Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
R E S E A R CH AR T I C L E
Some principles are more equal than others:Promotion- versus prevention-focusedeffectuation principles and their disparaterelationships with entrepreneurial orientation
Maximilian Palmié1 | Peter Huerzeler1 | Dietmar Grichnik1 |
Marcus M. Keupp2,3 | Oliver Gassmann1
1Institute of Technology Management,
University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
2Department of Military Business
Administration, Military Academy at the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology Zurich,
Birmensdorf, Switzerland
3University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen,
Switzerland
Correspondence
Maximilian Palmié, Institute of Technology
Management, University of St. Gallen,
Dufourstrasse 40A, CH-9000 St. Gallen,
Switzerland.
Email: [email protected]
Funding information
Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE); Swiss
Innovation Agency Innosuisse, Grant/Award
Number: SCCER CREST - 1157002527
Research Summary: Recent research suggests that effectuation
principles such as flexibility, precommitments, and affordable loss
may differ substantially from one another. Responding to the call
to clarify the effectuation concept, our study introduces the dis-
tinction between promotion- and prevention-focused effectuation
principles. It argues that promotion-focused (prevention-focused)
principles are positively (negatively) associated with a firm's entre-
preneurial orientation (EO). It further argues that causation is also
promotion-focused and positively associated with EO. An analysis
of 151 Swiss energy small and medium-sized enterprises supports
this account. Thus, our study suggests that some effectuation prin-
ciples are more similar to causation in their underlying regulatory
focus and their relationship with EO than they are to other effectu-
ation principles. We offer several paths for future research on
effectuation, causation, and EO that emerge from these findings.
Managerial Summary: Practitioner-oriented presentations and texts
on entrepreneurial decision making frequently portray the means-
driven effectuation approach as opposite to the goals-driven causa-
tion approach. Our study challenges this portrayal by highlighting
substantial differences between the individual effectuation princi-
ples. Specifically, our research suggests that these principles differ
in the underlying psychological processes and consequently in their
relationships with key organizational attributes such as the firm's
entrepreneurial orientation. In these important regards, some effec-
tuation principles are actually more similar to causation than they
are to other effectuation principles. Our study has substantial
Received: 8 April 2016 Revised: 25 August 2018 Accepted: 19 September 2018
DOI: 10.1002/sej.1305
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.© 2018 The Authors. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal published by Strategic Management Society.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2018;1–25. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sej 1
implications for the adoption of effectuation and for the “mixing
and matching” of effectuation and causation. It not only makes a
difference whether decision makers pursue an effectuation or cau-
sation approach, but also which effectuation principles they
choose.
KEYWORDS
causation, effectuation, entrepreneurial orientation, prevention
focus, promotion focus, regulatory focus theory
1 | INTRODUCTION
Since Sarasvathy (2001) distinguished the means-driven effectuation approach to entrepreneurial decision making
from the goal-oriented causation approach, effectuation has become a main interest of entrepreneurship research
(Mauer, Wuebker, Schlüter, & Brettel, 2018; Reymen et al., 2015). Whereas causation subsumes efforts to predict
the future and work toward an envisioned end, effectuation refers to a set of principles by which decision makers
attempt to control the future without having to predict it (Sarasvathy, 2008, 2014). Effectuation principles include
generating new opportunities from available means (experimentation), leveraging unexpected contingencies (flexibil-
ity), getting stakeholder precommitments, and emphasizing affordable loss as a selection criterion (Smolka, Verheul,
Burmeister-Lamp, & Heugens, in press).
Recently, a Dialogue in the Academy of Management Review concluded that the effectuation principles differ con-
siderably as they reflect different cognitive processes and behaviors (Arend, Sarooghi, & Burkemper, 2015) and con-
found different aspects of control (Read, Sarasvathy, Dew, & Wiltbank, 2016). Arend et al. (2015) and Read
et al. (2016) also agree that a sound understanding of the implications of pursuing effectuation is essential. This con-
stellation leaves us with the question whether the effectuation principles also differ substantially in their implications.
This question is especially relevant because effectual decision makers do not need to adopt the entire set of princi-
ples, but can focus on selected principles as they see fit (Engel, Van Burg, Kleijn, & Khapova, 2017). Comprehending
whether, and if so, how the principles differ in their implications supports decision makers when choosing among
them. Yet, we know rather little about this issue.
With the exception of Brettel, Mauer, Engelen, and Küpper (2012), emergent quantitative work on the implica-
tions of pursuing effectuation has either studied effectuation as a whole (Murnieks, Haynie, Wiltbank, & Harting,
2011; Parida, George, Lahti, & Wincent, 2016; Wiltbank, Read, Dew, & Sarasvathy, 2009) or hypothesized uniform
effects across its different principles (Deligianni, Voudouris, & Lioukas, 2017; Read, Song, & Smit, 2009; Smolka et al.,
in press). However, unexpected results in the latter studies suggest that effectuation principles could exert opposite
effects on the same criterion—while some principles promote the criterion, others impede it (Deligianni et al., 2017;
Smolka et al., in press). In contrast, Brettel et al. (2012) do not find support for the expected opposite effects across
principles. Thus, our knowledge about whether and why effectuation principles exert opposite effects on the same
criterion is currently characterized by unexpected findings.
