What are the roots causes of entrepreneurial failure ?
An exploratory study using cognitive mapping approach
Nabil KHELIL
Assistant Professor
University of Caen Normandie
CREM-CNRS-UMR 6211, France
Campus 4, 19 rue Claude Bloch, 14000 Caen.
[email protected]
00 33 02 31 56 58 27
Abstract
Despite the contributions of previous studies, there has been little attention given to
investigate how new ventures fail. This paper seeks to recognize the causes of entrepreneurial
failure by employing an interpretative framework integrating both the complex and dynamic
aspects of failure. Based on the cognitive mapping method, the proposed framework is
grounded from a qualitative explorative of seven failing entrepreneurs. The findings
demonstrate that failure cannot be exclusively resulting from the lack of social support
network, financial resources, experience, entrepreneur‟s motivations or ambitions. However,
contrary to our predictions, entrepreneurs who fail can be victims of their social support
network, their positive perception of high level of expertise, their important financial
investment and their hyper motivation and ambitious vision.
Topic of the workshop : Small business an Crisis
Keywords: entrepreneurship, failure, cognitive mapping, entrepreneurs' psychological profile
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
One of the fundamental questions in entrepreneurship research is why some entrepreneurs fail
(Cooper, 1993; Dahlqvist et al., 2000; Rogoff et al., 2004; Thornhill & Amit, 2003).To
answer this question, numerous previous studies align with the classical positivist paradigm
(Cooper et al., 1994; Duchesneau and Gartner, 1990; Laitinen, 1992; Littunen et al., 1998;
Lussier, 1995; Kessler et al., 2012; Reid, 1999; Wetter & Wennberg, 2009) which is widely
used to predict the failure or success of a new venture.
Based on a linear discriminant analysis model, this “positivist aspect” of entrepreneurship
research aims to reduce the complexity of the entrepreneurial failure phenomenon into binary
and linear models. By identifying the systematic differences between successful and failing
entrepreneurs, the resulting models take the following form: success/failure = f (x1, x2,
x3,...,xn) (Wetter & Wennberg, 2009), where xi (i = 1, 2… n) are predictive factors. According
to Gartner's 1985 conceptual framework, these failure factors are typically associated with
individual, organizational, environmental, and/or process-related dimensions.
Despite the contributions of previous studies, no satisfying answer has been provided to
explain why some entrepreneurs fail. Founded on invalidated hypotheses regarding the
existence of discriminant factors opposing failing and successful entrepreneurs (Gartner,
1989), the results of these studies have been mixed and occasionally contradictory. The “ideal
predictive factor” does not exist. Thus, it appears impossible to predict exactly how the
entrepreneurs will fail. This question will remain extremely complex and difficult to answer if
researchers continue to study entrepreneurial failure using the positivist perspective.
Whereas positivism still dominates research on entrepreneurial failure, there is a marked
tendency toward an interpretative phenomenological approach (Askim-Lovseth & Feinberg,
2012; Cardon et al., 2011; Cope, 2011; Crutzen, 2009; Mantere et al., 2013; Seshadri, 2007;
Singh et al., 2007; Zacharakis et al., 1999) to analyze the causes and/or consequences of
entrepreneurial failure. In the view of interpretive researchers, reality is essentially mental and
perceived. The interest of interpretivists is not the generation of new theories or “scientific
laws” but the understanding of phenomena through the subjective experiences of individuals
to explain the subjective reasons that lie behind their actions (Larkin et al., 2006). In contrast
to the positivist approach, interpretative research does not predefine dependent and
independent variables but instead focuses on the full complexity of the studied phenomenon
(Smith et al., 2009).
Despite the contributions of previous studies, very little is known about how new ventures
fail. To better understand the root causes of entrepreneurial failure, the current research
outlines an interpretative framework integrating both the complex and dynamic aspects of
failure. Based on the cognitive mapping method, the proposed framework is grounded from a
qualitative explorative of seven entrepreneurs who “privileged witnesses” know to be failing.
This study seeks to provide two majors contributions. First, given the little research
integrating in the same study the individual and firm levels of analysis (Cardon et al.,2011),
the current study provide researchers with a “suitable” interpretative framework with which to
better understand entrepreneurial failure as psycho-economic phenomenon. It proposes an
integrative framework highlighting the multidimensional and the multi-forms nature of
entrepreneurial failure.
