Docstoc

Entrepreneurial Intentions - Entrepreneurial Resilience Real and

Document Sample
Entrepreneurial Intentions - Entrepreneurial Resilience  Real and Powered By Docstoc
					                                 Beyond Intent:
    Precipitating Events for Social Entrepreneurial Intentions and ... Action

                                  Norris Krueger, Jr., Ph.D.
                                  Entrepreneurship Northwest
                                  Boise, ID, USA
                                  norris.krueger@gmail.com
                                  (208) 440-3747

                                  William Schulte, Ph.D.
                                  Shenandoah University
                                  wschulte@su.edu

                                  Jeffrey Stamp, Ph.D.
                                  University of North Dakota
                                  Grand Forks, ND, USA
                                  jeffrey.stamp@und.edu

                                  Jill Kickul, Ph.D.
                                  Miami University
                                  Oxford, OH, USA
                                  kickuljr@muohio.edu


                                  Abstract

Researchers have vigorously pursued study of entrepreneurial intentions in the contexts of both
commercial and social entrepreneurship(Krueger 1998, 2005; Mair & Marti 2006). Formal models of
behavioral intentions offer sound theory and empirical robustness plus well-defined critical antecedents
and intentions still remain the best single predictor of human behavior. However, researchers have also
long noted that we need a much better understanding of the linkages between intention and action
(Krueger 2000; Shepherd & Krueger 2002). We have little systematic, theory-driven knowledge about
what precipitates entrepreneurial action, let alone social entrepreneurs. We propose here to study the
perceived barriers and triggers to social entrepreneurship and the role of entrepreneurial resilience to that
process, using a unique and powerful extreme context: Response to natural disaster.

An in-depth study of entrepreneurial cognitions and resilience among those affected by natural disasters
should offer us considerable insight into how entrepreneurial resilience helps social entrepreneurs to
respond more effectively to natural disasters. Understanding how entrepreneurs conceptualize barriers
(triggers) should be brought into sharp relief by the exigencies of a natural disaster. However, given some
of the unique challenges that social entrepreneurs face, this should speak more broadly to the pathways by
which social entrepreneurs arrive at their intent. As such, this study of social entrepreneurship should
speak equally to commercial entrepreneurs.




                                                                                                                1
                                Beyond Intent:
    Precipitating Events for Social Entrepreneurial Intentions... and Action
                                                  Abstract

Researchers have vigorously pursued study of entrepreneurial intentions in the contexts of both
commercial and social entrepreneurship (Krueger 1998, 2005; Mair & Marti 2006). Formal models of
behavioral intentions offer sound theory and empirical robustness plus well-defined critical antecedents
and intentions still remain the best single predictor of human behavior. However, researchers have also
long noted that we need a much better understanding of the linkages between intention and action,
especially where deeply embedded in a social context (Krueger 2000; Shepherd & Krueger 2002). We
have little systematic, theory-driven knowledge about what precipitates entrepreneurial action, let alone
social entrepreneurs. We propose here to study the perceived barriers and triggers to social
entrepreneurship and the role of entrepreneurial resilience to that process, using a unique and powerful
extreme context: Response to natural disaster.

An in-depth study of entrepreneurial cognitions and resilience among those affected by natural disasters
should offer us considerable insight into how entrepreneurial resilience helps social entrepreneurs to
respond more effectively to natural disasters. Understanding how entrepreneurs conceptualize barriers
(triggers) should be brought into sharp relief by the exigencies of a natural disaster. However, given some
of the unique challenges that social entrepreneurs face, this should speak more broadly to the pathways by
which social entrepreneurs arrive at their intent. As such, this study of social entrepreneurship should
speak equally to commercial entrepreneurs.


Beyond Intent
Understanding planned human behavior is difficult enough; predicting it presents even larger challenges.
The case of entrepreneurial behavior is no different. We have made considerable progress toward
understanding the critical antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions. We have even made progress in
understanding the intentions of social entrepreneurs. Even though intentions are causally prior to behavior
(i.e., any planned behavior is intentional) the complex, distal nature of career decisions suggests the
linkages between intent and action require considerable attention. Intentions may still be the single best
predictor of behavior, including entrepreneurial behavior, but we have too long neglected how intention
becomes action (Krueger 2000; Shepherd & Krueger 2002). Does the failure of a social entrepreneur's
intention to be realized as action reflect a barrier to action that could not be surmounted?