To overcome this unsatisfactory situation, the first purpose of our study is to look at the principles' underlying
regulatory focus in order to predict their association with the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) of small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs). EO represents “a firm-level attribute that is recognizable through the exhibition of sustained
entrepreneurial behavioral patterns” (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011, p. 859). Its theoretical and practical significance
(Wales, Gupta, & Mousa, 2013) as well as its acknowledged roots in top management decisions (Covin & Lumpkin,
2 PALMIÉ ET AL.
2011; Covin & Wales, 2012) make EO an attractive criterion for research into the correlates of decision-making
approaches. Building on regulatory focus theory (Hmieleski & Baron, 2008; Wu, McMullen, Neubert, & Yi, 2008), we
distinguish between effectuation principles that are dominated by a promotion focus and those dominated by a pre-
vention focus. A promotion focus heightens the salience of potential gains to be attained, whereas a prevention
focus heightens the salience of potential losses to be avoided (Brockner, Higgins, & Murray, 2004). We argue that
the use of promotion-focused effectuation principles is positively related to EO and the use of prevention-focused
principles is negatively related to EO. The second purpose of our study is to look at causation's underlying regulatory
focus in order to predict its association with EO. We argue that causation is dominated by a promotion focus and
positively related to EO. We test these hypotheses with a sample of 151 SMEs operating in the renewable energy
(RE) and energy efficiency (EE) industries that we collected in collaboration with the Swiss Federal Office of Energy
(SFOE). The empirical analysis of this data by means of structural equation modeling (SEM) broadly supports our the-
oretical account. In line with our expectation, it suggests that affordable loss and precommitments are negatively
related to EO, whereas flexibility and causation are positively related to EO. The coefficient of experimentation has
the expected positive sign, yet is not significant. Our results entail two conclusions: First, effectuation principles can
differ substantially in their underlying regulatory focus and relationships. Second, some effectuation principles are
actually more similar to causation than to other effectuation principles with respect to their regulatory focus and
relationships.
These findings make several key contributions to the academic literature and beyond. First, the distinction
between promotion- and prevention-focused effectuation principles responds to recent calls to clarify the effectua-
tion construct (Read et al., 2016; Welter, Mauer, & Wuebker, 2016). Second, our study helps reconcile a paradox in
the effectuation literature: Effectuation and causation are commonly depicted as opposites, but some scholars sug-
gest it may be useful to pursue them in combination (Reymen et al., 2015; Sarasvathy, 2001). Our analysis shows that
both positions possess some merit: Causation and prevention-focused effectuation principles are opposites as
regards their relationship with EO, whereas a combination of causation and promotion-focused effectuation princi-
ples is associated with a particularly high level of EO. Third, the EO literature seeks a better understanding of why
firms facing similar environments often vary in their EO. To this end, it has called for more research on the relation-
ship between a firm's level of EO and the way its organizational leaders make decisions (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011;
Wales, 2016). Our study of effectuation and causation approaches to decision making as correlates of EO responds
to this call. Finally, our findings provide management education and practice with valuable insights on differences
among the effectuation principles and on similarities between some effectuation principles and causation. They also
offer sought-after insights on approaches by which practitioners can alter their firm's EO (Wales et al., 2013).
2 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
Chandler, DeTienne, McKelvie, and Mumford (2011) and Deligianni et al. (2017) distinguish between four effectua-
tion principles—experimentation, flexibility, precommitments, and affordable loss. Our study seeks to examine
whether these principles have congruent or disparate relationships with SMEs' EO. If the principles have congruent
relationships, then all of them will be positively or all of them will be negatively associated with EO. If, however, they
have disparate relationships, then some principles will be positively and others negatively associated with
EO. Additionally, our study examines whether causation is positively or negatively related to EO. This analysis
intends to determine whether some of the effectuation principles are actually more similar to causation in their rela-
tionship with EO than they are to other effectuation principles.
In studying the EO of SMEs, we adopt Covin and Lumpkin's (2011, p. 859) conceptualization of EO as “a firm-
level attribute that is recognizable through the exhibition of sustained entrepreneurial behavioral patterns.” When
EO is conceptualized in this way, a firm that engages only in sporadic acts of entrepreneurial behavior does not pos-
sess a strong EO (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011, p. 858; Covin & Miller, 2014, p. 27). While the EO concept can be
PALMIÉ ET AL. 3
broadened to cover further aspects of entrepreneurial behavior (e.g., Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, 2001; Lumpkin,
Cogliser, & Schneider, 2009), most studies concentrate on entrepreneurial behavior in terms of risk taking, proactive-
ness, and innovativeness to depict EO (see Miller, 2011; Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009; Wales et al.,
2013). Our analysis does the same because this common focus is consistent with Covin and Lumpkin's (2011) con-
ceptualization (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011, p. 859). In SMEs, where entrepreneurs and their management teams possess
considerable discretion and decision-making power (Cope, Kempster, & Parry, 2011; Finkelstein, Hambrick, &
Cannella, 2009; Herrmann & Nadkarni, 2014), EO is likely to be influenced by the approaches that these organiza-
tional leaders adopt to make entrepreneurial decisions (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). In order to
predict whether the application of causation or a given effectuation principle is positively or negatively related to EO,
we develop a theoretical framework, which is grounded in regulatory focus theory.
Regulatory focus theory calls attention to the motivational and strategic tendencies underlying human decisions
(Brockner et al., 2004; Burmeister-Lamp, Lévesque, & Schade, 2012; Higgins, 1998). It distinguishes between a pro-
motion focus and a prevention focus to argue that these two regulatory foci shape individuals' strategic decisions
(Higgins, 1998; Hmieleski & Baron, 2008; McMullen & Zahra, 2006). This distinction has proven to provide a useful
and relevant perspective to study entrepreneurs' cognitive processes and the implications of their cognitions
(Brockner et al., 2004; Burmeister-Lamp et al., 2012; Kammerlander, Burger, Fust, & Fueglistaller, 2015). The two foci
differ in terms of the motives people are trying to satisfy, the goals and standards they are striving for, and the out-
comes salient to them (Brockner et al., 2004, p. 204; Wu et al., 2008, pp. 589–590): When people possess a promo-
tion focus, their growth and advancement needs motivate them to pursue approach-oriented or “maximal” goals, that
is, to achieve accomplishments and aspirations. In contrast, when people exhibit a prevention focus, their security
and safety needs motivate them to pursue avoidance-oriented or “minimal” goals, that is, to fulfill obligations and pre-
vent harmful failure. A promotion focus heightens the salience of potential gains to be attained; it emphasizes the felt
presence of positive outcomes. A prevention focus heightens the salience of potential losses to be avoided; it empha-
sizes the felt absence of negative outcomes. Consequently, individuals with a promotion focus are strategically
inclined to achieve “hits” and avoid “misses”; that is, they aim to recognize a stimulus when it is present and to avoid
failing to recognize an existing stimulus. On the other hand, individuals with a prevention focus are strategically
inclined to make correct rejections and avoid “false alarms”; that is, they aim to conclude that a nonexistent stimulus
is indeed not present and to avoid concluding that a stimulus is present when it is not (Brockner et al., 2004; Higgins,
1998; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012).
