MGT 624(B)
DOCTORAL SEMINAR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Dr. Franz Lohrke
Phone: 348-8934
Alston 149
Email: [email protected]
Course Description and Objectives
This course is designed to provide a broad overview of key theories and frameworks employed in
entrepreneurship research. It will be conducted in a seminar format, which means that students bear a
major responsibility for contributing to each class session.
During the semester, we will discuss several theories and frameworks that can be used to study new
venture development, strategy, growth, and performance. The focus will be on examining a theory each
week and discussing one or more topics a week that can be studies employing the theory. This seminar,
thus, complements the first topic-focused PhD seminar in Entrepreneurship, MGT 624(A). (The seminars
can be taken in either order). In addition, given its focus on specific theories, it builds on previous
seminars (e.g., MGT 610). Thus, readings from these seminars will be assumed and additional reading
may be required if these first-year seminars have not yet been taken.
Students will be evaluated on several criteria:
Evaluation Criteria
First draft of seminar paper (due March 31st)
Final draft of seminar paper (due April 28th)
Presentation of seminar paper (May 1st)
Session Teacher
Participation
20%
40%
10%
15%
15%
Except in the most extreme emergencies, any student who misses an assignment without notifying the
instructor beforehand will receive a zero for the assignment. Incomplete grades will only be given in
extraordinary circumstances.
Seminar Paper
Students will have the opportunity to translate their ideas and insights into a scholarly paper, which
should be prepared in Academy of Management format and be of publishable quality in a major
management entrepreneurship journal. Papers can examine one or more theories covered in the seminar.
Theories not directly examined in the seminar, but which may also have applications to entrepreneurship
research, may also be explored. All paper ideas should be approved by the professor to avoid duplication.
Papers may be conceptual or empirical, and students are strongly encouraged, after receiving feedback, to
submit their first drafts to the Southern Management Association (SMA) by mid-April. Regardless of the
whether a student submits a paper to SMA, the first draft submitted to the professor should be a fully
developed paper; that is, it should have the 100 percent of the form (e.g., Abstract, Conclusion, complete
References) and at least 70 percent of the content of a final paper. Papers turned in with sections missing
will not be accepted and will be assessed a letter grade per day penalty until resubmitted in completed
form.
If the paper is conceptual, students are encouraged to employ one of three approaches. First, the paper
can review extant literature and suggest a future research agenda based on applying new theories,
frameworks, or research methods. Second, it can focus on a theory that heretofore has not been widely
applied to entrepreneurship research. Third, it can review on a particular topic (e.g., venture capital) and
discuss how new theories might produce fresh insights. Fourth, it can integrate multiple theories to
develop a model for an entrepreneurship research stream. These papers should go beyond simple
literature reviews to provide a critique, theoretical integration and/or a future research agenda.
If the paper is empirical, students are encouraged to employ one of two approaches, given the focus of the
seminar. First, the paper can compare and contrast at least two theories rather than testing a single theory.
Second, the paper can employ multiple theories to demonstrate the contribution of each.
Session Teacher
Depending on class size, students will lead discussions during two or more sessions. A seminar leader is
responsible for summarizing key issues and promoting discussion of current and future research issues.
The leader is, thus, expected to (1) develop and distribute a list of 5-10 discussion questions by the
Monday prior to the class periods for which s/he has responsibility as seminar leader and (2) provide
article summaries for all articles at the beginning of class. Session leaders can also assign supplemental
reading material to present additional perspectives, if necessary.
Class Preparation
Although the session leader is responsible for leading class discussion, all students are expected to
actively participate. The majority of learning in seminar format occurs during these discussions. It is
recommended, therefore, that beyond answering the 5-10 discussion questions prepared by the session
teacher, students write down at least three major issues from each reading, including main points,
controversial issues, or personal thoughts based on insights gained from the previous seminars, work
experience, or outside reading.
Some guest speakers may visit during the semester. When this occurs, class may move from Monday to
Friday from 9:00-12:00. Class time may also vary slightly based on guest speakers, holidays or other
events.
