Using three theory-based performance criteria as decision attributes, we conducted a conjoint analysis experiment with 105 social venture founder-CEOs to examine their decisions to exit their firms voluntarily. Multilevel regression analysis of founders’ choices revealed that various exit preferences were chosen that did not support theoretical prescriptions. While achieving desired social impact was the main influence on founder exit choices, the heterogeneity of exit preferences led us to parcel them into four distinct groups: idealists, traditionalists, realists, and pragmatists. We discuss our contributions to the entrepreneurial exit and social entrepreneurship research literature and list the implications of our results for practice.
AguinisH.HillN. S.BaileyJ. R. (2021). Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), 678–693.
2.
AguinisH.VandenbergR. J. (2014). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 569–595.
3.
AldrichH. E. (2015). Perpetually on the eve of destruction? Understanding exits in capitalist societies at multiple levels of analysis. In DeTienneD. R.WennbergK. (Eds.), Research handbook of entrepreneurial exit (pp. 11–41). Edward Elgar Publishing.
4.
AlvordS. H.BrownL. D.LettsC. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282.
5.
AnderssonF. O.SelfW. (2015). The social-entrepreneurship advantage: An experimental study of social entrepreneurship and perceptions of nonprofit effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6), 2718–2732.
6.
ArgyrisC.SchonD. (1974). Theory in practice. Jossey-Bass.
7.
AustinJ.StevensonH.Wei-SkillernJ. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
8.
AuW. C.DrenchevaA.YewJ. L. (2021). Narrating career in social entrepreneurship: Experiences of social entrepreneurs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.1890188.
9.
BacqS.EddlestonK. A. (2018). A resource-based view of social entrepreneurship: How stewardship culture benefits scale of social impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 589–611.
10.
BacqS.HertelC.LumpkinG. T. (2022). Communities at the nexus of entrepreneurship and societal impact: A cross-disciplinary literature review. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(5), 106231.
11.
BacqS.JanssenF.NoelC. (2019). What happens next? A qualitative study of founder succession in social enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 820–844.
12.
BacqS.LumpkinG. T. (2014). Can social entrepreneurship researchers learn from family business scholarship? A theory-based future research agenda. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 270–294.
13.
BamfordC. E.BrutonG. D.HinsonY. L. (2006). Founder/Chief executive officer exit: A social capital perspective of new ventures. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 207–220.
14.
BarendsenL.GardnerH. (2004). Is the social entrepreneur a new type of leader?Leader to Leader, 2004(34), 43.
15.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing - Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
16.
BernsteinR.BuseK.BilimoriaD. (2016). Revisiting agency and stewardship theories: Perspectives from nonprofit board chairs and CEOs. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(4), 489–498.
17.
BhaweN.GuptaV. K.PollackJ. M. (2017). Founder exits and firm performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 114–122.
18.
BirdM.WennbergK. (2016). Why family matters: The impact of family resources on immigrant entrepreneurs’ exit from entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 687–704.
19.
BlockS. R.RosenbergS. (2002). Toward an understanding of founder’s syndrome: An assessment of power and privilege among founders of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 353–368.
20.
BloomP.ChatterjiA. (2009). Scaling social entrepreneurial impact. California Management Review, 51(3), 114–133.
21.
BloomP. N.SmithB. R. (2010). Identifying the drivers of social entrepreneurial impact: Theoretical development and an exploratory empirical test of SCALERS. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 126–145.
22.
BoekerW.KarichalilR. (2002). Entrepreneurial transitions: Factors influencing founder departure. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 818–826.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
26.
CardonM. S.MittenessC.SudekR. (2017). Motivational cues and angel investing: Interactions among enthusiasm, preparedness, and commitment. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1057–1085.
27.
CefisE.BettinelliC.CoadA.MarsiliO. (2022). Understanding firm exit: A systematic literature review. Small Business Economics, 59(2), 423–446.
28.
ChandraY. (2017). Social entrepreneurship as emancipatory work. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(6), 657–673.
29.