“Barriers” to Entrepreneurial Action
Shapero (1975, 1982) argued that some sort of “precipitating event” was crucial to the initiation of
entrepreneurial action. That precipitating event could be the appearance (or acquisition) of a perceived
facilitating factor or the removal (or avoidance) of a perceived inhibiting factor. Shapero noted how the
human life course depends considerably upon inertia, that Newton's Second Law tends to guide life

                                                                                                             2
decisions. However, what happens when something displaces that inertia and forces individuals to assess
future courses of action in a new light? Is the response to act or not act? Many entrepreneurs are born of
displacement (Shapero, 1975).


That is, we can also think of precipitating events as triggers to action or as barriers to action – changing
circumstances can evoke the perception that a positive event has surfaced [or the entrepreneur has
surfaced] thus triggering action. However, the same event could be attributed as a barrier being removed.
Does the entrepreneur identify the event as a barrier removed or a trigger appearing?


Particularly for social entrepreneurs facing enormous problems, this subtle difference in causal attribution
is far from splitting hairs. We have long noted that taking significant action in the face of uncertainty is
often influenced by how we frame the data (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky's framing effects that won
Kahneman a Nobel). In this case, perhaps a social entrepreneur may be spurred to action if she perceives a
resource (like funding) falling into place, but not if she perceives a barrier being removed. The difference
my seem trivial but is rooted in deep cognitive processing that humans frequently engage in.


Given the human propensity to simplify our cognitive processing through categorization (opportunity or
threat?), mental prototyping (have I seen this before?), and other heuristic short-cuts (Krueger 2003a), the
context of this cognitive processing becomes of paramount importance. A big part of that context is
external (e.g., social and family norms, role modeling, mentors) but those external signals get filtered by
anchoring beliefs, deep assumptions that are themselves influenced by early experiences (Krueger 2007;
Krueger et al. 2007). As such, we need to understand not only the barriers/triggers but from whence they
derive. Part of that is understanding those deep assumptions, such as those reflected in dominant patterns
of causal attributions.


Often the important barriers we need to understand may not be the barriers to launching social venture,s
rather the critical barriers to growing social ventures. Investors in social entrepreneurs, e.g., Ashoka and
Skoll, prefer to work with social entrepreneurs who seek to scale their social ventures to make a
significant, systemic impact. Policy makers would also prefer to focus attention on social ventures of
significant scale. If impact and the requisite scalability are critical desiderata, then we need to better
understand barriers to (triggers for) high growth. If anything, we understand barriers to growth even less
than barriers to launch, despite the centrality of fast-growing “gazelle” firms to social impact and job
creation (e.g., Doern 2006).

                                                                                                               3
Resilience
Shapero also argued a critical antecedent of entrepreneurial action is some “propensity to act” upon
perceived opportunities while Seligman‟s measure of resilience, learned optimism, has served as a
potential proxy (Krueger, et al., 2000).


In the earliest model of entrepreneurial intent, Shapero's model of the "entrepreneurial event" (1975,
1982) suggested that some sort of significant "precipitating event" would trigger the pursuit of a
perceived personal opportunity. Figure 1 depicts a more recent incarnation of the model that includes
elements of Ajzen's theory of planned behavior.


Research tends to find that barriers explain a significant percentage of the variance in human behavior
(Lien, et al. 2002). However, please note that formal models of intentions typically view the influences on
the linkages between intent and behavior to be moderators. That is, the impact is indirect. Nonetheless,
the impact of barriers is important, even more so for those seeking to help promote entrepreneurial
behaviors.


