ArticlePDF Available

Beyond the lone hero: How interpersonal feedback seeking helps entrepreneurs to engage with their social environment

January 2024
Applied Psychology 73(1):1-43

DOI:10.1111/apps.12517

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Andreana Drencheva

King's College London

Ute Stephan

King's College London

Malcolm Patterson

The University of Sheffield

Entrepreneurs are often depicted as lone heroes. However , they are encouraged to seek and use feedback from their social environment to refine their venture ideas and enhance performance. Surprisingly, systematic research on entrepreneurs' feedback-seeking is in its infancy, and this nascent research is marked by conceptual vagueness about the feedback-seeking process and the limitations of related concepts. This article leverages the rich research on feedback seeking from organizational behavior/applied psychology to expli-cate the nature of entrepreneurs' interpersonal feedback seeking while considering the specific demands of entrepreneurship. We delineate feedback seeking from related concepts and theorize a process model of how entrepreneurs seek feedback to pursue instrumental, ego, symbolic, and relational goals, resulting in outcomes not only for entrepreneurs but also for their ventures and immediate and wider social environments. This article provides a foundation for research on entrepreneurs' feedback seeking that is attentive to their personal goals and vulnerabilities while also considering the impact of this process on their social environment. Our conceptual model also offers new

Content uploaded by Andreana Drencheva

Content may be subject to copyright.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Beyond the lone hero: How interpersonal

feedback seeking helps entrepreneurs to engage

with their social environment

Andreana Drencheva

| Ute Stephan

1,2

| Malcolm Patterson

2,3

King's Business School, King's College

London, London, UK

Technische Universität Dresden Work

and Organisational Psychology, Dresden,

Germany

Sheffield University Management

School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield,

Correspondence

Andreana Drencheva, King's College

London, King's Business School, Bush

House, The Strand, London, WC2R 2LS,

UK.

Email: andreana.drencheva@kcl.ac.uk

Funding information

This research did not receive any specific

grant from funding agencies in the

public, commercial, or not-for-profit

sectors.

Abstract

Entrepreneurs are often depicted as lone heroes. How-

ever, they are encouraged to seek and use feedback

from their social environment to refine their venture

ideas and enhance performance. Surprisingly, system-

atic research on entrepreneurs' feedback-seeking is in

its infancy, and this nascent research is marked by con-

ceptual vagueness about the feedback-seeking process

and the limitations of related concepts. This article

leverages the rich research on feedback seeking from

organizational behavior/applied psychology to expli-

cate the nature of entrepreneurs' interpersonal feed-

back seeking while considering the specific demands of

entrepreneurship. We delineate feedback seeking from

related concepts and theorize a process model of how

entrepreneurs seek feedback to pursue instrumental,

ego, symbolic, and relational goals, resulting in out-

comes not only for entrepreneurs but also for their ven-

tures and immediate and wider social environments.

This article provides a foundation for research on

entrepreneurs' feedback seeking that is attentive to

their personal goals and vulnerabilities while also con-

sidering the impact of this process on their social envi-

ronment. Our conceptual model also offers new

Received: 29 September 2022 Accepted: 18 November 2023

DOI: 10.1111/apps.12517

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Psychology.

Applied Psychology. 2024;1–43. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/apps 1

insights for organizational behavior/applied psychology

research on feedback seeking in relation to the future

of work.

KEYWORDS

entrepreneurs, feedback, interpersonal feedback seeking,

proactivity, process model

INTRODUCTION

Jack Dorsey doesn't know how to grade his performance. It's early May, and Dorsey

has just finished his annual reviews of Square's 800 employees. He now needs to com-

plete his own. So the Square CEO sends out a Google Doc to the entire company

soliciting feedback, but he makes two suggestions that border on the masochistic: All

comments should be anonymous, and all comments should be visible to everyone

inside the company. “Write whatever you want,”Dorsey tells his troops, adding that

he wants to learn “where I've done well, where I've done poorly, and where I've

completely screwed things up.”(Carr, 2014)

Entrepreneurs create new ventures that they own and manage (Gorgievski &

Stephan, 2016) and consequently face unique challenges rarely seen in other lines of work.

They navigate high levels of uncertainty (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006) because it is not clear a

priori how customers will respond and how the market environment may change. Their work

is complex (Lazear, 2005), requiring them to understand and make decisions in diverse areas

(e.g., marketing, operations, and finance). Entrepreneurs pursue multiple goals (Wach

et al., 2016) and possess strong autonomy in designing their work and ventures yet are also

responsible and legally liable for any decisions they make. Consequently, they closely identify

with their ventures, viewing them as extensions of themselves (Mmbaga et al., 2020), and thus,

are deeply invested in their work. There are no templates for how to be an entrepreneur, and

no supervisor to structure and prioritize tasks. There are, however, multiple stakeholders, such

as investors, suppliers, customers, employees, and spouses (Delmar & Shane, 2004)with distinct

agendas and expectations of the entrepreneur (Fisher et al., 2017) from whom they hope to gain

resources and legitimacy. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, trusted peers to turn to for guid-

ance (Kuhn & Galloway, 2015).

These challenges mean that entrepreneurs, more so than those in other occupations, need

to engage with their external environment through feedback seeking. Feedback—evaluative

information about the effectiveness and appropriateness of decisions and behaviors (Ilgen

et al., 1979)—is instrumental for entrepreneurs' ventures (Gemmell et al., 2012; Katre &

Salipante, 2012) because it enables developing product–market fit (Bhave, 1994), effective

decision-making (Haynie et al., 2012), sensemaking of opportunities (Kaffka et al., 2021; Pryor

et al., 2016), goal achievement (Nambisan & Baron, 2013), error correction and learning

(Baum & Bird, 2010; Frese, 2020). Entrepreneurs seek feedback to co-create with stakeholders

through effectuation during uncertainty (Sarasvathy, 2001,2008) or to involve stakeholders in

providing ideas through bricolage when resource-constrained (Baker & Nelson, 2005).

2DRENCHEVA ET AL.

14640597, 0, Downloaded from https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apps.12517 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [24/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Although all workers seek feedback, the unique characteristics of entrepreneurship in an

occupational setting (Cardon & Arwine, 2023) further influence this need. Seeking feedback

may serve more purposes for entrepreneurs than for other workers, as they have multiple goals

(Wach et al., 2016). For instance, entrepreneurs seek feedback about not only their own per-

sonal performance, as investigated in traditional occupations (Lam et al., 2007), but also

about their ventures (Shepherd et al., 2022), suggesting there are further topics on which to seek

feedback. However, because entrepreneurs personally identify with their ventures (Mmbaga

et al., 2020), seeking feedback may have particularly high ego costs (Grimes, 2018).

Entrepreneurs need feedback from a greater variety of sources, that is, from individuals both

inside and outside the venture (Domurath et al., 2020), to navigate the complexity of their work

and to create legitimacy by meeting the expectations of their diverse stakeholders. They need

feedback from individuals with whom they may not have a personal relationship (van Werven

et al., 2022), which heightens (perceived) cost to their self- and public image. In contrast, super-

visors or peers are the typical feedback sources for individuals in traditional occupations

(De Stobbeleir et al., 2020; Lam et al., 2007). Entrepreneurs do not have supervisors and their

peers are often competitors who may appropriate ideas (Kuhn & Galloway, 2015), thereby jeop-

ardizing venture survival.

Moreover, entrepreneurs' feedback seeking is consequential for them and their ventures and

stakeholders. Research with traditional occupational groups has prioritized the outcomes of

feedback seeking for the seeker (Anseel et al., 2015) and largely neglected its impact on others

(for exceptions, see Krasman, 2018; Krasman & Kotlyar, 2019) or the organization. The combi-

nation of multiple purposes, sources, and consequences of feedback seeking, rather than

looking at each aspect individually, makes the feedback seeking process more complex for

entrepreneurs than those in traditional occupational settings. Seeking feedback requires a

within-person process perspective that explicates how entrepreneurs make ongoing decisions

about why, from whom, on what topics, and how to seek or not seek feedback, potentially

resulting in new outcomes.

Although entrepreneurship research on feedback seeking is emerging, there is a long tradi-

tion of research on feedback seeking in organizational behavior (OB) and applied psychology

(AP) focused on employees (for reviews: Anseel et al., 2015; Ashford et al., 2016; Lim

et al., 2020). OB/AP research typically examines feedback seeking from a between-person per-

spective to understand who seeks feedback more frequently (De Stobbeleir et al., 2011; Park

et al., 2007) from whom (Karakowsky et al., 2020; Levy et al., 2002) and under what conditions

(De Stobbeleir et al., 2020; Steelman et al., 2004). This stream of research has explicated feed-

back as a personal resource (Ashford & Cummings, 1983) that employees seek mainly by asking

supervisors (Lam et al., 2007; Whitaker & Levy, 2012) and sometimes peers (De Stobbeleir

et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2014) or by monitoring how others act toward them (Anseel et al., 2015).

This research stream adopts a proactivity lens (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker & Collins, 2010)

whereby individuals seek feedback to enhance person–environment fit by changing the self

(Parker & Collins, 2010) to achieve personal outcomes, such as improved performance or satis-

faction (Anseel et al., 2015).

Despite its long tradition of investigating feedback seeking, OB/AP research has not yet fully

considered feedback seeking from a within-person process perspective. We propose that this

approach would be useful to understand how entrepreneurs navigate the challenges of venture

creation by engaging with and shaping their social environment through feedback seeking.

Although there are two notable attempts at such process perspectives in OB/AP (Anseel

et al., 2015; Levy et al., 1995), they do not unpack the ongoing decisions that feedback seekers

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 3

need to make, nor do they explain the learning involved through interactions that can shape

feedback seeking patterns and tactics.

Overall, entrepreneurs' experiences call for a process perspective on how feedback seeking

events unfold that is not available in entrepreneurship research or in OB/AP. We refer to feed-

back seeking events as the sequence of goals, planning, decisions, inquiries, monitoring, and

reflection embedded in each feedback seeking interaction between an entrepreneur and (an)

other individual(s). Entrepreneurship research prioritizes the venture outcomes of feedback

seeking yet neglects the process, that is, how entrepreneurs seek feedback. Similarly, OB/AP

research has examined feedback seeking through a between-person perspective that focuses on

understanding the frequency of feedback seeking and assumes stable motives to seek or refrain

from seeking it (for an exception, see Sherf & Morrison, 2020). This means that the ongoing,

iterative decisions that individuals make in the process of seeking feedback, along with the

dynamics of this process, remain poorly understood in both domains.

In this theoretical article, we bridge OB/AP and entrepreneurship research to explicate the

nature of entrepreneurs' feedback seeking as a dynamic and relational process that unfolds dif-

ferently across feedback seeking events and is an important way for entrepreneurs to engage

with and influence their social environment. Bridging OB/AP and entrepreneurship research

on feedback seeking can enrich both streams. Novel insights emerge from considering entrepre-

neurs' unique work and position in ventures (Baron, 2010) and the cost-value model embedded

in OB/AP that recognizes workers' multiple goals when seeking feedback (Anseel et al., 2015;

Sherf et al., 2023). Feedback seeking is still emergent in entrepreneurship research; thus, a

dynamic and relational process model of entrepreneurs' feedback seeking built on the strong

foundation from OB/AP can provide a springboard for future research. Conversely, although

OB/AP research on feedback seeking is an established stream that has developed a general

understanding of occupational feedback seeking, it can be enriched by uncovering novel pro-

cesses of how feedback seeking unfolds based on a contextualized understanding of decisions

and outcomes within the unique scope of entrepreneurship (Cardon & Arwine, 2023).

This article contributes a nuanced explanation of the dynamic and relational nature of feed-

back seeking as a process distinct from other information and support seeking concepts in

entrepreneurship research (see Table 1). Although feedback is prominently understood as easily

obtainable through a single act, with positive outcomes for the venture based on its informa-

tional value, we frame feedback seeking as an emergent process of navigating costs and benefits

across levels of analysis. By explicating how entrepreneurs engage with and impact their social

environments through feedback seeking, we challenge the taken-for-granted assumption that

entrepreneurs and their ventures are impacted only by feedback from the social environment

(e.g., Bhave, 1994; Muñoz et al., 2018).

To OB/AP research, we suggest a greater appreciation of how workers as active agents navi-

gate the costs of seeking feedback, not only by reducing frequency (Ashford et al., 2016) but also

by changing how the process unfolds (Sherf et al., 2023). Such a process perspective could be

particularly valuable for other novel and neglected groups of workers, such as gig workers

(Petriglieri et al., 2019), intrapreneurs (Gawke et al., 2018), and social activists driving positive

change from inside organizations (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016). This perspective sheds new light on

understanding feedback seeking as the nature of work changes, and the consequential out-

comes for the feedback seeker and their social environment in ways that influence person–

environment fit (Parker & Collins, 2010).

Next, we define and differentiate feedback and feedback seeking from related constructs.

We elaborate upon our dynamic process model of entrepreneurs' feedback seeking, including

4DRENCHEVA ET AL.

the ongoing decisions they make about why, on what topics, from whom, how, and whether to

seek interpersonal feedback from their social environment. We also examine how feedback

seeking shapes their experiences, ventures, and social environment.

DEFINING AND DIFFERENTIATING FEEDBACK AND

INTERPERSONAL FEEDBACK SEEKING

We define feedback in the entrepreneurship context as self- or venture-relevant evaluative

information about the effectiveness and/or appropriateness of venture-related decisions and

behaviors (adapted from Ilgen et al., 1979). We define entrepreneurs' interpersonal feedback

seeking as a proactive process to solicit self-relevant or venture-relevant evaluative information

about the effectiveness and/or appropriateness of venture-related decisions and behaviors

through inquiry from others (building on Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Table 1

outlines how feedback and feedback seeking have been defined and studied in entrepreneurship

and OB/AP and compares them to related concepts: information seeking/search, strategic/

environmental scanning, coaching, mentoring, and advice.

Our definition of feedback bridges the entrepreneur and venture levels of analysis and foci,

as well as different purposes that are prioritized in OB/AP and entrepreneurship research. First,

our definition of feedback in the entrepreneurship context includes two levels of analysis: indi-

vidual and venture. Building on research in OB/AP (e.g., Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Ilgen

et al., 1979), we define feedback as self-relevant evaluative information, that is, information

about the entrepreneur and their performance in relation to the complex and multiple roles

they enact (e.g., innovator, founder, leader: Cardon et al., 2013). However, entrepreneurs' per-

formance is evaluated based on their venture milestones and accomplishments, thus building

on entrepreneurship research (e.g., Domurath et al., 2020; Muñoz et al., 2018), we also include

evaluative venture-relevant information in our definition of feedback, which refers to informa-

tion about the effectiveness and appropriateness of the venture, including business model and

operations. Second, our definition of feedback in the entrepreneurship context includes two

foci: venture-related behaviors and decisions. In line with OB/AP research (e.g., Ashford &

Cummings, 1983), we consider feedback as information about how well entrepreneurs meet

various goals through their behavior (e.g., developing a business model). However, what differ-

entiates entrepreneurs from employees is their autonomy and responsibility for strategic direc-

tion (McMullen et al., 2021; van Gelderen, 2016), meaning their ability to meet goals depends

on the decisions they make (e.g., the type of business model they develop). Finally, our defini-

tion of feedback in the entrepreneurship context includes two purposes: evaluating effectiveness

and appropriateness. In line with OB/AP research (Ashford & Cummings, 1983), we include

the effectiveness of venture-related decisions and behaviors to establish how well goals are met,

if at all, and their appropriateness to establish how well behaviors and decisions fit with the

desired entrepreneurial goals.

Entrepreneurs can obtain feedback during the venture creation process from the market,

the task, comparisons, and unsolicited and solicited interpersonal interactions. The dominant

perspective in entrepreneurship research focuses on feedback from the market in the form of

customer demand or through the results of early launches of pilots, prototypes, and business

model changes (e.g., Andries et al., 2013; Costa et al., 2017). This is in line with popular practi-

tioner methods, such as lean startup (Ries, 2011) and design thinking (Brown, 2009), that

encourage entrepreneurs to release prototypes for market feedback early and often. However,

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 5

TABLE 1 Comparison of feedback-related concepts in entrepreneurship research and how they map onto established use in OB/applied psychology.

Feedback Interpersonal feedback seeking Information seeking/search

Nature of construct Evaluative information as the

outcome of (market) performance

or social exchanges

Relational process to obtain evaluative

information

Process to obtain, interpret, and use

information

Definition in

entrepreneurship

research

•Not explicitly defined

•Studies that define it focus on

definitions of specific types of

feedback, such as outcome vs

cognitive feedback (Haynie

et al., 2012)

•Rarely explicitly defined

•When defined, based on Ashford and

Cummings (1983) and Ashford (1986)

from OB/AP: proactive interactions of

entrepreneurs with other individuals to

obtain evaluative information about the

effectiveness and appropriateness of their

functioning, decisions and behaviors

(Collewaert et al., 2016, p. 977; Drencheva

et al., 2021,p.2)

•Rarely explicitly defined

•The processes of determining an

entrepreneur's information needs,

subsequent searching behavior,

interpretation, and use of the information

(Orrensalo et al., 2022,p.8)

Definition in OB/applied

psychology research

Evaluative information about the

correctness, accuracy, or

adequacy of past behavior and

performance (Ilgen et al., 1979,p.

