Jom Opportunity

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/240249110
The Concept of “Opportunity” in Entrepreneurship

Research: Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges
Article in Journal of Management · January 2010

DOI: 10.1177/0149206309342746
CITATIONS READS
741 27,962
4 authors, including:
Jeremy C. Short R. Duane Ireland

University of North Texas Texas A&M University
104 PUBLICATIONS 10,542 CITATIONS 181 PUBLICATIONS 42,333 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All things great and small: Organizational size, boundaries of the firm and a changing environment View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jeremy C. Short on 01 November 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Concept of “Opportunity” in
Entrepreneurship Research: Past
Accomplishments and Future Challenges
Jeremy C. Short
Texas Tech University
David J. Ketchen, Jr.
Christopher L. Shook
Auburn University
R. Duane Ireland
Texas A&M University
Opportunity is a central concept within the entrepreneurship field, and there is now a critical
mass of literature centered on the concept. The authors seek to make two main contributions to
this literature. First, we provide a detailed review of research on the opportunity concept and
the processes surrounding it, highlighting extant insights and future needs. Second, we describe
ways that the entrepreneurship literature’s insights about the opportunity concept could be
enhanced by research in other fields, both inside and outside business-related domains.
Keywords: entrepreneurship; ideas; opportunity; opportunities; exploration; exploitation
A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds.

—Francis Bacon
Without an opportunity, there is no entrepreneurship. A potential entrepreneur can be

immensely creative and hardworking, but without an opportunity to target with these
Acknowledgments: David J. Ketchen, Jr. and Christopher L. Shook wish to acknowledge the research support of
the Lowder Center for Family Business and Entrepreneurship at Auburn University.
Corresponding author; Jeremy C. Short, Texas Tech University, Jerry S. Rawls College of Business, Lubbock,
Texas, 79409, USA
E-mail: jeremy.short@ttu.edu
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, January 2010 40-65
40
DOI: 10.1177/0149206309342746
© 2010 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
40
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015
Short et al. / The Concept of “Opportunity” in Entrepreneurship Research 41
characteristics, entrepreneurial activities cannot take place. Recognizing this reality has
meant that whereas historically entrepreneurship research has tended to center on entrepre-
neurs and their behaviors in creating new ventures, the role opportunities play has received
increased scholarly attention in recent years. As Eckhardt and Shane (2003) note,
Researchers have recently shifted attention away from approaches that focus on identifying
those people in society who prefer to become entrepreneurs towards understanding the nexus of
enterprising individuals and valuable opportunities . . . This new focus has required scholars to
explain the role of opportunities in the entrepreneurial process. (p. 333)
Indeed, opportunities are one of the key concepts that define the boundary and exchange
conditions of the entrepreneurship field. (Busenitz, West, Shepherd, Nelson, Chandler, &
Zacharakis, 2003).
Despite the emergence of opportunity as a central concept for entrepreneurship researchers,
little agreement exists about the definition and nature of opportunities (Hansen & Shrader,
2007). Our opening quote by Francis Bacon alludes to two popular schools of thought—one
contending that opportunities are discovered and another contending that they are created
(Alvarez & Barney, 2007). Others view opportunities as products of a creative process that is
more gradual, involving a synthesis of ideas over time (Dimov, 2007a). Whereas some defini-
tions focus on the chance to introduce innovative goods, services, or processes (e.g., Gaglio,
2004), others are primarily concerned with the role of opportunities in creating new ventures
(e.g., Baron, 2008).
Given the importance of the opportunity concept to scholars and organizations, there is a need
to summarize extant knowledge about this concept as the foundation for setting the stage for
further advances. We seek to offer two contributions in light of this need. First, we conduct a
detailed review of insights about opportunity and the processes surrounding it appearing in
entrepreneurship research. This review is intended to consolidate past accomplishments and to
set the stage for future developments. More broadly, we believe that insights about opportunities
appearing within the entrepreneurship literature could be enhanced by relevant research in other
fields, including accounting, anthropology, economics, finance, organizational behavior, human
resource management, marketing, operations management, political science, psychology, soci-
ology, and strategic management. Because few collaborative bridges have been built, our second
intended contribution is developing ideas that leverage insights about opportunities offered
within other fields to inform entrepreneurship questions and scholarly work.
Research on Entrepreneurial Opportunities
Overview of Review Approach
To further our understanding of entrepreneurial opportunities, we reviewed relevant insights

appearing in highly regarded entrepreneurship journals as well as highly regarded broad audi-
ence journals. We began our search within the set of journals used in Busenitz et al.’s (2003)
review of entrepreneurship research. This list included major management journals and three
leading entrepreneurship journals. Following Busenitz et al.’s (2003) procedure, we used the

42 Journal of Management / January 2010
ABI/Inform database and searched for articles, regardless of time period, in which “opportu-
nity” or “opportunities” were used in the title, keywords, or abstract. Journals publishing
relevant works included Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Manage-
ment, Management Science, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal. As we
discovered relevant works, we examined their reference sections to identify other potentially
relevant articles. This additional search process revealed other published works in Journal of
Management Studies, Organization Studies, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. We then
examined each article to assess whether the terms opportunity and opportunities were used in
relevant ways. Our search yielded 40 conceptual and 28 empirical efforts.
The majority of articles were found in three entrepreneurship journals—Journal of Business
Venturing (20 out of 64 articles; 31%), Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (13 articles;
19%), and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (13 articles; 19%). Overall, these three outlets
accounted for 46 out of 68 (68%) works on the opportunity concept. Other outlets publishing
research that is relevant to our objectives included Journal of Management Studies (8 articles;
12%), Academy of Management Review (4 articles; 6%), Journal of Management (4 articles;
6%), and Management Science (2 articles; 3%). Academy of Management Journal, Organization
Science, Organization Studies, and Strategic Management Journal each contributed one arti-
cle. We did not find relevant articles in Administrative Science Quarterly, the Journal of Applied
Psychology, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, or Personnel Psychology. One interpretation of this distribution is that
entrepreneurial opportunities have been of much greater interest to entrepreneurship scholars as
compared to the management field in general.
Theories and Methods in Opportunity Research

We summarize the key features of each conceptual and empirical article in Tables 1 and 2,
respectively. When reviewing conceptual articles, we examined the theoretical/literature
base as well as capturing an understanding of how the work contributes to knowledge about
the opportunity concept. Research in entrepreneurship has been criticized for lacking ade-
quate theoretical bases (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000); however, we found that research
surrounding the opportunity construct has been theoretically rich, embracing a multitude of
theories, including coherence theory, creation theory, discovery theory, organizational learn-
ing, research on affect, social cognitive theory, and structuration theory.
Our review of conceptual works suggests the opportunity construct holds great promise as
a basis for theory building. For example, Ardichvili et al. (2003) use Dubin’s (1978) theory
building framework to develop a theory of opportunity identification and development. Such
approaches could be used to build theory on other opportunity-related processes, such as
opportunity creation, discovery, recognition, exploration, and exploitation. Looking to the
future, other forms of theory building can be used to move this research stream forward. For
example, given the different definitions of opportunity in the literature (i.e., created vs. dis-
covered vs. recognized), use of configurations and typologies may be an appropriate approach
to creating new theory (e.g., Doty & Glick, 1994; Short, Payne, & Ketchen, 2008).
(Text continues on p. 46)

