No abstract

The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP URL' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

Research Summary: To understand the intermediary role of accelerators in the developing regional entrepreneurial ecosystem of Bangalore, we analyze data from 54 interviews with accelerator graduates, accelerator managers, and other ecosystem stakeholders and from 49 websites, 13 online video interviews, 26 online news sources, and 301 pages of policy documents. Specifically, we adopt a socially situated entrepreneurial cognition approach to theorize how accelerator expertise, existing at a meso‐level, intermediates between (micro‐level) founders and the (macro‐level) ecosystem. In our model, four types of accelerator expertise—connection, development, coordination, and selection—together increase stakeholders’ commitment to the entrepreneurial ecosystem, leading to venture validation (success or failure) and ecosystem additionality. These findings indicate that accelerators contribute to ecosystems in a way that is distinct from, but supportive of, building individual ventures. Managerial Summary: Accelerators are a new form of entrepreneurial support organization. These organizations typically focus on developing individual start‐ups, but we find that they also help develop entrepreneurial ecosystems. They do so by acting as a bridge between start‐ups and the broader entrepreneurial environmental resources by: (a) helping form connections, (b) helping develop individual start‐ups, (c) helping coordinate the right match among the various players in the ecosystem, and (d) helping select mentors and founders with the appropriate motivation and knowledge. As these accelerators apply this expertise in this go‐between role, they help build commitment to the broader ecosystem. Furthermore, they enable success (or fast failure) of individual start‐ups and do so in a way that develops the overall entrepreneurial capacity of the broader entrepreneurial ecosystem.

No abstract

653Entrepreneurs often use intuition to explain their actions. But because entrepreneurial intuition is poorly defined in the research literature: the "intuitive" is confused with the "innate," what is systematic is overlooked, and unexplained variance in entrepreneurial behavior remains high. Herein we: (1) bound and define the construct of entrepreneurial intuition within the distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research; (2) apply a levels-ofconsciousness logic and process dynamism approach to; (3) organize definitions, antecedents, and consequences; and (4) produce propositions that lead to a working definition of entrepreneurial intuition. Our analysis renders intuition more usable in entrepreneurship research, and more valuable in practice.