351)

The conscious devotion of effort toward

determining the correctness and adequacy

of behavior for attaining valued end states

(Ashford, 1986, p. 466)

The act of seeking job-related and

organizational information to cope with

uncertainty and engage in sensemaking

(Lim et al., 2020, p. 125)

Illustrative

studies in

entrepreneurship

Domurath et al., 2020; Eller

et al., 2022; Grimes, 2018; Haynie

et al., 2012; Muñoz et al., 2018

Collewaert et al., 2016; Drencheva

et al., 2021; Katre & Salipante, 2012; van

Werven et al., 2022

Cooper et al., 1995; Foss et al., 2013;

Westhead et al., 2009

Dominant

focus in

entrepreneurship

Outcomes of the use (or not) of

feedback

•Outcomes of feedback seeking

•Emerging empirical attention to the

process (Drencheva et al., 2021; van

Werven et al., 2022)

Antecedents and outcomes of efforts to

obtain and use information

6DRENCHEVA ET AL.

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Feedback Interpersonal feedback seeking Information seeking/search

Dominant theoretical

lenses in

entrepreneurship

Metacognition, identity,

information processing,

sensemaking

Phenomenon-driven, sensemaking, passion Resource orchestration/

mobilization, information processing, social

networks, human capital

Dominant

methodological

approach in

entrepreneurship

Both inductive with qualitative

methods and deductive with

quantitative methods

•Inductive with qualitative methods

•For an exception, see Collewaert

et al., 2016

Deductive with quantitative methods

Salient goals for

entrepreneurs

examined in research

•Instrumental: To meet

entrepreneurial standards and

goals

•Ego: To manage self-views

•Instrumental: To meet entrepreneurial

standards and goals

•Ego: To manage (protect and enhance)

self-views

•Symbolic: To meet stakeholders'

expectations

•Relational: To manage relationships with

stakeholders

Instrumental: To meet entrepreneurial

standards and goals

Relationship to the social

environment

Feedback as input from the

environment, which when used,

can catalyze fit between the

venture and the environment

•Environment (e.g., markets, investors,

customers, experts, employees) as the

source of feedback;

•Obtained feedback can help

entrepreneurs to fit venture into the

environment

•Engagement in feedback seeking to meet

expectations from the environment

Information as input from the environment,

which when used, can catalyze fit between

the venture and the environment

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 7

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Feedback Interpersonal feedback seeking Information seeking/search

Type of information

examined in

entrepreneurship

research

Evaluative retrospective •Evaluative retrospective

•Not always provided or relevant for

meeting salient goals

•Normative, technical, referent

•Evaluative retrospective

•Prospective

Approach to obtaining

information

Solicited and/or unsolicited Solicited Solicited and/or searched for

Scope of information

examined in

entrepreneurship

research

Focused on the venture •Predominantly focused on the venture

•Limited focus on the entrepreneur

Focused on the venture and the environment

Source of information

examined in

entrepreneurship

research

Customers, investors, mentors/

start-up advisors, peers

•Internal to the venture: Co-founders,

employees

•External to the venture: Customers,

investors, mentors/start-up advisors,

experts, community members, peers

•From personal context: Family members,

friends

•Social exchanges with individuals related

to the venture: Customers, investors,

mentors/start-up advisors, peers, experts

•Social exchanges in the personal context:

Family members, friends

•Consultation with impersonal sources:

Reports, trends, statistics

8DRENCHEVA ET AL.

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Strategic/environmental

scanning Coaching Mentoring Advice

Nature of construct Process to obtain and interpret

information

Relational process for personal

development

Relational process for personal

development

Information as the outcome

of social exchanges

Definition in

entrepreneurship

research

•Rarely explicitly defined

•Aspect of strategic planning

to gather information about

external (and internal)

factors that may impact an

organization's ability to

execute its strategy and

achieve its goals (Garg

et al., 2003)

Support structure provided by

a professional based on a

close interpersonal

relationship and a maieutic

approach leading to learning

and development (Audet &

Couteret, 2012)

•Rarely explicitly defined

•Support relationship

between an experienced

entrepreneur or professional

and a novice entrepreneur

to foster the latter's personal

development (St-Jean &

Audet, 2012, p. 112)

Information provided by any

party outside the firm,

drawn from their

knowledge or experience,

intended to inform firm

decisions (Miller

et al., 2023,p.2)

Definition in OB/applied

psychology research

Proactively surveying the

organization's environment

to identify ways to ensure a

fit between the organization

and its environment by

responding to emerging

markets, threats, and

opportunities (Parker &

Collins, 2010, p. 637)

Custom-tailored, learning and

development intervention

that uses a collaborative,

reflective, goal-focused

relationship, provided to

employees by external or

internal coaching

practitioners who have no

formal supervisory authority

over the coachee

(Bozer & Jones, 2021, p. 411)

A formal or informal

relationship between an

older, more experienced

professional and a younger,

less experienced protégé for

the purpose of supporting

the protégé's career, and

personal and professional

growth (Eby &

Robertson, 2020, p. 76)

Information to inform

individuals' opinions,

attitudes, decisions

judgments, solutions,

alternatives, and problem

formulations (Bonaccio &

Dalal, 2006)

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 9

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Strategic/environmental

scanning Coaching Mentoring Advice

Illustrative

studies in

entrepreneurship

Pryor et al., 2019; Schafer, 1991;

Stewart et al., 2008; Tang

et al., 2012

Audet & Couteret, 2012;

Ciuchta et al., 2018; Kotte

et al., 2021; Schermuly

et al., 2021

Hallen et al., 2020; Kuratko

et al., 2021; Ozgen &

Baron, 2007; St-Jean &

Audet, 2013

Cumming & Johan, 2007;

Miller et al., 2023; Vissa

& Chacar, 2009

Dominant

focus in

entrepreneurship

Antecedents and outcomes of

efforts to obtain information

Characteristics and contextual

factors of (successful)

entrepreneurial coaching;

outcomes of coaching

Characteristics and outcomes

of mentoring

Antecedents of access to

advice and outcomes of

the use (or not) of advice

as an input

Dominant theoretical

lenses in

entrepreneurship

Selective attention, information

processing, entrepreneurial

alertness

Phenomenon-driven, personal

development

Phenomenon-driven,

information processing,

personal development

Information processing,

social networks

Dominant

methodological

approach in

entrepreneurship

Deductive with quantitative

methods

Deductive with quantitative

methods

Both inductive with qualitative

methods and deductive with

quantitative methods

Both inductive with

qualitative methods and

deductive with

quantitative methods

Salient goals for

entrepreneurs

examined in research

Instrumental: To meet

entrepreneurial standards

and goals

Instrumental: To meet

entrepreneurial standards

and goals

Instrumental: To meet

entrepreneurial standards

and goals

Instrumental: To meet

entrepreneurial standards

and goals

Relationship to the social

environment

Information as input from the

environment, which when

used, can catalyze fit between

the venture and the

environment

Enabling the entrepreneur's

personal growth to meet

demands from the

environment

Enabling the entrepreneur's

personal growth and access

to input to meet demands

from the environment and

catalyze fit between the

venture and the environment

Information as input from

the environment, which

when used, can catalyze fit

between the venture and

the environment

10 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Strategic/environmental

scanning Coaching Mentoring Advice

Type of information

examined in

entrepreneurship

research

•Normative, technical,

referent

•Prospective

Questions to guide self-

reflection, self-discovery,

and growth

•Normative, technical,

referent

•Evaluative retrospective

•Prospective

•Questions to guide self-

reflection

Prospective

Approach to obtaining

information

Solicited and/or searched for Solicited questions Solicited Solicited and/or unsolicited

Scope of information

examined in

entrepreneurship

research

Focused on the venture and the

environment

Focused on the entrepreneur Focused on the entrepreneur,

the venture, and the

environment

Focused on the venture

Source of information

examined in

entrepreneurship

research

•Social exchanges with

individuals related to the

venture/industry:

Customers, investors,

mentors/start-up advisors,

peers, experts

•Consultation with

impersonal sources: Reports,

trends, statistics, legal and

institutional changes

Professional coaches Experienced entrepreneurs,

start-up advisors, investors,

experts/

professionals

Investors, mentors/start-up

advisors, experts/

professionals, peers

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 11

entrepreneurs also obtain feedback from the outcomes of the tasks they perform, such as suc-

cessfully pitching to investors, and from comparisons against peers, such as comparing achieve-

ments against peers in an incubator cohort. Finally, entrepreneurs obtain feedback from

interpersonal interactions with others. This includes unsolicited feedback provided by others

(Seidel et al., 2016; van Werven et al., 2022) and solicited feedback (i.e., interpersonal feedback

seeking) (Collewaert et al., 2016). Entrepreneurs may seamlessly transition between these forms

of feedback, which may also overlap. For example, task feedback based on the outcome of a

pitch can be followed by interpersonal feedback seeking from investors, while presenting an

early prototype to a potential customer is a form of market feedback that involves interpersonal

interaction.

We focus on proactive interpersonal feedback seeking through inquiry as a meaningful

mode through which entrepreneurs engage with and change their social environment. This is

consistent with the now dominant approach in OB/AP research (e.g., De Stobbeleir et al., 2020),

which recognizes that monitoring to obtain feedback and inquiry for feedback are distinct con-

structs with different effects on performance (Anseel et al., 2015) and different motivational

antecedents (Parker & Collins, 2010). Indeed, entrepreneurs may have limited opportunities for

monitoring given the nature of their work, while inquiry is more consistently associated with

performance improvement (Anseel et al., 2015; Sherf et al., 2023).

Critically, interpersonal feedback seeking enables entrepreneurs to engage with their social

environment in a flexible, controlled, and timely way on topics most relevant to them and from

individuals whom they consider to be most appropriate. For example, during a feedback seek-

ing event, an entrepreneur may make multiple decisions in relation to what to seek feedback

about (e.g., leadership skills vs. the offering), from whom (e.g., a specific employee vs. another

entrepreneur), and how (e.g., during a meeting with a clear feedback purpose vs. anonymously

online). As feedback seeking involves interactions with others, it also allows entrepreneurs to

obtain cognitive feedback that helps them understand the relationship between their decisions,

behaviors, and outcomes within their specific context (Haynie et al., 2012). In contrast, imper-

sonal market or task feedback is likely to result in outcome feedback as performance-oriented

information relative to a standard or benchmark without contextual cues. However, cognitive

feedback is essential for learning and improving decision-making (Haynie et al., 2012) because

it allows entrepreneurs to reframe, redirect, reflect upon, question, and adapt their decisions

(Haynie et al., 2012; Kaffka et al., 2021). The interpersonal nature of feedback seeking also

allows entrepreneurs to clarify the provided feedback (van Werven et al., 2022), thus increasing

its quality, relevance, and precision.

Table 1compares interpersonal feedback seeking—as a relational process toward evaluative

information—with related broader phenomena (i.e., information seeking/search, strategic/

environmental scanning, coaching, and mentoring) that are usually considered in OB/AP and

entrepreneurship. These processes are related to interpersonal feedback seeking because they

involve proactive solicitation for information and support (Parker & Collins, 2010). Indeed,

interpersonal feedback seeking can be embedded in these broader processes whereby some of

the information that is sought can be evaluative in nature (Morrison, 1993). However, these

processes are broader in scope, and some of them, such as coaching and mentoring, do not

account for all instances of entrepreneurs' feedback seeking. Critically, the relational nature of

interpersonal feedback seeking and the evaluative nature of feedback poses unique challenges

and goals for entrepreneurs that are rarely salient when they engage in the broader information

and support seeking processes. On the one hand, they need to seek feedback from multiple

stakeholders (Drencheva et al., 2022) with distinct agendas and differing assumptions about

12 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

entrepreneurs, as this determines their legitimacy and ability to build relationships with these

stakeholders. On the other hand, unlike other types of information such as advice, often used

interchangeably with feedback in entrepreneurship research (e.g., Kaffka et al., 2021), feedback

is evaluative information (Lim et al., 2020) about the self, with implications for entrepreneurs'

identities (Grimes, 2018). Even when the feedback is venture-relevant (e.g., the effectiveness of

the business model), the evidence shows that entrepreneurs still experience this information as

an evaluation of the self (Grimes, 2018). This is because new ventures are the product of entre-

preneurs' decisions and behaviors, such as designing the venture's business model, and

entrepreneurs see their ventures as an extension of who they are as individuals (Mmbaga

et al., 2020). Indeed, when ventures fail, entrepreneurs take full responsibility and apologize for

the decisions leading to closure (Kibler et al., 2021).

The unique nature of feedback, seeking as a relational process involving evaluative informa-

tion, as well as of entrepreneurs' work as complex, uncertain, identity-relevant, and in pursuit

of legitimacy and multiple goals, introduces novel challenges and aspirations lacking recogni-

tion in entrepreneurship and OB/AP research. However, these challenges and conflicting goals

can be one potential explanation for the counterintuitive evidence that entrepreneurs may

refrain from seeking feedback (e.g., Drencheva et al., 2021; Katre & Salipante, 2012) despite the

expected positive outcomes emphasized in the entrepreneurship literature (Corner & Wu, 2012;

Gemmell et al., 2012).

INTERPERSONAL FEEDBACK SEEKING AS A DYNAMIC AND

RELATIONAL PROCESS

In this section, we theorize a process model to explicate the nature of feedback seeking events

and the decisions entrepreneurs make about why, on what topics, from whom, and how or

whether to seek feedback (Figure 1). We build on models of proactivity and self-regulation

because interpersonal feedback seeking is a proactive process in which entrepreneurs need to

regulate the self (e.g., Grant & Ashford, 2008; Lord et al., 2010). In turn, we theorize that entre-

preneurs' interpersonal feedback seeking is driven by their personal and venture goals, requires

planning and monitoring of the process leading to a feedback inquiry, and results in multiple

outcomes for the entrepreneur, the venture, their immediate and wider social environment,

and future feedback seeking events.

Goals that motivate entrepreneurs' interpersonal feedback seeking

Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking is goal-oriented (Sherf et al., 2023). Entrepreneurs may actively

recognize and pursue these goals or consider them with lower levels of awareness. Even goals

that unconsciously or habitually govern behavior (Bolino et al., 2016) can affect the process of

feedback seeking, including entrepreneurs' first decisions about why they seek or refrain from

seeking feedback. The goals that motivate (approach goals) or inhibit (avoidance goals) entre-

preneurs' feedback seeking fall into four categories: instrumental to achieve entrepreneurial

standards and goals, ego to manage entrepreneurs' self-views, symbolic to meet stakeholder

expectations, and relational to manage relationships with stakeholders (Figure 1, Goals). Over-

all, instrumental goals can help entrepreneurs to navigate the uncertainty (McMullen &

Shepherd, 2006) and complexity (Lazear, 2005) inherent in their work, whereas symbolic,

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 13

FIGURE 1 Process model of Entrepreneurs' interpersonal feedback-seeking event.

14 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

relational, and ego goals result from entrepreneurs' need to maintain relationships with multi-

ple stakeholders and obtain legitimacy (Delmar & Shane, 2004), often required to navigate com-

plexity and uncertainty, for work that is deeply personal (Mmbaga et al., 2020; O'Neil &

Ucbasaran, 2016).

Approach goals

Entrepreneurs arguably seek feedback motivated by multiple instrumental, ego, symbolic, and

relational goals that vary in importance. These goals are associated with the behavioral

approach system (BAS), which regulates movement toward objects, people, and rewards (Sherf

et al., 2023). Instrumentally motivated feedback seeking can help entrepreneurs to reduce uncer-

tainty (e.g., Collewaert et al., 2016) as a subjective experience of being unable to predict the

probability of future events, such as what options are available or the outcomes associated with

each option (Milliken, 1987). Similarly, entrepreneurs may engage in feedback seeking to learn

because feedback has diagnostic value (Haynie et al., 2012) enabling them to assess past actions,

improve future performance, adapt their skills and habits, and identify learning needs.

