Failure Is an Option: Failure Barriers and New Firm Performance

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 (1) ◽  
pp. 14604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Neal Eberhart ◽  
Chuck Eesley ◽  
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt
Keyword(s):  
1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnold C. Cooper
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-128
Author(s):  
Cai Li ◽  
Zhu Xiumei ◽  
Cui Qiguo ◽  
Zhao Di
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 0-0

In recent years, entrepreneurial bricolage acts as an effective way to solve the problem of resource constraint in new firms, and then gradually attracted attention from related scholars in entrepreneurship field. However, the existing literatures have an obviously insufficient of the implementation and driving factor of entrepreneurial bricolage behavior. Therefore, in this paper, we integrate entrepreneurial bricolage theory with transformational leadership theory to construct a theory model among dual-level (i.e., individual-focused and group-focused) transformational leadership, entrepreneurial bricolage and new firm performance by means of 194 questionnaires to empirical analysis. The results show that the entrepreneurial bricolage has the mediated role in the relationship between dual-level transformational leadership and new firm performance.


Author(s):  
Ignacio Contin-Pilart ◽  
Martin Larraza-Kintana ◽  
Victor Martin-Sanchez

Purpose Drawing on institutional logics theory, this paper aims to examine the determinants of entrepreneurs’ planning behavior in the first years of 212 Spanish new firms. Additionally, this study identifies four different planning profiles: systematic planner, early planner, late planner and non-planner. Design/methodology/approach This study’s data structure is a (yearly) pooled cross-sectional time series. This paper investigates the determinants of planning behaviors among entrepreneurs, as well as the impact of that activity on new firm performance (i.e. employment growth). Findings The results confirm the relevance of institutional forces in explaining the involvement of founders of new firms upon planning activities. Institutional factors, in the form of public external support seem to explain early- and systematic-planner behavior while the influence of entrepreneurial family background does so with late-planner behavior. Originality/value The authors focus their attention on two key moments of a new venture’ life: the first year of operation and once the firm has overcome the four-year hurdle that is often used to distinguish new from established businesses. Four different patterns emerge: systematic planner (those who consistently plan over time), early planner (those who engage in planning activities in the early moments of the firm’s life but not later), late planner (those who do not plan at the beginning but end up conducting planning activities a few years later) and non-planner (those who never get involved in planning activities). This new division is an interesting additional feature of this study.


2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 1035-1052 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Dencker ◽  
Marc Gruber
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (1) ◽  
pp. 11877
Author(s):  
Robert Neal Eberhart ◽  
Renee Maria Rottner

Author(s):  
Robert Eberhart ◽  
Charles E. Eesley ◽  
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Rui de Figueiredo ◽  
Philipp Meyer ◽  
Evan Rawley

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document