Intriguingly, there has been perhaps surprisingly little research into the broader question of barriers
between intent and action, although Ajzen argues that „perceived behavioral control‟ (essentially self-
efficacy) moderates the intent-behavior linkage, as well as serving as an independent predictor (Ajzen
1991). The same research lack is true in research in entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship
(Krueger 2003b; Doern 2006).


One interesting exception from the health literature found that barriers (both facilitating and inhibiting)
perceived by those with very strong intentions appear to differ from those perceived by individuals with
low intent (Godin, et al. 1994). Researchers in marketing and in economics (e.g., Julander & Söderlund
2003) have focused on switching barriers: What impedes an individual's ability to change purchasing
habits? In technology transfer, Samsom & Gurdon (1993) found that the perceived absence of managerial
skills represented a common barrier for inventors to commercialize their inventions.


However, the barriers need not be obvious. Jasinski and Dunn (1998) found that giving entrepreneurship
training to motivated inventors at a federal research lab proved remarkably inefficacious. This echoes
Brazeal's work (1993) that was spawned by the repeated observation that those best prepared and most

                                                                                                              4
desirous of promoting innovation in an organization would rarely take action. What are the perhaps non-
obvious barriers that might derail any innovator, especially to act as a social entrepreneur?


Categorizing Barriers/Triggers
Shapero suggested that "precipitating events" come in many guises and are often themselves in the eye of
the beholder. However, we can make some interesting distinctions among types of precipitating events, as
it would make sense to consider the differential impact of different types of potential triggers. Let us first
consider the dimensions noted by Shapero, then Schindehutte, et al.‟s more recent typology.


Push vs. Pull: The entrepreneurship field has long considered that the trigger could be either a "push" or
"pull" (or perhaps some combination). Something positive might 'pull' the prospective entrepreneur
toward starting a venture (e.g., an incredible opportunity). On the other hand, some negative exigency
might 'push' an individual toward self-employment (e.g., job loss, forced migration). For example, the
GEM studies (e.g., Acs. et al. 2005) have classified the initial motivation to launch as either “necessity”
(push) or “opportunity” (pull).


On the other hand, the assessment of “push” versus “pull” is highly subjective. A social entrepreneur
might well perceive a seemingly disastrous circumstance as “pulling” them toward entrepreneurial action.
Similarly, might someone perceive a great opportunity as a threat by forcing them into unwanted (if
socially beneficial) action? In any event, the distinction between perceiving a “push” or a “pull” has a
significant cognitive component.


Research suggests that the great majority of entrepreneurs are 'need' ('push') entrepreneurs as opposed to
those 'pulled.' For example, much attention is given to high-growth "gazelle" entrepreneurs because of
their overwhelming contributions to technology commercialization and job creation. Again, the GEM data
strongly suggests the great majority of gazelles were pulled by the significant opportunities that support
their explosive growth rates (Acs, et al. 2005).


Investors in social entrepreneurs, including both Ashoka and Skoll, are seeking social entrepreneurs who
want to scale their social ventures to make a significant, systemic impact. If impact and the requisite
scalability being critical desiderata, then we need to better understand “pull” entrepreneurs who are much
more likely to grow to scale.



                                                                                                                 5
Facilitator vs. Inhibitor: As discussed at the outset, Shapero noted that the precipitating event could be the
appearance of a something that the individual perceives as facilitating action (a 'facilitator'). However, the
precipitating event could also be the removal of a perceived barrier (an 'inhibitor').


Entrepreneurial Barriers/Triggers
Entrepreneurship scholars seem well aware of the need to better understand what precipitates the
initiation of entrepreneurial activity, yet most research advanced atheoretically. Being absent an
appropriate theoretical model such as the formal intentions models, this is understandable. For example,
the US Small Business Administration commissioned a very large survey of entrepreneurs regarding
perceived barriers to entry, generating a lengthy list of potentially testable „suspects.‟ Interestingly, the
range of barriers cited was remarkably broad. Other scholars have thus focused on more specific barriers
such as financing (e.g., Bates 1995). However, we have seen little study on the barriers or triggers for
social entrepreneurs. What precipitates action that is socially entrepreneuria l?


