types of entrepreneurs, some studies have also used the individual level of analysis to
compare entrepreneurs with non-entrepreneur groups (e.g., Medrano-Adán et al., 2015).
Future Research Opportunities
Although research has substantially increased our knowledge of the initial steps of the
entrepreneurial journey, there are many opportunities for future research to contribute to the
entrepreneurship literature including research on (1) a richer and deeper investigation of
opportunity, (2) a more micro-perspective of self-employment entry, and (3) an expanded
range of initiation contexts.
First, despite a long-standing tradition of studying various aspects of entrepreneurial
opportunity starting well before the period we have reviewed, there are several under-explored
domains. For example, rather than viewing a potential opportunity as being exploited or not
yet exploited, perhaps exploitation can be considered on a continuum or as multiple steps.
Future research can explore how opportunity exploitation emerges (e.g., through the
entrepreneur’s interactions with the community of inquiry [see Shepherd, 2015]) and what
stages, forms, or activities this emergence takes. A more in-depth understanding of the
opportunity emergence increases the chance for us to teach entrepreneurs how to engage in
this process more successfully, proceed through the process more quickly, and engage others
in facilitating the process (how and when). Making such a contribution requires a scholarly
focus on changes over time, which may require alternate methods and data sources.
Furthermore, the opportunity DVs in our review have largely focused at the individual
level of analysis, but they need not. While collectives are often involved in the opportunity
process, teams also evaluate potential opportunities and perhaps even collectively form
opportunity beliefs. How do collectives evaluate opportunities, and why do some
entrepreneurial teams generate different assessments than others? Similarly, how do groups
formulate beliefs, and why do some form collective beliefs about certain opportunities
whereas others form beliefs about different opportunities or collectively doubt the viability of
potential opportunities altogether? Building on the substantial literature on teams, we have a
solid foundation from which to generate new insights on collectives’ opportunity outcomes.
Second, although research has explored entry through the creation of a new
organization as a series of steps of emergence (Newbert & Tornikoski, 2012), research on
individuals’ entry into self-employment is still largely characterized as one big step or, more
recently, as a two-step procedure (Folta et al., 2010). With the emergence of ‘boundaryless’
careers within and across nations, fueled by digital technologies, the boundaries between
employment and entrepreneurship becomes increasingly blurred (Evans, et al., 2004).
Entrepreneurship research could reach further by studying different types of self-employment
as more or less entrepreneurial with other attributes. Research can explore how the decision
processes, sequences of organizing steps, and types and sources of resources differ depending
on the entrepreneurialness of the self-employment choice. The level of entrepreneurialness of
entry can also apply to the creation of new ventures and becomes particularly interesting in
the context of serial entrepreneurs—what is the pattern of their entrepreneurialness of entry
over time, and do portfolio entrepreneurs think about constructing a portfolio based on
ventures with varying (or similar) levels of entrepreneurialness?
Moreover, much of the research in this theme has worked from the assumption that
entrepreneurs’ entry mindset informs their entry decisions and actions. However, an entry
mindset could also be a consequence of entry—for example, the outcome of sensemaking.
Perhaps entry performance leads to a change in goals and decision policies related to
evaluating potential opportunities; and the generation of positive and negative emotions that
broaden or constrict the mindset, respectively (see Fredrickson, 1998). Moreover, what role—
if any—does an entry mindset play in exit or termination decisions? Perhaps for many, an
entry mindset conflicts with and dominates an exit mindset (e.g., the escalation of
commitment), but for some, the two mindsets may be complementary (such as with a real
options reasoning [McGrath, 1999]). It could be that an entrepreneurial mindset has become
more prevalent given the lowering costs of both start-up and raising funds (e.g., via
crowdfunding). We need further research to understand better the nature of entrepreneurs’
entry mindset (Wood et al., 2017); the way it works; and its relationships with decisions and
actions, such as exit, portfolio construction, and opportunity exploitation.
Finally, there are ample research opportunities to explore further entrepreneurial entry
in specific contexts, with research on entry into informal markets being particularly
promising. Micro-studies can explore why entrepreneurs choose to enter the informal
economy instead of the formal economy as well as differences in entry actions, entry mindset,
and entry performance in the informal economy. Macro-studies can explore how new entries
impact the informal economy and the corresponding formal economy and what social impacts
there are for the communities “touched” by informal entrepreneurial action. It is also
important to understand what psychological, emotional, and social effects entry into the
informal economy has on entrepreneurs. We realize that research on entry into the informal
economy is challenging, but future research on this topic can make important contributions to
our understanding of entrepreneurial phenomena. Rather than a change in context, a shift to a
micro-focus can begin to reveal the specific cogs and wheels underlying different
entrepreneurial actions (e.g., see Shepherd, 2015). Indeed, by explaining specific activities or
sequences of activities, we can introduce more proximal and precise DVs, which should
increase the explanatory power of our models. For example, there is ample opportunity to
explain the different activities that constitute the search for promising opportunities and how
they fit together. For instance, what activities do entrepreneurs use to detect signals of
opportunity, to accumulate information about market trends, and to facilitate interpretation of
data? There is much to learn about the practice of entrepreneurship.
DVs FOR THE ENGAGEMENT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ENDEAVORS
Literature Review
DVs for the engagement of entrepreneurial endeavors—the cognitive, affective,
behavioral, and/or organizational activities of involvement in the process of exploiting a
potential opportunity—include outcomes related to (1) engaged decision making, (2)
acquiring and allocating resources, (3) entrepreneurial organizing, (4) commitment, affect,
and well-being; (5) engaged learning; and (6) innovative orientation, inputs, and outcomes.
First, some studies have explained engaged decision making—the process of choosing
a course of action by those involved in exploiting a potential opportunity—by studying DVs
such as the use of effectual logic vis-à-vis causal logic (Engel, et al., 2017), the nature and use
of intuition (Dane & Pratt, 2007: 40), and the nature and use of metacognition (Haynie, et al.,
2010). Uygur and Kim (2016) also investigated entrepreneurial decision making as both
judgment selectiveness (i.e., discernment between factors) and conviction (i.e., the strength of
the causal map). Ethical decision making in the entrepreneurial context has also been a topic
of interest in terms of moral imagination and identity (McVea, 2009), rule breaking (Brenkert,
2009), moral disengagement (Shepherd, et al., 2013), and informal entrepreneurship (Webb, et
al., 2013). This decision making research has also investigated DVs such as investment
choices (Cassar & Friedman, 2009) and other important decisions, such as time commitment
(Davidsson & Gordon, 2016) during the venture-creation phase, and the decision to persist
despite losing courses of action (DeTienne, et al., 2008) or terminate the failing projects of a
corporate portfolio (Shepherd, et al., 2014) or a failing business (Shepherd, et al., 2009; or
distinct forms of exit [Wennberg, et al., 2010]).
A number of studies have investigated DVs related to entrepreneurs’ time-related
decisions, including the speed of decision making (Bakker & Shepherd, 2017; Forbes, 2005),
entrepreneurs’ allocation of time to their ventures (Burmeister-Lamp, et al., 2012), and
decisions about the future in terms of growth (i.e., attitudes [Wiklund, et al., 2003] and
expectancies [Manolova, et al., 2007]). Indeed, decisions about the future raise the questions
about the accuracy of decisions (e.g., Cassar & Craig, 2009). Studies exploring the accuracy
of entrepreneurs’ decisions have focused on entrepreneurs’ susceptibility to status quo bias
(Burmeister & Schade, 2007: 340), hindsight bias (Cassar & Craig, 2009: 150), over-
optimism (Cassar, 2010) (see also over-confidence [Hayward, et al., 2006)].
Second, in explaining resource acquisition—obtaining the inputs necessary for, or
facilitating, an entrepreneurial endeavor—scholars have paid considerable attention to the
skillful use of persuasive language in interactions with external stakeholders, particularly
funders (Plummer, et al., 2016), to establish venture legitimacy. As such, researchers have
explained the different types of meta-narratives used for legitimacy development (Ruebottom,
2013), the presentation of appropriate scenes to stakeholders (Clarke, 2011), the range of
visual symbols entrepreneurs use during interactions with stakeholders (Clarke, 2011), and the
way entrepreneurs set stakeholder expectations (Garud et al., 2014). Further, a number of
studies have investigated how an organization’s structure conveys legitimacy in terms of
identity differentiation from peers (Certo, et al., 2001) and has also distinguished between
women entrepreneurs who partner with men vis-à-vis women who do not partner with men
(Godwin, et al., 2006).
Further, an emerging stream of research has focused on how legitimation strategies
vary in later stages of the entrepreneurial process for efficient resource allocation, i.e., the
portioning and distributing of acquired resources. Karlsson and Honig (2009) demonstrated
that once entrepreneurs acquire needed resources, they engage in loose coupling from their
business plans and adopt new legitimation strategies. Fisher, and colleagues (2017) similarly
observed that as an entrepreneurial venture matures, it must adapt its legitimation strategies
and organizational identity to new resource providers due to the new legitimacy expectations
of more sophisticated financiers. Dunkelberg et al. (2013) found that as entrepreneurs’
resource goals changes, so do their legitimation and resource-allocation strategies.
Moreover, research has also explained entrepreneurial funding decisions in terms of
entrepreneurs’ preference to finance with less bank debt (Huyghebaert, et al., 2007) as well as
entrepreneurs’ choices between venture capital and bank finance (De Bettignies & Brander,
2007), between venture capitalists and business angels (Fairchild, 2011), and among specific
venture capitalists (Drover, et al., 2014). Other DVs related to entrepreneurial decision
making include decisions on which stock market to list on (Ding, et al., 2010) and the type of
contract to enter into with investors (Dushnitsky & Shapira, 2010). Research on business
angels’ decisions has focused on explaining their assessments of venture performance
(Bammens & Collewaert, 2014), the timing of possible investments (Maxwell, et al., 2011),
the legitimacy of ventures seeking funding (Becker-Blease & Sohl, 2015), and the quality of
their communication with entrepreneurs (Bammens & Collewaert, 2014). In terms of venture
capitalists—and investors more generally—decision outcomes studied as DVs include the
selection of which entrepreneurial firms to invest in (Murnieks, et al., 2016), evaluations of
firms’ founders (Matusik, et al., 2008), their business plans (Chan & Park, 2015), and stage of
investment (Hsu, 2010). Decision outcomes studied as DVs also include external actors’
funding decisions related to debt (Rassenfosse & Fischer, 2016), including gender differences
in decision criteria (Carter, et al., 2007). In recognizing that funding can come from internal
sources, research has investigated DVs related to actors’ activities to fund ongoing
entrepreneurial activities. Internal sources of funding come from bootstrapping (Grichnik, et
al., 2014) as well as from entrepreneurs themselves when they re-invest in their businesses
(Ge, et al., 2017). Internal funding can even come from the entrepreneur’s family, but such
funding can lead the entrepreneur to feel restricted and constrained (Au & Kwan, 2009).
Third, entrepreneurial organizing—the activities involved in accessing and
coordinating resources for exploiting a potential opportunity—often involves interacting to
develop the potential opportunity (Dimov, 2007), to gain the support of potential partners
(Dimov, 2007), to share information underlying inventions and innovations (Bercovitz &
Feldman, 2008), and to gain political access (Pinkse & Groot, 2015). Entrepreneurial
organizing can involve planning (i.e., an action to facilitate subsequent actions), with DVs like
the number of business-planning activities (Brinckmann & Kim, 2015) and whether a formal
plan has been generated or not (Honig & Karlsson, 2004). This organizing is also reflected in
the proportion of resources firms allocate to new products (Sirmon & Hitt, 2003) as well as in
efforts to solve problems, such as those involved in coordinating resources and appropriating
value (Alvarez & Barney, 2005), balancing transnational activities (Patel & Conklin, 2009),
allocating time to specific activities (Murnieks, et al., 2014), and forming networks (Hite,
2005). On the individual level, research has studied DVs like entrepreneurs’ intentions to form
new network ties (Vissa, 2011), time spent developing and maintaining network ties (Greve &
Salaff, 2003), the perceived value of new network contacts (Grossman, et al., 2012), and the
addition and deletion of network contacts (Vissa, 2012). On the venture level, DVs include the
choice (Hallen, 2008) and effectiveness (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012) of forming new ties with
other firms and the choice between using networks or formal markets when approaching
investors (Zhang, et al., 2008).
