relationship between problem solving and entrepreneurship

Where Entrepreneurs Find Inspiration

Ideas and Research from Stanford University

Entrepreneurship as Problem-Solving

Spotify Co-Founder Daniel Ek shares his very early experiences with entrepreneurship, which came about due to a need to solve problems. Ek also provides his definition of an entrepreneur, as “someone that has an itch for a problem, and is annoyed enough by that problem to seek a solution for it.”

Video clips from: A Playlist for Entrepreneurs [Entire Talk]

Execution is 95 percent, the big, hairy, audacious goal of spotify, solving a world of product problems, leading distributed teams, don't say yes to everything, opportunities in sensors and smart devices, product innovations can reduce piracy.

The Ethics of Innovation [Entire Talk]

Video clips.

Leadership in a Digital World

The duty of digital leaders, ethics in emerging technologies, disproportionate job displacement.

A Brainy Approach to Innovation [Entire Talk]

Embodying Innovation

Mind control of machines, pivoting toward impact, automating legal consulting, confessions of a ‘cyber-optimist'.

Taking a Lead From Tech [Entire Talk]

‘What Would Different Look Like?'

Realities of startup life, essential but unsung skills, a blank invitation, choose your peers wisely.

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• *New* Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

• 01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

• Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
• Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
• Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

• Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
• Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
• Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
• Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

• The printer is overused.
• The printer overheats.
• The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

• Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
• Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

• Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
• Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
• Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The role of self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions.

• Post-graduation Program in Management, University of Fortaleza, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil

Although studies aimed at understanding entrepreneurship have analyzed passion, creativity, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, few studies include these antecedents in the same model. In this sense, this study aims to assess the relationship between passion, self-efficacy, and creativity with entrepreneurial intention. The data was collected through a survey and the questionnaires were applied to university students who formed a sample of 190 respondents, and such data was analyzed using structural equation modeling based on partial least square technique. Regarding our results, the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intention has not been confirmed. The multigroup analysis revealed that the level of education influences men’s entrepreneurial intention and creativity only influence entrepreneurial intention when mediated by entrepreneurial passion. This study contributes by highlighting the roles of analyzed passion, creativity, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy in entrepreneurs from one of the largest emerging economies in the world. Moreover, it also contributes to academia as it confirms the explanatory power of the Theory of Planned Behavior as a tool to understand the cognitive foundations of entrepreneurship. It also offers a practical contribution by signaling to public policymakers which features should be incentivized to boost entrepreneurship in emerging economies.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship has been pointed out as key for economic development, as it generates income and jobs for the populations in different contexts ( Zhao et al., 2005 ). As it is intricately connected to entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intentions have become a widely studied topic, as research has been dedicated to better understand the antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurship as a social phenomenon ( Ferreira et al., 2017 ).

In this sense, several authors have demonstrated the factors leading individuals to become entrepreneurs, including self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity ( Ajzen, 1991 ; Shane et al., 2003 ; Chen et al., 2009 ; Drnovšek et al., 2010 ; Engle et al., 2010 ). Moreover, research has revealed the existence of a relationship between creativity, self-efficacy and entrepreneurial passion (inventor) and entrepreneurial intentions ( Chen et al., 1998 ; Drnovšek et al., 2010 ; Moralista and Delariarte, 2014 ; Campos, 2016 ), which allows one to have a positive perspective of scientific work in the area.

Nonetheless, research on entrepreneurial passion is still in its academic infancy, especially in the context of the relationship between passion and creativity ( Chen et al., 2015 ). For instance, there are few models in the literature encompassing passion, self-efficacy, and creativity as antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions and, to address to this gap, this study explores the direct relationship between these constructs. Furthermore, the understanding of how such a feeling influences entrepreneurial intentions and related activities is vital to fomenting actions aiming to boost economic development at different levels, since entrepreneurial activity has been recognized as key for it.

Furthermore, the choice for passion and creativity was also underpinned by recent research advances. As such, this study contemplates, i.e., that creativity positively influences entrepreneurial intention whereas passion partially mediates the relationship between creativity and intention ( Murad et al., 2021 ). A discussion that has been confirmed in different contexts and brings forward the fact that entrepreneurial passion positively affects entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial self-efficacy ( Neneh, 2022 ).

On the one hand, it is understood here that passion is key to beginning a business venture since it stimulates motivation, enhances intellectual activity, and gives meaning for daily work. Especially among potential entrepreneurs like university students, individuals who might start their businesses, for instance, as a way to make a living after finishing their studies ( Anjum et al., 2021 ). On the other hand, creativity was also chosen as it has been demonstrated that people’s creativity can mediate the relationship between their perceptions that societal norms do not support their entrepreneurial intentions, for example ( Ng and Clercq, 2021 ). We thus consider these two elements influence key elements underlying intentions ( Kiani et al., 2022 ).

Considering these aspects, this study addresses to the following research problem: what is the impact of self-efficacy, passion, and creativity as antecedents of entrepreneurial intention? Thus, this study aimed to analyze the relationship between entrepreneurial passion, creativity, and self-efficacy predictors of entrepreneurial intention. To achieve these research objectives, questionnaires were applied to 190 individuals, and the data obtained were treated with descriptive statistics and analyzed by employing structural equation modeling through the Partial Least Square technique. In this sense, this study contributes to scholarship by providing a model able to explain entrepreneurial intentions based on three important characteristics of individuals, namely, passion, creativity, and self-efficacy.

Accordingly, this paper contributes to scholarship by advancing the analyses of how feelings such as passion and creativity influence entrepreneurial intentions, which, in their turn, impact entrepreneurial activities. Moreover, there is also a practical contribution as universities and private companies can take advantage of these analyses to elaborate or reform curricula and processes, focusing on the impact the mentioned feelings have on potential entrepreneurs. In addition, public policymakers may use these conclusion to deliberate public policies oriented toward incentivizing entrepreneurial activity.

Moreover, this study contributes to entrepreneurship theory and to the cognitive foundations of entrepreneurship by demonstrating the influence of psychological factors such as self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity and their impacts on entrepreneurial intentions. Thus, this research contributes to these theories by demonstrating the roles these elements have as they influence and interact with intentions.

For organizing purposes, this paper is divided into six sections. After this Section “1. Introduction,” the next Section “2. Theoretical backgrounds” deals with the theoretical backgrounds underpinning this paper. Afterwards, the third Section “3. Methodology” presents the methodology used to operationalize this research. The fourth Section “4. Results” then introduces the results, and it is followed by the fifth Section “5. Discussion,” in which those results are discussed. Finally, the sixth Section “6. Conclusion” displays the conclusion reached here.

2. Theoretical backgrounds

2.1. the theory of planned behavior.

The willingness to start a business venture can be defined more as a planned behavior rather than an improvised decision, taking into account the number of elements comprised in taking such a decision ( Krueger et al., 2000 ). Hence, the TPB is an essential theory to explain entrepreneurial intention ( Al-Jubari, 2019 ; Duong et al., 2020 ; Lopes et al., 2020 ). Ajzen (1991) presented the TPB using it to investigate the factors impacting intention and to predict them, feature making it useful for this research as well. Futhermore, the TPB supplies an appropriate theoretical lens to study entrepreneurial intention deeming individual and social factors concomitantly ( Liñán and Chen, 2009 ).

Accordingly, the TPB considers that three variables influence entrepreneurial intentions more directly. First, there is perceived behavioral control (PBC, that is, individuals assessing a to-be-executed behavior according to its ease of execution), attitude toward entrepreneurship (personal belief in specific behaviors or actions), and subjective norms [an individual’s perceptions of what people around them or relevant others think about a specific behavior (starting business ventures, for instance)] ( Ajzen, 1991 ; Liñán et al., 2016 ; Al-Jubari et al., 2019 ).

Therefore, intention can be defined as an individual’s mental focus to achieve a predetermined goal. In this sense, operationalizing a business idea is preceded by the desire to do so ( Bird, 1988 ), and when this specific kind of intention takes place, it is then referred to as entrepreneurial intention ( Davidsson, 1995 ). Although there has been an increasing number of publications on the role of intentions in the entrepreneurial process ( Liñán and Fayolle, 2015 ), there is still a gap in research on how to enhance the presence of higher education students in entrepreneurial activities so they can tackle the problems of a globalized world ( de Alencar and Fleith, 2010 ; Rosairo and Potts, 2016 ).

2.2. Entrepreneurial intention

Entrepreneurial intention refers to an individual’s willingness to start a new venture ( Engle et al., 2010 ). In the TPB, intention is the central factor in indicating how much individuals intend and plan to engage in a behavior ( Ajzen, 1991 ). Intention is a key antecedent of action; thus, the study of entrepreneurial intention deepens the understanding of entrepreneurial knowledge and behavior patterns. Intentions are also the result of the interaction between individuals and their context, and their analysis focuses on their influencing factors ( Sun et al., 2011 ).

In this sense, intention can be described as the mental interpretation of the actions necessary to establish new independent businesses or to create value for existing companies ( Fini et al., 2012 ). Thompson (2009) defines intention as the certainty a person who wants to open a business has and consciously plans to do it in the future. In the same sense, entrepreneurial intentions are factors motivating and influencing people searching for entrepreneurial results ( Hisrich et al., 2014 ).

Bearing that in mind, the main individual predictors for intentions are personal traits, motivations for private fulfillment, positive perspective, self-efficacy, perception of management, locus of control, perception of barriers, and creative thinking ( Ferreira et al., 2017 ).

This study aligns itself with others which studied similar samples, namely, university students as emerging entrepreneurial subjects, it also employed the theory of planned behavior, attesting its explanatory power. Moreover, i.e., focusing on self-efficacy, it shows its effects on entrepreneurial intentions and demonstrates the potential roles of entrepreneurial education on the willingness of individuals to start their own ventures ( Liu et al., 2019 ; Lv et al., 2021 ).

Such kind of education can influence not only traditional entrepreneurship, but also social entrepreneurship, which can also take advantage of TPB to advance a solid research agenda in the same way to what was carried out here ( Chien-Chi et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, besides self-efficacy, this study also brings into light variables such as passion and creativity, a specificity that makes it as interesting as other studies that analyzed interesting psychological elements like narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism and the influence of those traits on entrepreneurial intentions, for instance ( Wu et al., 2019 ).

2.3. Creativity

Creativity might be described as the imagination to “invent” something new and valuable, transforming an already existing feature into something better ( Young, 1985 ). Furthermore, it can be defined as the generation of new and adequate solutions to problems that need them in any domain of human activity ( Amabile, 1997 ). Creativity also manifests itself in the form of surprising, unique results, ( Puhakka, 2012 ) involving three components: skills, novelty, and value ( Young, 1985 ).

In the same sense, creativity is the ability to produce new and suitable things according to social reality, which requires from the entrepreneur a context and related processes, as well as the interaction between these elements so that she or he can produce such novelties and generate business opportunities. Following this perspective, creative thinking is vital for entrepreneurial behavior as it enables the identification of opportunities further connected to long-living organizations ( Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ; Ko and Butler, 2007 ; Puhakka, 2012 ).

Therefore, entrepreneurial creativity transcends ordinary creativity, starting from the perception of an opportunity bringing financial gains. In addition, such perception involves the definition of a problem, the generation of ideas, and the implementation of these new ideas, which impel the generation of new products, services, or processes ( Amabile, 1997 ; Puhakka, 2012 ; Smith et al., 2016 ). In other words, creativity is a process through which inventions occur; it is how new things are created.

In this context, creativity also underscores the resourceful capacity to bring new features into existence, i.e., making something new, which leads to motivation and differentiates regular products and services from disruptive ones ( Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ; Okpara, 2007 ). However, creativity also works along with other abilities such as the flexibility to cope with changes, the capacity of playing with concepts and possibilities, a flexible perspective for dealing with things, and the habit of appreciating the present while searching for ways to improve it ( Smith et al., 2016 ).

In addition, an entrepreneur normally needs to make decisions influenced by the organization’s resources. Nonetheless, it is common for entrepreneurs to make impactful decisions regardless of the resources available, based much more on their own intuition. In this sense, the entrepreneur must demonstrate strong leadership, shaping business strategy and motivating employees through creative thinking ( Fillis and Rentschler, 2010 ). Likewise, individuals with ideas for starting businesses are more likely to have viable perceptions about the recognition of opportunities and, thus, tend to have greater entrepreneurial intentions ( Okpara, 2007 ).

2.4. Self-efficacy

Bandura (1977) defined the concept of “self-efficacy” as the origin of an individual’s skill to complete a specific task and perform a job. It relates to how actions, behavior, perceptions, cognition, and the environment influence each other in a self-motivated way ( Shahab et al., 2019 ). Self-efficacy is also outlined as people’s beliefs about their abilities to fulfill expected levels of performance, influencing events with an effect on their lives ( Bandura, 1994 ). The perceived self-efficacy not only defines the range of options to be considered but also affects other aspects of decision-making. Making decisions in no way ensures that the necessary courses of action be successfully implemented, thus, self-efficacy refers to beliefs about what one can do, and the expectations of results indicate the expected consequences of what might be accomplished ( Ajzen, 1991 ; Bandura, 2001 ; Schwarz et al., 2009 ; Drnovšek et al., 2010 ; Shahab et al., 2019 ).

In this perspective, entrepreneurial self-efficacy can include objective beliefs, meaning the ability to assess whether an individual can successfully engage in activities, and control beliefs, implying the capacity to manage negative and positive thoughts while pursuing goals ( Drnovšek et al., 2010 ). Furthermore, people’s beliefs in their effectiveness influence the kind of situations they are able to plan, build and operate. Those with a high sense of effectiveness read situations of success, which offer positive guidelines and support for performance ( Bandura, 1993 ). In other words, self-efficacy can be considered a sort of task-specific self-confidence ( Shane et al., 2003 ). In this perspective, human behavior is highly influenced by the belief in their ability to perform the set of behaviors necessary to succeed, demonstrating a strong relationship between self-efficacy and behavior ( Engle et al., 2010 ).

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) places belief in self-perceived behavioral control or efficacy within the more general structure of the relationships between beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior ( Ajzen, 1991 ). In the same sense, the three antecedents of intention are personal attitude toward behavioral results, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (self-efficacy) ( Schwarz et al., 2009 ). Perceived behavioral control refers to individuals’ perception of the difficulty to perform an activity and, in this sense, self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control are constructs analogous to each other.

Moreover, perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy are similar since they are involved with the perceived ability to perform a behavior (or sequence of behaviors) ( Ajzen, 2002 ). In addition, an individual with high self-efficacy for a given task tends to engage in more effort for a longer period, persist despite setbacks, set and accept higher goals, and develop better plans to accomplish them ( Shane et al., 2003 ). Hence, the higher the belief one has in its abilities, the greater its entrepreneurial intentions ( Moraes et al., 2018 ).

2.5. Entrepreneurial passion

Entrepreneurial passion means a significant emotional state for entrepreneurs. Along with cognition and behavioral expression of high personal value, it is a powerful indicator of entrepreneurs’ enthusiasm for setting up businesses ( Chen et al., 2009 ). Entrepreneurial passion can also be defined as a series of complex patterns of mental, brain, and physical reactions, activated and maintained by enthusiasm, thus, entrepreneurial passion can be considered a central element of entrepreneurial efforts ( Cardon et al., 2009 ).

Moreover, entrepreneurial passion motivates entrepreneurs to recognize opportunities and create new businesses, being regarded as an important part of business motivation and success ( Shane et al., 2003 ; Cardon et al., 2009 ). However, this kind of passion is not a personality trait, but an internal emotional state that an individual lives while thinking about or participating in entrepreneurial-related activities ( Cardon et al., 2009 ).

Passion is also required as a means to accomplish high levels of performance and overcome barriers, and it can also lead entrepreneurs to relevant business results. In this regard, Carden et al. (2009) identified three role identities (inventor identity, founder identity, and developer identity) in distinct aspects of the processes related to different types of passion. First, the inventor status happens when entrepreneurs are passionate about activities focused on identifying, inventing, and exploring new opportunities. Second, the founder’s identity relates to entrepreneurs’ passion for activities aimed at starting businesses to explore new market opportunities. Third, the developer status takes place is linked with the entrepreneurs’ passion for activities related to growing, developing, and expanding their business. While each of these roles may operate independently of one another, some entrepreneurs may be passionate about all of these identities, while others may think one identity is more important than the others.

These different identity-related passions can affect goal-related perceptions and produce specific business outcomes ( Cardon et al., 2009 ). Therefore, entrepreneurial passion acting through its elements of strong positive emotions associated with important identities is a key motivating factor for entrepreneurial behavior, especially when resources are limited, and the environment is uncertain ( Chen et al., 2009 ; Huyghe et al., 2016 ).

In other words, entrepreneurial passion includes deep and consciously positive feelings, vital to personal identity. The combination of these two aspects (strong positive emotions and identity centrality) leads to lasting emotional experiences, which often last longer than emotional episodes. Thus, entrepreneurial passion can be theoretically defined and measured through the following dimensions: strong positive emotions and identity centrality, being reflected in three role identities: invention, foundation, and development ( Cardon et al., 2013 ).

2.6. Theoretical model and hypotheses

Considering its objectives, the model proposed here takes entrepreneurial intention as a dependent variable and three categories as predicting ones, namely, perceived self-efficacy (perceived behavioral control), entrepreneurial passion, and creativity. It is noteworthy this study analyzed the existing direct relationships; further indirect relationships were not in the model’s scope as they strayed from our research question and objectives. To make it clearer, Figure 1 depicts the model.

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

Cardon et al. (2009) identified entrepreneurial passion as a trigger for one to engage in entrepreneurial activities since individuals need to put together and develop sets of skills enabling them to become successful entrepreneurs. This is particularly important at the beginning of a venture when such skills are essential and should be developed in the simplest as well as swiftest way. In this regard, since these skills are boosted, self-efficacy levels increase, and individuals tend to become more aware of their success prospects.

Furthermore, passion affects entrepreneurs’ choices on the decisions they are supposed to make to accomplish their goals. This is a double-folded process with particular characteristics and results. On the one hand, passion might turn into an obsession, making it negatively difficult for individuals to realize the depth of problems they have and to believe falsely to hold the conditions needed to engage in certain business ventures. On the other hand, passion may drive entrepreneurs to feel the pleasure of what other people would consider an ordeal, that is, making it better for them to cope with internal and external pressures. Thus, entrepreneurs would feel more focused on processes and on improving themselves as well as their ventures’ performance, which has a closer relationship with the capacity of changing reality underlying the self-efficacy concept ( Vallerand et al., 2007 ; Lafrenière et al., 2011 ; Stroe et al., 2018 ).

Accordingly, Baron (2008) believed self-efficacy modifies one’s cognitive operation and explained this perception depends on disruptive thinking and on outlining the probabilistic patterns leading one to pursue a career in entrepreneurship ( Mannino and Faraci, 2017 ). In certain cases, new ideas often cause people to rethink their ability to innovate while starting a business passionately, thus, high passion levels contribute to having a greater perception on the possibilities of starting a lasting venture. Based on this argument, the first hypothesis goes as follows: H1–Entrepreneurial passion is positively related to self-efficacy.

Creativity can be firstly defined as being able to create new and value-added products or services ( Amabile, 1996 ). In this study, it is also considered a combination of knowledge in people’s conscious minds, allowing them to reflect on how to develop new innovative and intelligent ideas ( Chen et al., 2015 ). In this sense, creativity might be regarded as the most important feature for starting a company, as it is very useful to expand people’s prospects of how much success they may accomplish ( Godfrey, 1996 ).

Creativity might be considered an intrinsic skill, being born in the individual and happening by chance to each person. Conversely, it can also be seen as a characteristic to be boosted and increased throughout one’s life. In this sense, creativity links to self-efficacy as creative people tend to be confident in a way represented, for example, by the belief they have the necessary tools to overcome problems, even when the context seems dire. In other words, creativity as a flexible attribute makes people challenge reality and see they are capable of doing more than what appears to be possible. In opposition, when individuals believe creativity is a static characteristic, they show smaller self-efficacy levels ( Wood and Bandura, 1989 ; Tierney and Farmer, 2002 ; Royston and Reiter-Palmon, 2019 ).

Furthermore, in socio-cognitive theories such as TPB, self-efficacy refers to a motivational construct following the choice of activities, goal levels, and persistence, as well as the dynamics of business performance in different contexts ( Drnovšek et al., 2010 ). In the literature on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions, self-efficacy is important because entrepreneurs must be confident in their ability to perform different and often unexpected tasks during situations of uncertainty ( Bellò et al., 2018 ). Self-efficacy thus emerges as a crucial antecedent to the intention and its study is one of the main contributions in entrepreneurial intentions research ( Chen et al., 1998 ; Drnovšek et al., 2010 ; Krueger, 2017 ). Nevertheless, researchers have not yet defined the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the relationship between different types of antecedents and entrepreneurial behavior ( Bellò et al., 2018 ), and such gap has led to the formulation of the following hypothesis: H2–Creativity is positively related to self-efficacy.

Considering the influence of passion on creativity, it is noteworthy that while the former leads individuals to engage fiercely in a venture, the latter enables them to persist as they become more aware of possibilities to overcome emerging obstacles. Furthermore, the connection between these two constructs may lead other people to feel motivated by what they see entrepreneurs planning, doing, and accomplishing, i.e., a person with high levels of passion and creativity is likely to affect other people to feel the same. Passionate entrepreneurs demonstrate to others the possibilities for challenging seemingly unchangeable norms ( Hatfield et al., 1994 ; Chen et al., 2009 ; Cardon et al., 2013 ; Davis et al., 2017 ).

In addition, learning derived from past experiences might increase creativity levels, thus, recursively, and positively affecting passion as such learning can be employed through creative thinking and generate successful outcomes. In their turn, these outcomes are likely to exert a positive influence on others. In this regard, obstacles and challenging issues can start creative processes increasing entrepreneurial passion as new alternatives to solve problems are developed. Moreover, such solutions recursively improve self-perceptions about creativity, deepening the engagement in starting a business venture ( Amabile, 1996 ; Zhou et al., 2012 ; Biraglia and Kadile, 2017 ).

Furthermore, there is a linear relationship between positive emotions and creativity, as the higher, a person’s level of positive emotions, the more creative their performance becomes, dynamics consistently affected by the environment where these relationships take place ( Amabile et al., 2005 ; Baron, 2008 ). Correspondingly, entrepreneurial passion can be defined as the consistent and conscious positive emotion experienced by participating in entrepreneurial activities. In this sense, the passion for invention in particular affects problem solving, drives people to set new and creative courses of action, and being so, there is a significant relationship between passion for invention and creativity ( Cardon et al., 2009 , 2013 ). Following these arguments, a person’s passion for invention is likely to influence their creativity, which leads to the next hypothesis: H3–Entrepreneurial passion is positively related to creativity.

Entrepreneurial passion engenders both positive feelings and the identities related to them. This connection, which has been widely documented in the scholarly literature on the topic, plays an even more important role when there is little availability of resources and when the external context is uncertain ( Cardon et al., 2009 ; Chen et al., 2009 ; Murnieks et al., 2014 ; Huyghe et al., 2016 ). In this sense, it is possible to state there is a clear relationship between entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention since the former is key for the latter by making entrepreneurs more capable of acknowledging opportunities and prone to start new ventures, thus, being an essential part of motivation and success for entrepreneurship ( Shane et al., 2003 ; Carsrud and Malin, 2011 ; Karimi, 2020 ).

Furthermore, entrepreneurial passion is likely to be positively linked to intentions as it might increase personal commitment and energize people into finishing important tasks, especially when businesses are in their infancy. In other words, passion is also relevant for intent for its role in motivating entrepreneurs to keep up with their objectives and to commit them with what had been previously planned. In addition, entrepreneurial passion cannot be regarded as a static attribute since individuals can present different levels of desire for learning and questioning standardized norms or behaviors, another feature related to entrepreneurial intentions ( Bierly et al., 2000 ; Cardon et al., 2013 ; Karimi, 2020 ; Syed et al., 2020 ).

Forming intention is also regarded as the first step in the process of creating a new business. Accordingly, entrepreneurial passion can help one to start plans to start a new enterprise since passion motivates entrepreneurial activity. Passionate stakeholders tend to have strong and positive feelings about the entrepreneurial activity they participate and have a consistent motivational drive to act on those feelings ( Cardon et al., 2009 ; Nasiru et al., 2015 ; Biraglia and Kadile, 2017 ; Neneh, 2020 ). In this context, the fourth hypothesis is presented: H4–Entrepreneurial passion is positively related to entrepreneurial intention.

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy relates to the personal belief one has in his or her ability to carry out certain tasks, in this case, the ones concerning entrepreneurship. In this perspective, it can be also described as the degree of such belief, in the sense of how much a person deems to have the capabilities needed to engage in starting a business ( Barakat et al., 2014 ; Alammari et al., 2019 ). As such, this kind of self-efficacy connects to entrepreneurial intentions as, for instance, high levels of it indicate a positive tendency to both addressing to the problems of launching a company and to put with the processes required to do so successfully ( Hassan et al., 2020 ; Elnadi and Gheith, 2021 ).

In other words, self-efficacy comprises how confident individuals are in their abilities and skills associated with successfully tackling entrepreneurial activities. People with high levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy tend to be bolder in overcoming obstacles than others with low levels of it ( Bandura, 2000 ; McGee et al., 2009 ; Memon et al., 2019 ). Considering the risks and the initiative required to start a business, self-efficacy plays an important role in affecting entrepreneurial intentions as it fosters enthusiasm, commitment, and persistence, boosting the possibility to achieve entrepreneurial success ( McGee and Peterson, 2019 ; Newman et al., 2019 ; Elnadi and Gheith, 2021 ).

Studies examining the direct impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions revealed that people with higher self-efficacy have greater intentions, and also believe they are more likely to achieve positive outcomes by tracking a determined plan ( Drnovšek et al., 2010 ). Moreover, entrepreneurs gauge their certainty in their talents based on self-efficacy and tend to be persistent as well as certain about their possibilities of success. In this perspective, there have been studies confirming that higher self-efficacy levels are positively related to higher entrepreneurial intentions ( Chen et al., 1998 ; Cardon and Kirk, 2015 ). Bearing these elements in mind, the hypothesis below is proposed: H5–Self-efficacy is positively related to entrepreneurial intention.

In more general terms, creativity can be described as the ability to foster new ideas as well as strategies to recognize opportunities and solve problems. In this perspective, it might be associated with developing new ways to perform a task instead of performing it following a more usual methodology ( Raposo et al., 2008 ; Zimmerer et al., 2008 ). In other words, creativity is related to discovering new forms of seeing things. Accordingly, creativity can be accounted as a key characteristic for entrepreneurs, contributing to higher levels of entrepreneurial intentions ( Kusmintarti et al., 2014 , 2017 ).

Moreover, creativity has been deemed as an essential cognitive tool for fostering proactive behaviors since it relates to individuals’ ability to overcome and surpass existing setbacks. It might also be argued that creativity is fundamental to increasing entrepreneurial intentions levels as it improves entrepreneurial orientation and allows greater opportunity recognition ( Gilad, 1984 ; Puhakka, 2012 ). In this perspective, people with higher creativity levels respond better to problems, seek more information, and are more successful in avoiding stressors. Thus, creativity is likely to influence entrepreneurial intentions positively since it makes perceptions regarding entrepreneurship promising ( Zampetakis et al., 2009 ; Lerch et al., 2015 ; Kusmintarti et al., 2017 ).

Correspondingly, creativity is normally related to creative and innovative business ideas, and it refers to the skills and resources people have in order to develop new and useful ideas. Accordingly, entrepreneurs are usually creative individuals, thus, creativity and creative thinking account as essential entrepreneurial characteristics and need to be taken into consideration in intention-based models, which is also the case in this study. It is also possible to state that the disposition for creativity can boost confidence and make one see greater success possibilities in starting a venture ( Hamidi et al., 2008 ; Nasiru et al., 2015 ; Biraglia and Kadile, 2017 ; Murad et al., 2021 ). Thus, the sixth hypothesis goes as follows: H6–Creativity is positively related to entrepreneurial intention.

3. Methodology

As previously mentioned, this study aimed to analyze the relationship between entrepreneurial passion, creativity, and self-efficacy as predictors of entrepreneurial intention by employing questionnaires in a sample of university students ( Cooper and Schindler, 2016 ). This non-probabilistic sample comprised 190 respondents, who were reached electronically through social networks over the course of 2021. For such, a seven-point Likert questionnaire with questions on sociodemographic characteristics, self-efficacy, creativity, entrepreneurial passion, and the entrepreneurial objective was used with this sample. Table 1 presents the constructs and its theoretical backgrounds.

Table 1. Constructs and items.

Regarding the minimum sample size, the G*Power application was used considering that the snowball sampling technique is not random ( Malhotra, 2011 ). The choice for this software was since a statistical test enables to produce a statistically significant result ( Cohen, 2013 ). Considering that the model has four predictors, the test was performed considering an f 2 of 0.15 and the number of predictors equal to three and tested for a power of 0.80 resulting in a value of 77 cases as a minimum sample. Hair et al. (2014) estimates between 2 and 3 times the ideal values. In the case between 154 and 231, since the sample has 190 respondents, it is fit for our analyses. Regarding the analyses, data were tabulated in an Excel ® spreadsheet and exported to IBM ® SPSS ® Statistics, version 20, for descriptive statistics calculations, and later to Smart PLS-SEM, version 3.2.9, used for structural equation modeling ( Ringle et al., 2015 ). In addition, PLS-SEM was operated as a multiple regression analysis making it particularly valuable for exploratory research purposes, and it was employed here as it is indicated when: (a) abnormal data; (b) small samples, and (c) formative constructs ( Hair et al., 2014 ), criteria which align with this study as well.

The choice for this statistical technique is also backed up by previous work which employed it and obtained results robust enough to prove its reliability, even to different kinds of samples, dealing with different research questions as well. Thus, is confirms its potential to answer research questions related to entrepreneurial intentions and the variables that might influence it such as gender, technology, and social capital, for instance, and it also proved its reliability in the most diverse contexts ( Dana et al., 2021 ; Rahman et al., 2022 ; Ramadani et al., 2022 ; Salamzadeh et al., 2022 ).

4.1. Sample characteristics

Table 2 shows the predominant characteristics of the sample, 57.7% of respondents are women, with the predominant age group being people from 25 to 29 years-old, represented by 24.2%. Regarding occupational status, 35.3% declared to work for a private initiative and 18.9% worked on their own, the age of respondents might be justified by the fact that the courses surveyed mainly occurred during the evening.

Table 2. Sociodemographic data.

To verify the model, structural equation modeling was employed through the Partial Least Square (PLS) technique, using the SmartPLS 3.2.9 software. Initially, the external model reporting the relationships between constructs and indicating variables was evaluated. In this regard, reflective indicators are linked to a construct by its loads, which are the bivariate correlations between the indicator and the construct to verify their reliability and validity. The first step is to use composite reliability to assess the internal consistency of measures. Then, the second step is the validity assessment, providing convergent validity support, which occurs when each item has loads above 0.7 and when the average variance extracted from each construct is equal to or greater than 0.5.

Regarding the external loads, variables PE01 and CR05 were excluded for having a factor load below 0.70 and the variable IE04 for presenting VIF > 5 ( Hair et al., 2014 ). Variable IE04, namely, “I am determined to create a company in the future” was also excluded for presenting VIF > 5, and PE05, i.e., “creating new solutions to problems is an important part of who I am” was removed to allow discriminant validity. Values presented in Table 3 show the compound reliability > 0.7; AVE’s > 0.5; and the values of each construct are greater than the highest square correlation with any other, confirming the model validity.

Table 3. Values of the fit quality of the external model.

Table 4 below shows the values of factorial loads of observable variables (VOs) in the original constructs (VLs) are higher than in others, meeting the required criteria ( Ringle et al., 2014 ).

Table 4. Values of the crossed loads of VOs in the VLs.

According to Table 5 , the values of the model’s quality of fit indicators, namely, Pearson’s coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) represent the combined effect of the exogenous variable on the endogenous ones with values of 0.75, 0.50, 0.25, respectively, describing substantial, moderate, or weak levels of predictive accuracy ( Henseler et al., 2009 ). The predictive relevance or validity coefficient Q 2 represents a means to evaluate the interior model with predictive relevance, a Q 2 > 0 indicates an endogenous construction forecast, not about the quality of the forecast ( Hair et al., 2014 ; Ringle et al., 2014 ). Thus, the values below show the model is internally fit and adequate for analyses.

Table 5. Predictive values.

Table 6 demonstrates the model has a suitable predictive quality, being moderate in the coefficient of determination and predictive in relation to Q 2 . It is also possible to observe that coefficients depicting the effects between the relationships, in this case, only hypothesis H6 was not supported ( p > 0.05).

Table 6. Structural coefficients.

The first hypothesis predicting the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and self-efficacy was validated ( b = 0.566, p < 0.001), a result similar to the one found by Biraglia and Kadile (2017) ( b = 0.681, p < 0.000) as well as Bignetti et al. (2021) ( b = 0.266, p < 0.001), both validating the same hypothesis. The second hypothesis estimated the relationship between creativity and self-efficacy and was also supported ( b = 0.233, p < 0.05), a result similar to one found by those who validated the same relationship ( b = 0.304, p < 0.001). The third hypothesis then predicted the positive relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial passion and was also validated ( b = 0.813, p > 0.001), in the same sense ( Biraglia and Kadile, 2017 ) also confirmed the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and creativity ( b = 0.34, p < 0,001).

The fourth hypothesis then assessed the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and intention and was also supported ( b = 0.458, p < 0.001), a result in accordance with Neneh (2020) ( b = 0.380, p < 0.01) and Bignetti et al.’s (2021) ( b = 0.266, p < 0.001), who also validated the same hypothesis. Furthermore, the fifth hypothesis was validated, confirming the influence of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention ( b = 0.506, p < 0.001), a result similar to the ones found by Shahab et al. (2019) ( b = 0.155, p < 0.001) and Neneh (2020) ( b = 0270, p < 0.010).

Finally, the sixth hypothesis predicted the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intention and was not validated ( b = −0.079, p > 0.05), differently from Shahab et al.’s (2019) who identified the positive and significant effect of creativity on entrepreneurial intention ( b = 0.211, p < 0.01), but in alignment with Bignetti et al.’s (2021) , who also did not validate the hypothesis ( b = −0.096, p > 0.05). Nevertheless, gender was not significantly directly related to entrepreneurial intentions (−0.023, p > 0.05), thus, there are no differences between men and women in becoming entrepreneurs in the sample analyzed in this study. Age and education were not significant as well, that is, they do not exert any impact on entrepreneurial intentions.

In this regard, this study goes into another direction when one takes into account other recent studies that examined contextual moderators, unveiling the differences between female and male respondents is contingent on different social and cultural factors. Correspondingly, these other studies observe an increase in the creativity gender gap when the country-level cultural context of the sample is communal and an elevation when it is agentic. Moreover, results also demonstrate that the gender disparity decreased as time passed, even though industry gender composition did not influence the gender gap. In this sense, the gender gap is larger when creative performance is self- versus other-reported ( Hora et al., 2022 ).

Although this study’s results did not corroborate with the following argument, it is noteworthy that regarding gender, entrepreneurship is important as it decreases discrimination in the job market. In this regard, although Brazilian patriarchal society has roles in which women are entrenched in chauvinist social norms which may hurdle them from starting their business ventures, but even with these obstacles women end up representing nearly 80% of solo entrepreneurship, generating 9% of Brazilian gross domestic product ( Ayatakshi-Endow and Steele, 2021 ).

Table 7 demonstrates that the multigroup analysis could not find differences between the hypotheses’ validity, differing from the total set of the sample regarding the relationship between creativity and self-efficacy, which proved to be non-significant. The difference between groups lies in the education control variable, as it was significant for men but not for women. The negative value implies that the higher the level of education, the lower the intention to become an entrepreneur.

Table 7. Multigroup analysis.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to examine the relationship between entrepreneurial intention, self-efficacy, creativity, and entrepreneurial passion. Moreover, it had the objective to investigate the role played by creativity in the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy. By following these objectives, this research differed from previous studies, which dealt with business self-efficacy as an antecedent of intentions, that is, as a variable that can distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs ( Chen et al., 1998 ; Drnovšek et al., 2010 ) or emphasized the effectiveness of self-emotional intelligence in enterprises and attitudes ( Zampetakis et al., 2009 ).

Considering its findings, this paper’s contribution offers empirical evidence for a broader model connecting personality-related variables, such as creativity, with entrepreneurial intentions ( Zhao et al., 2005 ). In this sense, bootstrapping results showed a significant indirect effect, according to which business self-efficacy explains the mechanism linking creativity to entrepreneurial intentions.

Accordingly, this research provides different contributions. First, it contributes to theory as it analyzes Brazil as one of the largest emerging economies in the world and, second, it enables one to understand what influences certain individuals’ intentions to start their own business ventures. Correspondingly, this research helps to advance with a research agenda that fosters the elements which have more impact on fomenting entrepreneurship in similar contexts. Moreover, it also contributes to academia as it confirms the Theory of Planned Behavior’s explanatory power and its relevance as a tool to understand the cognitive foundations of entrepreneurship. In this regard, we demonstrate that entrepreneurship is a psychosocial phenomenon, influenced by objective reasons as well as psychological elements.

Furthermore, this study contributes the literature on entrepreneurship by demonstrating the mediating roles of self-efficacy and creativity in relation to entrepreneurship and the relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial passion with entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, this research introduces a model applied to a heterogeneous group composed of university students who also worked in regular jobs; thus, this sample shows a result closer to the social reality of most people in Brazil. Furthermore, this study supports the effect of self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity, validating a Brazilian model based on the TPB. There is also a practical contribution as this paper highlights the relevance of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in fomenting entrepreneurial intentions.

It is noteworthy to emphasize the interplay between the variables employed in this study. As highlighted in the Section “2. Theoretical backgrounds,” passion is a psychological state which can lead potential entrepreneurs to believe they are capable of undergoing certain stressful situations and still be able to reach success. In this regard, passion function as enabler entrepreneurial intention, making the individual to push certain personal and social boundaries to reach specific business goals ( Shane et al., 2003 ; Cardon et al., 2009 , 2013 ; Chen et al., 2009 ; Huyghe et al., 2016 ).

Correspondingly, self-efficacy intertwines with passion and intention as it is key to individuals not being strayed from their reality by passion. Self-efficacy assists the entrepreneur to see the limitations that might be found as well as the personal or organizational possibilities to overcome such limitations. Thus, this interplay has an influence on intentions as it can moderate how much one feels it can surpass an obstacle during starting as a venture but, at the same time, this person is likely to have an accurate perception of the extant of what can be actually done ( Ajzen, 1991 ; Bandura, 2001 ; Schwarz et al., 2009 ; Drnovšek et al., 2010 ; Shahab et al., 2019 ).

In addition, the interactions between passion, self-efficacy and creativity have an influence on intention as creativity is another key trait for entrepreneurs to be successful in their endeavors, as these individuals elaborate new and resourceful ways to perform an action or solve a specific problem. In this regard, creativity makes entrepreneurs realize and develop different and potentially innovative ways, helping them to devise ways to act according to the drives of passion and self-efficacy, thus, affecting their entrepreneurial intentions as well ( Young, 1985 ; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ; Ko and Butler, 2007 ; Puhakka, 2012 ; Smith et al., 2016 ).

6. Conclusion

Our findings point out to high values of creativity and passion (78.9%; 75.8%), with self-efficacy showing a lower value (61.4%), indicating that, although they are cognitively present as entrepreneurs, the individuals comprised in the sample are insecure about carrying out such behavior, reducing their intention to start a business (65.9%). This fact can be explained by the lack of entrepreneurial education, considering that the sample is made up of university students who did not have entrepreneurship as part of their courses’ curricula.

In addition, this research provides a contribution to both entrepreneurship theory and its cognitive foundations since it showed the impact of psychological variables like self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity and their influence over entrepreneurial intentions. Hence, this study contributes to the theories, entrepreneurship theory, and to the cognitive foundations of entrepreneurship by showing the importance certain psychological factors hold and their impact on entrepreneurial intentions.

Nevertheless, this research is not without limitations, the contextual specificity of the courses and the non-probabilistic sample can be cited since they make it difficult to obtain valid results for all cases. There are two possible avenues for future studies, first, to replicate the model in another context, which could be both a developing country and even in a developed one. A second avenue for future research would be to analyze the mediating relationships to expand the results and consolidate the model presented here.

The inclusion of other variables is another limitation of this work since it was not able to include other variables, such as opportunity alertness. This variable was not discussed here because it was not included in the scope of this study, which preferred to focus on self-efficacy, passion and creativity as well as to check its influence on entrepreneurial intentions. Likewise, opportunity alertness was not included in the model elaborated to answer our research questions. Accordingly, on the one hand, the hypotheses predicting the positive relationship between entrepreneurial passion and self-efficacy, creativity and self-efficacy, entrepreneurial creativity and passion, entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention, and self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention were confirmed, on the other hand, the relationship between creativity and the entrepreneurial intention was not confirmed. Furthermore, the multigroup analysis showed that education influences men’s entrepreneurial intentions, and creativity only affects intentions when mediated by passion.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

MF-N focused on the search for articles, partly analyzed the material, and wrote the Portuguese version of this manuscript. JC performed part of the search for the articles, analyzed the collected material, and wrote the Portuguese version of this manuscript. JS-F was the research supervisor. MF-N, JC, and BS performed the research’s analyses and writing. BS analyzed the data collected, offered insights on new categories, and wrote the English version of this manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research was fully funded by the University of Fortaleza.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32, 665–683. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

Alammari, K., Newbery, R., Haddoud, M. Y. and Beaumont, E. (2019). Post-materialistic values and entrepreneurial intention – the case of Saudi Arabia. J. Small Bus. Enterpr. Dev. 26, 158–179. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-12-2017-0386

Al-Jubari, I. (2019). College students’ entrepreneurial intention: testing an integrated model of SDT and TPB. SAGE Open 9, 1–15. doi: 10.1177/2158244019853467

Al-Jubari, I., Hassan, A., and Liñán, F. (2019). Entrepreneurial intention among University students in Malaysia: integrating self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. Int. Entrepreneursh. Manag. J. 15, 1323–1342. doi: 10.1007/s11365-018-0529-0

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy. J. Creat. Behav. 31, 18–26. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00778.x

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., and Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Admin. Sci. Quarter. 50, 367–403.