Table 1
Review of Conceptual Articles on Opportunities
Contribution to Understanding the
Article Literature/Theory Base “Opportunity” Concept
Jones & Butler (1992) Information and agency Agencies problems between managers and
theory entrepreneurs exist in the corporate con-
text due to differing risk preferences
regarding opportunism, which can dis-
courage entrepreneurial efforts
Shane & Venkataraman (2000) Various The entrepreneurship field should be
defined by the individuals and processes
that lead to the discovery, evaluation,
and exploitation of opportunities
Aldrich & Cliff (2003) Research on family firms Transformations in the degree of family
embeddedness may lead to the emer-
gence and recognition of new entrepre-
neurial opportunities
Ardichvili, Cardozo, Dubin’s (1978) theory build- Personality traits, social networks, and
& Ray (2003) ing framework prior knowledge are antecedents to the
entrepreneurial alertness needed to rec-
ognize, evaluate, and develop opportu-
nities
Denrell, Fang, & Winter (2003) Resource-based theory and Develops a framework for analyzing stra-
research in economics tegic factor market inefficiencies, which
suggests that strategic opportunities rep-
resent a situation when prices fail to
reflect the value that represents a
resource’s best use
Eckhardt & Shane (2003) Disequilibrium framework Presents a typology wherein opportunities
manifest themselves along three dimen-
sions: changes in the product/service
markets, different sources of opportu-
nity, and by what actors initiate change
in opportunities
Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon (2003) Strategic entrepreneurship Small firms are generally better at indenti-
fying opportunities but less adept at
appropriating value by developing com-
petitive advantages
Gaglio (2004) Social cognition The processes of mental simulation and
counterfactual thinking provide the
mechanisms by which opportunities are
identified and developed
Chiasson & Saunders (2005) Structuration theory Opportunity recognition and formation are
complementary, rather than contrasting
explanations for the existence of entre-
preneurial opportunities

Table 1 (continued)
Corbett (2005) Experiential learning theory Individuals with different learning modes
will perform better in regard to different
parts of the opportunity identification
and exploitation process
Dutta & Crossan (2005) Organizational learning 4 I’s (Intuiting, Interpreting, Integrating,
and Institutionalizing) are all part of the
processes that comprise the life cycle of
entrepreneurial opportunities
Lumpkin & Lichtenstein (2005) Organizational learning Builds on three approaches to organiza-
tional learning (behavioral, cognitive,
and action learning) to develop a crea-
tivity-based model of opportunity rec-
ognition that includes the discovery and
formation phases
Oviatt & McDougall (2005) Research on international Entrepreneurial opportunities are the start-
entrepreneurship ing point that drives a model of interna-
tional entrepreneurship that determines
the speed of internationalization
De Carolis & Saparito (2006) Social cognitive theory Develops a model suggesting that the inter-
play of social capital and cognitive biases
explains why some people exploit oppor-
tunities whereas others do not
Lee & Venkataraman (2006) Various Opportunities are created when disequilib-
rium exists between an individual’s
level of aspiration and her/his appraised
value in the labor market
McMullen & Shepherd (2006) Various Opportunities are exploited when individ-
uals are willing to bear the uncertainty
needed to take entrepreneurial action
Sarason, Dean, & Dillard Structuration theory Offers a structuration view of entrepre-
(2006) neurship, which suggests that opportuni-
ties do not exist independently but
rather arises via coevolution among the
entrepreneur and social systems
Zahra, Yavuz, & Ucbasaran Research on trust The existence of trust in established com-
(2006) panies can have both positive and nega-
tive effects on the opportunity
recognition, evaluation, and framing
processes
Alvarez & Barney (2007) Discovery theory and creation Discovery theory and creation theory pro-
theory vide competing explanations for how
entrepreneurial opportunities are formed
(continued)

Table 1 (continued)

Chiles, Bluedorn, & Gupta Austrian economics Entrepreneurs engage in a process of crea-
(2007) tive imagination in which opportunities
are exploited by continuously combin-
ing and recombining intermediate goods
to produce consumer goods
Cohen & Winn (2007) Sustainable entrepreneurship Market imperfections lead to opportunities
for the creation of new technologies and
business models
Dean & McMullen (2007) Research on environmental Environmental market failures represent
economics opportunities for achieving profitability
while also reducing environmentally
degrading behaviors
Dimov (2007a) Research on creativity The generation of opportunities is a
function of contextual and social
influences rather than the insights of a
single individual
Fiet (2007) Various Systematic search is a more effective
method to discovering opportunities
than alertness
Hjorth (2007) Narrative approach The opportunity construct should be
broadened to include the timing of
opportunity creation
Hsieh, Nickerson, Behavioral theory of the firm Opportunity discovery is a problem-solving
& Zenger (2007) process where an organized search leads
to answers about unsolved problems
Lee, Peng, & Barney (2007) Real options theory Entrepreneurial friendly bankruptcy laws
encourage the exploitation of opportuni-
ties at the societal level
Mahnke, Venzin, Research on multinational Structural differences influence solutions to
& Zahra (2007) enterprises communicative, behavioral, and value
uncertainties in recognizing and selecting
opportunities for multinational enterprises
Miller (2007) Entrepreneurial risk Unique conceptualizations of risk and
rationality are associated with opportu-
nity recognition, discovery, and creation
Shepherd, McMullen, & Coherence theory Presents a theoretical framework wherein
Jennings (2007) opportunities evolve from third-person
opportunity beliefs (i.e., an opportunity
exists for “someone”) to become first-
person opportunity beliefs (i.e., an
opportunity exists for “me”)

Table 1 (continued)

Van de Ven, Sapienza, Various Entrepreneurs who consider both collec-

& Villanueva (2007) tive and self-interests are more likely to
recognize and/or create opportunities
Witt (2007) Research on vision and strate- The entrepreneurial choice between firms
gic choice and markets serves as a core element of
the entrepreneurial pursuit to capitalize
on certain business opportunities
Baron (2008) Research on affect Affect (individual’s moods and feelings)
influences entrepreneur’s cognitions,
and thus, shapes entrepreneurial proc-
esses such as opportunity recognition
Choi, Lévesque, & Shepherd “Timing of exploitation” Timing is a critical factor when transition-
(2008) theory ing between the opportunity exploration
and exploitation processes
Eckhardt & Ciuchta (2008) Population ecology The individual opportunity selection proc-
ess leads to a multistage selection
model at the population level
Fiet & Patel (2008) Various The value of opportunities can be maxi-
mized by forgiving business models
where the risk is disproportionally
shifted to stakeholders outside of the
principal entrepreneur/investors
Foss & Foss (2008) Resource-based view/ Property rights and transaction costs are
economics of property rights antecedents of opportunity discovery
Klein (2008) Work of Austrian economists Opportunities as subjective phenomena

Cantillon, Knight, and (judgments) that are imagined, rather
Misses than created or discovered
Zahra (2008) Various Certain technology contexts may be more
conducive to discovering opportunities,
whereas others encourage both creation
and discovery
Schindehutte & Morris (2009) Complexity science Strategic entrepreneurship involves
both exploration and exploitation of
opportunities
Adding to existing conceptual frameworks to develop more complex theoretical models is

another fruitful avenue for future research. For example, Baron (2008) outlines how indi-
viduals’ affect leads to cognitive processes such as judgments and perceptions that in turn
drive key aspects of the entrepreneurial process such as opportunity recognition. This model
could be extended to include key organizational outcomes such as new venture creation and

start-up performance. Another possibility is considering how organizational characteristics

(e.g., resource availability) and environmental conditions (e.g., industry munificence and
dynamism) could moderate such relationships. A third possibility is building theoretical ties
to other streams of entrepreneurship research, such as social entrepreneurship (Short, Moss,
& Lumpkin, 2009) and entrepreneurship within informal economies (Webb, Tihanyi, Ireland,
& Sirmon, 2009). For example, some entrepreneurial opportunities appear to arise as a
response to social injustice. Given this reactionary nature, perhaps definitions of opportuni-
ties focused on discovery are more relevant in this context than those that center on
creation.
When reviewing empirical works, we examined study design, the assessment/measurement
of “opportunity,” literature/theory base, and findings. In terms of study designs, surveys were
used twice as often as all other options combined. Although survey designs enable the efficient
generation of large samples (e.g., 637 business founders/owners—Ucbasaran et al., 2009;
400 firms—Davidsson, 1991), surveys are limited as to the type of relationships they can accu-
rately assess and are commonly prone to common method variance issues. The vast majority of
the studies using surveys were cross-sectional in nature. Such designs are less than ideal, given
that opportunity creation, recognition, exploration, and exploitation are dynamic processes.
Wiklund and Shepherd’s (2003) design decision to survey small business managers at two
points in time 3 years apart is an exception to the cross-sectional trend. Their design is notable
for separating the measurement of cause (e.g., aspirations, resources, and opportunities) and
effect (e.g., growth).
Encouragingly, recent research features designs such as quasi-experiments, experiments,
and field studies, all of which are better suited than surveys for examining dynamic processes
such as those involving opportunities. For example, Mullins and Forlani (2005) used an
experimental design to study the effects of entrepreneurs’ risk preferences on their choice of
new venture opportunities. More generally, entrepreneurship researchers are identifying a
variety of novel and powerful approaches that promise to enhance the rigor of future research
(Short, Ketchen, Combs, & Ireland, in press).
In terms of analytical techniques, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression has been the
most prevalent approach within studies of opportunities. Using OLS regression is problem-
atic because it assumes normally distributed static data, but opportunities are rarely normally
distributed or static (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003). An exemplar is offered by Shane (2001), who
used multiple years of historical data and event history analysis to investigate firm forma-
tions across several years after patents were filed for inventions. Had OLS regression been
used instead, one arbitrary time period for measuring firm creation would have been imposed
on the phenomenon, and a much less accurate picture may have been painted.
Going forward, quantitative techniques for analyzing individual judgments could prove to
be very helpful in understanding opportunities. Decomposition methods focus on extracting
an individual’s decision rule by comparing an individual’s choices when faced with multiple
scenarios. For example, Choi and Shepherd (2004) used conjoint analysis to develop a mental
model of when entrepreneurs are more likely to exploit opportunities. Decomposition meth-
ods may be particularly valuable to opportunity researchers because they allow them to
examine how respondents process decision making contingencies (e.g., risk) without relying
on respondents’ introspection, which is often inaccurate (Priem & Harrison, 1994).
(Text continues on p. 53)

