This study explores how the COVID-19 pandemic has forced Flemish growth-oriented entrepreneurs to build entrepreneurial resilience. We rely on a research framework that consists of a “challenge-reaction-learning loop” to empirically investigate how entrepreneurial resilience is built in times of the COVID-19 crisis. To investigate this complex entrepreneurial learning process, we use data that have been collected during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. By using several datapoints, we could identify (1) the specific challenges growth-oriented firms are facing as a result of the COVID-19 crisis; (2) how these entrepreneurs reacted to these challenges; and (3) what they learned during the first and second wave of the pandemic and how they perceive the future. By making this entrepreneurial learning process explicit and dividing it into an iterative “challenge-reaction-learning loop”, this study is relevant for all entrepreneurs, as it contains several interesting lessons learned. We also contribute to academic literature as we provide future researchers a tangible framework to further elucidate how entrepreneurial resilience is built in times of crisis.
Building on the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, this paper suggests that a family firm’s long-term orientation (LTO) can be an important resource that increases firm-level entrepreneurial orientation (EO). Nevertheless, resource orchestration suggests that managers need to orchestrate their resources in order to realize any potential advantage. Therefore, we hypothesize that a family firm’s LTO entails potential resources to engage in entrepreneurial activities, while a participative decision making (PDM) style serves as coordinating mechanism that helps the firm to manage these resources. Using data from 209 private family firms, the results show a positive association between LTO and EO. Also, PDM was found to positively moderate the LTO-EO relationship, providing empirical support for our central hypothesis.
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore to what extent passionate family chief executive officers (CEOs) increase the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) of the family firm. More specifically, the authors investigate the impact of the family CEO’s entrepreneurial passion (EP) on the firm’s EO and explore whether the generational stage of the family CEO alters this relationship.Design/methodology/approachA multiple moderated regression model was used to test the hypothesized relationships, based on a unique sample of 140 private Belgian family firms. All respondent CEOs are members of the controlling family, meaning they are in a unique position to influence firm-level outcomes.FindingsThe results reveal a significant positive effect of a CEO’s EP on the family firm’s EO. The generational stage of the family CEO moderates the EP-EO relationship, so the positive effect is strongest in first-generation family CEOs and becomes negative in third- or later-generation CEOs.Originality/valueThis research builds on insights from imprinting and upper echelon theory to explore how the EP of the family CEO impacts the family firm’s EO. This study thereby contributes to research regarding the antecedents of EO and introduces the concept of EP in a family firm context. The present study further contributes to the literature on imprinting, as it empirically shows how the EP-EO relationship differs depending on the generational stage of the family CEO. In a family firm context, the generational stage acts as a contingency variable, determining the dominant theory (i.e. upper echelon or imprinting theory) in explaining the EP-EO relationship.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.