Anjum, T., Heidler, P., Amoozegar, A., and Anees, R. T. (2021). The impact of entrepreneurial passion on the entrepreneurial intention; moderating impact of perception of university support. Administr. Sci. 11:45. doi: 10.3390/admsci11020045

Ayatakshi-Endow, S., and Steele, J. (2021). Striving for balance: women entrepreneurs in Brazil, their multiple gendered roles and Covid-19. Int. J. Gender Entrepreneursh. 13, 121–141. doi: 10.1108/IJGE-09-2020-0142

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191–215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning”. Educ. Psychol. 28, 117–148. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

Bandura, A. (1994). “Self-efficacy,” in Encyclopedia of human behavior , Vol. 4, ed. V. S. Ramachaudran (New York, NY: Academic Press), 71–81.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 9, 75–78.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Barakat, S., Boddington, M., and Vyakarnam, S. (2014). Measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to understand the impact of creative activities for learning innovation. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 12, 456–468. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2014.05.007

Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33, 328–340. doi: 10.5465/amr.2008.31193166

Bellò, B., Mattana, V., and Loi, M. (2018). The power of peers: a new look at the impact of creativity, social context and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 24, 214–233. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-07-2016-0205

Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., and Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. J. Organ. Change Manag. 13, 595–618. doi: 10.1108/09534810010378605

Bignetti, B., Santos, A. C. M. Z., Hansen, P. B., and Henriqson, E. (2021). The influence of entrepreneurial passion and creativity on entrepreneurial intentions. Rev. Admin. Mackenzie 22, 1–32.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Biraglia, A., and Kadile, V. (2017). The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions: insights from American Homebrewers. J. Small Bus. Manag. 55, 170–188. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12242

Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Acad. Manag. Rev. 13, 442–453. doi: 10.2307/258091

Campos, H. M. (2016). The role of creativity in mediating the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial alertness. Rev. Bus. Manag. 18, 457–472. doi: 10.7819/rbgn.v18i61.3010

Carden, A., Courtemanche, C., and Meiners, J. (2009). Does Wal-Mart reduce social capital? Pub. Choice 138, 109–136.

Cardon, M. S., and Kirk, C. P. (2015). Entrepreneurial passion as mediator of the self–efficacy to persistence relationship. Entrepreneursh. Theory Pract. 39, 1027–1050. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01733

Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., and Patel, P. C. (2013). Measuring entrepreneurial passion: conceptual foundations and scale validation. J. Bus. Venturing 28, 373–396. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.003

Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., and Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34, 511–532. doi: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2739

Carsrud, A., and Malin, B. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to know? J. Small Bus. Manag. 49, 9–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00312.x

Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., and Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? J. Bus. Venturing 13, 295–316. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3

Chen, X. P., Liu, D., and He, W. (2015). “Does passion fuel entrepreneurship and job creativity? A review and preview of passion research,” in The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship , eds C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, and J. Zhou (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 159–175.

Chen, X. P., Yao, X., and Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: a persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 199–214. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.36462018

Chien-Chi, C., Sun, B., Yang, H., Zheng, M., and Li, B. (2020). Emotional competence, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention: a study based on China college students’ social entrepreneurship project. Front. Psychol. 11:547627. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.547627

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic press. doi: 10.4324/9780203771587

Cooper, D. R., and Schindler, P. S. (2016). Métodos de Pesquisa em administração. Porto Alegre: AMGH.

da Silva, T. F., and Nakano, T. C. (2019). Escala informatizada de avaliação das características criativas: evidências de validade de conteúdo. Aval. Psicol. 18, 166–175. doi: 10.15689/ap.2019.1802.14675.07

Dana, L. P., Tajpour, M., Salamzadeh, A., Hosseini, E., and Zolfaghari, M. (2021). The impact of entrepreneurial education on technology-based enterprises development: the mediating role of motivation. Administr. Sci. 11:105.

Davidsson, P. (1995). Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneursh. Regional Dev. 7, 41–62. doi: 10.1080/08985629500000003

Davis, B. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Webb, J. W., and Coombs, J. E. (2017). Funders’ positive affective reactions to entrepreneurs’ crowd funding pitches: The influence of perceived product creativity and entrepreneurial passion. J. Bus. Vent. 32, 90–106.

de Alencar, E. M. L. S., and Fleith, D. D. S. (2010). Criatividade na educação superior: fatores inibidores. Avaliação Rev. Avaliação Da Educação Superior (Campinas) 15, 201–206. doi: 10.1590/S1414-40772010000200011

Drnovšek, M., Wincent, J., and Cardon, M. S. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business start-up: developing a multi-dimensional definition. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 16, 329–348. doi: 10.1108/13552551011054516

Duong, C. D., Nguyen, H. X., Ngo, T. V. N., Nguyen, V. H., and Nguyen, T. P. L. (2020). The impact of individual and environmental characteristics on students’ entrepreneurial intention. Manag. Sci. Lett. 10, 599–608. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1423-5

Elnadi, M., and Gheith, M. H. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention in higher education: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Manag. Educ . 19:100458. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100458

Engle, R. L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J. V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado, I., et al. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent: a twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen’s model of planned behavior. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 16, 35–57. doi: 10.1108/13552551011020063

Ferreira, A. D. S. M., Loiola, E., and Gondim, S. M. G. (2017). Preditores individuais e contextuais da intenção empreendedora entre universitários: revisão de literatura. Cadernos EBAPE 15, 292–308. doi: 10.1590/1679-395159595

Fillis, I., and Rentschler, R. (2010). The role of creativity in entrepreneurship. J. Enterprising Cult. 18, 49–81. doi: 10.1142/S0218495810000501

Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., and Sobrero, M. (2012). The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneursh. Theory Pract. 36, 387–414. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00411.x

Gilad, B. (1984). Entrepreneurship: the issue of creativity in the market place. J. Creat. Behav. 18, 151–161. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00379.x

Godfrey, A. B. (1996). Creativity, innovation, and quality. Qual. Digest 16, 1–17.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., and Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur. Bus. Rev. 26, 106–121. doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K., and Berglund, H. (2008). Creativity in entrepreneurship education. J. Small Bus. Enter. Dev. 15, 304–320.

Hassan, A., Saleem, I., Anwar, I., and Hussain, S. A. (2020). Entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students: the role of opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education. Educ. Train. 62, 843–861. doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2020-0033

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174138

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). “The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing,” in New challenges to international marketing , eds R. R. Sinkovics and P. N. Ghauri (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 277–319. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3122

Hisrich, R. D., Peters, M. P., and Shepherd, D. A. (2014). Empreendedorismo. Porto Alegre: AMGH.

Hora, S., Badura, K. L., Lemoine, G. J., and Grijalva, E. (2022). A meta-analytic examination of the gender difference in creative performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 107, 1926–1950. doi: 10.1037/apl0000999

Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., and Obschonka, M. (2016). Unraveling the “passion orchestra” in academia. J. Bus. Venturing 31, 344–364. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.03.002

Karimi, S. (2020). The role of entrepreneurial passion in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Appl. Econ. 52, 331–344.

Kiani, A., Ali, A., Wang, D., and Islam, Z. U. (2022). Perceived fit, entrepreneurial passion for founding, and entrepreneurial intention. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 20:100681. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100681

Ko, S., and Butler, J. E. (2007). Creativity: a key link to entrepreneurial behavior. Bus. Horiz. 50, 365–372. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2007.03.002

Krueger, N. F. (2017). “Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: long live entrepreneurial intentions,” in Revisiting the entrepreneurial mind , eds M. Brännback and A. L. Carsrud (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing), 13–34. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45544-0_2

Krueger, N. F. Jr., Reilly, M. D., and Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Vent. 15, 411–432.

Kusmintarti, A., Asdani, A., and Riwajanti, N. I. (2017). The relationship between creativity, entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial intention (case study on the students of State Polytechnic Malang). Int. J. Trade Glob. Markets 10, 28–36. doi: 10.1504/IJTGM.2017.082379

Kusmintarti, A., Thoyib, A., Ashar, K., and Maskie, G. (2014). The relationships among entrepreneurial characteristics, entrepreneurial attitude, and entrepreneurial intention. J. Bus. Manag. 16, 87–101.

Lafrenière, M. A. K., Bélanger, J. J., Sedikides, C., and Vallerand, R. J. (2011). Self-esteem and passion for activities. Pers. Individ. Differ. 51, 541–544. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.017

Lerch, C., Thai, M. T., Puhakka, V., and Burger-Helmchen, T. (2015). Re-examining creativity in entrepreneurship. J. Innov. Econ. Manag. 3, 3–23.

Liñán, F., and Chen, Y. (2009). Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 33, 593–617. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x

Liñán, F., and Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. Int. Entrepreneursh. Manag. J. 11, 907–933.

Liñán, F., Moriano, J. A., and Jaén, I. (2016). Individualism and entrepreneurship: does the pattern depend on the social context? Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrepreneursh. 34, 760–776.

Liu, X., Lin, C., Zhao, G., and Zhao, D. (2019). Research on the effects of entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Front. Psychol. 10:869. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00869

Lopes, J., Teixeira, S. J., Ferreira, J. J. M., Silveira, P., Farinha, L., and Lussuamo, J. (2020). University entrepreneurial intentions: mainland and insular regions – are they different? Educ. Train. 62, 81–99. doi: 10.1108/ET-03-2019-0055

Lv, Y., Chen, Y., Sha, Y., Wang, J., An, L., Chen, T., et al. (2021). How entrepreneurship education at universities influences entrepreneurial intention: mediating effect based on entrepreneurial competence. Front. Psychol. 12:655868. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655868

Malhotra, N. K. (2011). Pesquisa de marketing: uma organização aplicada , 3 Edn. São Paulo: Pearson.

Mannino, G., and Faraci, E. (2017). Morphogenesis of work - application to the psychological well-being and psychosocial health. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali 125, 315–333.

McGee, J. E., and Peterson, M. (2019). The long-term impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance. J. Small Bus. Manag. 57, 720–737. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12324

McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., and Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self–efficacy: refining the measure. Entrepreneursh. Theory Pract. 33, 965–988. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00304.x

Memon, M., Soomro, B. A., and Shah, N. (2019). Enablers of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in a developing country. Educ. Training 61, 684–699.

Moraes, G. H. S. M. D., Iizuka, E. S., and Pedro, M. (2018). Effects of entrepreneurial characteristics and university environment on entrepreneurial intention. Rev. Admin. Contemporânea 22, 226–248. doi: 10.1590/1982-7849rac2018170133

Moralista, R. B., and Delariarte, G. C. (2014). Entrepreneurship as a career choice: an analysis of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention of national High School senior students at the municipality of Calinog, Iloilo. Asia Pacif. J. Educ. Arts Sci. 1, 12–15.

Murad, M., Li, C., Ashraf, S. F., and Arora, S. (2021). The influence of entrepreneurial passion in the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intention. Int. J. Glob. Bus. Competitiveness 16, 51–60.

Murnieks, C. Y., Mosakowski, E., and Cardon, M. S. (2014). Pathways of passion: identity centrality, passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs. J. Manag. 40, 1583–1606. doi: 10.1177/0149206311433855

Nasiru, A., Keat, O. Y., and Bhatti, M. A. (2015). Influence of perceived university support perceived effective entrepreneurship education, perceived creativity disposition, entrepreneurial passion for inventing and founding on entrepreneurial intention. Mediterranean J. Soc. Sci. 6:88. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3p88

Neneh, B. N. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention: the role of social support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Stud. High. Educ. 5, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1770716

Neneh, B. N. (2022). Entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention: the role of social support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Stud. High. Educ. 47, 587–603.

Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., and Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: a systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. J. Vocat. Behav. 110, 403–419.

Ng, P. Y., and Clercq, D. D. (2021). Explaining the entrepreneurial intentions of employees: the roles of societal norms, work-related creativity and personal resources. Int. Small Bus. J. 39, 732–754. doi: 10.1177/0266242621996614

Okpara, F. O. (2007). The value of creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship. J. Asia Entrepreneursh. Sustainability 3:1.

Puhakka, V. (2012). “Entrepreneurial creativity as discovery and exploitation of business opportunities,” in Entrepreneurship–creativity and innovative business models , ed. T. Burger-Helmchen (Rijeka: Intech Open), 3–24. doi: 10.5772/37326

Rahman, M. M., Salamzadeh, A., and Tabash, M. I. (2022). Antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions of female undergraduate students in Bangladesh: a covariance-based structural equation modeling approach. J. Womens Entrepreneursh. Educ. 1, 137–153.

Ramadani, V., Rahman, M. M., Salamzadeh, A., Rahaman, M. S., and Abazi-Alili, H. (2022). Entrepreneurship education and graduates’ entrepreneurial intentions: does gender matter? A multi-group analysis using AMOS. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 180, 121693. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121693

Raposo, M., Paco, D. A., and Ferreira, J. (2008). Entrepreneur’s profile: a taxonomy of attributes and motivations of university students. J. Small Bus. Enterprise Dev. 15, 405–418. doi: 10.1108/14626000810871763

Ringle, C. M., Silva, D., and Bido, D. D. S. (2014). Modelagem de equações estruturais com utilização do SmartPLS. Rev. Brasileira de Marketing 13, 56–73. doi: 10.5585/remark.v13i2.2717

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Available online at: http://www.smartpls.com (Accessed June 27, 2021).

Rosairo, H. R., and Potts, D. J. (2016). A study on entrepreneurial attitudes of upcountry vegetable farmers in Sri Lanka. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 6, 1–40. doi: 10.1108/JADEE-07-2014-0024

Royston, R., and Reiter-Palmon, R. (2019). Creative self-efficacy as mediator between creative mindsets and creative problem-solving. J. Creat. Behav. 53, 472–481. doi: 10.1002/jocb.226

Salamzadeh, Y., Sangosanya, T. A., Salamzadeh, A., and Braga, V. (2022). Entrepreneurial universities and social capital: the moderating role of entrepreneurial intention in the Malaysian context. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 20:100609. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100609

Schwarz, E. J., Wdowiak, M. A., Almer-Jarz, D. A., and Breitenecker, R. J. (2009). The effects of attitudes and perceived environment conditions on students’ entrepreneurial intent. Educ. Training 51, 272–291. doi: 10.1108/00400910910964566

Shahab, Y., Chengang, Y., Arbizu, A. D., and Haider, M. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: do entrepreneurial creativity and education matter? Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 25, 259–280. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-12-2017-0522

Shane, S., Locke, E. A., and Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 13, 257–279. doi: 10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00017-2

Smith, R. M., Sardeshmukh, S. R., and Combs, G. M. (2016). Understanding gender, creativity, and entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurial Intentions 58, 263–282. doi: 10.1108/ET-06-2015-0044

Sternberg, R. J., and Lubart, T. I. (1999). “The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms,” in Handbook of creativity , ed. R. J. Sternberg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 3–15. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511807916.003

Stroe, S., Parida, V., and Wincent, J. (2018). Effectuation or causation: an fsQCA analysis of entrepreneurial passion, risk perception, and self-efficacy. J. Bus. Res. 89, 265–272.

Sun, Y., Hu, B., and Yang, T. (2011). Research on the influencing factors of entrepreneurial intension of university students based on the achievement motivation. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 31, 130–134.

Syed, I., Butler, J. C., Smith, R. M., and Cao, X. (2020). From entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial intentions: the role of entrepreneurial passion, innovativeness, and curiosity in driving entrepreneurial intentions. Pers. Individ. Differ. 157:109758. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109758

Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual Entrepreneurial Intent: construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneursh. Theory Pract. 33, 669–694. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00321.x

Tierney, P., and Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad. Manag. J . 45, 1137–1148. doi: 10.2307/3069429

Vallerand, R. J., Salvy, S., Mageau, G. A., Elliot, A. J., Denis, P. L., Grouzet, F. M. E., et al. (2007). On the role of passion in performance. J. Pers. 75, 505–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00447.x

Wood, R., and Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56, 407–415. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.56.3.407

Wu, W., Wang, H., Zheng, C., and Wu, Y. J. (2019). Effect of narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism on entrepreneurial intention—the mediating of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Front. Psychol. 10:360. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00360

Young, J. G. (1985). What is creativity? J. Creat. Behav. 19, 77–87. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1985.tb00640.x

Zampetakis, L. A., Kafetsios, K., Bouranta, N., Dewett, T., and Moustakis, V. S. (2009). On the relationship between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial attitudes and intention. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 15, 595–618. doi: 10.1108/13552550910995452

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., and Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 1265–1272. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265

Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., and Shipton, H. (2012). Promoting creativity at work: the role of problem-solving demand. Appl. Psychol. 61, 56–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00455.x

Zimmerer, T. W., Scarborough, N. M., and Wilson, D. (2008). Essentials of entrepreneurship and small business management. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Keywords : entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intention, creativity, entrepreneurial passion, self-efficacy

Citation: Ferreira-Neto MN, de Carvalho Castro JL, de Sousa-Filho JM and de Souza Lessa B (2023) The role of self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions. Front. Psychol. 14:1134618. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134618

Received: 30 December 2022; Accepted: 06 February 2023; Published: 06 March 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Ferreira-Neto, de Carvalho Castro, de Sousa-Filho and de Souza Lessa. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Bruno de Souza Lessa, [email protected]

† These authors share senior authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Transformational and entrepreneurial leadership: A review of distinction and overlap

• Review Paper
• Open access
• Published: 22 March 2023
• Volume 18 , pages 493–538, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Theo Émile Ravet-Brown   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6915-652X 1 ,
• Marco Furtner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7734-5459 1 &
• Andreas Kallmuenzer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8808-1743 2  

5774 Accesses

4 Citations

Explore all metrics

Entrepreneurship represents a key motor of economic growth, and entrepreneurial leadership (EL) represents a vital constituent thereof. However, its examination remains factious, and integration with the wider leadership literature is fragmentary. EL is claimed by some as representing a construct distinct from extant leadership styles, even though the major contribution made by transformational leadership (TL) theory remains under-researched and under-reported. Furthermore, TL is often used to measure leaders in entrepreneurship, resulting in a lack of clarity regarding the relationship between TL and EL. Our study seeks to contribute to the literature by elucidating the distinction and overlap between the two leadership constructs, as currently defined by available questionnaires. To this end, conceptual work, current findings, and research practice are reviewed. Drawn from a final sample of 25 articles, our findings show appreciable conceptual divergence. However, questionnaires of EL overlap significantly with TL and are subject to validation and discriminant validity issues; many researchers furthermore continue to use TL questionnaires to measure EL. Very little compelling empirical evidence for divergent validity was found, though strong correlations between EL and TL were observed. Our study contributes an overview of EL from the viewpoint of leadership science, providing recommendations to entrepreneurship researchers examining EL. We suggest that future work should satisfy two main goals: the establishment of a conceptualization of EL which can empirically demonstrate divergent validity versus other, accepted measures of leadership, and the creation of a cogent and a specific theoretical model to support it.

Similar content being viewed by others

A critical analysis of Elon Musk’s leadership in Tesla motors

Md. Rahat Khan

Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda

Elia Pizzolitto, Ida Verna & Michelina Venditti

Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset

Donald F. Kuratko, Greg Fisher & David B. Audretsch

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The study of entrepreneurial leadership (EL) examines those who set out to improve their circumstances by founding new enterprises (Hensellek et al. 2023 ), and by gathering around them a group of like-minded followers who join them in realizing their vision (Liu et al. 2022 ). EL today presents a disparate array of conceptual and practical approaches to those interested in pinning down its measurement (Clark et al. 2019 ). Research using the term includes anything from the procedural examination of leadership of entrepreneurial ventures (Freeman and Siegfried 2015 ), to strategic considerations of the value of entrepreneurially-minded management in extant enterprises and their corporate venturing (Karol 2015 ; Niemann et al. 2022 ), to the behavioral delineation of a unique leadership style that is unalienably entrepreneurial (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ). However, mainstream leadership research diverges from employing these kinds of broad definitions (Reid et al. 2018 ). More concrete, quantifiable operationalizations of leadership styles, such as empowering leadership (Cheong et al. 2019 ) or transformational leadership (TL) (Bass and Avolio 1997 ) have long proven fruitful (Derue et al. 2011 ) and continue to be sought after (Hemshorn de Sanchez et al. 2022 ). While some conceptual work on EL acknowledges this kind of convention (Leitch and Volery 2017 ), it rapidly swells to encompass a blend of interpersonal and strategic components (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ). However, the importance to EL scholarship of arriving at a serviceable, shared definition is clear, as many scholars seek to measure EL as a distinct, operationalized style (e.g. Niemann et al. 2022 ). As leaders, entrepreneurs are undoubtedly a key ingredient in determining the viability of their idea and the success of the venture it begets (Liu et al. 2022 ; Tarí et al. 2023 ); their ability to marshal the resources needed for success, both human and non-human, is essential (Brush et al. 2001 ). In short, EL represents the crux of successful entrepreneurship (Faridian 2023 ), so how is it best measured? Is EL capturable through mainstream conceptions, as some have suggested (Vecchio 2003 ), or does it require some unique, distinct construct? The examination of these questions has remained fragmented, and their answer has yet to be found (Clark et al. 2019 ; Clark and Harrison 2019 ). Calls to integrate EL more closely with the field of leadership are not new (Antonakis and Autio 2012 ), even though a paucity of comprehensive integration of a theoretical framework persists from within mainstream leadership science into EL, such as the Full-Range Leadership Theory (FRLT; see Bass 1985 ; Bass and Avolio 1997 ). Conceptually, both TL and its parent theory, the FRLT, formulate leadership styles as a composition of concrete, visible behaviors and saliently displayed attributes, together constituting “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse 2018 , p. 43). Current measures of EL however do not fully conform to this theoretical framework (c.f. Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ; Renko et al. 2015 ), despite the three prominent operationalizations of EL drawing considerably on TL (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ; Gupta et al. 2004 ; Renko et al. 2015 ). In fact, even a cursory examination of these measures reveals marked item overlap with questionnaires for TL, an issue which authors in the field of EL have previously pointed to (Renko et al. 2015 ). This kind of admixture obstructs the establishment of a distinct, behaviorally proximal definition of EL.

This alone represents sufficient reason to consider an examination of TL and EL in concert. Aside from the overwhelming acceptance of TL in mainstream leadership literature (Deng et al. 2022 ), it continues to be used “routinely” in the examination of entrepreneurial leaders (Reid et al. 2018 , p. 152). However, there are also conceptual differences which several authors have pointed to. The question of scope, of “leadership in” versus “leadership of” organizations, is crucial (Antonakis and Autio 2012 ). For example, some authors point to behaviors such as opportunity recognition (Renko 2017 ) or recruitment (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ) which are not inherently connected to the leadership of employees, as representing the key differences between TL and EL. A further dimension is context; some acknowledge the behavioral similarities between the two forms of leadership behaviors, but then point to the position of the entrepreneurial leader within a firm that experiences evolving environmental contingencies as a key antecedent for their ability to motivate followers (Gupta et al. 2004 ). The genesis of leadership concepts is thought by some to represent another point of difference; TL, developed purely within leadership science, is deemed somehow limited in its applicability or dynamism (Cai et al. 2019 , p. 212; see for comparison Deng et al. 2022 ; Gerards et al. 2021 ; Jensen et al. 2020 ), while EL is considered as representing a new construct suitable for capturing leadership in the current era of economic upheaval and opportunity (e.g. Mehmood et al. 2021a ; Röschke 2018a ). While the progenitors of novel constructs convincingly claim their distinctiveness, originality, and usefulness, this does not necessarily make them so (Shaffer et al. 2016 ); proof of their divergent validity, and thus their utility, may be delivered only through empirical examination. Moreover, locating and positioning an entrepreneurial style within the field of extant leadership styles has long been called for (see Antonakis and Autio 2012 , p. 203) particularly in light of suggestions that there may be nothing unique about EL at all (e.g. Vecchio 2003 ). Some scholars even argue that the two fields of entrepreneurship and leadership are phenomenological derivatives of an underlying, deeper construct, namely EL (Becherer et al. 2008 ). Helpfully, several recent reviews have sought to bring clarity in one way or another (e.g. Clark et al. 2019 ; Faridian 2023 ; Harrison et al. 2018 ; Leitch and Harrison 2018a ; Leitch and Harrison 2018b ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ), even though these papers failed to substantively engage with the mainstream leadership discourse. A wide gap is also visible between these reviews, on the one hand, and review publications from within leadership science, on the other (e.g. Reid et al. 2018 ). Moreover, these EL-focused conceptual works refrained from engaging in an exhaustive examination of the overlap and differences between TL and EL, both comprehensively and at various levels of analysis, while combining the level of concept, measure, and findings. It is this contribution our paper seeks to provide.

In summary, the measurement of EL may be considered a key challenge facing entrepreneurship and leadership research; a distinct research gap exists around the current state of EL measurement, as well as its underlying theoretical conceptualization (Clark and Harrison 2019 ). It is also unclear whether current conceptualizations are inherently reliant on TL, or whether they present as sufficiently distinct to permit the measurement of a unique construct. How does the theoretical work behind them support such a distinction; how do the commonly used questionnaires differ in content; and how do researchers in the field of EL view this distinction? In short, is it currently possible to measure EL without measuring TL? To provide an answer, three specific research questions (RQs) will be examined:

RQ1: What is the conceptual overlap between EL and TL? RQ2: What is the overlap of content among the currently available operationalizations of EL and TL? RQ3: How does empirical research in the measurement of leadership within the field of entrepreneurship research reflect this potential overlap?

The authors deem it essential to take this kind of holistic, multi-leveled view, and it is this gap that the present review seeks to close. Adhering to previous convention (Bichler et al. 2022 ; Kraus et al. 2020 ), we adopted a systematic literature review with content analysis as the method for shedding light on this fragmented field (Leitch and Volery 2017 ). In doing so, our paper offers three sets of results. With respect to RQ1, a marked lack of mutual interaction is found on the one hand between the main corpus of theoretical development in EL and, on the other, mainstream leadership research. This hampers attempts to embed EL within the wider leadership literature, particularly concerning its relationship with TL. Regarding RQ2, a deeper analysis of the three extant measures of EL found not only strong overlap with TL, but also profound issues in their conceptualization and validation, particularly with regard to their discriminant validity relating to other leadership styles. Finally, in answering RQ3, the review found no consensus on the use of EL questionnaires in the current literature; notably, it found TL-questionnaires to be widely used in the measurement of EL. It furthermore found conflicting statistical results indicating a clear lack of discriminant validity between measures of the two constructs.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 transformational leadership.

Current leadership literature has been described as vast (Klijn et al. 2022 ), vibrant (Gardner et al. 2020 ) and mature (Cogliser and Brigham 2004 ). The FRLT (Bass 1985 ; Burns 1978 ), often termed the Full-Range Leadership Model, has long represented the dominant paradigm within it (Gardner et al. 2020 ). Implicitly, the FRLT subscribes to a model of leadership based on the interaction between followers and leaders. This interaction constitutes an influence process, the agent of which is the leader, and the objective of which is the motivation of individual followers towards the achievement of a shared goal (Banks et al. 2022 ). In other words, such conceptions of leadership are considered as constituting “an interactional phenomenon that unfolds through discrete observable behaviors” (Hemshorn de Sanchez et al. 2022 , p. 342). This perspective may broadly be conflated with what Antonakis and Autio ( 2012 ) termed “leadership in” organizations, as opposed to the more strategically oriented “leadership of.” The conception of leadership as a granular, behavioral, interpersonal influence process forms the theoretical paradigm in which the present review remains grounded, especially since it informs most current, mainstream leadership research, including the FRLT (Yukl 2013 ).

TL is the most active and effective style of leadership posited in the FRLT (e.g. Żywiołek et al. 2022 ). Furthermore, and in contrast to the closely related, similarly effective, but poorly defined concept of charismatic leadership (Antonakis et al. 2016 ; House 1977 ), TL is clearly established to encompass four key dimensions based on Avolio ( 2010 ). First, idealized influence denotes a leader who is considered moral, trustworthy, and principled, and who displays a sense of purpose and power while reassuring, guiding, and ennobling their followers. Inspirational motivation, the second facet, is the evocation of motivation through the articulation of an engaging, challenging, compelling vision of a shared future. This goes hand in hand with intellectual stimulation, the third constituent, which is essentially the furtherance of the ability of both oneself and followers to consider problems in novel, unusual, and productive ways. Individual consideration finally encompasses a leader’s mandate to pay due attention to his or her followers, assisting in their development, listening, mentoring, and nurturing (Avolio 2010 ). Crucial here is the aspect of individuality, with due care being given to each and every follower as a unique individual whose needs diverge from those of others, and from those of the group at large. Taken together, proper practice of these dimensions has shown itself overwhelmingly effective (Wang et al. 2011 ). Aside from the transformational-transactional paradigm, numerous further approaches are currently trending, such as digital (Oberer and Erkollar 2018 ), empowering (Cheong et al. 2019 ) and servant leadership (Eva et al. 2019 ). Most, however, have long conceptualized leadership as an influence process largely aligned with the FRLT’s underlying paradigmatic perspective (Yukl 1989 ), and continue to do so (cf. Montano et al. 2023 ; Tarí et al. 2023 ).

The importance of leadership to organizational outcomes can hardly be overstated (Banks et al. 2017 ), and TL in particular has repeatedly shown itself to be an eminently effective tool in a leader’s kit (e.g. Deng et al. 2022 ; Judge and Piccolo 2004 ; Lowe et al. 1996 ). Specifically, TL has been found to stimulate organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g. Khan and Khan 2022 ), performance (e.g. Prabhu and Srivastava 2023 ), attitudes, and employee satisfaction (Alwali and Alwali 2022 ) to name just a few. In particular, transformational leaders have been shown to facilitate not only followers’ performance, but also their creativity (e.g. Żywiołek et al. 2022 ) and innovation (e.g. Begum et al. 2022 ), two vital constituents “inseparable” from entrepreneurship (Gilad 1984 , p. 151). These beneficial effects have been theoretically and empirically linked to each of the four facets of TL noted above. For example, inspirational motivation is considered as boosting followers’ intrinsic motivation, which in turn is crucial to creativity (Amabile 1996 ; de Jesus et al. 2013 ), while intellectual stimulation engages and promotes followers’ capacity for critical and exploratory thinking (Sosik et al. 1998 ), thereby boosting creativity and innovation (e.g. Thuan 2020 ; Yasin et al. 2014 ), which has been shown to mediate the positive effect of TL on firm performance (Overstreet et al. 2013 ). In addition to its widely accepted utility, there are further reasons for explicitly examining TL as it relates to EL. First, TL is the one mainstream style of leadership most routinely applied to entrepreneurship (e.g. Fries et al. 2021 ; Luu 2023 ; Soomro and Shah 2022 ), having been used to predict entrepreneurial creativity (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev 2009 ) and performance (Harsanto and Roelfsema 2015 ), among other outcomes. Second, as their respective authors state, the three most eminent measures for EL currently available (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ; Gupta et al. 2004 ; Renko et al. 2015 ) relied on TL to varying degrees during their conceptualization, in particular on the sub-facets of visionary leadership (inspirational motivation) and encouraging novel ways of thinking in followers (intellectual stimulation). These three eminent measures together represent the vast majority of citations for any measures of EL, and lie at the heart of much of the theoretical discourse on EL (see e.g. Clark et al. 2019 ; Leitch and Harrison 2018b ). Third, other researchers continue to use TL, as defined in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio 1997 ), to measure the leadership of entrepreneurs, in place of any of the three currently available EL questionnaires (see e.g. Bamiatzi et al. 2015 ; Ensley et al. 2006 ; Ng and Kee 2018 ; Verma and Kumar 2021 ). In addition, numerous studies have recently sought to replicate the results achieved with TL using novel conceptualizations of EL (e.g. Newman et al. 2018 ). Finally, a select few studies have actually quantitatively examined the two together (Cai et al. 2019 ; Lee et al. 2020 ; Newman et al. 2018 ); their contribution has yet to be considered within the larger picture. The interaction between EL and TL is therefore intensifying.

In summary, TL may be considered a staple of mainstream leadership science, with extensive evidence accrued in support of its predictive power and validity. It has been repeatedly used to measure EL, is considered by some to represent the leadership component of EL and is heavily represented in EL questionnaires.

2.2 Entrepreneurial leadership

Entrepreneurship is an important engine for both national and global economies (Carlsson et al. 2013 ; van Praag and Versloot 2007 ). Central issues in entrepreneurship research continue to include opportunity recognition, innovation, and risk-taking (Carlsson et al. 2013 ), mirroring classical lines of thought which conceptualized the entrepreneur as a risk-taker (Knight 1921 ), a creator (Schumpeter 1942 ), or an arbitrator of economic disequilibria (Kirzner 1973 ). All of these emphasize the person of the entrepreneur, who represents by definition a leader of sorts. Though more modern approaches, such as effectuation (Hubner et al. 2022 ), knowledge spillover (Iftikhar et al. 2022 ), or bricolage (Crupi et al. 2022 ), have sought more holistic and process-oriented frameworks for understanding entrepreneurship, this emphasis has remained central. For example, Sarasvathy argues that entrepreneurs are effectuators first, and that the charismatic or visionary leadership frequently attributed to them is often misperceived ( 2008 , p. 235). In contrast, the bricolage approach seeks to take a firm-wide perspective, tackling the phenomenon of entrepreneurship through socio-economic analysis (Baker and Nelson 2005 ). A wide variety of approaches are now available which variously examine entrepreneurship as a mindset (e.g. Kuratko et al. 2021 ), a process (e.g. Hikkerova et al. 2016 ), or a collection of traits (e.g. Munir et al. 2019 ), although the general focus remains on the figure of the entrepreneur. Over the last two decades, however, the debate has widened in its appreciation of the scope and nature of entrepreneurship (Landström 2020 ), kicked off by a widely quoted assertion by Shane and Venkataraman ( 2000 , p. 218) that “the field involves the study of sources of opportunities, the process of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities, and the set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit them”.

As may be expected, such a wide field has given rise to an equally extensive range of appreciations of what EL may be understood to be. Even though the progenitor fields of entrepreneurship and leadership display certain similarities in their historical development (Harrison and Leitch 1994 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ), the explicit, scientific examination of their intersection is a comparatively novel field of inquiry (Fernald et al. 2005 ), regardless of whether it is considered as starting with Lippitt ( 1987 ), or with Cogliser and Brigham ( 2004 ). Numerous definitions of EL have been proposed, some prominent examples of which are given in Table  1 . Cunningham and Lischeron’s ( 1991 ) definition is foundational, and the aftereffects that were conjured by the breadth of its scope continue to be felt in the disparity of the field three decades later. Following this, Ireland et al. ( 2003 ) as well as Cogliser and Brigham ( 2004 ) are both often referenced. The former, with its emphasis on leading others to strategically manage resources, somewhat evokes the concept of empowering leadership (Cheong et al. 2019 ). In contrast, Cogliser and Brigham’s ( 2004 ) definition makes no real mention of leading followers, instead stating that resources must be marshaled, detailing how an entrepreneur must adapt leadership of their venture along with its growth; this bears little resemblance to mainstream theories of leadership, and has yet to give rise to any instruments of measurement. Finally, the most influential definition has almost certainly been that of Gupta et al. ( 2004 ), which will be discussed in detail below. However, even at this early stage, it may be noted that their definition bears some resemblance to TL, with its emphasis on vision (Gupta et al. 2004 ). Though some still adhere to this conceptualization (e.g. Pu et al. 2022 ), most now engage with the definition of Renko et al. ( 2015 ), the use of which has been increasing in recent publications (e.g. Hoang et al. 2022 ; Lin and Yi 2022 ; Malibari and Bajaba 2022 ; Strobl et al. 2022 ).

An increasing body of work is seeking to pin down EL, with two clearly visible overarching perspectives emerging: leadership or entrepreneurship (Leitch and Harrison 2018a ; Röschke 2018b ). The latter generally conceptualizes EL as a mindset, with leadership subsumed into the overall application of entrepreneurship. This point of view is typified by Gupta et al. ( 2004 ) and Kuratko ( 2007 ), though some more recent work follows in the same vein (e.g. Lyons et al. 2020 ). Others take a slightly different tone, clearly stating that EL is not a “style” of leadership, but instead describes the leadership role performed in entrepreneurial ventures (Leitch and Volery 2017 ). This thread of research embraces the notion that, as such, leadership is not merely a subordinate component in a hierarchical topology that emanates from entrepreneurship, but that, indeed, entrepreneurship may be regarded as the essence of EL (Harrison et al. 2016 ). In contrast, the approach exists which defines EL from the standpoint of leadership science (Baumol 1968 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ). The pinnacle of this viewpoint was seen with Vecchio ( 2003 ), who framed EL merely as leadership carried out within the narrow context of an entrepreneurial venture, and nothing more. Within this school of thought, a further division may be made between adherents to behavior (e.g. Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ; Hoang et al. 2022 ) or trait-based (e.g. Kuratko 2007 ; Nicholson 1998 ) theories. The latter is however criticized for its relatedness to now-outmoded trait-based theories in mainstream leadership science (e.g. Kempster and Cope 2010 ). Complicating the debate is the atheoretical and fragmented nature of the EL field (Leitch and Harrison 2018a ), due in part to the various streams of inquiry from which the modern pool of research has long drawn its inspiration, including areas as diverse as education (Peck 1991 ; Raby et al. 2023 ), political (Schneider and Teske 1992 ; Vivona 2023 ) , and community entrepreneurship (Dongul and Artantaş 2022 ; Selsky and Smith 1994 ). Some consider a kind of “cross-pollination” between entrepreneurship, leadership, and their area of focus to be increasing, with the flow becoming increasingly multi-directional (Leitch and Harrison 2018a ), while others suggest that both the field of leadership and entrepreneurship stem from a common phenomenon (EL) or the need to create (Becherer et al. 2008 ). Consensus in short is lacking, and definitions vary.

To summarize, EL is a field of scholarship undergoing rapid development, which has hitherto lacked a coherent, widely accepted definition of its subject of inquiry. In light of the reviewed literature, it may be noted that TL and EL are two concepts that often intermingle in the study of entrepreneurship (Reid et al. 2018 ). While a number of reviews (e.g. Clark et al. 2019 ; Faridian 2023 ) have recently sought to bring some clarity, and have done so with admirable depth and acuity, questions remain. Two points remain unclear: the differences between the recognized role of TL in informing questionnaires of EL, the actual distinction these measures show from measures of TL and their unique contributions beyond TL; and the resulting research landscape with respect to the questionnaire-based measurement of EL. In the next section we present the method which we used to help us answer our RQs.

3 Methodology

3.1 planning the review.

In line with the methodology set out in Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ), Kraus et al. ( 2020 ) and Kraus et al. ( 2022 ), the present systematic literature review was split into distinct stages. Before commencing, a purely exploratory reading of the recent literature on EL was carried out, encompassing a primary analysis of all literature available under the search term “Entrepreneurial Leadership” on the Clarivate Web of Science. This established several primary antecedents for the creation of a systematic literature review (SLR) (Kraus et al. 2020 ). First, a sufficient number of articles were found, as was a clear surge in the number of articles published over the last five years. Second, a lack of both solid theory and formally agreed-upon definitions were noted by a number of authorities in the field (e.g. Ahmed and Harrison 2022 ; Leitch and Harrison 2018a ). Finally, the specific area under investigation presented a broad range of literature based on inconsistent terminologies, and displayed considerable fragmentation (Clark et al. 2019 ). As such, it was determined that the application of the SLR methodology bore the potential to establish a worthwhile contribution to current research.

After the primary, unstructured analysis of the current literature had established the need for an SLR, a panel of experts on the study of leadership in entrepreneurship was convened. In line with the reasoning detailed in Sects.  1 and 2 above, the three RQs stated in the Introduction were derived and formalized to circumscribe the scope of the present review more precisely. Regarding RQ1, the current literature was to be examined with respect to the similarities and distinctions between EL and TL, including theoretical and conceptual contributions that considered EL with explicit reference to TL. This simultaneously included examining the conceptual placement of EL, as well as the implicit and explicit extent to which it cohered with TL’s theoretical framework, embedded within the FRLT, i.e. leadership as an interpersonal influence process. Regarding the second RQ, the literature was to be examined with respect to the similarities and distinctions between EL and TL at the level of specific operationalizations, i.e. questionnaire based measures available to those intent on measuring EL quantitatively. Regarding the third RQ, the literature was to be examined to yield empirical findings on both EL and TL, contextualizing the relationships between EL and TL discerned in the answers to questions 1 and 2.

Furthermore, inclusion criteria were established to increase the transparency and replicability of the results, and to ensure that only papers of sufficient quality were included. Since the objective of the present review was to furnish readers with a comprehensive, multi-level overview of the overlap and differences between TL and EL, both conceptual and empirical papers were accepted, the latter including both qualitative and quantitative investigations of EL. All included papers had to be published in English, and had to be presented as full-length, original articles, which represented either an empirical or a conceptual contribution relevant to answering one of the three RQs. Furthermore, the included papers had to be available in one of the seven databases and meta-database search engines used (see Sect.  3.2.1 - Primary Search ). In addition to these criteria for inclusion, an SLR demands specific exclusion criteria. These were thus defined, with the goal of ensuring that no papers of low quality or thematic unsuitability were accepted into the sample. Following the recommendations for reviews of research on entrepreneurship by Kraus et al. ( 2020 ), books, conference proceedings, letters to the editor, responses to these, and other, non-peer-reviewed articles were specifically excluded. Furthermore, papers were excluded if they appeared in journals with an impact factor of less than 1 at the time of the search (April 2022), in line with previous SLRs in the Review of Managerial Science (e.g. Ribeiro-Navarrete et al. 2022 ; Salmony & Kanbach 2022 ). Finally, papers were excluded if abstract or full-text screening showed that they failed to discuss as a main topic either TL used as EL, or both TL and EL in explicit concert.

Flowchart, showing the stages of the systematic literature review

3.2 Conducting the review

3.2.1 primary search.