Organizing can take many different forms. Studies have examined differences in entry
strategies (e.g., conservative versus adventurous [Schwienbacher, 2007]), operating strategies
(franchising versus internal expansion [Gonzalez-Diaz & Solis-Rodriguez, 2012]), informal
business venturing (Khavul, et al., 2009), and on productive versus unproductive
entrepreneurship at the macro level (Collins, et al., 2016). Entrepreneurship research has also
examined how social entrepreneurship differs from commercial entrepreneurship (Estrin, et
al., 2016), how social entrepreneurship can take different organizational forms [Townsend &
Hart, 2008]), how it can use conformist versus insurgent strategies (Muñoz & Dimov, 2015),
and how it can create different kinds of value (McMullen & Warnick, 2016) for example by
addressing market failures (Dean & McMullen, 2007). Scholars have made similar
considerations in studies on environmental (York, et al., 2016) and public-service ventures
(Cabral, et al., 2013). Other forms related to differences amongst various groups regarding
ethnicity and venture capital investments (Zhang et al., 2016a) and gender and funding (Orser,
et al., 2006).
Fourth, this organizing can involve entrepreneurial commitment—a personal
investment of time, energy, and other resources into the exploitation of a potential
opportunity, which can generate affective outcomes and have implications for the
entrepreneur’s well-being. While some research in this area has focused on established
commitment constructs as DVs, such as affective commitment by entrepreneurs (Pollack, et
al., 2015) and employees (Breugst, et al., 2012), new DVs have also been introduced, such as
Mitchell, Mitchell and Smith’s (2008) notion of a new transaction commitment mindset. From
a different perspective, Wolfe and Patel (2016) explained entrepreneurs’ grit as perseverance
for long-term goals, and others have explained the nature of goals in the entrepreneurial
context. Further, entrepreneurship studies have explored emotional and social outcomes and
the combination of the two such as trust between entrepreneurs and partners (Howorth &
Moro, 2006), the risk of entrepreneurs’ over-trusting (Goel & Karri, 2006), and entrepreneurs’
perceptions of relational support and satisfaction with customer relationships (De Clercq &
Rangarajan, 2008). Some have examined the emotional consequences of entrepreneurship,
such as the extent to which starting a business elicits negative emotions (Doern & Goss, 2014)
or the extent to which engaging in specific entrepreneurial tasks generates passion (Cardon, et
al., 2017). Furthermore, some have characterized habitual entrepreneurship as an addiction
involving both positive and negative emotions (Spivack, et al., 2014).
Many studies have attended to negative emotions from social interactions, such as
from conflicts between entrepreneurs and stakeholders (Collewaert & Fassin, 2013), negative
affect from inter-personal conflict in teams engaged in an entrepreneurial task (Breugst &
Shepherd, 2017), envy (Biniari, 2012), feelings of grief over failure (Shepherd, 2003), the
level of stigma applied to an entrepreneur of a failed business (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2015), and
fear of failure (Mitchell & Shepherd, 2010). These negative emotions are assumed to indicate
diminished well-being. Investigations of entrepreneurial well-being have taken various forms
of subjective satisfaction, including global life satisfaction (Baron, et al., 2016), job
satisfaction (Kwon & Sohn, 2017), pay satisfaction (Dawson, 2017), and quality of life
(Kautonen, et al., 2017). Relatedly, studies have explained psychological well-being in terms
of peak experience, peak performance, and flow (Schindehutte, et al., 2006) as well as
resilience in the aftermath of a disaster (Williams & Shepherd, 2016).
Fifth, by engaging in an entrepreneurial endeavor, individuals and organizations can
facilitate sensemaking and other forms of engaged learning, i.e., increased knowledge gained
from participating in an entrepreneurial endeavor. Studies have explored sensemaking-related
DVs among entrepreneurs (Strike & Rerup, 2016) and their advisors (Mantere, et al., 2013)
and on the venture level (Grimes, 2010), the usage of analogies and metaphors (Cornelissen &
Clarke, 2010), the objectification of ideas (Tocher, et al., 2015), as well as ventures’ strategies
(Strike & Rerup, 2016) and processes (Grimes, 2010). There have been numerous
investigations of learning from failure (Cope, 2011), including the use of structural alignment
processes (Mueller & Shepherd, 2016), emotion regulation (Shepherd & Haynie, 2011), and
narrative accounts of failure by entrepreneurs and stakeholders (Byrne & Shepherd, 2015),
with some work, also noting differences across regions (Cardon, et al., 2011).
Research has also explored DVs related to learning regarding the perceived level of
goal achievement and skill development (Van Gelderen et al., 2005) and serial entrepreneurs’
performance in subsequent ventures (Toft-Kehler, et al., 2014). From a social perspective,
entrepreneurs can learn from peers (Falck, et al., 2012), from co-workers (Nanda & Sørensen,
2010), within a venture’s management team (Bruneel, et al., 2010), and across ventures
(Zheng, et al., 2013). This social learning includes knowledge acquisition and improvisation
in teams (Zheng & Mai, 2013), the rate of learning from competitors (Lévesque, et al., 2009),
and new ventures’ technological learning (Zahra, et al., 2000). The organization can also
learn. Organization-based studies have explored learning (or lack thereof) in terms of
organizations’ strategic or undisciplined termination of venturing projects (Corbett, et al.,
2007), corporate entrepreneurs’ enhanced self-awareness and knowledge (Byrne, et al., 2016),
and organizational members’ learning from project failure (Shepherd, et al., 2011).
Sixth, entrepreneurship studies on the inputs to innovation—the idea development of,
problem solving for, and implementation of new products, services, and/or processes—have
focused on the resources that small and/or new ventures spend on R&D in terms of R&D
propensity and intensity (Guzzini & Iacobucci, 2014). Research concerned with the
innovation process has focused on how an organization’s climate influences the extent to
which employees seek out and implement new products (Kang, et al., 2016) and how users
create, evaluate, share, and commercialize their ideas (Shah & Tripsas, 2007). Indeed,
innovativeness is a key dimension of a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and can lead to
pivots. Despite considerable research on entrepreneurial orientation (EO) as an independent
variable, there are only a few studies that have explored it as a DV, including studies on the
level of entrepreneurial orientation (Boling, et al., 2016) and changes in firms’ entrepreneurial
orientation (Grühn, et al., 2017).
Finally, innovations may lead to pivots. Studies of pivots have focused on individual-
level DVs such as changes in founder’s self-identity (Grimes, 2018), and with firm-level DVs
such as adopting (or resisting) disruptive business model innovations (Dewald & Bowen,
2010), and changing the venture’s industry (Eggers & Song, 2015) and top management
(Wasserman, 2003). However, some changes may be less drastic than a pivot, including
limiting the scope of commercialization (Mollick, 2014), terminating a project (Shepherd et
al., 2014), and avoiding environmental degradation (Pacheco, et al., 2010).
Future Research Opportunities
Building on the extant literature that explains attributes of engagement in an
entrepreneurial endeavor, we now turn our attention to research opportunities to extend and
enrich this research stream including on (1) human resource management and other decisions,
(2) the creation of, and pivoting from, routines, (3) collective entrepreneurial cognition, (4)
positive and negative affect, (5) motivation, (6) funding through family, fools and friends, and
(7) entrepreneurial learning.
First, we need more research on human resource management decisions, which likely
occur before a venture is formed and continue after that (Beckman & Burton, 2008). For
example, it is critical to choose the “right” person with whom to co-found a venture. How are
human resource decisions made, why do some entrepreneurial teams arrive at different
decisions than other entrepreneurial teams, and which human resources decisions are more
successful than other human resource decisions? How do social network sites and other
technological tools in the digital age affect resource assembly mechanisms, social capital
resources, and behavioral norms among entrepreneurs and their stakeholder (Smith, et al.,
2017)? Although such research is at the initiation stage of the entrepreneurial endeavor, such
investigations would complement research on the addition and subtraction of members to an
entrepreneurial team as they are engaged in the exploitation of a potential opportunity
(Ucbasaran, et al., 2003). For example, who decides to add (or subtract) an individual to the
entrepreneurial team, and how is that decision made (and to what effect)? In many decision-
making contexts, the outcomes depend on the decisions of both parties involved (e.g.,
entrepreneur and investor), and even then, the situation likely involves a series of back-and-
forth decisions by both parties (and within a party). Future research can make an important
contribution by exploring the decision making of the multiple parties involved in an outcome,
the sequence of those decisions, and the dynamism of the process.
Furthermore, research has typically focused on the decisions of an individual but has
rarely investigated how others can influence those entrepreneurial decisions. This insufficient
exploration highlights opportunities to study, for example, how venture capitalists make a
collective decision to fund a venture (portfolio company), how the entrepreneurial team
decides to pivot, and whether (or when) a collective decision is more accurate (or quicker to
action) than an individual’s decision. There are ample opportunities to investigate the
collective aspect of entrepreneurial decision making in established organizations. For
example, who are involved in the decisions to initiate, proceed, or terminate an
entrepreneurial project, how and why are these actors involved, and how are the decisions
made? As these questions reveal, we do not yet have a complete understanding of decision
making in the corporate entrepreneurship context.
Second, like organizations, routines emerge—it is difficult to say when a routine exists
in the early stages of a venture, but scholars can investigate the formation and emergence of
routines before solidifying into the type of routines studied in strategic management. Scholars
may also seek to bridge the founder and venture levels of analysis by studying how
entrepreneurs’/teams’ habits become a source of venture routines (or norms) as well as
whether venture-level routines impact the habits of the entrepreneur and employees.
Entrepreneurship research thus has the opportunity to investigate how organizing systems
originate, develop, and persist across levels of analysis. Research also has the opportunity to
investigate radical changes to these established positions. Indeed, given the uncertainty
surrounding entrepreneurial action and the importance of trial and error, it is somewhat
surprising that entrepreneurship scholars have not invested more scholarly effort in explaining
major adjustments to strategy (i.e., course corrections). Explaining pivots could involve
returning to the initial stage of the meta-framework: pivoting could be the result of a re-
evaluation of the potential opportunity involving additional search and perhaps the
identification of a new potential opportunity. While popular in managerial discourse and
teaching, the topic of pivoting remains under-explored in the entrepreneurial context.
Third, over and above collective decision making suggested above, research could
contribute by investigating other cognitive outcomes at the collective level. For example, we
are beginning to understand how entrepreneurial action can impact an individual’s well-being,
but what about collective well-being, such as the well-being of the entire entrepreneurial
venture, or the well-being of the community impacted by the venture’s products and services
or even the well-being of society enhanced by individuals willing to pursue potential
opportunities despite high uncertainty? Similarly, we have explored an individual’s
commitment to an entrepreneurial project or venture, but what explains a founding team’s
commitment to a focal potential opportunity, an entrepreneurial venture’s commitment to
solving an environmental or social problem, or a nation’s commitment to protecting
entrepreneurs whose businesses fail?
Fourth, there is much scope to examine affect as a DV. The work by Spivack et al.
(2014) highlights both positive and negative emotions and touches on the “dark” side of
entrepreneurship. Future research could contribute to extending this work by exploring how
the entrepreneurial process generates both positive and negative emotions and whether they
persist over time or whether positive emotions “undo” negative emotions (Fredrickson, 1998).
There are also opportunities to build on the notion that emotions are contagious (Barsade,
2002) as well as to explore the emotions of individuals within entrepreneurial teams (of de
novo or de alio ventures) and the ways these individual emotions become collective emotions
that motivate or obstruct collective entrepreneurial action.
Fifth, much of the research on goals in entrepreneurship has its origin in
industrial/organizational psychology with goals and tasks often set for employees by
superiors. Entrepreneurs have the leeway to choose their work tasks and work-effort levels to
fit their own needs and preferences. For example, an entrepreneur may have the goal to
expand his or her business extensively but may change this goal if he or she has a child. As
such, it would be interesting to see how entrepreneurs’ goals related to their businesses mesh
with goals in their private lives and how both change over time.
Sixth, given that the initial stages of venture formation are the most difficult to fund
using traditional sources and the lowering costs of an entrepreneurial startup, it is surprising
that we do not know more about the three Fs—family, friends, and fools—as sources of
funding. Why do some entrepreneurs seek funding from family and friends while others do
not, and why do some family and friends invest while others do not? This question may be
particularly important now that the funding of entrepreneurial ventures is fundamentally
changing thanks to crowdfunding and other new mechanisms. What is the form of the
business relationship between the entrepreneur and his or her family/friend investors, and how
is this relationship negotiated, monitored, and enforced? Also, what about the fools—are they
really fools? Perhaps. But, while investing in particular entrepreneurial ventures may not
make economic sense (hence the label “fools”), maybe these investors have non-economic
motivations that justify these investments. Who are these so-called fools, and why do they
take such risks to invest in early-stage ventures? Perhaps they are intrinsically motivated, are
prosocially motivated, or are genuinely fools. Furthermore, future research can go deeper into
explaining the (sequence of) activities involved in the resourcefulness of bootstrapping and
discover why some actors are more resourceful than others. Such research may offer
prescriptions for how entrepreneurs can more effectively engage in bootstrapping to fund their
entrepreneurial endeavors.
