Main article: Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696–706. https://www.jstor.org/stable/258039
Additional articles: Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/258448
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4

Article : Brockhaus Sr, R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520. https://doi.org/10.2307/255515

This article questions the long-standing myth that entrepreneurs possess a higher propensity for risk. It demonstrates that there is no significant difference, from a statistical point of view, between entrepreneurs and managers. The author analysed new ventures in order to avoid the survivorship bias and demonstrated that entrepreneurs’ risk profiles are similar to those of the general population. It also highlighted that most of the population shows a moderate appetite for risk. At the end of the day, the author concludes that risk-taking behavior is a universal human trait rather than a specific characteristic of entrepreneurship, refuting earlier literature that relied on more subjective methods and lacked comparative control groups.
The main lesson to take away is that risk-taking is not the defining characteristic of entrepreneurship, and relying on this belief leads to important misjudgments at different levels. In corporate recruitment, companies looking for intrapreneurs should not focus primarily on candidates perceived as risk-takers, but rather on qualities such as creativity, opportunity recognition, and perseverance in uncertain contexts. In terms of public policy, programmes designed to support entrepreneurship are often flawed because they replicate the profile of successful entrepreneurs rather than identifying potential ones; selecting beneficiaries based on traits such as high risk tolerance may exclude promising individuals while not guaranteeing success for those selected. Finally, entrepreneurial mythology plays a significant role in discouraging capable people, as the image of the entrepreneur as someone who “takes all the risks” creates a misleading standard. As a result, individuals who do not see themselves as bold risk-takers may mistakenly believe they are not suited for entrepreneurship, ultimately leading to the loss of untapped potential in society.
Brockhaus’ conclusions present several limitations. First, while he rejects risk-taking as a distinguishing trait, he does not provide alternative criteria, offering little practical guidance for recruitment or identifying entrepreneurial profiles. Second, the study is based on a small sample in a specific 1975 U.S. context, limiting its applicability to modern, more uncertain environments such as high-tech industries. Finally, by measuring risk-taking only at the entry stage, the study ignores how entrepreneurs may evolve over time, meaning that higher risk tolerance could still characterize experienced entrepreneurs.
To complement Brockhaus (1980), modern papers refined the link between risk and entrepreneurship. Arteaga-Fonseca et al. (2024) show that risk is a heterogeneous concept (financial, behavioral, perceptual), explaining why general measures fail to distinguish entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, Kraft et al. (2022) highlight overconfidence as a key trait: it encourages venture creation but can harm performance. Together, these studies suggest that entrepreneurs are not defined by risk tolerance, but by how they manage uncertainty and evolve across stages.
Arteaga-Fonseca, J., Rutherford, M. W., Phillips, D., & Hill, A. D. (2024). What is risk, exactly? Reviewing construct heterogeneity across business fields and implications for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management, 51(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241293129
Kraft, P. S., Günther, C., Kammerlander, N. H., & Lampe, J. (2022). Overconfidence and entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of different types of overconfidence in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(4), 106207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2022.106207

The article highlights the importance of innovation training for business performance, noting that many companies lack the skills to excel in this area. It highlights three key ideas:

Innovation training challenge: Many companies recognise the importance of innovation but often neglect innovation-specific training, particularly in the early stages of the process where ideas are generated and evaluated. This neglect can lead to an excessive focus on short-term profitability at the expense of long-term growth.
Innovation success factors: According to Cooper (1999), the key success factors for innovation include solid preparation, integration of the voice of the customer, a clear product advantage, and early and stable product definition. These elements are essential to form a robust training programme.
Importance of continuous innovation training: The article highlights the need for companies to invest in continuous innovation training to develop a culture of innovation and equip their employees with the necessary skills. Rigorous training programmes are being developed to standardise innovation management and bridge the gap between innovation demands and performance.