GENERAL COURSE OUTLINE
January 13:
Course Introduction
January 23:
Theory in Entrepreneurship
January 30:
Environmental Uncertainty
February 6:
Information Asymmetry
February 13: Institutional Theory
February 20: Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness
February 27: Cognitive Theories in Entrepreneurship
March 6:
Individual-level Decision Making: Strategic Reference Points, Prospect Theory, and
the Behavioral Theory of the Firm
March 13:
Group-level Decision Making: New Venture Teams
March 20:
Spring Break
March 27:
Agency Theory
March 31: First draft due
April 3:
Transaction Cost Economics
April 10:
Dynamic Capabilities and the Resource-based View of the Firm
SMA Deadline (TBA)
April 17:
Learning and Innovation
April 24:
Networking and Trust
April 28: Final Draft Due
May 1:
Final Presentations
DETAILED COURSE OUTLINE
January 13 (Friday)
Course Introduction
Brush, C., Duhaime, I., Gartner, W., Stewart, A., Katz, J., Hitt, M., Alvarez, S., Meyer, G., &
Venkataraman, S. 2003. Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship, Journal of Management,
29: 309-331.
Davidsson, P., Low, M., & Wright, M. 2001. Low and MacMillan ten years on: Achievements and
future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 5-15.
Fried, V. 2003. Defining a forum for entrepreneurship scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 111.
Ireland, D., Reutzel, C., & Webb, J. 2005. Entrepreneurship research in the AMJ. Academy of
Management Journal, 48: 556-564.
Shane, S., & Venkatraman, N. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy
of Management Review, 25: 217-226.
Dialogue. 2001. Academy of Management Review, 26: 8-16.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. 2001. The focus of entrepreneurial research: Contextual
and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 57-80.
Venkataraman, S. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s
perspective. In J. Katz and R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence,
and Growth, vol. 3: 119-138. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
January 16
Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday
January 23
Theory in Entrepreneurship
Theory:
Amit, R., Gloston, L., & Mueller, E. 1993. Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship
research. Journal of Management Studies, 30: 815-834.
Bacharach, S. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management
Review, 14: 496-515.
Gartner, W. 2001. Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory development.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 27-39.
Writing:
Bem, D. 2002. Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley, J., Zanna, M., & Roediger III, H.
(Eds). The compleat academic: A career guide. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Ketchen, D. 2002. Some candid thoughts on the publication processes. Journal of Management.28:
585-590.
Staw, B. Repairs on the road to relevance and rigor. In Cummings, L., & Frost, P. (Eds), Publishing
in the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
An example:
Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and
typology, Journal of Management, 29: 991-1013
January 30
Environmental Uncertainty
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of
Management Journal, 32: 543-576.
Milliken, F. 1987. Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and
response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12, 133-143.
Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. 2005. How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of
uncertainty? Journal of Management. 31: 776-793.
Arend, R. 1999. Emergence of entrepreneurs following exogenous technological change. Strategic
Management Journal, 20: 31-47.
Brouwer, M. 2000. Entrepreneurship and uncertainty: Innovation and competition among the many.
Small Business Economics, 15: 149-160.
Dickson, P. & Weaver, K. 1997. Environmental determinants and individual-level moderators of
alliance use. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 404-425.
McMullen, J., & Shepherd. D. 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory
of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review. 31: 132-152.
Sutcliffe, K., & Zaheer, A. 1998. Uncertainty in the transaction environment: An empirical test.
Strategic Management Journal, 9, 1-23.
February 6
Information Asymmetry
Akerlof, G. 1970. The market for “lemons”: Quality, uncertainty and the market bechanism.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84: 488-500.
Barney, J., & Ouchi, W. 1986. Chapter One, Basic Concepts: Information, Opportunism, and
Economic Exchange. In: Barney, J., & Ouchi, W. (Eds.). Organizational Economics. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Chi, T. 1994. Trading in strategic resources: Necessary conditions, transaction cost problems, and
choice of exchange structure. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 271-290.
Fiet, J. 1996. The informational basis of entrepreneurial discovery. Small Business Economics, 8:
419–430
Klein, B., Crawford, R., & Alchian, A. 1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the
competitive contracting process. Journal of Law and Economics. 21: 297-326.
Cohen, B., & Dean. T. 2005. Information asymmetry and investor valuation of IPOs: Top
management team legitimacy as a capital market signal. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 683-690.
Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization
Science, 11: 448-469.
February 13
Institutional Theory
Baum, J., & Oliver, C. 1991. Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36: 187-218.
DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organization fields. American Sociology Review, 48: 147-160.
Zucker, L. 1986. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 8: 53-111.
Bruton, G., & Ahlstrom, D. 2003. An institutional view of China’s venture capital industry explaining
the differences between China and the West. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 233-259.
Greve, H. 1998. Managerial cognition and the mimetic adoption of market positions: What you see is
what you do. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 967-988.
Honig, B., & Karlsson, T. 2004. Institutional forces and the written business plan. Journal of
Management, 30: 29-48.
Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. 2002. Mimicry and the market: Adoption of a new organizational form.