Finally, future research can provide more richness to our understanding of why some
entrepreneurs learn more from their experience than others, and how they do it. That is, while
we are gaining a deeper understanding of the actions and cognitions that lead to learning and
vice versa, more can be done to identify and explain the learning tools entrepreneurs use, the
contexts that facilitate or obstruct the use of these learning tools, and the processes of
collective learning, all of which are in an environment characterized by high uncertainty, high
dynamism, and considerable time pressure. In addition to research on learning processes,
future research needs to explain the content of what is learned. For example, what concepts
and relationships constitute entrepreneurs’ (individually and as a team) cognitive maps, how
do these cognitive maps change with the pursuit of potential opportunities, and how does this
learning manifest itself in subsequent entrepreneurial action? Research on entrepreneurial
cognition (Gregoire et al., 2011) and team cognition (West, 2007) and the formation of simple
rules in new ventures (Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011) may bring about the inspiration for
studies on how entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial teams, and new ventures learn. For example,
how do simple rules change over time? Entrepreneurs may learn that they need to make their
rules simpler.
Future research has the opportunity to explore mutual social learning, particularly
around the co-creation of a potential opportunity (see Shepherd, 2015). For example, future
research may explore the social learning that occurs between an entrepreneur and a
community of inquiry as well as the way that social learning occurs through a potential
opportunity and leads to changes to the nature of the potential opportunity, the nature of the
entrepreneur’s knowledge, and the collective knowledge of the community of inquiry. Indeed,
entrepreneurship scholars have a unique opportunity to explore learning across levels of
analysis during the creation of those levels. For example, what learning takes place before an
entrepreneur creates a founding team; before the founding team hires employees, institutes a
structure and strategy, and engages in other organizing mechanisms; and before the
organization chooses to pursue additional potential opportunities, makes alliances, and
engages different stakeholders? Future research can explore how learning at any one level
impacts the learning at other levels (and stages of the meta-framework) and investigate the
mechanisms that facilitate this learning transference or dispersion. For example, once an
entrepreneur has formed a founding team, he or she is likely to also learn from the team, and
both are likely to learn from the organization they build.
DVs FOR PERFORMING ENTREPRENEURIAL ENDEAVORS
Literature Review
The third stage is the performance of entrepreneurial endeavors—the
accomplishments (or lack thereof) from exploiting a potential opportunity or multiple
potential opportunities. DVs for the performance of entrepreneurial endeavors are those
related to (1) individual-level accomplishments, (2) general firm-level accomplishments, (3)
firm-level accomplishments specific to entry; (5) firm-level accomplishments specific to
innovation; and (6) regional performance.
First, studies of individual-level performance—an individual’s accomplishments—
include success in setting up a new venture (Katre & Salipante, 2012) or in transitioning to
self-employment (Blumberg & Pfann, 2016). More fine-grained performance outcomes
include accurate identification and evaluation (Baron & Henry, 2010) and realization of a
(potential) opportunity (Navis & Ozbek, 2016). These individual-level performance outcomes
may take place within different organizational contexts, such as within new ventures (Baron
& Henry, 2010) or before an organization is created (Navis & Ozbek, 2016). Other studies on
performance DVs have focused on the rewards from entrepreneurial efforts, such as various
financial (Bublitz & Noseleit, 2014) and psychological (Hmieleski & Corbett, 2008) rewards.
Second, a common DV for general firm-related performance—a firm’s
accomplishments—is firm survival, including keeping the business alive both before (Brush,
et al., 2008) and after launch (Wennberg, et al., 2016). Growth is another common DV in
studies exploring firm-related entrepreneurial performance, often measured as growth in
employees (Davis & Shaver, 2012), sales (Delmar & Wiklund, 2008), or assets (Thapa, 2015).
Other DVs in this theme include financial and economic performance outcomes, such as
market value (Zott & Amit, 2007), earnings (Michael, 2003), profits (Jacobides & Winter,
2007), profit margin (Song, et al., 2010), and various accounting ratios (Meoli, et al., 2013).
Research has also dealt with specific aspects of firm performance, such as success into foreign
markets (Bruneel et al., 2010) and with the performance of firms that facilitate entrepreneurial
performance, such as, business angels (Huang & Pearce, 2015) and venture capital investors
(Dimov & Shepherd, 2005), investor returns at IPO (Florin, 2005), and the success of
universities in generating spin-off companies (Lockett, et al., 2003).
Third, studies of performance specific to entry have relied on DVs that include
individual-level outcomes, such as self-employment duration after entry (Bird & Wennberg,
2016), general satisfaction (Van Gelderen, et al., 2005), and earnings satisfaction during the
first years of operations (Vivarelli, 2004). Studies of entry performance also include firm-
level outcomes, such as time to first sale (Marvel, et al., 2018), product launch (Beckman,
2006), operational status (Edelman & Yli‐Renko, 2010), and positive cash flow (Davidsson &
Honig, 2003). But, there is also the risk of excess entry (Hogarth & Karelaia, 2012).
Fourth, studies of performance specific to innovation concern financial aspects, such
as earnings from a specific invention (Åstebro & Yong, 2016), licensing revenue (Lejarraga &
Martinez-Ros, 2014), and percentage sales from new products (McKelvie, et al., 2017). Non-
financial aspects of innovation performance include perceived innovative performance
comparisons with competitors (Collewaert & Sapienza, 2016), expert ratings of invention
quality (Åstebro & Yong, 2016), survival in the marketplace (Robson, et al., 2012), and
increases in firms’ knowledge capital (Tan, et al., 2015). Other studies explaining innovation
have investigated quantity in terms of the number of innovations generated (Baron & Tang,
2011), R&D projects completed (Liu, et al., 2010), new products developed (Lejarraga &
Martinez-Ros, 2014), patent activity (Mueller, 2014), and novelty (Park & Tzabbar, 2016).
Finally, studies have explored regional performance—accomplishments of
entrepreneurial activities in a geographic location. On the regional level, studies have
investigated DVs such as job creation by new ventures (Malchow-Møller, et al., 2011),
financial returns from entrepreneurship (Tamvada, 2010), resilience toward export shocks
(Liang & Goetz, 2016), and innovativeness (Samila & Sorenson, 2017). Formal economic
equilibrium models or simulation models have been presented to explain regional growth in
startups (Gries & Naudé, 2010), gross domestic product (Minniti & Lévesque, 2010),
intergenerational fairness (Hunt & Fund, 2016), social welfare (Norbäck, et al., 2016),
prosperity and peace (Tobias, et al., 2013), and the scale of non-profit activity (Nissan, et al.,
2012). On the country level, studies have explored growth in GDP (Van Stel, et al., 2005),
innovativeness (Anokhin & Schulze, 2009), and happiness (Naudé, et al., 2014).
Future Research Opportunities
The most common level of analysis in entrepreneurship performance research is the
firm level. In addition to the commonly used performance variables of sales or employment
growth, growth in market share could be an indicator of competitive advantage that fits the
emphasis on market dominance among new high-tech ventures. We identified several studies
using growth as a DV but none that assessed ventures’ market share. Regarding stakeholder-
related performance, we were unable to find a single entrepreneurship study examining
employees’ performance as an outcome. Particularly in growing and knowledge-intensive
firms, it appears that employees are extremely important stakeholders and their performance is
a critical proximal outcome. The extent to which entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial firms can
manage employees to retain high-performing employees, compensate desired employee
behaviors, and otherwise facilitate employee well-being is likely critical to firm performance.
For example, how do employee compensation and well-being relate to the infusion of venture
capital funding, or does rapid growth affect employee retention?
Future research is also likely to contribute to the entrepreneurship literature by
explaining multiple performance DVs. For example, while much of the innovation
performance research has concerned the quantity of innovation output, it is rare for studies to
examine multiple outputs simultaneously. For example, it would be interesting to study the
correlation between the number of products developed and the number of products introduced
as well as the factors that enhance and reduce the launching of new products in the market.
Further, unless studies are confined to strictly defined industries that focus solely on either
process or product innovation, it is important to study product and process innovations
simultaneously. These two DVs convey different information, and resource-strapped ventures
may trade one for the other. Also, we need consistency regarding whether DVs concern
innovation input, output, or performance. Many studies have used concepts like
innovativeness or innovation without explicating how they relate to the innovation process.
There is also promise in research focusing on the innovativeness of the organization rather
than the products or services—that is, the extent to which new organizations deviate from
existing norms in their industry (Jennings et al., 2016). Such research points to the tension
between Schumpeter’s (1934) radically innovative entrepreneur on the one hand and new
venture’s struggle for legitimacy on the other (Aldrich, 1999).
Going forward, we believe that the field would benefit from conjointly examining
performance across different levels of analysis and the performance themes identified above.
The expectation is not necessarily to find high correlations but rather to provide a more
comprehensive reflection of entrepreneurial performance. The goals of entrepreneurs vary
considerably, which speaks to the value of such broad performance assessments. For example,
it is well established that many enter into entrepreneurship because they want to be
independent (Carter, et al., 2003). Such goals may be aligned less well with achieving high
growth, and therefore the alignment of goals and outcomes might be the key to understanding
performance. Regarding entrepreneur-related performance, we believe that a broad view of
well-being could make an important contribution to our current understanding of the various
aspects of performance. While each aspect of satisfaction is relevant and important, global
assessments of well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995) are also welcome because they do not isolate
the entrepreneur from his or her non-work life.
DVs FOR CONTEXTUALIZING ENTREPRENEURIAL ENDEAVORS
Literature Review
DVs for the performance of entrepreneurial endeavors refer to research focused on
outcomes related to the context (environment external to) in which the entrepreneurial actor is
embedded. The DVs capturing these contextual attributes are those related to (1) institutional
context, (2) resource context, and (3) regional context.
First, research has explored the entrepreneurial context in terms of change in
institutional form and ideational change. Studies of institutional change—major differences
over time in the structural patterns of interaction between organizations—have analyzed how
entrepreneurial activity creates new groups of organizations (Lechner & Leyronas, 2009), new
networks of inter-organizational activity (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2006), and new organizational
forms (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Research on the institutional context of
entrepreneurship has also studied DVs related to entrepreneurs’ adoption of field-configuring
strategies designed to disrupt existing patterns of interaction between producers, suppliers,
and consumers (McInerney, 2008); support from intermediaries (Cobb, et al., 2016); and
field-configuring opportunities emerging from the margins (Castel & Friedberg, 2010) or the
center (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) of a given organizational field.
Relatedly, researchers have studied DVs to capture ideational change—differences
over time in the social meanings attributed to a given product category, organization, or
institutional practice—in terms of entrepreneurs’ ability to generate novel product categories
(Montauti & Wezel, 2016); changing institutionalized business practices, such as bookkeeping
(Quattrone, 2015); resistance to illegitimate institutions (Sutter, et al., 2013); and narrative
strategies to acquire legitimacy (Garud, et al., 2014). Related research has focused on
entrepreneurs’ professionalization (Croidieu & Kim, 2017), acquisition of status (Waldron, et
al., 2015), identity (Fisher, et al., 2016), use of persuasive rhetoric (Waldron, et al., 2016), and
legitimating framing (Gurses & Ozcan, 2015). Collectively, these studies have identified a
range of techniques and strategies often described as forms of institutional work through
which entrepreneurs achieve success by changing institutionalized meaning systems and
taken-for-granted ways of interpreting the social world.
Second, resource contexts are simply the different environments in which
entrepreneurial actors acquire and allocate inputs necessary for the exploitation of a potential
opportunity. Kuratko, Fisher, Bloodgood, and Hornsby (2017) provided a theoretical
overview of this research, observing that entrepreneurs in ecosystems with high levels of
technological novelty face greater legitimacy demands for accessing resources. O'Neil and
Ucbasaran (2016) similarly observed that resource allocations mature in lock-step with the
growing legitimacy of an entrepreneurial venture. Studies have investigated funding outcomes
related to venture capital including the amount of funding raised (Balboa & Martí, 2007), the
likelihood an entrepreneurial firm will receive an interview request from a venture capitalist
(Wang, 2016), and speed of access (Zhang, 2011), the pre-money valuation upon which the
venture capital deal is based (Zhang, et al., 2016), and funding from government venture
capital (Guerini & Quas, 2016).