Shapero (1975) developed the notion of a precipitating factor as a central component of his model of the
entrepreneurial event, but he did not advance a theory-based conceptualization of the construct, beyond a
useful categorization of precipitating events. However, Schindehutte, Morris and Kuratko (2003: 23)
recently presented an equally intriguing typology of triggers. While ostensibly drawn from the domain of
corporate entrepreneurship, the typology appears highly applicable to a broader domain. Given the
embeddedness of social ventures, the lessons from intra-organizational entrepreneurship should be apt.


Schindehutte, et al. (2003: p. 23) offer five key dimensions of entrepreneurial triggers, each of which is
subject to the individual's perception:
        1) Internal vs. External (to organization)
        2) Opportunity vs. Threat
        3) Market Pull vs. Technology Push
        4) Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up
        5) Search (de novo) vs. Serial

We can readily categorize a trigger (or barrier) along these five dimensions. However, it is likely that the
entrepreneur‟s perception of the barrier or trigger is going to be critical. Consider Bates‟s (1995) lack of
capital as a barrier. Is that deemed internal (“I can‟t find money”) or external (“lending dried up”)?
Would acquiring capital be perceived more as a spur to action than the removal of a negative barrier?


                                                                                                                6
Barriers Also Influence Antecedents of Intent
Cultural factors such as social norms can influence the lenses by which entrepreneurs perceive
opportunities and thus could represent significant barriers (Morrison 2000; Doern 2006). For example,
Pastakia found large cultural barriers to certain kinds of social ventures such as 'green' innovations
(1998). Cultural and social values could diffuse perceptions of desirability and thus lowering intentions.
However, personal norms, such as one's perceived role demands can also be influential such as whether
one perceives themselves as a social activist or as a social entrepreneur (Simms & Robinson 2006).
Moreover, even seemingly strong cultural norms can vary by locale. For example, Nepalese Buddhists are
much more entrepreneurial than Canadian Buddhists (Vallière 2006).


Intriguingly, while self-efficacy judgments about the behavior appear to be a potent, robust predictor of
intent, Ajzen (1991) argues that self-efficacy should also predict behavior, independent of its impact via
intention. Along those lines, there is increasing evidence that efficacy perceptions with respect to
perceived hurdles are also important. That is, one's self-efficacy at surmounting critical barriers is crucial
to intent being realized as concrete action (DuCharme & Brawley 1995.) This might represent a fruitful
avenue for entrepreneurship scholars to explore in the future, developing a self-efficacy measure
specifically based on barriers/triggers 1 .


Resilience and Learned Optimism
Few people would question the importance of human resilience to adversity. However, too often we are
hostage to retrospective bias: Successful responders to adversity are deemed resilient. Even if we are not
considering how people respond to disasters, we need to identify the critical predictors of resilience.


We often use the term “optimism” to characterize the resilient but the research literature reverses this:
Healthy optimism reflects resilience to adversity. Fortunately, we have strong theory and a vast array of
empirical data that allows us to thus define a healthy optimism in terms of resilience. Research found that
those experiencing learned helplessness share certain cognitive patterns with the clinically depressed. The
clinically depressed are typically non-resilient to adversity. From there, researchers then robustly
demonstrated in multiple settings the inverse thinking patterns characterize the healthy optimist


1         The dominant measure of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (DeNoble, et al., 1999) has proven robust; DeNoble
reports (personal commun ication) the development of a social entrepreneurship self-efficacy scale soon to be
deployed.

                                                                                                                 7
(Seligman, 1990).


The key cognitive pattern was in how individuals tended to make attributions of cause. The exact “cause”
per se is less important than the nature of the causal attribution. Typically, humans attribute good
outcomes to more internal causes and bad outcomes to more external causes. However, the distinguishing
fact is whether the individual attributes the cause as stable (will happen again) or not (will not likely
happen again). The optimist chronically makes causal attributions for negative outcomes that are unstable
(not permanent), even if they attribute the cause of a negative outcome to themselves (“I screwed up, but I
have learned from it!”) Even where the optimistic attribution is illusory at best, the resulting resilience is
highly functional, spurring both persistence in the face of adversity and effort toward learning how to do
better. Such resilience, even if illusory, is associated strongly with initiating and persisting at goal-
directed activity. It is also associated significantly with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial intent (Krueger,
et al. 2000). Consider again “lack of capital” as a barrier. The resilient social entrepreneur tends to think
of unstable causes (“lending dried up”) while the less resilient blame themselves (“I can‟t find money”).