1
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Second, despite the wide use of cognitive approach in entrepreneurship research (Baron &
Ward, 2004; Brännback & Carsrud, 2009; Forbes, 1999; Mitchell et al., 2000), only a few
studies have used cognitive maps as a tool for explaining “positive entrepreneurial outcomes”
such as the opportunity identification process (Carrier, 2008), the decision to start a new
business (Hines, 2000), the new product success (Tyler & Gnyawali, 2002), the performance
of young technology-based ventures (Khiari et al., 2011). Moreover, relatively few studies
have focused on the use of a cognitive mapping approach to explain “negative entrepreneurial
outcomes” such as entrepreneurial failure (Khelil & Smida, 2012) or exit (Khelil & Hammer,
2013).
Our study is organized as follows. We begin by reviewing the previous literature on failure in
the fields of entrepreneurship. Then explain the methodological framework, which is based on
the cognitive mapping approach. The resulting cognitive map is next interpreted. Finally, a
discussion of the implications and the future directions of this work are highlighted.
Literature review
Several conception were used to describe failure such as "mortality", "exit", "discontinuance",
"decline", "unsuccess", "bankruptcy", "financial distress "," poor performance "," liquidation
"," insolvency ", etc. (Zopounidis and Dimitras, 2011, p 1).These conceptions depend on the
legal, economic, financial, organizational or strategic managerial perspective adopted
(Guilhot, 2000). It was only as from the introducing of failure in the entrepreneurship research
that concept of the "entrepreneurial failure" has gained ascendancy.
A review of the literature reveals a number of definitions of entrepreneurial failure
(Ucbasaran et al., 2013; McGrath, 1999). According to the specific goals of each study and its
theoretical approach, failure has been analyzed and operationalized in a number of different
ways. Despite this conceptual diversity, the most common definition has referred to failure as
bankruptcy (Zacharakis et al., 1999) but without theoretical justification (Ucbasaran et al.,
2013). As a result of this reductionist conception, failure has often been associated with a
binary typology in which “healthy” or performing businesses are in opposition to “chronically
sick” or bankrupt businesses (Altman, 1968).
Many authors (Bruno & Leidecker, 1988; Crutzen & Van Caillie, 2009; Everett and Watson,
1998; Platt, 1985:6) have proposed a nuanced approach by defining other failure patterns. At
one extreme are financial failures (technical insolvency) ending in bankruptcy, and at the
other extreme are simple economic failures (negative profits and opportunity losses) of
ventures that may remain in business for a long time (see table 1). Based on an economic
perspective, these conceptual classifications are suitable for ventures facing economic and
financial difficulties.
However, the creation of a new venture is both an economic and a personal project. Given
that the economic success of a new venture can offer an entrepreneur the life to which he or
she aspires, it is generally agreed that the success of an “entrepreneur‟s life project” is
conditioned by the economic success of his or her own “new venture creation project.” In
some circumstances, entrepreneurs find themselves in paradoxical situations. Economic
success may offer an entrepreneur an inconvenient life, more work, more stress, etc. In
contrast, a lower economic return may offer an entrepreneur a convenient life (Bruyat,
1993:294). Thus entrepreneurial failure is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It concerns both
the individual and firm levels (Byme and Shepherd, 2013; Jenkins et al., 2014).
2
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Table 1 – Failure patterns proposed in the literature
Autor(s)
Year
Analytical criteria
Number
Platt
1985
Extent of financial losses
3
Bruno and Leidecker
1987
Financial deficit
5
Bruyat
1993
Disappearance of business
5
Bruyat
1994
Success of business project
Success of life project
9
Everett and Watson
1998
Crutzen and Van Caillie
2009
Financial deficit
7
Smida and Khelil
2010b
Destruction of resources
Deception of entrepreneur
Discontinuity of business
8
Reasons for suspending activities
3
Configurations
Type
-
Survival with minimal financial profits despite offered opportunities
Business survival with deficits
Insolvency and inability to meet obligations
Businesses which disappear and liquidated without depositing as statement of balance
Businesses which ceded part of their activities to reduce their size
Businesses in financial emergency and look for merging
Businesses which cannot meet their financial obligations on time
Businesses which are technically insolvent
Total disappearance of business leaving important liabilities
Total disappearance of business with no liability
Recover of a part of business activities by external partners
Surviving businesses which remain small and less profitable
Businesses which remain small, but able to generate profits to survive
Stress
Foreclosure
Deception
Disaster
Despair
Smooth withdrawal
Fraud
Satisfaction
Resignation
-
shutting down activities to seize other opportunities
shutting down activities to avoid losses
shutting down activities with losses
businesses in difficulty following one or many external chocks
businesses with poor performances since their creation
businesses in difficulties following a bad management of their growth
businesses which vanish slowly following lack of motivation
businesses in difficulties following personal problems
businesses in difficulties because personal interests diverge from the businesses interests
businesses in difficulties following a bad management of their transmission
total failure
survival with destruction of resources
survival with deception of entrepreneur
marginal survival
exit before reaching critical loss level
exit with destruction of resources
exit with deception of entrepreneur
zero failure
3
Conceptual configuration
Conceptual configuration
Conceptual configuration
Conceptual configuration
Conceptual configuration
Empirical configuration
Conceptual configuration
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
By integration the entrepreneurs/new venture dialogic, Bruyat (1994) proposed a typology of
9 failure‟s (versus success) profiles (see table 1). Although it sheds light on the different
profiles of failing (versus successful) entrepreneur‟s, Bruyat‟s typology presents a binary
perspective of failure without theoretical justification. Taking into account the dimensions
already addressed by Bruyat (1993, p.292; 1994) - the failure (or the succes) of the new
venture; the failure (or the success) of the entrepreneur - Smida & Khelil (2010) proposed a
typology illustrated by Venn‟s diagram (figure 1). This latter has been deduced through an
integrative
theoretical
framework
integrating
three
theories:
the population
ecology of organizations (deterministic perspective), the resource-based approach (voluntarist
perspective) and the goal achievement gap theory (emotive perspective). Three dimensions
could be identified (e.g., Khelil et al., 2012).