In order to adhere to the subject matter while ensuring that all possible, pertinent contributions would be included, an exhaustive all-fields search was carried out across a number of major databases and search engines. These were identified via analysis of previous SLRs, both within the field of EL (e.g. Clark et al. 2019 ; Harrison et al. 2016 ) and within the journal targeted for publication, the Review of Managerial Science (e.g. Feser 2022 ; Salmony and Kanbach 2022 ). This led to the selection of the databases of Taylor and Francis, Emerald, Wiley Online , and SAGE Journals , as well as the meta-database search engines Web of Science, ScienceDirect , and JSTOR . In line with previous publications (e.g. Alaassar et al. 2022 ; but see also Deyanova et al. 2022 ), Google Scholar’s search engine was additionally utilized, and findings compared to the final sample to determine whether a significant number of peer-reviewed works might have been excluded due to selection of these databases. No major contributions were found that had been excluded without warrant.

Keyword strings were kept constant across all databases and search engines. The combination of “Entrepreneurial leadership” coupled with “Transformational leadership” was employed, using the Boolean operator “AND” to conjoin the two, thus excluding any articles which failed to mention both. Since the RQs focus on examining the overlap and difference between the concepts of EL and TL specifically, using these concrete terms without variation was deemed most fitting. Including research on entrepreneurial or visionary leaders, for example, would have broadened the scope beyond the core definitional and conceptual discourse the RQs sought to unravel; articles not even containing the term “Entrepreneurial leadership” were considered to represent a tangential contribution to the discourse. The same logic was applied to articles not explicitly referencing TL. This step, while potentially subject to type-1 errors, represented the only clear and replicable path to the creation of a sample of manageable size. Limiting the search to title, abstract, and subject terms would have excluded an excessive number of relevant results, even using truncated forms (such as entre* and transf* and leader*). Using an all-fields search with truncated forms would have yielded an excess of 10,000 articles without guaranteeing full coverage due to the terminological disunity surrounding EL. The coverage period was chosen to stretch up until April 31st, 2022, given that data collection was carried out in May 2022. In response to the authors’ initial sighting of the literature, no bound on past papers was considered necessary, as an explicit mention of both EL and TL would not pre-date the creation of the FRLT. Any potential early articles which dealt with the topic were considered valuable input. This search methodology yielded a primary pool of 428 articles. The searches had already filtered by publication type, with only peer-reviewed articles accepted, and all others rejected. Duplicates were then removed, leaving 398 articles.

3.2.2 Abstract screening and full-text screening

Synthesis of the literature followed a two-step approach, in line with recently published SLRs (e.g. Feser 2022 ). First, abstract screening led to the inclusion of 110 papers, with 298 removed (see Fig.  1 ). This involved removing all articles which failed to explicitly examine EL or TL, were deemed inadmissible by type but had passed the database filtering, were duplicates the first screening had missed, or were not published in English. For example, many articles were found which mentioned either TL or EL only once or twice, included references in the bibliography that contained those terms, or had abstracts in English but were written in another language. Such articles were removed from the sample.

Finally, a full reading of the remaining 110 articles was carried out, leading to the exclusion of a further 85 papers. All papers were read by two researchers, and decisions had to be unanimous for exclusion to occur; in cases where the researchers failed to agree, a third member of the team made the decision to include or reject. Only a few articles were found which required this measure. This screening phase addressed two main points: quality and relevance. With respect to quality, papers were examined for appropriate referencing; for a presentation of results that was both unambiguous, and sufficiently underpinned by coherent arguments; and for publication in reputable and widely cited journals, with an impact factor of greater than 1. Regarding the second point of concern, i.e. relevance, attention was paid to the features of the articles which would help in answering the three RQs (see above). The topicality of the articles was examined, in line with the reasoning stated in Sect.  3.1 ; it should be noted that articles which framed EL purely in terms of TL were not excluded. In addition, papers were cross-referenced while reading to make sure that no key works had been missed. Some contributions were identified that could have offered a potential benefit but appeared in journals with an impact factor lower than 1.

3.2.3 Synthesis and content analysis

As a consequence of the screening procedures detailed above, a sample of 25 papers was conserved for data extraction and analysis; these are listed in Sect.  4 , Table  2 . Due to the fragmentation of the field, the heterogeneity of the resulting sample, and the conceptual and terminological disunity, a qualitative methodology was combined with a synthesizing approach (Gentles et al. 2016 ). In doing this, both deductive and inductive codes were used, while reference to the underlying framework of the FRLT provided a guideline for the categorization of approaches to EL determined in the sample (cf. Feser 2022 ). In a first step, key characteristics of the articles were identified, permitting a rough separation along formal lines. Conceptual and empirical articles were separated, with all purely conceptual articles forming the first category. Articles which examined EL explicitly using measures of TL were then grouped into a second category. This led to a remainder of articles that could be split into two final categories: three articles that proposed measures of EL, as well as four articles which used such measures to empirically examine EL. In all, four categories emerged which will inform the discussion below. A second step then saw the content analysis of all articles by all three authors, identifying thematic and conceptual similarities and differences, with the researchers engaged in a constant and iterative exchange. The resulting corpus of content was then analyzed with respect to the RQs, elucidated in the Results section, and key findings drawn for further contextualization in the Discussion section.

The results of the SLR paint a clear picture of a thriving and rapidly growing field of research. As can be seen in Fig.  2 , research on the intersection between EL and TL has increased markedly within the last decade, catalyzed perhaps by the Journal of Small Business Management ’s 2015 special issue on EL. As can be seen from the overlay with general search results for EL, specific interest in the role of TL in EL increased in tandem during the previous decade. The final sample is depicted in Table  2 .

Chart showing publication frequency of articles covering EL, and both EL and TL, by year

In the present systematic literature review, 25 articles were examined to gain a better understanding of the conceptual and practical relationship between TL and EL. Four categories of articles were thematically distinguished (see Table  4 ), and each was analyzed with specific regard to their particularities and individual contributions. The first group of seven articles discusses EL and TL conceptually, some systematically, and some in a narrative manner. These offer an interesting meta-informational view, and shall inform the discussion both with regard to similarities between the two leadership styles, and concerning the distinctness which researchers at large attribute to current conceptualizations of EL. These papers will inform the answer to RQ1. A second category of three papers contains the three extant measures of EL (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ; Gupta et al. 2004 ; Renko et al. 2015 ). Examining their component items and dimensions will offer first-hand input for a direct comparison of EL and TL operationalization, and will be central to answering RQ2. Vital for answering RQ3 are first four articles quantitatively examining EL, three doing so side by side with TL (Cai et al. 2019 ; Lee et al. 2020 ; Newman et al. 2018 ), and the other replicating results previously garnered with respect to TL, but using EL instead. The statistical results contained within these four will offer vital clues to the discriminant validity at the level of pure data, of EL versus TL. Finally, the fourth and largest group of eleven articles examined EL using TL both quantitatively and qualitatively. As such, they lend an interesting counterpoint to current conceptions which determine EL to be a distinct style (e.g. Renko 2017 ). Of particular interest will be an analysis and synthesis of the arguments put forth within them for the use of TL within the entrepreneurial paradigm. The results of the content analysis of each article are offered below, by category, beginning with previous reviews and conceptual contributions, followed by extant measures of EL, moving on to quantitative examinations of EL and TL, and ending with papers that examine EL purely in terms of TL.

Proportion of overall sample according to category

4.1 Reviews and conceptual contributions

In beginning the content analysis of the results, the theoretical articles of Category I offer an interesting window into the previous theoretical discussion regarding the relationship between EL and TL at the construct level. Moreover, by assessing their implicit and explicit adherence to the FRLT’s paradigm of leadership, interaction-based leader-follower influence, a description of their congruence with the mainstream of leadership literature is made possible.

Of seven purely conceptual articles, only two lead with the assumption that EL should be regarded as a coherent and distinct concept or style (Harrison et al. 2020 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ). In contrast, the other articles reveal the breadth of current, alternative perspectives. These share no theoretical accord in their view of EL; whether in their level of analysis of leadership (Lyons et al. 2020 ), their epistemic approach (Kimbu et al. 2021 ), or the centrality they accord to the measures and concepts currently at the heart of EL (Reid et al. 2018 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ) definitively argue that EL represents a new and distinct paradigm at the intersection of its two parent fields of entrepreneurship and leadership, offering three reasons. First, they argue that numerous scholars view entrepreneurs as leaders by default (e.g. Cunningham and Lischeron 1991 ); second, they mention the similar evolutionary paths of the two fields; finally, they adduce the similarities between EL on the one hand, and TL, charismatic, and authentic leadership on the other. With respect to the theoretical paradigm of the FRLT, the authors initially confirm and acknowledge that leadership “revolves around the process of influencing others” (Leitch and Volery 2017 , p. 147). However, thereafter, the separation between “leadership in” and “leadership of” is quickly subsumed by a broader, phenomenological interpretation of EL as a field of research, as opposed to a concrete, operationalizable style of leadership. Concretely, the authors consider EL as a “leadership role performed in entrepreneurial ventures, rather than in the more general sense of an entrepreneurial style of leadership” (Leitch and Volery 2017 , p. 148). In a similar vein, Harrison et al. ( 2020 ) also argue that EL is a distinct phenomenon. Though providing extensive and useful theoretical exploration, however, their treatment of TL is somewhat perfunctory; they make no mention of its pertinent role in informing all extant conceptualizations of EL (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ; Gupta et al. 2004 ; Renko et al. 2015 ), nor of the numerous authors who use TL in lieu of EL (see e.g. Category II). These authors argue for what may be termed the positive integration perspective (Fernald et al. 2005 ), which posits that EL as a field emerged from the positive integration of its two parents.

At the root of this perspective lies a paper by Harrison and Leitch ( 1994 ) that represents a foundational text in the field of EL. They cite Carsrud and Johnson ( 1989 ) to claim that the fields of entrepreneurship and leadership have evolved in parallel, laying the groundwork for numerous later authors who take this line (e.g. Harrison et al. 2020 ; Harrison and Leitch 1994 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ). However, instead of claiming EL as representing a distinct construct at that point, Harrison and Leitch ( 1994 ) use these parallels to suggest a theoretical paradigm which future research at the carrefour of the two fields could follow: contingency. Arguing that leadership research developed from trait over situation to contingency, they note that entrepreneurship had yet to embrace the last step, and quote numerous studies advocating the use of contemporary developments in leadership (e.g. Chell et al. 1991 ; Greenberger and Sexton 1987 ). The contingency approach has indeed been applied to EL, though more so from within the field of leadership than recent conceptual developments in EL (Antonakis and Autio 2012 ; Baldegger and Gast 2016 ). The remaining four purely conceptual papers in the present sample take differing, more generalist perspectives. One discusses identity construction in female entrepreneurial leaders in Ghana and Nigeria through the lens of poststructural feminism (Kimbu et al. 2021 ). Building on the socially constructed nature of EL, the authors challenge the endemic, essentialist claims which implicitly couch entrepreneurship and EL in relation to norms that are predominantly male (Kakabadse et al. 2018 ; Tlaiss and Kauser 2019 ) and embedded in the Northern Hemisphere (Figueroa-Domecq et al. 2020 ). Similarly, the notion of TL and transactional leadership being respectively typical of women and men is tempered with the argument that both context, and the social construction of entrepreneurial identity, play a vital yet under-researched moderating role (Cliff et al. 2005 ; Zapalska et al. 2015 ). This viewpoint is invigorating, and moves beyond conceptualizations which focus merely on dichotomizing the theoretical heritage defining the current field of EL (e.g. Röschke 2018a ). In contrast, Lyons et al. ( 2020 ) focus on a far more tangible, skill-based perspective of rural entrepreneurship, subsuming TL as a part thereof, but making no mention of the ongoing debates surrounding the definition of the term “EL” (e.g. Harrison et al. 2020 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ). The authors determine TL, as defined by Bass ( 1985 ) as representing a mere one in 30 of the skills necessary for successful entrepreneurship. In doing so, they may implicitly be deemed as acknowledging the FRLT’s paradigm of leadership.

Finally, Reid et al. ( 2018 ) provide an overview of the cross-fertilization of entrepreneurship and leadership, in accordance with the five key dimensions described in the foundational work by Cogliser and Brigham ( 2004 ). The contribution of Reid et al. ( 2018 ) extensively discusses the contributions made by leadership research which have directly impacted the field of EL research. With respect to leadership, their perspective may be considered firmly aligned with the FRLT’s underlying paradigm, of “leadership in” versus “leadership of” organizations. Numerous contributions are discussed, among them the utility of TL in enhancing creativity and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures and its place as a primary tool for growth-oriented entrepreneurs, while the effect of TL on stakeholder perceptions of entrepreneurial vision is stated as a possible question for future research. A final contribution examines leadership styles and leadership behaviors in varying types of family-owned businesses (Fries et al. 2021 ). These authors through their own literature review establish a number of leadership styles and leadership behaviors typical of family businesses. As one of five of the latter, they define EL behavior in accordance with Pistrui et al. ( 2000 ), while adhering to the more widespread definition of TL in accordance with Bass ( 1985 ). In doing so, these authors also implicitly adopt the FRLT’s framework of leadership as a leader-follower process.

4.2 Measures of entrepreneurial leadership

Although the above-mentioned theoretical work provides insight into the conceptual debates surrounding EL, the key interface between theory and empirical findings is represented by operationalized tools for measurement. The present sample contains the three most prominent measures of EL, as well as several articles which employ them, discussed in the next subsection. First, there is Gupta et al.’s ( 2004 ) questionnaire, and a study which used it (Paudel 2019 ); second, Renko et al.’s ( 2015 ) measure, also found in two publications (Cai et al. 2019 ; Newman et al. 2018 ), themselves included in an in-sample meta-analysis (Lee et al. 2020 ). Finally, the recent contribution by Bagheri and Harrison ( 2020 ), though not used by any articles in the present sample, represents a major step in the creation of an operationalized measure of EL. The first operationalization of EL still in common usage is represented by Gupta et al.’s ( 2004 ) model. Not parsed directly as a questionnaire measure, the contribution instead develops a list of behaviors considered unique to an entrepreneurial style of leadership. Numerous steps of development occurred which will be examined in detail in the discussion, resulting in five behavioral dimensions: Framing the challenge, absorbing uncertainty, path clearing, building commitment, and specifying limits. Several of these behaviors clearly mirror certain aspects of TL, such as “Has a vision and imagination of the future”, “Sets high standards of performance”, or “Inspires emotions, beliefs, values and behaviors of others, inspires others to be motivated to work hard” (Gupta et al. 2004 , p. 250). While the authors discuss these similarities, they point to differences such as “ambitious foresight and pattern recognition capabilities” required in entrepreneurial leaders which are absent in TL (Gupta et al. 2004 , p. 254).

Renko et al.’s ( 2015 ) ENTRELEAD was developed as a short measure for EL, in part to explicitly remedy the issues inherent in the previously used measure (i.e. Gupta et al. 2004 ). Using standard procedures of scale development and validation, the authors settle on an eight-item scale for the measurement of EL. Just as in the previously examined scale, a strong resemblance to TL is evident. Three of ENTRELEAD’s eight items (“Has creative solutions to problems”, “Challenges and pushes me to act in a more innovative way”, “Wants me to challenge the current ways we do business”) bear a striking resemblance to the TL sub-dimension of intellectual stimulation, while one is identical in content to inspirational motivation (“Has a vision of the future of our business”), and another is strongly reminiscent of idealized influence behavior (“Demonstrates passion for his/her work”). Building on both of these previous scales, Bagheri and Harrison ( 2020 ) presented the longest and most detailed scale of EL to date, composed of 40 items along eight dimensions, and with high internal validity. Among these eight dimensions, numerous items can be found that are strongly reminiscent of other leadership styles, such as empowering leadership (e.g. “Creates an environment where organization staff feel free to try new things”; cf. Cheong et al. 2019 ), self-leadership (e.g. “Shows awareness of their strengths and weaknesses”, “Demonstrates the ability to manage time effectively”; c.f. Houghton et al. 2003 ) or TL (e.g. “Leads their followers by serving as a role model”, “Inspires emotions, beliefs, values and behaviors of followers”, “Shows empathy towards his/her followers”; Bass 1985 ), while further items fit poorly with a mainstream conceptualization of leadership as an inter-personal, goal-oriented influence process (e.g. “Anticipates possible future events”, “Recognises existing market opportunities”, “Actively identifies, develops and goes after new business”). While Bagheri and Harrison’s scale, due to its novelty, has yet to be widely applied, the former two scales have found considerable use since their creation.

4.3 Quantitative studies of entrepreneurial and transformational leadership

Four contributions in the sample examine EL quantitatively. Of these, two publications examine both EL and TL quantitatively (Cai et al. 2019 ; Newman et al. 2018 ), while a third incorporates these and others into a meta-analysis (Lee et al. 2020 ). A fourth paper by Paudel (2018) examines only EL, employing the ENTRELEAD scale to replicate results connecting TL with innovation, and finds that EL predicts it ( β  = 0.58, p  = .00). Meanwhile, two studies directly assessed both EL and TL using designated measures. Cai et al. ( 2019 ) linked the ENTRELEAD scale with creativity and innovation, two aspects highly relevant to entrepreneurship. With respect to their treatment of TL, they cursorily noted that it failed to explain employee creativity when recognizing business opportunities. The authors do not further discuss the FRLT or its underlying theoretical framework, but adduce a definition of leadership as “influencing and directing the performance of group members towards the achievement of organizational goals that involve recognizing and exploiting entrepreneurial activities” by Renko et al. ( 2015 , p. 55). Apart from the emphasis on opportunity recognition, this matches well with the FRLT’s conceptualization of leadership as an interpersonal, goal-oriented influence process. Their results found significant predictive effects by EL, and none whatsoever by TL for employees’ creative self-efficacy ( r  = .52, p  < .01), team creative self-efficacy ( r  = .35, p  < .05), employee creativity ( r  = .58, p  < .01), and team creativity ( r  = .64, p  < .01). Furthermore, they demonstrated no statistical correlation between EL and TL. In contrast, Newman et al. ( 2018 ) found a strong positive relationship between TL and EL ( r  = .81, p  < .05) while showing only a correlation of EL with innovative behavior ( r  = .14, p  < .05). TL was also found to correlate with innovative behavior ( r  = .10, p  < .10). Like the publication by Cai et al. ( 2019 ), this contribution focuses on Bandura’s social cognitive theory ( 1986 ) to explain the positive effects of EL on creative self-efficacy and innovation (Newman et al. 2018 ). Incorporating both of these results is a meta-analysis by Lee et al. ( 2020 ), which tied EL with authentic leadership for the strongest correlation to creativity (Spearman’s ρ  = 0.47) with a weaker correlation to innovation ( ρ  = 0.29), comparable to TL, which hovered at around ρ  = 0.30 for both creativity and innovation.

4.4 Studies using transformational in lieu of entrepreneurial leadership

To provide an interesting narrative counterpoint, Category IV examines the large swathe of articles which examined EL using the construct of TL, thereby implicitly adopting the theoretical framework of the FRTL. Four examined TL as an antecedent variable with respect to performance (Ng et al. 2019 ; Zaech and Baldegger 2017 ), and were variously moderated by environmental dynamism (Ensley et al. 2006 ) and personality (Hensel and Visser 2018 ). Overall, three main streams of argumentation can be found that pertain to the RQ. First, several argue for using TL in the study of entrepreneurship, either due to its intrinsically useful general effects (e.g. Ng et al. 2019 ; Xu and Jin 2022 ), or because measures of EL are deemed insufficiently focused on leadership in its classical definition (Baldegger and Gast 2016 ; Zaech and Baldegger 2017 ), or simply by default (Bamiatzi et al. 2015 ; Ensley et al. 2006 ). A second grouping (Hensel and Visser 2018 ; Ng and Kee 2018 ) examines the positive effect of TL on innovation, drawing on the wealth of literature supporting this link (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev 2009 ), as well as the equally well-supported link between innovation and entrepreneurial success (Ireland et al. 2003 ). Finally, a third tranche does not employ TL in particular, instead either examining it for beneficial effects in comparison with a number of other leadership styles (Verma and Kumar 2021 ), or finding TL, through inductively qualitative analysis, to be the main style applied by entrepreneurs or in entrepreneurial ventures (McCarthy et al. 2010 ; Wang et al. 2012 ). The theoretical arguments in each will be traced to provide clarity with respect to the RQs.

Ng et al. ( 2019 ) introduce their own, brief literature review in which a number of sources are cited supporting the value of TL to the success of enterprises. However, the relevance of some of these sources to entrepreneurship appears tenuous (e.g. Schaubroeck et al. 2007 ), and no explicit justification is given regarding why other measures, which are more visibly relevant, are avoided (e.g. Renko et al. 2015 ). Ensley et al. ( 2006 ) in contrast discuss at great length their rationale for employing the transactional-transformational paradigm. In essence, they define the entrepreneur as a leader by default, given the need to garner resources if opportunities are to be exploited. From there on, the use of the most prominent paradigm for the measurement of leadership is arrived at, equally, by default (Ensley et al. 2006 ). Another contribution traces the evolution of leadership style from within the paradigm of leadership emergence, documenting a shift from transformational to transactional with increasing maturity of the venture (Baldegger and Gast 2016 ). The rationale given here for the use of TL hinged on a clear separation between entrepreneur and entrepreneurial leader: EL is considered simply as leadership within an entrepreneurial context in the tradition of Vecchio ( 2003 ), the measurement which is considered perfectly achievable through the use of established tools (Baldegger and Gast 2016 ). The co-authored publication by Zaech and Baldegger ( 2017 ) follows the same line of reasoning. Only one article explicitly examined the female leadership of entrepreneurial ventures, by correlating Full Range Leadership Theory styles with entrepreneurial competencies (Bamiatzi et al. 2015 ). Here, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio 1997 ) is used, supplemented by specific but not further defined questions on leadership style (e.g. autocratic vs. democratic). Finally, Xu and Jin ( 2022 ) empirically examine stressors typically encountered within entrepreneurship, and how these moderate the expression of TL in its function as EL. These authors point to the considerable body of work that has demonstrated the effectiveness of TL when exhibited by entrepreneurial leaders.

Hensel and Visser ( 2018 ) offer a causal chain of reasoning for using TL. First, they state the importance of innovation to entrepreneurial effectiveness (Lukes and Stephan 2017 ), offering evidence for the undisputed importance of TL for team innovation (García-Morales et al. 2012 ), ultimately stating that little research has examined the latter assertion in teams under shared leadership. It is this gap they thereafter choose to exploit, finding that a variety of personality traits affect the two key dimensions of vision articulation and intellectual stimulation (Hensel and Visser 2018 ; Ng and Kee 2018 ), as in their paper detailed above, adduce TL together with entrepreneurial competences, examining their effect on SME performance. Again, no clear justification is established for a potentially direct, beneficial effect which TL might have that makes it suitable for entrepreneurship, except through the interposed variable of innovation (Ng and Kee 2018 ; Verma and Kumar 2021 ) do not explicitly state that TL is EL; instead, they examine a number of leadership styles (charismatic, visionary, TL, servant) and the interactions with “green entrepreneurship” which may affect overall firm growth. Interestingly, they refrain from including any extant measures of EL in their analysis. Finally, two publications can be distinguished by their use of a qualitative approach. One examines the relationship between EL, conceptualized as lying on the continuum between TL and transactional leadership, and traditional Chinese paradigms of leadership (Wang et al. 2012 ). The second paper analyzed open-ended questionnaires from 130 entrepreneurs using content analysis methodology to inductively categorize and identify common leadership styles. Their result showed an overwhelming proportion of entrepreneurs adhering to an “open” leadership style, which the authors determined to be “consistent with the characteristics of TL” (McCarthy et al. 2010 , p. 55).

5 Discussion

5.1 rq1 (theory).

In the previous section, we delineated the output of the content analysis and the identification of thematic groupings and their conceptual significance, with respect to the RQs this work is devoted to. Regarding RQ1, the results detailed above offer a conflicting picture. Two conceptual contributions examined here embrace the suggestion that EL is a distinct phenomenon (Harrison et al. 2020 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ). Other recent works advocate a similar position (Clark et al. 2019 ; Harrison et al. 2016 ), in line with early work that foreshadowed a split appreciation of EL (Harrison and Leitch 1994 ). Indeed, this central cluster of scholarship in the field of EL (including Ahmed and Harrison 2021 ; Clark et al. 2019 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ) is informed by the notion of “diametrically opposed views” of EL, caused by research on EL being anchored “either in the leadership or in the entrepreneurship field” (Leitch and Volery 2017 , p. 150). Even these authors however explicitly confirm the relevance of TL (Leitch and Volery 2017 ), and begin by considering leadership as “the process of influencing … to accomplish shared objectives” (Leitch and Volery 2017 , p. 147). This is completely in line with the FRLT’s theoretical conception of leadership, but the authors quickly proceed to vastly broaden the scope of what they consider to fall under the term of EL. As such, it could be argued that the authors argue more for a distinct paradigm than a distinct style, in contrast to others (e.g. Renko 2017 ). This represents a key issue; numerous key conceptual works, including those by Gupta et al. ( 2004 ), Leitch and Volery ( 2017 ) and Harrison et al. ( 2020 ), examine EL as an issue fundamentally collocated at several levels of analysis. Others are even more broad in their definition, considering EL “a new leadership style that is required to fulfill the current business changes in the fourth industrial revolution” (Pauceanu et al. 2021 ). While such a holistic appreciation may be useful in stimulating debate, it is this intermingling of levels of analysis which problematizes the creation of a conceptual basis suitable for greater operational specificity. This specificity is necessary for the development of an operational definition of EL that can be used by scholars for measurement; one that is sufficiently distinct from TL and one that is accepted by mainstream leadership science to meet the currently dominant definition of leadership as a behavioral influence process between leader and follower (Antonakis and Autio 2012 ; Hemshorn de Sanchez et al. 2022 ). Only if both these aspects were sufficiently realized could the gap between EL and the wider leadership literature be bridged, and a measure of EL found that is capable of receiving a greater degree of acceptance by researchers across their clusters. Furthermore, previous contributions exist which sought to establish definitions that could serve as a framework for such developments (e.g. Antonakis and Autio 2012 ), and recent work has already begun to determine behaviorally proximal components of EL (e.g. Maran et al. 2019 ).

Regardless of the precise terminology, an apparent consequence of this conceptual school of thought is the creation of a form of EL, detailed in the findings above, which stands somewhat apart from established measures of leadership (Harrison et al. 2020 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ). Proponents of this model argue for its value, but both these and other review articles on the subject (e.g. Clark et al. 2019 ; Harrison et al. 2016 ) fail to acknowledge the extremely limited scope with which the current measures of EL have been accepted in mainstream leadership research (e.g. Reid et al. 2018 ). Issues also surround Harrison et al.’s ( 2020 ) conceptual discussion of TL. In their review of EL, which specifically seeks to disentangle the components of leader and entrepreneur, overviews are given of both fields of study. TL is briefly discussed, even though mention of the parent FRLT is absent, as is its value in supplying other, validated styles, such as transactional leadership, as is the central role of TL in informing all three measures of EL currently available (Harrison et al. 2020 ). Nor is mention made of the statistical results detailed in the present review. The authors point out, somewhat confusingly, that there have been failed attempts to redefine TL “by including vision” (Harrison et al. 2020 , p. 6), which the authors consider key to EL; vision has been a central component of TL since its inception (Bass 1985 ; Burns 1978 ). Nevertheless, in elucidating their theoretical basis for this position, the authors provide strong, implicit claims of comprehensiveness and authority in their discussion (Harrison et al. 2020 ), stemming from an epistemic narrative derived from earlier work (Fernald et al. 2005 ; Harrison and Leitch 1994 ). Furthermore, while partially acknowledging the role of TL, they detract from it rather vigorously, pointing to a “lack of empirical evidence” for its effectiveness (Harrison et al. 2020 , p. 6) among other factors, but making no mention of the wealth of studies, reviews, and meta-analyses which offer the opposite picture (e.g. Dvir et al. 2002 ; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev 2009 ; Judge and Piccolo 2004 ; Lowe et al. 1996 ; Wang et al. 2011 ; see also Sect.  2.1 - Transformational Leadership ). As such, while these authors argue for a clear separation of EL from TL, the lack of engagement with mainstream leadership literature obscures how a broader dialogue might reflect their proposed, distinct construct. Instead, the suggestion is made that both entrepreneurship and leadership may be better understood by integrating them “via the lens of the EL paradigm”; it is not completely clear what this paradigm is, however (Harrison et al. 2020 , p. 12).

This school of thought contrasts with other theoretical appreciations, both of the place of EL within leadership, and of EL as a style of leadership, that barely mention the EL construct elaborated above (Harrison et al. 2020 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ), nor the measures deriving from it. For example, the review of leadership styles by Fries et al. ( 2021 ) makes no mention of the currently available scales of EL (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ; Gupta et al. 2004 ; Renko et al. 2015 ). In contrast, they find EL behaviors to overlap strongly with, and only with, TL (Fries et al. 2021 ; see also Peters and Kallmünzer 2018 ). Similarly, in their comprehensive analysis of the intersection between entrepreneurship and leadership, Ried et al. ( 2018 ) touch on these measures of EL briefly, but merely to note their use of vision as a key component of measuring it. Neither engages with the theoretical arguments supporting their conception. Therefore, the value of these extant operationalizations of EL has not yet been fully accepted by more mainstream leadership researchers, indicating that the lack of engagement emanates not only from the nuclear field of EL, but also from the wider research community. For example, Kimbu et al. (2018) refrained from emphasizing the existence of a distinct style of EL, even though theirs represents a sweeping examination of leadership theory within entrepreneurship. This reality is paralleled in other, highly cited works on entrepreneurial leadership (e.g. Schoemaker et al. 2018 ). Similarly, Lyons et al. ( 2020 ) consider EL as representing the full gamut of behaviors a leader-entrepreneur must show in order to arrive at a successful venture, with the emphasis on the “entrepreneur.” The specific component of leading followers, they deem, is well served by the extant construct of TL. This conceptualization clashes with Leitch and Volery’s ( 2017 ) proposition that extricating EL from the “leadership in” or “leadership of” debate is incidental, precisely because EL should be more comprehensive, including interactions with shareholders and, more broadly, the dynamism of the phenomenon of entrepreneurship (Leitch and Volery 2017 ).

In summary, results show that several publications find EL and TL to overlap at the concept (e.g. Kimbu et al. 2021 ; Lyons et al. 2020 ) and construct (e.g. Fries et al. 2021 ; McCarthy et al. 2010 ) levels, while others argue for its value as a distinct construct (e.g. Harrison et al. 2020 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ). In response to RQ1, it can be stated that a lack of clear and reciprocal engagement between theoretical work on EL and TL renders a determination of their overlap inconclusive, a result in line with previous reviews of EL (Antonakis and Autio 2012 ). As such, it is suggested that this area in particular could benefit from further study, a greater exchange between scholars, and a more nuanced integration of extant leadership frameworks into EL.

5.2 RQ2 (content)

The theoretical landscape is inconsistent, as demonstrated above. The effects these inconsistencies have exerted on the three measures of EL currently in use will now be charted to answer RQ2. Gupta et al.‘s conceptualization (2004) was chronologically the first of those still in use, and continues to inform current developments. It is however by no means unanimously adopted. Renko et al. ( 2015 ) specifically detract from the earlier measure, stating, among other concerns, that it was not specific to entrepreneurship, a suggestion seconded by Clark et al. ( 2019 ) in more recent works. Furthermore a number of its items were “characteristic of TL” (Renko et al. 2015 , p. 60). In addition, this overlap with TL is admitted by the original authors (Gupta et al. 2004 , p. 245). However, a more fundamental issue exists. Though largely ignored by those employing this measure, it was neither methodologically conceived nor suitably validated as a questionnaire. Gupta et al. themselves note that the GLOBE (House et al. 1999 ) data they employ was “not originally intended” for the development of a novel construct (2004, p. 257), let alone the creation and validation of a new scale. In addition, their methodology in doing so was highly unorthodox. A first step saw five behaviors, deemed necessary for entrepreneurial leaders drawn from the existing concepts of TL, team-building, and value-based leadership (Gupta et al. 2004 ). As stated (Renko et al. 2015 , p. 60), these five behaviors indeed appear significantly indebted to TL (e.g. “The articulation of a compelling vision”). In a number of further steps, five specific EL “roles” were established: framing the challenge, absorbing uncertainty, path-clearing, building commitment and specifying limits (Gupta et al. 2004 , p. 247). Thereafter, the authors selected from 112 attributes of “outstanding leadership” contained in the GLOBE data-set a total of 19 that they “expected to load” onto the five previously established roles of EL (Gupta et al. 2004 , p. 249). However, though the following factor analysis yielded results deemed acceptable, and the subdimensions did indeed inter-correlate to an acceptable degree, the authors warn that “the fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis at individual levels of analysis deteriorated substantially” (Gupta et al. 2004 , p. 251). Furthermore, external validity was established only within the GLOBE data-set, by correlating EL with several Hofstede cultural dimensions deemed relevant to entrepreneurship, but only at the level of entire societies (Shane et al. 1995 ). Such claims of ecological validity have been sharply criticized, with regard to the GLOBE studies as a whole (Graen 2006 ). The above shows numerous diversions from standard practice of scale development, which normatively entails the creation of an item pool, either from solid conceptual foundations or from specific, related, previously validated scales; the administration of these items to multiple unique samples of respondents; and progressive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of these unique responses (DeVellis and Thorpe 2021 ). Leadership styles that were elucidated in accordance with this process include, among others, ethical leadership (Kalshoven et al. 2011 ), servant leadership (Van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011 ), and authentic leadership (Walumbwa et al. 2008 ). Scale development for leadership-related constructs also follows this process, as seen in publications operationalizing Machiavellianism in leaders (Dahling et al. 2009 ) or leader-member-exchange (Liden and Maslyn 1998 ), among others.

However, Gupta et al.’s measure (2004) is employed as a questionnaire by numerous researchers with only minor adaptation (e.g. Huang et al. 2014 ), demonstrating that this long and laborious process of explicit scale creation and validation has been curtailed (see e.g. Boateng et al. 2018 ; Hinkin 1995 ). In addition to being criticized for its similarity to TL (Renko et al. 2015 ), this scale should thus be viewed with caution with respect to validity. This issue is of central importance, as it may help to explain the large number of publications studying EL without recourse to either this measure or those derived from it (see Category IV in Results ). Returning to the criticism leveled by Renko et al. ( 2015 ), that Gupta et al. ( 2004 ) overly relied on TL, it must be noted that the critics appear to fall prey to the same issue. Their ENTRELEAD scale is the most widely used questionnaire measure of a distinct EL style after Gupta et al. ( 2004 ), though this ratio is shifting as most authors now use ENTRELEAD (e.g. Dabić et al. 2021 ; Niemann et al. 2022 ). As detailed in the Results section, several items on the ENTRELEAD scale closely resemble items used to assess TL. Table  5 shows the ENTRELEAD scale (Renko et al. 2015 ) side by side with a shortened measure for TL by Carless et al. ( 2000 ). This same measure was used alongside ENTRELEAD to assess TL in two of the papers in the sample.

The last three items of each scale (Table  5 ) vary considerably. Aside from these, numerous items show strong similarities in meaning and formulation; the short length of each scale necessitates the assumption of considerable issues of conflation. Furthermore, both the Gupta and Renko publications discuss the differences between EL and TL, and both list non-EL leadership behaviors. However, these lists differ on numerous points. For example, Gupta et al. ( 2004 , p. 250) consider EL as encompassing an “Unusual ability to persuade others of his/her viewpoint”. This is reminiscent of charisma and charismatic leadership, which Renko et al. explicitly state is not a requirement for EL (2015, p. 57). Finally, the remaining items found on the ENTRELEAD scale (“Often comes up with radical improvement ideas for the products/services we are selling”, “Often comes up with ideas of completely new products/services that we could sell”, “Takes risks”) are in no direct way related to mainstream definitions of leadership, such as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse 2018 , p. 43). This raises two main points. First, previous research has sought to unite aspects of strategic entrepreneurship with EL (Covin and Slevin 2002 ; Ireland et al. 2003 ). While this conceptual heritage is discussed by Renko et al. ( 2015 ), works from within mainstream leadership science which have responded to the limitations of such an approach, and suggested potential remedial steps, are not mentioned (e.g. Antonakis and Autio 2012 ).

Second, leadership research has shown eminent success in focusing on proximal, clearly definable behaviors salient in leader-follower interactions (Derue et al. 2011 ). This approach, if anything, is gathering momentum rather than being overtaken by other paradigms (e.g. Hemshorn de Sanchez et al. 2022 ). Aspects relevant to the leadership of venture instead of followers, such as opportunity recognition (Emami et al. 2022 ) or risk-taking, could represent interference in determining a leadership style in this manner. Until the role of leadership in entrepreneurship is clearer, any extraneous aspects should therefore be examined under the aegis of their respective conceptualizations; opportunity recognition and risk taking both have little to do with the leading of employees, and both have produced extensive, theoretically coherent research of their own (e.g. Angelsberger et al. 2017 ; Grégoire et al. 2010 ; Palich and Bagby 1995 ). For example, behaviors which encourage employees to take risks are a component of the style of leadership known as empowering (Cheong et al. 2019 ). However, this stands apart from a leader’s own tendency towards risk-taking, the measurement of which, in any case, can be accomplished with far greater subtlety and accuracy than through asking “Do you take risks?” (an item of ENTRELEAD, Renko et al. 2015 ; see in contrast Lejuez et al. 2002 ). A potential role-modeling effect may well be worth exploring (Newman et al. 2018 ), but this should be done in its own right, perhaps by examining leader perceptions as a mediating factor between leaders’ and followers’ displays of risk, instead of as an afterthought on leadership questionnaires. The same holds true for opportunity recognition. While some argue that such a distinction is not of primary importance (Leitch and Volery 2017 ), this overlooks the fact that many researchers seek to use conceptualizations of EL as they would, for example, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Antonakis 2001 ): as a concretely quantifiable, questionnaire-measured, exogenous variable. This includes Cai et al. ( 2019 ), who explicitly state that “recently, scholars have consistently proposed the treatment of EL as a specific leadership style” (Cai et al. 2019 , p. 205). Similarly, Newman et al. ( 2018 ) and Paudel ( 2019 ) use EL in this manner, as do numerous further studies of EL not included in the present sample, such as by Dabić et al. ( 2021 ) or Mehmood et al. ( 2021b ). In summary, it may be observed that the ENTRELEAD scale also suffers from certain issues of discriminant validity and overlap. This might serve to explain why, though the most frequently used of the three measures of EL, it was nevertheless disregarded in the many recent studies of EL which used scales of TL (see Sect.  4.4 - Studies using transformational in lieu of EL ).

Finally, results show that the most recent measure of EL by Bagheri and Harrison ( 2020 ) demonstrates the greatest divergence from scales of TL. As detailed above, this extensive questionnaire offers numerous items clearly distinct from TL, though several items continue to linger that seem highly indebted to it. In this, they strongly resemble the creation of the conceptualization by Gupta et al. ( 2004 ), whose theoretical foundation Bagheri and Harrison ( 2020 ) acknowledge as the basis for their own measure. Here, however, a number of issues emerge. The authors argue for the value of Gupta et al.’s ( 2004 ) scale as a basis, asserting that it is the most widely used scale of EL, and implicitly argue for its acceptance by scholars. However, this assertion seems incongruous. First, numerous scholars have presented strongly opposing views (e.g. Harrison et al. 2018 ; Leitch et al. 2013 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ), among them one of the two authors in recent publications (Harrison et al. 2016 , 2020 ), who suggested that the underlying data-set was no longer relevant and had limited potential (Clark et al. 2019 ). Second, of the studies included in the recent meta-analysis by Lee et al. ( 2020 ), all four employed the ENTRELEAD scale (Renko et al. 2015 ), with two of these authored by the other author of the new measure (Bagheri 2017 ; Bagheri and Akbari 2018 ). At least one more recent publication by this author also used ENTRELEAD (Bagheri et al. 2022 ), as have an increasing number of others (e.g. Hensellek et al. 2023 ; Hoang et al. 2022 ; Lin and Yi 2022 ; Malibari and Bajaba 2022 ; Strobl et al. 2022 ). Gupta et al.‘s conceptualization (2004) is thus by no means unanimously adopted which, particularly in light of the inherent conceptual and methodological issues discussed above, makes its use as the basis for a novel measure problematic. A further issue complicates the adoption of this novel scale: the lack of a coherent analysis of divergent validity via a nomological network. As stated in the Results section, while the scale is less dependent on TL, it nevertheless incorporates items typical of both this and other, established leadership styles. Previous work has pointed to the futility of introducing novel leadership styles that show high overlap with extant conceptualizations (Deng et al. 2022 ; see also Banks et al. 2016 and Hoch et al. 2018 ). Furthermore, and mirroring the issues surrounding ENTRELEAD, those items not representative of extant leadership styles largely fail to conform to a classical, theoretical appreciation of leadership as an influence process between leader and follower. The authors specifically state in the introduction to their paper that most previous measures of EL failed to focus on the “critical aspects of the construct such as risk taking, innovation …opportunity recognition” (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 , p. 660). This issue gains momentum from recognition of numerous results demonstrating the benefits of authentic (Jensen and Luthans 2006 ), autonomous (Felix et al. 2018 ), charismatic (Men et al. 2021 ), empowering (Cheong et al. 2019 ), transactional (Ma and Jiang 2018 ) and shared leadership (Zhou et al. 2015 ) in entrepreneurship. Finally, whereas Bagheri and Harrison’s eight-dimensional model provided “acceptable” model fit (2020, p. 670), this was not true of any proposed model which considered EL as a single-factor construct (p. 669), mirroring the measure by Gupta et al. ( 2004 ). This stands in contrast to most established leadership styles, which will often undergo combination into one overall variable measuring how strongly a certain style such as TL is expressed (Hughes et al. 2018 ). It is therefore uncertain whether this proposed, unified concept of EL shows an advantage in practice compared to the utilization of existing measures of leadership, risk taking behavior, and so forth. In other words, does it in fact capture one distinct, coherent entrepreneurial style of leadership?

In response to RQ2, therefore, a number of points may be observed. First, regarding the content of their items, current questionnaire measures of EL overlap significantly with TL. Second, there is a paucity of statistical analyses of discriminant validity, hampering the identification and dimensional elucidation of EL into TL and non-TL aspects. Third, non-overlapping items do not conform to a theoretical paradigm in which leadership is a leader-follower influence process. Finally, several of the scales display issues with scale development and validation, calling into question their use.