Similarly, research has investigated the resource context in terms informal venture
capital. For example, business angel studies have investigated DVs such as entrepreneurial
firms’ likelihood of receiving a business angel’s offer (Maxwell & Lévesque, 2014); funding
(Becker-Blease & Sohl, 2007), including altruistic investments (Klyver, et al., 2017); and
rejection (Carpentier & Suret, 2015). Huang and Pearce (2015) explained angels’ tradeoff
between objective business viability data and subjective assessments of entrepreneurs in
investment decisions as well as “investment home runs,” and Parhankangas and Ehrlich
(2014) explained entrepreneurs’ progress in the business angel fundraising process. A more
recent source of raising funding is crowdfunding. DVs in crowdfunding research include the
extent of backer support for a crowdfunding project (Kuppuswamy & Bayus, 2017), received
funding or not (Parhankangas & Renko, 2017), the amount of funding received and whether it
reaches a pre-set target or not (Josefy, et al., 2017), as well as whether crowdfunding
facilitates future venture capital investments (Roma, et al., 2017).
Studies on debt funding provide insight into the resource context and have included
DVs like applying for a loan (Blumberg & Letterie, 2008), receiving bank financing
(Eddleston, et al., 2014), and being denied credit (Cowling, et al., 2016). Of particular interest
to entrepreneurship scholars exploring debt-related outcomes is the availability and impact of
micro-finance—small loans offered to the poor by micro-loan organizations with the purpose
of alleviating financial constraints so the borrower can create and grow his or her local
business. Investigations of micro-loans have focused on the supply side regarding the
program’s attractiveness among prosocial investors (Allison, et al., 2015) and the amount of
commercial and public capital acquired by micro-loan organizations (Zhao & Lounsbury,
2016). Related DVs include the speed of obtaining micro-finance (Allison, et al., 2013) and its
price (Sun & Im, 2015).
Third, entrepreneurship research has been interested in explaining the regional context.
Studies of regional engagement have included DVs related to latent entrepreneurship, such as
the proportion of residents wishing, planning, or otherwise intending to become self-employed
(Masuda, 2006). Outcomes also include entrepreneurial actions in a region, such as the rate of
self-employment (Acs, et al., 2009), as well as the levels of growth-oriented (Levie & Autio,
2011), nascent (Aidis, et al., 2012), necessity- versus opportunity-oriented (McMullen, et al.,
2008), financially successful (Henrekson & Sanandaji, 2014), and high-quality (Hafer &
Jones, 2015) entrepreneurship. Studies comparing regions within a focal country have
typically focused on the proportion of individuals with business income (Bruce & Deskins,
2012); the number of new (Rogers, 2012) family or non-family founded (Bird & Wennberg,
2014), or small and medium-sized firms (Gohmann, et al., 2008); and, more recently, the
proportion of ventures achieving an IPO or a significant acquisition (Guzman & Stern, 2016).
Studies of regional engagement have also explained regional differences in fear of failure
(Wyrwich, et al., 2016) and ethical attitudes (Bucar, et al., 2003).
Furthermore, studies have focused on DVs related to regional trends in terms of
building entrepreneurial knowledge in a region (Qian & Acs, 2013), bidirectional venture
capital investments across regions and countries (Iriyama, et al., 2010), as well as academic
entrepreneurs’ knowledge flows (Hayter, 2016) and partner choices (Zhang, et al., 2016).
Research has also investigated DVs related to entrepreneurship-related policy differences
between regions such as differences in the bankruptcy laws (Peng, et al., 2010) or governance
arrangements (Parker, 2008). Research on regional direction has also investigated location
choices among new ventures (Dahl & Sorenson, 2012).
Future Research Opportunities
There has been considerable recent scholarly attention on the context in which
entrepreneurial endeavors are embedded, and there remains much to learn. Future research
opportunities include (1) the role of the institutional context, (2) the process of building and
losing legitimacy, (3) tapping into the crowd, (4) narrower regions, and (5) the role of an
entrepreneur’s family or non-work context.
First, there are promising research opportunities to explore further the role of the
institutional context on the entrepreneurial endeavor. For example, although opportunity
recognition is a well-established outcome variable in traditional entrepreneurship research
(see section above), explaining opportunity recognition is also important in the context of
institutional entrepreneurship, in which theorists struggle with a critical question, often termed
the paradox of embeddedness (Battilana, et al., 2009): if institutions are so cognitively
overpowering, how is it that some actors can identify opportunities for change? Early research
on this question has pointed to the construct of reflexivity as a key attribute of some
institutional entrepreneurs who—because of their social position, prior experience, or
structural location in an organizational field—are better able than others to identify
opportunities to change existing social arrangements (Viale, et al., 2017). However, we know
little about institutional reflexivity. How do some actors (individuals or organizations) acquire
the social knowledge needed to understand the power structures underpinning existing
institutional arrangements? Similarly, how do those actors acquire the social skills necessary
to effect change in the institutional environment? If reflexivity is a skill acquired through
social processes, perhaps we can teach (or otherwise help people develop) this skill to better
interact or change the external environment.
Relatedly, another promising area of future research is to focus on the nexus between
individual and institutional acts of entrepreneurship (Alvarez, et al., 2015). What social,
environmental, and political conditions are most likely to contribute to a social culture of
individual innovation? Reciprocally, what configuration of individual attributes, cultural
characteristics, and social values are most likely to generate institutional change? How do
individuals and institutions co-evolve in contexts that generate or deny innovation? Another
promising area of research is to focus on outcomes that promote less rationalized definitions
of entrepreneurial success. The neo-institutional theory is based on Weberian assumptions of
ever-expanding rationality in business practices. However, some emerging studies on
institutional entrepreneurship have pointed to examples of entrepreneurial success that defy
this traditional model of global economic rationality (Schulze, et al., 2003). Therefore, future
research opportunities exist to compare and contrast the differences in entrepreneurial action
that exist in small- versus large-scale entrepreneurial ventures. Is entrepreneurship in a craft-
oriented business different from entrepreneurship in a large bureaucracy? How does
entrepreneurship in a profession or a small business differ from that in a corporation? If they
are indeed different, are they incompatible with each other? More significantly, is
entrepreneurship an act of logical rationality—a science—or is it a somewhat irrational act of
creativity and interpretive insight?
Second, two important opportunities for future research emerge on legitimacy—
legitimacy as a process and losing legitimacy. Regarding gaining legitimacy, the trajectory of
current research describes an important shift in understanding legitimacy first as a property or
capacity of an entrepreneurial venture to an emerging new characterization of legitimacy as a
process. More importantly, recent research has addressed the social context which generates
legitimacy and the way legitimation processes change as an entrepreneurial venture matures
(Suddaby, et al., 2017). Viewing legitimacy as a process holds some important
methodological implications for entrepreneurship research. More specifically, considering
legitimacy a process of perception or judgement formation that involves interaction between
an entrepreneur and key stakeholders, researchers can analyze legitimacy acquisition using
deliberation mapping—a technique used to systematically evaluate the interactive processes
by which dyads or small groups come to decisions on complex and ambiguous subjects
(Burgess et al., 2007). Viewing legitimacy as a multi-modal process spurs entrepreneurship
research to see legitimacy as adhering to the attributes of the product or innovation offered by
an entrepreneur, and also to consider legitimacy features of the entrepreneur role more
abstractly. How has the entrepreneur been legitimated in public discourse? Have the
legitimating cultural attributes of the entrepreneur changed over time? Do the attributes
change across cultures?
Once we gain a deeper understanding of legitimacy as a process rather than a property,
researchers can become more creative in constructing studies that attend to how
entrepreneurial actors lose legitimacy. To date, most research has focused on the acquisition
of legitimacy, particularly during the start-up phase of entrepreneurship. Some studies,
however, have begun to examine the acquisition of legitimacy by “distancing oneself from
failure” (Kibler, et al., 2017). A logical extension of this line of inquiry is to examine the
processes by which legitimacy erodes or is lost. For example, we understand that storytelling
is an important activity nascent entrepreneurs use to gain legitimacy (Gartner, 2007), but what
are the consequences for the entrepreneur when his or her projective stories begin to lose
credibility (Garud et al., 2014). Similarly, while we understand that entrepreneurs acquire
legitimacy as a complex judgment based on an array of technical, normative, and moral
factors, we know little about the triggers for a complete loss of legitimacy. For example, to
what degree does an entrepreneur’s stigmatized past (e.g., multiple failed ventures)
compromise the success of a technically superior innovation?
Third, the advent of crowdfunding has rejuvenated research on funding outcomes, and
there are more opportunities for contributions. Future contributions may come from additional
DVs that capture this funding context on opportunity refinement, community formation and
engagement, and social/environmental benefits. For example, crowdfunding builds
communities, but how are they initiated, grown, and changed as a result of their involvement
with the entrepreneurial venture and the crowdfunding process? Beyond venture-level
measures of funding success, future research can also help explain the outcomes of
crowdfunding campaigns as they change the social, environmental, and economic
environment. Indeed, research can explore previously important studies (e.g., from the 1980s
or 1990s) to determine if they are still relevant or explanatory in modern times. For example,
perhaps the DVs of the 1980s related to venture capital, business angels, IPOs,
communication strategies, business plans, and so on are no longer relevant (or take a different
form) in today’s world of low start-up costs, crowdfunding, acquisitions, lean canvas, and
social media. Future research can explore the relevance of previous entrepreneurship theories
and adapt them given the changed economic, social, and political environment.
Fourth, while there is a relative abundance of cross-country studies among regional
studies of entrepreneurship, there is still a dearth of research looking at smaller regional units,
such as states, cities, and neighborhoods. Since much of the literature strongly emphasizes
geographic-clustered networks, entrepreneurship scholars could further benefit from
employing social network models to study various regional outcomes of entrepreneurship. For
example, how do the “weak” and “strong” network ties important for entrepreneurship differ
across regional units, how are they affected by the infrastructure and institutional conditions
in those regions, and do such network ties affect entrepreneurial processes and outcomes
differentially across regions? Further, there are opportunities to investigate long-term rather
than short-term regional changes. Entrepreneurial endeavors may spur the emergence of
industrial clusters (Feldman, 2014) that are over and above explanations by agglomeration
economics (Buenstorf & Klepper, 2009). A long-term view may further explain the
emergence and development of a region’s entrepreneurial practices and culture over time. The
joint area of history and regional outcomes of entrepreneurship is an emerging and exciting
domain for future research. For example, how do more or less “unentrepreneurial” regions
slowly change to become less or more “entrepreneurial”? Do regional cultures and narratives
of the past affect contemporary entrepreneurship in those regions? Furthermore, we see new
avenues for regional outcomes of entrepreneurship that move beyond the traditional
comparison of various regional units toward looking at distal cross-national and cross-regional
linkages (potentially fueled by new communication technologies) to investigate topics like the
emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems, internationalization rates among new ventures, and
the formation of social ventures.
Finally, there has been little research on those non-entrepreneurs psychologically
impacted by the entrepreneurial context. An obvious candidate is the entrepreneur’s spouse
but could also include funders, customers, and other stakeholders. For example, how and why
do the entrepreneur’s actions with the firm influence his or her spouse’s well-being,
commitment to the entrepreneur/marriage, and emotions (Dahl, et al., 2010)? Further, how do
a spouse’s psychological outcomes influence entrepreneurial outcomes, including the
entrepreneur’s psychological outcomes?
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Across the period of the review, there are some important trends. First, in reviewing
the DVs in entrepreneurship research from 2001-2018, we noticed some larger societal trends.