Implications :

The workshop highlighted two major implications for managers. Firstly, an overemphasis on downstream innovation may stall the overall innovation process, while innovation development without proper training investment could yield subpar outcomes. Thus, striking a balance between upstream and downstream innovation while prioritizing training is vital for sustainable innovation.

Identifying requisite skills and attitudes for effective performance is another critical aspect for managers. This involves recognizing the importance of both upstream and downstream activities in innovation. While creativity, curiosity, and customer-centricity are pivotal for upstream activities, downstream success hinges on project management, collaboration, and adaptability. Hence, nurturing these skills is essential for maximizing innovation outcomes.

Moreover, demonstrating tangible returns on training investment is imperative. This necessitates transparently linking innovation projects with training objectives and benefits. By aligning training with innovation needs and showcasing tangible outcomes, managers can justify training investments effectively.

Lastly, garnering support from senior management is key. This entails integrating innovation training with overall management strategies and boosting team motivation. By aligning training with innovation goals and fostering employee motivation through effective leadership, managers can ensure the success of innovation initiatives.
Limitations :

The first limitation is that Cooper’s innovation model might not suit all companies, especially startups and those with decentralized decision-making, where a flexible approach is necessary.

A second concern is the cost of continuous training, which requires significant time and money without guaranteed improvement in performance.

Finally, measuring the return on training investment is challenging, as it’s often hard to quantify the benefits of innovation training, and employees might not immediately see its value. These issues highlight that innovation training is not one-size-fits-all and must be adapted to the specific context of the business.

Further references

NNajmaei Rad, A., & Steiner, S. H. (2019). “The impact of innovation training on innovation performance: A quasi-experimental study”.ajmaei Rad, A., & Steiner, S. H. (2019). “The impact of innovation training on innovation performance: A quasi-experimental study”.

→ The article on innovation training highlights three points: the tangible benefits for companies, a comparison between a company trained in innovation and one not trained, and the importance of investing in the development of innovation skills. In short, it highlights the positive impact of training on business results and reinforces the argument in favour of investing in innovation skills.

Victoria Worcman (2021). “Tips To Supercharge Your Employee Training: Learn The Top Innovative Training Ideas For 2021”

→ The article on employee induction training presents two key points: the most innovative trends and concrete approaches such as gamification and soft skills development. It provides an overview of recent advances in this field, highlighting practical methods for improving the integration of new employees.

The article “Is Pay for Performance Detrimental to Innovation?” by Florian Ederer and Gustavo Manso, published in Management Science in July 2013, presents a nuanced view of how different incentive schemes impact innovation. The key insights from this study include:

Impact of Incentive Structures on Innovation: The research demonstrates that traditional pay-for-performance schemes, while effective in boosting productivity for routine tasks, may inhibit innovation by discouraging risk-taking and exploration of new ideas. Conversely, incentive plans that tolerate early failure and reward long-term success foster a more innovative environment. This finding is critical for organizations aiming to stimulate creativity and innovation among their employees.

Role of Tolerance for Early Failure: The study provides evidence that incentive schemes which tolerate early failures and focus on long-term success are more effective in encouraging exploration and discovery of novel strategies. Such schemes motivate individuals to venture beyond conventional approaches and experiment with untested ideas without the immediate pressure of performance-based penalties. This insight is particularly relevant for roles and tasks where innovation and creative problem-solving are key.

Adverse Effects of Termination Threats and Mitigation through Golden Parachutes: The threat of early termination under performance-based contracts can undermine innovation by discouraging the exploration of new, potentially risky strategies. However, the introduction of “golden parachutes” or compensation for early termination can mitigate these adverse effects. This finding highlights the importance of carefully considering the structure of termination clauses and compensation packages to maintain an environment conducive to innovation.

These insights underscore the complex relationship between incentive structures and innovation. They suggest that organizations should carefully design their compensation and incentive schemes, taking into account the nature of the tasks and the desired outcomes, particularly when aiming to foster an innovative and creative work environment.