However, entrepreneurs can also engage in feedback seeking to pursue ego and symbolic

goals. For example, feedback can verify emerging self-views, e.g., as a capable entrepreneur

(Demetry, 2017). Thus, entrepreneurs may be motivated to engage in feedback seeking to

enhance their self-views in situations in which they expect positive feedback or feedback consis-

tent with their self-views. Additionally, entrepreneurs may be motivated to engage in feedback

seeking to enhance their public image. They may use the feedback seeking event as an opportu-

nity for self-promotion by subtly including information about their achievements or as a sym-

bolic action (Zott & Huy, 2007) to signal coachability, which is valued by investors (Ciuchta

et al., 2018; Warnick et al., 2018). Finally, initial research suggests that entrepreneurs seek feed-

back to pursue relational goals because feedback inquiries can be a way to safely approach

others, expand social networks, and develop trust (Katre & Salipante, 2012; van Werven

et al., 2022). By seeking feedback, entrepreneurs can socialize their ideas and decisions and test

responses to them, which can allow them to get buy-in and build coalitions to support their

work. For example, an entrepreneur may approach an investor or a gatekeeper for a group of

customers under the guise of asking for feedback. Hence, entrepreneurs may seek feedback that

provides no valuable information but allows them to achieve other valued goals. Although

instrumental, ego, and symbolic goals are well established in OB/AP research on feedback seek-

ing (Anseel et al., 2015; De Stobbeleir et al., 2020; Hays & Williams, 2011), relational goals are

uniquely central to entrepreneurs' experiences because the nature of their work involves manag-

ing relationships with multiple stakeholders.

Avoidance goals

Entrepreneurs can pursue instrumental, symbolic, ego, and relational goals that are hindered

by feedback seeking, and thus, they are motivated to refrain from seeking it. Such goals are

associated with the flight–freeze–fight system (FFFS), which promotes defense against or

avoidance of undesired outcomes, punishment, or harm to the self (Sherf et al., 2023). Instru-

mentally, entrepreneurs may be concerned with idea appropriation when seeking feedback

(Kuhn & Galloway, 2015). To receive feedback on venture-relevant topics, entrepreneurs need

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 15

to share at least some information about their current ideas, offerings, and business models

because they are unlikely to be fully observable by others, particularly those outside of the

venture. Disclosing such information can mean losing competitive advantage when others

appropriately share ideas and implement or improve them more quickly than the entrepre-

neur. Symbolically, entrepreneurs may be motivated to refrain from feedback seeking to

protect their public image because they are often assumed to be competent (Dey al., 2023), and

AP/OB research suggests that feedback seeking can be perceived as a lack of confidence

(Ashford, 1986), which is particularly risky in front of employees. Entrepreneurs may be moti-

vated to refrain from feedback seeking to protect self-views as an ego goal, since feedback is

evaluative information that can challenge entrepreneurs' self-views or threaten their identities

(Grimes, 2018). When entrepreneurs seek feedback to learn and reduce uncertainty, the

feedback is likely to focus on how they can do better, thus drawing attention to potential

weaknesses. Thus, to avoid looking bad to the self and in front of others, entrepreneurs may

avoid feedback seeking. Some evidence suggests that symbolic and ego goals may not influ-

ence feedback seeking when the seeker anticipates feedback with high informational value

(Hays & Williams, 2011; Uy et al., 2023). However, entrepreneurs often do not know whether

they will receive valuable feedback, especially when engaging with a new feedback source.

Thus, the entrepreneurship context changes how these goals are activated and enhances their

importance. Finally, entrepreneurs may pursue relational goals that prompt them to refrain

from seeking feedback if they are concerned about how the act of seeking feedback can dam-

age relationships. For example, they may be concerned that their feedback requests put pres-

sure on (Krasman, 2018) or annoy stakeholders and, in some circumstances, even expose

stigmatized positions when addressing specific social issues (Drencheva et al., 2022). In sum,

entrepreneurs' feedback seeking poses risks. Although it is well established in OB/AP research

that when pursuing symbolic and ego goals individuals may refrain from feedback seeking

(Hays & Williams, 2011), instrumental and relational goals that inhibit feedback seeking have

not yet been considered.

Goal configurations

Individuals rarely pursue only one goal at a time (Richetin et al., 2011), and this is arguably the

case when entrepreneurs seek feedback because of the complexity inherent in their work,

including multiple goals (Wach et al., 2016), multiple roles (Cardon et al., 2013), and multiple

stakeholders with distinct legitimacy demands (Fisher et al., 2017). The goals that entrepreneurs

pursue when seeking feedback can interact with each other in facilitating or conflicting ways.

Two (or more) goals have a facilitative relationship when they can be achieved simultaneously

by seeking (or not seeking) feedback. For example, when entrepreneurs are performing poorly

in one area of their business, they may decide not to seek feedback about this topic to maintain

both their self-view and public image. However, feedback seeking goals can also be conflicting

when the achievement of one goal has a negative impact on the achievement of another goal,

in which case entrepreneurs experience conflicting motivations to both approach and avoid

feedback seeking. For example, learning and image protection goals are conflicting because the

need to seek feedback to learn can be perceived by others as a lack of knowledge. Additionally,

entrepreneurs prioritize goals based on their commitment to each one. Entrepreneurs weigh

the opposing forces to approach or avoid feedback seeking, consciously or not, to decide how

important each goal is for the given situation. For example, they may prioritize the learning

16 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

goal when seeking feedback from peers, and uncertainty reduction and image protection when

seeking feedback from investors.

We theorize three ideal types of goal configurations (Figure 1, Goals) that represent different

points on a continuum and reflect that, at any given time point, entrepreneurs pursue multiple

goals that are of varying importance to them. These goal configurations are not permanent but

develop accordingly for each feedback seeking event. Such a configurational approach is useful

for investigating the dynamics of specific feedback seeking events to understand how they

unfold instead of assuming stable feedback seeking motivations across events. A configurational

approach is also in line with an emerging application of reinforcement sensitivity theory to

understand when and how individuals engage in feedback seeking in different forms (Sherf

et al., 2023).

The approach dominant configuration includes a high commitment to a goal or set of goals

that promote feedback seeking and low levels of commitment to goals that inhibit feedback

seeking. In this configuration, goals promoting feedback seeking, such as learning and uncer-

tainty reduction, are dominant, whereas goals inhibiting feedback seeking, such as protecting

self-views and venture competitiveness, are peripheral. Thus, there are low levels of goal con-

flict, and the dominance of approach goals means that entrepreneurs are motivated to seek

feedback.

The avoid dominant configuration includes high commitment to a (set of ) goal(s) that

inhibit feedback seeking and low levels of commitment to goals that promote feedback seeking.

In this configuration, inhibiting goals, such as self-view and competitiveness protection, are

dominant, whereas goals promoting feedback seeking, such as learning and uncertainty reduc-

tion, are peripheral and pose low levels of conflict. Consequently, entrepreneurs are motivated

to avoid feedback seeking.

The divergent configuration includes a high commitment to conflicting goals that simulta-

neously promote and inhibit feedback seeking. Given the uncertainty (McMullen &

Shepherd, 2006), complexity (Lazear, 2005), multiplicity of goals and stakeholders (Delmar &

Shane, 2004; Wach et al., 2016), identity (Mmbaga et al., 2020), and legitimacy challenges

(Fisher et al., 2017) salient to entrepreneurs' work, this configuration is most likely in feedback

seeking events. Here, entrepreneurs have similar levels of commitment to goals inhibiting feed-

back seeking, such as protecting self-views and competitiveness, and to goals that promote

feedback seeking, such as learning and uncertainty reduction. As this configuration includes

high levels of commitment and conflict, it initiates more complex decision-making and plan-

ning regarding whether or how to seek feedback to meet these goals (Drencheva et al., 2022). A

divergent goal configuration is associated with the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), which

promotes approach–avoid conflict resolution through careful assessment, evaluation, and

responses that minimize risk (Sherf et al., 2023).

Selection of feedback topic and source

To achieve their feedback seeking goals, entrepreneurs need to make decisions about what

(i.e., topic) and from whom (i.e., source) to seek feedback (Figure 1, Selection). Given the uncer-

tain (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006) and complex nature (Lazear, 2005) of entrepreneurs' work,

they are likely to seek feedback on five broad topics: self, venture, business management, entre-

preneurial networks, and relationship management (Figure 1, Feedback topic). These topics

reflect entrepreneurs' learning needs in creating a venture and encompass the key areas of their

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 17

work (Cope, 2005), including uncertainty about the venture and self, complexity related to mul-

tiple goals, roles, and stakeholders, and the need to legitimize both themselves as capable entre-

preneurs and their venture to build support for it.

Seeking feedback related to the self, such as entrepreneurs' personal performance, work–life

balance, and coping with high levels of work demand, is consistent with OB/AP research in

which feedback seeking is a personal resource valued in uncertain environments (Ashford &

Cummings, 1983). Beyond the topics considered in OB/AP research, entrepreneurship research

suggests that entrepreneurs also seek feedback about the venture, including its business model

and the desirability of the offering (e.g., Andries et al., 2013; Corner & Ho, 2010; Corner &

Wu, 2012). The learning perspective on entrepreneurship (Cope, 2005) suggests that entrepre-

neurs can also seek feedback on other topics related to their multiple demands. Thus, they are

likely to seek feedback related to business management as the processes to effectively manage

the venture, such as financial planning, marketing, sales, and talent management. Based on the

learning perspective on entrepreneurship (Cope, 2005), entrepreneurs are also likely to seek

feedback about how to engage with entrepreneurial networks, such as investors, support ser-

vices, incubators, and accelerators, to build support for their venture. They may also seek feed-

back on topics related to relationship management, such as building and managing

relationships with investors or mentors, or maintaining relationships with significant others

and friends who might be under strain (Adisa et al., 2019). In this regard, topics related to entre-

preneurial networks and relationship management are directly linked with entrepreneurs' rela-

tional feedback seeking goals.

In addition to selecting feedback topics, entrepreneurs need to select sources, that is, decide

from whom to seek feedback in an environment of multiple stakeholders (Delmar &

Shane, 2004) with distinct legitimacy demands (Fisher et al., 2017). Entrepreneurs likely con-

sider four core source characteristics when making this decision: accessibility, expert power,

reward power, and competitiveness (Figure 1, Feedback source). First, entrepreneurs likely con-

sider how easily they can approach a potential feedback source based on proximity to their ven-

tures and existing relationships. Entrepreneurship research suggests that entrepreneurs seek

feedback from individuals inside their ventures by approaching co-founders and employees,

who are easily accessible (e.g., Gemmell et al., 2012; Volery et al., 2015). They may also consider

seeking feedback from individuals who are in the proximity of the venture, such as personal

advisors, early customers, family members, and friends (Corner & Wu, 2012; Drencheva

et al., 2022; Kaffka et al., 2021; van Werven et al., 2022), or who share space with them, such as

peers in an incubator or an accelerator (Seidel et al., 2016). Entrepreneurs may also seek feed-

back from individuals outside of their social networks; however, they are usually less accessible

and pose higher effort costs and goal-related risks.

Second, entrepreneurs are likely to consider the expert power of potential feedback sources

inside and outside the venture. Expert power (French & Raven, 1959) refers to the desired

knowledge that a feedback source is anticipated to have that would be beneficial for the entre-

preneur. This can be formal knowledge gained through education and training or first-hand

experience with specific processes, business models, or customer groups. Expert power shapes

the informational value of the anticipated feedback (Anseel et al., 2015) in relation to entrepre-

neurs' instrumental goals and the topic they have selected for a feedback inquiry. For example,

entrepreneurs seek feedback from peers who have first-hand experience with the entrepreneur-

ship process (Collewaert et al., 2016; Kuhn & Galloway, 2015) in addition to experts with

unique knowledge (Kaffka et al., 2021; Katre & Salipante, 2012). However, entrepreneurs may

also seek feedback from an employee with intimate knowledge of the venture's customers.

18 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

Ultimately, the expert power of feedback sources is likely to enhance the informational value of

the feedback and thus can enable entrepreneurs to achieve their instrumental goals that stem

from the complexity and uncertainty of their work.

Third, entrepreneurs likely consider the reward power of potential feedback sources outside

the venture. Reward power (French & Raven, 1959) is the perceived capacity or opportunity of

feedback sources to influence positive outcomes for the venture, such as investing in the ven-

ture, buying its products, or increasing visibility. Reward power is important for entrepreneurs'

instrumental goals because, by understanding and meeting the needs and expectations of a

feedback source with high reward power, they may gain new customers or investments. Addi-

tionally, entrepreneurs likely consider the reward power of feedback sources to achieve sym-

bolic and relational goals regardless of the feedback topic. For example, entrepreneurs likely

consider the reward power of feedback sources when seeking feedback to present themselves as

coachable and open to feedback (Ciuchta et al., 2018; Warnick et al., 2018) or to signal being

invested in specific relationships (Drencheva et al., 2021). This is consistent with research that

suggests entrepreneurs seek feedback from investors and customers who can provide financial

rewards (Corner & Wu, 2012; Gemmell et al., 2012), as well as from community leaders who

can provide access to markets (Katre & Salipante, 2012).

Finally, entrepreneurs likely consider the competitiveness of feedback sources outside of

the venture when pursuing instrumental feedback seeking goals. They arguably consider the

likelihood of the feedback source to appropriate their ideas (Kuhn & Galloway, 2015). This

consideration is particularly relevant when feedback is sought from peers with similar busi-

ness models targeting the same markets, or entrepreneurs in the same theme-based incubator

or accelerator.

Entrepreneurs' selection of feedback sources and topics is iterative (Figure 1, arrows inside

Selection) in line with their goal configurations. There are likely more iterations when entrepre-

neurs pursue divergent goal configurations with approach–avoid conflict (Sherf et al., 2023)

because more decisions need to be made to seek feedback safely in comparison to when entre-

preneurs pursue dominant goal configurations. More specifically, entrepreneurs are unlikely to

consider the four characteristics of potential feedback sources one by one. Instead, their itera-

tive decision-making in the selection phase acknowledges that source characteristics are interre-

lated and that they are interconnected with feedback topics and goals (Drencheva et al., 2022).

First, potential feedback sources differ in their effectiveness in providing feedback on specific

topics. For example, accessible feedback sources, such as co-founders and employees, have the

most information to provide feedback about the entrepreneur as an individual. Feedback

sources with reward power, such as customers or investors, can provide feedback about the ven-

ture in relation to the desirability of its offerings, while those with expert power can provide

feedback on business management and entrepreneurial networks. Second, potential feedback

sources may also prime new goals than those envisaged at the start of the feedback seeking

event. For example, entrepreneurs may be concerned with protecting their image as competent

and confident in front of employees, whom they deem to be the most accessible feedback source

while pursuing an image enhancement goal with investors by demonstrating openness to feed-

back (Ciuchta et al., 2018; Warnick et al., 2018). Thus, during the selection phase, entrepreneurs

iteratively evaluate the appropriateness of potential sources based on the selected topic and

salient goals, while potentially changing the goal configuration and topics selected based on the

selected sources. In this regard, the more salient a divergent goal configuration is, the more

likely entrepreneurs are to make cautious choices in line with BIS (Sherf et al., 2023).

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 19

Finally, during the selection phase, entrepreneurs likely engage in framing (Cornelissen &

Werner, 2014), that is, they consider how to ask sources for feedback through rhetorical devices

and topic crafting to meet multiple goals (Wach et al., 2016) and distinct legitimacy demands

(Fisher et al., 2017). They arguably consider how to present the feedback inquiry in ways that

highlight certain aspects, downplay others, or selectively disclose information. For example, a

feedback inquiry may be presented to employees as an attempt to create a positive work envi-

ronment where employee voice is valued to minimize potential image risks. In front of peers,

entrepreneurs may position a feedback inquiry as an attempt to support the community, thus

minimizing competitiveness risks by highlighting community benefits. Although not considered

in OB/AP research on feedback seeking, framing of feedback inquiries is likely to be an impor-

tant way for entrepreneurs to minimize the costs of seeking it, and to achieve avoidance feed-

back seeking goals without refraining from pursuing it. Indeed, framing is in line with

emerging research in OB/AP showing that individuals use different forms of feedback seeking

to address approach–avoid goal conflict (Sherf et al., 2023).

Feedback inquiry to request feedback

Following their goal setting and selection of feedback topics and sources, entrepreneurs request

feedback. When focusing on the characteristics of feedback inquiries, it is important to note that

not seeking feedback is also a possibility at this stage (Figure 1, Feedback Inquiry), particularly

when an avoid dominant goal configuration is very strong (e.g., including a high commitment

to competitiveness and self-view protection). We suggest that the key aspects of the feedback

inquiry relate to directness and privacy.