For example, we find no DVs specifically related to e-commerce, which was hot until the dot-
com bust in 2000, the year before the start of our review period, while DVs related to
crowdfunding become popular in the most recent years of the review. Second, performance is
a popular category of DVs, but its dominance appears to be waning. A particularly interesting
trend is that during the review period (2001-2017), the relative share of studies using
performance as a DV decreased considerably. During the first six years of the seventeen-year
period, performance dominated the field with 30% of all entrepreneurship studies using
performance as their DV. Given the large number of DVs examined in the field, this
represents a large share. During the final five years, this share has decreased to 16%. We
believe that this is a healthy development. People initiate, engage in, perform, and leave,
entrepreneurship for a whole host of different reasons (e.g., DeTienne et al., 2015). Greater
diversity in outcomes studied by scholars, reflective of this diversity among entrepreneurs,
provides for research relevance and unique entrepreneurship insights and theorizing. It also
allows for greater consistency regarding theories in use. For example, well-being is a common
DV in much psychological theory and increased use of wellbeing as a DV in entrepreneurship
research from a psychological perspective signals consistency with such trends. Third,
although still relatively small in number, there has been a steady increase in studies explaining
motivation-related DVs. More generally, while psychology-based studies have been
contributing to our knowledge of entrepreneurship for some time (and increasingly so), it
appears that the sociological perspective has entered and is gaining momentum as reflected in
the growth of DVs related to institutions and legitimacy. Finally, the number of
entrepreneurship papers published in the leading management and entrepreneurship journals
has increased substantially. This increase reflects growing importance of, and interest in,
entrepreneurship as a phenomenon and the growing rigor of research in the discipline.
To conclude, we return to the conversation that motivated this review in which a
strategy colleague lamented the lack of a single, identifying DV. The review indicates, that,
indeed, entrepreneurship has a plethora of DVs. We remain convinced it is important to
celebrate this scope. Indeed, we hope that this study encourages the proliferation of more
DVs. We believe that paradigm strength emerges not from the de-legitimation of competing
DVs, but rather by the manifestation of multiple variables that fully capture the breadth and
depth, the richness and complexity, of the phenomena under study. In an ever-changing world,
entrepreneurship is a societal mechanism dealing with changing issues and appearing in (and
even creating) new contexts. As social science scholars, we must observe and explain the
world around us, and entrepreneurship scholars are changing along with the manifestations of
the phenomena they wish to explain. Indeed, it is an exciting time to be an entrepreneurship
scholar, and the future looks bright. Happy exploration!
REFERENCES
Aboal, D., & Veneri, F. 2016. Entrepreneurs in Latin America. Small Business Economics,
46(3): 503-525.
Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. 2009. The knowledge spillover
theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1): 15-30.
Adachi, T., & Hisada, T. 2017. Gender Gap in Start-up Activities. Small Business Economics,
Forthcoming.
Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. 2006. Venture capital in emerging economies: Networks and
institutional change. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2): 299-320.
Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. M. 2012. Size matters: entrepreneurial entry and
government. Small Business Economics, 39(1): 119-139.
Aldrich, H. 1999. Organizations Evolving. London: Sage Publications.
Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Short, J. C., & Webb, J. W. 2015. Crowdfunding in a prosocial
microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1): 53-73.
Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. 2013. The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on
microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business
Venturing, 28(6): 690-707.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. 2005. How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions
of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31(5): 776-793.
Alvarez, S. A., Young, S. L., & Woolley, J. L. 2015. Opportunities and institutions: A co-
creation story of the king crab industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1): 95-112.
Amaral, A., Baptista, R., & Lima, F. 2011. Serial entrepreneurship: impact of human capital
on time to re-entry. Small Business Economics, 37(1): 1-21.
Anokhin, S., & Schulze, W. S. 2009. Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of
Business Venturing, 24(5): 465-476.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1): 105-123.
Åstebro, T., & Yong, K. 2016. Invention quality and entrepreneurial earnings: The role of
prior employment variety. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(2): 381-400.
Au, K., & Kwan, H. K. 2009. Start‐up capital and Chinese entrepreneurs: The role of family.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4): 889-908.
Auerswald, P. E. 2008. Entrepreneurship in the theory of the firm. Small Business Economics,
30(2): 111-126.
Bakker, R. M., & Shepherd, D. A. 2017. Pull the plug or take the plunge: Multiple
opportunities and the speed of venturing decisions in the Australian mining industry.
Academy of Management Journal, 60(1): 130-155.
Balboa, M., & Martí, J. 2007. Factors that determine the reputation of private equity managers
in developing markets. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4): 453-480.
Bammens, Y., & Collewaert, V. 2014. Trust between entrepreneurs and angel investors:
Exploring positive and negative implications for venture performance assessments. Journal
of Management, 40(7): 1980-2008.
Baron, R. A. 2008. The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management
Review, 33(2): 328-340.
Baron, R. A., Franklin, R. J., & Hmieleski, K. M. 2016. Why entrepreneurs often experience
low, not high, levels of stress: The joint effects of selection and psychological capital.
Journal of Management, 42(3): 742-768.
Baron, R. A., Mueller, B. A., & Wolfe, M. T. 2016. Self-efficacy and entrepreneurs' adoption
of unattainable goals: The restraining effects of self-control. Journal of Business
Venturing, 31(1): 55-71.
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. 2011. The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint
effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business
Venturing, 26(1): 49-60.
Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 644-675.
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. 2009. 2 how actors change institutions: towards a
theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1): 65-107.
Becker-Blease, J. R., & Sohl, J. E. 2007. Do women-owned businesses have equal access to
angel capital? Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4): 503-521.
Becker-Blease, J. R., & Sohl, J. E. 2015. New venture legitimacy: the conditions for angel
investors. Small Business Economics, 45(4): 735-749.
Beckman, C. M. 2006. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 741-758.
Beckman, C. M., & Burton, M. D. 2008. Founding the future: Path dependence in the
evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19: 3-24.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the
individual level. Organization Science, 19(1): 69-89.
Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rational heuristics: the ‘simple rules’ that
strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 1437-
1464.
Biniari, M. G. 2012. The emotional embeddedness of corporate entrepreneurship: the case of
envy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1): 141-170.
Bird, M., & Wennberg, K. 2014. Regional influences on the prevalence of family versus non-
family start-ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3): 421-436.
Bird, M., & Wennberg, K. 2016. Why family matters: The impact of family resources on
immigrant entrepreneurs' exit from entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6):
687-704.
Blumberg, B. F., & Letterie, W. A. 2008. Business starters and credit rationing. Small
Business Economics, 30(2): 187-200.
Blumberg, B. F., & Pfann, G. A. 2016. Roads Leading to Self‐Employment: Comparing
Transgenerational Entrepreneurs and Self‐Made Start‐Ups. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 40(2): 335-357.
Boling, J. R., Pieper, T. M., & Covin, J. G. 2016. CEO tenure and entrepreneurial orientation
within family and nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(4): 891-913.
Brana, S. 2013. Microcredit: an answer to the gender problem in funding? Small Business
Economics, 40(1): 87-100.
Brenkert, G. G. 2009. Innovation, rule breaking and the ethics of entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 24(5): 448-464.
Breugst, N., & Shepherd, D. A. 2017. If You Fight With Me, I'll Get Mad! A Social Model of
Entrepreneurial Affect. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3): 379-418.
Brinckmann, J., & Kim, S. M. 2015. Why we plan: the impact of nascent entrepreneurs'
cognitive characteristics and human capital on business planning. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(2): 153-166.
Bruce, D., & Deskins, J. 2012. Can state tax policies be used to promote entrepreneurial
activity? Small Business Economics, 38(4): 375-397.
Bruneel, J., Yli-Renko, H., & Clarysse, B. 2010. Learning from experience and learning from
others: how congenital and interorganizational learning substitute for experiential learning
in young firm internationalization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2): 164-182.
Brush, C. G., Manolova, T. S., & Edelman, L. F. 2008. Properties of emerging organizations:
An empirical test. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5): 547-566.
Bublitz, E., & Noseleit, F. 2014. The skill balancing act: when does broad expertise pay off?
Small Business Economics, 42(1): 17-32.
Bucar, B., Glas, M., & Hisrich, R. D. 2003. Ethics and entrepreneurs: An international
comparative study. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2): 261-281.
Buenstorf, G., & Klepper, S. 2009. Heritage and Agglomeration: The Akron Tyre Cluster
Revisited. The Economic Journal, 119(537): 705-733.
Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Abdelzaher, D. 2017. Women’s Business Ownership: Operating
Within the Context of Institutional and In-Group Collectivism. Journal of Management,
43(7): 2037-2064.
Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. 2014. Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of
resilience and self‐efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 38(3): 473-499.
Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K., & Williamson, S. 2007.
Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested
science-policy decisions. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3): 299-322.
Burmeister-Lamp, K., Lévesque, M., & Schade, C. 2012. Are entrepreneurs influenced by risk
attitude, regulatory focus or both? An experiment on entrepreneurs' time allocation.
Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4): 456-476.
Burmeister, K., & Schade, C. 2007. Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An
experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias. Journal of Business
Venturing, 22(3): 340-362.
Byrne, J., Delmar, F., Fayolle, A., & Lamine, W. 2016. Training corporate entrepreneurs: an
action learning approach. Small Business Economics, 47(2): 479-506.
Byrne, O., & Shepherd, D. A. 2015. Different strokes for different folks: Entrepreneurial
narratives of emotion, cognition, and making sense of business failure. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 39(2): 375-405.
Bönte, W., & Piegeler, M. 2013. Gender gap in latent and nascent entrepreneurship: driven by
competitiveness. Small Business Economics, 41(4): 961-987.
Cabral, S., Lazzarini, S. G., & Azevedo, P. F. 2013. Private entrepreneurs in public services:
A longitudinal examination of outsourcing and statization of prisons. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1): 6-25.
Cain, D. M., Moore, D. A., & Haran, U. 2015. Making sense of overconfidence in market
entry. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1): 1-18.
Cardon, M. S., Post, C., & Forster, W. R. 2017. Team entrepreneurial passion: Its emergence
and influence in new venture teams. Academy of Management Review, 42(2): 283-305.
Cardon, M. S., Stevens, C. E., & Potter, D. R. 2011. Misfortunes or mistakes?: Cultural
sensemaking of entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1): 79-92.
Carpentier, C., & Suret, J.-M. 2015. Angel group members' decision process and rejection
criteria: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(6): 808-821.
Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Gatewood, E. J. 2003. The career reasons of
nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1): 13-39.
Cassar, G. 2010. Are individuals entering self-employment overly optimistic? an empirical
test of plans and projections on nascent entrepreneur expectations Strategic Management
Journal, 31(8): 822-840.
Cassar, G., & Craig, J. 2009. An investigation of hindsight bias in nascent venture activity.
Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2): 149-164.
Cassar, G., & Friedman, H. 2009. Does Self-Efficacy Affect Entrepreneurial Investment?
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3: 241–260.
Castel, P., & Friedberg, E. 2010. Institutional change as an interactive process: The case of the
modernization of the French Cancer Centers. Organization Science, 21(2): 311-330.
Certo, S. T., Daily, C.M. & Dalton, D. 2001. Signaling firm value through board structure: An
investigation of initial public offerings. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26: 33-50.
Chan, C. S. R., & Park, H. D. 2015. How images and color in business plans influence venture
investment screening decisions. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5): 732-748.
Chuah, S. H., Hoffmann, R., Ramasamy, B., & Tan, J. H. 2016. Is there a spirit of overseas
Chinese capitalism? Small Business Economics, 47(4): 1095-1118.
Clarke, J. 2011. Revitalizing entrepreneurship: how visual symbols are used in entrepreneurial
performances. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6): 1365-1391.
Cobb, J. A., Wry, T., & Zhao, E. Y. 2016. Funding financial inclusion: Institutional logics and
the contextual contingency of funding for microfinance organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 59(6): 2103-2131.
Collewaert, V., & Fassin, Y. 2013. Conflicts between entrepreneurs and investors: the impact
of perceived unethical behavior. Small Business Economics, 40(3): 635-649.
Collewaert, V., & Sapienza, H. J. 2016. How does angel investor–entrepreneur conflict affect
venture innovation? It depends. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3): 573-597.
Collins, J. D., McMullen, J. S., & Reutzel, C. R. 2016. Distributive justice, corruption, and
entrepreneurial behavior. Small Business Economics, 47(4): 981-1006.
Constant, A., & Zimmermann, K. F. 2006. The making of entrepreneurs in Germany: Are
native men and immigrants alike? Small Business Economics, 26(3): 279-300.
Cope, J. 2011. Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological
analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6): 604-623.
Corbett, A. C., Neck, H. M., & DeTienne, D. R. 2007. How corporate entrepreneurs learn
from fledgling innovation initiatives: Cognition and the development of a termination
script. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6): 829-852.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. 2010. Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: Inductive
reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures. Academy of Management
Review: 35(4): 539-557.
Croidieu, G., & Kim, P. H. 2017. Labor of Love. Administrative Science Quarterly: In press.