Since individuals with a promotion focus are motivated to find potentially valuable hits, they are in a state of
eagerness and approach novel opportunities proactively (Kammerlander et al., 2015; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). The
promotion focus stimulates their openness to new ideas and creativity (Brockner et al., 2004; Hmieleski & Baron,
2008; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). Focusing on potential gains, organizational leaders with a promotion focus are often
willing to “put themselves, their companies, and stakeholders at substantial risk” (Hmieleski & Baron, 2008, p. 297).
Since proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk taking characterize a strong EO (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Rauch et al.,
2009), organizational leaders with a promotion focus can be expected to foster their firm's EO (Hmieleski & Baron,
2008; McMullen & Zahra, 2006). In contrast, individuals with a prevention focus are in a state of vigilance (Bryant,
2009; McMullen & Zahra, 2006). As they strive to avoid losses and commitments to “wrong” opportunities, they
become more conservative and likely to adopt precautionary tactics (Higgins, 1998; Wu et al., 2008). When organiza-
tional leaders exhibit a prevention focus, they can be expected to limit their firm's EO (Hmieleski & Baron, 2008;
McMullen & Zahra, 2006).
The two regulatory foci are independent of each other, that is, an individual can score high on both of them
(Bryant, 2009; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). The independence of these foci has a substantial implication for effectua-
tion and causation research: Since an individual can pursue promotion-focused and prevention-focused principles in
tandem, principles that organizational leaders sometimes combine—such as the various effectuation principles—need
not reflect the same regulatory focus.
4 PALMIÉ ET AL.
Building on these insights, we argue that the diverse decision-making principles distinguished by Chandler
et al. (2011)—causation and the four effectual principles experimentation, flexibility, precommitments, and affordable
loss—reflect different regulatory foci and that the application of promotion-focused principles by organizational
leaders will be positively associated with EO, whereas the use of prevention-focused principles will be negatively
associated with EO. Our subsequent hypotheses thus examine whether the focal principle predominantly reflects a
promotion or a prevention focus to predict whether its application has a positive or negative relationship with EO,
that is, with sustained patterns of risk taking, proactiveness, and innovativeness.
2.1 | H1: Causation
When organizational leaders adopt the causation approach, they perform extensive competitive analysis and engage
in elaborate planning processes in order to identify “optimal strategies” that maximize expected returns (Sarasvathy,
2001, p. 252, 2008, p. 81). As their thinking is predominantly concerned with ideals and they strive to attain their
wishes, they exhibit a promotion focus and are more sensitive toward positive than negative outcomes (Higgins,
1998; Wu et al., 2008). We therefore expect that pursuing the causation approach is positively related to EO.
First, the promotion focus implied by causation increases leaders' willingness to “put themselves, their compa-
nies, and stakeholders at substantial risk” (Hmieleski & Baron, 2008, p. 297). In dynamic and uncertain environments,
the payoffs of a given strategic alternative typically diverge markedly across the different potential scenarios; an
option that offers very high returns in one case is likely to perform poorly in another (Wiltbank et al., 2009).
Causation-oriented organizational leaders who choose among strategic alternatives by opting for those that maxi-
mize expected returns in a dynamic environment thus opt for relatively risky investment opportunities (Sarasvathy,
Simon, & Lave, 1998). Second, a promotion focus stimulates people's eagerness to approach opportunities proac-
tively (Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). Causation-oriented organizational leaders frequently use the insights from the
extensive competitive analysis they perform to devise competitive strategies with which they intend to maximize the
market share of their firm (Sarasvathy, 2001). Market share maximization is a key objective of proactiveness
(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Third, insights resulting from their analysis and planning efforts allow organizational leaders
to specify clear strategic goals, which they can communicate to their employees (Brinckmann, Grichnik, & Kapsa,
2010). While their promotion focus probably makes leaders target quite challenging goals (Wu et al., 2008), ground-
ing these goals in extensive planning and analysis allows them to make sure that these goals do not become impossi-
ble to reach. Clearly specified and ambitious, yet well-grounded, strategic goals frequently enhance employee
creativity (Amabile, 1998). Employee creativity is an important driver of a firm's innovativeness (Glynn, 1996).
Therefore,
Hypothesis 1 (H1) Use of the causation approach is positively related to a firm's EO.
Turning to the effectuation principles, our hypotheses will again predict their respective association with EO by
considering if the focal principle reflects a promotion or prevention focus. We will suggest that some effectuation
principles reflect a promotion focus, whereas others reflect a prevention focus. Previous research pointed toward
the possibility for such differences among the effectuation principles by highlighting two contrasting ways in which
effectuation is enacted: the expansion of available resources and means as well as the accretion of constraints on the
venture (Sarasvathy, 2008; Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005; Sarasvathy, Kumar, York, & Bhagavatula, 2014). These two
ways are indicative of the two regulatory foci. Efforts to expand the available resources and means encourage organi-
zational leaders to be open to new possibilities (Sarasvathy et al., 2014). Trying to expand resources and means,
leaders experiment with “as many strategies as possible [… and prefer] options that create more options in the future
over those that maximize returns in the present” (Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 252). In so doing, they are aware that not all
experiments and options will turn out favorably, but their openness to new, disconfirming information “allows
unfruitful experiments to be abandoned” (Sarasvathy et al., 2014, p. 74). Organizational leaders thus strive to achieve
PALMIÉ ET AL. 5
hits rather than avoid false alarms. As the inclination to focus more on achieving hits than on avoiding false alarms
represents a promotion focus (Brockner et al., 2004; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012), leaders' efforts to expand resources
and means are governed by a promotion focus. In contrast, the inclination to focus on fulfilling obligations and avoid-
ing harmful failure characterizes a prevention focus (Brockner et al., 2004; Wu et al., 2008). When organizational
leaders try to limit potential losses, deepen mutual commitments with their stakeholders, and place constraints on
their venture by doing so, their efforts are guided by a prevention focus. As was the case with causation, our
hypotheses predict that the application of promotion-focused effectuation principles will be positively related to EO,
whereas the use of prevention-focused effectuation principles will be negatively related to EO.