First, entrepreneurs likely engage in feedback inquiries with varying degrees of directness

(Parker & Collins, 2010; Sherf et al., 2023). On one end of the directness continuum are open

feedback requests, for example, an entrepreneur specifically requesting feedback from an inves-

tor on the scalability of their venture. On the other end of the directness continuum are indirect

feedback inquiries whereby entrepreneurs attempt to conceal their feedback requests. These

feedback requests can be seen as covert whereby entrepreneurs test the waters either by

approaching the topic generally or directing the conversation toward the desired topic without

requesting feedback, for example, an entrepreneur having a conversation with an investor dur-

ing a networking event and focusing the conversation on a specific type of business model that

is relevant to them, without asking for feedback on their own business model. Direct inquiries

are likely to be the result of strong approach goal configurations (Sherf et al., 2023). They can

provide clear and unambiguous feedback, useful for learning and reducing uncertainty

(McMullen & Shepherd, 2006), as well as clearly demonstrating entrepreneurs' desire to meet

stakeholders' needs and expectations to obtain legitimacy (Fisher et al., 2017). In contrast, indi-

rect inquiries are likely with divergent goal configurations that represent approach–avoid con-

flict (Sherf et al., 2023). Indirect inquiries are “safe”tactics as they lower risks related to

symbolic, ego, and competitive goals by drawing less attention to the feedback request and shar-

ing less information, thus recognizing the complexity (Lazear, 2005) and identity challenges

(Mmbaga et al., 2020) of entrepreneurship.

Second, entrepreneurs' feedback inquiries are likely to vary in the degree of their privacy

(Levy et al., 1995; Williams et al., 1999). On the one end of the privacy continuum are public

and open feedback requests whereby the entrepreneur is identifiable, and the feedback inquiry

is observable by others beyond the feedback source. For example, entrepreneurs may request

20 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

feedback through blog posts and online discussion boards (Fisher, 2012), which can involve

multiple feedback sources simultaneously and observers who do not participate in the interac-

tion, and where the identity of the entrepreneur is shared. Entrepreneurs are likely to seek feed-

back publicly when motivated by approach dominant goal configurations where the act of

seeking feedback and its value is expected to be high. This enables entrepreneurs to obtain more

feedback to improve their offerings (Fisher, 2012) or increase the visibility of their symbolic

action to meet legitimacy demands (Fisher et al., 2017). On the other end of the privacy contin-

uum are private feedback inquiries that involve only those engaged in the interaction. For

example, entrepreneurs may seek feedback from influential customers via one-to-one meetings.

Private inquiries are likely motivated by divergent goal configurations to achieve symbolic, ego,

and instrumental goals. Importantly, privacy is an easily navigable continuum for entrepre-

neurs. For example, they can seek feedback in online forums (Kuhn & Galloway, 2015) that

involve multiple feedback sources and observers without disclosing their identities. Recent

research shows that approximately 5% of posts by entrepreneurs on anonymous forums are

requests for feedback (Williamson, Drencheva & Battisti, 2022).

Overall, how entrepreneurs seek feedback by varying directness and privacy can help them

to navigate conflicting goals without reducing the frequency of feedback seeking, in accordance

with the BIS to promote caution in navigating conflicting goals (Sherf et al., 2023).

The nature of received feedback

Entrepreneurs' feedback inquiries may result in feedback or be dismissed. Although under-

examined in OB/AP, dismissing feedback inquiries, either knowingly or not, is likely in the

entrepreneurship context (Drencheva et al., 2021). Those approached for feedback may dismiss

the request because they do not feel able to contribute; they may lack the confidence to respond

due to power dynamics or perceive their knowledge to be irrelevant. Those approached for feed-

back may also ignore the request because they lack the motivation or time to contribute. For

example, when entrepreneurs' frequent feedback inquiries elicit negative affect between spouses

(Drencheva et al., 2022).

Recognizing that the absence of feedback is possible, we turn to the content of the feedback

provided. We focus on the feedback provided across three main categories: verifying, challeng-

ing, and expanding (Figure 1, Feedback), thereby enhancing how the content of feedback can

be examined in OB/AP research, which has focused on feedback as positive or negative

(Kinicki et al., 2005; Rosen et al., 2006; Steelman et al., 2004). First, entrepreneurs can receive

verifying feedback. Verifying feedback confirms entrepreneurs' behaviors, decisions, and cogni-

tive schemas as appropriate and effective. It signals that current approaches are working. For

example, verifying feedback can confirm product–market fit or individuals' emerging self-views

as entrepreneurs (Demetry, 2017). Verifying feedback serves as a positive signal to maintain the

status quo and continue current efforts. Second, entrepreneurs can receive challenging feedback,

which disconfirms or questions the effectiveness or appropriateness of their behaviors, deci-

sions, and cognitive schemas (e.g., Grimes, 2018; Harrison & Rouse, 2015; Kaffka et al., 2021).

Challenging feedback signals that current approaches may be ineffective, inappropriate, or

insufficient and require change. For example, challenging feedback can raise questions about

product–market fit (Grimes, 2018). Such feedback highlights gaps and discrepancies from

benchmarks and expectations, thus serving as a corrective function and prescription for change.

Finally, entrepreneurs can receive expanding feedback. Expanding feedback offers novel

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 21

perspectives, viewpoints, and questions that offer alternative methods of exploration going for-

ward (e.g., Harrison & Rouse, 2015; Kaffka et al., 2021). This type of feedback does not necessar-

ily confirm or disconfirm the effectiveness or appropriateness of entrepreneurs' behaviors,

decisions, and cognitive schemas but offers additional directions for enhancing their effective-

ness. For example, expanding feedback can provide suggestions for product–market fit in new

industries that both complement and look beyond the current business model.

The obtained feedback and the accumulation of feedback seeking events shape entrepre-

neurial and social outcomes.

Outcomes of feedback seeking for entrepreneurs and their social

environment

Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking can shape outcomes for the entrepreneur and their venture as

well as their immediate and wider social environment (Figure 1, Entrepreneurial and Social

Outcomes). These outcomes depend on two mechanisms: a content-based mechanism (Figure 1,

Arrow from Feedback to Entrepreneurial Outcomes) and an action-based mechanism

(Figure 1, Arrow from Feedback-Seeking Event to Social Outcomes). Outcomes underpinned by

the content-based mechanism depend on the obtained feedback as a specific type of informa-

tion that entrepreneurs use for their future decisions and behaviors. Additionally, the act of

seeking feedback can be valuable or harmful beyond the information obtained. Outcomes

underpinned by the action-based mechanism stem from the mere act of requesting feedback

and how this act is perceived by others.

Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking can lead to two broad categories of interrelated outcomes:

entrepreneurial outcomes related to the entrepreneur and their venture, and social outcomes

related to their immediate and wider social environment. We now explain these key categories

of outcomes. OB/AP research demonstrates the great variety of outcomes possible for the indi-

vidual in terms of performance, satisfaction, and learning (for reviews, see Anseel et al., 2015;

Ashford et al., 2016). A discussion of all the potential ways in which feedback seeking influ-

ences the entrepreneur, their venture, and the environment is not possible in one article.

Hence, we will focus on categories of outcomes and explicate, as examples, (1) entrepreneurial

outcomes related to the processing and use of feedback aligned with the unique nature of

entrepreneurs' work, including uncertainty (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006), complexity

(Lazear, 2005), multiplicity of goals and stakeholders (Delmar & Shane, 2004; Wach et al., 2016)

with distinct legitimacy demands (Fisher et al., 2017), and strong identification with the venture

(Mmbaga et al., 2020) and (2) the social outcomes related to long-term impact on others. We

have chosen these outcomes because they have received limited attention to date (Anseel

et al., 2015; Gorgievski et al., 2021; Parker et al., 2019) but are fundamental to the influence of

feedback seeking on entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurial outcomes

The entrepreneurial outcomes of feedback seeking may be cognitive–affective, cognitive, and

behavioral. These outcomes depend on the content of the provided feedback (i.e., the content-

based mechanism) and its manifestation after the feedback seeking event.

22 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

Cognitive–affective outcomes

Cognitive–affective outcomes describe the impact upon entrepreneurs' mental and associated

affective processes originating from how the entrepreneur processes the obtained feedback in

relation to the self. Specifically, feedback seeking may change entrepreneurs' self-views as a cog-

nitive schema, helping them understand themselves as unique individuals (Ramarajan, 2014)

who are also strongly connected to their ventures (Mmbaga et al., 2020). The content of the pro-

vided feedback influences one's self-views because it is evaluative information. This is true even

when evaluative information is not directly focused on the individual because entrepreneurs'

work and their venture often express their self-views (Grimes, 2018). The content of the pro-

vided feedback can maintain, enhance, or challenge entrepreneurs' self-views (Chang &

Swann, 2012; Hepper & Sedikides, 2012). When entrepreneurs receive feedback that they per-

ceive as consistent with how they see themselves, they are likely to maintain coherent self-

views and experience positive affect (Arora et al., 2013; Baron et al., 2012). Such feedback is

likely to be verifying in its content. When entrepreneurs receive feedback perceived as an exten-

sion of how they currently see themselves, this will likely enhance their self-views

(Demetry, 2017) and enable them to experience positive affect (Arora et al., 2013; Baron

et al., 2012). Such feedback is likely to be expanding or verifying when individuals begin to see

themselves as entrepreneurs (Demetry, 2017). However, challenging feedback that is inconsis-

tent with how entrepreneurs see themselves is likely to damage their self-view (Grimes, 2018)

and consequently elicit negative affect (Arora et al., 2013; Williamson, Drencheva & Wolfe ,

2022). Entrepreneurs may experience such feedback as a distressing threat to who they are,

prompting reflection on how they see themselves with an impact on their wellbeing

(Drencheva, 2019).

Cognitive outcomes

Cognitive outcomes that entrepreneurs experience from feedback seeking relate to the

processing and use of the provided feedback to navigate the complexity (Lazear, 2005) and mul-

tiplicity (Wach et al., 2016) of their work. As reflective and self-regulatory actors (Frese, 2020),

entrepreneurs engage in active reflection and goal setting upon receiving feedback. Reflection is

a form of intensive elaboration that allocates cognitive resources to the processing of the

obtained feedback (Daudelin, 1996; Hall, 2002) and crystallizes its meaning. Thus, reflection

increases entrepreneurs' awareness of what they have gained from the feedback inquiry. It

enables them to be explicit about the information gained and identify learning needs as well as

discrepancies in performance that they can address through future learning initiatives or as a

means of changing behaviors and decisions. However, upon reflection, entrepreneurs may also

dismiss provided feedback, concluding that it does not accurately capture their efforts and ven-

tures (Grimes, 2018).

Depending on the content of the feedback, entrepreneurs can set new or revise existing

goals (e.g., Corner & Wu, 2012; Sarasvathy, 2008). Expanding and challenging feedback can

offer new and different perspectives and allow entrepreneurs to engage in convergent and diver-

gent thinking (Volery et al., 2015) to set new goals. For example, by obtaining feedback from

potential customers, entrepreneurs can identify and develop new product features they never

previously envisioned (Corner & Wu, 2012; Fisher, 2012). However, if they approach too many

individuals, they may receive an overwhelming amount of diverse feedback, which may have

been the case with Jack Dorsey, who received over 500 feedback responses (Carr, 2014). Entre-

preneurs can receive conflicting feedback if they approach individuals from different back-

grounds. Diverse individuals can bring different perspectives to their feedback but also

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 23

represent specific agendas and strategic interests based on their relationship with the venture

(e.g., investors vs. employees). Thus, entrepreneurs are likely to set new goals as they reconcile

different perspectives and their own vision for the venture (Grimes, 2018). In contrast, verifying

feedback confirms behaviors and decisions as effective and appropriate. Thus, when entrepre-

neurs receive verifying feedback, they are likely to maintain or revise existing goals to preserve

their effectiveness or improve them through adaptation (e.g., Corner & Wu, 2012; Fisher, 2012;

Katre & Salipante, 2012).

Behavioral outcomes

Behavioral outcomes are consequences of the feedback seeking event that represent actions

undertaken by the entrepreneur to cope with the complexity (Lazear, 2005) and uncertainty

(McMullen & Shepherd, 2006) of their work, such as changes to their behaviors and ventures,to

increase effectiveness and appropriateness across the five categories of feedback content

(Figure 1, Feedback topic). Behavioral outcomes depend on receiving feedback and making

sense of it (Kaffka et al., 2021), seeking to build on the cognitive outcomes to achieve existing

or revised goals. Emerging research shows that entrepreneurs might not take any action to

change behaviors and ventures (e.g., Grimes, 2018) or make changes that vary in scale and com-

prehensiveness of change effort. On the one hand, entrepreneurs can modify their behaviors

and ventures to make repairs and adjustments to existing work, models, approaches, and roles

(Grimes, 2018). They can achieve this by adding, subtracting, or replacing aspects of what they

do or altering their function. For example, they can add a new customer segment to their exis-

ting business model (Andries et al., 2013) or delegate recruitment-related tasks to others in the

venture. On the other hand, entrepreneurs can re-engineer their behaviors and ventures to rep-

resent entirely new approaches, models, and roles (Grimes, 2018). Their re-engineering efforts

allow the replacement of key components underpinning their work and business models based

on the received feedback. For example, re-engineering efforts can include completely re-

imagining their business model and how it creates and captures value (Andries et al., 2013)or

changing the role they enact in their venture from innovator to manager (Mathias &

Williams, 2018). Indeed, changes in entrepreneurs' behaviors and ventures based on feedback

are viewed as inherently beneficial for the venture in entrepreneurship research

(e.g., Bhave, 1994; Haynie et al., 2012; Muñoz et al., 2018).

Social outcomes

As entrepreneurs work with multiple stakeholders inside and outside their ventures (Delmar &

Shane, 2004), we propose that their feedback seeking can also have outcomes for others in the

social environment of entrepreneurs, which so far have been neglected in OB/AP. Feedback seek-

ing can influence entrepreneurs' immediate work environment, such as shaping relational

dynamics with stakeholders and the culture of their venture. Feedback seeking can also influ-

ence entrepreneurs' wider social environment, such as shaping norms within the local commu-

nity of practice. These social outcomes are underpinned by the action-based mechanism

because they depend on how the act of requesting feedback is perceived, rather than the feed-

back itself. These outcomes are unlikely to emerge from a single feedback seeking event; rather,

they result from aggregated feedback seeking events that shape relationships and norms.

24 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

Outcomes in the immediate environment

Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking likely influences their immediate work environment by shaping

the relational dynamics between entrepreneurs and their stakeholders, including advisory

boards, investors, and employees; it is also based on trust, perceptions toward the entrepreneur,

and organizational culture. Entrepreneurs can use feedback seeking to grow their networks

strategically by reaching out to individuals outside their immediate circles and including feed-

back sources in advisory boards. Requesting feedback provides a reason to ask for an introduc-

tion to, or directly approach, individuals outside of one's network. For example, Katre and

Salipante (2012) describe how social entrepreneurs grow and diversify their personal networks

by actively seeking feedback from social mission, industry, and business experts, and thus build-

ing coalitions to gain support and legitimacy.

Feedback seeking can influence the quality of relationships between entrepreneurs and stake-

holders. Recent inductive studies show how feedback sources can become formal advisors to the

entrepreneur instead of providing feedback in one-off interactions (Drencheva et al., 2022;van

Werven et al., 2022). These findings suggest that feedback seeking helps to develop trust as a qual-

ity of relationships that develops over time (Mayer et al., 1995). Feedback seeking reflects an

entrepreneur's willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another individual based on the

expectation that the individual, such as an investor, employee, or peer, will perform a particular

action important to the entrepreneur, regardless of their ability to control or monitor the individ-

ual (Mayer et al., 1995). Feedback requests show personal vulnerability, such as an entrepreneur

revealing that they do not know about marketing even though that might be expected from them.

Such vulnerability and willingness to take a personal risk demonstrates initial trust in the feed-

back source. By providing feedback, the source signals trustworthiness because of their compe-

tence and benevolence (Mayer et al., 1995). This creates a feedback loop and strengthens

confidence that future interactions will produce positive outcomes. Thus, feedback seeking can

increase trust when feedback sources engage with the request.

However, stakeholders' involvement in advisory roles following feedback requests likely

depends on the way in which the entrepreneur seeks feedback. Entrepreneurs' public image rep-

resents the perceptions others have of them, such as whether or not they seem caring, ruthless, or

lacking focus, and feedback seeking can influence this image based on what the audience deems

acceptable and desirable. For example, investors prize entrepreneurs' coachability (Ciuchta

et al., 2018; Warnick et al., 2018). Investors also recognize the importance of an entrepreneur's

positive public image (Chahine et al., 2011) for legitimacy. Thus, investors are likely to consider

feedback seeking as desirable (Fisher et al., 2017) and view entrepreneurs who seek it positively.

However, employees, crowdfunding supporters, and customers likely place a higher value on reci-

procity, community engagement, and a shared emotional connection. They prize actions demon-

strating that community members are valued and that entrepreneurs are active members of the

community (Fisher et al., 2017). When these audiences perceive that entrepreneurs seek feedback

only for symbolic reasons, they are likely to view them negatively because such actions violate

their values and trust. In contrast, such audiences likely view instrumentally motivated feedback

seeking in a positive light, which can contribute to trust development.

Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking can also influence their immediate social work environ-

ment by catalyzing feedback cultures in their ventures. Feedback cultures are organizational

environments in which entrepreneurs, employees, and involved stakeholders feel comfortable

and safe to seek, give, receive, and use feedback for individual and venture development

(adapted from London & Smither, 2002). Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking can be a sign of vul-

nerability and authenticity (Laguna et al., 2019). It can make feedback seeking and giving not

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 25

only socially acceptable but also desirable inside the venture, thus opening channels for

employees to provide feedback (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). As individuals learn by observing

others (Bandura, 1977), entrepreneurs who frequently seek feedback from employees and other

stakeholders act as role models encouraging others to be more proactive in their approach to

feedback. This can shape venture norms of feedback seeking, leading to individual employees

seeking more feedback (Ashford & Northcraft, 1992). Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking can also

enhance the quality of relationships with employees, as suggested by research on employees

and supervisors (Lam et al., 2007). High-quality relationships can enable employees to provide

upward feedback (Kudisch et al., 2006) to the entrepreneur (Chen et al., 2007; Chun

et al., 2014), from the entrepreneur, and as a means of benefiting from the feedback environ-

ment (Anseel & Lievens, 2007). Thus, entrepreneurs' feedback seeking can influence their

immediate work context in relation to employees' feedback seeking and giving.

Outcomes in the wider environment

Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking can influence their wider environment through the emergence

and strengthening of feedback cultures. Entrepreneurs develop their ideas, ventures, and prac-

tices through local communities of practice (Lefebvre et al., 2015). Such communities are both

place-based, bringing together entrepreneurs from the same territory, and practice-based, bring-

ing together individuals who want to improve their work as entrepreneurs through regular

interactions (Bacq et al., 2022). These communities have their own norms that reflect the

actions of most people in the community and the actions considered to be morally correct

(Reno et al., 1993), thus shaping the behavior within the community. Communities of practice

are built around a shared desire to learn, which includes sharing information, best practices,

novel ways of working (Lefebvre et al., 2015), and potentially seeking and giving feedback.

By frequent engagement in feedback seeking within the local community of practice, entre-

preneurs can act as role models (Bandura, 1977) and contribute to the strengthening of norms

according to which seeking feedback is the common behavior within the local community of

practice. However, in some communities of practice, feedback seeking and giving may not be

common. In such communities, entrepreneurs' frequent feedback seeking within the community

can lead to the emergence of new norms when a tipping point is reached and enough entrepre-

neurs engage in feedback seeking to normalize the behavior (De et al., 2018). However, entrepre-

neurs might fear peers exploiting the feedback process to appropriate their ideas (Kuhn &

Galloway, 2015). Thus, along with role modeling feedback seeking in the community, entrepre-

neurs are also likely to establish a shared understanding of the desired moral behaviors related to

feedback interactions. For example, they may put effort into creating norms that make appropriat-

ing ideas from peers after feedback seeking morally undesirable. Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking

within the local community of practice can thus contribute to the development of feedback cul-

tures at the community levels (beyond the venture) as environments in which entrepreneurs feel

comfortable and safe to be vulnerable and seek, give, receive, and use feedback for individual

learning and venture development (adapted from London & Smither, 2002).

Dynamics of interpersonal feedback seeking

We have discussed feedback seeking as a linear process to provide a detailed explanation of a

single feedback seeking event. However, feedback seeking is a dynamic process that changes

within a single feedback seeking event and between multiple events.

26 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

First, feedback seeking is a dynamic process within a single event in which entrepreneurs

iteratively plan and monitor the process. Planning refers to gathering information, considering

options, and preparing personal actions for the next few seconds, minutes, days, or even months

(Frese, 2020) that help entrepreneurs seek feedback. In this regard, planning links how entre-

preneurs translate their goals into feedback inquiries with specific sources on specific topics

with a given degree of privacy and directness (Figure 1, arrows to Selection and to Feedback

Inquiry). Planning connects the continuous decisions entrepreneurs make about why, on what

topic, from whom, and how to seek feedback that reflects the complexity (Lazear, 2005) and

multiplicity of goals (Wach et al., 2016) and the stakeholders (Delmar & Shane, 2004) who epit-

omize their work.

Planning can vary in degree from effortful, salient, and elaborate (characterized as “elabo-

rate planning”) to low planning that is spontaneous, serendipitous, and not immediately

observable. When entrepreneurs engage in elaborate planning (Frese, 2020), they comprehen-

sively consider their resources, how to search for feedback sources, and how to frame their feed-

back requests. Elaborate planning is more likely when pursuing divergent goal configurations

in line with the BIS (Sherf et al., 2023). For example, when entrepreneurs consider seeking feed-

back from investors with whom they do not have a relationship, they will attempt to balance

image and uncertainty reduction goals. Entrepreneurs can also engage in low planning, which

can occur momentarily with little preparation, and decisions are made in an intuitive way.

Entrepreneurs are more likely to engage in low planning when pursuing dominant goal config-

urations and in situations for which they have developed routines as ready-to-use models of

how to seek feedback (e.g., a quick chat with an employee). In such cases, the boundaries

between planning, selection, and inquiry are blurred as they occur seemingly simultaneously

(Frese, 2020).

Notably, a feedback seeking event does not progress in a linear fashion from one phase to

another but is iteratively driven by unique goal configurations and monitoring (Figure 1, dotted

arrows between Feedback, Feedback Inquiry, Selection, and Goals). Each feedback seeking

event starts with a specific goal configuration, which poses unique requirements for the feed-

back inquiry. An entrepreneur may move back and forth between phases as they monitor the

process in relation to the goal(s) (Frese, 2020). For example, they may “test the waters”by ask-

ing another entrepreneur for feedback about their e-commerce website with an indirect request

during a networking event. Based on this brief interaction, the entrepreneur may revert to plan-

ning and selection to consider the exact feedback request and degree of directness. During the

feedback inquiry, entrepreneurs also participate in shaping the feedback provided by asking for

clarification and explanation as well as providing explanations consistent with their goals (van

Werven et al., 2022). They may identify new goals or reconsider seeking feedback from a spe-

cific source due to an avoid–goal configuration as new goals become salient during the interac-

tion. Throughout the process, an entrepreneur may identify new goals, vary the degree of detail

involved in their planning, change how directly or privately they seek feedback, and even

approach new individuals for feedback.

Second, feedback seeking is likely a dynamic process between events because goal reflection

and learning shape future feedback seeking events. Upon receiving (or not receiving) feedback

and upon deciding to refrain from seeking feedback, entrepreneurs consider whether their feed-

back seeking goals are achieved within the event (Figure 1, arrows from Feedback Inquiry and

Feedback to Goals). This can be an immediate influence when the specific goals motivating the

entrepreneur to seek feedback are achieved, meaning the entrepreneur is less likely to seek

feedback about the same topic to achieve the same goals. However, if the goals are not

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 27

achieved, the entrepreneur may initiate another feedback seeking event to achieve these goals

with different decisions related to planning, selection, and inquiry.

Additionally, feedback seeking events can have a delayed influence based on learning

(Figure 1top, Learning). Entrepreneurs not only reflect on how well feedback seeking helps

them to achieve their goals but also learn about what works (or does not) from previous interac-

tions. As entrepreneurs realize beneficial outcomes in relation to specific goals resulting from

certain feedback inquiries and the decisions leading to them, they are likely to develop patterns

of how, from whom, and on what topics to seek feedback to achieve goals that vary according

to each interaction. They will learn how to request feedback indirectly and to frame their

request as a safe tactic when pursuing a divergent goal configuration or seeking feedback pub-

licly when pursuing an approach goal configuration. For example, an entrepreneur may learn

that investors and employees make different image judgments about the entrepreneur's feed-

back seeking and related goals. Consequently, the entrepreneur may hide or demonstrate their

motivations based on their audience in the future. As entrepreneurs develop specific feedback

seeking patterns, the process becomes a routine activity with ready-to-go models that require

less elaborate planning (Frese, 2009) for a given period, until venture development and changes

(Baron, 2007) catalyze new challenges and circumstances that disrupt routines.

In summary, the dynamic aspects of the feedback seeking process explain why and how an

entrepreneur's feedback seeking events are iterative and vary over time.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In this article, we theorize a model that explicates how entrepreneurs seek feedback as a proac-

tive, dynamic, and relational process by building upon and integrating emerging entrepreneur-

ship and established OB/AP research on feedback and feedback seeking.

Implications for entrepreneurship research

This article broadens the perspective on feedback phenomena in entrepreneurship research by

expanding the focus from feedback—as a type of information—to feedback seeking as a process.

Complementing the focus on feedback as a type of information given to entrepreneurs by the

external environment (e.g., Grimes, 2018; Muñoz et al., 2018), we frame feedback seeking as a

relational, dynamic process initiated by entrepreneurs to proactively engage with the external

environment and meet diverse goals. Consequently, we clarify and differentiate feedback seeking

from broader information and support seeking phenomena (Table 1), based on its evaluative and

relational aspects. By explicating feedback seeking as a process and theorizing why and how this

process (fails to) unfold(s), our model responds to calls to illuminate the microlevel aspects of

social interactions that underpin entrepreneurs' work (Berglund et al., 2020; Pryor et al., 2016).

Feedback seeking plays a role in key entrepreneurial theories and processes, such as effectual

decision-making (Sarasvathy, 2001,2008) to cope with uncertainty (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006)

and to progress venture development (Baron, 2007), resource mobilization through bricolage

(Baker & Nelson, 2005;Fisher,2012), legitimacy development (Fisher et al., 2017), and the learn-

ing perspective on entrepreneurship (Cope, 2005). This existing work considers feedback as a type

of information useful to entrepreneurs but acknowledges that microlevel social interactions

involved in feedback seeking open up new perspectives in three ways.

28 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

First, our process theorizing complements entrepreneurship research that focuses on the

instrumental value of feedback (requests) to enhance venture performance (Gemmell

et al., 2012; Katre & Salipante, 2012; Volery et al., 2015) by drawing attention to areas of

neglect, such as the costs of seeking feedback related to relationships, self-views, and image,

that are tied to the relational nature of the process. Entrepreneurs become vulnerable as they

open themselves to negative judgment from others and risk damaging their self-view, whereas

others' perceptions of entrepreneurs (e.g., as (in)competent and (il)legitimate) may also change,

highlighting the symbolic implications of feedback seeking. Although self-view and image costs

are established in OB/AP research on feedback seeking (e.g., Hays & Williams, 2011) and have

helped to inform our theorizing, they have been overlooked in entrepreneurship research

(e.g., van Werven et al., 2022). The self-view costs of feedback seeking can weigh especially

heavily on entrepreneurs (more so than on employees) because entrepreneurs' identity is closely

intertwined with their venture (Mmbaga et al., 2020). For instance, research on entrepreneurs'

mental health suggests that they interpret the negative performance of their ventures as a direct

challenge to their entrepreneurial identity, which can have severely negative consequences on

their wellbeing (Stephan, 2018).

By drawing attention to the costs of feedback seeking, our model can explain counterintui-

tive findings that explain why some entrepreneurs seek feedback infrequently (Katre &

Salipante, 2012) despite the anticipated benefits (Gemmell et al., 2012; Volery et al., 2015). By

considering the action- and content-based mechanisms that underpin feedback seeking out-

comes separately, we offer insights into how feedback seeking can contribute to negative psy-

chological, social, or emotional states resulting from engaging in entrepreneurial action

(Shepherd, 2019, p.217). Thus, we give nuance to the dominant perspective that feedback seek-

ing (e.g., Gemmell et al., 2012; Katre & Salipante, 2012; Volery et al., 2015) and feedback

(e.g., Bhave, 1994; Haynie et al., 2012) are always desirable and beneficial. This has important

implications for theories and perspectives, such as effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001,2008), brico-

lage (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Fisher, 2012), learning (Cope, 2005), and legitimacy (Fisher

et al., 2017) that only consider the desirable and beneficial effects of feedback seeking.

Acknowledging its costs helps us to understand for instance, why entrepreneurs may refrain

from fully embracing effectuation and bricolage principles when building their ventures, and

why they may forego opportunities to learn—seeking feedback may undermine rather than

build their legitimacy or damage relationships when the ask is too much.

Second, by theorizing feedback seeking as a proactive process in which entrepreneurs navi-

gate challenges and costs through iterative goal setting, planning, monitoring, selection of

topics and sources, framing, and developing inquiries with different characteristics, we shift

entrepreneurship research from investigating entrepreneurs as passive recipients of feedback to

active co-creators of feedback. Much existing research portrays entrepreneurs as passive recipi-

ents of feedback that they need to make sense of (Kaffka et al., 2021) and incorporate into their

ventures (Bhave, 1994). This research asks, “Why don't entrepreneurs seek or use feedback?”

(e.g., Grimes, 2018) and investigates the negative consequences of ignoring feedback (Haynie

et al., 2012). Our model shifts the research attention to asking, “How do entrepreneurs shape

the feedback they obtain?”Our proactive perspective on feedback seeking aligns with portrayals

of entrepreneurs as self-regulating agents (Frese, 2020; McMullen et al., 2021) and with OB/AP

research on feedback seeking (Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Our work invites

entrepreneurship research to ask new questions, such as when and what feedback is useful for

entrepreneurs from their own perspective, and how they obtain such feedback through the

dynamic feedback seeking process. Thus, our model changes how we view entrepreneurs in

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 29

relation to feedback by portraying them as agentic, self-regulating actors who are mindful of

their social environment.

Finally, our theorizing of feedback seeking charts novel ways in which entrepreneurs influ-

ence their immediate social environment, including family members, friends, co-founders,

employees, and their wider environment, such as their local communities. We extend the domi-

nant perspective in entrepreneurship research that the social environment influences entrepre-

neurs and their ventures through feedback (Bhave, 1994) by proposing that entrepreneurs'

feedback seeking can also influence the social environment through relational dynamics and

shaping norms. Our theorizing further exemplifies these social outcomes by focusing on how

feedback seeking can shape the development of advisory boards and feedback cultures within

ventures and local communities of practice. This is in line with emerging research suggesting

that social entrepreneurs' feedback seeking can have an impact on relationship dynamics with

family members who may feel overwhelmed and exhausted by feedback requests, and with ser-

vice users whose stigmatized experiences may be exposed through entrepreneurs' feedback

requests (Drencheva et al., 2022). Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking also creates platforms for

employees to have a voice, thus allowing others to contribute to ideas, decisions, and organiza-

tional culture, instead of assuming entrepreneurs and their imprinting as the main sources of

venture decisions and design.

By proposing that entrepreneurs can have an impact on their social environments through

feedback seeking, we extend the mechanisms through which entrepreneurs can influence the

social environment. Thus, feedback seeking is a mechanism for entrepreneurs to influence their

social environment alongside known influence mechanisms, such as job creation (e.g., van

Praag & Versloot, 2007), changes in institutions (e.g., Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006; Tracey

et al., 2011), and influencing the behavior (Laguna et al., 2021) and wellbeing of employees

(Bort et al., 2020) and spouses (Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn et al., 2000).

Implications for OB/AP research on feedback seeking

We enrich the understanding of feedback seeking as a proactive behavior in OB/AP by explicat-

ing its dynamic nature, highlighting implications for novel and neglected groups of feedback

seekers, and considering the social consequences of this proactive behavior.

First, our theorizing offers implications for how employees may navigate the costs of seek-

ing feedback by highlighting the dynamic nature of feedback seeking, which complements the

emphasis on between-person differences and frequency in OB/AP research (Anseel et al., 2015;

Ashford et al., 2016). Our model explicates sources and drivers of within-person differences in

feedback seeking events and how they vary over time, which complements the focus in OB/AP

research on between-person differences and feedback seeking frequency (Ashford, 1986;De

Stobbeleir et al., 2011; Park et al., 2007), and extends existing limited attempts to investigate

feedback seeking as a process (Anseel et al., 2015; Levy et al., 1995).

Such a dynamic process perspective also foregrounds the agentic nature of workers in their

feedback seeking. Although research in OB/AP recognizes that employees actively seek feed-

back (Ashford & Cummings, 1983), it typically focuses only on how frequently individuals seek

feedback (through monitoring or (in)direct inquiry) and from whom (e.g., Morrison & Vancou-

ver, 2000; Parker & Collins, 2010), thus limiting agency to frequency and choice of feedback

source. Employees as active agents also need to make ongoing and iterative decisions about

how to seek feedback; thus, our model suggests new insights on how employees may manage

30 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

the anticipated costs of feedback seeking beyond reducing frequency. In this regard, we join an

emergent conversation that demonstrates nuance in how individuals engage in distinct forms of

feedback seeking when pursuing conflicting motivations (Sherf et al., 2023). We contribute a

process perspective to this conversation that highlights numerous “safe”ways in which individ-

uals can seek feedback based on different decisions about the core phases of the process. For

example, we outline how individuals carefully select feedback topics, frame requests specific to

the selected sources and topics, and with varying degrees of directness and privacy to minimize

or avoid potential costs. In this regard, instead of presenting feedback seeking as either implicit

or explicit (Sherf et al., 2023), we highlight that individuals can vary the degree of transparency

in their approach.