5.3 RQ3 (practice)

Finally, RQ3 remains of whether the overlap between TL and EL was reflected at the level of empirical researchers examining it. The relationship between the conceptual foundations of these papers and the FRLT will also be discussed. Two groups of articles from the sample offer a substrate for discussion. First, there are the quantitative and qualitative papers that explicitly used TL in lieu of EL; second, there were the few papers which quantitatively examined both EL and TL. The former group in particular appears only loosely connected to theoretical and operational conceptualizations of EL that claim it as a unique style. Overall, Category IV in particular shows the prevalence, only partially acknowledged by some (e.g. Harrison et al. 2020 ), of TL in the study of leadership within the field of entrepreneurship. Moreover, all these papers implicitly align with the FRLT’s conceptualization of leadership as an influence process between leader and follower. 11 papers within Category IV, all published after the appearance of the first measure explicitly designed for EL (Gupta et al. 2004 ), choose to use TL as locum tenens for EL. Xu and Jin ( 2022 ) touch on articles engaged in debating the constitution of EL (e.g. Leitch and Volery 2017 ), yet skirt entirely any acknowledgement of preexisting measures thereof, instead pointing to the “considerable body of research” which has demonstrated the effectiveness of TL as EL (Xu and Jin 2022 , p. 280). A further publication which regards the entrepreneur as a leader by default employs what it deems the most prominent theoretical paradigm in leadership: TL (Ensley et al. 2006 ). It should however be noted that this publication appeared a mere two years after the first concrete measure for entrepreneurship (Gupta et al. 2004 ). At this point, EL was only marginally established as a field in its own right, and the authors’ research was on “the leadership of entrepreneurs” (Ensley et al. 2006 , p. 246). However, Ng and Kee ( 2018 ) also use TL with reference to the body of previous research demonstrating its positive effects, as do five further publications of the 11 in this category (Baldegger and Gast 2016 ; Bamiatzi et al. 2015 ; Ensley et al. 2006 ; Hensel and Visser 2018 ; Ng et al. 2019 ). While the precise application of TL therein varies, the common thread is an implicit recognition of its utility as a measure in the context of EL. Some authors consciously argue for it. For example, one contribution embraces the dipolar nature of TL and transactional leadership to chart the evolution of leadership requirements in a maturing entrepreneurial venture (Baldegger and Gast 2016 ). As mentioned in the Results section, these authors specifically dismiss extant measures of EL, due to their inclusion of aspects deemed unrelated to leadership. Others however arrive at TL by default, in itself an interesting commentary on the acceptance of EL-scales (e.g. Ng and Kee 2018 ).

Noteworthy too is that this association of EL and TL extends beyond the Western sphere into work examining EL in Ghana and Nigeria (Kimbu et al. 2021 ) as well as in China (Wang et al. 2012 ). While acknowledging the existence of a measure for EL (Gupta et al. 2004 ), these authors deem its conceptual development to be at an “embryonic stage,” and thus decide to follow in what they view as standard practice, drawing on mainstream leadership literature (Wang et al. 2012 , p. 507). Representing scholars from both the fields of leadership (e.g. Baldegger and Gast 2016 ) and entrepreneurship (Verma and Kumar 2021 ), these publications offer strong support to the notion that, at the level of empirical research practice, EL and TL appear indistinguishable. This trend stands in marked contrast to the previously detailed assertions of the wide adoption of EL scales in the study of EL (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ). Moreover, it opens up the question of why a swathe of recent reviews on EL skirt the central role TL has in measuring it in practice (e.g. Clark et al. 2019 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ). Even so, most authors in the sample examined do not go so far as to claim that EL and TL are identical. However, the study examining Russian EL style inductively found that most entrepreneurs applied a style “consistent with the characteristics of transformational leadership” (McCarthy et al. 2010 , p. 55). This offers firm credence to the relevance of TL within entrepreneurship, as well as intimating further the inherent, construct-level overlap between TL and EL (McCarthy et al. 2010 ).

This certainly provides a partial answer to RQ3 by demonstrating that empirical practice often considers TL and EL synonymous, confirming previous research which finds TL to be used as EL “routinely” (Reid et al. 2018 , p. 152). However, a final portion of the sample remains to be discussed: those results which quantitatively examined TL and EL together. A caveat is the publication by Paudel (2018), which instead successfully replicated results linking TL with innovation using a measure of EL (Renko et al. 2015 ). This result may well be explained by Paudel’s use of the ENTRELEAD scale, and the similarity with TL regarding item content discussed above. With these similarities in mind, an examination of the meta-analysis by Lee et al. ( 2020 ) may be illuminating. As stated above, it found significant correlations between innovation and EL as well as TL, with EL outperforming TL as a predictor. Central to answering the RQs of the present review, however, is their finding a relationship of ρ  = 0.93 between EL and TL (Lee et al. 2020 ), even though EL was examined across only four samples, two of which are included in the present review. While the scale used in one publication could not be ascertained, at least three used ENTRELEAD; the high correlation between EL and TL, as demonstrated at an item level in Table  5 , is therefore confirmed in statistical analysis. The two samples included here, also found in Lee et al. ( 2020 ), are those by Cai et al. ( 2019 ) who measured creativity, and Newman et al. ( 2018 ), who measured innovation. Upon closer examination, these two studies paint a picture whose contrast could not be stronger, even though both employed the ENTRELEAD scale alongside the same, shortened instrument for TL by Carless et al. ( 2000 ; see Table  5 ). As detailed in Results , Cai et al. ( 2019 ) found strong positive effects between EL and various aspects of creativity. Simultaneously, they found no correlation between EL and TL, remarkable given the visible item-level content shared by these two scales (see Table  5 above). However, any elucidation of item-level correlations is lacking which might precisely reveal whence these wildly diverging correlations between two such similar measures stem, as is any substantive discussion (see Cai et al. 2019 , p. 212-4). This is regrettable, as it is these that would offer valuable insights into the precise mechanism through which EL offers such substantial gains over TL in the prediction of creativity, an area in which TL has repeatedly proven itself in the past (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev 2009 ; Jung et al. 2003 ; Shin and Zhou 2003 ). Both this publication and that by Newman et al. ( 2018 ) adduce Bandura’s social cognitive theory ( 1986 ) to conceptualize the transposition of behaviors such as risk taking from leaders to followers. Within this tripartite agentic distinction made by Bandura ( 2001 ), the definition of agent refers to “producers as well as products of social systems,” reminiscent of the definition of an entrepreneur as issued by Gartner et al. ( 1992 ). The question posed in the introduction thus reemerges. Is it currently possible to measure EL without measuring TL? One last set of results may illuminate the answer.

Using the two exact same questionnaire measures and a larger sample, Newman et al. ( 2018 ) find wildly differing results from Cai et al. ( 2019 ). Specifically, they confirmed the predictive effect of EL on innovation, but found a similar effect for TL. Their results present themselves far more in line both with the overlap visible in Table  5 between EL and TL, and the authors’ own argumentation, who acknowledge both the similarities between EL and TL, and the predictive effects of TL on creativity. Such a strong contrast with the results of Cai et al. ( 2019 ) cautions patience for further findings. The divergent results in this case may rest on the difference between creativity and innovation, even though the two are intrinsically related (Anderson et al. 2014 ). However, the value of TL for both creativity and innovation, considered “inseparable” from entrepreneurship (Gilad 1984 , p. 151) is not only empirically established (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev 2009 ), but clear causal paths for this effect have also been traced and elaborated upon theoretically (Jung et al. 2003 ). By eliciting high motivation and increasing followers’ self-esteem and self-worth, transformational leaders increase spontaneous acts of innovation (Mumford et al. 2002 ). Individual consideration serves as a reward, while intellectual stimulation specifically fosters novel and creative thinking (Sosik et al. 1998 ). However, more vital than the conflicting findings regarding creativity and innovation is the following. Newman et al. ( 2018 ) find a strong correlation between TL and EL ( r  = .81, p  < .05), suggesting that recent studies using ENTRELEAD may have measured TL, rather than some distinctly unique style of EL (e.g. Dabić et al. 2021 ; Mehmood et al. 2021a ; Mehmood et al. 2021b ; Niemann et al. 2022 ; Pauceanu et al. 2021 ). The relationship found by Newman et al. ( 2018 ) between the ENTRELEAD scale and Carless et al.’s ( 2000 ) measure of TL clearly indicates an almost complete lack of divergent validity at the instrument level ( r  = .81, p  < .05; Newman et al. 2018 ), particularly given that the result is confirmed in meta-analysis ( ρ  = 0.93; SDρ = 0.04; Lee et al. 2020 ).

With respect to Question 3, the present analysis thus finds that, in practice, TL and EL are poorly separated. Numerous authors consider TL as representing EL, and many authors use TL by default when measuring EL, acknowledging the conceptualization of leadership inherent to the FRLT. Meanwhile, statistical results directly comparing the two may be termed inconclusive at best (Cai et al. 2019 ). At worst, results cast serious doubt on the discriminant validity of currently available measures of EL versus TL (Newman et al. 2018 ; Lee et al. 2020 ).

6 Conclusion

The present review examined the relationship between TL and EL across a sample of 25 articles and over various levels of analysis. A number of key findings can be stated in answer to the RQs posed in the Introduction . RQ1 concerned the conceptual overlap and distinction between EL and TL. We found a cluster of conceptual work advocating EL as a form or paradigm of leadership distinct from TL; differences here include for example the incorporation of strategically oriented behaviors such as opportunity recognition (Harrison et al. 2020 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ). However, we also find that work hailing from the wider leadership literature fails to appreciate this distinction in numerous instances, with most authors considering EL and TL as overlapping both conceptually (Kimbu et al. 2021 ; Lyons et al. 2020 ) and at the level of concrete, defined constructs (Fries et al. 2021 ; McCarthy et al. 2010 ). The analysis suggests a need for greater mutual fertilization of concepts and methods between the field of EL and leadership studies as a contributing factor. RQ2 examined the overlap of currently available measures of EL and TL, with two key findings to report. First, the three available scales of EL contain items at odds with the widely used understanding of leadership as an interpersonal influence process directed towards the achievement of shared goals. Aspects of EL such as opportunity recognition fall outside this conceptual paradigm, an issue considered problematic by researchers in the field (e.g. Baldegger and Gast 2016 ). Those items that do conform to the interpersonal understanding of leadership demonstrate a high degree of overlap with TL. For example, items of the ENTRELEAD that measure interpersonal leadership are practically indistinguishable from items from TL scales. Second, all three scales suffer to varying degrees from issues of validation and model fit. The most recent contribution appears least afflicted, representing a valuable step towards an operational definition of EL (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ). Testing for discriminant validity versus TL is however lacking, while overlap in item content is notable. Finally, RQ3 sought an answer to the role of TL in measuring EL, and the testimony of available quantitative results examining both EL and TL. In response, it is found that many researchers continue to use TL to measure EL for various reasons (e.g. Lyons et al. 2020 ; Ng et al. 2019 ). Available EL scales have thus failed to gain overarching acceptance as measures of EL. Moreover, quantitative examinations have failed to show a definitive degree of discriminant validity between EL and TL, with some results indicating almost complete overlap (Newman et al. 2018 ; Lee et al. 2020 ).

Our study offers a first critical, up-to-date examination of the overlap between TL and the fragmented scholarship surrounding EL. We draw firm conclusions based on the examination of conceptual developments, research practice, and previous empirical findings. In summary, the present contribution thus creates a road map for those measuring and studying EL, and points out several significant issues and discursive paradigms the researcher should be aware of. Moreover, we embed the nascent literature on EL within the broader, more accepted theoretical framework of the FRLT. This lays a path towards an increased exploration of EL by mainstream leadership research and, in particular, an increase in scholarly communication and exchange. The limitations of the present study, the implications of the findings and suggestions for future research are offered below.

6.1 Limitations

The present contribution claimed to clarify the interplay between EL and TL, seeking to curb the catachresis plaguing EL research. However, this paper is subject to a number of limitations. First and most importantly, the scope of the review was not exhaustive. The present SLR followed a structured and literature-based approach. Despite this, it is impossible to guarantee that all relevant articles were included in the databases chosen. As stated in Sect.  2.1 , only articles that explicitly mentioned TL and EL were examined. For a more comprehensive picture, this pool could be expanded along two dimensions. First, research could be included that explicitly examines TL within organizations that are emphasizing entrepreneurial action, such as those in the process of spinning off sub-units, acquiring startups, or engaging in corporate venturing. In short, this could identify organizational contexts in which leadership is examined that falls under a broad definition of EL, but where the specific term is not used. Conversely, all papers could be included which explicitly examine EL, and from these only those that examine leadership behaviors typical of TL without explicitly employing the term. A second limitation lies in the comparative brevity with which some of the articles were necessarily treated for the sake of space. The statistical results in Cai et al. ( 2019 ), Newman et al. ( 2018 ), and Lee et al. ( 2020 ) would for example permit a far more in-depth discussion with respect to RQ3. Finally, several review articles with interesting insights fell outside the bounds of this sample because they were either thematically off-point, not found in any of the databases examined (e.g. Clark and Harrison 2019 ; Clark et al. 2019 ), or the impact factor of the publishing journal was below 1 (Harrison et al. 2016 ).

6.2 Implications

The current study contributes by offering theoretical implications in three areas of literature where gaps were observed. First, we have provided an important contribution to the wider, fragmented discourse on entrepreneurial leaders. We offer a road map by showing that research past (e.g. Ensley et al. 2006 ; Wang et al. 2012 ) and present (e.g. Ng et al. 2019 ; Verma and Kumar 2021 ) employ TL as a valid adjunct to measuring EL, and by demonstrating that the use of current measures of EL (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ; Gupta et al. 2004 ; Renko et al. 2015 ) is plagued by issues. Specifically, their use guarantees neither measurement of EL, as opposed to TL, nor measurement of leadership behaviors, as accepted under the widely acclaimed FRLT paradigm. Further, two of three available EL questionnaires failed to provide conclusive, statistical evidence for a unified construct of EL (Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ; Gupta et al. 2004 ). The recent inclusion of additional leadership concepts such as empowering or self-leadership (Harrison and Bagheri 2020 ; cf. Cheong et al. 2019 ; Houghton et al. 2003 ) fails to ameliorate the lack of cross-validation and dedicated sampling for discriminant validity, and our findings thus contribute by demonstrating that measurement of EL should be accompanied by, at minimum, a proven questionnaire measure of TL (e.g. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Bass and Avolio 1997 ). Such combined use would permit meta-analysis of its divergent validity and enable further refinement or dimensional reduction. Moreover, we find an increasing number of studies employing the ENTRELEAD scale (Renko et al. 2015 ), most by entrepreneurship researchers, whose familiarity with leadership literature may be limited (e.g. Dabić et al. 2021 ; Mehmood et al. 2021a ; Mehmood et al. 2021b ; Pauceanu et al. 2021 ). Our contribution is therefore a demonstration to these researchers of the issues with EL-measures noted above.

We further contribute to the ongoing discourse by drawing together previous research to show that TL provides four concrete, theoretically elucidated sub-dimensions that are suitable for further analysis of EL outcomes (e.g. Hensel and Visser 2018 ; Lee et al. 2020 ), and that TL has the ability to transcend cultural boundaries (Crede et al. 2019 ). This has been specifically demonstrated for entrepreneurial leaders in various cultures (Kimbu et al. 2021 ; Wang et al. 2012 ). The FRLT additionally provides an equally validated, alternative style, transactional leadership, which is effective in many other contexts. Finally, it delineates a concrete, ineffective, negative leadership style: laissez-faire (Antonakis 2001 ).Our study also contributes by outlining that non-TL items on current measures of EL largely reflect non-leadership aspects, such as opportunity recognition, and suggest their measurement via dedicated instruments. For example, entrepreneurial opportunity recognition has recently been measured by examining both perceived proficiency in recognizing opportunities, as well as by gauging the actual number of opportunities exploited (Maran et al. 2021 ).

Second, we contribute to the literature by contextualizing the work of a core community of EL researchers (e.g. Harrison et al. 2016 ; Leitch and Volery 2017 ), which claims a high degree of authority and centrality in EL matters. By examining it from the perspective of leadership research, our study offers more insights into the practice of EL research as currently found around the world. Despite claims that EL is a distinct and valid construct, the present study finds that EL, as an operationalized set of behaviors that portray the leader-follower influence process, has yet to be established. Our work therefore contributes directly to the debate by offering as a primary goal the differentiation of EL from other extant, mainstream styles of leadership, such as transformational (Bass 1985 ), empowering (Cheong et al. 2019 ), and authentic leadership (Jensen and Luthans 2006 ). While Bagheri and Harrison’s ( 2020 ) recent measure of EL has taken great strides in this direction, we contribute by demonstrating how this and other measures diverge from accepted norms of scale development, and by suggesting the outline of a process of scale development and validation to remedy this. In addition, our study contributes by clearly connecting the currently confused picture of EL-TL measurement, both in terms of research practice and conflicting statistical results, with this non-normative history of development of EL scales. We further offer a modest contribution to this process by pointing to previous literature reviews which could serve as groundwork for ongoing development, and which have determined traits such as tenacity, a need for power and control, charisma, flexibility and an internal locus of control to be related to EL (e.g. Harrison et al. 2016 ). However, the authors caution that the leadership literature itself has observed an overproliferation of leadership styles, and empirical testing has repeatedly revealed purportedly new leadership styles such as authentic or empowering as overlapping significantly with TL (Deng et al. 2022 ).

Third, the present study provides a modest contribution to the leadership literature. We carry on and strengthen work by Fries et al. ( 2021 ) and Ried et al. ( 2018 ), which sought to examine EL as one of numerous styles. The present review details several areas of distinction and overlap between EL and other, established styles of leadership. Furthermore, we offer additional support to the recent findings which indicate that a proliferation of leadership styles may often fail to provide extra value beyond TL (Deng et al. 2022 ; cf. Shaffer et al. 2016 ). Overall, we provide value by couching the current, fragmented literature on EL more clearly in the terminology of mainstream leadership research, thus hopefully opening the door for a renewed “assault” on the delineation of EL’s fundamental building blocks.

Our study also contributes by providing several managerial implications. The holistic approach taken by EL research noted above, while hindering scale development, may be useful in obtaining a coherent and comprehensive understanding of EL in the field. However, considering the overlap of current definitions of EL with TL (e.g. Newman et al. 2018 ), the implication for managerial practice is clearly that TL is a suitable style in many contexts with entrepreneurial features. This is further inferred by the many studies that purport to examine EL using the ENTRELEAD scale, which find some positive effect of EL on a variety of outcomes (Dabić et al. 2021 ; Mehmood et al. 2021a , b ). As stated in the Discussion , ENTRELEAD overlaps considerably with TL. Taken together with recent findings from the field of leadership, our study thus contributes to transfer and practice by underlining the value of TL versus novel models of leadership (Deng et al. 2022 ). Therefore, professionals in management and human resources may consider TL as representing a key leadership style for entrepreneurial ventures. With regard to policy implications, our findings contribute by suggesting that TL may be used as an adjunct to EL in the training of entrepreneurs. This concerns executive education, which has shown that entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial mindset can be aided by educational means (e.g. Bachmann et al. 2021 ). Until a true, distinct leadership style of EL is found and widely accepted, therefore, the use of TL to cover the leadership aspect of entrepreneurship may be considered as representing best practice. The vision communication and charisma of the transformational leader has persistently been shown to encourage exceptional performance in employees (Ng 2017 ); their intellectual stimulation has proven vital in breaching the boundaries of convention, and delivering innovations of product, service or business model (e.g. Begum et al. 2022 ). The individual consideration awarded followers has repeatedly engendered job satisfaction, low turnover, and improved personal outcomes in the examined samples (e.g. Alwali and Alwali 2022 ). Our findings further contribute by suggesting that executive education and transfer make use of dedicated resources for non-leadership EL components, such as opportunity recognition, supplementary to TL.

6.3 Future research directions

The authors identify two main areas that could benefit from further inquiry. First, we encourage future research to create a clear definition differentiating EL “in” versus “of” (entrepreneurial ventures). The owner-entrepreneur who leads might show “leadership of” behaviors, but his subordinates within a startup who lead employees may only show “leadership in” behaviors. Separating these precedes the elucidation of a concrete, behavioral delineation of EL to capture the “leadership in” component (Antonakis and Autio 2012 ), in line with the dominant paradigm of leadership research, the FRLT (Bass and Avolio 1997 ). A wider understanding of EL, one that does not focus on leader-follower behaviors, may be termed a “leadership of” understanding. However, such an understanding of EL overlaps significantly with research into entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial orientation (Covin et al. 2020 ), given its inclusion of risk-taking (Renko et al. 2015 ) and opportunity recognition (e.g. Bagheri and Harrison 2020 ). Separating EL “in” versus “of” represents a necessary step which several authors have already taken (Ng and Kee 2018 ; Ng et al. 2019 ; Harrison et al. 2018 ) proposed a differentiation between internally and externally driven studies on EL. Similarly, Antonakis and Autio ( 2012 ) assigned extant leadership styles to phases of the entrepreneurial venture such as Precreation, Start-up and Consolidation . We suggest both as useful starting points for further examining and defining EL. Dismissing all non-behavioral aspects of EL could impede a full appreciation of entrepreneurship’s economic and social value (Antonakis and Autio 2012 ), while more carefully separating its dimensions could lead to a more granular appreciation of EL as a procedural phenomenon. Context is a crucial if often overlooked aspect in leadership (Liden and Antonakis 2009 ; Lowe and Gardner 2000 ), particularly in entrepreneurship. For example, when pre-founding, the entrepreneur by necessity must be a risk-taker and opportunity seeker; later, management and leadership often replace these attributes in terms of importance (Alvarez and Barney 2007 ; Gray et al. 2003 ). We suggest that future research should further engage with such differences (Baldegger and Gast 2016 ), in line with Cogliser and Brigham’s ( 2004 ) foundational definition of EL.

Second, moving beyond the “leadership in” versus “leadership of” issue, there is a drastic lack of substantive research on the concrete leader behaviors shown by female entrepreneurs. Although some studies do exist (e.g. Harrison et al. 2018 ; Yousafzai et al. 2015 ), they are far too few (Clark et al. 2019 ). A further aspect is that of “co-leadership.” While entrepreneurial ventures, in particular the modern, “techie” startup, often rely on teams of founders sharing leadership responsibilities at both the managerial and strategic levels (Ensley et al. 2006 ), no current conceptualization of EL directly addresses this interpersonal perspective, even though the paradigm of leader-member-exchange would lend itself to such an investigation (Leitch and Volery 2017 ). This reflects a wider issue, i.e. that conceptualizations of EL which take a less leader-centric approach may well be worth exploring, as mentioned by previous reviewers of the field (Leitch and Harrison 2018a ).

Data Availability

Regarding the underlying data, the papers which form the sample underlying the present SLR are available from the databases stated in the manuscript.

Ahmed F, Harrison C (2021) Challenges and competencies of entrepreneurial leaders in driving innovation at DIY laboratories. Technol Anal Strateg 33(10):1132–1146. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1908538

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmed F, Harrison C (2022) Entrepreneurial leadership development in teams: a conceptual model. Int J Entrep Innov Manag. https://doi.org/10.1177/14657503221143977

Alaassar A, Mention AL, Aas TH (2022) Facilitating innovation in FinTech: a review and research agenda. Rev Manag Sci 17:1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00531-x

Alvarez SA, Barney JB (2007) Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strateg Entrep J 1(1–2):11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4

Alwali J, Alwali W (2022) The relationship between emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and performance: a test of the mediating role of job satisfaction. Leadersh Organ Dev. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2021-0486 . J (ahead-of-print)

Amabile TM (1996) Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School, Boston

Google Scholar  

Anderson N, Potočnik K, Zhou J (2014) Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. J Manag 40(5):1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128

Angelsberger M, Kraus S, Mas-Tur A, Roig-Tierno N (2017) International opportunity recognition: an overview. J Small Bus Strategy 27(1):19–36

Antonakis J (2001) The validity of the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership model as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X). Walden University, Minneapolis

Antonakis J, Autio E (2012) Entrepreneurship and leadership: the psychology of entrepreneurship. In: Baum JR, Frese M, Baron RA (eds) The psychology of entrepreneurship. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp 189–208

Antonakis J, Bastardoz N, Jacquart P, Shamir B (2016) Charisma: an ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav 3:293–319. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062305

Avolio BJ (2010) Full range leadership development. SAGE Publications, New York City

Bachmann AK, Maran T, Furtner M, Brem A, Welte M (2021) Improving entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the attitude towards starting a business venture. Rev Manag Sci 15:1707–1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00394-0

Bagheri A (2017) The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behavior and opportunity recognition in high-technology SMEs. J High Technol Manag Res 28:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2017.10.003

Bagheri A, Akbari M (2018) The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on nurses’ innovation behavior. J Nurs Scholarsh 50:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12354

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bagheri A, Harrison C (2020) Entrepreneurial leadership measurement: a multi-dimensional construct. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 27(4):659–679. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-01-2019-0027

Bagheri A, Newman A, Eva N (2022) Entrepreneurial leadership of CEOs and employees’ innovative behavior in high-technology new ventures. J Small Bus Manag 60:805–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1737094

Baker T, Nelson RE (2005) Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Adm Sci Q 50:329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329

Baldegger U, Gast J (2016) On the emergence of leadership in new ventures. Int J Entrep Behav Res 22(6):933–957. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-11-2015-0242

Bamiatzi V, Jones S, Mitchelmore S, Nikolopoulos K (2015) The role of competencies in shaping the Leadership style of female entrepreneurs: the case of North West of England, Yorkshire, and North Wales. J Small Bus Manag 53:627–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12173

Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 52:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Banks GC, Dionne SD, Mast MS, Sayama H (2022) Leadership in the digital era: a review of who, what, when, where, and why. Leadersh Q 33:101634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101634

Banks GC, Engemann KN, Williams CE, Gooty J, McCauley KD, Medaugh MR (2017) A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. Leadersh Q 28(4):508–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.12.003

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan, New York City

Bass BM, Avolio BJ (1997) Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mind Garden, Menlo Park

Baumol WJ (1968) Entrepreneurship in economic theory.Am Econ Rev64–71

Becherer RC, Mendenhall ME, Eickhoff KF (2008) Separated at birth: an inquiry on the conceptual independence of the entrepreneurship and the leadership constructs. N Engl J Entrep 11(2):13–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-11-02-2008-B002

Begum S, Ashfaq M, Xia E, Awan U (2022) Does green transformational leadership lead to green innovation? The role of green thinking and creative process engagement. Bus Strategy Environ 31(1):580–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2911

Bichler BF, Kallmünzer A, Peters M (2022) Get on Task: a pragmatic Tutorial on Planning and conducting a systematic literature review. In: Okumus F, Rasoolimanesh SM, Jahani S (eds) Contemporary Research Methods in Hospitality and Tourism. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 39–53

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL (2018) Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 6:149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Burns JM (1978) Leadership. Harper and Row, New York

Brush CG, Greene PG, Hart MM (2001) From initial idea to unique advantage: the entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Acad Manag Perspect 15(1):64–78. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.4251394

Cai W, Lysova EI, Khapova SN, Bossink BA (2019) Does entrepreneurial leadership foster creativity among employees and teams? The mediating role of creative efficacy beliefs. J Bus Psychol 34:203–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9536-y

Carless SA, Wearing AJ, Mann L (2000) A short measure of transformational leadership. J Bus Psychol 14:389–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022991115523

Carlsson B, Braunerhjelm P, McKelvey M, Olofsson C, Persson L, Ylinenpää H (2013) The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research. Small Bus Econ 41:913–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9503-y

Carsrud AL, Johnson RW (1989) Entrepreneurship: a social psychological perspective. Entrep Reg Dev 1(1):21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985628900000003

Chandler GN, Jansen E (1992) The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance. J Bus Ventur 7(3):223–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(92)90028-P

Chell E, Haworth J, Brearley S (1991) The entrepreneurial personality, vol 16. Routledge, London

Cheong M, Yammarino FJ, Dionne SD, Spain SM, Tsai CY (2019) A review of the effectiveness of empowering leadership. Leadersh Q 30(1):34–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.005

Clark CM, Harrison C (2019) Entrepreneurship: an assimilated multi-perspective review. J Small Bus Entrep 31(1):43–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1446665

Clark CM, Harrison C, Gibb S (2019) Developing a conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership: a systematic literature review and thematic analysis.Int Rev Entrep17(3)

Cliff JE, Langton N, Aldrich HE (2005) Walking the talk? Gendered rhetoric vs. action in small firms. Organ Stud 26(1):63–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605046490

Cogliser CC, Brigham KH (2004) The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: mutual lessons to be learned. Leadersh Q 15(6):771–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.004

Covin JG, Rigtering JC, Hughes M, Kraus S, Cheng CF, Bouncken RB (2020) Individual and team entrepreneurial orientation: scale development and configurations for success. J Bus Res 112:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.023

Covin JG, Slevin DP (2002) The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership. In: Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Camp SM, Sexton DL (eds) Strategic Entrepreneurship: creating a New Mindset. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp 309–327

Crede M, Jong J, Harms P (2019) The generalizability of transformational leadership across cultures: a meta-analysis. J Manag Psychol 34(3):139–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2018-0506

Crupi A, Liu S, Liu W (2022) The top-down pattern of social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Bricolage and agility in response to COVID‐19: cases from China. R&D Manag 52(2):313–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12499

Cunningham JB, Lischeron J (1991) Defining entrepreneurship. J Small Bus Manag 29:45–61

Dabić M, Stojčić N, Simić M, Potocan V, Slavković M, Nedelko Z (2021) Intellectual agility and innovation in micro and small businesses: the mediating role of entrepreneurial leadership. J Bus Res 123:683–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.013

Dahling JJ, Whitaker BG, Levy PE (2009) The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. J Manag 35(2):219–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318618

De Jesus SN, Rus CL, Lens W, Imaginário S (2013) Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: a meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990–2010. Creat Res J 25(1):80–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.752235

Deng C, Gulseren D, Isola C, Grocutt K, Turner N (2022) Transformational leadership effectiveness: an evidence-based primer. Hum Resour Dev Int. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2135938

Derue DS, Nahrgang JD, Wellman NED, Humphrey SE (2011) Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Pers Psychol 64(1):7–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x

DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT (2021) Scale development: theory and applications. SAGE, London

Deyanova K, Brehmer N, Lapidus A, Tiberius V, Walsh S (2022) Hatching start-ups for sustainable growth: a bibliometric review on business incubators. Rev Manag Sci 16(7):2083–2109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00525-9

Dongul ES, Artantaş E (2022) Exploring the link between social work, entrepreneurial leadership, social embeddedness, social entrepreneurship and firm performance: a case of SMES owned by chinese ethnic community in Turkey. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-11-2021-0162 . J Enterp Communities (ahead-of-print)

Dvir T, Eden D, Avolio BJ, Shamir B (2002) Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment. Acad Manag J 45(4):735–744. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069307

Emami A, Ashourizadeh S, Sheikhi S, Rexhepi G (2022) Entrepreneurial propensity for market analysis in the time of COVID-19: benefits from individual entrepreneurial orientation and opportunity confidence. Rev Manag Sci 16(8):2413–2439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00499-0

Ensley MD, Pearce CL, Hmieleski KM (2006) The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance. J Bus Ventur 21(2):243–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.04.006

Eva N, Robin M, Sendjaya S, van Dierendonck D, Liden RC (2019) Servant leadership: a systematic review and call for future research. Leadersh Q 30(1):111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

Faridian PH (2023) Leading open innovation: the role of strategic entrepreneurial leadership in orchestration of value creation and capture in GitHub open source communities. Technovation 119:102546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102546

Felix C, Aparicio S, Urbano D (2018) Leadership as a driver of entrepreneurship: an international exploratory study. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 26(3):397–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-03-2018-0106

Fernald LW, Solomon GT, Tarabishy A (2005) A new paradigm: entrepreneurial leadership. South Bus Rev 30(2):1–10

Feser D (2022) Innovation intermediaries revised: a systematic literature review on innovation intermediaries’ role for knowledge sharing. Rev Manag Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00593-x

Figueroa-Domecq C, de Jong A, Williams AM (2020) Gender, tourism & entrepreneurship: a critical review. Ann Tour Res 84:102980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102980

Freeman D, Siegfried RL (2015) Entrepreneurial leadership in the context of company start-up and growth. J Leadersh Stud 8(4):35–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21351

Fries A, Kammerlander N, Leitterstorf M (2021) Leadership styles and leadership behaviors in family firms: a systematic literature review. J Fam Bus Strategy 12(1):100374. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JFBS.2020.100374

García-Morales VJ, Jiménez-Barrionuevo MM, Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez L (2012) Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. J Bus Res 65(7):1040–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.005

Gardner WL, Lowe KB, Meuser JD, Noghani F, Gullifor DP, Cogliser CC (2020) The leadership trilogy: a review of the third decade of the leadership quarterly. Leadersh Q 31(1):101379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101379

Gartner WB, Bird BJ, Starr JA (1992) Acting as if: differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrep Theory Pract 16(3):13–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879201600302

Gentles SJ, Charles C, Nicholas DB, Ploeg J, McKibbon KA (2016) Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. Syst Rev 5:172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0343-0

Gerards R, van Wetten S, van Sambeek C (2021) New ways of working and intrapreneurial behaviour: the mediating role of transformational leadership and social interaction. Rev Manag Sci 15(7):2075–2110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00412-1

Gilad B (1984) Entrepreneurship: the issue of creativity in the market place. J Creat Behav 18(3):151–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00379.x

Graen GB (2006) In the eye of the beholder: cross-cultural lesson in leadership from project GLOBE: a response viewed from the third culture bonding (TCB) model of cross-cultural leadership. Acad Manag Perspect 20(4):95–101. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2006.23270309

Gray JH, Densten IL, Sarros JC (2003) Size matters: organisational culture in small, medium, and large australian organisations. J Small Bus Entrep 17(1):31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2003.10593311

Greenberger DB, Sexton DL (1987) Leadership and entrepreneurship: New directions for venture initiation and success. In: Roberts GB, Lasher H, Maliche E (eds) New ventures: The proceedings of the second annual conference of the United States Association For Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kennesaw College, Marietta, pp. 52–57

Grégoire DA, Barr PS, Shepherd DA (2010) Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: the role of structural alignment. Organ Sci 21(2):413–431. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0462

Gumusluoglu L, Ilsev A (2009) Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. J Bus Res 62(4):461–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.032

Gupta V, MacMillan IC, Surie G (2004) Entrepreneurial leadership: developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. J Bus Ventur 19(2):241–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00040-5

Harrison C, Paul S, Burnard K (2016) Entrepreneurial Leadership: a systematic literature review. Int Rev Entrep 14(2):235–264

Harrison RT, Leitch CM (1994) Entrepreneurship and leadership: the implications for education and development. Entrep Reg Dev 6(2):111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985629400000007

Harrison RT, Leitch CM, McAdam M (2018) Breaking glass: towards a gendered analysis of entrepreneurial leadership. In: Harrison RT, Leitch CM (eds) Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship and Leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 467–490

Harrison C, Omeihe I, Simba A, Omeihe K (2020) Leading the way: the entrepreneur or the leader? J Small Bus Entrep 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2020.1840853

Harsanto B, Roelfsema H (2015) Asian leadership styles, entrepreneurial firm orientation and business performance. Int J Entrep Small Bus 26(4):490–499. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2015.072759

Hemshorn de Sanchez CS, Gerpott FH, Lehmann-Willenbrock N (2022) A review and future agenda for behavioral research on leader–follower interactions at different temporal scopes. J Organ Behav 43(2):342–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2583

Hensel R, Visser R (2018) Shared leadership in entrepreneurial teams: the impact of personality. Int J Entrep Behav Res 24(6):1104–1119. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2018-0133

Hensellek S, Kleine-Stegemann L, Kollmann T (2023) Entrepreneurial leadership, strategic flexibility, and venture performance: does founders’ span of control matter? J Bus Res 157:113544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113544

Hinkin TR (1995) A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. J Manag 21(5):967–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509

Hikkerova L, Ilouga SN, Sahut JM (2016) The entrepreneurship process and the model of volition. J Bus Res 69(5):1868–1873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.071

Hoang G, Luu TT, Nguyen TT, Du T, Le LP (2022) Examining the effect of entrepreneurial leadership on employees’ innovative behavior in SME hotels: a mediated moderation model. Int J Hosp Manag 102:103142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103142

Hoch JE, Bommer WH, Dulebohn JH, Wu D (2018) Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. J Manag 44(2):501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461

Houghton JD, Neck CP, Manz CC (2003) Self-leadership and superleadership. Shared leadership: reframing the hows and whys of leadership. In: Pearce CL, Conger JA (eds) Shared Leadership: reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 123–140

House RJ (1977) A theory of charismatic leadership. In: Hunt JG, Larson LL (eds) The cutting edge. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp 189–207

House RJ, Hanges PJ, Ruiz-Quintanilla SA, Dorfman PW, Javidan M, Dickson M, Gupta V (1999) Cultural influences on leadership and organizations. In: Gesner M, Arnold V (eds) Advances in global leadership. JAI Press, Stamford, pp 175–233

Huang S, Ding D, Chen Z (2014) Entrepreneurial leadership and performance in chinese new ventures: a moderated mediation model of exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and environmental dynamism. Creat Innov Manag 23(4):453–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12085

Hubner S, Most F, Wirtz J, Auer C (2022) Narratives in entrepreneurial ecosystems: drivers of effectuation versus causation. Small Bus Econ 59:211–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00531-3

Hughes DJ, Lee A, Tian A, Newman A, Legood A (2018) Leadership, creativity, and innovation: a critical review and practical recommendations. Leadersh Q 29(5):549–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001

Iftikhar MN, Justice JB, Audretsch DB (2022) The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship: an asian perspective. Small Bus Econ 59:1401–1426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00577-3

Ireland RD, Hitt MA, Sirmon DG (2003) A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions. J Manag 29(6):963–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00086-2

Jensen SM, Luthans F (2006) Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: impact on employees’ attitudes. Leadersh Organ Dev J 27(8):646–666. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730610709273

Jensen M, Potočnik K, Chaudhry S (2020) A mixed-methods study of CEO transformational leadership and firm performance. Eur Manag J 38(6):836–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.05.004

Judge TA, Piccolo RF (2004) Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J Appl Psychol 89(5):755. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Jung DI, Chow C, Wu A (2003) The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadersh Q 14(4–5):525–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(03)00050-x

Kalshoven K, Den Hartog DN, De Hoogh AH (2011) Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Leadersh Q 22(1):51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.007

Kakabadse NK, Tatli A, Nicolopoulou K, Tankibayeva A, Mouraviev N (2018) A gender perspective on entrepreneurial leadership: female leaders in Kazakhstan. Eur Manag Rev 15(2):155–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12125

Karol RA (2015) Leadership in the context of corporate entrepreneurship. J Lead Stud 8:30–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21350

Kempster S, Cope J (2010) Learning to lead in the entrepreneurial context. Int J Entrep Behav Res 16(1):5–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011020054

Khan AN, Khan NA (2022) The nexuses between transformational leadership and employee green organisational citizenship behaviour: role of environmental attitude and green dedication. Bus Strategy Environ 31(3):921–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2926

Kimbu AN, de Jong A, Adam I, Ribeiro MA, Afenyo-Agbe E, Adeola O, Figueroa-Domecq C (2021) Recontextualising gender in entrepreneurial leadership. Ann Tour Res 88:103176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103176

Kirzner I (1973) Competition and entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Klijn EH, de Boer N, Eshuis J (2022) Leading frontline enforcers: how supervisors’ leadership style impacts inspectors’ enforcement style. Public Manag Rev 24(3):398–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1833610

Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York

Kraus S, Breier M, Dasí-Rodríguez S (2020) The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int Entrep Manag J 16(3):1023–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4

Kraus S et al (2022) Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Rev Manag Sci 16:2577–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8

Kuratko DF (2007) Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century: Guest editor’s perspective. J Leadersh Organ Stud 13(4):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130040201

Kuratko DF, Fisher G, Audretsch DB (2021) Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset. Small Bus Econ 57(4):1681–1691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00372-6

Landström H (2020) The evolution of entrepreneurship as a scholarly field. Found Trends Entrep 16(2):65–243. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000083

Lee A, Legood A, Hughes D, Tian AW, Newman A, Knight C (2020) Leadership, creativity and innovation: a meta-analytic review. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 29(1):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1661837

Leitch CM, Harrison RT (2018a) Entrepreneurial leadership: a critical review and research agenda. In: Blackburn R, De Clercq D, Heinonen J (eds) SAGE handbook of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Sage, London, pp 15–37

Leitch CM, Harrison RT (2018b) The evolving field of entrepreneurial leadership: an overview. In: Harrison RT, Leitch CM (eds) Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship and Leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 3–34

Leitch CM, McMullan C, Harrison RT (2013) The development of entrepreneurial leadership: the role of human, social and institutional capital. Br J Manag 24(3):347–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00808.x

Leitch CM, Volery T (2017) Entrepreneurial leadership: insights and directions. Int Small Bus J 35(2):147–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616681397

Lejuez CW et al (2002) Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). J Exp Psychol Appl 8(2):75. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898x.8.2.75

Liden RC, Antonakis J (2009) Considering context in psychological leadership research. Hum Relat 62(11):1587–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709346374

Liden RC, Maslyn JM (1998) Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. J Manag 24(1):43–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1

Lin Q, Yi L (2022) Survival of the fittest: the multiple paths of entrepreneurial leadership driving adaptive innovation in uncertain environment. Eur J. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2021-0488 . Innov Manag (ahead-of-print)

Lippitt GL (1987) Entrepreneurial leadership: a performing art. J Creat Behav 21(3):264–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1987.tb00483.x

Liu J, Zhou X, Wang Q (2022) The influence of entrepreneurial leadership on employee improvisation in new ventures: based on cognitive-affective processing system framework. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-10-2021-0933 . Kybernetes (ahead-of-print)

Lowe KB, Gardner WL (2000) Ten years of the leadership quarterly: contributions and challenges for the future. Leadersh Q 11(4):459–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00059-x

Lowe KB, Kroeck KG, Sivasubramaniam N (1996) Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadersh Q 7(3):385–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2

Lukes M, Stephan U (2017) Measuring employee innovation: a review of existing scales and the development of the innovative behavior and innovation support inventories across cultures. Int J Entrep Behav Res 23(1):136–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-11-2015-0262