48
Table 2
Review of Empirical Articles on Opportunities
Overview of Study
Article Design Depiction of Opportunity Literature/Theory Base Findings
Jennings & Archival data on 80 Texas Opportunities are created by indus- Strategy–structure Firms with prospector strategies and
Seaman (1990) savings and loan try deregulation and are exploited paradigm organic structures pursue more opportu-
institutions by new business activities nities than do firms with defender strate-
gies and mechanistic structures
Davidsson (1991) Survey data on 400 Objective opportunities and per- Katona’s notion of will- Industry characteristics, geographic disper-
Swedish small firms ceived opportunities are distinct ingness and ability as sion, and competitors determine objec-
determinants of eco- tive opportunities, whereas objective
nomic behavior opportunities, perceived external obsta-
cles, entry barriers, and room for growth
determine perceived opportunities
Kaish & Gilad Survey data from 51 Entrepreneurs search for opportuni- Theory of entrepreneurial Entrepreneurs discover opportunities
(1991) company founders and ties differently than do business alertness through more search activities and differ-
36 financial corporation executives ent analysis of data vis-à-vis nonentre-
executives preneurs
Patterson (1993) Archival data for 151 Opportunities are fleeting Game theory The ability to exploit opportunities
firms in 6 industries decreases with industry age
Amit, Muller, & Survey data on 352 new Exploiting opportunities involves Game theory Opportunity costs are negatively related to
Cockburn (1995) entrepreneurs, acquired self-employment and entails costs opportunity exploitation
from Canadian Labor
Market Activity Survey

Zahra (1996) Archival and survey data Opportunities arise due to differ- Agency theory The level of perceived technological
of 138 Fortune 500 ences across industries in their opportunities moderates the relationships
firms technological innovations and between corporate governance and
research and development institutional ownership with corporate
expenditures entrepreneurship
Thakur (1999) 50 case studies of Indian Opportunities exist as a result of Grounded theory Access to resources limits range of oppor-
entrepreneurs demand and supply gaps, price tunity choice
differences, technology substitu-
tion, or innovation
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
Overview of Study
Shane (2000) Detailed case studies of Technological change creates new Austrian Economics People are not equally likely to discover
eight new ventures processes, products, markets, and opportunities from technological change.
exploiting a single MIT new ways of organizing only if Entrepreneurs discover rather than search
invention entrepreneurs discover ways to for opportunities. Prior distribution of
exploit these opportunities knowledge determines who discovers
opportunities
Shane (2001) Event history analysis of Technological innovations can cre- Research on technological Technological inventions that are more
1,397 MIT patents ate opportunities that may be innovation and industry radical, more important, and have a
exploited by new firm creation entry broader scope of patent protection are
more likely to be commercialized
through the creation of new firms
Randoy & Goel Archival data collected on Opportunity exploitation requires Agency theory Firms with founder leaders face different
(2003) 68 Norwegian SMEs financing agency contexts than firms with non-
founder leaders
Wiklund & Multiwave survey of 326 Environmental dynamism is Theory of planned Environmental dynamism enhances the
Shepherd (2003) CEOs of Swedish small implied to be related to opportu- behavior effect of a small business manager’s
businesses nities growth aspirations on the level of small
business growth

Choi & Shepherd Conjoint analysis experi- Opportunities exist when there is Resource-based view Entrepreneurs are more likely to exploit
(2004) ment using 55 entrepre- customer demand for a new prod- opportunities when they perceive more
neurs housed in uct and are exploited by venture knowledge of customer demand for the
incubators creation new product, more fully developed nec-
essary technologies, greater managerial
capability, and greater stakeholder
support
Mullins & Forlani Two experiments involv- Opportunities involve the creation Research on individual The likelihood and the magnitude of loss/
(2005) ing 75 founder CEOs of of new firms that vary in terms of differences and risk gain influence an entrepreneur’s choice
49
the fastest growing pub- risk preferences of new venture opportunities
lic firms
50
Shepherd & Experiment involving 78 Differences in knowledge allow Austrian Economics and Prior knowledge of customer problems not
DeTienne (2005) MBA students individuals to identify cognitive psychology only directly affects the quantity and
opportunities quality of opportunities identified, but
also moderates the effect of financial
reward on opportunity identification
Baron & Ensley Survey of 88 experienced Opportunities involve new products Pattern recognition The cognitive representations of
(2006) and 106 novice entre- or new services that lead to the theories opportunities of experienced
preneurs creation of new businesses entrepreneurs differ from those of novice
entrepreneurs. Pattern recognition is a
key component of opportunity
recognition
Cliff, Jennings, Survey of 60 law firm Opportunities involve the creation Institutional theory Founders with extensive experience in the
& Greenwood founders in Vancouver of new firms that vary in terms of industry’s core firms establish imitative
(2006) their innovativeness firms, whereas founders with greater
experience in the industry’s periphery
establish innovative firms
Bingham, Interviews and secondary Abundant opportunities imply Organizational learning Past experiences result in decision-making
Eisenhardt, & data on 67 country opportunities are discovered and heuristics, which allow opportunity
Furr (2007) entries by 12 entrepre- captured capture and improve subsequent
neurial firms in 4 global performance
technology industries
DeTienne & Quasi experiment involv- Opportunity identification includes Human capital theory and Although men and women use unique
Chandler (2007) ing 95 undergraduate both recognized and created social feminist theory stocks of human capital and exhibit

business students and a opportunities for creating a new different processes of opportunity
survey of 189 entrepre- venture identification, the innovativeness of the
neurs in 2 high-technol- opportunities identified by each gender
ogy industries exhibited no differences
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
Overview of Study
Dimov (2007b) Online experiment Opportunities begin as ideas; they Experiential learning Intention to exploit an opportunity is
involving 95 MBA and are intuited and interpreted by theory driven not only by the interaction of how
undergraduate students individuals much knowledge individuals have of the
opportunity domain but also on whether
their learning style matches the situation
at hand
Gruber (2007) Online survey of 142 Opportunities are exploited by the Information-processing Planning is beneficial to the success of
founders of venture creation of new firms and decision-making opportunity exploitation
capitalist–backed firms theory
Ozgen & Baron Survey of 201 IT Opportunities involve the creation Social psychology Mentors, informal industry networks and
(2007) company founders of new firms. Individuals vary in participation in professional forums are
their “alertness” to such positively related to opportunity
opportunities recognition
Dyer, Gregersen, Survey of 72 Starting an innovative business Inductive theory building One’s ability to generate novel ideas for
& Christenson entrepreneurs and 310 involves recognizing, and network theory innovative new businesses is a function
(2008) executives discovering, or creating of questioning, observing, experimenting,
opportunities and idea networking behaviors
Eddleston, Survey of 74 family firms Opportunities result from Resource-based view The positive relationship between
Kellermanns, technological innovation, and reciprocal altruism and family firm
& Sarathy industries vary in opportunity performance is stronger in

