The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive Processes of Opportunity Recognition: The Role of Structural Alignment
Abstract
Substantial gains can be made by individuals and organizations adept at detecting new opportunities. But how do business leaders do that concretely? Organization research shows that managers are more inclined to identify threats than opportunities, but it is still not clear why this is the case. Likewise, research points to several factors that may facilitate the recognition of opportunities. Yet empirical observations have been limited by retrospective biases and other conceptual challenges. As a result, key questions remain not only about what factors facilitate the recognition of opportunities, but also about why these factors play such a role. To further understanding of these issues, we study the reasoning strategies that individuals mobilize for recognizing opportunities. We develop a model of opportunity recognition as a cognitive process of structural alignment, and analyze the think-aloud verbalizations of executive entrepreneurs as they try to recognize opportunities for new technologies. In contrast to prior research, the qualitative and quantitative data do not provide evidence that individuals use prototypes to recognize opportunities. Instead, we find that different kinds of mental connections play different roles in the process of recognizing opportunities, with different consequences. We also document why and how prior knowledge may facilitate this process. By drawing attention to the cognitive underpinnings of opportunity recognition, we cast light on why it constitutes such a challenging task for individuals and organizations. In turn, this provides a useful basis for exploring the factors that explain why some individuals/organizations are able to recognize opportunities that others simply fail to see.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For example, research has found that knowledge (Grégoire et al., 2010), information (Ozgen and Baron, 2007;Shane, 2000) and social networks (Ma et al., 2011;Singh, 2000) are essential resources within the opportunity recognition process.”
From Work hard or play hard: the effect of leisure crafting on opportunity recognition and venture performance (2023) · cites this paper as Grégoire et al., 2010
In the citing paper
“Entrepreneurs can craft their leisure time so that they can engage in learning experiences directed at acquiring knowledge and skills, which can positively influence their ability to recognize opportunities (cf.Grégoire et al., 2010).”
From Work hard or play hard: the effect of leisure crafting on opportunity recognition and venture performance (2023) · cites this paper as Grégoire et al., 2010
Citations
Cites
Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,346
Knight, F. H. (1921) · Cited by 9,967
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 3×
“These results indicate acceptable levels of interrater reliability (cf. Lombard et al. 2002, Neuendorf 2002).”
MethodResultThe Use of Knowledge in Society
von Hayek, F. A. (1996) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-9749-1.50005-3 · Cited by 6,493
Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices*
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 · Cited by 5,248
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation
(2021) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(21)x0002-3 · Cited by 5,082
Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities
Shane, S. A. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602 · Cited by 4,594
An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259140 · Cited by 4,544
Book Review: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Venkatesan, M., Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1986) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151491 · Cited by 4,364
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393807 · Cited by 4,285
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- 10.2307/257995 · DOI
- Gavetti G., 2005, Harvard Bus. Rev., 83, 54
- 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 · DOI · Paper page
- Hayek F. A. V., 1945, Amer. Econom. Rev., 35, 519
- Ireland R. D., 1999, Acad. Management Executive, 13, 43
- Ireland R. D., 2003, J. Management, 29, 963
- NASA, 2003, Spinoff 2003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41:1.03 · Cited by 3,138
Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship
Nambisan, S. (2016) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1111/etap.12254 · Cited by 3,132
Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization
Davidsson, P. (2015) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.002 · Cited by 1,042
Fisher, G. (2012) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00537.x · Cited by 1,138
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & FIGGE, F. (2014) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0341 · Cited by 1,082
Metadata
- Authors
- Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A.
- Affiliations
- Georgia State University (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 413-431
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2118430729
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 107
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 26.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Keywords
- opportunity recognition, structural alignment, cognitive processes, prior knowledge, prototype
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