Where Do We Learn Learned Optimism?
Individuals acquire biases toward how they make causal attributions, often at a surprisingly early age.
Attributional style pervades many important life decisions and persists through life (Seligman, 1990).
Entrepreneurs‟ biases toward internal control attributions are well-documented, moreover, entrepreneurs
tend to avoid paralyzing attributions of blame (Gatewood, Shaver & Gartner, 1995). This belief in control
over one‟s own destiny can be acquired at an early age (Seligman, 1990). Children of entrepreneurs,
particularly successful ones, may learn to make more internal attributions of causality. More important,
they may also learn resilience (e.g., Brännback, Krueger, Carsrud & Kickul, 2007; Iannarelli 1992).


As such, we can hypothesize that we learn optimism - and that we learn helplessness – from multiple
sources. Local social and cultural norms may play a significant role by sending continuous cues about the
efficacy of personal agency, sending signals that the recipients need not be fully conscious of. Closer to
home, immersion in the beliefs of family and friends can have the same impact. Research into deep
beliefs shared by entrepreneurs suggests that much of what we learn from the local culture and from our
friends and family results in a form of tacit knowledge, derived from habitual learning. Deep assumptions
ultimately find their way into our automatic processing (Krueger 2003a, 2007; Krueger, Kickul, Gundry,
Verma & Wilson 2007).



                                                                                                                 8
Past research into how resilience to adversity is associated with the barriers perceived by potential
entrepreneurs yielded a perhaps surprising result. Subjects exhibiting very high or very low scores on
Seligman‟s learned optimism instrument appeared to report greater numbers of barriers. That is, the
highly optimistic and the highly pessimistic both perceived greater numbers (and larger magnitude) of
barriers, an interesting conundrum, if replicated, yet highly relevant to understanding social
entrepreneurial responses to extreme circumstances (Krueger 2003b).


Self-Efficacy
A different sort of assumption is much more malleable, Bandura's notion of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is
the judgment of one's ability to execute a target behavior and, as such, has long proven a powerful
predictor of goal-directed behavior. Moreover, self-efficacy is more easily molded than attributional
patterns by experience and training.


Entrepreneurial self-efficacy was perhaps the first construct that researchers found to be robust in
explaining and predicting entrepreneurial phenomena, including entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger &
Brazeal 1994; Krueger, et al. 2000). For example, strong self-efficacy beliefs can override otherwise
potent cognitive influences such as Kahneman's framing effects (Krueger 2003a). Obviously, judgments
about one's ability would map closely onto what one see as a barrier or a facilitator (hard to perceive a
lack of ability as a positive signal toward action.) As such, research in this arena should assess efficacy
judgments, if only as a covariate.


A PROPOSED RESEARCH SETTING:
HOW SOCIAL ENTREPREN EURS RESPOND TO NATURAL DISASTERS

A recent symposium (Schulte 2007; Stamp 2007) addressed how social entrepreneurs responded far more
effectively than bureaucratic entities to natural disasters by comparing responses to a similar disaster, the
devastating floods that struck New Orleans (in the wake of Hurricane Katrina) and Grand Forks, North
Dakota. In both cases, it was the entrepreneurial responses that most often yielded the most positive
results.


Overall, Grand Forks responded to their disaster so effectively that few people remember their horrific
floods and fires, while the suffering in New Orleans remains vivid globally (Konigsmark, 2007). While
North Dakotans pride themselves on retaining their “pioneer spirit”, civic bureaucracy was largely


                                                                                                                9
ineffective (Stamp 2007). While New Orleans is still firmly in the grasp of a more paternalistic culture
and bureaucratic forces that failed them, there were truly remarkable efforts by the socially
entrepreneurial that have done much to heal the city (Schulte 2007; Lambert 2006). Consider the
Musicians' Village that has taken the lead in restoring the housing stock in the beleaguered Ninth Ward
with the entrepreneurial leadership of musicians such as Harry Connick, Jr. (Schulte 2007).