(2008) richness environments rich with technological
opportunities
Gartner, Shaver, Open-ended questions Opportunities are perceived as Strategic issue literatures Entrepreneurs attributed the
& Liao (2008) from the Panel Study of positive situations that are and attribution theory opportunities they exploited to their
Entrepreneurial controllable abilities and efforts
Dynamics
51
52
Hmieleski & Survey of 201 lead The opportunity discovery context Regulatory focus theory An entrepreneur’s self-regulatory mode
Baron (2008) entrepreneurs is characterized by risk, while the has implications for the success of
opportunity creation context is opportunity exploitation in dynamic
characterized by uncertainty environments. In dynamic
environments, a promotion focus
enhances performance, whereas a
prevention focus reduces performance
Mitchell, Survey and interview data Opportunities are created Cognitive psychology Past failure positively influences the
Mitchell, & from 220 entrepreneurs new transaction commitment mindset
Smith (2008) and keeps opportunity formation
processes flexible while commitment
emerges
Haynie, Conjoint analysis Opportunities are evaluated based Resource-based view Entrepreneurs are attracted to
Shepherd, & experiment using 73 on future value opportunities that are complementary
McMullen entrepreneurs to their existing knowledge resources
(2009)
Ucbasaran, Survey of 637 British Opportunities involve creation or Cognitive psychology Experienced entrepreneurs identified
Westhead, & business founders or purchase of a business more opportunities and exploited
Wright (2009) owners more innovative opportunities with
greater wealth creation potential. An

inverse U-shaped relationship was
detected between the proportion of
failed businesses and the number of
opportunities identified
Measurement within opportunity research has evolved over time toward greater sophisti-
cation. Early studies tended to assume the existence of opportunities from environmental
contexts (e.g., a recently deregulated savings and loan industry—Jennings & Seaman, 1990;
dynamic industries—Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003). More recently, scales and indices have
been used to measure opportunities and an individual’s interaction with them. Technological
innovation as the source of opportunities was the focus of an index developed by Zahra
(1996) and used by Eddleston et al. (2008). A scale to measure the interaction of individuals
with opportunities was adapted from a six-item scale from Singh, Hills, Hybels, and Lumpkin
(1999) by Ozgen and Baron (2007). This scale was designed to measure both the ability to
recognize opportunities (e.g., “I can recognize new venture opportunities in industries where
I have no personal experience”) and alertness to opportunities (e.g., “I have a special alert-
ness or sensitivity toward new venture opportunities”).
Ideally, researchers should use multiple measures of opportunity to achieve triangulation and
enhance confidence that the concept is being captured. For example, Bingham, Eisenhardt, and
Furr (2007) measured “opportunity capture” with three measures that were each collected in dif-
ferent manners (archival, survey, and interview data). In Zahra (1996), the results of analyses
using a four-item measure of technological opportunities were replicated with the industries’
3-year average research and development expenditures. In both studies, confidence in the findings
was enhanced because results were consistent across measures. Although desirable, triangulation
is not always feasible. Multiple sources of corroborating data do not always exist nor is the data
always readily available. Furthermore, time and budget constraints may limit a researcher’s abil-
ity to obtain an alternative measurement. However, given the importance of the opportunity
construct to the field, we encourage researchers to assess opportunity via triangulation when fea-
sible. Triangulation is particularly important when using self-report measures, given that such
measures are subject to bias (e.g., an individual’s abilities or thinking processes).
Themes in the Opportunity Literature
Following Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008), we organize our review to examine anteced-
ents, outcomes, and moderators of opportunities and/or opportunity-related processes (e.g.,
opportunity exploration/exploitation, opportunity recognition). To provide a foundation for
discussing these themes, we first begin by reviewing works that shed light on the nature of
opportunities. Second, we discuss the antecedents, or “drivers” of opportunities. The third
theme concerns the outcomes that follow opportunities or opportunity-related processes. The
fourth theme related to factors that moderate our understanding of opportunities, as well as
conceptual and empirical variables that serve as moderators.
The nature of opportunities. Strategy and policy resemble power in political science. They are
catch-all concepts that denote anything and so they mean nothing and they cannot be operationalized.
Yet they form the core around which a field has organized itself. (Meyer, 1991: 831)
The above characterization was offered in response to Meyer (1991) asking a respected col-
league what is distinctive about the strategic management field. Given the rallying of the entre-
preneurship field around the opportunity concept, entrepreneurship scholars should be careful

that the term opportunity does not also become a catchall phrase and thereby lose substance and
meaning (Gartner, Carter, & Hills, 2003). Our review revealed that the increase of opportunity
research has been accompanied by a number of different processes associated with the term
opportunity (i.e., creation, discovery, recognition). In addition, numerous terms describing types
of opportunities, or ideas similar to the concept of opportunity, are found in the literature, such
as “aha!” (Lumpkin & Lichtenstein, 2005) or “eureka” moments (Fiet, 2007).
Variance in using the term opportunity may be a function of differences in theoretical perspec-
tives. Grounded in earlier contributions from Casson (1982) and Shane and Venkataraman
(2000), Eckhardt and Shane (2003: 336) define opportunities as “situations in which new goods,
services, raw materials, markets and organizing methods can be introduced through the formation
of new means, ends, or means-ends relationships.” This characterization reflects the dominant
view, one that is fairly instrumental and rational in its orientation.
To date, presenting opportunities as either concrete realities or as an enactment of an
entrepreneur’s unique vision have shaped the two dominant views of the opportunity con-
struct (Alvarez & Barney, 2007). The first view positions opportunities as discovered—that
is, opportunities are viewed as a function of a tangible reality. Opportunities exist “out there”
waiting to be found. The other dominant view posits that opportunities are created—a func-
tion of enacted actions that occur during entrepreneurial processes. For example, Ardichvili
et al. (2003: 106) contend that “opportunities are made, not found.” A reasonable middle
ground position is that some opportunities are discovered whereas others are created. Our
expectation is that the literature will move toward this position in the near future. We believe
this position surfaces intriguing contextual questions for scholars to explore regarding when
and how opportunities are found or created.
The critical role that timing plays in developing opportunities dates to Schumpeter’s
(1954) early notions that creative destruction processes occur when new opportunities dis-
place existing business models. Thus, to fully understand the opportunity process, one must
understand the temporal dynamics of opportunities. As the creative process unfolds, ex ante
possibilities can only become ex post opportunities as the feasibility of particular possibili-
ties is evaluated (Dimov, 2007a). Incorporating the role of time answers the call of scholars
such as Ford (2002, p. 645), who argues that “making time a more central aspect of our
theoretical language will promote better process descriptions that are likely to reflect the
experiences of organizational members more directly.”
Delineation of the opportunity concept requires consideration of two related concepts,
both of which may or may not evolve into opportunities. Ideas are a function of creativity
and learning; however, ideas lead to potential opportunities only if carefully vetted and
developed (Dimov, 2007b; Hsieh et al., 2007). Dreams are aspirations whose connection to
bona fide opportunities remains undefined (Ardichvili et al., 2003). Entrepreneurial dreams
often center on noneconomic goals, such as gaining autonomy, improving society, and cre-
ative expression (Rindova, Barry, & Ketchen, 2009). In these cases, ambiguity surrounds the
ability of a dream to become economically viable.
The argument that ideas and dreams are a precursor to entrepreneurial opportunities is
consistent with Kirzner’s (1997) suggestion that alert individuals come upon opportunities
by surprise. These surprises are not inherently opportunities but rather they become oppor-
tunities via evaluative processes such as the assessment of risk and uncertainty. Such a view
is consistent with Denrell et al.’s (2003) assertion that a successful opportunity