Luu TD (2023) Fostering strategic entrepreneurship of SMEs: the role of organisational change forces. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2021-1024 . Manag Decis (ahead-of-print)

Lyons TS, Lyons JS, Jolley GJ (2020) Entrepreneurial skill-building in rural ecosystems: a framework for applying the readiness inventory for successful entrepreneurship (RISE). J Entrep Public Policy 9(1):112–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-09-2019-0075

Ma X, Jiang W (2018) Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and employee creativity in entrepreneurial firms. J Appl Behav Sci 54(3):302–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318764346

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Malibari MA, Bajaba S (2022) Entrepreneurial leadership and employees’ innovative behavior: a sequential mediation analysis of innovation climate and employees’ intellectual agility. J Innov Knowl 7(4):100255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100255

Maran T, Bachmann AK, Mohr C, Ravet-Brown T, Vogelauer L, Furtner M (2021) Motivational foundations of identifying and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities. Int J Entrep Behav Res 27(4):1054–1081. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2020-0291

Maran T, Furtner M, Kraus GS, Liegl S, Jones P (2019) Entrepreneurial leadership: an experimental approach investigating the influence of eye contact on motivation. J Small Bus Strategy 29(3):16–32

McCarthy DJ, Puffer SM, Darda SV (2010) Convergence in entrepreneurial leadership style: evidence from Russia. Calif Manag Rev 52(4):48–72. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2010.52.4.48

Mehmood MS, Jian Z, Akram U, Tariq A (2021a) Entrepreneurial leadership: the key to develop creativity in organizations. Leadersh Organ Dev J 42(3):434–452. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2020-0008

Mehmood MS, Jian Z, Akram U, Akram Z, Tanveer Y (2021b) Entrepreneurial leadership and team creativity: the roles of team psychological safety and knowledge sharing. Pers Rev. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2020-0517

Men LR, Qin YS, Mitson R (2021) Engaging startup employees via charismatic leadership communication: the importance of communicating “vision, passion, and care. Int J Bus Commun. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211020488

Montano D, Schleu JE, Hüffmeier J (2023) A meta-analysis of the relative contribution of leadership styles to followers’ mental health. J Leadersh Organ Stud 30(1):90–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221114854

Mumford MD, Scott GM, Gaddis B, Strange JM (2002) Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadersh Q 13(6):705–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3

Munir H, Jianfeng C, Ramzan S (2019) Personality traits and theory of planned behavior comparison of entrepreneurial intentions between an emerging economy and a developing country. Int J Entrep Behav Res 25(3):554–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-05-2018-0336

Newman A, Herman HM, Schwarz G, Nielsen I (2018) The effects of employees’ creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: the role of entrepreneurial leadership. J Bus Res 89(C):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.001

Ng WHT (2017) Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: analyses of multiple mediation pathways. Leadersh Q 23(3):385–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.008

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Ng HS, Kee DMH (2018) The core competence of successful owner-managed SMEs. Manag Decis 56(1):252–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2016-0877

Ng HS, Kee DMH, Ramayah T (2019) Examining the mediating role of innovativeness in the link between core competencies and SME performance. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 27(1):103–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-12-2018-0379

Nicholson N (1998) Personality and entrepreneurial leadership: a study of the heads of the UK’s most successful independent companies. Eur Manag J 16(5):529–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(98)00030-9

Niemann CC, Mai R, Dickel P (2022) Nurture or nature? How organizational and individual factors drive corporate entrepreneurial projects. J Bus Res 140:155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.065

Northouse PG (2018) Leadership: theory and practice. SAGE, London

Oberer B, Erkollar A (2018) Leadership 4.0: Digital leaders in the age of industry 4.0. J Leadersh Organ Stud 7(4). https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2018.60332

Overstreet RE, Hanna JB, Byrd TA, Cegielski CG, Hazen BT (2013) Leadership style and organizational innovativeness drive motor carriers toward sustained performance. Int J Logist Manag 24(2):247–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-12-2012-0141

Palich LE, Bagby DR (1995) Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: challenging conventional wisdom. J Bus Ventur 10(6):425–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(95)00082-J

Pauceanu AM, Rabie N, Moustafa A, Jiroveanu DC (2021) Entrepreneurial leadership and sustainable development—A systematic literature review. Sustainability 13(21):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111695

Paudel S (2019) Entrepreneurial leadership and business performance: Effect of organizational innovation and environmental dynamism. South Asian J Bus Stud 8(3):348–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/sajbs-11-2018-0136

Peck KL (1991) Before looking for the gas pedal: a call for entrepreneurial leadership in american schools. Education 111(4):516–520

Peters M, Kallmünzer A (2018) Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: the case of the hospitality industry. Curr Issues Tour 21(1):21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1053849

Pistrui D, Welsch HP, Wintermantel O, Liao J, Pohl HJ (2000) Entrepreneurial orientation and family forces in the new Germany: similarities and differences between East and west german entrepreneurs. Fam Bus Rev 13(3):251–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1741-6248.2000.00251.x

Prabhu MH, Srivastava AK (2023) Modeling transformational leadership, supply chain collaboration and firm performance–a case of India. Int J. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-04-2022-0651 . Emerg Mark (ahead-of-print)

Pu B, Sang W, Yang J, Ji S, Tang Z (2022) The Effect of Entrepreneurial Leadership on Employees’ Tacit Knowledge sharing in Start-Ups: a Moderated Mediation Model. Psychol Res Behav Manag 15:137. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S347523

Raby RL, Fischer H, Cruz NI (2023) Community College International leaders’ sensemaking: Entrepreneurial Leadership Skills and Behavior. Community Coll Rev 51(1):52–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521221125822

Reid SW, Anglin AH, Baur JE, Short JC, Buckley MR (2018) Blazing new trails or opportunity lost? Evaluating research at the intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship. Leadersh Q 29(1):150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.005

Renko M (2017) Entrepreneurial leadership. In: Day DV, Antonakis J (eds) The nature of Leadership. Sage, London, pp 381–408

Renko M, El Tarabishy A, Carsrud AL, Brännback M (2015) Understanding and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. J Small Bus Manag 53(1):54–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12086

Ribeiro-Navarrete S, Piñeiro-Chousa J, López-Cabarcos M, Palacios-Marqués D (2022) Crowdlending: mapping the core literature and research frontiers. Rev Manag Sci 16:2381–2411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00491-8

Röschke A (2018a) Entrepreneurial Leadership. Dissertation, University of St. Gallen

Röschke A (2018b) The concept and evolution of entrepreneurial leadership: a bibliometric analysis. In: Harrison RT, Leitch CM (eds) Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship and Leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 37–64

Salmony FU, Kanbach DK (2022) Personality trait differences across types of entrepreneurs: a systematic literature review. Rev Manag Sci 16(3):713–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00466-9

Sarasvathy SD (2008) Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

Book   Google Scholar  

Schaubroeck J, Lam SS, Cha SE (2007) Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. J Appl Psychol 92(4):1020. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1020

Schneider M, Teske P (1992) Toward a theory of the political entrepreneur: evidence from local government. Am Political Sci Rev 86(3):737–747. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964135

Schoemaker PJ, Heaton S, Teece D (2018) Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and leadership. Calif Manag Rev 61(1):15–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256187902

Schumpeter JA (1942) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, Urbana Champaign

Selsky JW, Smith AE (1994) Community entrepreneurship: a framework for social change leadership. Leadersh Q 5(3–4):277–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90018-3

Shaffer JA, DeGeest D, Li A (2016) Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: a guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs. Organ Res Methods 19(1):80–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115598239

Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad Manag Rev 25:217–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/259271

Shane S, Venkataraman S, MacMillan I (1995) Cultural differences in innovation championing strategies. J Manag 21(5):931–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90048-9

Shin SJ, Zhou J (2003) Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea. Acad Manag J 46(6):703–714. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040662

Soomro BA, Shah N (2022) Robustness of the transformational leadership towards corporate entrepreneurship. J Public Aff 22(2):e2509. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2509

Sosik JJ, Kahai SS, Avolio BJ (1998) Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creat Res J 11(2):111–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_3

Strobl A, Kallmünzer A, Peters M (2022) Entrepreneurial Leadership in Austrian Family SMEs: a Configurational Approach. Int Small Bus J. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426221084918

Surie G, Ashley A (2008) Integrating pragmatism and ethics in entrepreneurial leadership for sustainable value creation. J Bus Ethics 81(1):235–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9491-4

Tarí JJ, Maquieira SP, Molina-Azorín JF (2023) The link between transformational leadership and the EFQM model elements. Bus Process Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2022-0498 . J (ahead-of-print)

Thuan LC (2020) Motivating follower creativity by offering intellectual stimulation. Int J Organ Anal 28(4):817–829. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-06-2019-1799

Tlaiss HA, Kauser S (2019) Entrepreneurial leadership, patriarchy, gender, and identity in the arab world: Lebanon in focus. J Small Bus Manag 57(2):517–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12397

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Van Dierendonck D, Nuijten I (2011) The servant leadership survey: development and validation of a multidimensional measure. J Bus Psychol 26(3):249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1

Van Praag CM, Versloot PH (2007) What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Bus Econ 29(4):351–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x

Vecchio RP (2003) Entrepreneurship and leadership: common trends and common threads. Hum Resour Manag Rev 13(2):303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00019-6

Verma P, Kumar V (2021) Developing leadership styles and green entrepreneurial orientation to measure organization growth: a study on indian green organizations. J Entrep Emerg Econ 14(6):1299–1324. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeee-01-2021-0035

Vivona R (2023) The new era leadership for the public sector? Entrepreneurship, effectiveness, and democracy. Public Manag Rev 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2162957

Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Wernsing TS, Peterson SJ (2008) Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. J Manag 34(1):89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913

Wang G, Oh IS, Courtright SH, Colbert AE (2011) Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group Organ Manag 36(2):223–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111401017

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wang CL, Tee DD, Ahmed PK (2012) Entrepreneurial leadership and context in chinese firms: a tale of two chinese private enterprises. Asia Pac Bus Rev 18(4):505–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2012.690257

Xu F, Jin L (2022) Impact of daily entrepreneurial stressors on long-term transformational leader behaviors and well-being: Differences in experienced and nascent entrepreneurs. J Bus Res 139(C):280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.059

Yasin G, Nawab S, Bhatti KK, Nazir T (2014) Relationship of intellectual stimulation, innovations and SMEs performance: Transformational leadership a source of competitive advantage in SMEs. Middle East J Sci Res 19(1):74–81. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.19.1.12458

Yousafzai SY, Saeed S, Muffatto M (2015) Institutional theory and contextual embeddedness of women’s entrepreneurial leadership: evidence from 92 countries. J Small Bus Manag 53(3):587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12179

Yukl G (2013) Leadership in Organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

Yukl G (1989) Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. J Manag 15(2):251–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500207

Zapalska AM, Brozik D, Zieser N (2015) Factors affecting success of small business enterprises in the polish tourism industry. Tourism 63(3):365–381

Zaech S, Baldegger U (2017) Leadership in start-ups. Int Small Bus J 35(2):157–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616676883

Zhou W, Vredenburgh D, Rogoff EG (2015) Informational diversity and entrepreneurial team performance: moderating effect of shared leadership. Int Entrep Manag J 1(11):39–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0274-3

Żywiołek J, Tucmeanu ER, Tucmeanu AI, Isac N, Yousaf Z (2022) Nexus of transformational leadership, employee adaptiveness, knowledge sharing, and employee creativity. Sustainability 14(18):11607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811607

Download references

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received to support the preparation of this manuscript, and that they have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Open access funding provided by University of Liechtenstein

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Liechtenstein Business School, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, 9490, Liechtenstein

Theo Émile Ravet-Brown & Marco Furtner

Department of Strategy, Excelia Business School, La Rochelle, 17000, France

Andreas Kallmuenzer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MF and TRB contributed to the preliminary conception and design of the systematic literature review, and carried out literature collation and analysis. The draft of the manuscript in its present form was written by AK and TRB; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theo Émile Ravet-Brown .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ravet-Brown, T.É., Furtner, M. & Kallmuenzer, A. Transformational and entrepreneurial leadership: A review of distinction and overlap. Rev Manag Sci 18 , 493–538 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00649-6

Download citation

Received : 19 May 2022

Accepted : 02 March 2023

Published : 22 March 2023

Issue Date : February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00649-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Entrepreneurial
• Transformational
• Systematic Literature Review

JEL Classification

• L26 Entrepreneurship
• M12 Personnel Management
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

More From Forbes

How business intuition will shape the future of entrepreneurship.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Hulan Hagen is the founder and CEO of the Business Intuition Institute , an international executive coach, and strategy consultant.

Old business concepts don't work anymore. To thrive in an unpredictable world, entrepreneurs and executives must leverage the power of business intuition. Let's dive into the transformative role of intuition in business, exploring how it accelerates decision-making, bridges data gaps, fosters creative problem-solving, navigates uncertainty and cultivates deeper connections with customers. Through understanding the significance of intuition, entrepreneurs can truly grasp its potential to shape the future of entrepreneurship.

Business intuition accelerates decision-making.

Entrepreneurs and executives need to make quick decisions. Studies find that intuition shortens decision processes. Faster intuition can result in more accurate decisions , providing a competitive edge in high-stakes environments.

Failure to trust intuition slows decision-making and makes it less accurate. Oprah Winfrey says that when we go against our gut, we put ourselves at odds with the flow of things, slowing decisions down. All her major decisions were based on instinct.

Business intuition bridges the gap between data overload and actionable insights.

While the digital revolution has provided vast amounts of data, it is hard to transform data into action. Business intuition acts as a bridge, allowing entrepreneurs to sift through the noise and focus on what matters.

Apple iPad Pro 2024 Release Date: Latest News On When It Will Launch

Wwe raw results winners surprises and grades after wrestlemania 40, uncommon favor: how south carolina coach dawn staley exemplifies faith at work.

Elon Musk began his career by intuiting the challenges most important to humanity. His intuition, which told him those challenges were space travel and electric vehicles, preceded what he calls first principles thinking . While reasoning by analogy means that we compare our problem to a similar problem, reasoning from first principles bases thinking on intuitive building blocks and reasoning up from intuition.

As PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel notes in Zero to One , it is better to risk boldness than triviality. He argues that to create an advantage, a new technology must be 10 times better than its closest rival. Breakthrough innovation depends on intuition, for intuition accelerates decision-making and bridges data and action.

Business intuition can be leveraged for creative problem-solving.

The future of business leadership demands innovation and creative problem-solving. Intuition fuels creativity.

In 1999 , JetBlue founder David Neeleman’s creative intuition told him that he could improve on existing low-price models. JetBlue flew more than 1 million passengers in its first year.

Scientists have studied one of Thomas Edison’s approaches to creative intuition. When Edison was trying to create a new product, he would take a nap while sitting in an armchair and holding a steel ball. When the ball dropped, he would awaken with new intuition. A study of 100 nappers found that the Edison method works . You can try it: Take a nap while holding a stainless steel ball . Ask yourself for the solution to a nagging or seemingly insoluble question. What ideas come up after the ball drops?

Business intuition can help you thrive in a VUCA environment.

The global business environment is characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA). In a VUCA world, traditional analytical models fall short. Business intuition is crucial, for it enables entrepreneurs to make informed decisions even when data is incomplete or inconclusive.

In 1979, Lee Iacocca saved Chrysler and illustrated the concept of "too big to fail" by getting $1.5 billion in federal loan guarantees in exchange for a mandated $2 billion in cost-cutting at Chrysler. The United Auto Workers Union wanted $20 an hour while Iacocca’s plan would allow only $17. Iacocca’s intuition suggested "brinkmanship." Iacocca told the union that if they didn’t agree to his demand by morning, he’d give up and declare bankruptcy that day. The union agreed.

Business intuition builds deeper connections with customers.

Understanding and anticipating customer needs is more crucial than ever. Relationship-building based on business intuition will increasingly create a competitive advantage.

In Made in America , Sam Walton and co-author John Huey describe Walton’s fabled customer commitment. Jeff Bezos based much of his management thinking on Walton’s book, and he has often discussed his obsessive customer focus. When Andy Jassy took over as Amazon’s CEO, he renewed Amazon’s “ maniacal ” focus on the customer experience. Maniacal focus requires metrics and analysis, but to an even greater degree, it requires creativity and intuitive thinking.

Conclusion: Riding A Beam Of Light

Einstein believed that intuition matters, and he said that he developed his theory of gravity when he intuited that someone who is falling does not feel their own weight. He developed his special theory of relativity based on his intuitive imagining at the age of 16 that he was riding on a beam of light .

As we move forward in the 21st century, entrepreneurs and executives need to intuit themselves riding on a beam of light. By harnessing intuition as a guiding principle, entrepreneurs can navigate uncertainty, drive innovation and forge deep connections with customers. In an ever-changing business landscape, intuition emerges as the cornerstone of success, empowering visionary leaders to chart a course toward unprecedented growth and impact.

Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Entrepreneurship in Times of Crisis: A Comprehensive Review with Future Directions

Despite an increased interest in crises within the field of entrepreneurship, there is still a lack of understanding about the interplay between different types of crises and entrepreneurship. In addition, the specific circumstances surrounding each type of crisis may also cause the conclusions of these studies to diverge or converge. To enhance our theoretical understanding of entrepreneurship during times of crisis, our review seeks to answer the following research questions: (1) How are the different types of crises addressed in entrepreneurship literature, and what similarities and differences exist? (2) How can we broaden our understanding and deepen our insights into the relationship between a crisis and entrepreneurship? In an effort to review the largest possible variety of crises that extends beyond political crises, natural disasters, and financial crises, we have also included a number of recent studies that examined COVID-19 from an entrepreneurial perspective. Following this, our study identifies six types of crises along with corresponding research themes, key findings, and critical shortcomings. This review also identifies multiple research gaps and suggests several future research directions, as well as theoretical approaches that researchers can take to build upon existing discussions surrounding entrepreneurship in times of crisis.

1 Introduction

Economically and socially disruptive crises, such as natural catastrophes, terrorist attacks, and financial collapse, have persisted throughout history. Such frightful occurrences impact the lives of many individuals, organizations, and the communities to which they belong, frequently culminating in large-scale global effects. The current COVID-19 situation exemplifies this type of crisis. The ongoing threat of invisible crises arising from both human and natural causes (i.e. global warming) has become a new normal for society ( Bendell et al. 2020 ). Such crises also have an effect on businesses, since typically, young and small businesses are more susceptible than large businesses to the challenges posed by shocks (i.e. Bărbulescu et al. 2021 ; Bartz and Winkler 2016 ). However, times of crisis can also provide a unique environment necessary for the emergence of entrepreneurial and prosperous organizations ( Cucculelli and Peruzzi 2018 ; Guo et al. 2020 ). For example, since the outbreak of COVID in 2019, the number of daily users of Zoom, a video teleconferencing software, has soared 30-fold, elevating the firm to its current position as a globally renowned, billion-dollar IT corporation ( Caminiti 2021 ). Beyond its monetary value, the realization of this particular entrepreneurial opportunity has had a significant impact on our society by altering how office meetings are held and how students learn through virtual classrooms across diverse nations.

Given this co-presence of both challenges and opportunities, scholars in the field of entrepreneurship have held a substantial interest in crises (i.e. Doern et al. 2018 ; Grube and Storr 2018 ; Williams and Vorley 2015 ). When an ambivalent and complex relationship exists, such as the relationship between a crisis and entrepreneurship, a review study can play a significant role in comparing and contrasting the findings of previous research ( Snyder 2019 ; Torraco 2005 ), thereby helping to resolve inherent theoretical tensions. Furthermore, a review is especially desired when the focal discipline strongly relates to social issues. According to Fischer et al. (2021) , a review is required to establish a robust theoretical base to generate trustworthy recommendations for solving real-world problems. In our case, the ultimate goal is to enlighten entrepreneurs and stakeholders (i.e. investors and governments) about the potential consequences that could result from how they choose to respond to unprecedented crises. This goal can be best served by integrating and comparing scattered findings about various crises that exist across entrepreneurial contexts. In order to robustly enhance our theoretical understanding in this area, our review seeks to answer two major research questions: (1) How are the different types of crises addressed in entrepreneurship literature, and what similarities and differences exist? (2) How can we broaden our understanding and deepen our insights into the relationship between a crisis and entrepreneurship? In this paper we attempt to answer these questions, ones that prior literature reviews have not yet been able to thoroughly address ( Doern et al. 2018 ; Grube and Storr 2018 ).

In an effort to review the largest possible variety of crises that extends beyond political crises (e.g. war), natural disasters (e.g. volcanic eruptions), and financial crises, we have also included a number of recent studies that examined COVID-19 from an entrepreneurial perspective. This inclusion is timely given that the global COVID-19 crisis, which began in 2019, has almost reached its conclusion. Since 2019, research on COVID-19 has proliferated across all academic disciplines ( Donthu and Gustafsson 2020 ; Holmes et al. 2020 ), including entrepreneurship. The influx of unique data pertaining to this crisis has allowed for numerous analyses to spring forth, especially those relating to the impact of the pandemic on entrepreneurship and subsequent entrepreneurial responses. However, if these findings are not consolidated in a timely manner, they may remain fragmented as purely ‘COVID-19 related’ studies, leaving them susceptible to becoming an episodic or obsolete topic of discussion within a few years, otherwise known as an ‘academic fad’ ( Wefald and Downey 2009 ). However, our review attempts to categorize COVID-19 alongside other crises as a sub-type of naturally-driven crises and places it within the broader framework of ‘ crisis and entrepreneurship ’. We strive to do this as the discussion surrounding COVID-19 continues to be a relevant key resource for future scholars interested in the crisis context.

The academic society’s desire for novel contributions from individual research is becoming stronger than ever ( Corley and Gioia 2011 ; Neubaum and Micelotta 2021 ). However, it is one of the most challenging goals for most scholars. A creative gaze does not arise suddenly, but rather, it is based on tedious efforts to learn about many existing works ( Sawyer 2011 ). A comprehensive review article that expands upon the different types of crises and their corresponding research themes will aid in understanding the vast discussions that exist in the field. In this regard, the identification of key research gaps is one of the primary benefits of review articles ( Paul and Criado 2020 ). To best serve this goal, we have organized our review according to underlying research themes rather than merely categorizing variables into antecedents and outcomes. Our review identifies multiple research gaps where we particularly encourage researchers to generate new contributions to the field by incorporating different components from the highlighted research themes among the different types of crises outlined in our paper. For example, in the literature on economic crises, a group of research showed that small businesses learn from crises and subsequently respond better than those without such experience (e.g. Brzozowski et al. 2019 ). By applying this theme to COVID-19, future research could investigate the resilience of entrepreneurial companies that have previously experienced multiple waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Another essential benefit of a review is to draw researchers’ attention from existing theoretical approaches to fresh insights or perspectives for future research ( Paul and Criado 2020 ). To maximize this advantage, our discussion in the later part of this paper provides insights in three ways. First, the research themes are derived through an extensive review that includes the recent COVID-19 crisis, with research gaps and future directions presented for each theme. Second, we present overall, new research directions that either examine each theme more deeply or combine themes. Third, while the previous two insights are based on current literature, the third insight moves attention away from these traditional paths towards newer approaches. We propose two new avenues for researchers to consider: the third-party perspective approach and the quality-concerning approach, both of which emphasize the roles and perspectives of governments, regions, and investors surrounding entrepreneurial firms in crisis. Thus, these approaches can generate useful implications from a practical point of view, particularly to the parties that need to protect the entrepreneurship ecosystem into the future.

2 Crisis and a Contextualized Perspective on Entrepreneurship

With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, it comes as no surprise that an understanding of the concept of a crisis has become critical to both scholars and practitioners. Although there are different definitions of a ‘crisis’, most studies define it as a disruptive event that occurs unpredictably and in a way that can significantly threaten the actor’s (i.e. an individual, organization, and/or community) normal functioning ( Doern et al. 2018 ; Williams et al. 2017 ). While the vast majority of scholars define a crisis as a disruptive event, some scholars view a crisis as more of a ‘process’ that evolves gradually before, during, and after a triggering event ( Bundy et al. 2017 ; Newman et al. 2022 ). Others have extended the concept of a crisis further by defining it as more of an expected challenge that entrepreneurs may face in their daily lives as their businesses evolve along with their life cycles ( Doern et al. 2018 ).

In terms of the different typologies for a crisis that have been put forth, the scope of the impact (i.e. from individual to global) and the cause of a crisis (i.e. human, natural, and technological) are critical features for classifying crises ( Bendell et al. 2020 ; Doern et al. 2018 ). The crises discussed in entrepreneurship literature can be categorized as different types of crises based on these two taxonomies (i.e. the scope of the impact and the primary causes of the crisis). Each crisis is fundamentally heterogeneous and some may also have common characteristics ( Rauch and Hulsink 2021 ). Although some papers provided a comprehensive review of the studies on entrepreneurship in the context of a crisis, our current knowledge on entrepreneurship in times of crisis is still limited as studies remain mostly fragmented based on a single type of crisis and there is also a lack of understanding concerning how crises can be similar or different. For example, Doern and colleagues (2018) provided an overview of the different definitions and typologies of a crisis in entrepreneurship and suggested that an entrepreneur’s experience, the business growth phase, and the type or phase of the crisis, all influence the entrepreneur’s crisis reaction. Korber and McNaugthon (2017) reviewed studies at the intersection of entrepreneurship and resilience and found that studies largely focused on ex-ante features of entrepreneurial individuals and firms amid a crisis, while few works studied post-disruption resilience dynamics. More recently, particular efforts have been made by scholars to systematically understand studies on entrepreneurship in the COVID-19 context (e.g. Belitski et al. 2022 ; Khlystova et al. 2022 ). Although these reviews are fruitful, the diversity and heterogeneity of a crisis remain largely undiscussed, even in light of the emerging contextualized perspective in entrepreneurship literature.

Studies in the field of entrepreneurship have moved towards approaches that are more focused on contextualization ( Welter et al. 2019 ). Researchers interested in entrepreneurship in times of crisis are also a part of this movement, resulting in a wide spectrum of focus on entrepreneurship in various types of crises. While COVID-19 and the 2007–2008 global financial crisis take on the majority of scholarly interest, there are also other types of crises that contribute to a more contextualized understanding of entrepreneurship in times of crisis. For example, studies focusing on the long-term dynamics and the trajectory of individuals within the broader business community following a natural disaster ( Dinger et al. 2019 ), the effects on emotional intelligence after suffering local shocks from an economic recession within a developing economy ( Quintillán and Peña-Legazkue 2019 ), and the entrepreneurial activities in communities under continuous threat of the Calbuco volcano eruptions in 2015 and 2016 in Chile ( Muñoz et al. 2019 ). From a contextualized perspective, there is merit in reviewing prior literature on entrepreneurship within a wide range of crises and in distinguishing the different types of crises, as such an approach invites us to have a more layered understanding of entrepreneurship in times of crisis where we might otherwise expect sameness across different types of crises ( Welter et al. 2019 ).

3 Methodology

A systematic review is defined as “a review of an existing body of literature that follows a transparent and reproducible methodology in searching, assessing its quality, and synthesizing it, with a high level of objectivity” ( Kraus et al. 2020 , 1026). To systematically review the literature of entrepreneurship in crisis and post-crisis contexts, this paper follows the methodologies suggested by Kraus et al. (2020) and Petticrew and Roberts (2006) . The review process comprises of four major stages: (1) review planning, (2) study identification and evaluation, (3) data extraction and integration, and (4) finding dissemination ( Kraus et al. 2020 ). In the planning stage, we reviewed a broad range of literature related to entrepreneurship and crises to clarify our research questions, as well as to develop a study protocol. To ensure a transparent and reproducible procedure, a review protocol was developed for implementation. Figure 1 shows the systematic review protocol.

Research protocol of a systematic review.

We limited our review to only include peer-reviewed journal articles across disciplines as they are considered to be both valid and reliable sources of knowledge ( Podsakoff et al. 2005 ). Thus, unpublished papers, book chapters, and conference papers were excluded from the review. To implement the search procedure, we used the Web of Science as it is one of the most comprehensive databases, covering an extensive range of quality journals across different academic disciplines. Within the Social Science Core Collection database of the Web of Science, we applied the Boolean search string “entrepreneurship AND (crisis OR covid OR shock OR disaster)” for studies written in English. The main search included studies published up until February 1, 2021, and this search was updated once in November 2022, to further include newly published articles between February 1, 2021, and October 31, 2022. With regards to the updated search, we limited the search to publications within the Web of Science meso-topics of Management or Economics, the categories of Business, Management, or Economics, and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), in order to collect an initial data set of influential articles that would be most relevant to our research topic. After excluding any duplicates, the initial search yielded 918 studies in the primary search and 232 studies in the updated search, resulting in a data set of 1150 studies in total. Three additional steps were conducted to create the final data set. First, we read the titles and abstracts of selected articles and excluded studies that heavily focused on refugees, healthcare, and tourism or simply dealt with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with no relevance to entrepreneurship literature. We further validated the relevance of the articles by taking into account the research topic, which led to the selection of 206 studies. Second, we carefully read the full text of the articles to determine whether a study was suitable for the research objective and selected 97 articles. Finally, nine studies were further selected from a forward and a backward citation search, resulting in a final data set of 106 studies.

4 Results and Findings

Figure 2 illustrates the 106 research articles by year (the grey area indicates that only articles published up until October 31, 2022, are included in our review). An increasing interest in topics surrounding entrepreneurship and crises has taken place since 2015, with a slight decrease occurring after 2017. Following this, an upward, blossoming trend can be clearly seen following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, with 75 percent of papers (80) having been published since 2019.

Trends in publications by year.

Figure 3 shows the different types of crises described within the reviewed articles. Research was conducted utilizing very different contexts, including the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, local economic collapse (e.g. the 2012 economic breakdown in Greece), the current COVID-19 pandemic, environmental disasters (e.g. earthquakes, hurricanes), and political conflicts (e.g. war). The analysis revealed that the majority of studies covering both crises and entrepreneurship focused on external, major, and extreme events. These studies placed a strong emphasis on the influence that a crisis may have on the entrepreneurial behaviors and outcomes of people, organizations, and regions, as well as the characteristics that assist such actors in overcoming the crisis at hand. Most publications (60 percent) utilized quantitative methods, 20 percent of the articles utilized qualitative methods, and the remaining studies (20 percent) were literature reviews or conceptual papers. Table 1 shows that there are two main contexts upon which the reviewed articles are concentrated: COVID-19 (41 percent) and the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 (34 percent). While a quantitative approach was mostly used to study entrepreneurship in the context of the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, a variety of research methods were utilized in the studies that focused on COVID-19. With regards to empirical studies, most scholars drew primarily on individual (38%), organizational (25%), and mixed (15%) units of analysis, while other studies focused on country (11%), sub-national region (9%), and household (2%) units of analysis. A list of all 106 papers can be found in Table 2 .

Type of crisis reviewed. Articles (5) that handled a variety of crises were excluded in the figure above.

Articles by crisis with corresponding methodologies.

Full list of papers by crisis.

4.1 The 2007–2008 Global Financial Crisis

The global financial crisis, which began in late 2007, brought an end to an era of continuous economic progress and plunged many countries into the worst post-war economic calamity ever experienced. The 2007–2008 global financial crisis received considerable attention in crisis-related entrepreneurship research, with thirty-six (36) studies out of 106 focusing on it. Following a thorough review of these publications, it was determined that, despite differences in background countries or methodology, academics continue to engage in in-depth and ongoing discussions about some commonly appealing research themes. These themes mostly cover theoretical tensions and the question of whether or not there is a mutually intertwined influence among individuals, businesses, regions, and countries. The 2007–2008 financial crisis can also be viewed as an external occurrence with an impact at the ecosystem level that is beyond the control of individuals or businesses. As a result, paying attention to the effect of these macro-environmental components on entrepreneurial activities stems from an interactive viewpoint, as opposed to an obsolete perspective that views entrepreneurship as something that is simply driven by entrepreneurs. Although the research questions presented here do not cover the entirety of the research on entrepreneurship in the aftermath of the financial crisis, they have sparked the interest of numerous scholars. The research questions are listed in the order of greatest proportion, with some studies having addressed two or more research themes at the same time ( Arrighetti et al. 2016 ).

4.1.1 Did the Global Financial Crisis Stimulate or Reduce Entrepreneurial Activity?

There is little doubt that the global financial crisis had a negative influence on traditional, established enterprises. However, entrepreneurship literature contains contradictory theoretical tensions about the influence of the economic crisis on entrepreneurial enterprises. According to the pro-cyclical viewpoint, if the economic crisis affects demand for products and services, so too will it affect any possibilities for entrepreneurship. Counter-cyclical schools of thought, on the other hand, predict that the economic crisis will encourage more people to create their own businesses as employment opportunities within conventional organizations decline.

Scholars have been looking for empirical data to support these opposing viewpoints. First, Abdesselam et al. (2017) , as well as Vegetti and Adăscăliţei (2017) , stated that entrepreneurial activities will certainly decrease in response to the business cycle. While observing OECD countries’ entrepreneurial activities from 1999 to 2012, these analyses were divided into pre-crisis and post-crisis relative to 2008. Entrepreneurship, which developed alongside the settlement boom from 1999 to 2008, saw a dramatic decrease during the recovery period of 2010–2012, when the unemployment rate was higher than ever, however, the rate of self-employment did not rise. The authors termed this, ‘the break of entrepreneurship dynamics’, meaning that those who were unemployed did not jump into entrepreneurial activities. However, the loss of an entrepreneurial dynamic was relatively minor in countries that had focused on more traditional industries, such as agriculture, and that had little connection to the financial industry. González-Pernía et al. (2018) tried to showcase why economic crises reduce entrepreneurship and revealed that economic decline leads to lower perceptions of opportunity, which subsequently leads to lower entrepreneurial activity. Bakhtiari (2019) , who analyzed corporate-level data from 2002 to 2015 in Australia, also found that entrepreneurship had become less dynamic and riskier during the crisis. In particular, he said that immediately after the crisis, small enterprises experienced business failure and showed a significant increase in ‘exits’ from the market.

On the other hand, several scholars have argued that the economic crisis played a role in fostering the creation of new firms. Hundt and Sternberg (2014) , for example, observed entrepreneurial activities in Germany for 13 years before and after the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Their hypothesis, which stated that the financial crisis can in fact stimulate entrepreneurship, was supported. Contrary to their expectations, the financial crisis did not have a differential impact on necessity versus opportunity-based entrepreneurship. Also, they noted that the supported facilitation effect could vary depending on the local human capital context.

Mühlböck et al. (2017) explained this seemingly counterintuitive argument with the term, ‘desperate entrepreneurship’. A significant proportion of entrepreneurs start their business despite the negative perceptions of opportunity, which are even more likely to increase during times of crisis. Geographically, this trend is higher in countries that are more largely impacted by economic crises and have higher unemployment rates. Following this, desperate entrepreneurs can be said to have no other choice but to start a business, resulting in the crisis essentially fostering entrepreneurship.

4.1.2 Can Entrepreneurial Firms Survive Better in a Financial Crisis?

Scholars have been interested in how well existing entrepreneurial companies can survive during a severe crisis due to contradictory theoretical forecasts. In general, the smaller the company, the less likely it is to survive. This is due to the lack of human and financial resources at the firm’s disposal. According to Cucculelli and Peruzzi (2018) , large organizations can survive the crisis through cost reduction or branch reduction at the managerial level, however small businesses face a limitation in downsizing, with products and services having not yet been diversified, making the firm more vulnerable to crises.

According to the Schumpeterian view, which poses a differing perspective, the flexibility of small organizations can boost the viability of independent enterprises during an economic downturn. The hypothesis that the global economic crisis would have a negative impact was rejected by Davidsson and Gordon (2016) who stated that “for most nascent entrepreneurs and their ongoing start-up efforts, the (behavioral) effects of macroeconomic crises are far smaller than what is likely to be commonly believed” ( Davidsson and Gordon 2016 , 930). Simón-Moya et al. (2016) discovered, surprisingly, that entrepreneurial companies are more likely to survive the financial crisis since the crisis reduces the firm’s ‘opportunity costs’, leaving founders with no other choice but to persevere.

Bartz and Winkler (2016) provide a more sophisticated answer by distinguishing between the size and age of the entrepreneurial actor. That is, ‘small’ firms maintain higher growth rates than large firms in both times of stabilization and crisis given that flexibility becomes an advantage, however ‘young’ companies are overly market-dependent and their founder-owned characteristics are negatively affected by the crisis in a significant way.

Cefis and Marsili (2019) also investigated which company traits are more resistant to a crisis, departing from the one-size-fits-all theory that all small firms are more likely to survive in a crisis. Companies were more adaptable both during and after the crisis if innovation was incorporated within the first 2 years of the company’s inception. At this period, innovation was most effective when it focused on the technological aspect. Devece et al. (2016) made a similar point, finding that need-based entrepreneurs were ineffective in times of crisis, whereas those with a foundation of opportunity or innovation were more effective.

4.1.3 Does the Impact of a Crisis on Entrepreneurship Vary by Geography?

Recent research on entrepreneurship has increasingly shifted its emphasis to the effect of a mutual give and take exchange taking place between enterprises and the regions in which they are embedded. After summarizing the academic discussions on the subject, it is clear that corporations and their corresponding regions are developing constructive two-way relationships with one another. It was discovered that regional and national features can provide a ‘safety net’ for entrepreneurship ( Ruiz-Fuensanta and Bellandi 2019 ; Van Stel et al. 2014 ). For example, Jabłońska and Stawska (2020) discovered that in Poland and the Czech Republic, entrepreneurial activity was primarily stimulated by the level of spending on regional municipalities, social welfare, and R&D, as well as the proportion of the economically active population who were unemployed. As a result, the study advised entrepreneurs to pay attention to the unique conditions of where they belong. Goschin (2020) delved a bit deeper into the post-crisis impact, discovering that, among a variety of criteria, foreign direct investments, population expansion, and the agglomeration of active firms are key components in assisting new firm survival within the first 3 years.

Bishop and Shilcof (2017) and Pisá-Bó et al. (2021) focused on whether the region of interest (i.e. urban or rural) plays an important role in the crisis-entrepreneurship relationship and found that the more urban the area, such as London, the lesser the consequences suffered as a result of the economic crisis. In urban areas, the entrepreneurship dynamic was maintained even during the crisis, and in rural areas, more necessity-based start-ups were developed due to limited employment possibilities. Furthermore, Pinho and de Lurdes Martins (2020) , who investigated 44 countries during the economic crisis, argued that institutional elements inherent in a society, rather than geographical characteristics such as countries or regions, determine the genuine impact of an economic crisis. Countries that were struck more strongly by the crisis were distinguished from those that did not. The authors concluded that while the economic shock suffered by a country following a financial crisis does vary, institutional qualities (e.g. a start-up’s social image, education level, information governance) also have a key impact on new venture creation during such times.

It should be noted that some studies focused on the upward influence of entrepreneurial activity on a country or region, as opposed to a downward influence. According to Abdesselam et al. (2017) , small innovators, rather than large enterprises, fuel national growth during a recovery era. Armeanu et al. (2015) examined the Romanian economy before and after the financial crisis and discovered that entrepreneurship was the primary driver of the nations’ economic recovery. Bishop (2019) discovered that entrepreneurial competency assists communities in adapting to crises, where the size and diversity of local knowledge-based enterprises plays a mediating role. In other words, it was suggested that while nurturing start-ups, it is possible to strengthen the local economy’s sustainability in times of crisis by growing a mix of varied businesses, rather than cultivating clusters that are centered in a certain field.

4.1.4 How do Individual Entrepreneurs Deal With Crises?

Despite the previous emphasis on the influence of the macro-environment, local community, and region, the importance of ‘people,’ the focal actors of entrepreneurial activities, has not lessened ( Frese and Gielnik 2014 ; Mitchell et al. 2002 ). In this regard, there are research streams concerned with how global crisis conditions, such as the economic crisis, affect individual entrepreneurs. Meliou (2019) investigated women who decided to start a business during Greece’s financial crisis and discovered that material support from family members, particularly spouses, emotional support, and informational support through social connections, were all crucial. In a study focusing on developing countries, Quintillán and Pea-Legazkue (2019) discovered that the process of internationalization (i.e. whether they sell their products or services internationally) is dependent on the entrepreneurs’ emotional intelligence rather than traditional human assets, especially during the crisis. According to the finding, even in chaotic circumstances such as economic crises, the higher an individual’s emotional stability, the more likely they are to accept risky actions.

4.1.5 Crisis as a Moderator of the Previously Stated Relationship

Some research has focused on whether the association between variables that were discovered in previous entrepreneurship related literature is represented similarly or differently in the unique context of the global economic crisis ( Elitcha and Fonseca 2018 ; Kraus et al. 2011 ). Martínez-Rodriguez et al. (2020) , for example, discovered that the crisis had a moderating effect on how national accounting and fiscal policies influence opportunity or necessity-based entrepreneurship. Santos et al. (2017) , on the other hand, conducted an individual-level study to evaluate the effects of individual efficacy, opportunity perception, and role model perceptions on initial entrepreneurial activity and found that it stayed consistent regardless of the crisis. Giotopoulos et al. (2016) discovered that at the individual level, the influence of an individual’s gender, education level, and sense of opportunity on the level of entrepreneurship changes during a crisis. During a crisis, for example, the effect of gender and educational attainment on growth intention was stronger than in non-crisis times.

4.1.6 Does the Organization Learn From Crises?

Finally, although the number is small, there has been an increasing research concentration incorporating organizational learning theory and investigating whether or not entrepreneurs and their businesses can learn from crises. Both studies in this review that conducted research on this topic viewed the 2003 global economic slump as a precursor experience to the 2007–2008 global economic downturn. During the 2008–2009 period, Brzozowski et al. (2019) found interesting changes in corporate responses. Based on organizational learning theory, they investigated how the experience of the crisis in 2003 affected the company’s subsequent response to the economic crisis of 2007–2008, which revealed that firms took more active steps in the following crisis after taking a prudent stance in the previous crisis. In a similar vein, Cucculelli and Peruzzi (2018) reported that enterprises that modified their business models following the 2003 crisis fared better during the 2007–2008 crisis. This supports the idea that organizations learn from crises.