Managerial implications

Based on the key insight of the document, we found out three different actions that managers or policy makers could consider to further encourage innovation in their region or parent organization:

Review remuneration and incentive systems: Managers should review and adapt remuneration systems to better align incentives with long-term innovation goals. Rather than focusing solely on short-term results, remuneration plans should be designed to tolerate early failure and reward long-term success. This means exploring remuneration models that encourage exploration, creativity and risk-taking, while offering incentives for sustained success.

The second implication is similar to the first one, but the difference is that the first one focuses on the remuneration and this one is more about the culture and the recognition

Fostering a culture of failure tolerance: Managers need to foster an organizational culture that encourages tolerance of, and learning from, early failure. This could involve putting in place mechanisms to recognize and reward those who take calculated risks and experiment with new ideas, even if they are not immediately successful. By emphasizing the value of learning from failure, organizations can encourage innovation and creativity among their employees.

Re-examine redundancy policies and compensation packages: Decision-makers should re-examine redundancy policies and compensation packages to mitigate the negative effects of early termination threats on innovation. Introducing ‘golden parachutes’ or similar measures may allow employees to feel safer, to take risks and explore new ideas without fear of serious financial consequences in the event of failure. This would foster an environment where innovation is encouraged rather than discouraged by the fear of losing one’s job.

By implementing these actions, managers or policy makers can better position themselves to encourage a culture of innovation and creativity, which can lead to competitive and economic advantages in the long term.

Limitations

Highly Regulated Industries:

In industries with stringent regulations, such as nuclear energy, the tolerance for failure and experimentation may be limited due to safety and compliance concerns. In these cases, strict adherence to predefined protocols and risk mitigation strategies may take precedence over innovation incentives that tolerate failure

Limited Access to Golden Parachutes

While golden parachutes are an effective way of mitigating the threat of redundancy, they are mainly reserved for high-level executives or key employees. For most employees, the threat of redundancy remains. What’s more, this disparity in treatment can lead to resentment among non-managerial employees, which has an impact on morale, commitment and creativity.

Relevant sources

To get deeper into the subject of Pay for Permormance, we found two relevant articles. The first paper delves into how Pay-for-Performance (P4P) affects productivity. Through an experiment, the researchers uncovered a nuanced picture. While P4P typically leads to increased productivity in certain areas, it can also result in decreased effort elsewhere. Moreover, workers who excel tend to gravitate towards performance-based incentives, driving overall productivity up. Yet, there are crucial activities not captured by indicators, making it challenging to gauge their importance.

In contrast, the second paper focuses on P4P in healthcare, particularly in addressing existing disparities. Despite the ongoing debate surrounding its efficacy, the study identified six key design features that could potentially mitigate healthcare disparities. Notably, Belgium has adopted P4P in hospitals since 2018, albeit with complex indicators.

(Article) Daniel B. Jones, Mirco Tonin, Michael Vlassopoulos, K. Pun Winichakul (2023 November) Paying for what kind of performance? Performance pay, multitasking, and sorting in mission-oriented jobs. | Games and Economic Behavior Paying for what kind of performance? Performance pay, multitasking, and sorting in mission-oriented jobs – ScienceDirect

(Article) Alex Conway , David Satin (November 2022) The role of pay-for-performance in reducing healthcare disparities: A narrative literature review. | Preventive Medicine The role of pay-for-performance in reducing healthcare disparities: A narrative literature review – ScienceDirect

The article also outlines some managerial practices to be implemented in the organisation to stimulate corporate entrepreneurship. First of all it suggests to nurture more informal entrepreneurial behaviours. Managers should invest in employee group skills and socialization. It is also advisable to make use of cross-functional teams while allowing highs level of individual autonomy. What will result from these practices will be trusting relationships between employees and stakeholders as well as increased collaboration and organisational learning. This practice will also enhance distrectionary behvaiors which means that the flow of knowledge and information will be improved.