[Is] a consequence of effort and luck joined by alertness and flexibility, where the effort was not
initially directed to the specific end realized, alertness is required to recognize the lucky appear-
ance of a new possibility, and flexibility is displayed by redirecting the effort. (p. 985)
Overall, the literature addressing the nature of opportunities calls attention to three main
issues: the discovery versus the creation of opportunities, temporal dynamics surrounding
opportunities, and the evolution of ideas and dreams into opportunities. To capture all three,
we offer the following definition of an opportunity:
An opportunity is an idea or dream that is discovered or created by an entrepreneurial entity and
that is revealed through analysis over time to be potentially lucrative.
Antecedents to opportunities. Considerable effort has been taken to understand the cogni-
tive and learning processes associated with opportunity creation, discovery, and recognition.
A number of works explicitly examine the role that cognitive processes, as well as elements
associated with thinking and learning, play in understanding the development of opportuni-
ties. For example, Gaglio (2004) discusses the mental simulations inherent in many entre-
preneurial processes (e.g., rehearsing a sales pitch) and highlights how people characterized
as “opportunity finders” think more deeply about issues contrary to existing facts than non-
finders. A key implication of this work is that the decision biases that affect individuals in
general (see Fiske & Taylor, 1984) and strategic decision makers in particular (Barnes, 1984)
may also factor into the ability to successfully detect opportunities. The pairing of such
cognitions with the availability of social capital allows some entrepreneurs to more success-
fully exploit opportunities than others (De Carolis & Saparito, 2006).
A number of contributions highlight how insights from learning theories aid in understanding
how opportunities are developed. For instance, Lumpkin and Lichtenstein (2005) argue that
engagement in behavioral, cognitive, and action learning increases the effectiveness of the
discovery and formation phases of the opportunity recognition process. From an organizational
learning perspective, Bingham et al. (2007) demonstrate that past experiences result in decision
making heuristics that allow opportunity capture. Corbett (2005) suggests that experiential learn-
ing can facilitate the opportunity recognition process and argues that each of Kolb’s (1984)
learning styles has unique strengths that facilitate opportunity identification and exploitation
processes. For example, “assimilators” who learn by reflective observation and concrete experi-
ence should excel at bringing together seemingly separate activities to identify new opportunities.
Dutta and Crossan (2005) note that intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing are
organizational learning processes that are necessary for discovering, developing, and implement-
ing entrepreneurial opportunities. Although learning is often viewed in organizational research as
a key outcome (e.g., Vera & Crossan, 2004), within opportunity research it serves as a key driver
of the effectiveness of opportunity development.
In his autobiography, Mark Twain lamented, “I was seldom able to see an opportunity until it
had ceased to be one.” Inherent in this quote is the idea that thoughtful, or fortunate, timing is
crucial to identifying opportunities. The essential characteristics of opportunities can be fully
understood only after the passage of some length of time has occurred because opportunities
simply are, according to Dimov (2007a), creative ideas that have been vetted through an evalua-
tive process. In a general sense, the entrepreneurial process is an evolutionary one where the pool
of opportunities is constantly changing over time (Eckhardt & Ciuchta, 2008). As such, the ability

to understand the role of time has implications for entrepreneurs as well as related stakeholders.
For example, the transition point at which entrepreneurs cease to explore opportunities and begin
exploiting them may have significant implications for the performance of particular projects
(Choi et al., 2008; Ireland & Webb, in press). In particular, Choi et al. (2008) argue that the transi-
tion from exploration to exploitation should come sooner rather than later for projects with a low
degree of novelty because the need to act quickly is paramount for such opportunities.
Empirical attention on the drivers of opportunities has focused primarily on the individuals
who recognize opportunities. In general, studies have centered on either the knowledge stocks or
the behaviors of entrepreneurs. Shane (2001) demonstrates that prior distribution of knowledge
determines who discovers opportunities. Shepherd and DeTienne (2005) find that the prior
knowledge of customer problems directly affects the quantity and quality of opportunities identi-
fied. Building on human capital theory and social feminist theory, DeTienne and Chandler
(2007) found that although men and women use unique stocks of human capital and exhibit dif-
ferent processes of opportunity identification, the innovativeness of the opportunities did not
differ. Finally, building on ideas from cognitive psychology, Mitchell et al. (2008) demonstrated
that past failures keep opportunity formation processes flexible while commitment emerges.
Researchers have also examined the behaviors of those discovering the opportunities.
Building on the theory of entrepreneurial alertness, which posits that awareness of opportuni-
ties comes from readiness to recognize market disequilibrium (Kirzner, 1973), Kaish and
Gilad (1991) suggest that entrepreneurs discover opportunities through more search activi-
ties and different analysis of data vis-à-vis nonentrepreneurs. Baron and Ensley (2006)
highlight the role of experience by finding that the cognitive representations of opportunities
of experienced entrepreneurs differ from those of novice entrepreneurs. Further, they found
that pattern recognition is a key component of opportunity recognition. Most recently, using
network theory, Dyer et al. (2008) found that one’s ability to generate novel ideas for innova-
tive new businesses is a function of questioning, observing, experimenting, and idea
networking behaviors. Viewed collectively, the work on individuals and their behaviors illus-
trate the importance of knowledge, learning, and experience. Although the image of the
novice who devises a path-breaking opportunity is a romantic one, the results achieved from
extant inquiries suggest that experts are far more likely to be novel.
In summary, considerable efforts have been made to understand the antecedents of oppor-
tunities. Previous work has drawn from a variety of theoretical perspectives focusing
primarily on opportunity processes at the individual level of analysis. Future efforts could
build on this work by examining team processes, as well as organizational characteristics,
that serve as effective antecedents in creating, discovering, and/ or recognizing opportunities.
Outcomes of opportunities. Much of the importance of the opportunity concept stems from the
outcomes that follow opportunity development, including new firm creation (Shane, 2001), new
venture growth (Thakur, 1999), and small firm growth (Davidsson, 1991). The focus on novel
creation stemming from opportunity-related processes is consistent with the greater body of
entrepreneurship scholarship inspired by Austrian Economics. The contention that equilibrium
processes (the basis of neoclassical economics) fail to capture key market processes, that all not
opportunities can be identified, and that information about opportunities serves as the basis on
which individuals become entrepreneurs are key tenets of Austrian Economics (Shane, 2000).
In particular, the Austrian Economics’ work of Schumpeter and Kirzner has been influential in
aiding understanding of the opportunity creation process (Shane, 2000).

Schumpeter (1934) posed a process of “creative destruction” where new opportunities are
introduced to the market at the expense of existing ones. The gradual replacement of record
and tape players with digital music devices is an example of such destruction. Kirzner (1973)
conceived of entrepreneurs as brokers with superior alertness to opportunities that can
resolve market inefficiencies. For example, the London Science Museum recently featured
an exhibit of innovations such as portable televisions and radio alarm clocks developed in
the 1950s and 1960s that were inspired by the Dan Dare comics that began in 1950. Under
Kirzner’s view, the innovators who brought these products to market did not create such
opportunities, but merely discovered that they could fill market gaps.
More recently, Lachmann’s radical subjectivist approach has been identified as an overlooked
perspective from within Austrian Economics that offers the potential to yield new insights con-
cerning the opportunity creation process (Chiles et al., 2007). In contrast to the work of
Schumpeter and Kirzner, Lachmann (1986) depicts a process of creative imagination wherein
entrepreneurs leverage ideas and inventions from outside consumer markets to create opportuni-
ties within consumer markets. For example, the Global Positioning System was invented for
military purposes, but it indirectly created an opportunity for firms such as Garmin to sell auto-
mobile navigation devices. Overall, the creative destruction process appears to create opportuni-
ties in ways that cannot be foreseen. If so, creativity and insight within the entrepreneurial context
may be as much about diagnosing and responding to change as they are about creating change.
Several studies shed light on when entrepreneurs are able to harness change and exploit
the resultant opportunities in order to reach outcomes such as new venture creation and
growth. Entrepreneurs’ access to resources was found to shape their range of opportunity
choice (Thakur, 1999). Entrepreneurs are more likely to exploit opportunities when they
perceive they have more knowledge of customer demand, have more fully developed neces-
sary technologies, greater managerial capability, and greater stakeholder support (Choi &
Shepherd, 2004). Finally, entrepreneurial experience was demonstrated to be linked to the
exploitation of more innovative opportunities with greater wealth potential (Ucbasaran et al.,
2009). At this point in time, studies that simultaneously consider arrays of these features are
needed. Which factors dominate if, for example, an entrepreneur lacks resources and stake-
holder support but possesses good technology and managerial skills?
Moderators of opportunities. Contextually, considerable efforts have been made to exam-

ine moderators of opportunity-related processes. In general, the links between opportunities
and their antecedents and outcomes are shaped by internal processes involving individuals
as well as external processes emanating from the greater social environment. For example,
De Carolis and Saparito (2006) highlight how opportunities are influenced by individuals’
cognitions as well as their ability to develop social capital. When examining the opportunity
creation process from the vantage point of individuals nested within their environments,
structuration theory has also been a useful conceptual lens (Chiasson & Saunders, 2005;
Sarason et al., 2006). Structuration theory, developed by Giddens (1984), suggests that the
actions of individuals are inherently and iteratively intertwined with preexisting social struc-
tures. When applied to research in opportunities, this suggests that key contextual character-
istics play a role in determining the creation, discovery, and/or exploitation of opportunities.
In turn, pursuing these opportunities reshapes the context that surrounds firms.