Academy of Management Journal, 45: 144-162.
Yiu, D., & Makino, S. 2002. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An
institutional perspective. Organization Science, 13: 667-683.
February 20
Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness
Aldrich, H., & Auster, E. 1986. Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their
strategic implications, in B. Staw and L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior,
8:165–198. New York: JAI Press.
Singh, J., & Tucker, D., & House, R. 1986. Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 171-193.
Stinchcombe A. Social structures of organizations. In: J. March (Ed). Handbook of Organizations.
Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1965, pp. 153-193.
Choi, Y., & Shepherd, D. 2005. Stakeholder perceptions of age and other dimensions of newness,
Journal of Management, 31: 573.
Deephouse, D.L., & Carter, S.M. 2005. An examination of differences between organizational
legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 329-360.
Delmar, F., & Shane, S., 2004. Legitimating first: organizing activities and the survival of new
ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 385-410.
Shepherd, D., Douglas, E., & Shanley. M. 2000. New venture survival: Ignorance, external shocks,
and risk reduction strategies, Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 393-410.
Zaheer, S., & Mosakowski, E. 1998. The dynamics of the liability of foreignness: A global study of
survival in financial services. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 439-463.
Zimmerman, M., & Zeitz, G. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building
legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27: 414-431.
February 27
Cognitive Theories in Entrepreneurship
Shaver, K., & Scott, L. 1991. Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (2), 23-45.
Baron, R. 1998. Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think
differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 275-294.
Barron, R. 2002. OB and entrepreneurship: The reciprocal benefits of closer conceptual links.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 24: 225-269.
Mitchell, R., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P., Morse, E., Smith, J. 2004. The distinctive and
inclusive domain of entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28:
505-518.
Shane, S., Locke, E., & Collins, E. 2003. Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management
Review, 13: 257-279.
Stewart, Jr., W. & Roth, P. 2001. Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 145-153.
Westhead, P., & Wright, M. 1998. Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: Are they different? Journal
of Business Venturing, 13: 173-204.
Zacharakis, A., Meyer, G., & DeCastro, J. 1999. Differing perceptions of new venture failure: A
matched exploratory study of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business
Management, 37(3): 1-14.
March 6
Individual-level Decision Making: Strategic Reference Points, Prospect Theory, and
the Behavioral Theory of the Firm
Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S., & Schendel, D. 1996. Strategic reference point theory. Strategic
Management Journal, 17: 219-235.
Kahneman D, & Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk.
Econometrica; 47: 263-291.
March, J., & Sharpira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management
Science, 33:1404-1418.
Milliken F., & Lant, T. 1991. The effect of an organization's recent performance history on strategic
persistence and change: the role of managerial interpretations. In J. Dutton (Ed.), Advances in
Strategic Management, vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W., & Huber, G. 2001. Organizational actions in response to threats and
opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 937-957.
Greve, H. 1998. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 43: 58-86.
Ketchen, Jr., D., & Palmer, T. 1999. Strategic responses to poor organizational performance: A test of
competing perspectives. Journal of Management, 25: 683-706.
Lee, J.-H., & Venkataraman, S. 2006. Aspirations, market offerings, and the pursuit of
entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 107-123.
Markovitch, D, Steckel, J., & Yeung, B.. 2005. Using capital markets as market intelligence:
Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Management Science, 51: 1467-1460.
March 13
Group-level Decision Making: New Venture Teams
Amason, A., Shrader, R., & Tompson, G. 2006. Newness and novelty: Relating top management
team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 125-148.
Boeker, W., & Wiltbank, R.. 2005. New venture evolution and managerial capabilities. Organization
Science, 16: 123-135.
Chandler, G., Honig, B., & Wiklund, J. 2005. Antecedents, moderators, and performance
consequences of membership change in new venture teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 705725.
Dimov, D., & Shepherd, D. 2005.Human capital theory and venture capital firms: Exploring "home
Runs" and "strike outs." Journal of Business Venturing 20: 1-21.
Ensley, M., Pearson, A., & Amason, A. 2002. Understanding the dynamics of new venture top
management teams: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing,
17: 365-386.
Fiet, J., Busenitz, L., Moesel, D., & Barney, J. 1997.Complementary theoretical perspectives on the
dismissal of new venture team members. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 347-366.
Kor, Y. 2003. Experience-based top management team competence and sustained growth.
Organization Science, 14: 707-719.
Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. 2003. Entrepreneurial founder teams: Factors
associated with member entry and exit. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2): 107-127.
