The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures
Abstract
This study traces the origins of innovative strategies by examining the attributes of ‘innovative entrepreneurs.’ In an inductive grounded theory study of innovative entrepreneurs, we develop a theory that innovative entrepreneurs differ from executives on four behavioral patterns through which they acquire information: (1) questioning; (2) observing; (3) experimenting; and (4) idea networking. We develop operational measures of each of these behaviors and find significant differences between innovative entrepreneurs and executives in a large sample survey of 72 successful and unsuccessful innovative entrepreneurs and 310 executives. Drawing on network theory, we develop a theory of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition that explains why these behaviors increase the probability of generating an idea for an innovative venture. We contend that one's ability to generate novel ideas for innovative new businesses is a function of one's behaviors that trigger cognitive processes to produce novel business ideas. We also posit that innovative entrepreneurs are less susceptible to the status quo bias and engage in these information‐seeking behaviors with a motivation to change the status quo. Copyright © 2009 Strategic Management Society.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897
The associative basis of the creative process.
Mednick, S. (1962) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0048850 · Cited by 4,140
Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/432782 · Cited by 1,885 · cited 2×
“Finally, social network theorists have argued that the structure of one’s social relationships determines the quantity of information, the quality of information, and how rapidly people can acquire the information necessary to discover entrepreneurial opportunities (Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986; Marsden, 1983; Rodan and G…”
BackgroundRisk Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1980) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/255515 · Cited by 1,733
Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments
Burgelman, R. A. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393493 · Cited by 1,018
Cited by
A Competency-Based Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights
Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., Fu, J., & Singhal, S. (2013) · Journal of Small Business Management · doi:10.1111/jsbm.12023 · Cited by 670
Entrepreneurship in digital platforms: Anetwork‐centric view
Srinivasan, A., & Venkatraman, N. (2018) · Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal · doi:10.1002/sej.1272 · Cited by 331
Editor's Introduction. Entrepreneurs’ Behavior: Elucidation and Measurement
Bird, B., Schjoedt, L., & Baum, J. R. (2012) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00535.x · Cited by 138
AI-Augmented Brainwriting: Investigating the use of LLMs in group ideation
Shaer, O., Cooper, A., Mokryn, O., Kun, A. L., & Ben Shoshan, H. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642414 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C.
- Venue
- Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 317-338
- ISSN
- 1932-4391 (ISSN-L)
- 1932-443X
- OpenAlex
- W2029954751
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 11.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