A wide array of contextual influences has been identified. The trend of decreasing family size
has led to opportunities for providing consumables in smaller sizes, for example, and the rise of
dual family couples has led to growth in childcare services (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003). Likewise,
suspicion that the global climate is changing serves as a catalyst for environmentally oriented
products and processes (Cohen & Winn, 2007). Research based on game theory has found that
opportunities are more likely to be exploited when the industry is young (Patterson, 1993) and
when entrepreneurs encounter low opportunity costs (Amit et al., 1995).
Risk and uncertainty also have emerged as key moderators. Research on opportunities often
references Knight’s (1921/1985) classic definitions of risk and uncertainty. Knight uses risk to
refer to situations wherein probabilities are quantifiable and uncertainty to refer to situations
wherein probabilities are not quantifiable (Miller, 2007). With regard to opportunity recognition
(where known products are matched with existing demand), risk is perceived as being an unpre-
dictable “statistical probability.” For opportunity discovery (where a known supply services an
unknown demand), risk is conceptualized as unknowable (to match the qualities of a genuine
discovery). For opportunity creation (where the entrepreneur creates both supply and demand),
risk is uncontrollable because creative acts are a source of irreducible uncertainty.
One implication of this work is that each perspective results in a different understanding
of the rationality of pursuing a particular opportunity. McMullen and Shepherd (2006) out-
line different types of uncertainty stemming from uncertainty concerning characteristics of
the environment (state uncertainty), uncertainty regarding the ability to predict changes in
the environment that may impact organizations (effect uncertainty), and uncertainty related
to potential choices (response uncertainty). They argue that entrepreneurs’ decisions to purse
an opportunity can be generally classified by the ability to perceive or willingness to bear
uncertainty. Looking to the future, applying real options theory may be fruitful. This theory
centers on how managers create and then exercise or do not exercise certain options as uncer-
tainty is resolved (Kogut & Kulatilaka, 2001). Each of these options is, in essence, an
opportunity. As such, real options theory offers promise for revealing how risk and uncer-
tainty shape the likelihood that opportunities will be pursued.
Finally, strategic entrepreneurship is an emerging “hot” concept that sheds new light on
opportunities. Research on strategic entrepreneurship suggests that firms face a dual challenge—
firms must continually exploit existing opportunities while also identifying new opportunities
(Ireland, Hitt, Camp, & Sexton, 2001). The former is typically viewed as the domain of the stra-
tegic management field, whereas the latter lies at the core of the entrepreneurship field (Ketchen,
Ireland, & Snow, 2007). One implication is that conceptual frameworks from both fields are
insufficient to capture firms’ dealings with opportunities. Instead, frameworks that integrate
ideas from the two fields are needed.
A focus on strategic entrepreneurship also highlights that the skills firms need in order to
exploit opportunities are much different than the skills needed to identify opportunities (Hitt,
Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001). This leads us to expect that firms’ relative ability to meet
the dual challenges of strategic entrepreneurship is a key moderator of the links between
opportunities and organizational outcomes. Specifically, the better a firm is at maintaining
the delicate balance of exploiting old and identifying new opportunities, the better the firm
will be at translating opportunities into above-average financial returns. Meanwhile, firms
skilled only at exploitation or only at identification will experience weaker outcomes flowing
from opportunities, and may ultimately cease to remain competitive with rivals.

Table 3
Examples of Potential Future Research Involving Opportunities
General Focus of Research on
Field Entrepreneurship Possible Research Questions
Accounting Information disclosure and audit- How does the relative attractiveness of a firm’s oppor-
ing during the IPO process tunities shape how information is framed during
disclosure?
Anthropology The relationship between cultures How is the concept of opportunity conceived of in dif-
and entrepreneurship ferent cultures and different languages? How do
these different conceptions shape subsequent entre-
preneurial behavior?
Economics The relationship of institutions How do opportunities at the national level of analysis
and economic growth with shape opportunities at the firm level?
entrepreneurship
Finance The relationship between financial Is the relationship between the attractiveness of an
capital and entrepreneurship opportunity and the investment funds available to
support the opportunity linear, exponential, or of
some other form?
Organizational Diagnosing the cognitions and Does an individual’s tendency to interpret trends as
behavior behaviors of entrepreneurs and threats or opportunities predict his or her success as
their employees an entrepreneur?
Human resource Staffing of entrepreneurial firms How do applicants assess their own and the firm’s
management future opportunities when deciding whether to join
the firm?
Marketing The relationship between market Does an “opportunity orientation” exist and if so does
orientation and entrepreneurship it interact with market orientation?
Operations The internal processes of entrepre- Are certain types of supply chains better structured to
management neurial firms capitalize on opportunities than others?
Political science The influence of public policy on What public policy approaches create opportunities?
entrepreneurship Under what conditions should additional emphasis
be given to these approaches?
Psychology Understanding entrepreneurs’ To what extent do key personality features such as

personalities locus of control and tolerance for ambiguity influ-
ence the tendency to detect and enact opportunities?
Sociology Understanding the societal context How does the concept of opportunity differ across time
within which entrepreneurship and across different types of social systems?
takes place

Toward a Cross-Disciplinary Approach to

Research on Opportunities
Following the lead of Ireland and Webb (2007), we examine the implications for entrepre-
neurship research of ideas about the opportunity concept developed in other social sciences.
Table 3 displays a series of fields considered in Ireland and Webb (2007),1 describes how
each field addresses entrepreneurship, and offers potential research questions centered on
opportunities that meld ideas from each field and the entrepreneurship field. Below, we detail
what we believe are at present the most compelling prospects for building conceptual and
empirical bridges between entrepreneurship and neighboring fields.
Organizational behavior is a field that contributes to our understanding of the nature of oppor-
tunities. For example, the cognitive approaches to opportunities discussed above draw heavily on
organizational behavior. It seems very likely that other aspects of organizational behavior offer
important insights for future revelations. For example, relational trust appears to be critical for
navigating the business creation process, wherein opportunity recognition and evaluation are early
stages (Zahra et al., 2006). Also, Baron (2008) suggests that affect enhances the creativity needed
to contribute to opportunity recognition. Empirical research has found that men and women engage
in different opportunity identification processes (DeTienne & Chandler, 2007). Thus, in general,
individual-level features appear important to processes involving opportunities.
In terms of future research, the organizational behavior field’s focus on individual differ-
ences (e.g., the “Big Five” personality traits) could foster further insights concerning the ability
to discover and create opportunities. Such a connection seems likely, given that a meta-analysis
by Zhao, Seibert, and Lumpkin (2009) established that the Big Five are related to entrepreneur-
ial intentions and entrepreneurial performance. An enterprising individual’s personality, beliefs,
values, attitudes, needs, and traits are all potentially antecedents to opportunity search, discov-
ery, and exploitation (Shook, Priem & McGee, 2003). Although a number of conceptual efforts
have built on organizational behavior research to help explain potential catalysts for identifying
or developing opportunities (Baron, 2008; Shook et al., 2003; Zahra et al., 2006), most of these
ideas have yet to be tested. The vast literature in the marketing field on the concept of market
orientation leads us to wonder whether an “opportunity orientation” exists, and if so, what per-
sonality traits may be tied to opportunity orientation as well as whether opportunity orientation
moderates the links between opportunities and organizational outcomes.
Human resource management is a second field with the potential to aid our understanding of
the opportunity construct. Ireland and Webb (2007) note that human resource management
research concerned with entrepreneurship often centers on staffing issues within entrepreneurial
firms. An individual considering an offer to join an entrepreneurial firm will likely ponder oppor-
tunities at two levels of analysis: his or her own opportunities and those of the firm. A potentially
important research question is, How do applicants assess their own and the firm’s future opportu-
nities when deciding whether to join the firm? Answering such a question could reveal, for
example, under what conditions an excellent personal opportunity within a firm with limited
potential is preferred over a modest personal opportunity within a firm that has great prospects,
and vice versa. Entrepreneurship scholars have theorized that the presentation of limitations by
hiring officers of an individual’s career potential within a given organization could lead individu-
als to pursue other opportunities in society (Lee & Venkataraman, 2006). This suggests that
human resource management research can inform inquiry into the nature of opportunities, such as
to what extent they are created or discovered.