Dahl, M. S., Nielsen, J., & Mojtabai, R. 2010. The effects of becoming an entrepreneur on the
use of psychotropics among entrepreneurs and their spouses. Scandinavian Journal of
Public Health, 38(8): 857-863.
Dahl, M. S., & Sorenson, O. 2012. Home sweet home: Entrepreneurs' location choices and the
performance of their ventures. Management Science, 58(6): 1059-1071.
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. 2007. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making.
Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 33-54.
Davidsson, P. 2017. A Future of Entrepreneurship Research. The Wiley Handbook of
Entrepreneurship: 1-23: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Davidsson, P., & Gordon, S. R. 2016. Much ado about nothing? The surprising persistence of
nascent entrepreneurs through macroeconomic crisis. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 40(4): 915-941.
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3): 301-331.
Davis, A. E., & Shaver, K. G. 2012. Understanding gendered variations in business growth
intentions across the life course. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3): 495-512.
Dawson, C. 2017. Financial optimism and entrepreneurial satisfaction. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(2): 171-194.
De Bettignies, J.-E., & Brander, J. A. 2007. Financing entrepreneurship: Bank finance versus
venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(6): 808-832.
De Carolis, D. M., Litzky, B. E., & Eddleston, K. A. 2009. Why networks enhance the
progress of new venture creation: The influence of social capital and cognition.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2): 527-545.
De Carolis, D. M., & Saparito, P. 2006. Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial
opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30: 41-56.
De Clercq, D., & Rangarajan, D. 2008. The role of perceived relational support in
entrepreneur–customer dyads. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4): 659-683.
Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. 2007. Towards a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1): 119-145.
Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. 2008. The effect of small business managers’ growth motivation on
firm growth: A longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3): 437-457.
DeMartino, R., & Barbato, R. 2003. Differences between women and men MBA
entrepreneurs: exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6): 815-832.
DeTienne, D., Shepherd, D. A., & DeCastro, J. 2008. The fallacy of only the strong survive:
The effects of extrinsic motivation on the persistence decisions for under-performing firms.
Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5): 528-546.
DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. 2007. The role of gender in opportunity identification.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3): 365-386.
DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Chandler, G. N. 2015. Making sense of entrepreneurial exit
strategies: A typology and test. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(2): 255-272.
Dewald, J., & Bowen, F. 2010. Storm clouds and silver linings: Responding to disruptive
innovations through cognitive resilience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1):
197-218.
Dimov, D. 2007. Beyond the single‐person, single‐insight attribution in understanding
entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5): 713-731.
Dimov, D. P., & Shepherd, D. A. 2005. Human capital theory and venture capital firms:
exploring “home runs” and “strike outs”. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1): 1-21.
Ding, Y., Nowak, E., & Zhang, H. 2010. Foreign vs. domestic listing: An entrepreneurial
decision. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2): 175-191.
Doern, R., & Goss, D. 2014. The Role of Negative Emotions in the Social Processes of
Entrepreneurship: Power Rituals and Shame‐Related Appeasement Behaviors.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(4): 863-890.
Drover, W., Wood, M. S., & Payne, G. T. 2014. The effects of perceived control on venture
capitalist investment decisions: A configurational perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 38(4): 833-861.
Dunkelberg, W., Moore, C., Scott, J., & Stull, W. 2013. Do entrepreneurial goals matter?
Resource allocation in new owner-managed firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2):
225-240.
Dushnitsky, G., & Shapira, Z. 2010. Entrepreneurial finance meets organizational reality:
comparing investment practices and performance of corporate and independent venture
capitalists. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9): 990-1017.
Dutta, S. 2017. Creating in the Crucibles of Nature’s Fury: Associational Diversity and Local
Social Entrepreneurship after Natural Disasters in California, 1991–2010. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 62(3): 443-483.
Edelman, L., & Yli‐Renko, H. 2010. The impact of environment and entrepreneurial
perceptions on venture‐creation efforts: bridging the discovery and creation views of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5): 833-856.
Eesley, C. 2016. Institutional barriers to growth: Entrepreneurship, human capital and
institutional change. Organization Science, 27(5): 1290-1306.
Eggers, J., & Song, L. 2015. Dealing with failure: Serial entrepreneurs and the costs of
changing industries between ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1785-1803.
Engel, Y., van Burg, E., Kleijn, E., & Khapova, S. N. 2017. Past Career in Future Thinking:
How Career Management Practices Shape Entrepreneurial Decision Making. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(2): 122-144
Erikson, T. 2002. Entrepreneurial capital: the emerging venture's most important asset and
competitive advantage. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3): 275-290.
Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. 2016. Human capital in social and commercial
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4): 449-467.
Evans, J., Barley, S., & Kunda, G. 2004. Beach time, bridge time, and billable hours: The
temporal structure of technical contracting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1): 1-38.
Fairchild, G. B. 2008. Residential segregation influences on the likelihood of black and white
self-employment. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(1): 46-74.
Fairchild, R. 2011. An entrepreneur's choice of venture capitalist or angel-financing: A
behavioral game-theoretic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3): 359-374.
Fairlie, R. W. 2004. Recent trends in ethnic and racial business ownership. Small Business
Economics, 23(3): 203-218.
Falck, O., Heblich, S., & Luedemann, E. 2012. Identity and entrepreneurship: do school peers
shape entrepreneurial intentions? Small Business Economics, 39(1): 39-59.
Feldman, M. P. 2014. The character of innovative places: entrepreneurial strategy, economic
development, and prosperity. Small Business Economics, 43(1): 9-20.
Fiet, J., & Patel, P. 2008. Entrepreneurial discovery as constrained, sytematic search. Small
Business Economics, 30(3): 215-229.
Fiet, J. O. 2007. A prescriptive analysis of search and discovery. Journal of Management
Studies, 44(4): 592-611.
Fiet, J. O., Piskounov, A., & Patel, P. C. 2005. Still Searching (Systematically) for
Entrepreneurial Discoveries. Small Business Economics, 25(5): 489-504.
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., & Sobrero, M. 2012. The determinants of corporate
entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 36(2): 387-414.
Fisher, G., Kotha, S., & Lahiri, A. 2016. Changing with the times: An integrated view of
identity, legitimacy, and new venture life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41(3):
383-409.
Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. 2017. Legitimate to whom?
The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business
Venturing, 32(1): 52-71.
Florin, J. 2005. Is venture capital worth it? Effects on firm performance and founder returns.
Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1): 113-135.
Folta, T. B., Delmar, F., & Wennberg, K. 2010. Hybrid Entrepreneurship. Management
Science, 56(2): 253-269.
Forbes, D. P. 2005. Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others? Journal of
Business Venturing, 20(5): 623-640.
Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of general psychology,
2(3): 300-319.
Gartner, W. 1990. What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal
of Business Venturing, 5: 15-28.
Gartner, W. B. 2007. Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Journal of
Business Venturing, 22(5): 613-627.
Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Liao, J. J. 2008. Opportunities as attributions: Categorizing
strategic issues from an attributional perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4):
301-315.
Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. 2014. Entrepreneurial storytelling, future
expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5): 1479-1492.
Ge, W., Li, Z., Liu, Q., & McVay, S. E. 2017. When does internal control over financial
reporting curb resource extraction? Evidence from China.
Gielnik, M. M., Frese, M., Graf, J. M., & Kampschulte, A. 2012. Creativity in the opportunity
identification process and the moderating effect of diversity of information. Journal of
Business Venturing, 27(5): 559-576.
Godwin, L. N., Stevens, C. E., & Brenner, N. L. 2006. Forced to play by the rules? Theorizing
how mixed‐sex founding teams benefit women entrepreneurs in male‐dominated contexts.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5): 623-642.
Goel, S., & Karri, R. 2006. Entrepreneurs, Effectual Logic, and Over‐Trust. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 30(4): 477-493.
Gohmann, S. F., Hobbs, B. K., & McCrickard, M. 2008. Economic freedom and service
industry growth in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32: 855-874.
Gonzalez-Diaz, M., & Solis-Rodriguez, V. 2012. Why do entrepreneurs use franchising as a
financial tool? An agency explanation. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(3): 325-341.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big
five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27-48.
Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. 2010. Cognitive processes of opportunity
recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21(2): 413-431.
Grégoire, D. A., Corbett, A. C., & McMullen, J. S. 2011. The cognitive perspective in
entrepreneurship: An agenda for future research. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6):
1443-1477.
Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. 2003. Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 28(1): 1-22.
Grichnik, D., Brinckmann, J., Singh, L., & Manigart, S. 2014. Beyond environmental scarcity:
Human and social capital as driving forces of bootstrapping activities. Journal of Business
Venturing, 29(2): 310-326.
Gries, T., & Naudé, W. 2010. Entrepreneurship and structural economic transformation. Small
Business Economics, 34(1): 13-29.
Grimes, M. 2010. Strategic sensemaking within funding relationships: The effects of
performance measurement on organizational identity in the social sector. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 34(4): 763-783.
Grimes, M. G. 2018. The pivot: How founders respond to feedback through idea and identity
work. Academy of Management Journal, In press. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2015.0823.
Grossman, E. B., Yli-Renko, H., & Janakiraman, R. 2012. Resource search, interpersonal
similarity, and network tie valuation in nascent entrepreneurs’ emerging networks. Journal
of Management, 38(6): 1760-1787.
Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. 2012. From Minds to Markets. Journal of
Management, 38(5): 1421-1449.
Grühn, B., Strese, S., Flatten, T. C., Jaeger, N. A., & Brettel, M. 2017. Temporal Change
Patterns of Entrepreneurial Orientation: A Longitudinal Investigation of CEO Successions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(4): 591-619.
Guerini, M., & Quas, A. 2016. Governmental venture capital in Europe: Screening and
certification. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2): 175-195.
Gupta, V. K., Goktan, A. B., & Gunay, G. 2014. Gender differences in evaluation of new
business opportunity: A stereotype threat perspective. Journal of Business Venturing,
29(2): 273-288.
Gurses, K., & Ozcan, P. 2015. Entrepreneurship in regulated markets: framing contests and
collective action to introduce pay TV in the US. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6):
1709-1739.
Guzman, J., & Stern, S. 2016. Nowcasting and placecasting: Entrepreneurial quality and
performance. Measuring Entrepreneurial Businesses: Current Knowledge and Challenges:
University of Chicago Press.
Guzzini, E., & Iacobucci, D. 2014. Ownership as R&D incentive in business groups. Small
Business Economics, 43(1): 119-135.
Hafer, R., & Jones, G. 2015. Are entrepreneurship and cognitive skills related? Some
international evidence. Small Business Economics, 44(2): 283-298.
Hallen, B. L. 2008. The causes and consequences of the initial network positions of new
organizations: From whom do entrepreneurs receive investments? Administrative Science
Quarterly, 53(4): 685-718.
Hallen, B. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2012. Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation:
how entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1):
35-70.
Harada, N.2005. Potential entrepreneurship in Japan. Small Business Economics, 25: 293-304.
Haveman, H. A., Habinek, J., & Goodman, L. A. 2012. How entrepreneurship evolves: The
founders of new magazines in America, 1741–1860. Administrative Science Quarterly,
57(4): 585-624.
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. 2010. A situated metacognitive
model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2): 217-229.
Haynie, J.M., Shepherd, D.A., & McMullen, J.S. 2009. An opportunity for me? The role of
resources in opportunity evaluation decisions.Journal of Management Studies, 46:337-361.
Hayter, C. S. 2016. A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of knowledge
intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics,
47(3): 633-656.
Hayton, J. C., & Cholakova, M. 2012. The role of affect in the creation and intentional pursuit
of entrepreneurial ideas. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1): 41-68.
Hayward, M. L. A., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. 2006. A Hubris Theory of
Entrepreneurship. Management Science, 52(2): 160-172.
Hechavarría, D. M., Terjesen, S. A., Ingram, A. E., Renko, M., Justo, R., & Elam, A. 2017.
Taking care of business: the impact of culture and gender on entrepreneurs’ blended value
creation goals. Small Business Economics, 48(1): 225-257.
Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. 2014. Small business activity does not measure
entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(5): 1760-1765.
Hite, J. M. 2005. Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in
emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(1): 113-144.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Corbett, A. C. 2008. The contrasting interaction effects of
improvisational behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance
and entrepreneur work satisfaction. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4): 482-496.
Hogarth, R. M., & Karelaia, N. 2012. Entrepreneurial Success and Failure: Confidence and
Fallible Judgment. Organization Science, 23(6): 1733-1747.