-
The first covers approaches which give a crucial and vital role to the context of
creation to explain why businesses fail. This dimension which covers approaches
centred on environment dominance is founded on in part on the population
ecology of organizations (Hannan and Freeman, 1997 ; Mellahi and Wilkinson, 2004).
This theory perceives failure in terms of the disappearance of the venture (Dahlqvist et
al., 2000; Fotopoulous and Louri, 2000; Fritsch et al., 2006; Krauss, 2009; Littunen et
al., 1998; Lussier and Pfeifers, 2001; Reid, 1999; Streams et al., 1995).
-
The second dimension covers the approach founded on the supremacy of resources
(Wernerfelt, 1984). According to this approach, failure is analyzed in terms of
destruction of resources and is manifested in financial degradation of the new business
(Crutzen and Van Caillie, 2008; Mellahi and Wilkinson, 2004; Laitinen, 1992;
Shepherd et al., 2009; Thornhill and Amit, 2003). This failure is often explained by a
lack in social, financial and/or human resources.
-
The third dimension covers approaches which give a special position to the
entrepreneur‟s motivation and determination. This dimension which rests in part on
the theory of „aspirations-achievements breakthrough” perceives failure in terms of
personal deception of entrepreneur following a failure to &achieve these initial
aspirations and expectations (Cannon and Edmondson, 2001; Cooper and Artz, 1995;
Jenning and Beaver, 1995; Murphy and Callaway, 2004). It is within this perspective
that the psychological component of business failure is integrated.
Through combining these three approaches, Smida and Khelil (2010) elaborate an 8conceptual configuration typological frame of failure (figure 1). They oppose “total failure”
{SDIE} to « zero failure » {SØ}. Between these extremes, they respectively distinguish three
configurations of “marginal failure” followed by destruction of resources {S *E}; survival with
deception of entrepreneur {S*I} and exit to avoid an increasing destruction of resources
{S*D} and three configurations of “partial failure”; marginal survival {S EI}, exit with
destruction of resources {SDE} and exit with deception of entrepreneur {S DI}.
4
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Figure 1 - A theoretical typology of entrepreneurial failure
Adapted from Smida and Khelil (2010)
The proposed typology illustrates the multiform aspect of entrepreneurial failure. Because this
phenomenon can be take very different realities, we must provide a more holistic conception
of entrepreneurial failure. For the purposes of this study, we define entrepreneurial failure as a
psycho-economic phenomenon characterized by the entry of a new venture into a spiral of
economic failure (resource destruction) and/or the entrepreneur„s entry into a psychological
state of disappointment (entrepreneur„s self-deception). In the absence of economic and/or
psychological support, entrepreneurs decide to exit from their entrepreneurial activities
(entrepreneurial discontinuity).
The proposed typology presents a number of limitations. These limitations are common to
studies which adopted the typology as a classification approach: arbitrary (Witmeur and Biga,
2010), reductionist (Rich, 1992) and simplest (Doty and Glick, 1994). Against these
limitations and relying on Miller‟s (1996) methodological recommendations, it has been
decided to ground an empirical taxonomy. Based on a sample of 105 new ventures that have
been recognized by external observers as failing, Khelil (2011-12) propose an empirical
taxonomy that describes five different configurations of new venture failures, which are
associated with the entrepreneurial profiles of the “confused,” the “supported at arm‟s
length,” the “megalomaniac,” the “dissatisfied lord” and the “big-time gambler.”
