It is suggested that the recognition of new business opportunities often involves pattern recognition--the cognitive process through which individuals identify meaningful patterns in complex arrays of events or trends. Basic research on pattern recognition indicates that cognitive frameworks acquired through experience (e.g., prototypes) play a central role in this process. Such frameworks provide individuals with a basis for noticing connections between seemingly independent events or trends (e.g., advances in technology, shifts in markets, changes in government policies, etc.), and for detecting meaningful patterns in these connections. We propose that ideas for new products or services often emerge from the perception of such patterns. New business opportunities are identified when entrepreneurs, using relevant cognitive frameworks, "connect the dots" between seemingly unrelated events or trends and then detect patterns in these connections suggestive of new products or services. To obtain evidence on these proposals, we compared the "business opportunity" prototypes of novice (first-time) and repeat (experienced) entrepreneurs--their cognitive representations of the essential nature of opportunities. As predicted, the prototypes of experienced entrepreneurs were more clearly defined, richer in content, and more concerned with factors and conditions related to actually starting and running a new venture (e.g., generation of positive cash flow) than the prototypes of novice entrepreneurs. These findings offer support for the view that pattern recognition is a key component of opportunity recognition.entrepreneurship, opportunity recognition, cognition and entrepreneurship

The current study investigated the relative influence of vertical versus shared leadership within new venture top management teams on the performance of startups using two different samples. Vertical leadership stems from an appointed or formal leader of a team (e.g., the CEO), whereas shared leadership is a form of distributed leadership stemming from within a team. Transformational, transactional, empowering, and directive dimensions of both vertical and shared leadership were examined. New venture performance was considered in terms of revenue growth and employee growth. The first sample was comprised of 66 top management teams of firms drawn from Inc. Magazine's annual list of America's 500 fastest growing startups. The seconded sample consisted of 154 top management teams of startups randomly drawn from Dun and Bradstreet, which compiles the most extensive database available for identifying relatively young American-based ventures. Both vertical and shared leadership were found to be highly significant predictors of new venture performance. Further, hierarchical regression analysis found the shared leadership variables to account for a significant amount of variance in new venture performance beyond the vertical leadership variables. These results were consistent across both samples, thus providing robust evidence for the value of shared leadership, in addition to the more traditional concept of vertical leadership.

The authors developed and tested the prediction that the relationship hetween coworkers' organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and fellow employees' attitudes depends on the supervisors' abusiveness. Results of a longitudinal study using data collected from 173 supervised employees at 2 points in time (separated by 7 months) suggested that coworkers' OCB was positively related to fellow employees' job satisfaction and affective commitment when abusive supervision was low. However, when abusive supervision was high, coworkers' OCB was negatively related to job satisfaction and was unrelated to organizational commitment. The results of a 2nd study were consistent with the idea that the attributions employees make for their coworkers' OCB explains the moderating effect of abusive supervision on the relationship between coworkers' OCB and job satisfaction.

While some researchers propose that the combination of family and business creates a need for trade-offs in family and business demands, we argue that the social system of the family creates a synergy in the top management team (TMT) that is not present in TMTs with less "familiness." We argue that the unique dynamics created by the social aspects of the familyowned firm will result in higher cohesion, potency, task conflict, and shared strategic consensus than those TMTs with less "familiness." Discriminant analysis of three groups of TMTs (parental, familial, and nonfamily) was conducted on a sample of 224 TMTs of new ventures to explore our propositions.The family business creates a unique management situation that results in both advantages and disadvantages to the firm. Chrisman, Chua, and Sharma (2003) state that "the family firm exists because of the reciprocal economic and noneconomic value created through the combination of family and business systems. In other words, the confluence of the two systems leads to hard-to-duplicate capabilities of 'familiness' that make family business particularly suited to survive and grow" (p. 6).

No abstract