The second managerial implication that can be drawn from this article is that managers must address the acceptance of risk by its members to stimulate corporate entrepreneurship. They can do this by compensating for risk-taking behaviour, providing resources and support for risk-taking, or by favouring external recruitment and less prescriptive, broader job descriptions. This would enable employees to be better equipped to act in the changing environment of entrepreneurship. They will find it easier to make decisions in an environment without the necessary information and to adapt to it.

Finally, we have identified some limitations in this article, i.e. cases in which what the article suggests is not applicable. Indeed, managers should not nurture informal entrepreunarial behaviours when this would conflict with company policies or when it would distract stakeholders from core business objectives. In addition, there are also situations in which managers should not address the acceptance of risk by members of the organisation. When risk is already part of the organisational culture or when it is a necessary part of achieving organisational objectives.

Further Sources:
• Roessler, M., Velamuri, V. K., & Schneckenberg, D. (2019). Corporate entrepreneurship initiatives: Antagonizing cognitive biases in business model design. R & D Management, 49(4), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12340

• Riar, F. J., Wiedeler, C., Kammerlander, N., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2022). Venturing Motives and Venturing Types in Entrepreneurial Families: A Corporate Entrepreneurship Perspective. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 46(1), 44–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211006427

In this article, the authors make the difference between new and nascent entrepreneurship in students at university in economy and business. They also explain that students’ propensity to launch their own start-ups depends on their individual characteristics and on the organizational and regional contexts. They further detail and test hypotheses using multi-level statistics and conclude that the organizational context is more important for nascent entrepreneurship while regional context is more important for new entrepreneurship. Moreover, fellow students who have attended entrepreneurship education have a positive effect on nascent entrepreneurship of students.

Managerial implications

In order to help as many student-entrepreneurs as possible and to allow more and more of them, this first implication should be that universities could partner more with companies. First, to allow students to have some networks in the business. Secondly, to allow them to have more experience through internships for example. Because the industry experience seems to be even more valuable for entrepreneurial performance than academic knowledge and this experience might increase the ability to perceive a viable business idea. But also, to think about organizing more compulsory courses at the beginning of the student’s curriculum during their studies. Moreover, we know that these courses also affect student who don’t take them thanks to social interactions and observations of ones’ peers.

A second implication we observed is the importance of coordination between university programmes to support student entrepreneurship and the respective strategies of the region in which the university is located. Since the authors of the text have proven the importance of both parties in the entrepreneurial process, a coordinated strategy can be more effective than isolated efforts.

Limitations

To begin with, even if more entrepreneurship courses would allow students to be more immersed in this entrepreneurial culture, it will be difficult for everyone to find the right fit. When we look at start-ups and young companies, the diversity of projects is such that it would be difficult to provide everyone with the necessary tools through courses as it would be necessary to have a consequent number of partner companies willing to share their knowledge to fulfil everyone’s needs related to their own project. But on the other hand, wouldn’t it be better to acquire general skills, to be able to adapt to any situation? The world of entrepreneurship is uncertain, and it is not uncommon for a start-up or young company to change course along the way. There is therefore a tradeoff between the desire to set up courses providing everyone with the necessary tools to start their journey as entrepreneurs, and the need to have general skills, in order to remain agile and to adapt to the different situations that may arise in this uncertain world of entrepreneurship.

Then, the article tells us that when considering nascent entrepreneurship, the organizational context is more important. Regarding the influence of the university context, a second limitation should be highlighted. Indeed, the influence of this organizational context on the students’ willingness to undertake is only valid if the students are actually immersed in this university context. We all know or have known a “ghost student”, i.e. a student who does not physically go to class, and who is not actively involved in university life. For those students who are not immersed in the university life and context, interactions with other students, professors or even start-ups present on campus cannot be considered as factors favoring nascent entrepreneurship. It is therefore necessary to distinguish the students who actively follow the course and benefit from all the advantages put forward by the article, from the so-called ghost students, who are not physically present on campus and not actively involved in the university life. Moreover, in this era of covid19 and online courses, the influence of the university context is drastically limited. There is little or no student interaction, and the stimuli mentioned by the article are no longer relevant.