In reference to a more distant area of study, Ireland and Webb (2007) note that the anthro-
pology research concerned with entrepreneurship centers on the link between culture and
entrepreneurship. We suspect that cultural differences have important implications for the
nature of opportunities as well as representing a contextual factor that can moderate rela-
tionships involving opportunities. The Chinese character for “crisis” is composed of the
characters representing “opportunity” and “danger.” Meanwhile, in most Western cultures,
opportunities are seen in a very positive light. This contrast fosters research questions such
as the following: How is the concept of opportunity conceived of in different cultures and
different languages? How do these different conceptions shape subsequent entrepreneurial
behavior?
Levels of analysis beyond the firm are important in several other fields as well, and these
fields offer important ideas for the study of opportunities. Operations management’s focus on
the supply chain level of analysis calls attention to the need to understand the similarities and
differences in how supply chain partners perceive an opportunity as well as the implications
for the outcomes of their collaborative efforts to pursue the opportunity. Opportunities in the
operations management domain may lead to value-creating process innovations that can be
“in addition to” the firm’s product innovations. Economics’ interest in national growth and
outputs suggests there is value in considering how opportunities at the national level of anal-
ysis shape the nature of opportunities at the firm level. The emphasis on government and
institutions within political science encourages attention to how different public policy
approaches serve as antecedents by creating opportunities for entrepreneurs. The importance
of societal context within theories of sociology could be incorporated into investigations of
the opportunity concept by considering how the concept has changed over time. Overall, our
hope is that these questions and others offered in Table 3 will serve as a launching point for
a multidisciplinary view that could add future insights into the antecedents and consequences
of the opportunity construct.
Cross-disciplinary approaches are better suited for some domains than for others.
Entrepreneurship in the informal economy is one domain where such approaches appear to be
very useful, if not essential. The informal economy refers to exchange activities that take place
outside of legal sanctions but within the boundaries of what some groups deem legitimate as
defined by their norms, values, and beliefs. Ticket scalping, music swapping, hiring illegal immi-
grants, and various other “under the table” transactions are examples of informal economy
activities (Webb et al., 2009). Such exchanges are estimated to account for 17% of economic
activity in developed countries and 40% in developing countries (Schneider, 2002), but little
research attention has been devoted to the informal economy. Webb et al. (2009) develop a con-
ceptual model of opportunity recognition and exploitation in the informal economy; however,
many questions remain, and these questions seemingly require cross-disciplinary thinking. How
entrepreneurs assemble and deploy the monetary resources needed to pursue informal economy
opportunities can be understood in part via finance and accounting research. Issues regarding how
such individuals rationalize pursuing opportunities in the informal economy despite their illegal
nature can be informed by psychological research. Theorizing from sociology and political sci-
ence might guide investigation of how the nature of opportunities changes as activities move from
the informal economy to the formal economy (such as following the demise of prohibition).

Conclusion
Opportunities are the foundation for developing fascinating research questions in part because
they are transient, difficult to detect or create, and some people are more successful at exploiting
them than others. Herein, our goal has been to advance the state of knowledge about this intrigu-
ing concept. We pursued this goal by documenting the past accomplishments of the literature on
opportunity and by laying out future challenges that research on opportunities should tackle. Our
overarching conclusion is that researchers investigating opportunities have much for which to be
commended. The number of studies has increased dramatically over time, theory has been care-
fully developed and tested, and measurement is becoming more precise. Further progress toward
understanding the nature of opportunities, their causes, and their effects will be made to the extent
that studies include designs that facilitate causal inferences, analytical techniques that allow for
the testing of dynamic processes, and more complex theory building and empirical modeling.
Note
1. Ireland and Webb (2007) examined 10 fields. We adopt their list, but we divide what they labeled as “man-
agement” into “organizational behavior” and “human resource management.”
References
*Denotes references that are also included in formal review.
*Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. 2003. The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embed-
dedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 573-596.
*Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. 2007. Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 11-26.
*Amit, R., Muller, E., & Cockburn, I. 1995. Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business
Venturing, 10: 95-106.
*Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and develop-
ment. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 105-123.
Barnes, J. H. 1984. Cognitive biases and their impact on strategic planning. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 129-137.
*Baron, R. A. 2008. The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33: 328-340.
*Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. 2006. Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence
from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52: 1331-1344.
*Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Furr, N. R. 2007. What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy
and effective capture of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 27-47.
Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., & Zacharakis, A. 2003. Entrepreneurship
research in emergence. Journal of Management, 29: 285-308.
Casson, M. C. 1982. The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Oxford, UK: Martin Robertson.
*Chiasson, M., & Saunders, C. 2005. Reconciling diverse approaches to opportunity research using the structura-
tion theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 747-767.
*Chiles, T. H., Bluedorn, A. C., & Gupta, V. K. 2007. Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery:
A radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28: 467-493.
*Choi, Y. R., Lévesque, M., & Shepherd, D. A. 2008. When should entrepreneurs expedite or delay opportunity
exploitation. Journal of Business Venturing, 23: 333-355.
*Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. 2004. Entrepreneurs’ decisions to exploit opportunities. Journal of Management,
30: 377-395.
*Cliff, J. E., Jennings, P. D., & Greenwood, R. 2006. New to the game and questioning the rules: The experiences
and beliefs of founders who start imitative versus innovative firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 633-663.

*Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. 2007. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 22: 29-49.
*Corbett, A. C. 2005. Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 4: 473-491.
*Davidsson, P. 1991. Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm
growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 405-429.
*Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. 2007. Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental
degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 50-76.
*De Carolis, D. M., & Saparito, P. 2006. Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities:
A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1: 41-56.
*Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. 2003. The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management
Journal, 24: 977-990.
*DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. 2007. The role of gender in opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 31: 365-386.
*Dimov, D. 2007a. Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportuni-
ties. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 5: 713-731.
*Dimov, D. 2007b. From opportunity insight to opportunity intention: The importance of person-situation learning
match. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31: 561-583.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1994. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Towards improved understand-
ing and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19: 230-251.
Dubin, R. 1978. Theory development. New York: Free Press.
*Dutta, D. K., & Crossan, M. M. 2005. The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: Understanding the process
using the 4I organizational learning framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 4: 425-449.
*Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. 2008. Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the
origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 317-338.
*Eckhardt, J. T., & Ciuchta, M. P. 2008. Selected variation: The population-level implication of multistage selection
in entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 209-224.
*Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. 2003. Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29: 333-349.
*Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., & Sarathy, R. 2008. Resource configuration in family firms: Linking resources,
strategic planning and technological opportunities to performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 26-50.
*Fiet, J. O. 2007. A prescriptive analysis of search and discovery. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 592-611.
*Fiet, J. O., & Patel, P. C. 2008. Forgiving business models for new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 4: 749-761.
Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. 1984. Social cognition. New York: Random House.
Ford, C. M. 2002. The futurity of decisions as a facilitator of organizational creativity and change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 15: 635-646.
*Foss, K., & Foss, N. J. 2008. Understanding opportunity discovery and sustainable advantage: The role of transac-
tion costs and property rights. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 191-207.
*Gaglio, C. M. 2004. The role of mental simulations and counterfactual thinking in the opportunity identification
process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28: 533-552.
Gartner, W. B., Carter, N. M., & Hills, G. E. 2003. The language of opportunity. In C. Steyaert &
D. Hjorth (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship: 103-124. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
*Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Liao, J. 2008. Opportunities as attributions: Categorizing strategic issues from
an attributional perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 301-316.
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
*Gruber, M. 2007. Uncovering the value of planning in new venture creation: A process and contingency perspec-
tive. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 782-807.
Hansen, D. J., & Shrader, R. 2007. Opportunity: An 11-letter word. Paper presented at the 2007 Babson College
Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Madrid, Spain.
*Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & McMullen, J. S. 2009. An opportunity for me? The role of resources in oppor-
tunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 46,337-389.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. 2001. Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies
for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 479-491.