Second, our dynamic process perspective of feedback seeking can be particularly valuable to

inform research for novel and neglected groups of workers. We introduce entrepreneurs as a

novel group of feedback seekers, usually neglected in OB/AP research on the topic (Ashford

et al., 2016), who can offer unique insights on feedback seeking relevant to the future of work.

Entrepreneurship epitomizes the work context in which feedback seeking is arguably valuable

due to its inherent uncertain, dynamic, and complex nature (Ashford et al., 2016). Entrepre-

neurs' agency, innovativeness, and personal responsibility in the face of uncertainty are also

characteristics often associated with the future of work; therefore, our insights can be valuable

in other settings and can inform us about the future of work (Gorgievski & Stephan, 2016). Such

insights can be particularly relevant for groups of feedback seekers who have been largely

neglected in feedback seeking research, such as strategic leaders: CEOs and top management

teams who set the direction and purpose of organizations (for an exception, see Ashford

et al., 2018); as well as groups of workers who are becoming more common as work and organi-

zations change, such as gig workers who work across organizational boundaries (Petriglieri

et al., 2019), intrapreneurs innovating inside organizations (Gawke et al., 2018), and insider

social activists (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016).

These groups share many similarities with entrepreneurs that can influence how the feed-

back seeking process unfolds for them. Much like entrepreneurs, these groups of workers can

potentially access many feedback sources across organizational boundaries, yet few sources

can offer meaningful feedback owing to their complex work and the blurry boundaries between

the multiple roles in which they engage (e.g., day job and intrapreneurial project; strategy devel-

opment for multiple business units). These groups of workers often face heightened uncertainty

and complexity that make feedback valuable, yet they likely face image costs and fear appropri-

ation of their ideas when seeking feedback across organizational or unit boundaries. Such

image costs can be significant for these groups of workers because their public image reflects

upon their organizations and initiatives (Chahine et al., 2011; Sohn et al., 2009). For example,

an intrapreneur seeking resources to grow their initiative may struggle to mobilize the neces-

sary resources if they are perceived as lacking knowledge due to feedback requests. Moreover,

the symbolic nature of feedback seeking outlined by our model can also be strategically lever-

aged by these groups of workers to be seen as collaborative and inclusive. For example, the

same intrapreneur can seek feedback from peers to engage them in their initiative even if

the feedback is not expected to be valuable.

Finally, our theorizing explicates long-term outcomes not just for the feedback seeker but

also for others and the environment. Feedback seeking has been viewed as a proactive behavior

toward person–environment fit with a focus on changing the person to fit the situation

(Parker & Collins, 2010). From this perspective, feedback seeking is a personal resource that

enables workers to understand their environment and what is expected of them to meet these

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 31

expectations (Ashford, 1986). This approach prioritizes short-term outcomes for the feedback

seeker as an initiator of proactive behavior, such as job satisfaction or performance (Anseel

et al., 2015; Parker et al., 2019; Parker & Collins, 2010).

Our theorizing nuances this perspective in two ways. On the one hand, we exemplify how

feedback seeking as a proactive behavior can contribute to outcomes for others, which have so

far been largely neglected in feedback seeking research (Ashford et al., 2016). Our theorizing on

entrepreneurs' relational goals to refrain from seeking feedback builds on emerging research in

OB/AP (Krasman, 2018; Krasman & Kotlyar, 2019) and entrepreneurship (Drencheva

et al., 2022) and shows the potentially negative impact of feedback seeking on sources, such as

negative affect, role overload, and stress. Additionally, when the source occupies a stigmatized

position in society, such as a former offender, they may be concerned that being asked for feed-

back exposes their stigmatized position (Drencheva et al., 2022). Negative experiences for

feedback sources are likely when entrepreneurs and leaders, as holders of legitimate, reward,

and coercive power (French & Raven, 1959), seek feedback downward from employees who

may find the request stressful and demanding significant resources. Thus, although current

feedback research emphasizes the needs of the feedback seeker (Parker & Collins, 2010), we

highlight the unintentional, yet potentially negative consequences for the sources who are

asked to provide feedback. By highlighting the negative consequences of feedback seeking for

others instead of the feedback seeker, we complement calls for more attention to the dark side

effects of proactivity (see Bolino, Turnley & Anderson, 2016).

On the other hand, we exemplify how feedback seeking can contribute to changes in the

environment through relational dynamics within ventures and communities of practice, thus

providing a new mechanism for how this proactive behavior contributes to person–

environment fit. Entrepreneurs' position at the top of ventures and at the boundary between

ventures and the outside world helps us to theorize how their feedback seeking can contribute

to the development and strengthening of norms related to feedback at the venture and the local

community of practice level through role modeling, reciprocity, and trusting relationships.

Entrepreneurs' feedback seeking can change the environment in ways specifically related to

feedback cultures. However, the instrumental, symbolic, and relational use of feedback seeking

can be valuable for other novel and neglected groups to gain support for their initiatives and

thus change the environment beyond feedback cultures. When individuals have scope for inno-

vation, autonomy, and responsibility, such as intrapreneurs launching new inclusion projects,

they can use feedback seeking instrumentally to provide a platform for others' voices and

improve ideas for symbolic and relational purposes to obtain the needed buy-in, build coali-

tions, and access resources (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016; Gawke et al., 2018; Geradts & Alt, 2022).

Thus, feedback seeking supports person–environment fit by understanding the environment

and adapting to it (Parker & Collins, 2010), and it can also serve as a mechanism to change the

environment to make it more inclusive when used by specific groups of workers. Future

research on such strategic and multipurpose use of feedback seeking inside organizations could

enhance our understanding of feedback seeking and support change efforts.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS THROUGH EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

By advancing a novel model of entrepreneurs' feedback seeking as a dynamic and relational

process, we hope to inspire future research in entrepreneurship and OB/AP that considers the

unique experiences of entrepreneurs and other neglected and novel groups of feedback seekers.

32 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

As a first step, future research can test aspects of the proposed model with diverse entrepreneur

samples (e.g., nascent, social, high-technology entrepreneurs) because entrepreneurs are a het-

erogenous group of workers with distinct needs (Davidsson, 2016). Such research can benefit

from experiments, longitudinal, and diary studies to capture (1) the content, framing, and goals

behind feedback inquiries; (2) the diverse outcomes of feedback seeking depending on the

goals, sources, content, and inquiries for feedback; (3) the social outcomes of entrepreneurs'

feedback seeking for their immediate and wider work environment with boundary conditions;

and (4) how entrepreneurs' feedback seeking changes over time and along the venture develop-

ment process (Baron, 2007). Testing the proposed social outcomes of how entrepreneurs' feed-

back seeking can influence their social environments deserves particular attention as this is a

neglected topic, with the current focus only on the impact on entrepreneurs and their opportu-

nity development (Grimes, 2018; Kaffka et al., 2021).

Additional valuable insights could be gained by comparing how different neglected and novel

groups of workers frame feedback requests to maximize benefits and minimize costs. We argue

that framing of feedback inquiries is essential, yet this is a topic that has received limited atten-

tion. There are initial insights showing that feedback seekers use specific moves, such as back-

grounding, forecasting, and opening when responding to feedback in purposefully designed

feedback environments (Harrison & Rouse, 2015). Future research can build on these insights

to investigate how entrepreneurs, strategic leaders, gig workers, intrapreneurs, and insider

activists frame feedback requests in settings where they may be particularly concerned with

image and idea appropriation costs. For example, how do intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs

frame feedback requests when approaching potential feedback sources in their ventures

(e.g., resource holders) in ways that minimize the risk of being seen as lacking knowledge?

A fruitful avenue for future research on feedback seeking is the further development and

testing of the boundary conditions influencing the process amongst neglected and novel groups

of workers, with a particular focus on venture and contextual boundary conditions, thus

addressing calls for greater attention to the role of context in both entrepreneurship

(Welter, 2011) and OB/AP (Johns, 2017) research. Venture and contextual differences, such as

those considered next, can influence the feedback seeking process and account for differences

between groups of workers.

Neglected and novel groups of workers seek feedback related to their work within and

across ventures, thus the nature of the venture should be investigated as a boundary condition.

OB/AP research has investigated specific venture factors across organizational types, such as

degree of standardization (Krasman, ) and bonus systems (Barner-Rasmussen, 2003). However,

by their nature some ventures arguably present more challenging situations for neglected and

novel groups of workers than other ventures, increasing the saliency of learning and uncer-

tainty reduction goals. For example, social ventures introduce additional levels of complexity

and uncertainty for entrepreneur or strategic leaders (Battilana & Lee, 2014), which is also the

case for social intrapreneurs and insider activists (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016; Geradts & Alt, 2022).

The ventures that neglected and novel groups of workers create and work in and across can

potentially influence the seeking-feedback process because of resource availability. For exam-

ple, ventures where feedback seeking is valuable for learning, uncertainty reduction, and

experiencing work as meaningful, such as social ventures (Drencheva et al., 2023), also pose

resource constraints (Drencheva & Au, 2023), making feedback seeking one of many tactics to

deal with complexity and uncertainty. Some ventures also require more feedback sources than

others, thus demanding more resources. For instance, social entrepreneurs seek feedback from

diverse experts (Katre & Salipante, 2012), which requires more time than engaging with only

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 33

one group. This is also likely the case for social intrapreneurs and insider activists (Briscoe &

Gupta, 2016; Geradts & Alt, 2022). An interesting novel group of workers with whom to investi-

gate venture type as a boundary condition is gig workers who work across multiple ventures,

for example, across social and high-technology ventures and thus encounter different demands

and resources. Overall, investigating the types of ventures that neglected and novel groups of

workers start, lead, and work in and across can provide novel insights into feedback seeking

that is more reflective of the changing and complex nature of work than currently available in

OB/AP research (Ashford et al., 2016).

Finally, social norms as implicit and socially constructed constraints can also be considered

a boundary condition for why and how feedback seeking takes place, or does not, explicate dif-

ferences between groups. OB/AP research has explored how nationality/ethnicity can influence

feedback seeking suggesting cross-cultural differences (e.g., MacDonald et al., 2013; Morrison

et al., 2004). However, existing studies neglect the potentially powerful role of norms that

describe and guide typical behaviors in social groups, thus potentially having an impact on why

and how feedback is sought. For example, when feedback seeking violates norms, neglected

and novel groups of workers may be motivated to refrain from it to maintain their public image

in performance-based cultures concerned with individual accomplishments. Because feedback

seeking fits less with common behaviors in performance-based cultures, individuals are also

likely to seek feedback more indirectly and privately to reduce risks. However, feedback seeking

is less likely to be perceived negatively in contexts where helpful behaviors are typical, such as

socially supportive cultures where individuals may be less concerned with their public image

when seeking feedback. In socially supportive cultures individuals are also likely to seek feed-

back in more direct and public ways because such contexts provide a psychologically safe envi-

ronment (Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010).

CONCLUSION

We advance the current understanding of feedback and feedback seeking in entrepreneurship

and OB/AP research by explicating the dynamic, relational, and costly nature of entrepreneurs'

interpersonal feedback seeking as one of the important, yet currently overlooked, modes

through which entrepreneurs engage with, and influence their social environment. We hope

our theorizing can inspire future research on feedback seeking among entrepreneurs and other

neglected and novel groups of workers, such as strategic leaders, gig workers, intrapreneurs,

and insider activists, helping to understand how individuals navigate the changing nature

of work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Carolyn Axtell, University of Sheffield, for valuable feedback. An earlier version of

this article was presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Vancouver,

Canada. We thank the session participants for their helpful feedback.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Andreana Drencheva declares that she has no conflict of interest. Ute Stephan declares that she

has no conflict of interest. Malcolm Patterson declares that he has no conflict of interest.

34 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

No data are available for this conceptual article.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Compliance with ethical standards. This manuscript does not report on research involving

human participants.

ORCID

Andreana Drencheva https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7997-2296

Ute Stephan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4514-6057

REFERENCES

Adisa, T. A., Gbadamosi, G., Mordi, T., & Mordi, C. (2019). In search of perfect boundaries? Entrepreneurs'

work-life balance. Personnel Review,48(6), 1634–1651. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2018-0197

Andries, P., Debackere, K., & van Looy, B. (2013). Simultaneous experimentation as a learning strategy: Business

model development under uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,7(4), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.

1002/sej.1170

Anseel, F., Beatty, A. S., Shen, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-

analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Management,

41(1), 318–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313484521

Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2007). The long-term impact of the feedback environment on job satisfaction: A field

study in a Belgian context. Applied Psychology,56(2), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.

00253.x

Arora, P., Haynie, J. M., & Aarons, G. (2013). Counterfactual thinking and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The

moderating role of self-esteem and dispositional affect. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,37(2), 359–385.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00472.x

Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resources perspective. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal,29(3), 465–487. https://doi.org/10.2307/256219

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating

information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,32(3), 370–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/

0030-5073(83)90156-3

Ashford, S. J., De Stobbeleir, K., & Nujella, M. (2016). To seek or not to seek: Is that the only question? Recent

developments in feedback-seeking literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organiza-

tional Behavior,3(1), 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062314

Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of impression-

management in feedback-seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,53(3), 310–334.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90068-I

Ashford, S. J., Wellman, N., Sully de Luque, M., De Stobbeleir, K. E., & Wollan, M. (2018). Two roads to effective-

ness: CEO feedback seeking, vision articulation, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

39(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2211

Audet, J., & Couteret, P. (2012). Coaching the entrepreneur: Features and success factors. Journal of Small Busi-

ness and Enterprise Development,19, 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001211250207

Bacq, S., Hertel, C., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2022). Communities at the nexus of entrepreneurship and societal impact:

A cross-disciplinary literature review. Journal of Business Venturing,37(5), 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jbusvent.2022.106231

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepre-

neurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly,50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.

3.329

Bandura, A. (1977). Social leaning theory. Prentice-Hal.

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 35

Barner-Rasmussen, W. (2003). Determinants of the feedback-seeking behaviour of subsidiary top managers in

multinational corporations. International Business Review,12(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931

(02)00087-2

Baron, R. A. (2007). Entrepreneurship: A process perspective. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The

psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 19–39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baron, R. A. (2010). Job design and entrepreneurship: Why closer connections =mutual gains. Journal of Orga-

nizational Behavior,31(2/3), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.607

Baron, R., Hmieleski, K., & Henry, R. (2012). Entrepreneurs' dispositional positive affect: The potential

benefits –And potential costs –Of being “up”.Journal of Business Venturing,27(3), 310–324. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.002

Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing –Insights from the study of social enter-

prises. Academy of Management Annals,8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615

Baum, J. R., & Bird, B. J. (2010). The successful intelligence of high-growth entrepreneurs: Links to new venture

growth. Organization Science,21(2), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0445

Berglund, H., Bousfiha, M., & Mansoori, Y. (2020). Opportunities as artifacts and entrepreneurship as design.

The Academy of Management Review,45, 825–846. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0285

Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing,9(3),

223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90031-0

Bolino, M., Long, D., & Turnley, W. (2016). Impression management in organizations: Critical questions,

answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational

Behavior,3(1), 377–406. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062337

Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Anderson, H. J. (2016). The dark side of proactive behavior: When being proac-

tive may hurt oneself, others, or the organization. In S. Parker & U. Bindl (Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making

things happen in organizations (pp. 517–547). Routledge.

Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and

implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,101(2),

127–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001

Bort, J., Stephan, U., & Wiklund, J. (2020). The well-being of entrepreneurs and their stakeholders. In M. M.

Gielnik, M. S. Cardon, & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New perspectives (pp. 340–356).

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003137573-19

Bozer, G., & Jones, R. J. (2021). Introduction to the special issue on advances in the psychology of workplace

coaching. Applied Psychology,70(2), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12305

Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social activism in and around organizations. Academy of Management Annals,

10(1), 671–727. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1153261

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. Har-

perCollins Publishers.

Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. (2013). Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Concep-

tual foundations and scale validation. Journal of Business Venturing,28(3), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.jbusvent.2012.03.003

Cardon, M. S., & Arwine, R. P. (2023). The many faces of entrepreneurial loneliness. Personnel Psychology,Online

First.https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12614

Carr, A. (2014, November 8). Back To Square One. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/3033412/

back-to-square-one

Chahine, S., Filatotchev, I., & Zahra, S. A. (2011). Building perceived quality of founder–involved IPO firms:

Founders' effects on board selection and stock market performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

35(2), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00361.x

Chang, C., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2012). The benefits of self-verifying feedback. In R. M. Sutton, M. J. Hornsey, &

K. M. Douglas (Eds.), Feedback: The communication of praise, criticism, and advice (pp. 29–42). Peter Lang.

Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader–member exchange and member performance: A new look at

individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of

Applied Psychology,92(1), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.202

36 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

Chun, J. U., Choi, B. K., & Moon, H. K. (2014). Subordinates' feedback-seeking behavior in supervisory relation-

ships: A moderated mediation model of supervisor, subordinate, and dyadic characteristics. Journal of Man-

agement & Organization,20(4), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.39

Ciuchta, M. P., Letwin, C., Stevenson, R., McMahon, S., & Huvaj, M. N. (2018). Betting on the coachable entre-

preneur: Signaling and social exchange in entrepreneurial pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

42(6), 860–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717725520

Collewaert, V., Anseel, F., Crommelinck, M., De Beuckelaer, A., & Vermeire, J. (2016). When passion fades: Dis-

entangling the temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial passion for founding. Journal of Management Studies,

53(6), 966–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12193

Cooper, A. C., Folta, T. B., & Woo, C. (1995). Entrepreneurial information search. Journal of Business Venturing,

10(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00022-M

Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-

tice,29(4), 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x

Cornelissen, J., & Werner, M. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis

across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals,8, 181–235. https://

doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.875669

Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice,34(4), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00382.x

Corner, P. D., & Wu, S. (2012). Dynamic capability emergence in the venture creation process. International

Small Business Journal,30(2), 138–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242611431092

Costa, S. F., Caetano, A., Frederiks, A. J., & Santos, S. C. (2017). Connecting the literature dots: A literature

review on prototypes in entrepreneurship research. In S. C. Santos, A. Caetano, C. Mitchell, H. Landström, &

A. Fayolle (Eds.), The emergence of entrepreneurial behaviour (pp. 15–43). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786434432.00007

Cumming, D., & Johan, S. A. b. (2007). Advice and monitoring in venture finance. Financial Markets and Portfo-

lio Management,21(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11408-006-0041-3

Daudelin, M. W. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics,24,36–48.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90004-2

Davidsson, P. (2016). The field of entrepreneurship research: some significant developments. In D. Bögenhold, J.

Bonnet, M. G. Dejardin, & D. Pérez de Lema (Eds.), Contemporary entrepreneurship (pp. 17–28). Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28134-6_2

De, S., Nau, D. S., Pan, X., & Gelfand, M. J. (2018). Tipping points for norm change in human cultures. In Inter-

national conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction and behavior representa-

tion in modeling and simulation (pp. 61–69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93372-6_7

De Stobbeleir, K., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. (2011). Self-regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-

seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal,54(4), 811–831. https://doi.org/

10.5465/amj.2011.64870144

De Stobbeleir, K., Ashford, S., & Zhang, C. (2020). Shifting focus: Antecedents and outcomes of proactive feed-

back seeking from peers. Human Relations,73(3), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719828448

Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal

of Business Venturing,19(3), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00037-5

Demetry, D. (2017). Pop-up to professional: Emerging entrepreneurial identity and evolving vocabularies of

motive. Academy of Management Discoveries,3(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0152

Dey, P., Fletcher, D., & Verduijn, K. (2023). Critical research and entrepreneurship: A cross-disciplinary concep-

tual typology. International Journal of Management Reviews,25(1), 24–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12298

Domurath, A., Patzelt, H., & Liebl, A. (2020). Does negative feedback impact new ventures' organizational iden-

tity? The role of founding teams' human capital and feedback source. Journal of Business Venturing,35(3),

105987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.105987

Drencheva, A. (2019). Women entrepreneurs and wellbeing: An identity perspective. In M. T. Lepeley, K.

Kuschel, N. Beutell, N. Pouw, & E. L. Eijdenberg (Eds.), The wellbeing of women in entrepreneurship: A global

perspective (pp. 280–294). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429279836-18

Drencheva, A., & Au, W. C. (2023). Bringing the family logic in: From duality to plurality in social enterprises.

Journal of Business Ethics,182(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04968-0

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 37

Drencheva, A., Au, W. C., & Li Yew, J. (2023). Working for impact, but failing to experience it: Exploring individ-

uals' sensemaking in social enterprises. Business & Society, 62(7), 1458-1495 https://doi.org/10.1177/

00076503221150780

Drencheva, A., Stephan, U., & Patterson, M. G. (2022). Whom to ask for feedback: Insights for resource mobiliza-

tion from social entrepreneurship. Business & Society,61(7), 1725–1772. https://doi.org/10.1177/

00076503211057497

Drencheva, A., Stephan, U., Patterson, M. G., & Topakas, A. (2021). Navigating interpersonal feedback seeking

in social venturing: The roles of psychological distance and sensemaking. Journal of Business Venturing,

36(4), 106123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106123

Eby, L. T., & Robertson, M. M. (2020). The psychology of workplace mentoring relationships. Annual Review of

Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,7(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-

orgpsych-012119-044924

Eller, F. J., Gielnik, M. M., Yeves, J., Alvarado, Y. C., & Guerrero, O. A. (2022). Adjusting the sails: Investigating

the feedback loop of the opportunity development process in entrepreneurship training. Academy of Man-

agement Learning & Education,21(2), 209–235. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2020.0041

Fisher, G. (2012). Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entre-

preneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,36(5), 1019–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.

1540-6520.2012.00537.x

Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audi-

ence diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing,32(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.005

Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design

in the process of opportunity exploitation. Strategic Management Journal,34(12), 1453–1471. https://doi.org/

10.1002/smj.2135

French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power

(pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research.

Frese, M. (2009). Toward a psychology of entrepreneurship—An action theory perspective. Foundations and

Trends in Entrepreneurship,5, 435–494. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000028

Frese, M. (2020). An action theory (AT) approach to the psychology of entrepreneurial actions and entrepreneur-

ial success. In M. M. Gielnik, M. S. Cardon, & M. Frese (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship: New per-

spectives (pp. 182–209). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003137573-11

Garg, V. K., Walters, B. A., & Priem, R. L. (2003). Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism,

and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,24(8), 725–744. https://doi.org/10.

1002/smj.335

Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2018). Personal costs and benefits of employee intrapreneurship:

Disentangling the employee intrapreneurship, well-being, and job performance relationship. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology,23, 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000105

van Gelderen, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial autonomy and its dynamics. Applied Psychology,65(3), 541–567.

https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12066

Gemmell, R. M., Boland, R. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). The socio-cognitive dynamics of entrepreneurial ideation.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,36(5), 1053–1073. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00486.x

Geradts, T. H. J., & Alt, E. (2022). Social entrepreneurial action in established organizations: Developing the con-

cept of social intrapreneurship. Journal of Business Research,151, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.

2022.06.047

Gorgievski, M. J., Schmitt, A., Fernandes Costa, S., & Batra, S. (2021). Applied psychology: An international

review call for papers: How do entrepreneurs influence their social environment? New psychological per-

spectives. Applied Psychology. An International Review.https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/

journal/14640597/homepage/call_for_papers?

Gorgievski, M. J., & Stephan, U. (2016). Advancing the psychology of entrepreneurship: A review of the psycho-

logical literature and an introduction. Applied Psychology,65(3), 437–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12073

Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn, M. J., Giesen, C. W. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2000). Financial problems and health com-

plaints among farm couples: Results of a 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

5, 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.359

38 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior,

28,3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002

Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting

firms. Academy of Management Journal,49(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785498

Grimes, M. G. (2018). The pivot: How founders respond to feedback through idea and identity work. Academy of

Management Journal,61(5), 1692–1717. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0823

Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231174

Hallen, B. L., Cohen, S. L., & Bingham, C. B. (2020). Do accelerators work? If so, how? Organization Science,

31(2), 378–414. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1304

Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. (2015). An inductive study of feedback interactions over the course of creative

projects. Academy of Management Journal,58(2), 375–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0737

Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2012). Cognitive adaptability and an entrepreneurial task: The role

of metacognitive ability and feedback. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,36(2), 237–265. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00410.x

Hays, J. C., & Williams, J. R. (2011). Testing multiple motives in feedback seeking: The interaction of instrumen-

tality and self protection motives. Journal of Vocational Behavior,79(2), 496–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jvb.2011.01.007

Hepper, E. G., & Sedikides, C. (2012). Self-enhancing feedback. In R. M. Sutton, M. J. Hornsey, & K. M. Douglas

(Eds.), Feedback: The communication of praise, criticism, and advice (pp. 43–56). Peter Lang.

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organiza-

tions. Journal of Applied Psychology,64(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349

Johns, G. (2017). Reflections on the 2016 decade award: Incorporating context in organizational research. Acad-

emy of Management Review,42(4), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0044

Kaffka, G. A., Singaram, R., Kraaijenbrink, J., & Groen, A. J. (2021). “Yes and…, but wait…, heck no!”: A socially

situated cognitive approach towards understanding how startup entrepreneurs process critical feedback.

Journal of Small Business Management,59(5), 1050–1080. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1866186

Karakowsky, L., Podolsky, M., & Elangovan, A. R. (2020). Signaling trustworthiness: The effect of leader humor

on feedback-seeking behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology,160(2), 170–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/

00224545.2019.1620161

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.

1540-6520.2012.00536.x

Kibler, E., Mandl, C., Farny, S., & Salmivaara, V. (2021). Post-failure impression management: A typology of

entrepreneurs' public narratives after business closure. Human Relations,74(2), 286–318. https://doi.org/10.

1177/0018726719899465

Kinicki, A., Prussia, G., Wu, B., & McKee-Ryan, F. (2005). A covariance structure analysis of employees' response

to performance feedback. The Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 1057–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.89.6.1057

Kotte, S., Diermann, I., Rosing, K., & Möller, H. (2021). Entrepreneurial coaching: A two-dimensional frame-

work in context. Applied Psychology,70(2), 518–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12264

Krasman, J. (2011). Taking Feedback-Seeking to the Next ‘Level’: Organizational Structure and Feedback-

Seeking Behavior. Journal of Managerial Issues,23(1), 9–30.

Krasman, J. (2018). Getting to the “source”of feedback-seeking: Impact of feedback-seeking on supervisor stress.

International Journal of Human Resource Studies,8(3), 103. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v8i3.12706

Krasman, J., & Kotlyar, I. (2019). The impact of feedback-seeking on sources' job satisfaction: A study of Cana-

dian supervisors. Journal of Organizational Psychology,19(2), 103–110.

Kudisch, J. D., Fortunato, V. J., & Smith, A. F. R. (2006). Contextual and individual difference factors predicting

individuals' desire to provide upward feedback. Group & Organization Management,31(4), 503–529. https://

doi.org/10.1177/1059601106286888

Kuhn, K. M., & Galloway, T. L. (2015). With a little help from my competitors: Peer networking among artisan

entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,39(3), 571–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12053

Kuratko, D. F., Neubert, E., & Marvel, M. R. (2021). Insights on the mentorship and coachability of entrepre-

neurs. Business Horizons,64(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.11.001

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 39

Laguna, M., Mielniczuk, E., & Gorgievski, M. J. (2021). Business owner–employees contagion of work-related

affect and employees' innovative behavior in small firms. Applied Psychology,70(4), 1543–1571. https://doi.

org/10.1111/apps.12288

Laguna, M., Walachowska, K., Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn, M. J., & Moriano, J. A. (2019). Authentic leadership and

employees' innovative behaviour: A multilevel investigation in three countries. International Journal of Envi-

ronmental Research and Public Health,16(21), 4201. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214201

Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do

supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of Management Journal,50, 348–363. https://doi.org/10.

5465/amj.2007.24634440

Lazear, E. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics,23(4), 649–680. https://doi.org/10.1086/

491605

Lefebvre, V., Radu Lefebvre, M., & Simon, E. (2015). Formal entrepreneurial networks as communities of prac-

tice: A longitudinal case study. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,27(7–8), 500–525. https://doi.

org/10.1080/08985626.2015.1070539

Levy, P. E., Albright, M. D., Cawley, B. D., & Williams, J. R. (1995). Situational and individual determinants of

feedback seeking: A closer look at the process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,62,

23–37. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1028

Levy, P. E., Cober, R. T., & Miller, T. (2002). The effect of transformational and transactional leadership percep-

tions on feedback-seeking intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,32, 1703–1720. https://doi.org/10.

1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02771.x

Lim, J. H., Tai, K., Bamberger, P. A., & Morrison, E. W. (2020). Soliciting resources from others: An integrative

review. Academy of Management Annals,14, 122–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0034

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance

management process. Human Resource Management Review,12(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-

4822(01)00043-2

Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of Psy-

chology,61, 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100314

MacDonald, H. A., Sulsky, L. M., Spence, J. R., & Brown, D. J. (2013). Cultural differences in the motivation to

seek performance feedback: A comparative policy-capturing study. Human Performance,26, 211–235.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.795572

Mathias, B. D., & Williams, D. W. (2018). Giving up the hats? Entrepreneurs' role transitions and venture growth.

Journal of Business Venturing,33(3), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.12.007

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of

Management Review,20(3), 709. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792

McMullen, J. S., Brownell, K. M., & Adams, J. (2021). What makes an entrepreneurship study entrepreneurial?

Toward a unified theory of entrepreneurial agency. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,45(5), 1197–1238.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720922460

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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.

19379628

Miller, A., O'Mahony, S., & Cohen, S. L. (2023). Opening the aperture: Explaining the complementary roles of

advice and testing when forming entrepreneurial strategy. Organization Science, 1-26.https://doi.org/10.

1287/orsc.2023.1656 PMID: orsc.2023.1656.

Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response

uncertainty. Academy of Management Review,12(1), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/257999

Mmbaga, N. A., Mathias, B. D., Williams, D. W., & Cardon, M. S. (2020). A review of and future agenda for

research on identity in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,35(6), 106049. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106049

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology,78, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.173

Morrison, E. W., Chen, Y.-R., & Salgado, S. R. (2004). Cultural differences in newcomer feedback seeking: A

comparison of the United States and Hong Kong. Applied Psychology. An International Review,53,1–22.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00158.x

40 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a plu-

ralistic world. Academy of Management Review,25(4), 706–725. https://doi.org/10.2307/259200

Morrison, E. W., & Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Within-Person Analysis of Information Seeking: The Effects of Per-

ceived Costs and Benefits. Journal of Management,26(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/

014920630002600101

Muñoz, P., Cacciotti, G., & Cohen, B. (2018). The double-edged sword of purpose-driven behavior in sustainable

venturing. Journal of Business Venturing,33(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.12.005

Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: Entrepreneurs' self-regulatory

processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,37(5), 1071–

1097. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00519.x

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. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.12.001

Orrensalo, T., Brush, C., & Nikou, S. (2022). Entrepreneurs' information-seeking behaviors in the digital age—A

systematic literature review. Journal of Small Business Management, Online First, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.

1080/00472778.2022.2100896

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. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.12.001

Park, G., Schmidt, A., Scheu, C., & Deshon, R. (2007). A process model of goal orientation and feedback seeking.

Human Performance,20, 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280701332042

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors.

Journal of Management,36(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554

Parker, S. K., Wang, Y., & Liao, J. (2019). When is proactivity wise? A review of factors that influence the individ-

ual outcomes of proactive behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behav-

ior,6(1), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015302

Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy: Cultivating hold-

ing environments for precarious and personalized work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly,64(1),

124–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218759646

van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research.

Small Business Economics,29(4), 351–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x

Pryor, C., Holmes, R. M., Webb, J. W., & Liguori, E. W. (2019). Top executive goal orientations' effects on envi-

ronmental scanning and performance: Differences between founders and non-founders. Journal of Manage-

ment,45(5), 1958–1986. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317737354

Pryor, C., Webb, J. W., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen, D. J. Jr. (2016). Toward an integration of the behavioral and

cognitive influences on the entrepreneurship process. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,10(1), 21–42.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1204

Ramarajan, L. (2014). Past, present and future research on multiple identities: Toward an intrapersonal network

approach. Academy of Management Annals,8(1), 589–659. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.912379

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology,64, 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.104

Richetin, J., Conner, M., & Perugini, M. (2011). Not doing is not the opposite of doing: Implications for attitudi-

nal models of behavioral prediction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,37(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/

10.1177/0146167210390522

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup. Penguin Group.

Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback envi-

ronment, employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 211–220. https://doi.

org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.211

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to

entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review,26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/

259121

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.

org/10.4337/9781848440197

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 41

Schafer, D. S. (1991). Level of entrepreneurship and scanning source usage in very small businesses. Entrepre-

neurship Theory and Practice,15(2), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101500204

Schermuly, C. C., Wach, D., Kirschbaum, C., & Wegge, J. (2021). Coaching of insolvent entrepreneurs and the

change in coping resources, health, and cognitive performance. Applied Psychology,70(2), 556–574. https://

doi.org/10.1111/apps.12244

Seidel, V., Packalen, K., & O'Mahony, S. (2016). Help me do it on my own: How entrepreneurs manage auton-

omy and constraint within incubator organizations. In L. E. Cohen, M. D. Burton, & M. Lounsbury (Eds.),

The structuring of work in organizations (Vol. 47). Research in the Sociology of Organizations. (pp. 275–307).

Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Shepherd, D. A. (2019). Researching the Dark Side, Downside, and Destructive Side of Entrepreneurship: It is

the Compassionate Thing to Do! Academy of Management Discoveries,5(3), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.