Then even in an appropriate regional and organizational context, the business created by the student may not be viable. The personal characteristics of the student in relation to entrepreneurship must also be taken into account. Indeed, not all students are cut out for entrepreneurship, and having an idea or desire to start a business is far from sufficient. This is our third limitation. You need to have appropriate temperament, a different way of thinking or ability to identify market opportunities as well as a great motivation and a passion for your project. If these characteristics are not present in the student, it is a limitation to the development of the start-up. Finally, although it is not a limitation as such, we also believe that the private sphere can affect the entrepreneurial process. For example, often the student’s thinking will be different if he or she has independent parents. They will certainly have already developed some important skills and behaviors, which is an advantage when starting a business.

Further insights

Breznitz, S. M., & Zhang, Q. (2019). Determinants of graduates’ entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics, 1-18. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.bib.ucl.ac.be/10.1007/s11187-019-00171-8

Sousa, M. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship skills development in higher education courses for teams leaders. Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 18. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.bib.ucl.ac.be/10.3390/admsci8020018

Implications: Firstly, about motivation, academic entrepreneurs do not see money as their main primary goal
but rather as a compensation for their work spend. Therefore, policy makers have to understand that many other
non-monetary factors can encourage motivation like for example peer factors or yet public service. All spinoffs
don’t have as main goal to maximize profit. The role of policy makers is to identify these factors and encourage
them by creating a policy to support these factors. As concrete example, they could give more vocational
training for them which could support the peer factors because they could for example be more competitive than
their peer group. A source of motivation could also be for example encouraging the entrepreneurs to take part to
contest against another innovator. With at the end for the best innovation a price that can be money or maybe to
be published in a specialised review that is estimated by the peers of the entrepreneurs. That will give recognition
and as we saw in the key insight that is what academics entrepreneurs are looking for.
For the second implication about ambition, academic entrepreneurs have also different ambitions when
they start the spin-off. And in most cases, it is not necessarily the commercialization of the
technology. Sometimes it is also not good seen by their peers. Academic entrepreneurs seem so to create
their spin-off and use it more as a platform to access to the governments grants and the SBI
awards. The commercialization of the technology is not for them a short-term goal. The policymakers have to
understand that, and they need to understand that increasing the offer of grant and other type of award can
help the academic entrepreneurs to maintain their ambitions in short term and in long term. The objective is that
in the end the entrepreneurs finally commercialize their technologies. They could also create policy that could
push large companies to invest more in spin-offs and maybe retake or rebuy the project to launch the technology.

Limitations: The research tend to explain that the profit-maximization is not the main goal for success, but that
motivation is. However, it seems important to us to say that being profitable remains a requirement for the
creation of a business that thrives in the long term. Motivation is not the only solution to have a success story. –
> while government might find the social gain sufficient to subsidize a spin-off this probably will not be the case
for private investors. And as described in this paper some spin-offs require huge financial resources to launch
their company. Therefore, even if making profit is not the main goal, it clearly has to be kept in mind to attract
investors.
Furthermore, it is also important to have experience to make a business a success. Indeed, spin-offs are
launched by researchers who have to become entrepreneurs, even though they have little or no experience in this
field. It requires significant resources and needs to be supported by a university and the creation of a business
requires tangible and intangible resources. Such resources can only be obtained if the project owners are
recognized as legitimate by most stakeholders. The legitimacy is necessary to obtain the resources needed to
launch it.

Further references
Hayter, C. S. (2016). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of knowledge intermediaries within an
entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 47, 633–656.
Meoli, M. & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology
academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 47, 345–362.
Hayter,C.,Lubynsky,R.,Maroulis,S.(2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in
the development of university spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer,42,1237-1254