Cognitive Approaches to Entreprenuership Research, Volume 6 (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth) (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth) PDF
Preview Cognitive Approaches to Entreprenuership Research, Volume 6 (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth) (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth)
CONTENTS LISTOFCONTRIBUTORS vii COGNITIVEAPPROACHESTOENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH JeromeA.KatzandDeanA.Shepherd 1 ORGANIZATIONALLEARNINGBYNEWVENTURES: CONCEPTS,STRATEGIES,ANDAPPLICATIONS BenyaminBergmannLichtenstein,G.T.Lumpkin andRodneyC.Shrader 11 ENTREPRENEURIALFIT:THEROLEOF COGNITIVEMISFIT KeithH.BrighamandJulioO.DeCastro 37 THEROLEOFREGRETFULTHINKING,PERSEVERANCE, ANDSELF-EFFICACYINVENTUREFORMATION GideonD.Markman,RobertA.BaronandDavidB.Balkin 73 THESELF-DETERMINATIONMOTIVEAND ENTREPRENEURS’CHOICEOFFINANCING HarryJ.Sapienza,M.AudreyKorsgaardand DanielP.Forbes 105 EXTENDINGTHETHEORYOFTHEENTREPRENEUR USINGASIGNALDETECTIONFRAMEWORK JeffreyS.McMullenandDeanA.Shepherd 139 ATRANSACTIONCOGNITIONTHEORYOFGLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP RonaldK.Mitchell 181 v vi THEIMPACTOFENTREPRENEURIALEXPERIENCEON OPPORTUNITYIDENTIFICATIONANDEXPLOITATION: HABITUALANDNOVICEENTREPRENEURS DenizUcbasaran,MikeWright,PaulWestheadand LowellW.Busenitz 231 OPPORTUNITYDEVELOPMENT:ASOCIO-COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE AliceDeKoning 265 THEDOMAINOFENTREPRENEURSHIPRESEARCH: SOMESUGGESTIONS PerDavidsson 315 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS DavidB.Balkin LeedsCollegeofBusiness,University ofColorado,Boulder,USA RobertA.Baron LallySchoolofManagementand Technology,RensselaerPolytechnic Institute,USA LowellW.Busenitz MichaelF.PriceCollegeofBusiness, UniversityofOklahoma,USA KeithH.Brigham JerryS.RawlsCollegeofBusiness Administration,TexasTech University,USA PerDavidsson Jo¨nko¨pingInternationalBusiness School,Sweden JulioO.DeCastro LeedsSchoolofBusiness,University ofColorado,Boulder,USA DanielP.Forbes CarlsonSchoolofBusiness, UniversityofMinnesota,USA BenyaminBergmann DepartmentofManagement, Lichtenstein UniversityofHartford,USA G.T.Lumpkin DepartmentofManagerialStudies, UniversityofIllinoisatChicago,USA JeromeA.Katz DepartmentofManagement,Saint LouisUniversity,USA AlicedeKoning J.MackRobinsonCollegeof Business,GeorgiaStateUniversity, Atlanta,USA M.AudreyKorsgaard MooreSchoolofBusiness,University ofSouthCarolina,Columbia,USA vii viii GideonD.Markman TerryCollegeofBusiness,University ofGeorgia,Athens,USA JeffreyS.McMullen LeedsSchoolofBusiness,University ofColorado,Boulder,USA RonaldK.Mitchell FacultyofBusiness,Universityof Victoria,Canada JointlyappointedProfessor, GuanghuaSchoolofManagement, PekingUniversity,PRChina HarryJ.Sapienza CarlsonSchoolofBusiness, UniversityofMinnesota,USA RodneyC.Shrader DepartmentofManagerialStudies, UniversityofIllinoisatChicago,USA DeanA.Shepherd LeedsSchoolofBusiness,University ofColorado,Boulder,USA DenizUcbasaran NottinghamUniversityBusiness School,UK PaulWesthead NottinghamUniversityBusiness School,UK MikeWright NottinghamUniversityBusiness School,UK COGNITIVE APPROACHES TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH Jerome A. Katz and Dean A. Shepherd Cognition has always been central to the popular way of thinking about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs imagine a different future. They envision or discover new products or services. They perceive or recognize opportunities. Theyassessrisk,andfigureouthowtoprofitfromit.Theyidentifypossiblenew combinationsofresources.Commontoalloftheseistheindividual’suseoftheir perceptual and reasoning skills, what we call cognition, a term borrowed from thepsychologists’lexicon. While cognition has been central to the way people in general describe entrepreneurship, it has been only sporadically used as an approach in en- trepreneurship research. Worse, in many of those early efforts, cognitions were stipulated theoretically, and rarely checked. This led to ideas such as the belief in the economic literature that entrepreneurs were great risk-takers. Only when