5465/amd.2018.0194

Shepherd, D., Sattari, R., & Patzelt, H. (2022). A social model of opportunity development: Building and engaging

communities of inquiry. Journal of Business Venturing,37, 106033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.

106033

Sherf, E. N., Croitoru, N., & McElroy, T. (2023). A reinforcement sensitivity theory view of seeking behaviors at

work: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 1-44, https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12579

Sherf, E. N., & Morrison, E. W. (2020). I do not need feedback! Or do I? Self-efficacy, perspective taking, and

feedback seeking. Journal of Applied Psychology,105(2), 146–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000432

Sohn, Y. “.Y.J.”., Weaver Lariscy, R., & Tinkham, S. F. (2009). The impact of CEO reputation: Negative news

and economic decisions. International Journal of Strategic Communication,3(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.

1080/15531180802606596

Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, mea-

surement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement,64(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.

1177/0013164403258440

Stephan, U. (2018). Entrepreneurs' mental health and well-being: A review and research agenda. Academy of

Management Perspectives,32(3), 290–322. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0001

Stephan, U., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2010). Performance-based vs socially supportive culture: A cross-national study

of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies,41(8), 1347–1364.

https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.14

Stewart, W. H., May, R. C., & Kalia, A. (2008). Environmental perceptions and scanning in the United States and

India: Convergence in entrepreneurial information seeking? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,32(1),

83–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00217.x

St-Jean, E., & Audet, J. (2012). The role of mentoring in the learning development of the novice entrepreneur.

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,8(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-009-

0130-7

St-Jean, E., & Audet, J. (2013). The effect of mentor intervention style in novice entrepreneur mentoring relation-

ships. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,21,96–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2013.

784061

Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M. (. M.)., & Busenitz, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportuni-

ties. Journal of Business Venturing,27(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.07.001

Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new orga-

nizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science,22(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.

0522

Uy, M. A., Sun, S., Gielnik, M. M., Jacob, G. H., Lagdameo, J. L. D., Miclat, A. G. Jr., & Osi, E. C. (2023).

Unpacking the nonlinear effect of self-efficacy in entrepreneurship: Why and under which condition more is

not better. Personnel Psychology, 1-28. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12618

Vissa, B., & Chacar, A. S. (2009). Leveraging ties: The contingent value of entrepreneurial teams' external advice

networks on Indian software venture performance. Strategic Management Journal,30(11), 1179–1191.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.785

Volery, T., Mueller, S., & von Siemens, B. (2015). Entrepreneur ambidexterity: A study of entrepreneur behav-

iours and competencies in growth-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises. International Small Busi-

ness Journal,33(2), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613484777

42 DRENCHEVA ET AL.

Wach, D., Stephan, U., & Gorgievski, M. (2016). More than money: Developing an integrative multi-factorial

measure of entrepreneurial success. International Small Business Journal,34(8), 1098–1121. https://doi.org/

10.1177/0266242615608469

Warnick, B. J., Murnieks, C. Y., McMullen, J. S., & Brooks, W. T. (2018). Passion for entrepreneurship or passion

for the product? A conjoint analysis of angel and VC decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing,33(3),

315–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.01.002

Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneur-

ship Theory and Practice,35(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x

van Werven, R., Cornelissen, J., & Bouwmeester, O. (2022). The relational dimension of feedback interactions: A

study of early feedback meetings between entrepreneurs and potential mentors. British Journal of Manage-

ment, Online First, 34, 873–897. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12615

Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2009). Information search and opportunity identification: The

importance of prior business ownership experience. International Small Business Journal,27(6), 659–680.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242609344255

Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. (2012). Linking feedback quality and goal orientation to feedback seeking and job

performance. Human Performance,25(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.658927

Williams, J. R., Miller, C. E., Steelman, L. A., & Levy, P. E. (1999). Increasing feedback seeking in public con-

texts: It takes two (or more) to tango. Journal of Applied Psychology,84(6), 969–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/

0021-9010.84.6.969

Williamson, A. J., Drencheva, A., & Battisti, M. (2022). Entrepreneurial disappointment: Let down and breaking

down, a machine-learning study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,46(6), 1500–1533. https://doi.org/10.

1177/1042258720964447

Williamson, A. J., Drencheva, A., & Wolfe, M. T. (2022). When do negative emotions arise in entrepreneurship?

A contextualized review of negative affective antecedents. Journal of Small Business Management, Online

First, 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2026952

Wu, C.-H., Parker, S. K., & de Jong, J. P. (2014). Feedback seeking from peers: A positive strategy for insecurely

attached team-workers. Human Relations,67(4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713496124

Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative

Science Quarterly,52(1), 70–105. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.70

How to cite this article: Drencheva, A., Stephan, U., & Patterson, M. (2024). Beyond

the lone hero: How interpersonal feedback seeking helps entrepreneurs to engage with

their social environment. Applied Psychology,1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12517

ENTREPRENEURS' FEEDBACK SEEKING 43

Collective Psychological Ownership Leverages Feedback-Seeking for New Venture Performance

Article

Oct 2024

Despite the undisputed importance of feedback-seeking for new venture advancement, little is known about the circumstances that make it effective. In this study, it is proposed that the collective psychological ownership of new venture teams over the new venture (i.e. this is ‘OUR’ venture) can help leverage the value and bear the costs of self-improvement feedback-seeking behaviour (SI-FSB), amplifying the expected positive relationship between new venture teams’ SI-FSB and new venture performance. Insights from a survey-based study involving 166 new ventures support the hypotheses. Contributing to the nascent feedback-seeking research in the new venture context, this study shows that SI-FSB matters and suggests that new venture teams should keep their collective psychological ownership over their new venture strong.

How do entrepreneurs influence their social environment? A bibliometric analysis and editorial

Article

Jul 2024

This article introduces the special issue on how entrepreneurs influence their social environment. The purpose of this special issue is to illustrate recent research exploring some of the unresolved questions relating to and uncovering connections between entrepreneurs' characteristics, actions, and experiences with their social environment. First, we report the results of a bibliometric analysis of articles addressing how entrepreneurs influence their immediate business environment ( N = 873), the immediate private environment ( N = 813), and the broader societal environment ( N = 2,380). Second, we describe the seven articles in this special issue, which encompass a range of theoretical frameworks, research designs, and methodologies. We believe that the research featured in this special issue offers meaningful contributions to existing knowledge and will stimulate future research into examining the boundary conditions and psychological mechanisms that potentially explain the complex effects of entrepreneurs' experiences, characteristics, and behavior on different stakeholders and entities in their proximal and distal environments.

Self-Promotion in Entrepreneurship: A Driver for Proactive Adaptation

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024

Jean-François Harvey

Research in impression management has primarily examined how self-promotion affects one’s image, neglecting the potential benefits of feedback on the underlying image that is being impression managed. This study bridges this gap by integrating impression management with social–cognitive theory to explore how self-promotion can enhance feedback from targets, thereby stimulating initiative-taking and proactive adaptation in the actor. Analyzing five-wave monthly survey data from 574 entrepreneurs, I find a positive relationship between self-promotion and experimentation, which positively associates with business-model adaptation. This indirect effect is observed exclusively among entrepreneurs confident in their capabilities, highlighting the critical role of self-efficacy. Furthermore, results from three scenario-based experiments demonstrate that higher levels of self-promotion elicit greater engagement from targets, with responses containing more constructive elements, such as ideas or concerns, thereby supporting my theory. My findings underscore the richer feedback generated from self-promotion, suggesting it plays a critical role in facilitating agentic behavior. This contributes to a more nuanced understanding of self-promotion’s impact, proposing new avenues for future studies in impression management and entrepreneurship.

Experimentation and Business-model Transformation: The Self-Regulatory Benefits of Hype

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023

Jean-François Harvey

Atypical entrepreneurs in the venture idea elaboration phase

Article

Mar 2025
J BUS VENTURING

Saggi Nevo

Unpacking the nonlinear effect of self‐efficacy in entrepreneurship: Why and under which condition more is not better

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2023
PERS PSYCHOL

Self‐efficacy exerts a positive impact on several self‐regulatory functions to support goal accomplishment and performance. However, in contexts that are characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity, such as entrepreneurship, there might be a tipping point to this relationship, prompting calls for deeper investigations on the nonlinear effect. In particular, the underlying mechanisms explaining why and when the nonlinear effect occurs are unclear. Drawing on theories of self‐regulation, we examine the nonlinear effect of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy on venture goal progress through the entrepreneur's active feedback‐seeking and venture effort. We also propose that the entrepreneur's state error mastery orientation moderates the nonlinear effect. Conducting a six‐wave repeated measures study among 84 early‐stage entrepreneurs in a business accelerator in the Philippines, we use a within‐person approach to test our hypotheses and research model. Results suggest that self‐regulatory mechanisms in terms of feedback seeking, effort, and state error mastery orientation help to unpack why and when self‐efficacy exerts a nonlinear effect on performance outcomes.

The many faces of entrepreneurial loneliness

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023
PERS PSYCHOL

Loneliness, involving a complex set of feelings that occurs when social needs are not adequately met, has been described as a worldwide modern epidemic. Despite its infiltration into all occupations, loneliness may be especially problematic for those in extreme occupations, such as entrepreneurs, who deal with acute levels of uncertainty, resource constraints, responsibility, and time pressure. Disparate prior findings suggest that entrepreneurs may be especially prone to loneliness, less prone to loneliness, or that they may have unique coping mechanisms that allow them to effectively manage loneliness. This conflicting evidence suggests that we have an incomplete understanding of loneliness within entrepreneurship, specifically, and extreme occupational contexts more generally. Integrating literature on loneliness, well‐being, and entrepreneurship, we conduct a qualitative, inductive study analyzing over 9000 Reddit posts drawn from online entrepreneurship communities where individuals seek and offer advice on how to address entrepreneurial loneliness. In applying appraisal theory to interpret our findings, we discover that whereas some entrepreneurs experience loneliness as threatening and harmful, others experience loneliness as positive or irrelevant, contrary to existing literature that points to loneliness as wholly negative. As such, we uncover several different processes through which entrepreneurs appraise and cope with their loneliness, as well as occupationally unique outcomes for entrepreneurs if loneliness is not coped with effectively. Our findings and emergent theoretical model of the loneliness process in this extreme occupation have important implications for research and practice regarding loneliness, well‐being, and the psychological and mental health of entrepreneurs.

A reinforcement sensitivity theory view of seeking behaviors at work: A meta‐analysis

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023
PERS PSYCHOL

Scholarship on seeking behaviors, which refer to deliberate attempts to obtain information or assistance from others, has emerged in multiple silos (e.g., feedback‐seeking, information‐seeking, help‐seeking, and advice‐seeking). Furthering recent synthesis attempts, we draw on reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) to generate novel predictions concerning the causes of explicit and implicit seeking behaviors and clarify the inconsistencies between theoretical predictions and empirical findings noted in past reviews. We test our arguments through a meta‐analysis of 393 samples drawn from management and applied psychology research. In doing so, we uncover nuances in the associations between seeking behaviors and work outcomes (e.g., in‐role performance and creativity). We discuss how our theorizing and findings challenge, refine, and extend the existing knowledge concerning seeking behaviors at work, provide methodological and practical recommendations, and identify directions for future research.

Working For Impact, But Failing to Experience It: Exploring Individuals’ Sensemaking in Social Enterprises

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2023

Individuals start and join social enterprises to catalyze social impact but may not subjectively experience their work as impactful. In this article, we inductively uncover when social enterprise members question the impactfulness of their work and how they engage in sensemaking to experience their work as impactful. Exploring the experiences of members across two social enterprises with different missions, we provide insights into instances creating ambiguity of or discrepancies in impactfulness and unearth how individuals navigate these in different circumstances with two distinct sensemaking practices: internalizing and compensating. We reveal the efforts required to experience work as impactful, highlight the heterogeneity and agency in maintaining this perception, and suggest a potential dark side for members and missions of social enterprises.

Entrepreneurs’ Information-Seeking Behaviors in the Digital Age–A Systematic Literature Review

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2022

This paper explores how digitalization and development of critical literacies influence changes in entrepreneurs’ information-seeking behavior, and how such changes in behavior directly influence the resource acquisition, bundling, and leveraging process, contributing to the development of personal and business competencies and growth. Building on the logic of resource-orchestration theory, this paper presents a systematic literature review covering 39 studies published between 1990 and 2020 that summarizes the current state and trends at the intersection of digitalization, the entrepreneurs’ critical literacies, and information-seeking behavior. The review results reveal three main streams of research including (i) digitalization and entrepreneurs’ ICT adoption, (ii) entrepreneurs and critical literacies, and (iii) entrepreneurs’ information-seeking behavior. Based on the review results that reflect a fragmented status quo of entrepreneurship research, we develop a holistic framework and outline future research directions for entrepreneurship. This research expands the traditional boundaries of entrepreneurship research by considering the implications of entrepreneurs’ critical literacies and their information behavior on resource orchestration process. The findings provide practical implications indicating the need to address the key challenges of entrepreneurs in a fast-changing and interconnected business environment.

The Relational Dimension of Feedback Interactions: A Study of Early Feedback Meetings Between Entrepreneurs and Potential Mentors

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2022
BRIT J MANAGE

Entrepreneurs' responses to feedback are in part determined by how the interactions during which they receive it unfold. Prior studies primarily discuss feedback interactions between entrepreneurs and their mentors or trusted advisors. As a result of this focus on longstanding relationships, there is limited knowledge of 'early' meetings-conversations between feedback providers and entrepreneurs who do not know each other well-and the ways in which these shape the relationship between the interactants, as well as the way feedback is received. Our analysis of 54 early feedback interactions suggests that changes in epistemic stance and alignment influence whether there is affiliation, that is, affective cooperation, between entrepreneurs and feedback providers. We theorize that affiliation is necessary for early feedback interactions to develop into longstanding feedback relationships .

Connecting the literature dots: a literature review on prototypes in entrepreneurship research

Chapter

Feb 2017

Opening the Aperture: Explaining the Complementary Roles of Advice and Testing When Forming Entrepreneurial Strategy

Article

Mar 2023

Forming entrepreneurial strategy is difficult, as the future value of strategy alternatives is uncertain. To create and capture value, firms are advised to consider and test multiple alternative strategy elements. Yet, how firms generate and test alternatives remains understudied. As entrepreneurial firms lack resources for broad search, they often draw upon advisory resources from outside the firm. However, advice can be difficult to extract, absorb, and apply. Although scholars have examined static attributes of the entrepreneur or advisor to explain whether advice is used, a dynamic explanation of how advice is produced and informs strategy testing and formation is missing. In an 11-month field study, we observed 25 founders of 12 food and agriculture firms interacting with a common pool of 34 advisors in an entrepreneurship training program. Leveraging the program’s structured design, we observed 165 advice interactions over three phases. No firm took advice and applied it directly to firm strategy. When entrepreneurs engaged literally with advice, they later discounted it—distancing advice from strategy. In contrast, entrepreneurs that coproduced advice challenged advisors to craft novel advice relevant to their strategy, translated it to make it actionable, and tested it—integrating advice into strategy. Firms that distanced advice from strategy did not test strategy alternatives, whereas firms that integrated advice into strategy tested multiple alternatives, explored broader markets, and adapted their strategies. We contribute a grounded process model that explains how coproducing advice opens firms’ apertures to consider strategy alternatives, whereas testing informs the strategy elements chosen. Funding: This research was funded in part by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation grant to Susan Cohen. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.1656 .

Careers in and out of Organizations

Book

Jan 2002

Douglas Hall

Social entrepreneurial action in established organizations: Developing the concept of social intrapreneurship

Article

Nov 2022
J BUS RES

Social entrepreneurs are heralded for tackling entrenched social problems by approaching innovation, resource allocation, and the management of uncertainty in ways that escape the ability of established organizations. Although social entrepreneurship is manifested through the founding of new organizations or as entrepreneurial action inside established organizations, the latter has received far less scholarly attention to date. In this paper, we argue that the context of established organizations poses unique opportunities and challenges to individuals engaging in entrepreneurial action to address social problems, which remain hitherto unexplored. To advance our knowledge on social intrapreneurship, we integrate and synthesize the de novo social entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship literatures with a focus on how entrepreneurs in both contexts address the three core elements of entrepreneurial action: innovation, resource allocation, and uncertainty. In doing that, we offer a set of premises that conceptually develop entrepreneurial action by social intrapreneurs, and open avenues for future research.

Beyond the lone hero: How interpersonal feedback seeking helps entrepreneurs to engage with their social environment

Abstract

Recommended publications

To Ask or not to Ask? Interpersonal Feedback Seeking Among Entrepreneurs

Navigating interpersonal feedback seeking in social venturing: The roles of psychological distance a...

Whom to Ask for Feedback: Insights for Resource Mobilization From Social Entrepreneurship

Organizational behavior and human resource management perspectives on entrepreneurship: Lessons lear...