We believe that the extreme circumstances of a major, sudden natural disaster offer a unique opportunity
to understand how social entrepreneurs choose to respond. It should bring into sharp relief how the
perceptions of barriers (and triggers) to action differed (a) between those who responded effectively and
those who did not and (b) between the two locations.


We have proposed and developed a triangulated approach that permits us to begin addressing several
questions that are important to social entrepreneurship in general, not just entrepreneurial responses to
natural disaster:


Preliminary Research Questions
   What are the barriers being faced by potential social entrepreneurs?
   How do these barriers vary over time? Across specific settings (nonprofit versus for-profit)? By
    gender? Facilitating versus inhibiting?
   How do „push‟ (or „necessity‟) entrepreneurs differ from „pull‟ entrepreneurs?
   Do high-growth entrepreneurs differ from low/no-growth entrepreneurs?
   Do social entrepreneurs differ from commercial entrepreneurs in these patterns?
   How does resilience influence the perception of barriers?


Project Approach
We thus have embarked on a major research effort to examine the differences in both locations in the
barriers (triggers) perceived by the bureaucratic and entrepreneurial alike (and by average citizens) and
the underlying attributions re those barriers/triggers. We will use the free-response approach first
suggested inter alia by Krueger (2003).


Further, we will assess the degree of resilience (or learned helplessness) by using Seligman's measure of
learned optimism (Seligman 1990), making certain to capture attributions of blame , ability and action as
well as resilience. We will also gather related measures associated with social entrepreneurial (and

                                                                                                            10
commercial entrepreneurial) activity, such as measures of self-efficacy.)


We propose to triangulate this research by combining the survey approach to measuring these phenomena
in these locations with an in-depth content analysis of public statements by key participants. Seligman
(e.g., 1990) and others demonstrate that content analysis to identify patterns of causal attributions
(including attributions of personal and collective efficacy) is highly reliable and valid. Note that not only
will we compare the two cities, we can compare the more resilient and less resilient neighborhoods in
New Orleans as many neighborhoods have almost fully rebounded while others have not (Konigsmark
2007)


Finally, we are gathering appropriate demographic measures as we have long identified how age,
education and especially gender affects entrepreneurial intentions and, more recently, cognitive style
dramatically affects how intentions evolve (e.g., Kickul & Krueger 2004)


Future Research Agenda
We also can already see that this kind of analysis opens the doors to significant further research, both
basic and applied. An in-depth study of entrepreneurial cognitions and resilience among those affected by
natural disasters should offer us considerable insight into how entrepreneurial resilience helps social
entrepreneurs to respond more effectively to natural disasters. Understanding how entrepreneurs
conceptualize barriers (triggers) should be brought into sharp relief by the exigencies of a natural disaster.
However, given some of the unique challenges that social entrepreneurs face, this should speak more
broadly to the pathways by which social entrepreneurs arrive at their intent. As such, it should speak
equally to our understanding of commercial entrepreneurs, e.g., those facing significant displacement in
their industry.


Conceptually, the typologies require further refinement, though Schindehutte et al. (2003) have made
heroic progress. In the broader entrepreneurship domain it would be helpful to build a much stronger
theoretical base for continued research. However, studying social entrepreneurs and their richer decision
context seems likely to surface at least an enhanced view of barriers and triggers in general; stud ying
social entrepreneurs may even identify unique perspectives.


Empirically, once stronger theory is in place we can focus research on how social entrepreneurs deal with
precipitating events on a more fine-grained level. For example, how might the consequences differ if a

                                                                                                            11
nascent social entrepreneur perceived a trigger as positive (acquiring a resource such as financing) or
negative (removing some barrier to capital). Either way, the entrepreneur has acquired financing; does the
perception of positive versus negative actually matter? If one sees a barrier as internal versus external,
what are the on-the-ground consequences to social entrepreneurs (and their investors)?