*Hjorth, D. 2007. Lessons from Iago: Narrating the event in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 712-732.
*Hsieh, C., Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. 2007. Opportunity discovery, problem solving and a theory of the
entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 1255-1277.
*Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. 2008. Regulatory focus and new venture performance: A study of entrepreneurial
opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 285-300.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. 2001. Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic manage-
ment action to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15: 49-63.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. 2003. A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its
dimensions. Journal of Management, 29: 963-989.
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. 2007. A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research. Journal of
Management, 33: 891-927.
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. In press. Crossing the great divide of strategic entrepreneurship: Transitioning
between exploration and exploitation. Business Horizons.
*Jennings, D. F., & Seaman, S. L. 1990. Aggressiveness of response to new business opportunities following
deregulation: An empirical study of established financial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 5: 177-189.
*Jones, G. R., & Butler, J. E. 1992. Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship: An agency theory perspective.
Journal of Management, 18: 733-749.
*Kaish, S., & Gilad, B. 1991. Characteristics of opportunities search of entrepreneurs versus executives: Sources,
interests, general alertness. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 45-61.
Ketchen D. J., Ireland, R. D., & Snow, C. C. 2007. Strategic entrepreneurship, collaborative innovation, and wealth
creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 371-385.
Kirzner, I. M. 1973. Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kirzner, I. M. 1997. Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal
of Economic Literature, 35: 60-85.
*Klein, P. G. 2008. Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 175-190.
Knight, F. H. 1985. Risk, uncertainty, and profit. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. (Original work published 1921)
Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. 2001. Capabilities as real options. Organization Science, 12: 744-758.
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lachmann, L. M. 1986. The market as an economic process. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
*Lee, J., & Venkataraman, S. 2006. Aspirations, market offerings, and the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities.
Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 107-123.
*Lee, S., Peng, M. W., & Barney, J. B. 2007. Bankruptcy law and entrepreneurship development: A real options
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32: 257-272.
*Lumpkin, G. T., & Lichtenstein, B. B. 2005. The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition
process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 4: 451-472.
*Mahnke, V., Venzin, M., & Zahra, S. A. 2007. Governing entrepreneurial opportunity recognition in MNEs:
Aligning interests and cognition under uncertainty. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 1278-1298.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the
entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31: 132-152.
Meyer, A. D. 1991. What is strategy’s distinctive competence? Journal of Management, 17: 821-883.
*Miller, K. D. 2007. Risk and rationality in entrepreneurial processes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 57-74.
*Mitchell, R. K., Mitchell, J. R., & Smith, J. B. 2008. Inside opportunity formation: Enterprise failure, cognition,
and the creation of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 225-242.
*Mullins, J. W., & Forlani, D. 2005. Missing the boat or sinking the boat: A study of new venture decision making.
Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 47-69.
*Oviatt, B. J., & McDougall, P. P. 2005. Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of inter-
nationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 5: 537-553.
*Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. 2007. Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors
industry networks, and professional forums. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 174-192.
*Patterson, W. 1993. First-mover advantage: The opportunity curve. Journal of Management Studies, 30: 759-777.
Priem, R. L., & Harrison, D. A. 1994. Exploring strategic judgment: Methods for testing the assumptions of pre-
scriptive contingency theories. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 311-325.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal
of Management, 34: 375-409.
*Randoy, T., & Goel, S. 2003. Ownership structure, founder leadership, and performance in Norwegian SMEs:
Implications for financing entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 619-637.
Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. 2009. Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of Management Review,
34: 477-491.
*Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. F. 2006. Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A struc-
turation view. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 286-305.
Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. 2009. Advancing strategic entrepreneurship research: The role of complexity
science in shifting the paradigm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33: 241-276.
Schneider, F. 2002. Size and measurement of the informal economy in 110 countries around the world. Paper pre-
sented at a workshop of Australian National Tax Centre, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1954. History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
*Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11: 448-469.
*Shane, S. 2001. Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47: 205-220.
*Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review, 25: 217-226.
*Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. 2005. Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identifica-
tion. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29: 91-112.
*Shepherd, D. A., McMullen, J. S., & Jennings, P. D. 2007. The formation of opportunity beliefs: Overcoming
ignorance and reducing doubt. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 75-95.
Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. 2003. Value creation and the enterprising individual:
A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29: 379-399.
Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Ireland, R. D. In press. Research methods in entrepreneurship:
Opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research Methods.
Short, J. C., Moss, T., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2009. Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future
opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3: 161-194.
Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Ketchen, D. J. 2008. Research on configurations: Past accomplishments and future
challenges. Journal of Management, 34: 1053-1079.
Singh, R., Hills, G., Hybels, R., & Lumpkin, G. 1999. Opportunity recognition through social network characteris-
tics of entrepreneurs. In P. D. Reynolds, W. D. Bygrave, N. M. Carter, S. Manigart, C. M. Mason, D. Meyer,
et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research: 228-241. Babson Park, MA: Babson College Press.
*Thakur, S. P. 1999. Size of investment, opportunity choice and human resources in new venture growth: Some
typologies. Journal of Business Venturing, 14: 283-309.
*Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. 2009. The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experi-
enced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 24: 99-115.
*Van De Ven, A. H., Sapienza, H. J., & Villanueva, J. 2007. Entrepreneurial pursuits of self-and collective interests.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 353-370.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. 2004. Strategic leadership and organization learning. Academy of Management Review, 29: 222-240.
*Webb, J. W, Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R. D., & Sirmon, D. G. 2009. You say illegal, I say legitimate: Entrepreneurship
in the informal economy. Academy of Management Review, 34: 492-510.
*Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. 2003. Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role of resources and
opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1919-1941.
*Witt, U. 2007. Firms as realizations of entrepreneurial visions. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 1125-1140.
*Zahra, S. A. 1996. Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry
technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1713-1735.
*Zahra, S. A. 2008. The virtuous cycle of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 243-257.
*Zahra, S. A., Yavuz, R. I., & Ucbasaran, D. 2006. How much do you trust me? The dark side of relational trust in
new business creation in established companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 4: 541-558.
*Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance:
A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management. Prepublished April 22, 2009; DOI: 10.1177/0149206309335187.
View publication stats

Jom Opportunity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jom Opportunity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Concept of “Opportunity” in Entrepreneurship

Article in Journal of Management · January 2010

Jeremy C. Short R. Duane Ireland

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Keywords: entrepreneurship; ideas; opportunity; opportunities; exploration; exploitation

A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds.

Without an opportunity, there is no entrepreneurship. A potential entrepreneur can be

Research on Entrepreneurial Opportunities

Overview of Review Approach

To further our understanding of entrepreneurial opportunities, we reviewed relevant insights

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Theories and Methods in Opportunity Research

(Text continues on p. 46)

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Contribution to Understanding the

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Contribution to Understanding the

Van de Ven, Sapienza, Various Entrepreneurs who consider both collec-

Klein (2008) Work of Austrian economists Opportunities as subjective phenomena

Adding to existing conceptual frameworks to develop more complex theoretical models is

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

start-up performance. Another possibility is considering how organizational characteristics

(Text continues on p. 53)

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Themes in the Opportunity Literature

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Moderators of opportunities. Contextually, considerable efforts have been made to exam-

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Psychology Understanding entrepreneurs’ To what extent do key personality features such as

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Toward a Cross-Disciplinary Approach to

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

*Denotes references that are also included in formal review.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on October 25, 2015

View publication stats

You might also like