2.2 | H2: Experimentation
When organizational leaders adopt the experimentation principle, they rely on the means at hand to generate poten-
tial opportunities (Chandler et al., 2011; Sarasvathy et al., 2014). They insert the means into a series of trial-and-error
changes in order to identify potential new applications and a viable basis for competition (Chandler et al., 2011). They
know a priori that not every experiment will work out as hoped and are willing to abandon unfruitful experiments
(Sarasvathy et al., 2014). Thus, leaders who adopt the experimentation principle exhibit a promotion focus since they
are inclined to strive for hits rather than to avoid false alarms (Baron, 2004; Brockner et al., 2004). We therefore
expect that the application of the experimentation principle is positively related to EO.
First, experimentation serves to identify distinct, radically different approaches to given problems (Ahuja &
Lampert, 2001). Organizational leaders who use experimentation thus devote financial and other resources to explor-
ing alternative solutions with uncertain outcomes. Since many experiments will not turn out favorably, this approach
is inherently risky (March, 1991). Second, experimentation is conducive to the initiation of competitive actions that
other firms react to. The initiation of such actions may be considered a real-world experiment. With experiments as a
series of trial-and-error changes (Andries, Debackere, & Looy, 2013), a firm shaped by leaders who value experimen-
tation seems likely to initiate such actions and change them if competitors' reactions warrant changes. The initiation
of such actions is characteristic of proactive firms (Covin & Slevin, 1989). Finally, experiments traditionally play a cen-
tral role in developing new products and processes (Thomke, 1998). The importance of experiments tends to increase
the more such research and development projects progress from a firm's current technology (Ahuja & Lampert,
2001). As a consequence, a strong preference for experiments on the part of its leaders allows a firm to be highly
innovative. Therefore,
Hypothesis 2 (H2) Use of the experimentation principle is positively related to a firm's EO.
2.3 | H3: Flexibility
Organizational leaders who adopt the flexibility principle embrace unexpected contingencies, see them as opportuni-
ties rather than threats, and hence try to leverage rather than to avoid them (Chandler et al., 2011; Dew, Read,
Sarasvathy, Wiltbank, 2009). When leaders see contingencies as opportunities, they focus more on identifying poten-
tially valuable hits than on avoiding false alarms. Their willingness to switch to new business opportunities and devi-
ate from their previous activities thus implies a promotion focus (Brockner et al., 2004; Hmieleski & Baron, 2008; Wu
et al., 2008). We therefore expect that the adoption of the flexibility principle is positively related to EO.
First, organizational leaders of entrepreneurial firms typically operate under considerable uncertainty (Burns,
Barney, Angus, & Herrick, 2016; Read et al., 2009), which implies that emerging alternative opportunities and their
implications are generally poorly understood (Hmieleski & Baron, 2008; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). The more the
novel opportunities deviate from the firm's previous course of action, the less useful the firm's accumulated knowl-
edge frequently becomes for their assessment (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Sleptsov & Anand, 2008). Switching to novel
opportunities requires substantial adaptations in the firm's resources and the way they are applied (Sarasvathy,
6 PALMIÉ ET AL.
2008; Wood & McKinley, 2010). The more its leaders are inclined to pursue novel, poorly understood opportunities,
the more risk a firm often has to take to make these adaptations (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003). Second, a firm's
resources and means play a crucial role in the recognition, creation, and evaluation of opportunities (Sarasvathy,
2008). A novel opportunity embraced by a firm may thus not have been available or attractive to other firms (Haynie,
Shepherd, & McMullen, 2009). In contrast, embracing opportunities that are already exploited by many firms may be
unattractive for a small firm with limited resources (Yamakawa, Peng, & Deeds, 2008). A firm may thus shy away from
pursuing such an opportunity, unless it finds a new way to approach it (Chen & Hambrick, 1995). Whether a firm
embraces novel opportunities or new ways to approach opportunities, its level of proactiveness is high (Nakos,
Brouthers, & Dimitratos, 2014). Third, the firm's level of innovativeness will also be high as it has to develop new
products, services or solutions to leverage novel opportunities or to approach opportunities in an innovative way
(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Therefore,
Hypothesis 3 (H3) Use of the flexibility principle is positively related to the firm's EO.
2.4 | H4: Precommitments
Organizational leaders who adopt the precommitment principle disclose their ideas to potential external partners
early on, ask these stakeholders for input, and try to get these stakeholders' commitment for collaboration from the
onset of their endeavors (Chandler et al., 2011; Sarasvathy, 2008). The resources, means, and goals of involved stake-
holders influence what the firm will do (Sarasvathy et al., 2014). To avoid disinterested parties having a voice in shap-
ing the activities and goals of the venture, only stakeholders that are willing to commit themselves are included: “the
effectual commitment always favors the error of letting possible customers go as opposed to letting noncustomers
drive the decision process” (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005, p. 545; emphasis in original). Put differently, leaders looking for
stakeholders to involve prefer avoiding “false alarms” and making correct rejections over achieving hits. Thus, they
exhibit a prevention focus (Brockner et al., 2004; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). We therefore expect that the adoption
of the precommitment principle is negatively related to EO.