checkedempiricallyagainsttheharshrealityofentrepreneurs’self-reportsdidre- searchersfindthatentrepreneursinfactdidnotdemonstrateahigher-than-average risk-taking propensity. David McClelland (McClelland, 1961; McClelland & Winter, 1969) and later Robert Brockhaus (1980) showed that entrepreneurs tended toward moderate risk-taking. Even this finding endured revision in the 1990swhenresearcherssuchasArnoldCooper(Gimeno,Folta,Cooper&Woo, 1997) discovered that entrepreneurs perceive situations as less risky than objectivelywarranted. Just as risk-taking went through several revisions and refinements, so too did other elements of the entrepreneurial process such as opportunity recognition, attribution, self-efficacy, creativity and innovation. Much of this effort to revise CognitiveApproachestoEntrepreneurshipResearch AdvancesinEntrepreneurship,FirmEmergenceandGrowth,Volume6,1–10 ©2003PublishedbyElsevierScienceLtd. ISSN:1074-7540/doi:10.1016/S1074-7540(03)06001-X 1 2 JEROMEA.KATZANDDEANA.SHEPHERD and refine entrepreneurial cognitions began in the 1980s. Gartner (1985) argued persuasively for models of entrepreneurship (which he defined as organization creation) that included or dealt with at least two or more of four potential di- mensions:person,firm,environment,andprocess.Whilesomeoftheseelements hadbeenconsideredindividuallybefore(e.g.processmodelswerediscussedby McClelland,1961;Shapero,1975),theexplicitlymulti-levelmodelGartnerpro- posedwasseenasthemostcomprehensivetodate.Althoughnotintendedperseas anattackonpersonologicalapproaches,Gartner’sargumentshadachillingeffect onpersonologicalresearchbythelate1980’swhenGartnerpublishedtwomore articles(Gartner,1988,1989)whichpersuadedmanyoftheeditorsandreviewers in the field that a new, more inclusive and rigorous approach to individual level studieswasneeded. While the purely personological approaches common in the entrepreneurship research of the 1970s and 1980s would typically fail to consider multiple dimensions, cognitive process models, which often triangulate aspects of the entrepreneur,perceivedelementsoftheenvironment,anduseaprocesstotiethese together(oftenwithadditionaltiestotheemergingfirm),posedgreaterpromiseas adirectionforfutureresearch.Themodeloforganizationalemergencepublished duringthisperiodbyKatzandGartner(1988)demonstratedamongotherthings how individual level phenomena like cognition (e.g. enactment and intentional processes)couldleadtotheemergenceofnewentitiesattheorganizationallevel, one of the most detailed cross-level synthesis ever developed in the research literature. Despite this, Gartner’s challenge of multi-level, multi-dimensional entrepreneurship research resulted in something of an inadvertent hiatus in individual-levelresearch.Effortsbyseveralindividualsleadtotheresumptionof individual-levelresearchwithastrongercognitivebasis. Perhaps the 1980s could be called “The Age of the Conference” for the field ofentrepreneurship.Whilethefirst“stateoftheart”conferencebeganatBaylor in1980(Kent,Sexton&Vesper,1982),andthefirstmarketing-entrepreneurship conferencewasbegunbyGerryHillsin1982(Cooper,Hornaday&Vesper,1997) thelate1980’ssawasetofconferencesemergethatheldprofoundimpactsonthe cognitiveapproachtoentrepreneurshipresearch.OneofthesewastheGateways To Entrepreneurship Research Conferences at Saint Louis University, organized byRobertBrockhausandJeromeKatz. Ratherthaninvitingpapersasaticketofadmission,theGatewaysConferences identifiedtopics,andparticipantswoulddiscussthese,withthegoalofgenerating new research and publication to come from the Conference. The Conferences providedthematerialforthefirsttwovolumesoftheseriesyouarereadingnow, coveringtopicssuchasdemographicapproachestoentrepreneurship,individual level entrepreneurhsip and firm-level entrepreneurship. That first Gateways CognitiveApproachestoEntrepreneurshipResearch 3 Conference in 1987 exposed a rather well-known social psychologist named Kelly Shaver to entrepreneurship, including a fateful sushi dinner with William Gartnerthatwouldleadtoalongstandingcollaborationthatlaterbecamecentral tothecognitiveapproachinentrepreneurship. RayBagbyorganizedaJanuary1991conferenceattheUniversityofBaltimore on “Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship Theory,” in which Frank HoyandJeromeKatzsupportedBagbyasresidentexpertsanddiscussionleaders. This resulted in two special issues of Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice in 1991and1992editedbyLannyHerron,DeborahSmith-CookandHarrySapienza (1991).IncludedinthesespecialissueswerepapersbyShaverandScott(1991) and Gartner, Bird and Starr (1992) that continue to be cited today as seminal worksinanchoringthemoderncognitiveapproachinentrepreneurship. Amidtheseefforts,Gartnerfeltthattheopportunitywasrighttopromoteanew generationofindividual-levelstudiesofentrepreneurialprocesses.Hisintention was to hold a “theoretical shoot-out” (Gartner, personal communication, 2003). TheinitialresultcameintheformofapairofspecialissuesofEntrepreneurship: Theory & Practice published in Fall 1992 and Winter 1993 with the common theme “Thus the theory of description matters most” (Gartner & Gatewood, 1992). Included in these special issues were papers on intention (Bird, 1992), psychosocial cognitive models of choice (Katz, 1992), information processing (Hansen & Allen, 1992) and group emergence perspectives (Katz, 1993). The 14 articles in these special issues crossed all levels of analysis, but it was clear thattheindividual-levelapproachwasstilloftremendousinteresttotheresearch community, and that the congitive approach would be one of the major vehicles forthenewgenerationofstudies. Capitalizingonthisobservation,Gartnertooktheleadindevelopingyetanother special issue of ET&P this one in Spring 1994 with the theme “Finding the entrepreneurinentrepreneurship,”co-editedbyGartner,KellyShaver,Elizabeth Gatewood and Jerome Katz (1994). That special issue came as an effort to restart empirical research on individual-level entrepreneurship. Central to this specialissuewastobethedirectionempiricalresearchinentrepreneurshipwould take, and here the impact of Kelly Shaver cannot be underestimated. One of the developers of modern attribution theory, Shaver was well versed in rigorous individual-level research approaches, and was to become a tireless networker bringing entrepreneurship researchers and cognitive theorists together. Gartner, Shaver and Gatewood had been developing and testing attributional models with samples drawn from Gatewood’s Small Business Development Center clientele(e.g.Gatewood,Shaver&Gartner,1995),makingthesethreeanatural team for the special issue. Katz, who had worked with social psychologists and entrepreneurshipresearchersatHarvard,MITandMichiganwasaddedtoaidin 4 JEROMEA.KATZANDDEANA.SHEPHERD bridgingthefields.Together,thesefoursoughtoutexemplarpapers,usingcurrent cognitivetheoryinrigorousandnovelways.The1994SpecialIssue,buildingon thetheoreticalmodelsintroducedinthe1992and1993ET&Pspecialissues,did muchtoreintroduceindividuallevelempiricalstudiestothefieldofentrepreneur- shipresearch.Thiswasevidentinmodelswithastrongcognitiveelement,such as the event model of Krueger and Brazeal (1994) and the competency model of Chandler and Hanks (1994), but also in more personality based approaches suchasmotivationalmodelproposedbyNaffziger,HornsbyandKuratko(1994). Bythispoint,thefieldhadcomefullcircle,withindividual-levelresearchbased on stronger conceptual foundations and more rigorous empirical approaches, whichhadbeenGartner’sgoal.Whileinthepriorgenerationofindividual-level approaches personological approaches predominated, the new generation of individual-levelresearchwouldhavemoreofacognitiveorientation. Itisworthwhilenotingthatthisveryfundamentalchangeinthewayresearch wasconceivedandperformedwasdonelargelyasaneffortbyveryjuniorprofes- sors. While Shaver, Bagby and Hoy were already senior in their fields, Gartner, Katz,Gatewood,Bird,Carsrud,Sapienza,Smith-Cook,Herron,Chandler,Hanks, Hansen, Krueger, and Brazeal were all assistant professors at the time of these conferencesandspecialissuesofthelate1980sandearly1990s.Itispossiblethat thefieldofentrepreneurshipinthosedays,withalessevolvedinfrastructure,was easiertomovethanitistoday,butitisalsofairtosaythattodaytherearemore resources, more outlets for publications, and more venues to make ideas