4.2 1997 Asian Financial Crisis

In times of crisis, ‘desperate entrepreneurship,’ defined as the phenomenon of individuals attempting to start a business despite lacking confidence in necessary skills and abilities to perceive opportunities ( Mühlböck et al. 2017 ), can lead to a ‘refugee effect’ in developing countries. Vial (2011) and Yindok (2021) utilized the 1997 Asian financial crisis as a contextual backdrop for their studies, which examined the factors that influenced the entry and survival of enterprises operating in developing countries during this time, as well as the factors affecting the revitalization of household entrepreneurship. Both studies compared rural areas and cities in developing countries during the financial crisis and discovered that a link exists between the formation of necessity-driven entrepreneurship and geographical and financial characteristics. First, micro-entrepreneurship is encouraged in areas with high-quality formal institutions and infrastructure ( Vial 2011 ). Second, the 1997 Asian financial crisis triggered a temporary surge in entrepreneurship participation, primarily in communities that suffered less of a drop in overall perceived, material well-being, as a result of the crisis. Thus, in the context of developing countries, entrepreneurship serves as a social safety net in times of crisis, particularly for wealthier households. It should be noted that wealthier household enterprises focusing on informal and low-technology were the ones to take on low-skilled workers engaged in service and trade, workers who not only found it difficult to find work during the financial crisis but also needed to fill the subsequent gap in income.

In terms of research methodology, these studies represent good examples of how to best approach a mixed-level analysis, whereby the influence of financial, human, and social capital, as well as the effect of the quality of institutions and infrastructure, were examined to see if a resulting effect on participation in entrepreneurship and on firm survival existed, both during and post-crisis. However, it is vital to explore more advanced research methods that incorporate both macro variables (i.e. quality of institutions and infrastructure) and meso variables (i.e. business ownership) simultaneously, similar to that seen in Vial (2011) , where the 1997 Asian financial crisis was treated as a moderating variable.

4.3 Local Economic Collapse

In the context of a local economic collapse, eight papers conducted an in-depth examination of micro- and meso-level factors that influenced entrepreneurship as part of an interconnected community. To be more specific, except for one qualitative study ( Weaven et al. 2021 ), if we classify based on the dependent variable, seven papers discussed micro-level entrepreneurship as: entrepreneurial intentions ( Arrighetti et al. 2016 ; Gil-Soto et al. 2022 ), entrepreneurial behaviors ( Rani et al. 2019 ; Williams and Vorley 2015 ), the attitudinal changes of entrepreneurial judgment and actions ( Liu et al. 2021 ), work and family balance ( Cesaroni et al. 2018 ), and female entrepreneurship ( Dal Mas and Paoloni 2019 ). Furthermore, three papers addressed the meso-level as community resilience ( Bakas 2017 ), as well as the financial and creative performance of firms ( Cannavale et al. 2020 ; Laskovaia et al. 2018 ) as part of a community with regional characteristics.

When entrepreneurial actors, as individuals or organizations, are able to successfully work together with local community resources, entrepreneurial actors can identify opportunities and implement the necessary remedies to enable long-term recovery following an economic collapse ( Bakas 2017 ; Cannavale et al. 2020 ; Laskovaia et al. 2018 ). As a consequence, the community’s competence and resources end up strengthening the entrepreneurial actors’ will and aptitude, allowing for them to effectively tackle any challenges they face, resulting in a virtuous cycle ( Arrighetti et al. 2016 ; Cesaroni et al. 2018 ). For example, according to Dal Mas and Paoloni’s (2019) study, which considered the financial crisis from an Italian context, potential female entrepreneurs were found to be more sensitive to the complexity of their efforts, making the strong relationship between relational capital and female entrepreneurs a sensitive component in the establishment of new businesses during this time. Similarly, Bakas (2017) found that female handicraft tourism entrepreneurs in Crete and Epirus, Greece, conceptualized their entrepreneurial involvement as being primarily for the community’s benefit, which in turn increased community resilience in the context of an economic crisis. On the other hand, studies focusing on the quality of local institutional norms and an entrepreneur’s behavior and decision-making during a crisis merits further investigation. Liu et al. (2020) examined how and why some foreign entrepreneurs adjust their attitudes towards local institutional norms, such as corruption, more than local entrepreneurs, particularly during a crisis. They employed system justification theory to understand why and how entrepreneurs differ in the extent of their attitudes towards entrepreneurial judgment and actions concerning corruption.

If future studies consider how the characteristics of each local community affect entrepreneurship after the current, global COVID-19 crisis, rather than the various financial crises that have taken place, the results of prior conflicting studies regarding the negative or positive impact of a crisis on entrepreneurship could be clarified.

4.4 The COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a crisis that has entirely changed people’s lives. Businesses have been shut down unexpectedly and people were forced to stay in their homes due to a lockdown enforced by governments around the world. A key observation from not only the 2007–2008 financial crisis but also the COVID-19 pandemic, is that the world is very much connected, so much so that the impact of such crises is only becoming more severe and far-reaching in geographic scope. Unlike the 2007–2008 financial crisis, COVID-19 produced a situation of limited movement and mobility as the threat of the spread of the disease increased, fuelling a severe disconnection in society between people and places. A set of papers (43) in this review investigated entrepreneurship in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified five research themes that are based on the key research questions addressed in these publications, which are outlined below.

Among the various disciplines of entrepreneurship, most studies mainly focus on entrepreneurial actors, such as entrepreneurs and young and small firms. Entrepreneurial actors represent a critical component for the potential sustainable development of the corresponding local communities and countries involved ( Cui et al. 2016 ; Geroski et al. 2010 ; Thornhill and Amit 2003 ). In particular, when entrepreneurial actors cooperate and share local knowledge with community members, they are able to recognize opportunities and implement the responses needed to ensure sustainable crisis recovery ( Korsgaard et al. 2020 ). However, despite some studies that emphasized the importance of local communities and ecosystems ( Bărbulescu et al. 2021 ; Bartz and Winkler 2016 ), research from a community-based perspective is still insufficient. Furthermore, given that the pandemic has prolonged over a significant amount of time, it appears necessary to take a more sophisticated approach in studying entrepreneurship during the pandemic by considering the time horizon throughout the different phases of the pandemic (i.e. before the crisis, the beginning of the crisis, during the crisis) as well as the severity of the pandemic over time.

4.4.1 How has the Pandemic Influenced Potential and Nascent Entrepreneurs’ Decisions to Start a New Business?

The first stream of literature investigates how potential and nascent entrepreneurs responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of new business creation. Studies in this stream of research particularly focused on entrepreneurial intention (e.g. Ruiz-Rosa et al. 2020 ) and entrepreneurial activities, such as the consideration of starting a new business by potential entrepreneurs, as well as early phase activities in new firm creation by entrepreneurs (e.g. Liñán and Jaén 2022 ). These studies showed that despite the unfavorable entrepreneurial environment as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, entrepreneurs still managed to start businesses. A crisis impacts the creation of new firms by fostering the necessity-driven motivations of entrepreneurs, motivations that are triggered when a crisis brings about a reduction in the number of suitable income alternatives ( Hundt and Sternberg 2014 ; Simón-Moya et al. 2016 ). Liñán and Jaén (2022) found that while there could be an initial decrease in overall entrepreneurial activity during the pandemic, the necessity-driven motives of entrepreneurs will likely increase soon afterward. On the other hand, Kuckertz (2021) suggested that habitual entrepreneurs, those who have established ventures several times, were the ones who sought opportunities to start new businesses even under rising uncertainty. The author confirmed that it was the entrepreneurs who perceived opportunities that were the ones to start innovative ventures during the COVID-19 crisis, despite the overall decline in entrepreneurial activities. A key, underlying theme tied to the impact of COVID-19 on entrepreneurship is that the entrepreneur’s perceptions of the crisis, and of the potential opportunities or threats at play, represented an important driver of entrepreneurship. Thus, these studies show that in addition to the various contexts and characteristics of the entrepreneurial environment that exist as a result of the crisis, how entrepreneurs perceived the environment surrounding them explained, to a large extent, their engagement in entrepreneurial activities during this time.

4.4.2 What Challenges and Opportunities did Young and Small Firms Face During the Pandemic?

Scholars found that many young and small firms, as opposed to established firms, are more vulnerable to the significant challenges brought about by shocks ( Bărbulescu et al. 2021 ; Brown et al. 2020 ; Lim et al. 2020 ). The major obstacles discussed in the literature included difficulties in managing supply chains and difficulties in acquiring capital. These challenges were observed at the firm level, as well as within the entrepreneurial ecosystem, which includes private equity investors and venture capitalists. For example, Aftab et al. (2021) showed that small and medium-scale enterprises in Pakistan suffered from the lockdown, as well as from decreases in the demand for products and services, difficulties in managing the supply chain, challenges in maintaining employees, and from a subsequent decline in sales and profits. Brown et al. (2020) found that out of the different types of entrepreneurial finance available, seed financing was the most severely impacted by the COVID-19 crisis, meaning that entrepreneurial start-ups experienced the greatest challenges in obtaining capital.

On the other hand, studies also acknowledged the positive consequences of this global crisis. This perspective views times of crisis as something that can provide a unique environment necessary for the emergence of entrepreneurial and prosperous organizations ( Cucculelli and Peruzzi 2018 ; Davidsson et al. 2021 ; Guo et al. 2020 ). While various governments proactively drove initiatives to slow down the spread of the disease, a variety of innovative products (i.e. testing kits) were developed and growth opportunities were formed in non-contact industries, such as digital commerce, telemedicine, and automation ( Liu et al. 2020 ; Negrutiu 2021 ). In addition, some studies suggested that a crisis drives entrepreneurs to question their previously used responses, making it all the more important for them to develop ways to cope with external shocks ( Kwong et al. 2019 ). This might mean reconstructing organizational resources to stimulate growth, particularly when confronting change ( Dahles and Susilowati 2015 ). For example, Lim et al. (2020) suggested that a firm, as a bundle of resources, experiences a temporal imbalance of resources due to the crisis, which allows entrepreneurs to realign their firm’s resource system, allowing the firm to enter into the next phase of growth.

4.4.3 How did Young and Small Firms Respond to and Overcome the Pandemic?

A variety of studies in our review attempted to understand how young and small firms responded to, and broke through such difficult times, as not all firms enjoyed crisis-induced opportunities during the pandemic. Studies showed that a transformation of the firm represented a key factor in their entrepreneurial journey that allowed for such firms to consider new possibilities. This transformation was achieved through the adoption or innovation of business models (e.g. Guckenbiehl and de Zubielqui 2022 ) or technologies (e.g. Modgil et al. 2022 ), the adjustment of business plans (e.g. Stephan et al. 2020 ), and the reconstruction of resources and processes in combination with internal coordination and external support (e.g. Bărbulescu et al. 2021 ; Habiyaremye 2021 ; Meurer et al. 2022 ). Guckenbiehl and de Zubielqui (2022) , for example, suggested six start-up types, based on their responses to the pandemic: stable beneficiaries, business-as-usual continuers, digital adjusters, adversity survivors, opportunity graspers, and lemonade makers. They also showed that the start-ups that perceived opportunities, as well as adversity in the pandemic, were the ones that engaged in business model changes by adopting or innovating their business models. Considering resilience as a resource-based capability, Anwar et al. (2021) showed that both individual resilience and inter-functional coordination enhance organizational resilience, which in turn has a beneficial impact on sales revenue, sales growth, and client retention. Bărbulescu et al. (2021) found that although start-ups were vulnerable during the COVID-19 crisis, their focus on an information and communication technology (ICT) based business allowed them to develop strong relationships with various actors both inside and outside the industry, thus further helping them to overcome challenges and to build a sustainable ecosystem in the long term. Studies showed that young and small firms, particularly those that utilized digital technologies and continuously strived for innovation, were better at responding to external shocks brought about by the pandemic ( Belitski et al. 2022 ; Habiyaremye 2021 ; Khlystova et al. 2022 ; Modgil et al. 2022 ). Given that a set of papers in this review frequently mention digitalization as a key factor tied to pandemic-induced transformation, we have separated the discussion on digitalization into its own research theme.

In addition to the organizational factors fostering the survival of small and young firms in times of crisis, other studies emphasized the role of the ecosystem ( Bărbulescu et al. 2021 ; Habiyaremye 2021 ; Ratten 2020a , 2020b , 2020c ), given that entrepreneurs and their firms are embedded in society and that actors within the ecosystem are interdependent with each other. Some studies noted that knowledge sharing and the construction of a strong ecosystem helped firms to achieve higher performance or experience long-term growth during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Bărbulescu et al. 2021 ; Habiyaremye 2021 ). For example, Habiyaremye (2021) found that enhanced knowledge sharing through cooperative learning fostered higher innovation performance and efficient resource use for the organization and its partners, both during and after the COVID-19 crisis. In summary, at an organizational level, a transformation of organizational resources and processes supported by cooperative members is needed to break through such difficult times and to allow for new opportunities. Furthermore, in the context of persistent threats as a result of a pandemic, the interconnected nature of the ecosystem can enable entrepreneurial actors to utilize local knowledge and benefit from the interdependence between actors so that they can construct the necessary responses within the community in crisis.

4.4.4 What Role did the Digital Capabilities of Young and Small Firms Play During the Pandemic?

As this long and unpredictable crisis continued, social actors struggled to gain the resiliency necessary for returning to the optimal, pre-pandemic state. Pursuing a path that returns to the former best state does not guarantee future success, especially when a crisis continues to progress. A variety of studies showed that the utilization of digital technology is a key that enables resilience as well as transformation during a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies highlighted that digitalization assisted firms in using emergency responses as well as in responding strategically, quickly, and efficiently to societal crises, thus improving performance ( Belitski et al. 2022 ; Khlystova et al. 2022 ; Modgil et al. 2022 ). Moreover, digital technology helped entrepreneurs and their firms to not only bring about critical changes and increase efficiency during the crisis, but also to connect to necessary support, resources, and other ecosystem participants. For example, Ratten et al. (2021) found that co-creation opportunities are a common strategy for collaboration in the sports industry during times of crisis and engaging in online interactions helped sports entities to overcome the physical limitations brought about by social distancing policies. Meurer et al. (2022) showed that when access to help was significantly limited by social distancing tactics during the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneurs still sought and obtained support from online communities in resolving problems, collecting critical resources, evaluating ideas in early venture stages, understanding new emerging topics, and planning. As the pandemic froze the normal functioning of society, a transformation was needed to break through such difficult times. However, this transformation cannot be limited to merely returning to ‘the old good days’, especially when a crisis continues to progress. The studies in our review evidenced that digitalization allowed entrepreneurial actors to effectively gain the cooperation of others and to adjust to a new business environment.

4.4.5 How did the Institutional Environment Affect Entrepreneurship During the Pandemic?

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has had unprecedented, devastating effects across the world, all countries did not suffer in an identical manner ( Liñán and Jaén 2022 ; Liu et al. 2020 ). Scholars have come to realize that the institutional context has an important role in explaining such differences. In particular, studies have focused on formal institutions (e.g. the political system, government policy, and the quality of the business environment) rather than informal institutions (e.g. the level of corruption and cultural norms). For example, Liñán and Jaén (2022) emphasized the importance of the institutional context in transitioning entrepreneurial intention into realized behaviors. They highlighted that necessity-driven entrepreneurship is more prevalent in less favorable business environments (e.g. emerging countries, states with high fragility). Galindo-Martín et al. (2021) found that the countries that had higher levels of economic competitiveness before the pandemic also experienced more entrepreneurship and more sustained development during the pandemic due to their appropriate infrastructure, institutions, and educational and health systems.

Government policy received particular interest from these scholars as the pandemic brought about rapid government intervention from most countries to prevent the widespread transmission of the disease and to foster societal recovery. Lockdown policy, monetary policy, and fiscal policy are examples of such interventions. Stephan et al. (2020) found that the severity of country-level lockdowns had an impact on the degree of adversity faced by entrepreneurs and that those who were more severely affected enjoyed less hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, as well as more distress. Piva and Guerini (2022) showed that the reduction in new firm creation rates during the initial pandemic wave was mainly seen in areas where the pandemic was more severe, whereas lockdown policies had negative effects on firm creation rates, regardless of the level of pandemic severity. They also showed that the impact of firm support policies was negative in the regions where the pandemic was more severe, but the impacts of demand stimulus policies were positive and stronger where the pandemic was less severe. However, they observed that these effects disappeared in the second wave. Galindo-Martín et al. (2021) showed that monetary policy encouraged entrepreneurship during the COVID-19 pandemic as entrepreneurs benefited from increased loan availability and low-interest rates. They also confirmed that fiscal policies had a positive effect on entrepreneurship, but to a lesser extent than monetary policies.

The relationship between the institutional context and entrepreneurship is not limited in a unidirectional fashion. Audretsch and Moog (2022) suggested that entrepreneurship and democracy are closely linked as democracy and entrepreneurship are both fuelled by decentralized, independent, and autonomous decision-making. In particular, they argued that the pandemic allowed the government to impose restrictions on peoples’ freedoms, which is also the fundamental principle of entrepreneurship. Although Piva and Guerini (2022) separated the effect of lockdown policies from the effect of pandemic severity during different waves of the pandemic, most studies did not distinguish the effect of lockdown policies from pandemic severity and also neglected to account for the time horizon, which may play a key role in understanding how the impact of the pandemic has changed over time, depending on the relevant government policies that were enacted.

4.5 Environmental Disasters

Natural catastrophes, as opposed to crises with human or technological precursors, cause unforeseen change, ranging from social transformations to changes in the role of the individual in entrepreneurship ( Bustamante et al. 2020 ; Dinger et al. 2019 ). Despite the fact that environmental disasters are infrequent, when earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and volcanoes strike contemporary, industrial civilization, the affected region suffers a severe economic and social crisis. However, natural disasters not only disrupt networks and destroy infrastructure, but also provide new opportunities ( Boudreaux et al. 2022 ). In this context, the four studies covering environmental disasters within this review demonstrate that entrepreneurship, such as firm creation, individual agency, entrepreneurial preparedness, and start-up activity, has the potential to be a catalyst for community restoration, even in disaster-stricken areas. Based on the theory of planned behavior, Bustamante and colleagues (2020) investigated the moderating effect of an earthquake that took place in Chile on the link between entrepreneurship-oriented beliefs (behavioral, normative, and control beliefs) and entrepreneurial intentions. Dinger and colleagues, (2019) study, which analyzed six American communities that were affected by environmental disasters (i.e. tornado, flood), viewed entrepreneurship as an act of individual agency driven by a social, community-embedded identity. The authors found that the opportunities to engage in the recovery process post-crisis can influence the long-term dynamics and trajectories of the community. Muñoz et al. (2019) demonstrated how entrepreneurs living in communities under constant threat of volcanic eruptions prepare to continue their entrepreneurial activities or participate in new ones even after the expected eruption occurs. Also, researchers note that the effect of natural disasters on entrepreneurial activity is nuanced and contingent upon country governance ( Boudreaux et al. 2022 ). According to Boudreaux et al. (2022) , natural disasters tend to encourage more start-up activity, but only in countries that have high-quality governance.

In sum, entrepreneurship during and after a catastrophic environmental disaster, can also act as a recovery mechanism for the communities and societies involved. In comparison to other crises, studies covering environmental disasters attempted to reveal some of the more specific, inner psychological mechanisms at play by applying theories such as the theory of planned behavior or social identity theory, in order to help explain the importance of the relationship between human psychological factors and entrepreneurship. This suggests that even in the face of COVID-19, scholars have opportunities to investigate entrepreneurship more extensively by incorporating theories stemming from societal (i.e. crisis in context theory), psychological (i.e. socio-emotional decision theory), and educational (i.e. field theory) fields.

4.6 Political Conflict

The study of entrepreneurship and political conflict covers the creation of small businesses by entrepreneurs and enterprises in areas where conflict persists, with a particular focus on harsh environments. Past conflicts, in addition to current political struggles, represent key sources of poverty given the inherent damage to economic activity and livelihoods, as well as the perpetuation of reinforced location dependence. Overcoming conflicts and enabling entrepreneurship in conflict-stricken regions may require alternative strategies and approaches, such as networking, local knowledge, major external investment, top-down government efforts, or capacity building ( Abebe 2022 ; Cheung and Kwong 2017 ; Churchill et al. 2021 ; Mittermaier et al. 2022 ). The approaches to entrepreneurship research on political conflict is two-fold, including: the bricolage-driven approach of refugee entrepreneurship ( Abebe 2022 ; Kwong et al. 2019 ; Mittermaier et al. 2022 ; Nisar Khattak et al. 2021 ) and the adversity-driven approach ( Churchill et al. 2021 ; Hayward et al. 2022 ).

First, the bricolage-driven approach has recently garnered the attention of scholars interested in refugee entrepreneurship because of its potential to offset the immense socio-economic issues triggered by the “refugee crisis” of the mid-2010s ( Abebe 2022 ). Bricolage, which can be defined as “making do with whatever is at hand [involves the] redeployment of discarded, disused, or unwanted resources-at-hand, be it physical artefacts, skills or knowledge, in ways different from those for which they were originally intended” ( Levi-Strauss 1966 ). War, infrastructure destruction, and the lack of physical mobility all limit access to a wider innovation system ( Cheung and Kwong 2017 ). The difficulties faced by displaced entrepreneurs bring about both opportunities and challenges in deploying bricolage ( Kwong et al. 2019 ). As such, bricolage is increasingly being recognized as an important strategy to tackle resource constraints, especially in conflict-affected contexts.

Second, the adversity-driven approach illustrates how, according to the underdog theory of entrepreneurship, early adversity, such as political difficulties, can positively influence the creation of entrepreneurship in adulthood ( Churchill et al. 2021 ; Hayward et al. 2022 ). Although such approaches are uncommon in entrepreneurship research, they are very common in childhood adversity-driven longitudinal research, where progress is examined from the time of the observed event to the subsequent outcomes ( Rauch and Hulsink 2021 ). According to emerging theory on “underdogs”, persons with less human capital or other disadvantages may choose or be forced to pursue self-employment or entrepreneurship ( Miller and Le Breton-Miller 2017 ). Ineffective personal conditions of an economic, sociocultural, cognitive, physical, and emotional nature may have an equally important role to play in motivating people to become successful entrepreneurs in developing countries with political difficulties ( Miller and Le Breton-Miller 2017 ). The employment difficulties these individuals face drive many of them to start their businesses within the informal sector. As a result, issues like childhood poverty and opportunity gaps in developing nations produce circumstances and experiences that inspire certain adaptation needs, which in turn encourage outcomes like work ethic, risk tolerance, social and networking skills, and creativity ( Hayward et al. 2022 ). In this broad context, applying the underdog hypothesis in developing nations with political difficulties may more effectively explain the consequences of entrepreneurship, such as whether and when people become entrepreneurs, as well as their level of success.

Recently, entrepreneurship studies have shifted from purely examining the individual traits of entrepreneurs to understanding how entrepreneurs and their behavior evolves over time. As a result, future entrepreneurship studies that account for political conflict should adopt a phenomenon-driven strategy to pull numerous concepts and arguments from many domains in order to experimentally map and fill the research gaps that exist in the field ( Abebe 2022 ). We believe it is important to note that future research should apply the adversity-driven approach from various geographical and historical contexts so as to ensure the validity of the research findings. For example, future research could also investigate how experiences with past political conflicts affect refugees and “underdogs” in terms of their coping mechanisms as entrepreneurs, as well as what particular actions these individuals take to create new ventures.

5 Discussion

Our literature review systematically analyzed research at the intersection of crisis and entrepreneurship. We divided the crisis construct into six types and examined how each of them interacted within diverse entrepreneurial contexts. As a result, we were able to answer our two research questions.

Research Question 1.

How are the different types of crises addressed in entrepreneurship literature, and what similarities and differences exist?

The key findings answering this question are summarized in Table 3 . Regarding the impact of the global financial crisis on entrepreneurship, researchers paid most attention to themes with theoretical tensions between two opposing points of view: the questions of whether the economic crisis boosts or regresses entrepreneurship and whether small businesses can do better during the crisis. These questions are still being debated. Another theme focuses on the interactional or eco-system perspective, which acknowledges that locations, communities, and nations all play a role in the formation and development of entrepreneurship, and conversely, that small businesses can also have an impact on regional backgrounds. A series of scholars have also shown interest in the individual experiences of entrepreneurs during times of crisis. Finally, although the portion was not large, there were a series of studies that made efforts to move away from simply observing positive or negative effects, and instead, testing existing theoretical relationships in a crisis context or seeing whether firms can accumulate and learn from a crisis experience.

With the outbreak of COVID-19, many new studies have focused on natural disasters as the key contextual background of interest. We identified five research themes underlying the findings and discussions in these newer studies. Some themes are comparable to the financial crisis, while others are dissimilar. A few of these studies applied the anti-cycle view that entrepreneurial activities are promoted more in the face of a natural crisis. However, overall, this emerging research departs from merely testing the pros and cons of traditional tensions and instead focuses on taking a deeper look at the processes affected. While studies on financial crises focused on financial adversity, such as the high cost of capital and financial buffers to resiliency, studies covering natural disasters focused on obstacles in logistics and, in particular, on the selection of products and services. In a similar way, studies focusing on the survival of small businesses during times of crisis delved into specific strategies regarding how small companies survived better than their larger counterparts, rather than merely comparing survival rates. Similar to studies covering the 2007–2008 financial crisis, the institutional environment and interactions within such environments remained one of the important themes in natural disaster focused papers. The last notable difference was the emphasis on ‘digitalization’, particularly for studies encompassing COVID-19. Numerous studies concur that digital competence was essential for crisis survival.

Summary of key findings and future research directions.

Research Question 2.

How can we broaden our understanding and deepen our insights into the relationship between a crisis and entrepreneurship?

Our second research question serves as the most critical role of the review study, which is to help researchers identify key research gaps and fresh theoretical perspectives ( Paul and Criado 2020 ). To best serve this goal, we suggest future research directions in three ways. First, the specific topics to be explored by each detailed crisis and research theme are individually summarized in Table 3 . Second, we discuss possible directions and cautions for further development centering on the themes dealt with in the papers reviewed in this study. Third, we present two perspectives that have not yet been primarily addressed in the studies reviewed here, but that deserve the attention of future research.

5.1 Future Research Directions and Cautions Based on the Current Review

There are five key cautions and future research recommendations we would like to provide to scholars based on our review of the current literature. First, research focusing on the framework and classification of the different definitions of entrepreneurship may be critically beneficial. Researchers have presented several alternative definitions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship was defined as an entrepreneurial activity at various levels (e.g. individual, organizational, national), self-employment ( Elitcha and Fonseca 2018 ), and new firm creation ( Cesaroni et al. 2018 ). Considering the multifaceted characteristics, it is inevitable that scholars would use different definitions according to their research questions, however we would like to remind scholars that it is important to consolidate knowledge on the topic under a more definitive framework. Similarly, measures for entrepreneurial activity varied greatly, including: entrepreneurial opportunity perception ( González-Pernía et al. 2018 ), the expected number of jobs (business units) in 5 years ( Devece et al. 2016 ), firm economic performance ( Brzozowski et al. 2019 ), and entrepreneur finance by volume and types of firms ( Brown et al. 2020 ). Analyzing what variables are typically used and how they are quantified may help academics interested in the topic to gain clarity and to identify potential study options.

Second, empirical research showed that the degrees of analysis in some studies did not match the proposed concepts. Specifically, some studies employed individual survey data to explain organizational performance or growth. For example, Kraus et al. (2011) examined the effects of market turbulence on firm performance during the crisis using survey data (n = 111), but the company’s performance was measured by individual respondents, not at the firm level. Also, the study of Pinho and de Lurdes Martins (2020) utilized GEM data to analyze the impact of institutional factors on new business opportunities in adverse macroeconomic environments. This study also measured institutional factor conditions (normative, cognitive, regulatory) using individual respondents from NES-GEM, which are not at the institutional level. If it is not possible to obtain data at the corresponding level of interest, multiple responses should be collected and measured and composite validities should be confirmed. In sum, researchers should offer a definition of entrepreneurship that agrees with the focus of the chosen, suitable research model. They should also confirm that their research model is consistent with their developed concepts of entrepreneurship and chosen level(s) of analysis. When interpreting research results, care must be given to prevent the expansion of the interpretation beyond the limits of the study. Therefore, researchers should be aware that contradictory results regarding whether a crisis positively or negatively impacts entrepreneurship very much depends on how a study defines entrepreneurship, determines the level(s) of analysis, and evaluates the factors involved.

Third, combining research themes is worthwhile. Each research theme establishes meaningful findings, but each interprets the problems through its own theoretical lens. Accordingly, we could not predict the more complex, multifaceted effects of a crisis on entrepreneurship. Certain research themes led to different, often conflicting conclusions. Abdesselam et al. (2017) stated that in response to the business cycle, entrepreneurial activities will inevitably shrink. However, in the research theme on the viability of small companies based on the Schumpeterian view, the effect of the macro environment in atrophying entrepreneurship was surprisingly small ( Davidsson and Gordon 2016 ). The discovery of these distinctly opposing main effects suggests the existence of a third contextual factor that current research has not yet considered. Therefore, comprehensively combining the major influential factors suggested among different research themes is promising. There have been a few studies that have attempted to do this. Hundt and Sternberg’s (2014) took into account time, region, and individual influences in determining whether the global financial crisis promoted entrepreneurial activities. Vegetti and Adăscăliţei (2017) also considered country-specific differences by entering 25 EU countries as high-level variables. Although they combined regional effects, other meaningful combinations are also possible. For instance, we can extend the crisis-learning theme by testing whether regions (not individuals or firms) that went through multiple crises served better for resilient backgrounds.

Fourth, future studies may wish to reflect upon each crisis’ specific characteristics. While studies on natural disasters are expanding, it was difficult to discover fundamental differences from studies on the financial crisis, especially in terms of variable operationalization, theorization, and conceptualization. Rather, many studies simply categorized the impact into pre-and post-crisis ( Brown et al. 2020 ). Failing to consider the inherent nature of each crisis may constrain the ability for researchers to refine interpretations and implications. For example, a financial crisis and a crisis caused by the spread of an epidemic disease can affect start-ups in very different ways. The former can dramatically increase a company’s capital acquisition costs, and the latter can limit supply-related decision-making. Even if the end result is the same, the existence of different mechanisms and surrounding factors depending on the type of crisis would point to findings that would allow for entrepreneurs to cope with different types of crises in more sophisticated ways. To pose an example related to COVID-19, future research may wish to tap into the rich, public data regarding virus infection and dissemination rates. Research themes regarding how such rates affected the speed of entrepreneurship recovery, or how an entrepreneur’s COVID-19 infection experience affected the progress of work (e.g. Chong et al. 2020 ), could be explored.

Lastly, in-depth theoretical analysis is needed to combine crisis and entrepreneurship-related research more succinctly. Most of the literature focused solely on the results of analyzing entrepreneurship during times of crisis without providing a sufficient theoretical explanation of the relationship between entrepreneurship and crises. Two exceptions include the studies by Dinger et al. (2019) and Bărbulescu et al. (2021) . These studies demonstrated an effort to explain the manifestation of entrepreneurship in times of crisis, and they proposed hypotheses that harmoniously described the traits of both entrepreneurship and crises. For example, Dinger et al. (2019) applied social identity theory to describe how opportunities to engage in the recovery process, post-crisis, can influence the long-term dynamics and trajectories of the community, whereas Bărbulescu et al. (2021) applied quadruple helix theory to explain how young people’s attitudes and behaviors impacted entrepreneurship participation during COVID-19. Future research may want to incorporate more diverse theories that hold a higher relevance to crises, such as the Crisis in Context Theory (CCT) ( Myer and Moore 2006 ), to uncover fruitful theoretical explanations of entrepreneurship in times of crisis.

5.2 Future Research Beyond the Current Review

While the previous section outlined five different avenues to deepen existing discussions, this section presents broader approaches to studying entrepreneurship in times of crisis from new theoretical lenses that may engender new research themes. In contrast to the narrow economic view, which regards crises as market failures and emphasizes that entrepreneurship is only to take advantage of such opportunities, the eco-systematic perspective has become popular ( Audretsch et al. 2019 ; Jabłońska and Stawska 2020 ). This perspective stresses that companies do more than solely making profits and emphasizes the necessity of analyzing mutual interactions among stakeholders (e.g. government, communities) that surround entrepreneurship ( Kotsopoulos et al. 2022 ). Our review showed that the interaction between a company and the environment is receiving attention regardless of the type of crisis. Thus, while keeping this eco-systematic perspective in mind, we would also like to extend this view into two separate and more nuanced avenues that merit further attention.

5.2.1 A Third-Party Perspective

The third-party perspective has received increasing attention in the field concerning personal crisis, such as being the target of abusive behaviors or personal aggressions (e.g. Dunford et al. 2015 ; Hershcovis and Bhatnagar 2017 ). The focus of this perspective was to uncover when and why third parties engage in helping behaviors to the victim. By extending this perspective to entrepreneurial crisis contexts, entrepreneurial firms and entrepreneurs can be seen as victimized first parties to various crises, and any surrounding stakeholders, namely the government, large corporations, capitalists, local communities, and consumers, may all fall into the third party categorization.

Particularly during times of crisis, there is a tendency for firms to desperately rely on aid from the government or financial investors to overcome the risky valley. For instance, according to Murtinu (2021) , start-ups that managed to gain support from venture capitalists also obtained information about government institutional reforms more quickly, thereby achieving more favorable market evaluations. Therefore, it is critical to understand how these key crisis-savers view the focal companies during times of crisis. The third-party perspective has highlighted the importance of the third-parties’ attributions and the first-parties’ individual characteristics in determining whether or not to provide help ( Mellor 1992 ; Skarlicki and Kulik 2004 ). In entrepreneurial contexts, institutions may not help if they think that firms have not adequately prepared for the macro-crisis environment or that the company is not worth helping. Therefore, future research can focus on discovering which criteria institutional actors may use to determine which ventures to save first in the face of a crisis. For example, such decision making could depend upon the firm’s diversification strategy, the entrepreneur’s past crisis-related experience, or the CEO’s willingness to sacrifice a share of their ownership.

Qualitative interviews or surveys of government officials or investors can be used in tandem with the third-party perspective to apply diverse experimental methodologies that current literature has yet to implement. As mentioned previously, third-party studies are often closely related to the cognitions of key stakeholders ( Mellor 1992 ). Scenario-based manipulation could be adopted, where the characteristics of the business, or of the founding CEO, are manipulated. The subjects of the experiment would take on the perspective of a venture capital investor or of a government representative and decide which business they would fund, and ultimately save, amid the crisis. Such findings would hold important, practical implications for entrepreneurs in terms of improving their resiliency and survival rates via obtaining the timely support of stakeholders, particularly in the face of future crises.

In addition, the third-party perspective can shed light on valuable research themes at the individual level. Prior literature has extensively covered the personal difficulties and stresses experienced by entrepreneurs in the midst of a crisis. However, meaningful insights could be obtained by observing the feelings and responses of those closest to an entrepreneur, such as a spouse, partners inside the company, team members, as well as other founders. Given that close third-party interpretations of the situation and the emotional support that they provide can be decisive in determining the entrepreneurs’ well-being during times of crisis, this approach warrants future exploration ( Hobfoll et al. 1986 ). For instance, employee perceptions of the founder’s efforts during a crisis may affect their unity and loyalty, and subsequently, the venture’s resiliency. From the viewpoint of consumers, which represent another major third-party ( Roundy 2018 ), if the social value or innovative nature of the business is well-recognized, the firm may be better placed to overcome the crisis through more active consumption. We believe that utilizing this approach and considering the various third-party perspectives at play can help future research to generate novel and practical contributions.

5.2.2 A Quality-Concerning Approach

Underlying many of the discussions so far is a common belief that entrepreneurship is desired and is something that our society should nurture, especially in times of crisis. According to the reviewed articles, this is true, to a certain degree, when it comes to leading economic growth ( Bakhtiari 2019 ), bringing about social innovation ( Sedera et al. 2022 ), and maintaining the livelihoods of lower-income populations ( Yindok 2021 ) in crisis. However, are all new businesses equally desirable and helpful during a crisis? According to Youssef et al. (2018) , certain conditions must be met in order for entrepreneurship to have a positive effect. We suggest that the current theoretical focus needs to shift from one that tracks the number of entrepreneurial activities amid a crisis, to one that measures the quality of such activities, especially on a long-term basis.

According to research, necessity-based entrepreneurship increases significantly after a crisis ( Martínez-Rodriguez et al. 2020 ). However, Acs (2008) warns that necessity-driven new firms are likely to negatively influence the economy’s sustainable development. This is because entrepreneurs with low levels of education or capital, particularly during a crisis, do not pioneer new ideas like opportunity-oriented entrepreneurs, but instead focus only on imitative start-ups that are easy and quick to establish ( Venâncio and Pinto 2020 ). Omri and Afi (2020) also commented that the more these start-ups pursue purely economic profits, the more insensitive they are to environmental problems. We have observed similar cases up close during the COVID-19 crisis. Small sized mask and sanitizer manufacturers have surged due to the outbreak of the pandemic. They aimed to satisfy the rapidly increasing market demand for such products, but supply soon exceeded demand, threatening their survival due to the large amounts of unsold inventory ( Aeppel 2021 ). Not only did this waste resources, but it also hurt employees and communities in the event of business closure. Therefore, future researchers are encouraged to observe not only the number of start-ups, but also the sustainable quality of these start-ups.

Another topic that deserves the attention of quality-conscious scholars is ‘corruption’ ( Abdesselam et al. 2017 ) because in the midst of chaos lies the lure of embezzlement. Governments provide tax credits, loans, and subsidies to stabilize global and local crises. For example, the U.S. adopted a COVID-19 stimulus program providing $1.9 trillion of support to small businesses and individuals. Given that this financial support needed to be delivered quickly, it is doubtful that the delivered financial or material aids were used as intended. Also, it is unclear how many start-ups that received these funds ended up surviving and creating long-term value, as opposed to launching and terminating their business only to secure policy funds. After tracking 129 firms over 4 years, Stevenson et al. (2021) found that, contrary to expectations, government-granted start-ups did not have a long-term profitability advantage. Therefore, the possibility of such embezzlement in a crisis context can be investigated by referring to studies on CEO morality (“Antecedents of Corporate Scandals: CEOs’ Personal Traits, Stakeholders’ Cohesion, Managerial Fraud, and Imbalanced Corporate Strategy | SpringerLink” n.d.) or unethical behaviors that favor the company, often called unethical pro-organizational behaviors ( Umphress et al. 2010 ).

Research on other actors in entrepreneurial ecosystems may benefit from a quality-oriented approach. During a crisis, the qualitative characteristics of the institutional environment changes swiftly, as do enterprises. Boudreaux et al. (2022) proposed the significance of examining institutional changes during crises like COVID-19 and their long-term impact. The ecological perspective revealed that the government and geographical background had a great influence on its survival, yet the majority of the attention was focused on economic qualities. However, aside from GDP, institutional actors have a number of characteristics that can determine their resilient momentum. The degrees of a government’s democracy ( Audretsch and Moog 2022 ), morality ( Massaro et al. 2022 ), grant policies ( Srhoj et al. 2022 ) and public health policies ( Belitski et al. 2022 ) may all affect the quality of formal institutions. It should not be overlooked that governments are equally prone to corruption ( Liu et al. 2021 ). Communities, as informal institutions, have different cultural traits ( Khlystova et al. 2022 ) or pro-social networks ( Meurer et al. 2022 ). We hope researchers investigate not only how belonging to an economically prosperous region aids survival in a crisis, but also how these varied institutional qualities affect entrepreneurship during times of crisis.

Funding source: Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea.

Award Identifier / Grant number: NRF- 2021S1A5B5A16076168

Research funding: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF- 2021S1A5B5A16076168).