First, when firms exploit opportunities jointly with external parties, benefits and costs can be shared among the
parties (Chandler et al., 2011). While this approach reduces the costs that the focal firm has to bear, it also limits the
returns the firm can reap. Since firms that possess a strong EO typically attempt to maximize potential returns
(Covin & Slevin, 1989), a firm's EO should be limited when its leaders emphasize precommitments. Moreover, when
firms agree to collaborate in order to exploit an opportunity jointly, they usually do not commit all the resources that
might be necessary in the course of the exploitation at the outset, but rather agree on certain milestones (Ariño & de
la Torre, 1998). Partners can reconsider their commitments at these points and decide whether they want to proceed
or not. Thus, collaborations tend to induce more incremental investment decisions instead of the “bold, wide-ranging
acts” that are typical for high levels of EO (Covin & Slevin, 1989, p. 86). Second, a common intention of firms charac-
terized by a strong EO is to anticipate new opportunities before competitors do (Covin & Slevin, 1989) in order to
“beat competitors to the punch” (Miller, 1983, p. 771). However, organizational leaders favoring precommitments
prefer exploiting opportunities jointly with others as this can reduce the uncertainty associated with such an
endeavor and spread out responsibility (Chandler et al., 2011; Tocher, Oswald, & Hall, 2015). They are typically will-
ing to “work with any and all self-selected stakeholders” (Sarasvathy, 2008, p. 89), including customers, suppliers and
competitors (Chandler et al., 2011). Thus, the firms that these leaders manage will ally and coordinate some of their
decisions with such “self-selected stakeholders.” To attract external partners, the focal firm typically has to reveal its
intentions early on to some extent so that competitors may become aware of them at the onset. Competitors can
thus take these insights into account in their own strategy formulation, before the focal firm's intentions turn into
overt actions in the marketplace. This effect is aggravated the more the firm's coordination with external partners is
time-consuming, giving competitors more time to develop an appropriate strategy in advance of the focal firm's overt
PALMIÉ ET AL. 7
actions. As a result, the focal firm's proactiveness is likely to decline (Covin & Slevin, 1989). Third, firms that seek
commitments from external partners usually also have to commit themselves to these partners, joint objectives,
agreed-upon processes, and coordinated courses of action (Burns et al., 2016; Luo, 2008). As a consequence, external
commitments cause a firm to be inert and less inclined to innovate (Greve, 2003). Put differently, there is a “funda-
mental clash” between the logics of innovation and external commitments (Sivadas & Dwyer, 2000, p. 32). A meta-
analysis reveals that even in the case of external commitments specifically made for innovation purposes, advantages
are hard to reap for SMEs (Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, & Bausch, 2011). Thus,
Hypothesis 4 (H4) Use of the precommitment principle is negatively related to a firm's EO.
2.5 | H5: Affordable loss
Investments in entrepreneurial opportunities typically entail both an upside potential (potential gain) and a downside
potential (potential loss) (DeCarolis & Saparito, 2006; Janney & Dess, 2006). Organizational leaders who adopt the
affordable loss principle determine the maximum level of investment they are comfortable losing in the worst case.
In choosing among options, they select an alternative whose worst case is still acceptable to them (Sarasvathy,
2001). As leaders strive to avoid losses that would threaten the survival of their venture (Dew, Sarasvathy, Read,
Wiltbank, 2009), they pursue avoidance-oriented or “minimal” goals and hence exhibit a prevention focus (Brockner
et al., 2004; Wu et al., 2008). We therefore expect that the adoption of the affordable loss principle is negatively
related to EO.
First, firms with a strong EO are typically characterized by a preference for high-risk projects that offer chances
of very high returns, but also entail the possibility of substantial losses (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Rauch et al., 2009).
Leaders who emphasize affordable loss likely prefer more conservative projects over those that could result in sub-
stantial losses. Moreover, affordable loss-oriented leaders tend to favor a sequence of stepwise investments over sin-
gular, far-reaching commitments in order to lower potential losses (Dew, Sarasvathy, et al., 2009). Promoting such an
incremental approach is also likely to be negatively associated with a firm's EO since firms with a strong EO typically
try to realize their objectives by adopting “bold, wide-ranging acts” rather than incremental procedures (Covin & Sle-
vin, 1989, p. 86). Second, a strong EO typically implies proactive behaviors such as “introducing new products or ser-
vices ahead of the competition and acting in anticipation of future demand to create change and shape the
environment” (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001, p. 431). Large investments will typically be required if a firm intends to create
change and shape the environment (Sorescu, Chandy, & Prabhu, 2003). The size of the investments their firm would
have to make in pursuit of these objectives can easily exceed what affordable loss-oriented leaders would be com-
fortable losing in the worst-case scenario. Firms of affordable loss-oriented leaders are therefore likely to forego
some opportunities that would imply proactiveness. Further, even when these firms actually act on such opportuni-
ties, their leaders' preference for stepwise investments is likely to induce multiple rounds of commitment re-
examination and renewal along the way (Sarasvathy, 2001). These re-examinations reduce the speed with which
these firms can pursue such opportunities in comparison to firms that rely on one far-reaching commitment (Dew,
Sarasvathy, et al., 2009). This slowdown should limit their EO since firms with a strong EO tend to realize opportuni-
ties ahead of the competition (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Third, the high level of innovativeness associated with a
strong EO usually implies a predisposition toward introducing new products and processes and toward emphasizing
technological leadership and novelty in doing so (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Rauch et al., 2009). However, developing
new products and processes can be very resource-consuming and many development projects do not turn out favor-
ably (Joshi & Sharma, 2004). The more such projects diverge from a firm's current technology, the lower the success
rate and the higher the costs tend to be (March, 1991; Salomo, Talke, & Strecker, 2008). Firms with leaders who
focus on affordable loss can consequently be expected to forego or abandon some development projects. Therefore,
Hypothesis 5 (H5) Use of the affordable loss principle is negatively related to a firm's EO.