-
The first pattern, associated with the profile of the bankrupt entrepreneur is
characterized by the entry of the new venture and its founder into a dual process of
economic failure (deterioration of new venture resources) and psychological failure
(disappointment of the entrepreneur), which in the absence of financial and
psychological support leads to entrepreneurial discontinuity.
5
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
-
The second pattern, is associated with a portrait of an entrepreneur who is supported at
arm„s length. They escape bankruptcy thanks to external support, including help from
family members. The survival of their emerging firms is always dependent on external
support. They are primarily motivated by a need for social recognition, which gives
them satisfaction despite their businesses „poor economic performance.
-
The third pattern includes entrepreneurs with the megalomaniac profile. Although
external observers recognize them to be failures, megalomaniacs tend to hide their
personal defeats by overstating the economic performance of their businesses and their
entrepreneurial satisfaction.
-
The fourth pattern is represented by the entrepreneurial profile of the dissatisfied lord.
The dissatisfied lords recorded the best economic performance scores. However, they
derive no entrepreneurial satisfaction. Their motivation to achieve very ambitious
goals and their negative assessments of their results are among the factors explaining
the gap between their aspirations and achievements and, consequently, their state of
disappointment.
-
The last pattern includes entrepreneurs with the profile of the big-time gambler. They
start financially failing ventures. They squander all of their resources in order to save
their companies. Entrepreneurship does not provide them with any entrepreneurial
satisfaction. Given their heavy investments of energy, time and money, entrepreneurial
exit decisions are considered to be impossible.
Figure 2 - Entrepreneur’s failure profiles
6
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Methodology
Given the emotional cost of failure (Cope, 2011; Shepherd and Cardon, 2009; Shepherd et al.,
2009; Ucbasaran et al., 2013), failing entrepreneurs are typically reluctant to discuss their
failure experience (Bruno and Leidecker, 1988; Byme and Shepherd, 2013; Jenkins et al.,
2014; Weitzel and Jonsson, 1989). Even if entrepreneurs are willing to discuss a failure, it is
difficult to identify internal causes (Hambrick and D‟Aveni, 1988) because the entrepreneurs
typically attribute the failure of their new venture to external factors (Rogoff and al., 2004).
To circumvent this methodological difficulty, this study proposes to mobilize the
psychological theory of attribution (Heider, 1958) to explore the view of the entrepreneur
with regard to his/her failure experience (Askim-Lovseth and Feinberg, 2012; Mantere et al.,
2013) to identify not only external factors but also internal factors leading to failure.
In data collection, we used the psychological theory of attribution (Heider, 1958). This theory
explains how individuals interpret events and provide causal explanations. According to
Heider (1958), a person can make external and internal attributions. In external attribution,
causality is attributed to external factors. The individual perceives that s/he has no choice.
His/her behavior is influenced, restricted, or even completely determined by external factors
outside of his/her control (deterministic perspective, e.g. Cardon et al., 2001; Mellahi and
Wilkinson, 2004). Conversely, the internal attribution of causality is assigned to internal
factors that depend on the control of the individual (voluntarist perspective, e.g. Cardon et al.,
2001; Mellahi and Wilkinson, 2004). Based on this theory, Rogoff et al. (2004) suggest that
entrepreneurs tend to attribute their success to internal factors and their failures to external
causes. An additional problem during the identification of failure factors was evoked by
Pinfold (2001). He demonstrated that although entrepreneurs are aware of their failure factors,
they believe that these factors do not apply to them but rather to other persons. For this reason
we used the reverse psychology technique in data collection.
To identify the links between concepts, the method described in this paper focused on the
entrepreneur‟s discursive representations. To this end, in the previous step (data collection),
the “entrepreneur‟s speech data” were divided into “units of analysis”. In cognitive mapping,
the unit of analysis chosen is the belief about the cause and effect relationship or the influence
relationship between concepts (Allard-Poesi, 2003). Thus, it is necessary to identify the
assertions, including assertion relationships, such as "concept A / link / concept B", from the
entrepreneur‟s speech data (Allard-Poesi et al., 2003). The objective of this step is to
transform the transcribed interviews (raw empirical data) into a homogeneous list generated
by aggregating concepts (merging synonymous concepts) and suppressing concepts (in
eliminating the concepts mentioned several times). The second step of data coding is the
identification of links between concepts using the cross-impacts‟ cognitive matrix. This
matrix determines whether each concept online has a direct impact (direct or influence) on
each concept in a column. If the answer is "yes", we entered one at the intersection of the row
and column. If the answer is "no," we write zero. Moreover, the diagonal cells must contain
the number zero because greatness cannot "self-influence" directly (Smida, 2010). Relations
expressed by the entrepreneur and identified from his/her discursive data were codified. These
relations are typically identifiable by a verb category, i.e., armature, leads, conduit, or
decreases (Allard-Poesi et al., 2003). Regardless of the direction (positive or negative) and
intensity (very low, low, medium, high) of the relationships expressed, the presence of a link
between two concepts is codified as one
7
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The cognitive map was constructed and analyzed using the Mic-Mac program (Godet, 1994).