Abdesselam, R., J. Bonnet, P. Renou-Maissant, and M. Aubry. 2017. “Entrepreneurship, Economic Development, and Institutional Environment: Evidence From OECD Countries.” Journal of International Entrepreneurship 16 (4): 504–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-017-0214-3 . Search in Google Scholar

Abebe, S. A. 2022. “Refugee Entrepreneurship: Systematic and Thematic Analyses and a Research Agenda.” Small Business Economics 60: 315–50, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00636-3 . Search in Google Scholar

Acs, Z. J. 2008. “Foundations of High Impact Entrepreneurship.” Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship 4 (6): 535–620. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000025 . Search in Google Scholar

Aeppel, T. 2021. America’s Mask Makers Face Postpandemic Meltdown . Reuter. Also available at https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/americas-mask-makers-face-post-pandemic-meltdown-2021-05-11/ . Search in Google Scholar

Aftab, R., M. Naveed, and S. Hanif. 2021. “An Analysis of Covid-19 Implications for SMEs in Pakistan.” Journal of Chinese Economics and Foreign Trade Studies 14 (1): 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcefts-08-2020-0054 . Search in Google Scholar

Alves, J. C., T. C. Lok, Y. Luo, and W. Hao. 2020. “Crisis Challenges of Small Firms in Macao During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Frontiers of Business Research in China 14 (1): 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-020-00094-2 . Search in Google Scholar

Andreeva, E. L., H. Simon, D. A. Karkh, and P. L. Glukhikh. 2016. “Innovative Entrepreneurship: A Source of Economic Growth in the Region.” Economy of Region 12 (3): 899–910. https://doi.org/10.17059/2016-3-24 . Search in Google Scholar

Anwar, A., N. Coviello, and M. Rouziou. 2021. “Weathering a Crisis: A Multi-Level Analysis of Resilience in Young Ventures.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 1–29, 10422587211046544, https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211046545 . Search in Google Scholar

Armeanu, D., N. Istudor, and L. Lache. 2015. “The Role of SMEs in Assessing the Contribution of Entrepreneurship to GDP in the Romanian Business Environment.” Amfiteatru Economic Journal 17 (38): 195–211. Search in Google Scholar

Arrighetti, A., L. Caricati, F. Landini, and N. Monacelli. 2016. “Entrepreneurial Intention in the Time of Crisis: A Field Study.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 22 (6): 835–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-12-2015-0326 . Search in Google Scholar

Audretsch, D. B., and P. Moog. 2022. “Democracy and Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 46 (2): 368–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720943307 . Search in Google Scholar

Audretsch, D. B., J. A. Cunningham, D. F. Kuratko, E. E. Lehmann, and M. Menter. 2019. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Economic, Technological, and Societal Impacts.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 44 (2): 313–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9690-4 . Search in Google Scholar

Bakas, F. E. 2017. “Community Resilience Through Entrepreneurship: The Role of Gender.” Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 11 (1): 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/jec-01-2015-0008 . Search in Google Scholar

Bakhtiari, S. 2019. “Entrepreneurship Dynamics in Australia: Lessons From Micro-Data.” The Economic Record 95 (308): 114–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4932.12460 . Search in Google Scholar

Bărbulescu, O., A. S. Tecău, D. Munteanu, and C. P. Constantin. 2021. “Innovation of Startups, the Key to Unlocking Post-Crisis Sustainable Growth in Romanian Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.” Sustainability 13 (2): 671–86. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020671 . Search in Google Scholar

Bartz, W., and A. Winkler. 2016. “Flexible or Fragile? The Growth Performance of Small and Young Businesses During the Global Financial Crisis — Evidence From Germany.” Journal of Business Venturing 31 (2): 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.10.002 . Search in Google Scholar

Belitski, M., C. Guenther, A. S. Kritikos, and R. Thurik. 2022. “Economic Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Entrepreneurship and Small Businesses.” Small Business Economics 58 (2): 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00544-y . Search in Google Scholar

Bendell, B., D. M. Sullivan, and S. Ornstein. 2020. “How Fear of ‘Looming Megacatastrophes’ Alters Entrepreneurial Activity Rates Through Psychological Distance.” Academy of Management Perspectives 34 (4): 585–602. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0049 . Search in Google Scholar

Birhanu, A. G., Y. S. Getachew, and A. A. Lashitew. 2022. “Gender Differences in Enterprise Performance During the COVID-19 Crisis: Do Public Policy Responses Matter?” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 46 (5): 1374–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221077222 . Search in Google Scholar

Bishop, P. 2019. “Knowledge Diversity and Entrepreneurship Following an Economic Crisis: An Empirical Study of Regional Resilience in Great Britain.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 31 (5–6): 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541595 . Search in Google Scholar

Bishop, P., and D. Shilcof. 2017. “The Spatial Dynamics of New Firm Births During an Economic Crisis: The Case of Great Britain, 2004–2012.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 29 (3–4): 215–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1257073 . Search in Google Scholar

Block, J. H., C. Fisch, and M. Hirschmann. 2022. “The Determinants of Bootstrap Financing in Crises: Evidence From Entrepreneurial Ventures in the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Small Business Economics 58: 867–85, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00445-6 . Search in Google Scholar

Borgholthaus, C. J., J. V. White, E. Markin, and V. K. Gupta. 2022. “Venture Creation in the Aftermath of COVID-19: The Impact of US Governor Party Affiliation and Discretion.” Small Business Economics 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00705-7 . Search in Google Scholar

Boudreaux, C. J., A. Jha, and M. Escaleras. 2022. “Natural Disasters, Entrepreneurship Activity, and the Moderating Role of Country Governance.” Small Business Economics , https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00657-y . Search in Google Scholar

Boz, S. A. 2022. “Individual Ambidexterity After Entrepreneurial Failure in COVID-19 Pandemic Times: The Influence of Current Employment Status.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 35 (7): 1000–24, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2021-0323 . Search in Google Scholar

Brown, R., A. Rocha, and M. Cowling. 2020. “Financing Entrepreneurship in Times of Crisis: Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on the Market for Entrepreneurial Finance in the United Kingdom.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38 (5): 380–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620937464 . Search in Google Scholar

Brzozowski, J., M. Cucculelli, and V. Peruzzi. 2019. “Firms’ Proactiveness During the Crisis: Evidence From European Data.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 9 (3): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2017-0215 . Search in Google Scholar

Bundy, J., M. D. Pfarrer, C. E. Short, and W. T. Coombs. 2017. “Crises and Crisis Management: Integration, Interpretation, and Research Development.” Journal of Management 43 (6): 1661–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316680030 . Search in Google Scholar

Bustamante, C., C. Poblete, and J. E. Amorós. 2020. “Entrepreneurial Intentions in the Context of a Natural Disaster.” International Journal of Emerging Markets 17 (5): 1198–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-10-2019-0846 . Search in Google Scholar

Callegari, B., and C. Feder. 2022. “Entrepreneurship and the Systemic Consequences of Epidemics: A Literature Review and Emerging Model.” The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 18 (4): 1653–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00790-2 . Search in Google Scholar

Caminiti, S. 2021. Here’s How Zoom Is Helping Create the New World of Hybrid Work . CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/15/heres-how-zoom-is-creating-the-new-world-of-hybrid-work-.html (accessed August 22, 2021). Search in Google Scholar

Cannavale, C., I. Zohoorian Nadali, and A. Esempio. 2020. “Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance in a Sanctioned Economy – Does the CEO Play a Role?” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 27 (6): 1005–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-11-2019-0366 . Search in Google Scholar

Castro, M. P., and M. G. G. Zermeño. 2021. “Being an Entrepreneur Post-COVID-19–Resilience in Times of Crisis: A Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 73 (4): 721–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-07-2020-0246 . Search in Google Scholar

Cefis, E., and O. Marsili. 2019. “Good Times, Bad Times: Innovation and Survival Over the Business Cycle.” Industrial and Corporate Change 28 (3): 565–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty072 . Search in Google Scholar

Cesaroni, F. M., M. G. Pediconi, and A. Sentuti. 2018. “It’s Always a Women’s Problem! Micro-Entrepreneurs, Work-Family Balance and Economic Crisis.” Administrative Sciences 8 (4): 1–16, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8040074 . Search in Google Scholar

Chaves-Maza, M., and E. M. Fedriani Martel. 2020. “Entrepreneurship Support Ways After the COVID-19 Crisis.” Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 8 (2): 662–81. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.2(40) . Search in Google Scholar

Cheung, C. W. M., and C. Kwong. 2017. “Path-and Place-Dependence of Entrepreneurial Ventures at Times of War and Conflict.” International Small Business Journal 35 (8): 903–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242617691802 . Search in Google Scholar

Chong, S. H., Y. Huang, and C.-H. (D.) Chang. 2020. “Supporting Interdependent Telework Employees: A Moderated-Mediation Model Linking Daily COVID-19 Task Setbacks to Next-Day Work Withdrawal.” Journal of Applied Psychology 105 (12): 1408–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000843 . Search in Google Scholar

Churchill, S. A., M. E. Munyanyi, R. Smyth, and T.-A. Trinh. 2021. “Early Life Shocks and Entrepreneurship: Evidence From the Vietnam War.” Journal of Business Research 124: 506–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.009 . Search in Google Scholar

Colombo, M. G., E. Piva, A. Quas, and C. Rossi-Lamastra. 2021. “Dynamic Capabilities and High-Tech Entrepreneurial Ventures’ Performance in the Aftermath of an Environmental Jolt.” Long Range Planning 54 (3): 102026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102026 . Search in Google Scholar

Corley, K. G., and D. A. Gioia. 2011. “Building Theory About Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” Academy of Management Review 36 (1): 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486 . Search in Google Scholar

Cucculelli, M., and V. Peruzzi. 2018. “Post-Crisis Firm Survival, Business Model Changes, and Learning: Evidence From the Italian Manufacturing Industry.” Small Business Economics 54 (2): 459–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0044-2 . Search in Google Scholar

Cui, Y., C. Sun, H. Xiao, and C. Zhao. 2016. “How to Become an Excellent Entrepreneur: The Moderating Effect of Risk Propensity on Alertness to Business Ideas and Entrepreneurial Capabilities.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 112: 171–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.002 . Search in Google Scholar

Dahles, H., and T. P. Susilowati. 2015. “Business Resilience in Times of Growth and Crisis.” Annals of Tourism Research 51: 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.01.002 . Search in Google Scholar

Dal Mas, F., and P. Paoloni. 2019. “A Relational Capital Perspective on Social Sustainability; the Case of Female Entrepreneurship in Italy.” Measuring Business Excellence 24 (1): 114–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/mbe-08-2019-0086 . Search in Google Scholar

Davidsson, P., and S. R. Gordon. 2016. “Much Ado About Nothing? The Surprising Persistence of Nascent Entrepreneurs Through Macroeconomic Crisis.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 40 (4): 915–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12152 . Search in Google Scholar

Davidsson, P., R. Jan, and F. von Briel. 2021. “COVID-19 as External Enabler of Entrepreneurship Practice and Research.” BRQ Business Research Quarterly 24 (3): 214–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444211008902 . Search in Google Scholar

Devece, C., M. Peris-Ortiz, and C. Rueda-Armengot. 2016. “Entrepreneurship during Economic Crisis: Success Factors and Paths to Failure.” Journal of Business Research 69 (11): 5366–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.139 . Search in Google Scholar

Dimitriadis, S. 2021. “Social Capital and Entrepreneur Resilience: Entrepreneur Performance During Violent Protests in Togo.” Strategic Management Journal 42 (11): 1993–2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3292 . Search in Google Scholar

Dinger, J., M. Conger, D. Hekman, and C. Bustamante. 2019. “Somebody That I Used to Know: The Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Social Identity in Post-Disaster Business Communities.” Journal of Business Ethics 166 (1): 115–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04131-w . Search in Google Scholar

Doern, R., N. Williams, and T. Vorley. 2018. “Special Issue on Entrepreneurship and Crises: Business as Usual? An Introduction and Review of the Literature.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 31 (5–6): 400–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541590 . Search in Google Scholar

Donthu, N., and A. Gustafsson. 2020. “Effects of COVID-19 on Business and Research.” Journal of Business Research 117: 284–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.008 . Search in Google Scholar

Dunford, B. B., C. L. Jackson, A. D. Boss, L. Tay, and R. Wayne Boss. 2015. “Be Fair, Your Employees Are Watching: A Relational Response Model of External Third-Party Justice.” Personnel Psychology 68 (2): 319–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12081 . Search in Google Scholar

Elitcha, K., and R. Fonseca. 2018. “Self–Employment, Wealth and Start–Up Costs: Evidence From a Financial Crisis.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 18 (3): 1–38, https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2017-0187 . Search in Google Scholar

Emami, A., S. Ashourizadeh, S. Sheikhi, and G. Rexhepi. 2022. “Entrepreneurial Propensity for Market Analysis in the Time of COVID-19: Benefits From Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation and Opportunity Confidence.” Review of Managerial Science 16 (8): 2413–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00499-0 . Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, T., A. W. Tian, A. Lee, and D. J. Hughes. 2021. “Abusive Supervision: A Systematic Review and Fundamental Rethink.” The Leadership Quarterly 32 (6): 101540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101540 . Search in Google Scholar

Frese, M., and M. Gielnik. 2014. “The Psychology of Entrepreneurship.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1: 413–38. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091326 . Search in Google Scholar

Galindo-Martín, M.-Á., M.-S. Castaño-Martínez, and M.-T. Méndez-Picazo. 2021. “Effects of the Pandemic Crisis on Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development.” Journal of Business Research 137: 345–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.053 . Search in Google Scholar

Geroski, P. A., J. Mata, and P. Portugal. 2010. “Founding Conditions and the Survival of New Firms.” Strategic Management Journal 31 (5): 510–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.823 . Search in Google Scholar

Gil-Soto, E., F. J. García-Rodríguez, I. Ruiz-Rosa, and D. Gutiérrez-Taño. 2022. “Economic Context and Entrepreneurial Intention: Analysis of Individuals’ Perceptions in a Spanish University Context.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2021-0290 . Search in Google Scholar

Giotopoulos, I., A. Kontolaimou, and A. Tsakanikas. 2016. “Drivers of High-Quality Entrepreneurship: What Changes Did the Crisis Bring About?” Small Business Economics 48 (4): 913–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9814-x . Search in Google Scholar

Giotopoulos, I., A. Kontolaimou, and A. Tsakanikas. 2017. “Antecedents of Growth-Oriented Entrepreneurship Before and During the Greek Economic Crisis.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 24 (3): 528–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-01-2017-0003 . Search in Google Scholar

González-Pernía, J. L., M. Guerrero, A. Jung, and L. Peña. 2018. “Economic Recession Shake-Out and Entrepreneurship: Evidence From Spain.” BRQ Business Research Quarterly 21 (3): 153–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2018.06.001 . Search in Google Scholar

Goschin, Z. 2020. “What Makes New Firms Resilient? A Spatial Analysis for Romania.” Regional Science Policy & Practice 12 (5): 913–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12344 . Search in Google Scholar

Grube, L. E., and V. H. Storr. 2018. “Embedded Entrepreneurs and Post-Disaster Community Recovery.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 30 (7–8): 800–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1457084 . Search in Google Scholar

Guckenbiehl, P., and G. C. de Zubielqui. 2022. “Start-Ups’ Business Model Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Counteracting Adversities and Pursuing Opportunities.” International Small Business Journal 40 (2): 150–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426211055447 . Search in Google Scholar

Guo, H., Z. Yang, R. Huang, and A. Guo. 2020. “The Digitalization and Public Crisis Responses of Small and Medium Enterprises: Implications from a COVID-19 Survey.” Frontiers of Business Research in China 14 (1): 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-020-00087-1 . Search in Google Scholar

Habiyaremye, A. 2021. “Co-Operative Learning and Resilience to COVID-19 in a Small-Sized South African Enterprise.” Sustainability 13 (4): 1976–92. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041976 . Search in Google Scholar

Hayward, M., Z. Cheng, and B. Z. Wang. 2022. “Disrupted Education, Underdogs and the Propensity for Entrepreneurship: Evidence From China’s Sent-Down Youth Program.” Journal of Business Research 151: 33–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.056 . Search in Google Scholar

Hershcovis, M. S., and N. Bhatnagar. 2017. “When Fellow Customers Behave Badly: Witness Reactions to Employee Mistreatment by Customers.” Journal of Applied Psychology 102 (11): 1528. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000249 . Search in Google Scholar

Hobfoll, S. E., A. Nadler, and J. Leiberman. 1986. “Satisfaction With Social Support During Crisis: Intimacy and Self-Esteem as Critical Determinants.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (2): 296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.296 . Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, E. A., R. C. O’Connor, V. H. Perry, I. Tracey, S. Wessely, L. Arseneault, C. Ballard, H. Christensen, R. Cohen Silver, I. Everall, T. Ford, A. John, T. Kabir, K. King, I. Madan, S. Michie, A. K. Przybylski, R. Shafran, A. Sweeney, C. M. Worthman, L. Yardley, K. Cowan, C. Cope, M. Hotopf, and E. Bullmore. 2020. “Multidisciplinary Research Priorities for the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Call for Action for Mental Health Science.” The Lancet Psychiatry 7 (6): 547–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1 . Search in Google Scholar

Hundt, C., and R. Sternberg. 2014. “How Did the Economic Crisis Influence New Firm Creation?” Journal of Economics and Statistics 234 (6): 722–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2014-0605 . Search in Google Scholar

Jabłońska, M., and J. Stawska. 2020. “The Key Factors Affecting Entrepreneurship: A Comparative Analysis.” Zbornik Radova Ekonomskog Fakulteta u Rijeci: Časopis Za Ekonomsku Teoriju i Praksu 38 (1): 125–46. https://doi.org/10.18045/zbefri.2020.1.125 . Search in Google Scholar

Khattak, N., M.N. Muhammad, and D. Robinson. 2021. “Understanding the Interplay Between Support Agencies and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in a Conflict Environment From an Institutional Theory Perspective.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 13 (2): 256–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-03-2020-0097 . Search in Google Scholar

Khlystova, O., Y. Kalyuzhnova, and M. Belitski. 2022. “The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Creative Industries: A Literature Review and Future Research Agenda.” Journal of Business Research 139: 1192–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.062 . Search in Google Scholar

Korber, S., and R. B. McNaughton. 2017. “Resilience and Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 24 (7): 1129–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2016-0356 . Search in Google Scholar

Korsgaard, S., R. A. Hunt, D. M. Townsend, and M. B. Ingstrup. 2020. “COVID-19 and the Importance of Space in Entrepreneurship Research and Policy.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38 (8): 697–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620963942 . Search in Google Scholar

Kotsopoulos, D., A. Karagianaki, and S. Baloutsos. 2022. “The Effect of Human Capital, Innovation Capacity, and Covid-19 Crisis on Knowledge-Intensive Enterprises’ Growth Within a VC-Driven Innovation Ecosystem.” Journal of Business Research 139: 1177–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.055 . Search in Google Scholar

Kraus, S., J. P. C. Rigtering, M. Hughes, and V. Hosman. 2011. “Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Business Performance of SMEs: A Quantitative Study From the Netherlands.” Review of Managerial Science 6 (2): 161–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-011-0062-9 . Search in Google Scholar

Kraus, S., M. Breier, and S. Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. “The Art of Crafting a Systematic Literature Review in Entrepreneurship Research.” The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16 (3): 1023–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4 . Search in Google Scholar

Kuckertz, A. 2021. “Standing Up Against Crisis-Induced Entrepreneurial Uncertainty: Fewer Teams, More Habitual Entrepreneurs.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 39 (3): 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242621997782 . Search in Google Scholar

Kwong, C. C. Y., C. W. M. Cheung, H. Manzoor, and M. U. Rashid. 2019. “Entrepreneurship Through Bricolage: A Study of Displaced Entrepreneurs at Times of War and Conflict.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 31 (5–6): 435–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541592 . Search in Google Scholar

Laskovaia, A., L. Marino, G. Shirokova, and W. Wales. 2018. “Expect the Unexpected: Examining the Shaping Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Causal and Effectual Decision-Making Logic During Economic Crisis.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 31 (5–6): 456–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541593 . Search in Google Scholar

Lim, D. S. K., E. A. Morse, and N. Yu. 2020. “The Impact of the Global Crisis on the Growth of SMEs: A Resource System Perspective.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38 (6): 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620950159 . Search in Google Scholar

Liñán, F., and I. Jaén. 2022. “The Covid-19 Pandemic and Entrepreneurship: Some Reflections.” International Journal of Emerging Markets 17 (5): 1165–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-05-2020-0491 . Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Y., J. M. Lee, and C. Lee. 2020. “The Challenges and Opportunities of a Global Health Crisis: The Management and Business Implications of COVID-19 From an Asian Perspective.” Asian Business & Management 19 (3): 277–97. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-020-00119-x . Search in Google Scholar

Liu, K., K. Fu, J. Y. Yang, and A. A. Asady. 2021. “A System Justification Theory of Entrepreneurial Attitudinal Change During a Crisis.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 1–31, 10422587211058364, https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211058363 . Search in Google Scholar

Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. The Savage Mind . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

Martí, I., and P. Fernández. 2015. “Entrepreneurship, Togetherness, and Emotions.” Journal of Management Inquiry 24 (4): 424–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615579786 . Search in Google Scholar

Martínez-Rodriguez, I., F. E. Callejas-Albiñana, and A. I. Callejas-Albiñana. 2020. “Economic and Socio-Cultural Drivers of Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurship Depending on the Business Cycle Phase.” Journal of Business Economics and Management 21 (2): 373–94. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.11848 . Search in Google Scholar

Massaro, M., F. Dal Mas, and C. Bagnoli. 2022. “Academic Moral Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Translation to Turn Crises Into Opportunities: The Case of VeniSIA.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3188035 . Search in Google Scholar

Meliou, E. 2019. “Family as a Eudaimonic Bubble: Women Entrepreneurs Mobilizing Resources of Care During Persistent Financial Crisis and Austerity.” Gender, Work and Organization 27 (2): 218–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12411 . Search in Google Scholar

Mellor, S. 1992. “The Influence of Layoff Severity on Postlayoff Union Commitment Among Survivors: The Moderating Effect of the Perceived Legitimacy of a Layoff Account.” Personnel Psychology 45 (3): 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00861.x . Search in Google Scholar

Meurer, M. M., M. Waldkirch, P. K. Schou, E. L. Bucher, and K. Burmeister-Lamp. 2022. “Digital Affordances: How Entrepreneurs Access Support in Online Communities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Small Business Economics 58 (2): 637–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00540-2 . Search in Google Scholar

Miller, D., and I. Le Breton-Miller. 2017. “Underdog Entrepreneurs: A Model of Challenge–Based Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 41 (1): 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12253 . Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, R. K., L. Busenitz, T. Lant, P. P. McDougall, E. A. Morse, and J. Brock Smith. 2002. “Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the People Side of Entrepreneurship Research.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 27 (2): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00001 . Search in Google Scholar

Mittermaier, A., H. Patzelt, and D. A. Shepherd. 2022. “Motivating Prosocial Venturing in Response to a Humanitarian Crisis: Building Theory From the Refugee Crisis in Germany.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 1–40, 10422587211025232, https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211025233 . Search in Google Scholar

Modgil, S., Y. K. Dwivedi, N. P. Rana, S. Gupta, and S. Kamble. 2022. “Has Covid-19 Accelerated Opportunities for Digital Entrepreneurship? An Indian Perspective.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 175: 121415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121415 . Search in Google Scholar

Mühlböck, M., J.-R. Warmuth, M. Holienka, and B. Kittel. 2017. “Desperate Entrepreneurs: No Opportunities, No Skills.” The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14 (4): 975–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0472-5 . Search in Google Scholar

Muñoz, P., J. Kimmitt, E. Kibler, and S. Farny. 2019. “Living on the Slopes: Entrepreneurial Preparedness in a Context Under Continuous Threat.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 31 (5–6): 413–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541591 . Search in Google Scholar

Murtinu, S. 2021. “The Government Whispering to Entrepreneurs: Public Venture Capital, Policy Shifts, and Firm Productivity.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 15 (2): 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1374 . Search in Google Scholar

Mustafa, M., and L. Treanor. 2022. “Gender and Entrepreneurship in the New Era: New Perspectives on the Role of Gender and Entrepreneurial Activity.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 12 (3): 213–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2022-0228 . Search in Google Scholar

Myer, R. A., and H. B. Moore. 2006. “Crisis in Context Theory: An Ecological Model.” Journal of Counseling and Development 84 (2): 139–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00389.x . Search in Google Scholar

Negrutiu, C. 2021. “Major Trends and New Business Models in Supply Chain and Entrepreneurship After the COVID-19 Crisis.” Studia Universitatis Economics Series 31 (1): 84–96. https://doi.org/10.2478/sues-2021-0005 . Search in Google Scholar

Neubaum, D. O., and E. Micelotta. 2021. “WANTED—Theoretical Contributions: An Editorial on the Pitfalls and Pathways in Family Business Research.” Family Business Review 34 (3): 242–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865211032503 . Search in Google Scholar

Newman, A., M. Obschonka, and J. Block. 2022. “Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship in Times of Crises: The Renaissance of Entrepreneur-Focused Micro Perspectives.” International Small Business Journal 40 (2): 119–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426211063390 . Search in Google Scholar

Omri, A., and H. Afi. 2020. “How Can Entrepreneurship and Educational Capital Lead to Environmental Sustainability?” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 54: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2020.03.007 . Search in Google Scholar

Paul, J., and A. R. Criado. 2020. “The Art of Writing Literature Review: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?” International Business Review 29 (4): 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717 . Search in Google Scholar

Petticrew, M., and H. Roberts. 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9780470754887 Search in Google Scholar

Pinho, J. C., and M. de Lurdes Martins. 2020. “The Opportunity to Create a Business: Systemic Banking Crisis, Institutional Factor Conditions and Trade Openness.” Journal of International Entrepreneurship 18 (4): 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-020-00275-3 . Search in Google Scholar

Pisá-Bó, M., J. F. López-Muñoz, and J. Novejarque-Civera. 2021. “The Ever-Changing Socioeconomic Conditions for Entrepreneurship.” The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 17 (3): 1335–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00737-z . Search in Google Scholar

Piva, E., and M. Guerini. 2022. “The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Pandemic-Related Policies on New Firm Creation: An Analysis of the Italian Case.” Small Business Economics 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00621-w . Search in Google Scholar

Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, D. G. Bachrach, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2005. “The Influence of Management Journals in the 1980s and 1990s.” Strategic Management Journal 26 (5): 473–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.454 . Search in Google Scholar

Quintillán, I., and I. Peña-Legazkue. 2019. “Emotional Intelligence and Venture Internationalization During Economic Recession.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26 (2): 246–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-08-2018-0521 . Search in Google Scholar

Rani, N. S., K. S. Krishnan, Z. Suradi, and N. Juhdi. 2019. “Identification of Critical Components of Resilience During and After Economic Crises: The Case of Women Food Operators in Kuala Lumpur.” Asian Academy of Management Journal 24 (2): 111–26. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2019.24.s2.8 . Search in Google Scholar

Ratten, V. 2020a. “Coronavirus and International Business: An Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Perspective.” Thunderbird International Business Review 62 (5): 629–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22161 . Search in Google Scholar

Ratten, V. 2020b. “Coronavirus (Covid-19) and Entrepreneurship: Cultural, Lifestyle and Societal Changes.” Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 13 (4): 747–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeee-06-2020-0163 . Search in Google Scholar

Ratten, V. 2020c. “Coronavirus (Covid-19) and the Entrepreneurship Education Community.” Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 14 (5): 753–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/jec-06-2020-0121 . Search in Google Scholar

Ratten, V., V. L. da Silva Braga, and C. S. da Encarnacao Marque. 2021. “Sport Entrepreneurship and Value Co-Creation in Times of Crisis: The Covid-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Business Research 133: 265–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.001 . Search in Google Scholar

Rauch, A., and W. Hulsink. 2021. “Just One Damned Thing After Another: Towards an Event-Based Perspective of Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 1–20, 10422587211061738, https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211061738 . Search in Google Scholar

Roundy, P. T. 2018. “Paying Attention to the Customer: Consumer Forces in Small Town Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 20 (2): 323–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-11-2017-0054 . Search in Google Scholar

Ruiz-Fuensanta, M. J., and M. Bellandi. 2019. “Entrepreneurship Dynamics and Economic Cycles: An Analysis for Local Systems and Industrial Districts.” European Planning Studies 27 (9): 1727–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1629396 . Search in Google Scholar

Ruiz-Rosa, I., D. Gutiérrez-Taño, and F. J. García-Rodríguez. 2020. “Social Entrepreneurial Intention and the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Structural Model.” Sustainability 12 (17): 1–17, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176970 . Search in Google Scholar

Rusu, V. D., and A. Roman. 2021. “The Role of Entrepreneurial Performance in Supporting Economic Development of Countries: An Empirical Approach.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2020-0445 . Search in Google Scholar

Santos, E., C. I. Fernandes, and J. J. Ferreira. 2021. “The Driving Motives Behind Informal Entrepreneurship: The Effects of Economic-Financial Crisis, Recession and Inequality.” The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 22 (1): 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750320914788 . Search in Google Scholar

Santos, S. C., A. Caetano, P. Spagnoli, S. Fernandes Costa, and X. Neumeyer. 2017. “Predictors of Entrepreneurial Activity Before and During the European Economic Crisis.” The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 13 (4): 1263–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0453-8 . Search in Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. 2011. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation , 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Sedera, D., C. W. Tan, and D. M. Xu. 2022. “Digital Business Transformation in Innovation and Entrepreneurship.” Information & Management 59 (3): 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103620 . Search in Google Scholar

Sharma, G. D., S. Kraus, E. Liguori, U. K. Bamel, and R. Chopra. 2022. “Entrepreneurial Challenges of COVID-19: Re-Thinking Entrepreneurship After the Crisis.” Journal of Small Business Management : 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2089676 . Search in Google Scholar

Simón-Moya, V., L. Revuelto-Taboada, and D. Ribeiro-Soriano. 2016. “Influence of Economic Crisis on New SME Survival: Reality or Fiction?” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 28 (1–2): 157–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2015.1118560 . Search in Google Scholar

Skarlicki, D. P., and C. T. Kulik. 2004. “Third-Party Reactions to Employee (Mis) Treatment: A Justice Perspective.” Research in Organizational Behavior 26: 183–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(04)26005-1 . Search in Google Scholar

Smith, J. B., C. G. Smith, J. Kietzmann, and S. T. Lord Ferguson. 2022. “Understanding Micro-Level Resilience Enactment of Everyday Entrepreneurs Under Threat.” Journal of Small Business Management 60 (5): 1202–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.2017443 . Search in Google Scholar

Snyder, H. 2019. “Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines.” Journal of Business Research 104: 333–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 . Search in Google Scholar

Soomro, B. A., G. R. Lakhan, and N. Shah. 2021. “COVID-19 Impediments and Business Start-Ups in Pakistan: Evidence From the Second Wave of the Pandemic.” Managerial and Decision Economics 42 (7): 1909–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3445 . Search in Google Scholar

Srhoj, S., B. Skrinjaric, S. Radas, and J. Walde. 2022. “Small Matching Grants for Women Entrepreneurs: Lessons From the Past Recession.” Small Business Economics 59 (1): 117–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00524-2 . Search in Google Scholar

Stephan, U., P. Zbierowski, A. Perez-Luno, D. Wach, J. Wiklund, M. Alba Cabanas, E. Barki, A. Benzari, C. Bernhard-Oettel, J. A. Boekhorst, A. Dash, A. Efendic, C. Eib, P. J. Hanard, T. Iakovleva, S. Kawakatsu, S. Khalid, M. Leatherbee, J. Li, S. K. Parker, J. Qu, F. Rosati, S. Sahasranamam, M. A. Y. Salusse, T. Sekiguchi, N. Thomas, O. Torres, M. H. Tran, M. Ward, A. J. Williamson, and M. M. Zahid. 2020. “Act or Wait-and-See? Adversity, Agility, and Entrepreneur Wellbeing Across Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 1–42, 10422587221104820, https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221104820 . Search in Google Scholar

Stevenson, R., A. S. Kier, and S. G. Taylor. 2021. “Do Policy Makers Take Grants for Granted? The Efficacy of Public Sponsorship for Innovative Entrepreneurship.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 15 (2): 231–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1376 . Search in Google Scholar

Thornhill, S., and R. Amit. 2003. “Learning About Failure: Bankruptcy, Firm Age, and the Resource-Based View.” Organization Science 14 (5): 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.497.16761 . Search in Google Scholar

Torraco, R. J. 2005. “Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples.” Human Resource Development Review 4 (3): 356–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283 . Search in Google Scholar

Torres, O., A. Benzari, C. Fisch, J. Mukerjee, A. Swalhi, and R. Thurik. 2022. “Risk of Burnout in French Entrepreneurs During the COVID-19 Crisis.” Small Business Economics 58 (2): 717–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00516-2 . Search in Google Scholar

Umphress, E. E., J. B. Bingham, and M. S. Mitchell. 2010. “Unethical Behavior in the Name of the Company: The Moderating Effect of Organizational Identification and Positive Reciprocity Beliefs on Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 769–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019214 . Search in Google Scholar

Van Stel, A., J. M. Millán, and C. Román. 2014. “Investigating the Impact of the Technological Environment on Survival Chances of Employer Entrepreneurs.” Small Business Economics 43 (4): 839–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9565-5 . Search in Google Scholar

Vazirani, A., and T. Bhattacharjee. 2022. “Necessity or Opportunity: A Case of Business Venturing Decision During COVID-19 Pandemic.” Managerial and Decision Economics 43 (3): 768–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3417 . Search in Google Scholar

Vegetti, F., and D. Adăscăliţei. 2017. “The Impact of the Economic Crisis on Latent and Early Entrepreneurship in Europe.” The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 13 (4): 1289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0456-5 . Search in Google Scholar

Venâncio, A., and I. Pinto. 2020. “Type of Entrepreneurial Activity and Sustainable Development Goals.” Sustainability 12 (22): 9368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229368 . Search in Google Scholar

Vial, V. 2011. “Micro-Entrepreneurship in a Hostile Environment: Evidence From Indonesia.” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 47 (2): 233–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2011.585952 . Search in Google Scholar

Villaseca, D., J. Navío-Marco, and R. Gimeno. 2020. “Money for Female Entrepreneurs Does Not Grow on Trees: Start-Ups’ Financing Implications in Times of COVID-19.” Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 13 (4): 698–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeee-06-2020-0172 . Search in Google Scholar

Weaven, S., S. Quach, P. Thaichon, L. Frazer, K. Billot, and D. Grace. 2021. “Surviving an Economic Downturn: Dynamic Capabilities of SMEs.” Journal of Business Research 128: 109–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.009 . Search in Google Scholar

Wefald, A. J., and R. G. Downey. 2009. “Job Engagement in Organizations: Fad, Fashion, or Folderol?” Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (1): 141–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.560 . Search in Google Scholar

Welter, F., T. Baker, and K. Wirsching. 2019. “Three Waves and Counting: The Rising Tide of Contextualization in Entrepreneurship Research.” Small Business Economics 52 (2): 319–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0094-5 . Search in Google Scholar

Williams, N., and T. Vorley. 2015. “The Impact of Institutional Change on Entrepreneurship in a Crisis-Hit Economy: The Case of Greece.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 27 (1–2): 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2014.995723 . Search in Google Scholar

Williams, T. A., D. A. Gruber, K. M. Sutcliffe, D. A. Shepherd, and E. Y. Zhao. 2017. “Organizational Response to Adversity: Fusing Crisis Management and Resilience Research Streams.” The Academy of Management Annals 11 (2): 733–69. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0134 . Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Z., X. Wang, X. Wang, and M. Skare. 2021. “A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Entrepreneurship and Crisis Literature Published From 1984 to 2020.” Journal of Business Research 135: 304–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.051 . Search in Google Scholar

Yindok, T. 2021. “Entrepreneurship During an Economic Crisis: Evidence From Rural Thailand.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 69 (3): 1071–113. https://doi.org/10.1086/704380 . Search in Google Scholar

Youssef, A. B., S. Boubaker, and A. Omri. 2018. “Entrepreneurship and Sustainability: The Need for Innovative and Institutional Solutions.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 129: 232–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.003 . Search in Google Scholar

© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

• New! Member Benefit New! Member Benefit
• Featured Analytics Hub
• Resources Resources
• Member Directory
• Networking Communities
• Advertise, Exhibit, Sponsor
• Find or Post Jobs

• Learn and Engage Learn and Engage
• Bridge Program

• Compare AACSB-Accredited Schools
• Explore Programs

• Advocacy Advocacy
• Featured AACSB Announces 2024 Class of Influential Leaders
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging
• Influential Leaders
• Innovations That Inspire
• Connect With Us Connect With Us
• Accredited School Search
• Accreditation
• Learning and Events
• Advertise, Sponsor, Exhibit
• Tips and Advice
• Is Business School Right for Me?

The Impact of Entrepreneurship

• In AACSB’s most recent Innovations That Inspire initiative, business schools outline their societal impact activities that align with their missions while addressing concerns in their local communities.
• Schools described innovations such as a lecture series for Ukrainian refugees, an informational hub for Black business owners, and a program for Chinese entrepreneurs at the base of the pyramid.
• Through such efforts, business schools are deploying their students’ talent and their faculty’s expertise in ways that lead to lasting real-world change.

  Entrepreneurship can bring prosperity to families, communities, and whole nations. What can business schools do to bring entrepreneurship education to the groups that need it most?

That question was answered by a number of schools that participated in AACSB’s 2024 Innovations That Inspire initiative, which recognizes programs that will shape the future of business education. Through a sampling of just a few of their submissions, we show how entrepreneurship education targeted at specific populations can have profound societal impact and change the courses of many lives.

Training for Refugees

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine not only has killed more than 30,000 Ukrainians, but also has displaced millions of Ukrainian citizens. To provide aid to London-based refugees, the University College London (UCL) School of Management has launched The Next Generation of Entrepreneurs for Ukraine .

Through the free seven-week lecture series, participants gain the skills and knowledge they need to transform business ideas into viable ventures that will help rebuild their country once the war is over. The lecture series was selected by AACSB as a highlighted innovation for 2024.

The initiative came about after the UCL School of Management partnered with other academic institutions in the Academic Sanctuary Scheme to host visiting scholars from Ukrainian universities. The lecture series was developed by Nataliia Hrytsiuk, an associate professor from Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University, who has researched the best practices in U.K. entrepreneurship. She presented her findings during the first seven lectures, which were held in October and November 2023. Other speakers included Ukrainian entrepreneurs and academics.

In addition to providing examples of successful startups in the U.K., lectures covered the art of forming teams, the tools needed to carry out competitive market analysis, and the strategy behind creating value propositions. At the end of the program, aspiring entrepreneurs could participate in a Pitch Day where finalists competed for monetary prizes.

All lectures were delivered in person and in Ukrainian to break down language and cultural barriers and to maximize networking opportunities. To make it easy for people to attend, events were held in the evening and offered free childcare.

Between lectures, participants received group and individual mentoring from Ukrainian entrepreneurs and UCL faculty. Participants also had access to workshops, UCL’s Innovation and Enterprise free office space, and a system that matched refugees with UCL entrepreneurs. To enhance networking opportunities, events were run with Level 39 , a European tech accelerator, and GenUK’s Ukraine program, which is aimed at female entrepreneurs. Students also could take complimentary English language lessons provided by a nongovernmental agency.

Participants who completed the program received certificates of attendance, gained access to GenUK’s Restart Ukraine program, and were eligible to apply to UCL’s Hatchery incubator to receive up to 24 months of support for their new businesses.

For the future, the school plans to offer the lecture series twice a year and is considering an online format to reach refugees outside of London. UCL will invite former participants to return as guest speakers and organize networking opportunities for previous and current participants. The school is considering replicating the program to aid people from other displaced communities.

A Spanish-Language Podcast

According to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce , Latinos create businesses three times faster than any other group in the United States. Between 2007 and 2012, 86 percent of new small businesses in the U.S. were owned by Latinos. Yet Latino business owners have limited access to capital and other resources: Only 3 percent of America’s 4.7 million Hispanic-owned businesses have achieved more than 1 million USD in sales, and many Latinos lack reliable access to high-speed internet services.

One resource that could remove barriers for Latino entrepreneurs? Education. To meet this need, the Jack C. Massey College of Business at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, created the Latino Emprendedor Podcast . (Emprendedor means “entrepreneur.”) Four podcasts were produced last year, and more are in the works.

The podcasts are delivered in Spanish by two co-hosts who have deep roots in both the business and the Latino communities. José González is an entrepreneur and an associate professor of entrepreneurship and management at Belmont College. He established a Nashville-based Spanish-language entrepreneurial training program called Negocio Próspero. Co-host Frank González is managing director of Crown Solutions Spanish at the global financial literacy ministry Crown Financial Ministries and has held roles with other organizations devoted to the development of Latin American leaders.

The two men discuss topics that include developing an entrepreneurial mindset, understanding the difference between an idea and an opportunity, launching a business, and dealing with failure. The goal of the podcasts is to empower listeners to solve problems, innovate their businesses, and create a positive impact on their surrounding communities.

A Platform for Black Entrepreneurs

COVID-19 had a devastating effect on many small businesses. In Canada, where a significant proportion of such enterprises are owned by Black entrepreneurs, the pandemic also shone a spotlight on an uncomfortable truth: Black business owners face systemic barriers that include discrimination, lack of access to capital and networks, and unconscious biases.

In response, the Federal Government of Canada has provided 400 million CAD (approximately 296 million USD) to fund the Black Entrepreneurship Program . One of the program’s three pillars is the Black Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub (BEKH), a platform that brings together Black entrepreneurs, not-for-profit organizations, community organizations, academic institutions, and researchers.

Launched in December 2021, BEKH provides research and statistics about Black entrepreneurs, the businesses they are engaged in, and the resources they need to grow sustainably. This research can inform policies and programs aimed at promoting Black entrepreneurship.

BEKH is co-led by the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, and the Dream Legacy Foundation , a Toronto-based philanthropic organization that works with underrepresented groups. BEKH was selected by AACSB as a highlighted innovation for 2024.

The knowledge platform consists of a central hub supported by regional hubs across the country, each one headed by a postsecondary institution. The hubs work with community organizations, an advisory board, and a research advisory committee to prioritize the unique needs of various regions.

In its first year, BEKH established six regional hubs and research platforms, secured additional funding for development and growth, and initiated a community-led symposium for idea creation. It also actively engaged with community-serving organizations and national bodies, including Statistics Canada, the Business Development Bank of Canada, and Export Development Canada.

In the coming year, BEKH plans to undertake three large-scale national studies to create a better understanding of Black entrepreneurship in Canada. A quantitative study will produce numerical data around Black entrepreneurship; a qualitative study will generate personas that use storytelling techniques to explain the experiences of Black business owners; and an ecosystem mapping project will create a geographic map of Black entrepreneurs to foster visibility and promote connections. The goal is to create a more equitable business environment that enables Black entrepreneurs to thrive.

Education to Eradicate Poverty

The School of Management at Guangdong University of Technology in China is dedicated to achieving one of the key aims of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals : ending poverty. To that end, in 2009, the school debuted a three-part responsible management education framework called “From Classrooms to Fields.”

One component of that framework is a focus on entrepreneurship at the base of the pyramid (BoP). While students are introduced to a variety of diverse entrepreneurship initiatives, they are encouraged to develop innovations that will serve BoP populations and keep people out of poverty.

One success story comes from Che Zhou. As a student in 2014, he explored ways to help herb farmers in the western mountainous areas of China. He set up an e-commerce trading platform that involves more than 3,000 herb providers, which accounts for 12 percent of the trading volume of bulk traditional Chinese herbs sold in the region. More than 50 students from the college have participated in this endeavor. Che Zhou’s efforts have resulted in an average income increase of 4,170 RMB (about 580 USD) for each of the participating farmers.

The School of Management aims to reduce poverty in two additional ways:

• By weaving sustainable development principles into the curriculum. Students learn theories of social responsibility through required courses on sustainability and green e-commerce, modules on sustainable development that are included in other courses, and off-site opportunities to see sustainable development in action. Faculty are encouraged to develop sustainability-related cases, some of which are collected into national management case databases for other schools to use.
• By motivating faculty and students to join charitable endeavors. Students must earn two credits by engaging in a minimum of 20 hours of philanthropic work per semester. They are encouraged to participate in the social responsibility activities of two student clubs, and faculty are urged to act as advisors to such organizations. In addition, the school provides monetary support to two primary schools in the remote mountainous region of Guangdong Province.

Through these efforts, the school encourages students to embrace social responsibility, blend commercial and societal interests, and create sustainable value.

Community Opportunities

Several business schools have created initiatives aimed at bringing entrepreneurship education to underserved populations in their own neighborhoods, and they described their efforts in submissions to this year’s Innovations That Inspire.

One example comes from the College of Business and Economics at Towson University in Baltimore, which has partnered with Cristo Rey Jesuit High School to teach basic entrepreneurship skills to financially disadvantaged ninth-graders. During the four-week Cristo Rey Leadership Foundations Program , young students learn the concepts of entrepreneurship and gain experience developing ventures designed to solve real-world problems.

