As one example, the authors argue that family firms have a longer-term time orientation that would allow

them to pursue longer-term NPD projects. As another example (2), the authors argue that family firms tend to have a more conservative firm culture that exacerbates radical innovation (Harms and Meierkord, 2008). In four sets of comparative case studies, the authors identify idiosyncrasies of family firms in terms of NPD management.

Strategic resource management is explored further by Cassia and Minola (2012), who apply a resource-based perspective on factors that distinguish European hyper-growth firms from high- and normal-growth counterparts. They focus on the role of resource endowments and entrepreneurial orientation. While the resource endowments are the resources a company can use to develop unique strategies, they remain inert in themselves. Entrepreneurs need to manage these resources in a proactive, innovative and risk-oriented way (Entrepreneurial Orientation, EO) for achieving performance. Cassia and Minola find that it is not EO per se, but rather the existence of slack resources that can distinguish average from high-performing firms. The positive impact of slack that is found in this paper runs counter to the idea that entrepreneurs often pursue opportunities without resources currently controlled (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Rather, highly successful firms seem to be characterized by an above-average degree of slack resources which allow the firms to apply exploration and exploitation strategies at the same time. Extraordinary growth seems mainly explainable by extraordinary business opportunities and extraordinary access to slack resource (especially knowledge-based resources) Value creation through technology competency as a key resource for high tech entrepreneurial action is at the heart of the Tierney et al. (2012) effort. Technology competency is embodied in production facilities that offer a high degree of flexibility for entrepreneurs. These Multiple Technology Production Facilities (MTPF) are typified by substantial capitalization costs and operational expenses that far outpace entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial resources (Walsh, 2004; Walsh and Linton, 2000). The authors discuss by what key performance indicators (metrics) MTPF can be most effectively managed. That way, they contribute to a discussion leading to an effective use of a key resource for technology-oriented entrepreneurs. While we argue that the model by Ireland et al. (2003) has shown its utility as an integrative framework from which to develop research on SE further, we do not neglect the modeling effort by Hitt et al. (2011). In the more recent model, different types of resources (organizational and individual) are recognized, and different types of outputs (societal,

organizational, and individual benefits) are specified. We agree that there is value in analyzing these aspects in detail, suggesting a configurational perspective (Harms et al., 2009a). In addition, we suggest that future research should try to explicitly integrate steps of the entrepreneurial process, from opportunity recognition/creation to value creation, in an effort to make opportunity more explicit in the SE process (Harms et al., 2009b). At the same time, the results of our Special Issue highlight additional research opportunities along the lines of each process step. While we congratulate the authors for their research effort and extend our thanks to the reviewers, we hope that as editors of this special issue we have managed to strike a balance between diversity and consistency of the topics that we have included. Process models such as Ireland et al. (2003) and Hitt et al. (2011) can serve as hubs from which the spokes of individual research efforts can be integrated. We are looking forward to more research projects on this exciting topic.
Subscribe

Academic Publications Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions

Edit

Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions (Citations: 292)

Norris F. KruegerJR, Michael D. Reilly, Alan L. Carsrud Why are intentions interesting to those who care about new venture formation? Entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, a way of thinking that emphasizes opportunities over threats. The opportunity identification process is clearly an intentional process, and, therefore, entrepreneurial intentions clearly merit our attention. Equally important, they offer a means to better explain and predict entrepreneurship.We don't start a business as a reflex, do we? We may respond to the conditions around us, such as an intriguing market niche, by starting a new venture. Yet, we think about it first; we process the cues from the environment around us and set about constructing the perceived opportunity into a viable business proposition.In the psychological literature, intentions have proven the best predictor of planned behavior, particularly when that behavior is rare, hard to observe, or involves unpredictable time lags. New businesses emerge over time and involve considerable planning. Thus, entrepreneurship is exactly the type of planned behavior (Bird 1988; Katz and Gartner 1988) for which intention models are ideally suited. If intention models prove useful in understanding business venture formation intentions, they offer a coherent, parsimonious, highly-generalizable, and robust