This program, chosen for its conviviality and analytical skills, can help to identify the
explanatory factors/concepts from the cognitive structural analysis matrix. The program can
also classify these factors/concepts according to their sensitivity (dependence variables) and
evaluate their impact on other factors/concepts (motricity variables, where motricity is
defined as the capacity to have an effect on other factors/concepts).
Primary results and conclusion
Despite the contributions of previous studies, these studies did not provide researchers with a
“suitable” interpretative methodological framework with which to better understand
entrepreneurial failure as a “traumatic” experience (Cope, 2011; Shepherd et al., 2009;
Ucbasaran et al., 2013). For this reason, entrepreneurial failure is a sensitive subject for
entrepreneurs (Bruno and Leidecker, 1988) and is therefore less studied by entrepreneurship
researchers from the qualitative interpretivist perspective (Cardon et al., 2011).
The empirical methods that are most commonly used to investigate the entrepreneurial failure
phenomenon are methods of discriminant analysis. The majority of research has been limited
to the entrepreneurial exit dimension. In addition to the single dimension of entrepreneurial
exit, if we focus on a more complex phenomenon, such as entrepreneurial failure, then we can
observe that scant attention has been devoted to examining methods (Wennberg et al., 2010)
that could help researchers, entrepreneurs, and their coaches to acquire an overall view of
entrepreneurial failure that would allow them to better analyze its causes and to generate
strategies for avoiding failure.
Based on the cognitive mapping of a seven failing entrepreneur and an expansion of Gartner‟s
conceptual framework (1985), entrepreneurial failure can be modeled as a psycho-economic
phenomenon with individual, organization, environment, and process elements, each of which
explain why some entrepreneurs fail. The individual failure factors are assessed in six
dimensions as follows: the lack of entrepreneurial skills and resources, the incoherence
between entrepreneurs‟ life strategy and new venture strategy, the lack of entrepreneurial
commitment and endurance, errors of perception and judgment, and the negative emotional
reaction. The organizational failure factors are assessed in the following dimensions: the lack
of a clear new venture entry strategy, perceived financial difficulty and workload, and the lack
of cohesion and team spirit. The environmental failure factors are assessed in two dimensions:
the environmental constraints of a new venture and the family and social context. Finally, the
processual failure factors are assessed in three dimensions: entrepreneurial disengagement,
personal safety choice, and entrepreneurial exit decision.
The findings of this study indicate that entrepreneurial failure is not the exclusive
consequence of the existence of a set of failure factors but is rather the result of the interaction
among the identified dimensions. The core finding of the paper is that, taken alone, neither the
internal factors associated with individual characteristic of the entrepreneur, nor the external
factors related to the structural characteristics of the environment explain entrepreneurial
failure. Rather, it is argued that the entrepreneurial failure process is emergent from a
complex interaction between individual, organizational, environmental, and process-related
factors.
8
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
In addition to the multidimensional and dynamic nature of entrepreneurial failure, this
research has emphasized the multiform aspect of this phenomenon. This study demonstrates
that the failure cannot be solely the result of: the lack of social support network, the lack of
financial resources, lack of experience, the lack of motivations or ambitions (the case of the
bankrupt entrepreneurs), but contrary, the entrepreneurs who fail can be the victims of: their
social support network (the case of the supported at arm‟s length), their perception of high
level of expertise (the case of the megalomaniacs profile), their important financial investment
(the case of the gambler entrepreneurs) and their hyper motivation and ambition vision (the
case of dissatisfied entrepreneurs).
For Shepherd (2003, 2004) and Cope (2011), failure can be perceived as a step toward
entrepreneurial success, which constitutes an important source of learning because the
entrepreneur is forced to conduct a “post-mortem” assessment to understand what led to the
failure. This contribution demonstrates that using structural analysis as a tool for cognitive
mapping could help entrepreneurs and their associates (bankers, consultants, advisers, etc.) to
better analyze the root causes of entrepreneurial failure in order to build strategies for
avoiding it. In addition, cognitive structural analysis in the study of entrepreneurial failure can
be used to motivate nascent entrepreneurs to find more complex dimensions, including the
ability to cope with failure and to determine how to transform failure into opportunities for
learning.