8 PALMIÉ ET AL.
3 | DATA AND METHODS
We opted for a survey study design to examine whether the use of causation or a focal effectuation principle by
entrepreneurs and their management teams is positively or negatively related to the EO of SMEs. Collecting primary
data for this purpose offers the advantage that established survey instruments are available for both the effectuation
and causation approaches and EO, whereas detailed secondary information on these issues is hard to get for a suffi-
ciently large number of firms, especially for SMEs (Lyon, Lumpkin, & Dess, 2000; Perry, Chandler, & Markova, 2012).
We focus on SMEs because entrepreneurs and their management teams typically exert an enormous influence on
these firms and the firms' EO (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Miller, 2011; Wang, Thornhill, & De Castro, 2017). To evaluate
the primary survey data with respect to our hypotheses, we use maximum likelihood SEM because SEM considers
the convergent and discriminant validity of psychometric measures and accounts for potential biasing effects of ran-
dom measurement error (Kline, 2010; Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994). We will subsequently describe in greater
detail how we collected and evaluated the data.
3.1 | Sampling frame
To examine the associations between decision-making principles and EO, we chose to study the RE and EE
industries because these industries are dynamic and characterized by high levels of uncertainty and risk in the
technological, regulatory, and market spheres (Foxon et al., 2005; Furr, Cavarretta, & Garg, 2012; Wuebker,
Hampl, & Wüstenhagen, 2015). Hence, they afford ample opportunity for entrepreneurial activity (Knudsen &
Lien, 2015). Further, we chose to analyze firms in Switzerland because this country is characterized by owner-
managed firms—approximately 99.4% of all Swiss firms are SMEs (Bundesamt für Statistik, 2007). We therefore
contacted the SFOE to gain support for our endeavor. Fortunately, the SFOE agreed to collaborate on imple-
menting a survey with us. We subsequently compiled a list of candidate firms for empirical study from a direc-
tory of all firms active in the RE/EE industries in Switzerland provided by the SFOE, from exhibitor lists from
industry fairs, and from industrial supplier directories. Companies with more than 250 employees, subsidiaries of
larger companies, firms headquartered outside of Switzerland (or Liechtenstein), and consulting and trading com-
panies active in the RE/EE industries were excluded. As an exception, companies with up to 500 employees
were included if they met both of the following criteria: First, secondary sources (e.g., company websites, news-
paper articles) indicated that they exceeded the 250 employee threshold only after they had entered the energy
sector. The respective firms hence made some of the decisions covered by the effectuation and causation scales
below while having 250 employees or less. Second, the companies were at least 10 years old when they entered
the energy sector. Since our sample focuses on new entrants into this sector (as we will outline subsequently),
the respective companies spent the vast majority of their lives within the 250 employee threshold and grew big-
ger only recently. If the exact number of employees could not be determined, firms were only included if they
clearly fell in the SME category of firms.
We collected information on all remaining candidate companies through internet and telephone inquiry, with
the objective of identifying those firms that had entered the energy sector with a new or significantly modified
product within the last 5 years. A focus on new entrants was chosen in order to select firms in which important
entrepreneurial decisions had recently been made. Moreover, these firms had to deal with a high degree of uncer-
tainty, as they had not previously been exposed to the specific environment of the energy sector. In such a situa-
tion, a firm typically becomes particularly susceptible to the influence of its organizational leaders (Marquis &
Tilcsik, 2013). Hence, these firms offer a promising opportunity to examine the relationships between leader-
related and firm-level variables. All the firms that did not meet this requirement were also excluded, leaving a final
population of 503 companies.
PALMIÉ ET AL. 9
3.2 | Measurement
The constructs considered in this investigation refer to approaches that organizational leaders adopt to make entre-
preneurial decisions as well as to the firms that these leaders manage. As organizational leaders possess considerable
discretion and decision-making powers in SMEs, their decisions exert a strong direct influence on firm-level out-
comes (Daily, McDougall, Covin, & Dalton, 2002; Finkelstein et al., 2009), and the organizational leadership and the
firm levels converge in SMEs (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Rauch et al., 2009). Numerous studies show that this effect
allows scholars to link organizational leadership variables directly to SME-level phenomena without further consider-
ation of multilevel issues (e.g., Hmieleski, Carr, & Baron, 2015; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2011; Simsek, Heavey, &
Veiga, 2010). Following this lead, we link decision-making variables directly to EO, whose roots in decisions made by
organizational leaders have been emphasized repeatedly (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011; Covin & Wales, 2012).
We collected survey data on all measures. As detailed at the end of this section, we tested the data extensively
to rule out single respondent bias and common method variance (CMV) and to assess the reliability and validity of
our measures. The measurement model is presented in Figure 1.
3.2.1 | Endogenous variables
Several articles have been devoted to the question of how EO should be measured (e.g., Covin & Lumpkin, 2011;
Covin & Wales, 2012; George, 2011; Lyon et al., 2000). These articles recommend choosing a measurement
approach based on the research question and context since no approach is superior to alternative approaches per
se. Our choice is based on the recommendations of these articles. First, we adopt a survey-based approach to
FIGURE 1 Structural equation model Notes. Covariances among exogenous variables were modeled, but are not
reported here for the sake of readability. Error variables are also excluded from the presentation. Extensive resultsare available from the corresponding author upon request. Standardized estimates are reported. *p < 0.10;**p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01; ****p < 0.001 (two-tailed test)
10 PALMIÉ ET AL.
measuring EO since this approach allows for in-depth insights and is particularly appropriate in small firms, which are
typically not covered widely in published sources (Lyon et al., 2000). Second, we operationalize EO as a reflective
second-order construct because we want to better understand the correlates of EO as a higher-order construct
(George, 2011). Specifically, our second-order construct entrepreneurial orientation is derived from the first-order con-
structs risk taking, proactiveness, and innovativeness whose items are adopted from Covin and Slevin (1989). We adopt
Covin and Slevin's (1989) measure because it is consistent with the conceptualization of EO embraced in the current
paper (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011, p. 859) and because “it has been applied successfully in numerous studies of EO”
(Lyon et al., 2000, p. 1066). The items are reproduced in the Appendix A, which provides a detailed account of all our
item-based measures and their Cronbach's alpha.