ChiricoF.Gómez-MejiaL. R.HellerstedtK.WithersM.NordqvistM. (2020). To merge, sell, or liquidate? Socioemotional wealth, family control, and the choice of business exit. Journal of Management, 46(8), 1342–1379.
30.
ClarkK. D.NewbertS. L.QuigleyN. R. (2018). The motivational drivers underlying for-profit venture creation: Comparing social and commercial entrepreneurs. International Small Business Journal, 36(2), 220–241.
31.
CooperA. C.FoltaT.Gimeno-GasconJ.WooC. Y. (1992, August). Entrepreneurs’ exit decisions: The role of threshold expectations. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1992(1), 75–79.
32.
DanielJ. L.GalassoM. (2019). Revenue embeddedness and competing institutional logics: How nonprofit leaders connect earned revenue to mission and organizational identity. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 84–107.
33.
DavisJ. H.AllenM. R.HayesH. D. (2010). Is blood thicker than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1093–1116.
34.
DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D.DonaldsonL. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.
35.
DeesJ. G. (1998). Enterprising non-profits. Harvard Business Review, 76, 55–67.
DesaG. (2012). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 727–751.
38.
DeSarboW. S.RamaswamyV.CohenS. H. (1995). Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 6(2), 137–147.
39.
DeTienneD. R. (2010). Entrepreneurial exit as a critical component of the entrepreneurial process: Theoretical development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 203–215.
40.
DeTienneD. R.CardonM. S. (2012). Impact of founder experience on exit intentions. Small Business Economics, 38(4), 351–374.
41.
DeTienneD. R.ChiricoF. (2013). Exit strategies in family firms: How socioemotional wealth drives threshold performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1297–1318.
42.
DeTienneD. R.McKelvieA.ChandlerG. N. (2015). Making sense of entrepreneurial exit strategies: A typology and test. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(2), 255–272.
43.
DeTienneD. R.ShepherdD. A.DeCastroJ. O. (2008). The fallacy of “only the strong survive”: The effects of extrinsic motivation on the persistence decisions for under-performing firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 528–546.
44.
DeTienneD. R.WennbergK. (2016). Studying exit form entrepreneurship: New directions and insights. International Small Business Journal, 34(2), 151–156.
45.
Di DomenicoM.TraceyP.HaughH. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703.
46.
DouglasE. J.ShepherdD. A.VenugopalV. (2021). A multi-motivational general model of entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(4), 106107.
47.
DouglasE.PrenticeC. (2019). Innovation and profit motivations for social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research, 99, 69–79.
48.
DroverW.WoodM. S.ZacharakisA. (2017). Attributes of angel and crowdfunded investments as determinants of VC screening decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 323–347.
49.
EbrahimA.BattilanaJ.MairJ. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.
50.
EbrahimA.RanganV. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118–141.
51.
EddlestonK. A. (2008). Commentary: The prequel to family firm culture and stewardship: The leadership perspective of the founder. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1055–1061.
52.
EddlestonK. A.KellermannsF. W. (2007). Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 545–565.
53.
ElfenbeinD. W.KnottA. M.CrosonR. (2017). Equity stakes and exit: An experimental approach to decomposing exit delay. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 278–299.
54.
EvansM. M.RobinsonJ. A.WilliamsonI. O. (2021). The effect of HRM practices on employment outcomes in indigenous social enterprises. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.2001360
55.
FultonK.DeesG. (2006). The past, present, and future of social entrepreneurship. The Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE), Durham, North Carolina.
56.
GimenoJ.FoltaT.CooperA.WooC. (1997). Survival of the fittest: Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 750–783.
57.
GrasD.Mendoza-AbarcaK. I. (2014). Risky business? The survival implications of exploiting commercial opportunities by nonprofits. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 392–404.
58.
GreenP. E.KriegerA. M.WindY. (2004). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. In WindY.GreenP. E. (Eds.), Marketing research and modeling: Progress and prospects (pp. 117–139). Springer.
59.
GrégoireD. A.BinderJ. K.RauchA. (2019). Navigating the validity tradeoffs of entrepreneurship research experiments: A systematic review and best-practice suggestions. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 284–310.
60.