Honig, B., & Karlsson, T. 2004. Institutional forces and the written business plan. Journal of
Management, 30(1): 29-48.
Howorth, C., & Moro, A. 2006. Trust within entrepreneur bank relationships: Insights from
Italy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4): 495-517.
Hsu, Y.-W. 2010. Staging of venture capital investment: a real options analysis. Small
Business Economics, 35(3): 265-281.
Huang, L., & Pearce, J. L. 2015. Managing the unknowable: The effectiveness of early-stage
investor gut feel in entrepreneurial investment decisions. Administrative Science Quarterly,
60(4): 634-670.
Hunt, R. A., & Fund, B. R. 2016. Intergenerational Fairness and the Crowding Out Effects of
Well-Intended Environmental Policies. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5): 878-910.
Huyghebaert, N., Van de Gucht, L., & Van Hulle, C. 2007. The choice between bank debt and
trace credit in business start-ups. Small Business Economics, 29(4): 435-452.
Iriyama, A., Li, Y., & Madhavan, R. 2010. Spiky globalization of venture capital investments:
The influence of prior human networks. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4: 128-145.
Jacobides, M. G., & Winter, S. G. 2007. Entrepreneurship and firm boundaries: the theory of a
firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7): 1213-1241.
Jennings, J. E., Jennings, P. D., & Sharifian, M. 2016. Living the dream? Assessing the
“entrepreneurship as emancipation” perspective in a developed region. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 40(1): 81-110.
Jennings, J. E., & McDougald, M. S. 2007. Work-family interface experiences and coping
strategies: Implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 32(3): 747-760.
Josefy, M., Dean, T. J., Albert, L. S., & Fitza, M. A. 2017. The Role of Community in
Crowdfunding Success: Evidence on Cultural Attributes in Funding Campaigns to “Save
the Local Theater”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): 161-182.
Kacperczyk, A. J. 2012. Opportunity structures in established firms entrepreneurship versus
intrapreneurship in mutual funds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3): 484-521.
Kang, J. H., Matusik, J. G., Kim, T.-Y., & Phillips, J. M. 2016. Interactive effects of multiple
organizational climates on employee innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms: A cross-
level investigation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6): 628-642.
Karlsson, T., & Honig, B. 2009. Judging a business by its cover: An institutional perspective
on new ventures and the business plan. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1): 27-45.
Katre, A., & Salipante, P. 2012. Start‐up social ventures: Blending fine‐grained behaviors
from two institutions for entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
36(5): 967-994.
Kautonen, T., Kibler, E., & Minniti, M. 2017. Late-career entrepreneurship, income and
quality of life. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(3): 318-333.
Khavul, S., Bruton, G. D., & Wood, E. 2009. Informal family business in Africa.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(6): 1219-1238.
Kibler, E., Mandl, C., Kautonen, T., & Berger, E. S. 2017. Attributes of legitimate venture
failure impressions. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(2): 145-161.
Kim, G. O. 2006. Do equally owned small businesses have equal access to credit? Small
Business Economics, 27(4): 369-386.
Kim, P. H., Longest, K. C., & Lippmann, S. 2015. The tortoise versus the hare: Progress and
business viability differences between conventional and leisure-based founders. Journal of
Business Venturing, 30(2): 185-204.
Klyver, K., Lindsay, N. J., Suleiman, K., & Hancock, G. 2017. Altruistic investment decision
behavior in early-stage ventures. Small Business Economics, 48(1): 135-152.
Kuppuswamy, V., & Bayus, B. L. 2017. Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project
matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1): 72-89.
Kuratko, D. F., Fisher, G., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. 2017. The paradox of new
venture legitimation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics:
49(1): 1-22.
Kwon, I., & Sohn, K. 2017. Job dissatisfaction of the self-employed in Indonesia. Small
Business Economics: 49(1): 1-17.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Process studies of
change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.
Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 1-13.
Lechner, C., & Leyronas, C. 2009. Small‐Business Group Formation as an Entrepreneurial
Development Model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3): 645-667.
Lee, J.-H., & Venkataraman, S. 2006. Aspirations, market offerings, and the pursuit of
entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1): 107-123.
Lejarraga, J., & Martinez-Ros, E. 2014. Size, R&D productivity and decision styles. Small
Business Economics, 42(3): 643-662.
Lerner, D. A. 2016. Behavioral disinhibition and nascent venturing: Relevance and initial
effects on potential resource providers. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2): 234-252.
Lévesque, M., Minniti, M., & Shepherd, D. 2009. Entrepreneurs' decisions on timing of entry:
learning from participation and from the experiences of others. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 33(2): 547-570.
Levie, J., & Autio, E. 2011. Regulatory burden, rule of law, and entry of strategic
entrepreneurs: An international panel study. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 1392-
1419.
Li, X.-H., & Liang, X. 2015. A Confucian social model of political appointments among
Chinese private-firm entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2): 592-617.
Liang, J., & Goetz, S. J. 2016. Self-employment and trade shock mitigation. Small Business
Economics, 46(1): 45-56.
Liu, X., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Dai, O., & Lu, J. 2010. Human mobility and international
knowledge spillovers: evidence from high‐tech small and medium enterprises in an
emerging market. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4): 340-355.
Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. 2003. Technology transfer and universities' spin-out
strategies. Small Business Economics, 20(2): 185-200.
Malchow-Møller, N., Schjerning, B., & Sørensen, A. 2011. Entrepreneurship, job creation and
wage growth. Small Business Economics, 36(1): 15-32.
Malmström, M., Johansson, J., & Wincent, J. 2015. Cognitive constructions of low-profit and
high-profit business models: A repertory grid study of serial entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5): 1083-1109.
Manolova, T. S., Carter, N. M., Manev, I. M., & Gyoshev, B. S. 2007. The differential effect
of men and women entrepreneurs' human capital and networking on growth expectancies in
Bulgaria. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3): 407-426.
Mantere, S., Aula, P., Schildt, H., & Vaara, E. 2013. Narrative attributions of entrepreneurial
failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4): 459-473.
Marvel, M. R., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2007. Technology entrepreneurs' human capital and its
effects on innovation radicalness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6): 807-828.
Marvel, M. R., Sullivan, D. M., & Wolfe, M. T. Accelerating sales in start‐ups: A domain
planning, network reliance, and resource complementary perspective. Journal of Small
Business Management. Forthcoming.
Masuda, T. 2006. The determinants of latent entrepreneurship in Japan. Small Business
Economics, 26(3): 227-240.
Matusik, S. F., George, J. M., & Heeley, M. B. 2008. Values and judgment under uncertainty:
evidence from venture capitalist assessments of founders. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 2(2): 95-115.
Maxwell, A. L., Jeffrey, S. A., & Lévesque, M. 2011. Business angel early stage decision
making. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(2): 212-225.
Maxwell, A. L., & Lévesque, M. 2014. Trustworthiness: A critical ingredient for
entrepreneurs seeking investors. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5): 1057-1080.
McCaffrey, M. 2014. On the theory of entrepreneurial incentives and alertness.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(4): 891-911.
McGrath, R. G. 1999. Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure.
Academy of Management. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 13-30.
McInerney, P. B. 2008. Showdown at Kykuit: Field-configuring events as loci for
conventionalizing accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 45(6): 1089-1116.
McKelvie, A., Brattström, A., & Wennberg, K. 2017. How young firms achieve growth:
reconciling the roles of growth motivation and innovative activities. Small Business
Economics, 49(2): 273-293.
McMullen, J. S., Bagby, D., & Palich, L. E. 2008. Economic freedom and the motivation to
engage in entrepreneurial action. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5): 875-895.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty
in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 132-152.
McMullen, J. S., & Warnick, B. J. 2016. Should we require every new venture to be a hybrid
organization? Journal of Management Studies, 53(4): 630-662.
McVea, J. F. 2009. A field study of entrepreneurial decision-making and moral imagination.
Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5): 491-504.
Medrano-Adán, L., Salas-Fumás, V., & Sanchez-Asin, J. J. 2015. Heterogeneous
entrepreneurs from occupational choices in economies with minimum wages. Small
Business Economics, 44(3): 597-619.
Michael, S. C. 2003. First mover advantage through franchising. Journal of Business
Venturing, 18(1): 61-80.
Miller, D., & Sardais, C. 2015. Bifurcating time: How entrepreneurs reconcile the paradoxical
demands of the job. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3): 489-512.
Minniti, M., & Lévesque, M. 2010. Entrepreneurial types and economic growth. Journal of
Business Venturing, 25(3): 305-314.
Minola, T., Brumana, M., Campopiano, G., Garrett, R. P., & Cassia, L. 2016. Corporate
venturing in family business: A developmental approach of the enterprising family.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(4): 395-412.
Mitchell, J. R., & Shepherd, D. A. 2010. To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of
opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1): 138-154.
Mitchell, R. K., Mitchell, J. R., & Smith, J. B. 2008. Inside opportunity formation: Enterprise
failure, cognition, and the creation of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
2(3): 225-242.
Mollick, E. 2014. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business
Venturing, 29(1): 1-16.
Monsen, E., Patzelt, H., & Saxton, T. 2010. Beyond Simple Utility: Incentive Design and
Trade-Offs for Corporate Employee‐Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
34(1): 105-130.
Montauti, M., & Wezel, F. C. 2016. Charting the Territory: Recombination as a Source of
Uncertainty for Potential Entrants. Organization Science, 27(4): 954-971.
Muehlfeld, K., Urbig, D., & Weitzel, U. 2015. Entrepreneurs’ Exploratory Perseverance in
Learning Settings. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(4): 533-565.
Mueller, B. A., & Shepherd, D. A. 2016. Making the most of failure experiences: Exploring
the relationship between business failure and the identification of business opportunities.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3): 457-487.
Mueller, E. 2014. Entrepreneurs from low-skilled immigrant groups in knowledge-intensive
industries: company characteristics, survival and innovative performance. Small Business
Economics, 42(4): 871-889.
Mullins, J. W., & Forlani, D. 2005. Missing the boat or sinking the boat: A study of new
venture decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1): 47-69.
Muñoz, P., & Dimov, D. 2015. The call of the whole in understanding the development of
sustainable ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4): 632-654.
Murnieks, C. Y., Cardon, M. S., Sudek, R., White, T. D., & Brooks, W. T. 2016. Drawn to the
fire: The role of passion, tenacity and inspirational leadership in angel investing. Journal of
Business Venturing, 31(4): 468-484.
Murnieks, C. Y., Mosakowski, E., & Cardon, M. S. 2014. Pathways of passion: Identity
centrality, passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 40(6):
1583-1606.
Nanda, R., & Sørensen, J. 2010. Workplace Peers and Entrepreneurship. Management
Science, 56(7): 1116-1126
Naudé, W., Amorós, J. E., & Cristi, O. 2014. “Surfeiting, the appetite may sicken”:
entrepreneurship and happiness. Small Business Economics, 42(3): 523-540.
Navis, C., & Ozbek, O. V. 2016. The right people in the wrong places: The paradox of
entrepreneurial entry and successful opportunity realization. Academy of Management
Review, 41(1): 109-129.
Newbert, S.L., & Tornikoski, E.T. 2012. Supporter networks and network growth: a
contingency model of organizational emergence. Small Business Economics, 39: 141-159.
Nissan, E., Castaño, M.-S., & Carrasco, I. 2012. Drivers of non-profit activity: a cross-country
analysis. Small Business Economics, 38(3): 303-320.
Norbäck, P.-J., Persson, L., & Svensson, R. 2016. Creative destruction and productive
preemptive acquisitions. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3): 326-343.
O'Neil, I., & Ucbasaran, D. 2016. Balancing “what matters to me” with “what matters to
them”: Exploring the legitimation process of environmental entrepreneurs. Journal of
Business Venturing, 31(2): 133-152.
Obschonka, M., & Stuetzer, M. 2017. Integrating psychological approaches to
entrepreneurship: the Entrepreneurial Personality System (EPS). Small Business
Economics: 49(1): 1-29.
Orser, B. J., Riding, A. L., & Manley, K. 2006. Women entrepreneurs and financial capital.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5): 643-665.
Özcan, B. 2011. Only the lonely? The influence of the spouse on the transition to self-
employment. Small Business Economics, 37(4): 465-492.
Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. 2007. Social sources of information in opportunity recognition:
Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums. Journal of Business
Venturing, 22(2): 174-192.
Pacheco, D. F., Dean, T. J., & Payne, D. S. 2010. Escaping the green prison: Entrepreneurship
and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. Journal of Business
Venturing, 25(5): 464-480.