theoretical framework for understanding and prediction.Empirically, we have learned that situational (for example, employment status or informational cues) or individual (for example, demographic characteristics or personality traits) variables are poor predictors. That is, predicting entrepreneurial activities by modeling only situational or personal factors usually resulted in disappointingly small explanatory power and even smaller predictive validity. Intentions models offer us a significant opportunity to increase our ability to understand and predict entrepreneurial activity.The current study compares two intention-based models in terms of their ability to predict entrepreneurial intentions: Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (TPB) and Shapero's model of the entrepreneurial event (SEE). Ajzen argues that intentions in general depend on perceptions of personal attractiveness, social norms, and feasibility. Shapero argues that entrepreneurial intentions depend on perceptions of personal desirability, feasibility, and propensity to act. We employed a competing models approach, comparing regression analyses results for the two models. We tested for overall statistical fit and how well the results supported each component of the models. The sample consisted of student subjects facing imminent career decisions. Results offered strong statistical support for both models.(1) Intentions are the single best predictor of any planned behavior, including entrepreneurship. Understanding the antecedents of intentions increases our understanding of the intended behavior. Attitudes influence behavior by their impact on intentions. Intentions and attitudes depend on the situation and person. Accordingly, intentions models will predict behavior better than either individual (for example, personality) or situational (for example, employment status) variables. Predictive power is critical to better post hoc explanations of entrepreneurial behavior; intentions models provide superior predictive validity. (2) Personal and situational variables typically have an indirect influence on entrepreneurship through influencing key attitudes and general motivation to act. For instance, role models will affect entrepreneurial intentions only if they change attitudes and beliefs such as perceived self-efficacy. Intention-based models describe how exogenous influences (for eample, perceptions of resource availability) change intentions and, ultimately, venture creation. (3) The versatility and robustness of intention models support the broader use of comprehensive, theory-driven, testable process models in entrepreneurship research (MacMillan and Katz 1992). Intentional behavior helps explain and model why many entrepreneurs decide to start a business long before they scan for opportunities.Understanding intentions helps researchers and theoreticians to understand related phenomena. These include: what triggers opportunity scanning, the sources of ideas for a business venture, and how the venture ultimately becomes a reality. Intention models can describe how entrepreneurial training molds intentions in subsequent venture creation (for example, how does training in business plan writing change attitudes and intentions?). Past research has extensively explored aspects of new venture plans once written. Intentionality argues instead that we study the planning process itself for determinants of venturing behavior. We can apply intentions models to other strategic decisions such as the decision to grow or exit a business. Researchers can model the intentions of critical stakeholders in the venture, such as venture capitalists' intentions toward investing in a given company. Finally, management

researchers can explore the overlaps between venture formation intentions and venture opportunity identification.Entrepreneurs themselves (and those who teach and train them) should benefit from a better understanding of their own motives. The lens provided by intentions affords them the opportunity to understand why they made certain choices in their vision of the new venture.Intentions-based models provide practical insight to any planned behavior. This allows us to better encourage the identification of personally-viable, personally-credible opportunities. Teachers, consultants, advisors, and entrepreneurs should benefit from a better general understanding of how intentions are formed, as well as a specific understanding of how founders' beliefs, perceptions, and motives coalesce into the intent to start a business. This understanding offers sizable diagnostic power, thus entrepreneurship educators can use this model to better understand the motivations and intentions of students and trainees and to help students and trainees understand their own motivations and intentions.Carefully targeted training becomes possible. For example, ethnic and gender differences in career choice are largely explained by self-efficacy differences. Applied work in psychology and sociology tells us that we already know how to remediate self-efficacy differences. Raising entrepreneurial efficacies will raise perceptions of venture feasibility, thus increasing the perception of opportunity.Economic and community development hinges not on chasing smokestacks, but on growing new businesses. To encourage economic development in the form of new enterprises we must first increase perceptions of feasibility and desirability. Policy initiatives will increase business formations if those initiatives positively influence attitudes and thus influence intentions. The growing trends of downsizing and outsourcing make this more than a sterile academic exercise. Even if we successfully increase the quantity and quality of potential entrepreneurs, we must also promote such perceptions among critical stakeholders including suppliers, financiers, neighbors, government officials, and the larger community.The findings of this study argue that promoting entrepreneurial intentions by promoting public perceptions of feasibility and desirability is not just desirable; promoting entrepreneurial intentions is also thoroughly feasible.

...In addition, this literature has argued that the motivation to enter selfemployment is predisposed by the need for success and achievement, creativity and preferences for novel activities, and risk-taking propensities (McClelland 1965; Brockhaus 1980; Krueger et al. 2000)...
o

Thomas Lange. Job satisfaction and self-employment: autonomy or personality?

...The theory of planned behavior, and its application in the entrepreneurship context, suggests that entrepreneurship involves primarily intentional planned behavior (Ajzen 1991; Krueger et al. 2000), and the intentions literature clearly demonstrates that intentions are the single best predictor of
o

o planned behaviors (Krueger 1993, p. 5). The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1988) proposes that, because much...

Dawn R. DeTienneMelissa, et al. Impact of founder experience on exit intentions

o ...Following other work examining socio-cognitive influences on entrepreneurial behaviour (Douglas and Shepherd 2000; Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud 2000; Orser and Hogarth-Scott 2005), we reasoned that an exploration into the growth intentions of nascent entrepreneurs in the early phase of new venture development might help explain why women-led firms grow more slowly and ultimately end up smaller...

Value creationThis is the first and only book to combine the concept of shareholder value creation with the financial reporting process. Readers will discover the clear links between shareholder value creation, the financial accounting statements, and the market value of the firm. They'll also explore the steps leading from good decisions by management to strong financial statements, and higher shareholder value and stock prices. Throughout the pages, the authors strike an effective balance among the mechanics underlying the preparation of the statements, the measurement issues behind the mechanics, and the economic context in which the statements are prepared and used. Thoughtful, creative, and easy to understand. Financial Reporting for Managers: A Value-Creation Perspective links shareholder value creation and the financial accounting statements to the market value of the firm in a way that can easily be understood by beginners and professionals alike. In simple, powerful terms, the book lays out the pathways leading from good decisions by management to strong financial statements, and higher shareholder value and stock prices.