Also, consider Godin, et al.‟s (1994) findings that perceived barriers might differ qualitatively between
high and low intenders; given the range of intent in nascent entrepreneurs (social or commercial), we need
to explore this. Is this a relatively linear phenomenon? (Do the barriers identified by extreme optimists
and pessimists differ?)


We need to better link this research with attribution theory (Seligman 1990, e.g.) and other social
psychological and cognitive psychological constructs. Cognitive mapping seems particularly apt in this
context. We certainly need to delve more deeply into the impact of personal resilience to adversity,
especially as our measure of resilience, Seligman‟s learned optimism, reflects a strong grounding in
attribution theory.


Similarly, we should tie this work more closely to both self-efficacy and Bandura's parallel notion of
collective efficacy (“we can do it”). As the latter construct has proven challenging to measure, given that
social ventures arise in complex settings, using the social cognition lens should prove useful (e.g.,
Shepherd & Krueger 2002). Also, the findings from this study would let us again consider DuCharme &
Bradley‟s work (1995) suggesting that self-efficacy at surmounting barriers might be a powerful tool to
develop. Such a self-efficacy measure should prove remarkably powerful both in researching and
assisting the nascent social entrepreneur.


Rigorously researching the barriers to (and triggers for) social entrepreneurs is like the cliché remark
about the weather: “Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything.” We are excited about what we
are about to learn and we further hope that this will inspire others to push forward research into the
cognitive processes of social entrepreneurs! Once again, studying social entrepreneurs offers considerable
insight into entrepreneurship writ large.


References
Acs, Z. J., A renius, P., Hay, M. & Minn iti, M. (2005) GEM 2004 Executive Report.



                                                                                                             12
Ajzen, I., (1991). The theory of p lanned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 50: 179-
     211.

Bates, T. (1995) Self-emp loyment entry across industry groups, Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2): 143-156.

Brannback, M ., Krueger, N. Carsrud, A., Kicku l, J. (2007) The Family Business Pipeline:Where Norms and
    Modeling Make a Difference. Paper at the Family Enterprise Research Association , Monterrey, Mexico.

Brazeal, D.(1993) Organizing for internally developed corporate ventures ,Journal of Business Venturing, 8:75-100.

De Noble, A., Jung, D. & Ehrlich, S. (1999) In itiat ing new ventures: The role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Paper
    presented at the Babson Research Conference, Babson College, Boston, MA.

Doern, R. (2006) How do perceived barriers affect SM E gro wth? Paper at the Western Academy of Management.

DuCharme, K. & Brawley, L. (1995) Predicting the intentions & behavior of e xercise in itiates using two forms of
    self-efficacy, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18(5): 479-497.

Gatewood, E., Shaver, K. & Gartner, W. (1995) A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing start -up
    behaviors and success at venture creation, Journal of Business Venturing, 10(5): 371-391.

God in, G. et al. (1994) Difference in perceived barriers to exercise between high & low intenders, American Journal
     of Health Promotion, 8(4): 279-285.

Iannarelli, C. (1992) The socialization of leaders in family business: An exploratory study of gender. Unpublished
     dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Jasinski, D. & Dunn, S. (1998) Encouraging entrepreneurial behavior: An examination of public policy encouraging
     business expansion. Proceedings, Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference.

Julander, C. & Söderlund, M. (2003) Effects of switching barriers on satisfaction, repurchase intentions and
     attitudinal loyalty, Working Paper 2003:1, Stockholm School of Economics.

Kickul, J. & Krueger, N. (2004) A cognitive processing model of entrepreneurial self-efficacy & intentionality.
    Presentation at Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Glasgow, Scotland

Konigsmark, A. (2007) It's a hard sell fo r some, a Big Easy for others, USA Today, 28 February 2007, p.A-1.

Krueger, N. (1998) Encouraging the identification of environ mental opportunities, Journal of Organizational
    Change Management, 11(2): 174 -183.

