Download View PDF - CiteSeerX

USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1093
BEYOND INTENT: ANTECEDENTS OF RESILIENCE & PRECIPITATING EVENTS
FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS AND … ACTION
Norris Krueger Jr., Entrepreneurship Northwest
1632 S RIVERSTONE LN APT 304
BOISE, ID 83706
208-440-3747, [email protected]
William Schulte Jr., Shenandoah University
Jeffrey Stamp, University of North Dakota
ACADEMIC 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 a
model to formally and rigorously study the perceived barriers and triggers to social
entrepreneurship and the role of entrepreneurial resilience in that process, using a unique and
powerful extreme context: Response to natural disaster. We further propose a large-scale
research project to test that model.
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 – and
implement - 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
1
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1094
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 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 shortcuts (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 fastgrowing “gazelle” firms to social impact and job creation (e.g., Doern 2006).
2
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1095
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 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.
3
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1096
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.
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 theoretically. 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 entrepreneurial?
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,
4
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1097
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?
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 selfefficacy 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/triggers1.
1
The dominant measure of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (DeNoble, et al., 1999) has proven robust; DeNoble
reports (personal communication) the development of a social entrepreneurship self-efficacy scale soon to be
deployed.
5
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1098
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 (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 goaldirected 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 welldocumented, 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
6
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1099
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).
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. Selfefficacy 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 ENTREPRENEURS 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 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).
7
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1100
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 commercial entrepreneurial) activity, such as measures of selfefficacy.)
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)
8
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1101
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; studying 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 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.
9
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1102
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.
10
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1103
References
Acs, Z. J., Arenius, P., Hay, M. & Minniti, M. (2005) GEM 2004 Executive Report.
Ajzen, I., (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes 50: 179-211.
Bates, T. (1995) Self-employment entry across industry groups, Journal of Business Venturing,
10(2): 143-156.
Brannback, M., Krueger, N. Carsrud, A., Kickul, 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) Initiating 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 SME growth? Paper at the Western Academy
of Management.
DuCharme, K. & Brawley, L. (1995) Predicting the intentions & behavior of exercise initiates
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.
Godin, 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.
11
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1104
Presentation at Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Glasgow, Scotland
Konigsmark, A. (2007) It's a hard sell for some, a Big Easy for others, USA Today, 28 February
2007, p.A-1.
Krueger, N. (1998) Encouraging the identification of environmental 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). Thinking entrepreneurially: Entrepreneurial cognition, in Z. Acs (ed.)
International Handbook of Entrepreneurship.
Krueger, N. (2003b) Entrepreneurial resilience: Real & perceived barriers to implementing
entrepreneurial intentions, paper at Babson Conference, Jönköping, Sweden.
Krueger, N. (2005) Social entrepreneurship: Further broadening the definition of ‘Opportunity’,
1st International Conference on Social Entrepreneurship, Barcelona.
Krueger, N. (2007) What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking,
Entrepreneurship 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) Competing 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/m5ydq )
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, prediction &
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.
12
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1105
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) University 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.
Seligman, M. (1990) Learned Optimism. NY: Knopf.
Shapero, A. (1975) The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur, Psychology Today, 8, 83-88+.
Shapero, A., & Sokol. L. (1982). Some 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) Activist 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-religious influence and the entrepreneurial decision. Presentation to 2nd
International Social Entrepreneurship Research Conference, New York University.
13
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1106
Figure 2. Resilience and Precipitating Events
Norms
Intent
Resilience
Entrepreneurial
Action
Precipitating Event
14
USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 1107
Exo
Personal Desirability
gen
ous
Fac
tors
Perceived
Social Norms
Perceived Desirability
of Opportunity
(pe
Entrepreneurial
Intentions
rso
nal,
situ
Perceived SelfEfficacy
atio
nal)
Perceived Feasibility
Perceived
Collective Efficacy
Figure 1. Intentions Model (Shapero, 1982; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994)
Precipitating
Factors