References
Allard-Poesi, F., 2003. Coder les données, in : Giordano, Y. (Eds.), Conduire un projet de recherche :
une perspective qualitative. Éditions Management & Société, Caen, pp. 245-290.
Allard-Poesi, F., Drucker-Godard, C., Ehlinger, S., 2003. Analyses de représentations et de discours,
in : Thiétart, R.A. (Eds.), Méthode de recherche en management. Éditions Dunod, Paris, pp.449464.
Altman, E.I. (1968), « Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis and the Prediction of Corporate
Bankruptcy », Journal of Finance, vol.23, n°4, p.589-609.
Askim-Lovseth, M.K., Feinberg, R.A., 2012. The Role of Attributional Explanatory Style in the
Perceived Outcomes of Entrepreneurial Venture Failure, Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship 25, 261-281.
Baron, R.A., Ward, T.B. 2004. Expanding Entrepreneurial Cognition's Toolbox: Potential
Contributions from the Field of Cognitive Science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28, 328340.
Brännback, M., Carsrud, A., 2009. Cognitive Maps in Entrepreneurship: Researching Sense Making
and Action, in: Carsrud, A., Brännback, M. (Eds.), Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind:
Opening the Black Box. Springer., Heidelberg, pp. 75–96.
Bruno, A.V., Leidecker, J.K., 1988. Causes of new venture failure: 1960s vs. 1980s, Business
Horizons 31, 51-56.
Bruyat, C. (1993), Création d’entreprise: contributions épistémologiques et modélisation, Thèse de
doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Université Pierre Mendés France de Grenoble.
Bruyat, C. (1994), « Contributions épistémologiques au domaine de l‟entrepreneuriat », Revue
Française de Gestion, n°101, novembre-décembre, p.87-99.
Byrne, O., Shepherd, D.A. 2013. Different strokes for different folks: Entrepreneurial narratives of
emotion, cognition and making sense of failure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, doi:
10.1111/etap.12046.
Cannon, M. et Edmondson, A.C. (2001), « Confronting failure: antecedents and consequences of
shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups », Journal of Organizational Behaviour,
vol. 22, n°2, p.161-177.
Cardon, M.S., Stevens, C.E., Potter, D.R., 2011. Misfortunes or mistakes? Cultural sensemaking of
entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing 26 (1), 79-92.
9
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Carrier, C. (2013). The prospective map: a new method for helping future entrepreneurs in expanding
their initial business ideas. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 5(1), 2844.
Cooper, A. 1993. Challenges in predicting new firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing 8 (3),
241-253.
Cooper, A.C., Gimeno-Cacson, F.J., Woo, C.Y., 1994. Initial Human and Financial Capital as
Predictors of New Venture Performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9 (5), 371-395.
Cooper, A.C., Artz, W.A., 1995. Determinants of Satisfaction for entrepreneurs. Journal of Business
Venturing 10 (6), 439-457.
Cope, J., 2011. Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Journal of Business Venturing. 26 (6) 604-623.
Crutzen, N., Van Caillie, D., 2008. The Business Failure Process: An Integrative Model of the
Literature. Review of Business and Economics LIII (3) 287-316.
Crutzen, N. et Van Caillie, D. (2009), « Vers une taxonomie des profils d‟entrée dans un processus de
défaillance : Un focus sur les micro-et petites entreprises en difficulté », Revue Internationale
PME, vol.22, n°1, p. 101-128.
Crutzen, N. (2009), Essays on the Prevention of Small Business Failure : Taxonomy and Validation of
Five Explanatory Business Failure Patterns (EBFPs), Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences Economiques
et de Gestion, Académie Universitaire Wallonie - Europe, HEC-Ecole de Gestion de l'Université de
Liège.
Dahlqvist, J., Davidsson, P. et Wiklund. J. (2000), « Initial Conditions as Predictors of New Venture
Performance: A Replication and Extension of the Cooper et al. study », Enterprise & Innovation
Management Studies, vol.1, n°1, p.1-17.
Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H., 1994. Typologies as unique form of theory building: toward improved
understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review 19 (2) 230-251.
Duchesneau, D.A., Gartner, W.B., 1990. A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging
industry. Journal of Business Venturing 5 (5), 297-312.
Everett, J. et Watson, J. (1998), « Small Business Failure and External Risk Factors », Small
Business Economics, vol.11, n°4, p.371-390.
Forbes, D.P., 1999. Cognitive approaches to new venture creation. International Journal of
Management Reviews 1, 415–439.
Fotopoulos, G. et Louri, H. (2000), « Location and Survival of New Entry », Small Business
Economics, vol.4, n°4, p. 311-321.