3.2.2 | Exogenous variables
We employ Chandler et al.'s (2011) established scales to measure the extent to which organizational leaders use
effectuation and causation. The scales ask respondents how they made important decisions related to a recent entre-
preneurial endeavor such as developing a new product for a new market. The scales refer to decisions related to the
initiation of this endeavor as well as to decisions related to its subsequent evolution and thus cover the use of effec-
tuation and causation over a period of time. As our sample consists of small firms that entered the RE/EE industries
with a new or substantially modified product within the last 5 years, the time frame of our study is comparable to
the one considered in recently published applications of Chandler et al.'s (2011) scales (Deligianni et al., 2017; Smolka
et al., in press). Chandler et al. (2011) propose a final set of five scales; adopting all of them provides us with mea-
sures of the extent to which organizational leaders use causation, experimentation, flexibility, precommitments, and
affordable loss.
3.2.3 | Control variables
We controlled for firm age (years since establishment), firm size (number of employees), the firm's R&D expenditures, and
the entrepreneur's entrepreneurial experience (number of years the respondent has been working as an entrepreneur).
3.3 | Implementation
Validated academic procedures of questionnaire design (Dillman, 2000) informed the production of a fully standard-
ized questionnaire with which we collected data on the above measures. Before it was sent to the owner by email,
the arrival of the questionnaire was announced in a personal letter, which also communicated SFOE's support for the
survey. Owners were given an account of the aims of the study, were guaranteed confidentiality, and were offered a
summary of the study results. Reminder emails were sent 8 and 16 days following the initial mailing. Data collection
was closed after 28 days at the end of 2011. Of the 503 firms, 151 responded, yielding a favorable response rate of
30.02%. We compared respondents and nonrespondents with regard to firm size, firm age, and with respect to the
probability of business closure 3–5 years after the survey. Two-tailed t tests indicated no significant differences
between respondents and nonrespondents at p < 0.10 or smaller.
3.4 | Single respondent bias and CMV
Following the recommendations of Chang, van Witteloostuijn, and Eden (2010) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Pod-
sakoff (2012), we employed multiple procedural and statistical approaches to rule out single respondent bias and
CMV at the design and evaluation stages of our survey.
Procedural remedies such as using established instruments to measure our constructs and using a counterba-
lanced question order minimized the potential for CMV ex ante. Moreover, a comparison between the responses of
participants who completed our questionnaire in multiple sessions on different days (22 of 151 people; 14.57%) and
PALMIÉ ET AL. 11
the responses of the remaining 129 participants suggests that our results are not substantially biased by the fact that
most participants provided their responses at a single point in time (c.f., Johnson, Rosen, Chang, & Lin, 2015).
In terms of statistical remedies, Podsakoff et al. (2012, p. 564) “recommend using the CFA marker technique or
the common method factor technique [… to] control for measurement error.” To gain multiple insights into the possi-
bility of CMV, we used both of these techniques and also conducted the three phases of Williams, Hartman, and
Cavazotte's (2010) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) marker technique for two different CFA markers—the “green-
ness” of the focal firm's products and the importance of “indirect subsidies.” Overall, the various statistical remedies
corroborate that our results are unlikely to be substantially biased. Details and results are available upon request.
3.5 | Assessment of reliability and validity of the measures
To ensure the reliability of our scales, we calculated Cronbach's alpha for each of them (see Appendix A for results;
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Convergent validity was verified by calculating overlap-corrected correlations between
an item and the scale it pertains to (results available on request; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Finally, discriminant
validity was examined by comparing the square root of the variance shared between the items and their scales
(i.e., the average variance extracted) to the correlation coefficients among the scales (see Table 1 for results; Fornell &
Larcker, 1981; Staples et al., 1999). Overall, these methods indicate that our measures are reliable and valid.
4 | RESULTS
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and correlations for all the variables. We adopted the two-step approach to
SEM proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and recommended by numerous researchers (e.g., Mathieu & Taylor,
2006; Medsker et al., 1994; Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005).
4.1 | Phase 1: CFA model results
In the first phase of Anderson and Gerbing's (1988) approach, a CFA model is fit to the observed data to assess the
fit of the overall measurement model and to examine the psychometric properties of the constructs. Each latent vari-
able in SEM needs to be explicitly assigned a metric or a measurement range (Kline, 2010). We did so by setting a
loading to 1.0 for one indicator per latent variable.
Judging by standards of good empirical practice (e.g., Bollen, 1989; Kline, 2010; Teo, Wie, & Benbasat, 2003),
the hypothesized CFA model fits the data well (χ2 = 401.622 with 267 df, p < 0.001; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) =
0.84; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.79; Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.72; Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) =
0.85; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.88; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058). We com-
pared its fit with the fit of several alternative models in which indicators loading onto two separate latent constructs
in the hypothesized measurement model load onto one common latent construct instead (Yuan & Woodman, 2010).
χ2 difference tests indicated that the hypothesized measurement model fits the data significantly better than any of
these alternative models (p < 0.01 or smaller in every case). These results suggested that our measurement model is
adequate and that we could proceed with the second phase of the two-step approach (Simsek et al., 2005).
4.2 | Phase 2: Sequence of nested structural models results
In the second phase of Anderson and Gerbing's (1988) approach, contrasts between nested structural models are
used to obtain the model that best accounts for the covariances observed between the models' exogenous and
endogenous constructs.