heard than there were 10 or 15 years ago. Arguably the potential for junior faculty to transformafieldofinquirystillverymuchexiststoday.Whatisneedediswillto achieve,awillingnesstonetwork,andaboveallasharedvisionoftransformations thatwillimprovethediscipline. Thetenyearssincethepublicationofthesespecialissueshavecontinuedtobe aperiodoftremendousgrowthinthesophisticationofindividuallevelresearch, withevengreaterdiscussionanddebateonindividuallevelapproachesthanever seen in the field. The cause for much of this came from the development of a survey for nascent entrepreneurs by the Entrepreneurial Research Consortium. The survey, later called the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics, was intended as the standard-setter for key variables and measures in entrepreneur- ship research. Built by over 120 researchers from more than 30 institutions worldwide (Reynolds, 2000), the research teams developing measures included many of the most active individual-level researchers in entrepreneurship. The space limitations inherent in the survey meant that variables and measures received one of the most detailed, profound, public and critical assessments ever attempted in the field. As a result, a new distillation of key concepts and measures in individual-level processes emerged, and because of the widespread CognitiveApproachestoEntrepreneurshipResearch 5 membership and involvement in the ERC/PSED process, these concepts and measures became among the most widely disseminated and best understood scales ever developed. Today the impact of the ERC/PSED effort is evident in the sophistication, elegance, and rigor of the measures used in entrepreneurship research. The ERC/PSED was invented and pioneered through the truly monumental efforts of Paul Reynolds, who had worked at Wharton, Michigan, Marquette, Babson and the London Business School at different phases of the research process. Reynolds’s contribution of vision and determination will probably becomealegendaryexampleforresearchentrepreneurshipinacademia,andhis contributionstoallphasesoftheresearchcannotbeoverstated.Butlikesomany great entrepreneurial ventures, even those started by an individual often only come to fruition by the efforts of a team, and for the ERC, and later the PSED, this came in two stages. Initially, Reynolds, Nancy Carter and William Gartner worked closely together with the first precursor to the ERC research stream (Carter, Gartner & Reynolds, 1996), with Gartner working to operationalize the multi-levelvariableshediscussedinpriorworks. Asthisworkprovedtoviabilityofastudyofnascentorpotentialentrepreneurs, thepotentialfortheERC/PSEDemerged.Togovernthisconsortiumofinstitutions andfaculty,anExecutiveCommitteewasformed.Reynolds,CarterandGartner were immediately elected to the Executive Committee, as were Candida Brush, Per Davidsson, Mary Williams and Kelly Shaver. The resulting ERC/PSED surveys in many ways came to embody the new generation of individual-level cognitive research that Gartner and Shaver worked so hard to develop and showcaseinothervenues. With the past decade of concentrated focus on individual level models of entrepreneurialcognitioninboththeory,researchandinstrumentdevelopment,the popular and academic conceptualizations of the entrepreneur as a person driven by cognitions have neatly come together. Today entrepreneurship researchers actually study concepts like opportunity and vision, which are immediately recognizabletothegeneralpublicascharacteristicofentrepreneurs. Despite the face validity of cognitive models of entrepreneurship to the general public, the specifics of the theories, instruments and research efforts themselvesarefocusedonmoredemandingformsofvalidation,linkedtoamore demandingresearchcommunityandtheactionarmsofgovernmentsandbusiness fundingorganizationseagertoincreasethenumberofbusinessstarts,especially among high-growth ventures. In developing this volume of the Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth series, determining which of the many cognitive advances in entrepreneurship research to present posed a significantproblemofchoice.
Description:The list of books you might like