Parhankangas, A., & Ehrlich, M. 2014. How entrepreneurs seduce business angels: An
impression management approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4): 543-564.
Parhankangas, A., & Renko, M. 2017. Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among
social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(2): 215-236.
Park, H. D., & Tzabbar, D. 2016. Venture Capital, CEOs’ Sources of Power, and Innovation
Novelty at Different Life Stages of a New Venture. Organization Science, 27(2): 336-353.
Parker, R. 2008. Governance and the Entrepreneurial Economy: A Comparative Analysis of
Three Regions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5): 833-854.
Patel, P. C., & Conklin, B. 2009. The balancing act: the role of transnational habitus and
social networks in balancing transnational entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 33(5): 1045-1078.
Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. 2011. Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4): 631-652.
Peng, M. W., Yamakawa, Y., & Lee, S. H. 2010. Bankruptcy Laws and Entrepreneur‐
Friendliness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3): 517-530.
Pinkse, J., & Groot, K. 2015. Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate political activity:
Overcoming market barriers in the clean energy sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 39(3): 633-654.
Plummer, L. A., Allison, T. H., & Connelly, B. L. 2016. Better together? Signaling
interactions in new venture pursuit of initial external capital. Academy of Management
Journal, 59(5): 1585-1604.
Pollack, J. M., Coy, A. E., Green, J. D., & Davis, J. L. 2015. Satisfaction, investment, and
alternatives predict entrepreneurs' networking group commitment and subsequent revenue
generation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4): 817-837.
Qian, H., & Acs, Z. J. 2013. An absorptive capacity theory of knowledge spillover
entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 40(2): 185-197.
Quattrone, P. 2015. Governing social orders, unfolding rationality, and Jesuit accounting
practices: A procedural approach to institutional logics. Administrative Science Quarterly,
60(3): 411-445.
Rassenfosse, G., & Fischer, T. 2016. Venture debt financing: Determinants of the lending
decision. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(3): 235-256.
Robson, P. J., Akuetteh, C. K., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. 2012. Innovative opportunity
pursuit, human capital and business ownership experience in an emerging region: evidence
from Ghana. Small Business Economics, 39(3): 603-625.
Rogers, T. M. 2012. Bank market structure and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics,
39(4): 909-920.
Roma, P., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Perrone, G. 2017. From the crowd to the market: The
role of reward-based crowdfunding performance in attracting professional investors.
Research Policy, 46(9), 1606-1628.
Rosti, L., & Chelli, F. 2005. Gender discrimination, entrepreneurial talent and self-
employment. Small Business Economics, 24(2): 131-142.
Ruebottom, T. 2013. The microstructures of rhetorical strategy in social entrepreneurship:
Building legitimacy through heroes and villains. Journal of Business Venturing, 28:98-116.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily,
strong ties, and the isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68:
195-222.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. 1995. The structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 69(4): 719-727.
Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. 2017. Community and capital in entrepreneurship and economic
growth. American Sociological Review, 82(4): 770-795.
Saridakis, G., Marlow, S., & Storey, D. J. 2014. Do different factors explain male and female
self-employment rates? Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3): 345-362.
Schindehutte, M., Morris, M., & Allen, J. 2006. Beyond achievement: Entrepreneurship as
extreme experience. Small Business Economics, 27(4): 349-368.
Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. 2003. Toward a theory of agency and altruism
in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4): 473-490.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The theory of economic development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Schwienbacher, A. 2007. A theoretical analysis of optimal financing strategies for different
types of capital-constrained entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(6): 753-781.
Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. 2007. The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective
process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1‐2): 123-140.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217-266.
Shepherd, D. A. 2003. Learning from Business Failure: Propositions of Grief Recovery for the
Self-Employed. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 318-328.
Shepherd, D. A. 2015. Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive,
activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business
Venturing, 30(4): 489-507.
Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. 2005. Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and
opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1): 91-112.
Shepherd, D. A., & Haynie, J. M. 2011. Venture failure, stigma, and impression management:
A self-verification, self-determination view. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(2):
178-197.
Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. 2015. Harsh evaluations of entrepreneurs who fail: The role of
sexual orientation, use of environmentally friendly technologies, and observers' perspective
taking. Journal of Management Studies, 52(2): 253-284.
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Baron, R. A. 2013. “I care about nature, but…”: Disengaging
values in assessing opportunities that cause harm. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5):
1251-1273.
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., Williams, T. A., & Warnecke, D. 2014. How does project
termination impact project team members? Rapid termination,‘creeping death’, and
learning from failure. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4): 513-546.
Simmons, S., Wiklund, J., & Levie, J. 2014. Stigma and business failure: implications for
entrepreneurs’ career choices. Small Business Economics, 42(3): 485-505.
Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. 2003. Managing resources: Linking unique resources,
management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
27(4): 339-358.
Smith, C., Smith, J. B., & Shaw, E. 2017. Embracing digital networks: Entrepreneurs' social
capital online. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1): 18-34.
Song, M., Wang, T., & Parry, M. 2010. Do market information processes improve new
venture performance? Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6): 556-568.
Spivack, A. J., McKelvie, A., & Haynie, J. M. 2014. Habitual entrepreneurs: Possible cases of
entrepreneurship addiction? Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5): 651-667.
Strike, V. M., & Rerup, C. 2016. Mediated sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal,
59(3): 880-905.
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. 2017. Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals,
11(1): 451-478.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 50(1): 35-67.
Sun, S. L., & Im, J. 2015. Cutting microfinance interest rates: an opportunity co-creation
perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1): 101-128.
Sutter, C.J., Webb, J.W., Kistruck, G.M., & Bailey, A.V. 2013. Entrepreneurs' responses to
semi-formal illegitimate institutional arrangements. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6):
743-758.
Tamvada, J. P. 2010. Entrepreneurship and welfare. Small Business Economics, 34(1): 65-79.
Thomas, M. K. 2009. The impact of education histories on the decision to become self-
employed: a study of young, aspiring, minority business owners. Small Business
Economics, 33(4): 455-466.
Tobias, J. M., Mair, J., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. 2013. Toward a theory of transformative
entrepreneuring: Poverty reduction and conflict resolution in Rwanda's entrepreneurial
coffee sector. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6): 728-742.
Tocher, N., Oswald, S. L., & Hall, D. J. 2015. Proposing social resources as the fundamental
catalyst toward opportunity creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(2): 119-135.
Toft-Kehler, R., Wennberg, K., & Kim, P. H. 2014. Practice makes perfect: Entrepreneurial-
experience curves and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 29: 453-470.
Townsend, D. M., & Hart, T. A. 2008. Perceived institutional ambiguity and the choice of
organizational form in social entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 32(4): 685-700.
Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. 2003. Entrepreneurial Founder
Teams: Factors Associated with Member Entry and Exit. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 28(2): 107-128.
Uygur, U., & Kim, S. M. 2016. Evolution of Entrepreneurial Judgment With Venture‐Specific
Experience. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(2): 169-193.
Waldron, T. L., Fisher, G., & Navis, C. 2015. Institutional entrepreneurs' social mobility in
organizational fields. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1): 131-149.
Waldron, T. L., Fisher, G., & Pfarrer, M. 2016. How social entrepreneurs facilitate the
adoption of new industry practices. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5): 821–845
Valliere, D. 2013. Towards a schematic theory of entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of
Business Venturing, 28(3): 430-442.
van der Zwan, P., Verheul, I., & Thurik, A. R. 2012. The entrepreneurial ladder, gender, and
regional development. Small Business Economics, 39(3): 627-643.
Van Gelderen, M., Van de Sluis, L., & Jansen, P. 2005. Learning opportunities and learning
behaviours of small business starters: relations with goal achievement, skill development
and satisfaction. Small Business Economics, 25(1): 97-108.
Van Stel, A., Carree, M., & Thurik, R. 2005. The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national
economic growth. Small Business Economics, 24(3): 311-321.
Wang, Y. 2016. Bringing the Stages Back in: Social Network Ties and Start‐up firms’ Access
to Venture Capital in China. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(3): 300-317.
Wasserman, N. 2003. Founder-CEO succession and the paradox of entrepreneurial success.
Organization Science, 14(2): 149-172.
Webb, J. W., Bruton, G. D., Tihanyi, L., & Ireland, R. D. 2013. Research on entrepreneurship
in the informal economy: Framing a research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing,
28(5): 598-614.
Wennberg, K., Delmar, F., & McKelvie, A. 2016. Variable risk preferences in new firm
growth and survival. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4): 408-427.
Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D., & Cardon, M. 2010. Reconceptualizing
entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business Venturing,
25(4): 361-375.
Verheul, I., Uhlaner, L., & Thurik, R. 2005. Business accomplishments, gender and
entrepreneurial self-image. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(4): 483-518.
West, G. P. 2007. Collective cognition: When entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, make
decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1): 77-102.
Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Binks, M. 2005. Novice, serial and portfolio
entrepreneur behaviour and contributions. Small Business Economics, 25(2): 109-132.
Viale, T., Gendron, Y., & Suddaby, R. 2017. From “mad men” to “math men” The rise of
expertise in digital measurement and the shaping of online consumer freedom. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(2): 270-305.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bowen, H. P. 2009. The use of limited dependent variable techniques in
strategy research: Issues and methods. Strategic Management Journal, 30(6): 679-692.
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., & Delmar, F. 2003. What do they think and feel about growth? An
expectancy-value approach to small business managers' attitudes toward growth.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3): 247-270.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. 2003. Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role
of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8): 1919-1941.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. 2008. Portfolio entrepreneurship: Habitual and novice
founders, new entry, and mode of organizing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
32(4): 701-725.
Williams, T. A., & Shepherd, D. A. 2016. Building resilience or providing sustenance:
Different paths of emergent ventures in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. Academy of
Management Journal, 59(6): 2069-2102.
Vissa, B. 2011. A matching theory of entrepreneurs' tie formation intentions and initiation of
economic exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1): 137-158.
Vissa, B. 2012. Agency in action: Entrepreneurs' networking style and initiation of economic
exchange. Organization Science, 23(2): 492-510.
Vivarelli, M. 2004. Are all the potential entrepreneurs so good? Small Business Economics,
23(1): 41-49.
Wolfe, M. T., & Patel, P. C. 2016. Grit and self-employment: a multi-country study. Small
Business Economics, 47(4): 853-874.
Wood, M., McKelvie, A., & Haynie, J. 2014. Making it personal: Opportunity individuation
and the shaping of opportunity beliefs. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2): 252-272.
Wood, M. S., Williams, D. W., & Drover, W. 2017. Past as prologue: Entrepreneurial inaction
decisions and subsequent action judgments. Journal of Business Venturing, 32: 107-127.
Wyrwich, M. 2015. Entrepreneurship and the intergenerational transmission of values. Small
Business Economics, 45(1): 191-213.
Wyrwich, M., Stuetzer, M., & Sternberg, R. 2016. Entrepreneurial role models, fear of failure,
and institutional approval of entrepreneurship: A tale of two regions. Small Business
Economics, 46(3): 467-492.
York, J. G., O'Neil, I., & Sarasvathy, S. D. 2016. Exploring Environmental Entrepreneurship:
Identity Coupling, Venture Goals, and Stakeholder Incentives. Journal of Management
Studies, 53(5): 695-737.
Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. 2000. International expansion by new venture
firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 925-950.
Zhang, J. 2011. The advantage of experienced start-up founders in venture capital acquisition:
evidence from serial entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 36(2): 187-208.
Zhang, J., Souitaris, V., Soh, P. h., & Wong, P. k. 2008. A contingent model of network
utilization in early financing of technology ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 32(4): 593-613.
Zhang, J., Wong, P. K., & Ho, Y. P. 2016. Ethnic enclave and entrepreneurial financing:
Asian venture capitalists in Silicon Valley. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(3): 318-
335.
Zhao, E. Y., & Lounsbury, M. 2016. An institutional logics approach to social
entrepreneurship: Market logic, religious diversity, and resource acquisition by
microfinance organizations. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6): 643-662.
Zheng, Y., & Mai, Y. 2013. A contextualized transactive memory system view on how
founding teams respond to surprises: evidence from China. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 7(3): 197-213.
Zheng, Y., Miner, A. S., & George, G. 2013. Does the learning value of individual failure
experience depend on group-level success? Insights from a University Technology
Transfer Office. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(6): 1557-1586.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. 2007. Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial
firms. Organization Science, 18(2): 181-199.