GrimesM. G.WilliamsT. A.ZhaoE. Y. (2019). Anchors aweigh: The sources, variety, and challenges of mission drift. Academy of Management Review, 44(4), 819–845.
61.
GuentherC.OertelS.WalgenbachP. (2015). It’s all about timing: Age-dependent consequences of founder exits and new member additions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(4), 843–865.
62.
HairJ.BlackW.AndersonR.BabinB. (2018). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
63.
HaughH. (2006). Social enterprise: Beyond economic outcomes and individual returns. In MairJ.RobinsonJ.HockertsK. (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 180–205). Palgrave Macmillan.
64.
HayekM.WilliamsW. A.TanejaS.SalemR. (2015). Effective succession of social entrepreneur. A stewardship-based model. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 20(2), 93–111.
65.
HeckR. H.ThomasS. L.TabataL. N. (2014). Multilevel and longitudinal modelling with IBM SPSS. Routledge.
66.
HernandezM. (2012). Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 172–193.
67.
HertelC.BacqS.LumpkinG. T. (2022). A holistic perspective on social performance in social enterprises: Disentangling social impact from operational sustainability. In VaccaroA.RamusT. (Eds.), Social Innovation and Social Enterprises. (Issues in Business Ethics, Vol. 62). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96596-9_7
68.
HietscholdN.VoegtlinC. (2021). Blinded by a social cause? Differences in cognitive biases between social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 431–452.
69.
HollandD. V.ShepherdD. A. (2013). Deciding to persist: Adversity, values, and entrepreneurs’ decision policies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 331–358.
70.
HsuD. K.SimmonsS. A.WielandA. M. (2017). Designing entrepreneurship experiments: A review, typology, and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 379–412.
71.
HsuD. K.WiklundJ.AndersonS. E.CoffeyB. S. (2016). Entrepreneurial exit intentions and the business-family interface. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 613–627.
72.
IacobucciD.SchneiderM. J.PopovichD. L.BakamitsosG. A. (2016). Mean centering helps alleviate “micro” but not “macro” multicollinearity. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1308–1317.
73.
IslamS. M. (2020). Towards an integrative definition of scaling social impact in social enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, e00164.
74.
JoshiA.HambrickD. C.KangJ. (2021). The generativity mindsets of chief executive officers: A new perspective on succession outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 385–405.
75.
JustoR.DeTienneD. R.SiegerP. (2015). Failure or voluntary exit? Reassessing the female underperformance hypothesis. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(6), 775–792.
76.
KamakuraW. A. (1988). A least squares procedure for benefit segmentation with conjoint experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 157–167.
77.
KaushikV.TewariS.SahasranamamS.HotaP. K. (2023). Towards a precise understanding of social entrepreneurship: An integrated bibliometric–machine learning based review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, 122516.
78.
KennyK.HaughH.FotakiM. (2020). Organizational form and pro-social fantasy in social enterprise creation. Human Relations, 73(1), 94–123.
79.
KhelilN. (2016). The many faces of entrepreneurial failure: Insights from an empirical taxonomy. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(1), 72–94.
80.
KlarinA.SusenoY. (2022). An integrative literature review of social entrepreneurship research: Mapping the literature and future research directions. Business & Society, 62(3), 565–611.
81.
KorstenbroekT.SmetsP. (2019). Developing the potential for change: Challenging power through social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(3), 475–486.
82.
LeroyH.ManigartS.MeulemanM.CollewaertV. (2015). Understanding the continuation of firm activities when entrepreneurs exit their firms: Using theory of planned behavior. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(2), 400–415.
83.
LindJ. T.MehlumH. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109–118.
84.
LinN.WildenR.ChiricoF.GhasrodashtiE.DeTienneD. R. (2022). Persist or let it go: Do rational entrepreneurs make decisions rationally?Journal of Business Venturing, 37(4), 106210.
85.
LortieJ. (2015). For the greater good: Why and how social entrepreneurs exit social ventures. In DeTienneD. R.WennbergK. (Eds.) Research handbook of entrepreneurial exit (pp. 226–245). Edward Elgar.
86.
MairJ.MartiI. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
87.
MairJ.MartiI.VentrescaM. J. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819–850.