Vyakarnam, S., & Handelberg, J. 2005. Four themes of the impact of management teams on
organizational performance: Implications for future research of entrepreneurial teams. International
Small Business Journal, 23: 236-256.
March 20
Spring Break
March 27
Agency Theory
March 31: First draft due
Barney, J. and Ouchi. W. 1986. Chapter 4: Agency Theory: How Market Forces Affect the
Management of a Firm. In J. Barney and W. Ouchi (Eds.), Organizational Economics. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Demsetz, H. 1983. The structure of ownership and the theory of the firm. Journal of Law and
Economics. 26: 375-393.
Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review,
14: 57–74.
Fama, E., & Jensen, M. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics,
26: 301-325.
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and
ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-360.
Schultze, W., Lubatkin, M., & Dino, R. 2003. Exploring the agency consequences of ownership
dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 179194.
Wiseman, R. & Gomez-Mejia, L. 1998. A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking.
Academy of Management Review, 23 (1): 133-153. (P)
Yoshikawa, T., Phan, P., & Linton, J. 2004.The relationship between governance structure and risk
management approaches in Japanese venture capital firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 831.
April 3:
Transaction Cost Economics
Coase, Ronald H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4: 386-405. (P)
Casson, Mark 1982. The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble.
Chapter 3: The Concept of Coordination and Chapter 17: The Market for Entrepreneurs.
Afuah, A. 2003. Redefining firm boundaries in the face of the Internet: Are firms really shrinking?
Academy of Management Review, 28: 34-53.
Brouthers, K. & Nakos, G. 2004. SME entry mode choice and performance: A transaction cost
perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,. 28: 229-247.
Leiblein M.J. & Miller, D. J. 2003. An empirical examination of transaction- and firm-level
influences on the vertical boundaries of the firm, Strategic Management Journal: 24: 839-859.
Mosakowski, E. 1991. Organizational boundaries and economic performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 12: 115-133.
Oviatt, B., & McDougall, P. 1994. Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of
International Business Studies, 25: 45-64.
April 10
Dynamic Capabilities and the RBV
SMA Deadline (TBA)
Conner, K. 1991. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within
industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17:
121-154.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18: 509-533.
Zollo M, Winter SG. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities.
Organization Science 13: 339-351.
Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. 2004. Organizing rent generation and appropriation: Toward a theory of the
entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 621-635.
Denrell, J., Fang, C. & Winter, S. 2003. The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic
Management Journal. 24: 977-990.
Kor, Y., & Mahoney, J., 2005. How dynamics, management, and governance of resource
deployments influence firm-level performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 489-496.
Sirmon, D., & Hitt, M. 2003. Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and
wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27: 339-358. Comments by
Chrisman, J., Chua, J., & Zahra, S, pp. 359-366.
Zahra, S., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension.
Academy of Management Review, 27: 185-203.
April 17
Learning and Innovation
March, J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science. 2: 7187.
Unsworth, K. 2001. Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26:289-297.
Corbett, A. 2005. Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and
exploitation/ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 473-491.
Cope, J. 2005. Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice. 29: 373-397.
De Clercq, D., & Sapienza. H. 2005. When do venture capital firms learn from their portfolio
companies? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 517-535.
Harrison, R., & Leitch. C. 2005. Entrepreneurial learning: Researching the interface between
learning and the entrepreneurial context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 351-371.
Lumpkin, T., & Lichtenstein. B. 2005. The role of organizational learning in the opportunityrecognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 451-472.
Politis, D. 2005. The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice. 29: 399-424.
Schildt, H., Maula, M., & Keil, T., 2005. Explorative and exploitative learning from external
corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29: 493-515.
Zahra, S., Ireland, R., & Hitt, M. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International
diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 43: 925-950.
April 24
April 28
Networking and Trust
Final Draft Due
Granovetter, M. 1973. Strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
Florin, J., Lubatkin, M., & Schultze, W. 2003. A social capital model of high-growth ventures.
Academy of Management Journal, 46: 374-384.
Harrison, R., Dibben, M., & Mason, C. 1997. The role of trust in the informal investor's investment
decision: An exploratory analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(4): 63-81.
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. 2003. Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 165-187.
Neergaard, H. 2005. Networking activities in technology-based entrepreneurial teams
International Small Business Journal. 23: 257-278.
Shane, S., & Cable, D. 2002. Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures.
Management Science, 48: 364-381.
Simsek, Z., Lubatkin. M., & Floyd, S. Inter-firm networks and entrepreneurial behavior: A structural
embeddedness perspective. Journal of Management. 29: 427-442.
May 1:
Final Presentations