Speakers include entrepreneurs who hail from Cristo Rey’s own community. In addition, student interns from the College of Business—some of them alums of Cristo Rey—act as mentors and guides for teams of high school students.

Since the program launched two years ago, 135 Cristo Rey students have been exposed to the world of entrepreneurship, and two have joined Towson’s StarTUp accelerator. The College of Business has received grant money from U.S.-based company State Farm Insurance to continue the program, and it has become a resource for other area high schools that want to replicate its model.

A second example comes from the Else School of Management at Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi. About 14 years ago, the school launched the ELSEWORKS entrepreneurship program, dedicated to revitalizing Midtown, a nearby socioeconomically challenged inner city community. Led by faculty, staff, and alumni, the program functions like a business consultancy to provide Midtown businesses with assistance in areas such as strategy, accounting, market research, and event planning.

Since 2011, Millsaps students have provided consulting services to two incubators in Midtown; helped develop two community gathering spaces—a coffee shop and a beer garden; secured funds for three Midtown businesses; organized a quarterly event for business owners; and provided other support. About 160 Millsaps students have served as ELSEWORKS business analysts and roughly 400 students have worked on classroom projects that provided solutions to Midtown businesses.

The impact has been measurable: According to a study conducted by ELSEWORKS students, the number of assets in the neighborhood—consisting of houses, businesses, and properties in suitable living conditions—increased by 74 percent over 10 years. At the same time, students have seen firsthand how community engagement links to economic development.

‘Entrepreneurship as Survival’

Anita Roddick, social entrepreneur and founder of The Body Shop, once said, “Nobody talks of entrepreneurship as survival, but that’s exactly what it is and what nurtures creative thinking.”

Today’s business schools—and the populations they serve through entrepreneurship education—would clearly agree.

All submissions to AACSB's Innovations That Inspire program are collected in DataDirect for members to explore for additional insights and inspiration.

• entrepreneurship
• innovations that inspire
• societal impact

Review Questions

What is the relationship between entrepreneurial thinking and problem solving?

What are the key aspects of the two types of problem-solving methods the entrepreneur uses to problem solve?

What are the key skills entrepreneurs need to arrive at innovative solutions?

What are the differences in the three major types of entrepreneurs?

List and describe the steps an entrepreneur uses in the specific and logical process of creativity?

What are the key aspects of the brainstorming process?

What is the main advantage of using teams to create a solution?

Discuss the advantages of storyboarding.

What are the differences between the design thinking process and the problem-solving process and why are they important?

What are the steps in human-centered design thinking? Briefly describe each.

What is human-centered design?

Observation is the phase in which entrepreneurs explore problems that requires solution. Which is not a step in this phase?

• talk to clients and conduct research for potential solution
• determine if change is needed
• experiment and analyze potential solution
• None of these options is correct.

What are some advantages of the lean process?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/entrepreneurship/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Michael Laverty, Chris Littel
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Entrepreneurship
• Publication date: Jan 16, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/entrepreneurship/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/entrepreneurship/pages/6-review-questions

© Jan 4, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Investigating the Relationship Between Creativity and Entrepreneurial Intention: The Moderating Role of Creativity in the Theory of Planned Behavior

Yongchuan shi.

1 College of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, China

2 College of Education, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, China

3 Worcester Business School, University of Worcester, Worcester, United Kingdom

Jiatong Wang

4 Department of Technology Integration and Entrepreneurship, Kunsan National University, Kunsan, South Korea

Associated Data

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Cultivating students’ creativity in entrepreneurship education at the college and university level is a key facet of entrepreneurship education in encouraging innovation in students. In this study, the influence of creativity, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial attitude, perceived control, and subjective norms, on students’ entrepreneurial intention were examined through a moderated model based on Ajzen’s (1985) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). A questionnaire survey was used to obtain the data from 523 students from different universities in China’s Zhejiang province. SPSS 20.0 was used to conduct descriptive analysis and exploratory analysis of the data, and Amos 22.0 was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis. The research concluded that creativity has a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention; entrepreneurial self-efficacy has a marked effect on perceived behavior control; and perceived behavioral control, subjective norms and entrepreneurial attitude all significantly affect entrepreneurial intention. Finally, creativity has a significant moderating effect on the roles of perceived behavioral control and subjective norms on entrepreneurial intention, but not on the attitude to entrepreneurship. These results suggest that entrepreneurship education should focus on the cultivation of students’ creativity and entrepreneurial efficacy, while encouraging their entrepreneurial intention as well as developing their entrepreneurial skills and mindset.

Introduction

As a conscious, planned, risky, and complex decision-making behavior, entrepreneurship is influenced by many factors in the process, among which creativity is a primary condition and entrepreneurial intention is an important driving factor for entrepreneurial behavior and action.

Intention is an essential prerequisite for individuals’ actions. Not all potential entrepreneurs will start their own businesses after spotting opportunities; entrepreneurship is driven by entrepreneurial intention. The greater the individual’s intention to undertake a given behavior then the more likely it will be effectively executed ( Maresch et al., 2016 ). Moreover, entrepreneurship is a path-breaking value creation process where entrepreneurs are characterized by innovative intellect. In Schumpeter’s (1942) innovation theory, the essence of “creative destruction” lies in the creativity of entrepreneurs. Creativity, from the perspective of entrepreneurship, is reflected in the process of developing original and practical ideas to create new enterprises, or projects, and then bringing about new products or services ( Mumford, 2003 ). As entrepreneurial intention serves as the prerequisite or critical step for entrepreneurship ( Zhao et al., 2010 ), is it possible for creativity to inspire individuals’ entrepreneurial intention?

The paper is structured as follows. The section entitled, “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development” briefly reviews previous studies that touch on the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intention. The following section, “Aims and Hypotheses” introduces our hypotheses. The methodology and data are then presented in the section, “Materials and Methods.” The “Results” section then presents the relationships among the targeted variables. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contributions and limitations of this study in the final “Discussion and Conclusion” section.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

The theory of planned behavior model.

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was proposed by Ajzen (1985) through his article From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior . According to the TPB Model, there are three attitude variables that affect entrepreneurial intention, which are the attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. This theory is developed from the theory of rational action. Since it was put forward, it has been widely used in the research of belief, attitude, behavior intention and other fields, having a significant impact particularly on consumption, public relations, health care, career choice and other predictions of social behavior. In recent years, due to the rise of entrepreneurship research in the world, the TPB has been rapidly applied to the research of entrepreneurship. Based on the TPB, entrepreneurial behavior can be explained as follows: The level of entrepreneurial intention is related to the attitude to the behavioral intention of entrepreneurs (attitude toward the behavior); the level of entrepreneurial intention is related to normative belief and compliance motivation (subjective norms); the level of entrepreneurial intention is related to control belief and perceived facilitating conditions (behavioral control). Liñán (2004) described the three entrepreneurial intent attitude variables in terms of personal preference or attractiveness of the idea; perceived social norms; and perceived entrepreneurial effectiveness. When these conditions are sufficient, the entrepreneurial intention of entrepreneurs is at a higher level, thus entrepreneurs are more likely to start their business. Since attitudes can change over time entrepreneurial intent can change as the individual’s perceptions change. Such changes can occur, for example, through education or experience which have the potential to increase self-efficacy and perceived entrepreneurial effectiveness, and desirability ( Liñán et al., 2011 ; Bell and Bell, 2016 ). Perceived subjective norms can be considered as the individual’s perception of the opinion of other people (important to the individual) on the behavior. Aldrich and Cliff (2003) opined that the characteristics of the family system, including norms, values and family resources could impact new venture creation and Edelman et al. (2016) that social capital together with emotional social support can markedly affect entrepreneurial engagement and progression. Positive support and social norms (social pressures) can thus also encourage intent, whilst negative ones may discourage it.

Some scholars realized that environment or individual level variables could not adequately explain entrepreneurial behavior. They used the TPB model and entrepreneurial event model to discuss the key factors that affect entrepreneurial intention. In order to verify the effectiveness of the three attitude variables, they also introduced three pre-variables that were expected value, normative belief and self-efficacy ( Krueger et al., 2000 ). At the same time, many studies had confirmed that the TPB could explain entrepreneurial intention ( Kautonen et al., 2013 ). Based on the TPB, Moriano et al. (2012) conducted research on entrepreneurial intention across various cultural backgrounds. They selected 1,067 students from Germany, India, Iran, Poland, Spain, and Netherlands as samples to compare. The results supported the influence of attitude and perceived behavior control (self-efficacy) on entrepreneurial intention and the influence of cultural differences on subjective norms. Yang (2013) applied TPB to survey the entrepreneurial intention of 1,330 Chinese students. The results showed that attitude is the most effective predictor of entrepreneurial intention, followed by subjective norms, and then perceived behavioral control. Maes et al. (2014) conducted a survey on business school students’ entrepreneurial intention by using TPB and building a structural equation model. The results showed that the influence of gender on entrepreneurial intention was regulated by personal attitude and perceived behavioral control, but not by social norms. The ideal stage of learning and cultivating a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship should be in childhood and adolescence. However, most of the research subjects are college students rather than middle school students. Based on the revised plan behavior theory, Xu et al. (2016) adopted a stratified cluster sampling method to conduct a survey of entrepreneurship education in 1,018 middle schools in China, to investigate the impact of entrepreneurship education on the attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurial intention of middle school students. In order to confirm the determinants of academic entrepreneurial intention, Feola et al. (2019) adopted the structural equation model and triple helix model to test the model with Italian researchers. The results emphasized that all psychological variables of TPB were related to the prediction of academic entrepreneurial intention. The research results of Dai and Chen (2017) showed that college students’ entrepreneurial perception of behavior control had a significant impact on entrepreneurial behavioral intention.

Creativity is an important component of individual cognitive processing, and has the ability to generate new and valuable ideas by recombining and matching information and knowledge ( Zhang and Zhang, 2018 ). The divergence in the academic circle on the definition of creativity is wide. There are more than 100 definitions of creativity in various literatures ( Meusburger, 2009 ). Creativity theory defined the leading factors affecting creativity as “four P’s,” namely process, product, person and place ( Rhodes, 1961 ). In the cognitive method, researchers paid special attention to the process of creativity and tried to describe the mechanism and technology of creative thinking. For example, Torrance (1966) defined creativity as a process, that is, first, a person is aware of problems, defects, and disagreements which are difficult to identify, and then it is necessary to find solutions and put forward hypotheses, and finally to test and modify these hypotheses to deliver a successful outcome. With the emergence of the psychological measurement method of creativity initiated by Guilford et al. (1952) , many studies also showed that creativity actually involved more abilities, such as the ability of openness, hierarchical thinking, autonomy, exploratory behavior, etc. If environmental factors are taken into account, creativity will be associated with factors such as autonomy and resource access. The characteristics of a creative lifestyle are unqualified attitude, behavior, and flexibility ( Sternberg et al., 2012 ).

In the field of economic production, many scholars pay more attention to the relationship between creativity and products. For example, Mumford (2003) thought that creativity involved the production of novel and useful products, while Sternberg et al. (2012) suggested that creativity meant the production of “original and valuable things.” Some economists regard creativity as an important element of recombining elements to generate new technologies and products, to promote economic growth ( Bloom et al., 2013 ). Therefore, the impact of creativity on the economy should not be ignored.

With the emergence of entrepreneurship, many scholars associate creativity with entrepreneurship because creativity is particularly crucial for entrepreneurial activities, and entrepreneurship itself is a creative activity. Remaining creative is a quality that a successful entrepreneur must have. In the field of entrepreneurship, creativity at an individual level refers to the process in which entrepreneurs can combine existing resources and generate new ideas to start innovative businesses ( Chua and Bedford, 2016 ). Scholars are used to studying the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurship in the framework of organizational management. Social psychologists, organizational scientists, and management scientists have conducted extensive research on the relevant factors affecting the creativity of teams and organizations, and developed various comprehensive theoretical models, and emphasized the role of team composition, team process and organizational culture, and their interaction with promoting innovation ( Woodman et al., 1993 ; Paulus and Dzindolet, 2008 ; Salazar et al., 2012 ; Harvey, 2014 ).

Entrepreneurial Intention

The study of entrepreneurial intention is a rapidly developing area of research ( Liñán and Fayolle, 2015 ) and research suggests that entrepreneurial intention is an important precursor in becoming an entrepreneur ( Zhao et al., 2010 ). Intention is a key antecedent of action, and the study of entrepreneurial intention can deepen people’s understanding of entrepreneurial cognition and behavior patterns. The formation of entrepreneurial intention is the product of the interaction between individuals and the environment, and its relative research focuses more on the influencing factors of entrepreneurial intention ( Sun et al., 2011 ). Starting from personal characteristics or external environment, researchers explored various factors that may lead to entrepreneurial intention, and studied the influencing mechanism. Some scholars apply the decision-making model to the study of entrepreneurial intention. For example, Simon et al. (2000) investigated whether some individuals were engaged in entrepreneurship because their cognitive biases (mental short cuts) led them to perceive lower risks than might be the case. Based on a study of 192 students they opined that individuals often start ventures because they do not perceive the risks (rather than knowingly accept high levels) because cognitive biases such as a belief in the ‘law of small numbers’ (limited information) or an inflated illusion of control reduced their perception of risk.

In addition, some scholars have studied entrepreneurial intention based on social cognitive theory. Zhao et al. (2005) took self-efficacy as a key antecedent to influence entrepreneurial intention, and explored how factors such as formal learning perception, entrepreneurial experience, risk preference and gender, affected the formation of entrepreneurial intention by influencing entrepreneurial self-efficacy. They collected data from two rounds of MBA student samples. The empirical results illustrated that formal learning perception, entrepreneurial experience and risk preference can enhance entrepreneurial intention by improving entrepreneurial self-efficacy, while the effect mechanism of gender on entrepreneurial intention was relatively complex. Although gender differences do not bring differences in individual entrepreneurial self-efficacy, it can directly affect entrepreneurial intention, that is, women’s entrepreneurial intention was lower than men’s. The excessive attention to individual factors has led some scholars to fail to explore the environment as a factor affecting entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, with the continuous expansion of the research field, some scholars have begun to study the impact of environmental factors. In many studies, scholars have used the TPB to investigate the environmental factors.

Creativity and Entrepreneurial Intention

In recent years, many scholars have begun to pay attention to the influence of creativity on entrepreneurial intention. Being entrepreneurial enables entrepreneurs to better understand the connection between things, identify business opportunities and the rational allocation of entrepreneurial resources, so as to smooth the path of value creation. People with high creativity can maintain a positive attitude and high self-confidence in entrepreneurial activities. As creativity involves individual traits and abilities, many scholars also combine creativity to study entrepreneurs’ intention to start their own businesses. Hamidi et al. (2008) introduced creativity into the theoretical model of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention for the first time, using multiple and ordered regression analysis to test the hypotheses derived from the theory. The results showed that creativity exercises could improve students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Zampetakis et al. (2011) studied the connection between young people’s creativity and entrepreneurial intentions in a survey of 180 undergraduate business school students, and found that the more creative young people thought they were, the higher their entrepreneurial intentions were. Chia and Liang (2016) conducted a survey of the impact of creativity on entrepreneurial intention at a university in Taiwan, which divided the creativity of tourism students into two dimensions, namely, originality and practicality, and showed that students with higher creativity mirrored greater entrepreneurial intention. Miranda et al. (2017) used TPB to study the impact of attitudes, subjective norms and perception control on scholars’ entrepreneurship intentions. They conducted a survey of 1,178 Spanish university scholars from different institutions, professions and qualifications, and found that entrepreneurial intention was influenced by creativity, perceptual utility and entrepreneurial experience, and that creativity can have a positive impact on entrepreneurial attitudes. Hu et al. (2018) explored the extent to which entrepreneurial alertness regulated the impact of students’ proactive personality and creativity on entrepreneurial intentions. Through field surveys of 735 undergraduates at 26 Chinese universities, they demonstrated that entrepreneurial alertness had an absolute mediating effect between creativity, proactive personality and entrepreneurial intention. According to the TPB and entrepreneurship event models, Zhao et al. (2005) explained the logic of the impact of creativity on entrepreneurial intentions as, people with high creativity could maintain a positive attitude and high self-confidence in entrepreneurial activities. In today’s environment of encouraging entrepreneurship, intangible social norms will also support people to choose creative work. Despite creativity being highlighted as an important resources for entrepreneurs ( Ahlin et al., 2014 ; Khedhaouria et al., 2015 ), research has yet to fully explore the role of creativity in the TBP. This research is designed to fill this gap and investigate the impact of creativity on entrepreneurial intention, and the moderating role of creativity, through the theory of TPB.

Aims and Hypotheses

As discussed in the previous sections, the relationships between creativity and entrepreneurial intention remain under-explored. Therefore, this study is based on the moderated TPB model, which has been extensively applied in the study of entrepreneurial intention, and has a good ability to explain the factors that influence entrepreneurial intention. The theoretical model of this study takes self-efficacy as the pre-variable of perceived behavioral control. It also introduces the variable of creativity to explore the influence of creativity on entrepreneurial intention, and determine whether creativity has a moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurial attitude, perceived behavior control, and subjective norms, on entrepreneurial intention ( Figure 1 ). Based on this theoretical model, a questionnaire survey was conducted, and the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intention has been further explored. The hypotheses in this study are as follows:

The proposed structural relationships between creativity and entrepreneurial intention based on the theory of planned behavior model.

• H1: Entrepreneurial attitude has a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention.
• H2: Perceived behavior control has a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention.
• H3: Subjective norms have a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention.
• H4: Creativity has a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention.
• H4a: Creativity plays a positive role in moderating entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial intention.
• H4b: Creativity plays a positive role in moderating perceived behavior control and entrepreneurial intention.
• H4c: Creativity plays a positive role in moderating subjective norms and entrepreneurial intention.
• H5: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy has a positive effect on perceived behavior control.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

This study, through SPSS20.0, carried out a descriptive analysis of the respondents’ gender, school, grade, profession, and whether there were entrepreneurs in their family etc. Of the undergraduate students surveyed, 43.79% were male and 56.21% were female. In terms of grades, freshmen students accounted for 54.68%, sophomores 24.67%, juniors 13%, and seniors 7.65%. In terms of major distribution, economic management accounted for 49.08%, science and engineering accounted for 25.62%, sports accounted for 0.4%, art accounted for 4%, philosophy and sociology accounted for 1.34%, literature and history accounted for 6.69%, and medicine and surgery accounted for 15.87%. In terms of entrepreneurs in the family, those with entrepreneurs accounted for 37.48%, and those without entrepreneurs accounted for 62.52%.

Instruments

This study was based on the measurement of 6 latent variables via 48 questions: entrepreneurial intention (four questions), entrepreneurial attitude (four questions), perceived behavior control (nine questions), subjective norms (four questions), creativity (five questions), and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (22 questions). This study adopted previously tested and validated scales to measure the research variables. In order to ensure the accuracy of the language translation of each item in the scales, the scales were translated into Chinese and then a second translator back translated the scales to check for conceptual equivalency ( Bhalla and Lin, 1987 ). For the measurement of entrepreneurial intention, the four questions were drawn from the scale of Liñán and Fayolle (2015) . For the measurement of entrepreneurial attitude, the four questions were drawn from the scale of Obschonka et al. (2012) . For the measurement of perceived behavior control, the nine questions were drawn from Prodan and Drnovsek’s (2010) scale. For the measurement of subjective norms, the four questions were drawn from Obschonka et al.’s (2012) scale. For the measurement of creativity, the five questions were drawn from Miranda et al. (2017) . Lastly, for the measurement of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the 22 questions drew on DeNoble et al.’s (1999) scale. All the above items were measured by Likert 5-point scales.

The survey was conducted in Zhejiang province, which has the most developed private economy and Internet economy in China. As one of the more developed provinces of China, Zhejiang province, also considered as China’s answer to Silicon Valley, is home to e-commerce giants like Alibaba Group Holding and NetEase. The technological start-ups in Zhejiang have contributed largely to its rising “new economy” where the provincial government has also capitalized on the role of entrepreneurship as its model for development ( Zhang, 2018 ). The researchers first undertook a pilot study by distributing 100 questionnaires to students at Zhejiang University. Eighty two effective questionnaires were received, an effective questionnaire recovery rate of 82%. After testing and analysis, the CITC method was used to remove three questions with a correlation coefficient of less than 0.5. The final questionnaire was composed of 45 questions.

To reduce the sample selection bias, the survey was carried out in various locations with different cohorts and the questionnaires were administered randomly. To meet the research needs, from January 4, 2019 to February 28, 2019, the formal survey selected university students in Zhejiang as the sample selection range, controlled the respondents from the major, grade, gender and other aspects, and strived to meet the normal distribution of data. The coordinator contacted different universities in Zhejiang with an invitation to take part in the survey. If the universities agreed, they completed a registration form that indicated how many students would take part. The purpose of the research was outlined to the participants and a small incentive was provided to the respondents to compensate them for their time for completing the questionnaire. Six hundred and six questionnaires were distributed, and after excluding 83 invalid questionnaires, 523 valid questionnaires were obtained, a recovery rate of 86.45%.

Exploratory Tests

In order to ensure the quality of the analysis results of the model, it is necessary to analyze the reliability and validity of the formal questionnaire data. In this study, statistical software SPSS20.0 was used to analyze the validity of six potential variables that are entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, entrepreneurial intention and creativity.

From the reliability analysis of the questionnaire ( Table 1 ), the Cronbach α coefficient of the six dimensions is between 0.859 and 0.931, which are all greater than 0.7, indicating that the six dimensions of the scale all have good internal consistency reliability.

Reliability analysis results.

From the validity analysis of the questionnaire ( Table 2 ), it can be seen that the normalized load value of each measurement item in each dimension is greater than 0.7, the CR value of each dimension is greater than 0.7 and the AVE value is greater than 0.5, indicating that the scale has a good convergent validity.

Convergent validity analysis results.

From the discriminant validity in Table 3 it can be seen that there is a positive correlation among the variables. The largest correlation coefficient between the studied constructs is 0.741 (between perceived behavior control and creativity). The figures also demonstrate that the square root of AVE value above the diagonal is greater than the correlative coefficient between the dimensions below the diagonal, indicating that the scale has a good discrimination validity.

Discriminant validity analysis.

According to Table 4 , exploratory factor analysis of all the questions of the questionnaire shows that the KMO is equal to 0.960, greater than 0.7, and the significance of Bartlett’s test is less than 0.001, less than 0.05 indicating that the scale is suitable for factor analysis. In addition, the analysis results show that the cumulative variance explanation percentage of the first factor extracted is 35.434%, less than 40%, and also less than half of the total variance of 73.249%, indicating that there was no common method difference bias.

KMO and Bartlett’s Test.

From Table 5 ’s exploratory factor analysis of the rotated component matrix, it can be seen that the maximum factor load of each question of the six dimensions is on the common factor, and the factor structure is coincided with the dimension structure of the questionnaire, indicating that the scale has a good result validity.

Rotated component matrix.

Model Analysis

The model is analyzed by hierarchical regression, and the test results of Model 1 and Model 2 in Table 6 illustrated that entrepreneurial self-efficacy has a significant positive effect on perceived behavior control (β = 0.727, p < 0.001). According to the test results of Model 3 and Model 4, entrepreneurial attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavior control and creativity all have a significant positive influence on entrepreneurial intention (β1 = 0.387, p 1 < 0.001; β2 = 0.234, p 2 < 0.001; β3 = 0.103, p 3 = 0.007; β4 = 0.136, p 4 = 0.001).

Results of regression analysis.

Model 5 and Model 6 indicate the moderating effect of creativity between entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial intention. From the results of the analysis, it can be seen that the interaction between creativity and entrepreneurial attitude is not significant (β = −0.136, p > 0.05), indicating that creativity has no moderating effect between entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial intention. Model 7 and Model 8 verify the moderating effect of creativity between subjective norms and entrepreneurial intentions. From the analysis results and Figure 2 , the interaction between creativity and subjective norms is significantly positive (β = 0.372, p < 0.001), indicating that creativity plays a significant and positive role in moderating subjective norms and entrepreneurial intentions. Model 9 and Model 10 verify the moderating effect of creativity between perceived behavior control and entrepreneurial intention. From the analysis results and Figure 3 , it can be seen that the interaction between creativity and perceived behavior control is significantly positive (β = 0.608, p < 0.001), indicating that creativity plays a significant and positive role in moderating the action of perceived behavior control on entrepreneurial intention.

A line chart of the moderating effect of creativity between subjective norms and entrepreneurial intention.

A line chart of the moderating effect of creativity between perceived behavior control and entrepreneurial intention.

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper uses SPSS20.0 and Amos 22.0 software to construct the SEM structural equation model, and analyzes the influence of creativity on entrepreneurial intention, based on 523 valid questionnaires from college students. The results show that creativity has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intention, but it is the entrepreneurial attitude that is the most important factor that affects entrepreneurial intention rather than creativity, followed by the perceived behavioral control, and then the subjective norms. In addition, creativity has a positive moderating effect on both the actions of perceived behavioral control and subjective norms on entrepreneurial intention. The results also show that entrepreneurial self-efficacy has a positive influence on the perception of behavioral control. To sum up the results hypotheses, H1, H2, H3, H4, H4b, H4c, and H5 were statistically proven, whilst H4a was not statistically supported. The results of this research support Ajzen’s (1991) TPB model and the three attitudes that lead to intent. The factor that is considered to be the weakest attitude, perceived social norms ( Ajzen, 1991 ; Liñán et al., 2011 ) was found to be significant in this research, which supports the contention that it is context specific and is a significant factor in China. This type of influence can be more significant in some contexts ( Fayolle and Gailly, 2015 ). Since entrepreneurial attitude is the strongest factor influencing entrepreneurial intention, any mediation effect through creativity may be relatively insignificant in comparison. Finally, the importance of personal entrepreneurial attitude and perceived behavioral control to entrepreneurial intent in this research supports previous findings (e.g., Liñán et al., 2011 ). This paper has the following theoretical significance: Firstly, the need to broaden the scope of creativity research. In the past, the field of creativity research was mainly focused in economic organizations, like enterprises and research and design institutions, and the research subjects were mostly enterprise leaders or research and design personnel. In this study, the theory of creativity has been applied to the field of higher education, and college students were taken as the research subjects to broaden the scope of creativity research. Secondly, the need to expand research into the influencing factors of entrepreneurial intention. Although previous studies have also paid close attention to the influence of individual factors on entrepreneurial intention, creativity is still an easily neglected individual factor. This study introduces creativity as an individual factor to extend the influencing factors of entrepreneurial intention. This also confirms the research conclusions and viewpoints of Ahlin et al. (2014) and Khedhaouria et al. (2015) , that is, creativity can be regarded as a valuable ‘raw material’ owned by individuals, which can promote the enhancement of entrepreneurial intention by improving the awareness and skills related to entrepreneurship, such as opportunity identification, etc.

Based on the above analysis, this study believes that in the context of China’s current economic transformation and upgrading, to achieve the upgraded version of “mass entrepreneurship and innovation” for college students, efforts can be made from the following aspects. First, colleges and universities could continue to improve the quality of their entrepreneurship education. This can be done by expanding the teaching material for entrepreneurship modules to cultivate students’ creativity and by improving teaching methods for entrepreneurship education to improve students’ understanding of entrepreneurship and stimulate students’ creativity. This can include a range of different learning experiences, including not only in-class teaching, but also extra-curricular activities, which have been found to be particularly efficacious in developing students’ entrepreneurial mindsets in the Chinese context ( Cui et al., 2019 ). This research has highlighted the role that Ajzen’s (1991) three TPB attitudes, and creativity, play in entrepreneurial intent. Based on this research, to develop entrepreneurial intent, both individually and more widely, entrepreneurship education should focus on positively developing the three attitudes, and individuals’ creativity. Previous research has found that entrepreneurship education can efficiently develop creativity, which can successfully nurture entrepreneurial intentions ( Shahab et al., 2019 ). Active experiential approaches can be beneficial in entrepreneurship education ( Fuchs et al., 2008 ), particularly those that provide an authentic learning experience. Authentic learning experiences can encourage deeper learning, encourage engagement and more effectively prepare students ( Macht and Ball, 2016 ). For example, hands-on entrepreneurial experiences can help to develop intent and stimulate creativity, which can be further developed by the creation of specific goals and the sense of competition ( Bell and Bell, 2016 ).

Secondly, the government could create a better entrepreneurial environment for university entrepreneurs. Preferential policies could be provided for college students, such as setting up a special entrepreneurship support fund, providing free business premises, and providing tutorials. Furthermore, establishing an effective entrepreneurial atmosphere across whole society would encourage young people to innovate and start their own businesses. This could be achieved by holding entrepreneurship competitions, media publicity, and other forms of promotion. Finally, the increased joint ventures between universities and industries, financial institutions and/or relevant associations would create an entrepreneurial ecosystem and encourage innovation. Developing and tailoring entrepreneurial ecosystems conducive to the support of entrepreneurship education has been highlighted as an effective way to support the development of students’ entrepreneurial attitudes and abilities ( Bell, 2019 ).

Limitations

Although this research expands the use of the TPB model to study the relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intention, it also has practical significance for entrepreneurship education. However, in common with all research, some potential limitations exist and will now be considered along with future research opportunities. Firstly, this paper uses self-assessment to measure individual creativity, which may deviate from the actual situation. In future research, we can use mutual assessment or test, to obtain a deeper and more objective measurement of individual creativity. Secondly, this research focuses on the impact of creativity on individual entrepreneurial intention. Future research can explore the impact of entrepreneurs’ creativity in entrepreneurial teams, entrepreneurial performance and entrepreneurial growth, which can further expand the research area. Finally, research can be undertaken to investigate across a range of universities, and the number of samples can be increased to improve the external validity of the research conclusions.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The study was reviewed and approved by Wenzhou University Ethics Committee. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants.

Author Contributions

YS designed the work. YS and JW designed the field survey. TY assisted in the data collection. YS, TY, RB, and JW analyzed the data and experiment result. YS, RB, and WJ wrote the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• Ahlin B., Drnovšek M., Hisrich R. D. (2014). Entrepreneurs’ creativity and firm innovation: The moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Small Bus. Econ. 43 101–117. 10.1007/s11187-013-9531-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajzen I. (1985). “ From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior ,” in Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior , eds Kuhi J., Beckmann J. (Heidelberg: Springer; ), 11–39. 10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 179–211. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aldrich H. E., Cliff J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: toward a family embeddedness perspective. J. Bus. Venturing 18 573–596. 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00011-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell R. (2019). Predicting entrepreneurial intention across the university. Educ. Train. 61 815–831. 10.1108/ET-05-2018-0117 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell R., Bell H. (2016). An enterprise opportunity for entrepreneurial students: student enterprise development and experience assessed through the student voice. Educ. Train. 58 751–765. 10.1108/ET-12-2014-0150 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhalla G., Lin L. (1987). Cross-cultural marketing research: a discussion of equivalence issues and measurement strategies. Psychol. Mark. 4 185–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom N., Romer P. M., Terry S. J., Van Reenen J. (2013). A trapped-factors model of innovation. Am. Econ. Rev. 103 208–213. 10.1257/aer.103.3.208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chia C. C., Liang C. (2016). Influence of creativity and social capital on the entrepreneurial intention of tourism students. J. Enterpren. Manag. Innovat. 12 151–168. 10.7341/20161227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chua H. S., Bedford O. (2016). A qualitative exploration of fear of failure and entrepreneurial intent in Singapore. J. Career Dev. 43 319–334. 10.1177/0894845315599255 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cui J., Sun J., Bell R. (2019). The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial mindset of college students in China: the mediating role of inspiration and the role of educational attributes. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.04.001 [Epub ahead of print] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dai J., Chen Y. (2017). An empirical study on entrepreneurial intention of college students based on the theory of planned behavior: a case study of 348 undergraduates in Fujian province. Chin. Grad. Employ. 23 49–54. 10.3969/j.issn.1009-0576.2017.12.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeNoble A. F., Jung D., Ehrlich S. B. (1999). “ Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: the development of a measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action ,” in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research , eds Reynolds R. D., Bygrave W. D., Manigart S., Mason C. M., Meyer G. D., Sapienze H. J., et al. (Waltham, MA: P&R. Publications; ), 73–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edelman L. F., Manolova T., Shirokova G., Tsukanova T. (2016). The impact of family support on young entrepreneurs’ start-up activities. J. Bus. Venturing 31 428–448. 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.04.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fayolle A., Gailly B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: hysteresis and persistence. J. Small Bus. Manag. 53 75–93. 10.1111/jsbm.12065 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feola R., Vesci M., Botti A., Parente R. (2019). The determinants of entrepreneurial intention of young researchers: combining the theory of planned behavior with the triple helix model. J. Small Bus. Manag. 57 1424–1443. 10.1111/jsbm.12361 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuchs K., Werner A., Wallau F. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Germany and Sweden: what role do different school systems play? J. Small Bus. Enterprise Dev. 15 365–381. 10.1108/14626000810871736 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guilford J. P., Wilson R. C., Christensen P. R. (1952). A Factor−Analytic Study of Creative Thinking: II. Administration of Tests and Analysis of Results. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamidi D. Y., Wennberg K., Berglund H. (2008). Creativity in entrepreneurship education. J. Small Bus. Enterprise Dev. 15 304–320. 10.1108/14626000810871691 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harvey S. (2014). Creative synthesis: exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 39 324–343. 10.5465/amr.2012.0224 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu R., Wang L., Zhang W., Bin P. (2018). Creativity, proactive personality, and entrepreneurial intention: the role of entrepreneurial alertness. Front. Psychol. 9 : 951 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00951 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kautonen T., Van Gelderen M., Tornikoski E. T. (2013). Predicting entrepreneurial behaviour: a test of the theory of planned behaviour. Appl. Econ. 45 697–707. 10.1080/00036846.2011.610750 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khedhaouria A., Gurău C., Torrès O. (2015). Creativity, self-efficacy, and small-firm performance: the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Small Bus. Econ. 44 485–504. 10.1007/s11187-014-9608-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger N. F., Reilly M. D., Carsrud A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Venturing 15 411–432. 10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liñán F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccolla Impresa/Small Business 3 11–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liñán F., Fayolle A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. Int. Enterpren. Manag. J. 11 907–933. 10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liñán F., Rodríguez-Cohard J. C., Rueda-Cantuche J. M. (2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: a role for education. Int. Enterpren. Manag. J. 7 195–218. 10.1007/s11365-010-0154-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macht S. A., Ball S. (2016). “Authentic alignment” – A new framework of entrepreneurship education. Educ. Train. 58 926–944. 10.1108/ET-07-2015-0063 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maes J., Leroy H., Sels L. (2014). Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions: a TBP multi-group analysis at factor and indicator level. Eur. Manage. J. 32 784–794. 10.1016/j.emj.2014.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maresch D., Harms R., Kailer N., Wimmer-Wurm B. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 104 172–179. 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meusburger P. (2009). “ The role of places, environments and spatial contexts ,” in Milieus of Creativity , eds Meusburger P., Funke J., Wunde E. (Amsterdam: Springer; ), 97–153. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9877-2_7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miranda F. J., Chamorro-Mera A., Rubio S. (2017). Academic entrepreneurship in Spanish universities: an analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurial intention. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 23 113–122. 10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moriano J. A., Gorgievski M., Laguna M., Stephan U., Zarafshani K. (2012). A cross-cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. J. Career Dev. 39 162–185. 10.1177/0894845310384481 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumford M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativ. Res. J. 15 107–120. 10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Obschonka M., Goethner M., Silbereisen R. K., Cantner U. (2012). Social identity and the transition to entrepreneurship: the role of group identification with workplace peers. J. Vocat. Behav. 80 137–147. 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus P. B., Dzindolet M. (2008). Social influence, creativity and innovation. Soc. Influ. 3 228–247. 10.1080/15534510802341082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prodan I., Drnovsek M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: an empirical test. Technovation 30 332–347. 10.1016/j.technovation.2010.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhodes M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan 42 306–307. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salazar M. R., Lant T. K., Fiore S. M., Salas E. (2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Gr. Res. 43 527–539. 10.1177/1046496412453622 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schumpeter J. A. (1942). Capitalism Socialism and Democracy. New York, NY: Allen & Unwin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahab Y., Chengang Y., Arbizu A. D., Haider M. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: do entrepreneurial creativity and education matter? Int. J. Entrepren. Behav. Res. 25 259–280. 10.1108/IJEBR-12-2017-0522 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon M., Houghton S. M., Aquino K. (2000). Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: how individuals decide to start companies. J. Bus. Venturing 15 113–134. 10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00003-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Sternberg K., Mio J. S. (2012). Cognitive Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun Y., Hu B., Yang T. (2011). Research on the influencing factors of entrepreneurial intension of university students based on the achievement motivation. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 31 130–134. 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7695.2011.13.03 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torrance E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B-Figural Tests. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodman R. W., Sawyer J. E., Griffin R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 18 293–321. 10.5465/AMR.1993.3997517 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu X., Ni H., Ye Y. (2016). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions of Chinese secondary school students: an empirical study. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 17 625–635. 10.1007/s12564-016-9439-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang J. (2013). The theory of planned behavior and prediction of entrepreneurial intention among Chinese undergraduates. Soc. Behav. Pers. 41 367–376. 10.2224/sbp.2013.41.3.367 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zampetakis L. A., Gotsi M., Andriopoulos C., Moustakis V. (2011). Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in young people: empirical insights from business school students. Int. J. Enterpren. Innovat. 12 189–199. 10.5367/ijei.2011.0037 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang M. (2018). Hangzhou: China’s Answer to “Silicon Valley”, Is a Hit with Returning Graduates Study Finds. Available online at: https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2152935/hangzhou-chinas-answer-silicon-valley-hit-returning-graduates (accessed April 30, 2020) [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang X., Zhang K. (2018). The relation between creativity and entrepreneurial intention: a moderated mediating effect model. Foreign Econ. Manag. 40 67–78. 10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2018.03.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao H., Seibert S. E., Hills G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 267–296. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao H., Seibert S. E., Lumpkin G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: a meta-analytic review. J. Manag. 36 381–404. 10.1177/0149206309335187 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Best Applications For Entrepreneurs
• Entrepreneurship
• Small Business Ideas
• Small Business & Entrepreneurship

The Relationship Between Entrepreneur and Entrepreneurship

While entrepreneur and entrepreneurship are both connected terms, they have some differences.

Is entrepreneur and entrepreneurship the same? Entrepreneur and entrepreneurship are not the same. An entrepreneur refers to the person who builds and operates a business. On the other hand, Entrepreneurship is a process or an activity. Entrepreneurs carry out entrepreneurship.  

If you’re interested in learning more about the relationship between an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship…keep reading!

Table of Contents

What Is the Meaning of Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneur? 

Definition of entrepreneur.

An entrepreneur is someone who introduces new products and services to the market by innovation .  

An entrepreneur is responsible for their own success. Therefore, they bear all the risk that comes with a business. 

An entrepreneur is a leader who guides their employees to achieve success in their business. 

Also, an entrepreneur turns creative ideas into reality. 

Examples of famous entrepreneurs include Mark Zuckerberg , Bill Gates , Jeff Bezos , Steve Jobs , and so on…

Definition of Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is a process or an activity that establishes new businesses. Entrepreneurship includes the initiation, development, management, and operation of a startup company. 

Entrepreneurs carry out entrepreneurship to run and manage businesses. 

Entrepreneurs use entrepreneurship to develop strong relationships with distributors, suppliers, banks, creditors, investors, and other entrepreneurs. These relationships can greatly value the entrepreneur as they help the entrepreneur in difficult times. 

Entrepreneurship has four types: small business entrepreneurship, large company entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and scalable startup entrepreneurship. 

Entrepreneur vs. Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneur and entrepreneurship are both similar words, but there are a few differences between them, such as:  

Characteristics of Entrepreneur

Now let’s discuss the characteristics of an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur has lots of great and unique qualities and characteristics. A few of them includes: 

1. Self-Confidence : An entrepreneur is someone who believes in themselves. They know their strength and weaknesses, hence they have confidence in themselves. They know that they can achieve anything only if they have self-confidence.

2. Leader : An entrepreneur knows the importance of leadership. They understand how leadership can lead to success in business. Hence, they become the best leaders because their business will go down the drain without it. 

3. Responsible : An entrepreneur is in charge of his/her own business, making them the sole responsible and accountable for their own success or failure. 

4. Risk-Taker : An entrepreneur is well aware of the risk that comes with the business. They are great risk-takers because the greater the risk, the greater reward. 

5. Creative : An entrepreneur is a creative thinker. Their creative thinking leads to innovations that solve society’s problems. 

6. Passionate : The key to great success is a passion for what you do. Entrepreneurs are well aware of this. Hence they are very passionate and focused people who work very hard to achieve their goals. 

7. Self-Disciplined : A self-disciplined entrepreneur is more inclined towards success than the one who is not. Self-discipline helps an entrepreneur keep on track. 

8. Time Management : As the saying says, “Time is money.” A successful entrepreneur knows the value of time. A time spent productive can reap too much reward in the future. Hence entrepreneurs are good at time management. 

9. Communication Skills : If something that can make you thrive in business is good communication skills. Entrepreneurs have excellent communication skills because they want themselves to be successful. 

10. Problem-Solving : An entrepreneur is someone who has great problem-solving abilities. Entrepreneurs face many problems throughout their lives, so problem-solving qualities are necessary. 

Characteristics of Entrepreneurship

The characteristics of entrepreneurship include: 

1. Process : Entrepreneurship is how entrepreneurs run and operate a business.

2. Idea : Entrepreneurship gives shape to the ideas which an entrepreneur comes up with. 

3. Promotion : Entrepreneurship helps in its unique way by promoting the new products and services introduced by entrepreneurs. 

4. Innovation : Entrepreneurship helps to look for opportunities in the market. It fulfills the market need by innovation. Hence innovation is the critical characteristic of entrepreneurship. 

In conclusion, both are similar words, but they have some differences. Such as entrepreneur is a person, and entrepreneurship is a process or an activity. An Entrepreneur carries out business and entrepreneurship through how an entrepreneur carries out business. 

If you are intrested learning more about entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs than checkout my blog.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.