Fritsch, M., Brixy, U. et Falck, O. (2006), « The Effect of Industry, Region, and Time on New
Business Survival - A Multi-Dimensional Analysis », Review of Industrial Organization, vol.28,
n°3, p. 285-306.
Gartner, W. B. (1985), « A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture
Creation », Academy of Management Review, vol.10, n°4, p.696-709.
Gartner, W.B., Mitchell, T.R. et Vesper, K.H. (1989), « A taxonomy of new business ventures creation
», Academy of Management Journal, vol.4, n°3, p.696-706.
Godet, M., 1994. From anticipation to action: a handbook of strategic prospective, UNESCO
Publishing, France.
Guilhot, B. (2000), « Défaillances d‟entreprise : Soixante-dix ans d‟analyses théoriques et
empiriques », Revue Française de Gestion, n°130, septembre-octobre, p.52-67.
Hambrick, D.C., D‟Aveni, R.A., 1988. Large corporate failures as downward spirals. Administrative
Science Quarterly 33, 1-23.
Hannan, M.T. et Freeman, J. (1977), « The population ecology of organisations », American Journal
of Sociology, n°82, vol.5, p. 929-964.
Heider F. (1958), The psychology of interpersonal relations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of
Publication: Hillsdale.
Hines, T., 2000. An evaluation of two qualitative methods focus group interviews and cognitive maps
for conducting research into entrepreneurial decision making. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal 3, 7-16.
10
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jenkins A.S., Wiklund J., Brundina E. 2014. Individual responses to firm failure: Appraisals, grief,
and the influence of prior failure experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 29 (1), 17-33.
Jenning, P.L. et Beaver, G. (1995), « The managerial dimension of small business failure », Journal of
Strategic Change, vol.4, n°4, p.185-200.
Kessler, A., Christian, K., Hermann, F., Manfred, L., 2012. Predicting Founding Success And New
Venture Survival: A Longitudinal Nascent Entrepreneurship Approach, Journal of Enterprising
Culture 20, 25-55.
Khelil, N., Smida, A. (2012), «Cartographie cognitive à l'aide de l'analyse structurelle : un essai
d'identification des facteurs de risque d'échec des entrepreneurs, Risque, stress et décision,
Chasseigne G., Cadet B., Giraudeau C. (Ed.),79-96.
Khelil, N., Smida, A., Zouaoui, M. (2012). Contribution à la compréhension de l‟échec des nouvelles
entreprises : exploration qualitative des multiples dimensions du phénomène, Revue de
l‟Entrepreneuriat, n° 1, vol. 11,39-72.
Khelil, N., & Hammer, M. H. (2013). Why do some entrepreneurs decide to give up ? Exploring the
causes through cognitive maps. RENT Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business XXVII Vilnius, Lithuania.
Khelil, N. (2012). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurial failure?. RENT XXVI
- Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Lyon.
Khelil N. (2011), Contribution à la compréhension de l’échec entrepreneurial : vers une taxonomie
empirique axée sur la dialogique entrepreneur/nouvelle entreprise, Thèse de doctorat en Sciences
de Gestion, IAE de Caen Basse-Normandie.
Khiari, S., Khelil, N., Zouaoui, M., & Smida, A. (2011). Représentations que se font les
dirigeants de la performance de leur jeune entreprise technologique innovante (JETI).
Approche
exploratoire
basée
sur
la
cartographie
cognitive.Revue
de
l’Entrepreneuriat, 10(3), 33-65.
Krauss, G. (2009), « Les jeunes entreprises pionnières face à l‟incertitude : la construction sociale de
l‟échec », Revue Française de Socio-économie, vol.1, n°3, p.169-186.
Laitinen, E.K. (1992), « Prediction of failure of new founded firm », Journal of Business Venturing,
vol.7, n°4, p.323-340.
Larkin, M., Watts, S., Clifton, E., 2006. Giving voice and making sense in Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 102-120.
Littunen, H., Storhammar, E., Nenonen., T., 1998. The survival of firms over the critical first 3 years
and the local environment. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 10,189-202.
Lussier, R.N., et Pfeifer, S. (2000), « A Comparison of Business Success Versus Failure Variables
between U.S. and Central Eastern Europe Croatian Entrepreneurs », Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, vol. 24, n°4, p. 59–67.
Lussier, R.N., 1995. A nonfinancial business success versus failure prediction model for young Firms,
Journal of Small Business Management 33, 8-20.
Mantere, S., Pekk,A., Schildt, H., Vaara, E., 2013. Narrative attributions of entrepreneurial failure.
Journal of Business Venturing 28 (4) 459-473.