88.
MarkmanG. D.WaldronT. L.GianiodisP. T.EspinaM. I. (2019). E pluribus unum: Impact entrepreneurship as a solution to grand challenges. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(4), 371–382.
89.
MasonC. M.HarrisonR. T. (2006). After the exit: Acquisitions, entrepreneurial recycling, and regional economic development. Regional Studies, 40(1), 55–73.
90.
MathiasB. D.SolomonS. J.MadisonK. (2017). After the harvest: A stewardship perspective on entrepreneurship and philanthropy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(4), 385–404.
91.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2005). Management insights from great and struggling family businesses. Long Range Planning, 38(6), 517–530.
92.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI.ScholnickB. (2008). Stewardship vs. stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 51–78.
93.
MonsenE.PatzeltH.SaxtonT. (2010). Beyond simple utility: Incentive design and trade-offs for corporate employee-entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 105–130.
94.
MorrisM. H.SoleimanofS.WhiteR. J. (2020). Retirement of entrepreneurs: Implications for entrepreneurial exit. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(6), 1089–1120.
95.
MuñozP.CacciottiG.UcbasaranD. (2020). Failing and exiting in social and commercial entrepreneurship: The role of situated cognition. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 14, e00196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00196
96.
MuñozP.GambleE. N.BeerH. (2022). Impact measurement in an emerging social sector: Four novel approaches. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(2), 298–330.
97.
MuñozP.KimmittJ. (2019). Social mission as competitive advantage: A configurational analysis of the strategic conditions of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 101, 854–861.
98.
MurnieksC. Y.CardonM. S.SudekR.WhiteT. D.BrooksW. T. (2016). Drawn to the fire: The role of passion, tenacity and inspirational leadership in angel investing. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4), 468–484.
99.
PerriniF.VurroC. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: Innovation and social change across theory and practice. In: MairJ.RobinsonJ.HockertsK. (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 57–85). Palgrave Macmillan.
100.
PivaE.Rossi-LamastraC. (2017). Should I sell my shares to an external buyer? The role of the entrepreneurial team in entrepreneurial exit. International Small Business Journal, 35(6), 767–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616676310
101.
RaithM. G.StarkeC. (2017). Negotiating the organizational effectiveness of social ventures among multiple stakeholders. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(4), 1473–1499.
102.
RawhouserH.CummingsM.NewbertS. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115.
RouseE. D. (2016). Beginning’s end: How founders psychologically disengage from their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1605–1629.
105.
SaebiT.FossN. J.LinderS. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95.
106.
SanguinetiF.MajocchiA.CavusgilS. T. (2022). Founding entrepreneur’s dilemma: Stay or exit the firm following an acquisition? An international comparison. International Business Review, 31(1), 101904.
107.
SantosF. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 335–351.
108.
SarasonY.HanleyG. (2015). Social ventures: Exploring entrepreneurial exit strategies with a structuration lens. In DeTienneD. R.WennbergK. (Eds.), Research handbook of entrepreneurial exit (pp. 11–41). Edward Elgar Publishing.
109.
SchillebeeckxS. J.KautonenT.HakalaH. (2022). To buy green or not to buy green: Do structural dependencies block ecological responsiveness?Journal of Management, 48(2), 472–501.
110.
SharmaP.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H. (2003). Succession planning as planned behavior: Some empirical results. Family Business Review, 16(1), 1–15.
111.
ShepherdD. A.WilliamsT. A.ZhaoE. Y. (2019). A framework for exploring the degree of hybridity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(4), 491–512.
112.
ShepherdD. A.ZacharakisA. (1997). Conjoint analysis: A window of opportunity for entrepreneurship research. In KatzJ. (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (pp. 203–248). JAI Press.
113.
ShepherdD. A.ZacharakisA. (2000). Structuring family business succession: An analysis of the future leader’s decision making. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(4), 25–39.
114.
ShepherdD. A.ZacharakisA. (2018). Conjoint analysis: A window of opportunity for entrepreneurship research. In KatzJ. A.CorbettA. C. (Eds.), Reflections and extensions on key papers of the first twenty-five years of advances (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 20, pp. 149–183). Emerald Publishing Limited.