Krueger, N. (2000) The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
    24(3): 5-23.

Krueger, N. (2003a). Thin king entrepreneurially: Entrepreneurial cognition, in Z. Acs (ed .) International Handbook
    of Entrepreneurship.

Krueger, N. (2003b) Entrepreneurial resilience: Real & perceived barriers to imp lementin g entrepreneurial
    intentions, paper at Babson Conference, Jönköping, Sweden.

Krueger, N. (2005) Social entrepreneurship: Further broadening the definition of „Opportunity‟, 1 st International
    Conference on Social Entrepreneurship, Barcelona.

Krueger, N. (2007) What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thin king, Entrepreneurship

                                                                                                                     13
     Theory & Practice, 31(1): 123-138.

Krueger, N. & Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential & potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory &
    Practice 18(3): 91-104.

Krueger, N., Kickul, J., Gundry, L.,Verma, R. & Wilson, F.. (2007) Discrete Choices, Tradeoffs & Advantages:
    Modeling Social Venture Opportunities & Intentions. In Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave, in press.

Krueger, N., Reilly, M. & Carsrud, A. (2000) Co mpeting models of entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of Business
    Venturing, 15(5/6): 411-532.

Lambert , E. (2006) B-School boot camp in the Big Easy, forbes.com (http://tinyurl.com/ m5 ydq )

Lien, N. et al. (2002) Applying theory of planned behavior to fruit consumption of young adolescents, American
     Journal of Health Promotion, 16: 189-197.

Mair, J. & Marti, I. (2006b) Social entrepreneurship: A source of explanation, pred iction & delight, Journal of
     World Business, 11: 36-44.

Morrison, A. (2000) Entrepreneurship: What triggers it? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
    Research, 6(2): 59-72.

Pastakia, A. (1998) Grassroots ecopreneurs: Change agents for a sustainable society, Journal of Organizational
     Change Management, 11(2): 157-173.

Samsom, K. & Gurdon, M. (1993) Un iversity scientists as entrepreneurs, Technovation, 13(2): 63-71.

Schindehutte, M., Morris, M. & Kuratko, D. (2000) Triggering events, corporate entrepreneurship & the marketing
     function, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 8(2): 18-30.

Schulte, W. (2007) A Validation of the Social Entrepreneurship Framework: The Ninth Ward Musicians Village.
    Presentation at USASBE conference, Orlando, FL.

Selig man, M. (1990) Learned Optimism. NY: Knopf.

Shapero, A. (1975) The displaced, uncomfo rtable entrepreneur, Psychology Today, 8, 83-88+.

Shapero, A., & Soko l. L. (1982). So me social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton & K. Vesper,
    eds., The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Shepherd, D. & Krueger, N. (2002) Cognition, entrepreneurship & teams: An intentions -based perspective,
    Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. 27(2): 167-185.

Simms, S. & Robinson, J. (2006) Activ ist or entrepreneur? An identity -based model of social entrepreneurship.
    Presentation.to 2nd International Social Entrepreneurship Research Conference, NYU.

Stamp, J. (2007) The Grand Forks flood and the “pioneer spirit”. Presentation at USASBE conference, Orlando FL.

Vallière, D. (2006) Socio-relig ious influence and the entrepreneurial decision. Presentation to 2nd International
     Social Entrepreneurship Research Conference, New Yo rk Un iversity.


Figure 2. Resilience and Precipitating Events


                                                                                                                     14


          Norms                                   Intent                                 Entrepreneurial
                                                                                             Action
Exo              Personal Desirability
gen
ous
                                                     Perceived Desirability
Fac                                                  of Opportunity
                  Perceived
tors
                  Social Norms
(pe
                                                                                              Entrepreneurial
rso                                                                                           Intentions
nal,
                  Perceived Self-
situ              Efficacy
atio                                                 Perceived Feasibility
nal)              Perceived
                  Collective Efficacy                of Opportunity
                                                                              Precipitating
                                                                              Factors

       Figure 1. Intentions Model (Shape ro, 1982; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994)

				
Lingjuan Ma Lingjuan Ma
About