McGrath, R.G. (1999), « Falling forward: real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure »,
Academy of Management Review, vol.24, n°1, p.13-30.
Mellahi, K., Wilkinson, A., 2004. Organizational failure: a critique of recent research and a proposed
integrative framework. International Journal of Management Reviews 5-6
(1), 21-41.
Mitchell, R.K., Smith, B., Seawright, K. W., Morse, E.A., 2000. Cross-cultural cognitions and the
venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal 43, 974–993.
Murphy, G.B. et S.K. Callaway. (2004), « Doing Well and Happy About It? Explaining Variance in
Entrepreneurs' Stated Satisfaction with Performance », New England Journal of Entrepreneurship,
vol. 7, n°2, p. 15-27.
Pinfold J. (2001), « The expectations of new business founders », Journal of small Business
Management, vol.39, n°3, p. 279-285.
Platt, H.D. (1985), Why Companies Fail: Strategies for Detecting, Avoiding, and Profiting from
Bankruptcy, Lexington Books.
11
Fifth International Workshop - ENTREPRENEURSHIP, CULTURE, FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Reid, C. (1999), « Complex actions and simple questions: How new entrepreneurs stay in business »,
Small Business Economics, vol.13, n°4, p.303-315.
Rich, P. (1992), « The organization Taxonomy: Definition and Design », Academy of Management
Review vol.17, n°4, p.758-781.
Rogoff, E.R., Lee, M.S. et Suh, D.C. (2004), « “Who Done It?” Attributions by Entrepreneurs and
Experts of the Factors that Cause and Impede Small Business Success », Journal of Small Business
Management, vol.42, n°4, p.364-376.
Seshadri, D.V.R., 2007. Understanding New Venture Failure due to Entrepreneur-Organization Goal
Dissonance. Vikalpa 32, 55-74.
Shepherd, D.A., 2003. Learning from business failure: Propositions about the grief recovery process
for the self-employed. Academy of Management Review 28, 318-329.
Shepherd, D.A., 2004. Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from failure.
Academy of Management Learning and Education 3, 274-287.
Shepherd, D.A., Cardon., M., 2009. Negative emotional reactions to project failure and the selfcompassion to learn from the experience. Journal of Management Studies 46, 923-949.
Shepherd, D.A., Wiklund, J., Haynie, J. M., 2009. Moving forward: Balancing the financial and
emotional costs of business failure. Journal of Business Venturing 24, 134-148.
Singh, S., Corner, P., Pavlovich, K., 2007. Coping with entrepreneurial failure. Journal of
Management & Organization 13, 331-344.
Smida, A. et Khelil, N (2010), « Repenser l‟échec entrepreneurial des petites entreprises émergentes :
proposition d‟une typologie basée sur une approche intégrative », Revue Internationale PME,
vol.23, n°2, p.65-106.
Smida, A., 2010. Towards a memorization of signs of cross-impacts between strategic variables.
Innovar 20, 205-217.
Smith, J.A., Flowers, P., Larkin, M., 2009. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory Method
and Research. Sage, London.
Stearns, T.M., Carter, N.M., Reynolds, P.D. et Williams, M.L. (1995), « New Firm Survival: industry,
strategy and location », Journal of Business Venturing, vol.10, n°1, p.23-43.
Thornhill, S. et Amit, R. (2003), « Comprendre l‟échec : mortalité organisationnelle et approche
fondée sur les ressources », Document de recherche n°202, Division de l'analyse
microéconomique, Statistique Canada.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M., Flores, M., 2010. The nature of entrepreneurial experience,
business failure and comparative optimism. Journal of Business Venturing
25 (6), 541-555.
Chaney, D. (2010). Analyzing mental representations: The contribution of cognitive maps. Recherche
et Applications en Marketing,25(2), 93-115.
Weitzel, W., Jonsson, E. 1989. Decline in organizations: A literature integration and extension.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 91-109.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), « A resource-based view of the firm », Strategic Management Journal, vol.5, n°
2, p.171-180.
Wetter, E., Wennberg, K., 2009. Improving Business Failure Prediction for New Firms:
Benchmarking Financial Models with Human and Social Capital. Journal of Private Equity 12, 3037.
Witmeur, O. et Biga, M.D. (2010), « Approche configurationelle de la croissance : Typologie vs.
Taxonomie », Working Paper, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Zacharakis, A.L., Meyer, G.D., DeCastro, J., (1999). Differing perceptions of new venture failure: a
matched exploratory study of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business
Management 37, 1-14.
Zopounidis C., Dimitras A. (2011), Multicriteria Decision Aid Methods for the Prediction of Business
Failure, Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12