IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-01083875.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Inquiry into the Epistemic Properties of Entrepreneurs' Theories of Action

Author

Listed:
  • Fabrice L. Cavarretta

    (ESSEC Business School)

  • Nathan R. Furr

    (BYU - Brigham Young University)

Abstract

Boundedly rational managerial actors struggling to process information often use a limited set of "theories of action," or simple rules. However, simple rules may have a hierarchical structure, with some simple rules guiding others. Assuming the existence of such "keystone rules," we establish the complexity of determining an efficient set, and therefore the necessity of using meta-heuristic approaches. We explore the development of "keystone rules" among entrepreneurs as a genetic algorithm, where the computationally hard problem of picking rules is solved by social calculation. We find that the emergent keystone rules among the observed entrepreneurs do not match existing "scientific" theories but have particular epistemic properties. The identification of keystone rules could fill a theoretical gap between the rational decision and the social construction perspectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabrice L. Cavarretta & Nathan R. Furr, 2014. "An Inquiry into the Epistemic Properties of Entrepreneurs' Theories of Action," Working Papers hal-01083875, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01083875
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://essec.hal.science/hal-01083875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://essec.hal.science/hal-01083875/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 290-311, March.
    2. William Ocasio, 2011. "Attention to Attention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1286-1296, October.
    3. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Todd, Peter M. & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2003. "Bounding rationality to the world," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 143-165, April.
    6. Simon, Mark & Shrader, Rodney C., 2012. "Entrepreneurial actions and optimistic overconfidence: The role of motivated reasoning in new product introductions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 291-309.
    7. Tina C. Ambos & Julian Birkinshaw, 2010. "How Do New Ventures Evolve? An Inductive Study of Archetype Changes in Science-Based Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1125-1140, December.
    8. Michel Callon & Fabian Muniesa, 2005. "Economic markets as calculative collective devices," Post-Print halshs-00087477, HAL.
    9. Giovanni Gavetti & Jan W. Rivkin, 2007. "On the Origin of Strategy: Action and Cognition over Time," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 420-439, June.
    10. Shepherd, Dean A. & Wiklund, Johan & Haynie, J. Michael, 2009. "Moving forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 134-148, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cavarretta, Fabrice & Furr , Nathan, 2014. "An Inquiry into the Epistemic Properties of Entrepreneurs' Theories of Action," ESSEC Working Papers WP1415, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    2. Stephen X. Zhang & Javier Cueto, 2017. "The Study of Bias in Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(3), pages 419-454, May.
    3. Stephan Billinger & Kannan Srikanth & Nils Stieglitz & Terry R. Schumacher, 2021. "Exploration and exploitation in complex search tasks: How feedback influences whether and where human agents search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 361-385, February.
    4. Mark DesJardine & Pratima Bansal, 2019. "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: How Negative External Evaluations Can Shorten Organizational Time Horizons," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 761-780, July.
    5. Dirk Martignoni & Anoop Menon & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2016. "Consequences of misspecified mental models: Contrasting effects and the role of cognitive fit," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(13), pages 2545-2568, December.
    6. Yuan, Chun & Xue, Doudou & He, Xin, 2021. "A balancing strategy for ambidextrous learning, dynamic capabilities, and business model design, the opposite moderating effects of environmental dynamism," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Wei-Ru Chen, 2008. "Determinants of Firms' Backward- and Forward-Looking R&D Search Behavior," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 609-622, August.
    8. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    9. Neill, Stern & York, Jonathan L., 2012. "The entrepreneurial perceptions of strategy makers: Constructing an exploratory path in the pursuit of radical growth," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 1003-1009.
    10. Stephan Billinger & Nils Stieglitz & Terry R. Schumacher, 2014. "Search on Rugged Landscapes: An Experimental Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 93-108, February.
    11. Giovanni Gavetti & Daniel Levinthal & William Ocasio, 2007. "Perspective---Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie School’s Past, Present, and Reconstructing for the Future," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 523-536, June.
    12. George Loewenstein & Zachary Wojtowicz, 2023. "The Economics of Attention," CESifo Working Paper Series 10712, CESifo.
    13. Daniela P. Blettner & Zi-Lin He & Songcui Hu & Richard A. Bettis, 2015. "Adaptive aspirations and performance heterogeneity: Attention allocation among multiple reference points," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 987-1005, July.
    14. Sai Yayavaram & Wei-Ru Chen, 2015. "Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm innovation performance: The moderating role of technological complexity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 377-396, March.
    15. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Hideo Owan, 2013. "Autonomy, Conformity and Organizational Learning," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-21, July.
    16. Felipe A. Csaszar & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2016. "Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(10), pages 2031-2049, October.
    17. Jaeyeob Jeong & Myeonggil Choi, 2017. "The Expected Job Satisfaction Affecting Entrepreneurial Intention as Career Choice in the Cultural and Artistic Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-16, September.
    18. Centobelli, Piera & Cerchione, Roberto & Esposito, Emilio & Shashi,, 2019. "Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 172-194.
    19. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    20. Alexis Laszczuk & Lionel Garreau & Bernard de Montmorillon, 2017. "Understanding emergence in business model development: how companies interact with stakeholders to deal with environmental ambiguity," Post-Print hal-01787276, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    entrepreneurship; simple rules; theory; cognition; evolution;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01083875. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.