115.
SieboldN.Günzel-JensenF.MüllerS. (2019). Balancing dual missions for social venture growth: A comparative case study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(9–10), 710–734.
116.
SingaramR.Radu-LefebvreM.GartnerW. B. (2023). Gordian knot uncut: Understanding the problem of founder exit in social ventures. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 19, e00379.
SouitarisV.ZerbinatiS.PengB.ShepherdD. A. (2020). Should I stay or should I go? Founder power and exit via initial public offering. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 64–95.
120.
StevensonR.JosefyM.McMullenJ. S.ShepherdD. (2020). Organizational and management theorizing using experiment-based entrepreneurship research: Covered terrain and new frontiers. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 759–796.
121.
SymeonidouN.DeTienneD. R.ChiricoF. (2021). The persistence of family firms: How does performance threshold affect family firm exit?Small Business Economics, 59, 477–489.
122.
Toft-KehlerR. V.WennbergK.KimP. H. (2016). A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing: Entrepreneurial experience and new venture disengagement. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 6, 36–46.
123.
UcbasaranD.WestheadP.WrightM. (2006). Habitual entrepreneurs. Edward Elgar Publishing.
124.
WangT.SongM. (2016). Are founder directors detrimental to new ventures at Initial Public Offering?Journal of Management, 42(3), 644–670.
125.
WarnickB. J.MurnieksC. Y.McMullenJ. S.BrooksW. T. (2018). Passion for entrepreneurship or passion for the product? A conjoint analysis of angel and VC decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(3), 315–332.
126.
WeberC.WeidnerK.KroegerA.WallaceJ. (2017). Social value creation in interorganizational collaborations in the not-for-profit sector: Given and take from a dyadic perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 513–540.
127.
WeerawardenaJ.MortG. S.SalunkeS.HaighN. (2021). Editorial and research agenda: JBR special issue on business model innovation in social purpose organizations. Journal of Business Research, 125, 592–596.
128.
WelterF.BakerT. (2021). Moving contexts onto new roads: Clues from other disciplines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1154–1175.
129.
WennbergK.DeTienneD. R. (2014). What do we really mean when we talk about ‘exit’? A critical review of research on entrepreneurial exit. International Small Business Journal, 32(1), 4–16.
130.
WennbergK.WiklundJ.DeTienneD. R.CardonM. S. (2010). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4), 361–375.
131.
WidzM.KammerlanderN. (2023). Entrepreneurial exit intentions in emerging economies: A neoinstitutional perspective. Small Business Economics, 60(2), 615–638.
132.
WilliamsD. W.WoodM. S.MitchellJ. R.UrbigD. (2019). Applying experimental methods to advance entrepreneurship research: On the need for and publication of experiments. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 215–223.
133.
WoodM. S.MitchellJ. R. (2018). Conjoint analysis in entrepreneurship research: End of the road or a bridge to the future? In KatzJ. A.CorbettA. C. (Eds.), Reflections and extensions on key papers of the first twenty-five years of advances (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 20, pp. 199–217). Emerald Publishing Limited.
134.
WoodM. S.WilliamsD. W. (2014). Opportunity evaluation as rule-based decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 573–602.
135.
WryT.HaughH. (2018). Brace for impact: Uniting our diverse voices through a social impact frame. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 566–574.
136.
YamakawaY.CardonM. S. (2017). How prior investments of time, money, and employee hires influence time to exit a distressed venture, and the extent to which contingency planning helps. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 1–17.
ZahraS. A.HaytonJ. C.NeubaumD. O.DibrellC.CraigJ. (2008). Culture of family commitment and strategic flexibility: The moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1035–1054.
139.
ZahraS. A.NeweyL. R.LiY. (2014). On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137–158.
140.
ZahraS.GedajlovicE.NeubaumD. O.ShulmanJ. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.
141.
ZhuF.HsuD. K.Burmeister-LampK.FanS. X. (2018). An investigation of entrepreneurs’ venture persistence decision: The contingency effect of psychological ownership and adversity. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 67(1), 136–170.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