To this end, we compared the following structural models: our hypothesized model, in which the relationships of
EO with causation and the four individual effectuation principles are tested concurrently, five models that constrain
12 PALMIÉ ET AL.
TABLE
1Descriptive
statistics
andco
rrelations
Variable
12
34
56
78
910
1Affordab
leloss
0.791
2Exp
erim
entation
−0.068
0.540
3Preco
mmitmen
ts0.064
−0.110
0.781
4Flexibility
0.321***
0.288**
0.274**
0.679
5Cau
sation
0.188*
0.061
0.411****
0.440***
0.566
6Entrepren
eurialorien
tation
−0.095
0.270**
0.027
0.432***
0.523****
0.802
7R&D
expe
nditures
−0.195**
0.107
0.046
−0.183*
0.133
0.184*
1.000
8Entrepren
eurialex
perien
ce0.106
0.102
−0.065
0.151
−0.086
0.166*
−0.125
1.000
9Firm
size
−0.058
−0.061
0.011
−0.101
0.131
−0.057
0.539****
−0.230***
1.000
10
Firm
age
−0.061
−0.145
0.118
−0.036
0.063
−0.094
0.243***
−0.166**
0.473****
1.000
Mean
5.049
3.412
3.897
5.222
4.618
4.373
466,339
752
35
SD1.750
0.976
1.687
1.300
1.124
0.983
882,920
10
72
31
Min
11.25
11.5
11.5
00
02
Max
76
77
76.75
6,000,000
40
480
154
Notes.T
hebo
lddiagona
lelemen
tsarethesqua
rerootofthevarian
ceshared
betw
eentheitem
san
dtheirscales
(i.e.,the
averagevarian
ceex
tracted).Offdiago
nalelem
ents
aretheco
rre-
lations
betw
eentheco
nstruc
ts.F
ordiscriminan
tvalid
ity,thediagona
lelemen
tsshouldbe
larger
than
anyother
correspo
ndingrow
orco
lumnen
try(Staples,Hulland,&
Higgins,1999).
*p<0.10;*
*p<0.05;*
**p<0.01;*
***p
<0.001.
PALMIÉ ET AL. 13
the relationship between EO and one of our hypothesized exogenous variables at a time to zero, and one baseline
model in which the relationships of EO with all five hypothesized exogenous variables are constrained to zero. χ2 dif-
ference tests indicate that the fit of our hypothesized model is significantly better (p < 0.05 or smaller) than the fit of
all but one of the nested, constrained models. The one exception whose fit is not significantly worse is the nested
model in which the relationship between experimentation and EO is constrained to zero. With this observation in
mind, we use the hypothesized model reproduced in Figure 1 to test our hypotheses.
4.3 | Results of hypotheses testing
Comparing two versions of our hypothesized model—with and without the full set of control variables—indicates that
including the control variables does not significantly affect whether our hypotheses are statistically supported or not.
Extensive results for the full model that includes paths and coefficients for all the control variables are available upon
request. Figure 1 reports the coefficients and paths from the more parsimonious model without manifest control var-
iables to enhance readability.
Four of the five hypotheses are supported: H1, which maintained a positive relationship between causation and
EO, at p < 0.001; H3, which predicted a positive relationship between flexibility and EO, at p < 0.05; H4, which pos-
ited a negative relationship between precommitments and EO, at p < 0.05; and H5, which proposed a negative rela-
tionship between affordable loss and EO, at p < 0.01. With respect to H2, which assumed a positive relationship
between experimentation and EO, we observe that the coefficient of experimentation has the expected positive sign,
but is not significant. Thus, H2 is not supported. This last result is in line with the aforementioned observation that
the fit of the nested model in which the relationship between EO and experimentation is constrained to zero is not
significantly worse than the fit of our hypothesized model.
5 | DISCUSSION
Recently, scholars have increasingly pointed toward substantial differences between the various principles that make
up the effectuation approach to entrepreneurial decision making (e.g., Arend et al., 2015; Chandler et al., 2011; Read
et al., 2016). Since a sound understanding of the implications of pursuing effectuation is essential for scholars and
practitioners alike (Arend et al., 2015; Read et al., 2016), our study examines whether the four effectuation principles
distinguished by Chandler et al. (2011) and Deligianni et al. (2017)—experimentation, flexibility, precommitments, and
affordable loss—differ in their respective relationship with the EO of SMEs. Building on regulatory focus theory
(Brockner et al., 2004; Hmieleski & Baron, 2008), we look at the principles' predominant regulatory focus to argue
that principles with a promotion focus (experimentation, flexibility) tend to be positively related to EO, whereas prin-
ciples with a prevention focus (precommitments, affordable loss) are likely to be negatively related to EO. Moreover,
we argue that the causation approach tends to be positively related to EO, as it is also dominated by a promotion
focus. Testing these predictions with Swiss SMEs in the RE and EE industries provides support for all our hypotheses
except for experimentation. These findings have important implications for the academic literature, management
education, and management practice.
5.1 | Implications for the academic literature
First, our study delves into the differences between the various effectuation principles, which have recently been
highlighted as a main area for further effectuation research (Read et al., 2016; Welter et al., 2016). The effectuation
literature has been criticized for describing effectuation as a “single construct” and thus as “an internally consistent
set of ideas that forms a clear basis for action […, although] the construct appears to be an amalgam instead—a com-
posite of several different cognitive processes and behaviors” (Arend et al., 2015, p. 642). Leading proponents of the
14 PALMIÉ ET AL.
effectuation framework reaffirm this criticism by admitting that “we seem to be confounding” several aspects in the
effectuation concept (Read et al., 2016, p. 531). To resolve this problem, these proponents recommend using “well-
developed theories from psychology” to distinguish between hitherto confounded aspects within the concept (Read
et al., 2016, p. 531). Following their recommendation, we respond to the call to clarify the effectuation concept by
applying regulatory focus theory, which provides a “well-developed framework” to understand differences in the cog-
nitions and behaviors of entrepreneurs (Burmeister-Lamp et al., 2012, p. 460). In so doing, our study introduces the
distinction between promotion- and prevention-focused effectuation principles. The predominant regulatory focus
has “a major impact on people's feelings, thoughts, and actions” (Higgins, 1998, p. 2). Distinguishing the effectuation
principles according to their underlying regulatory focus therefore clarifies the effectuation concept with respect to
the basis of action as demanded by Arend et al. (2015): Organizational leaders with a promotion focus attend to what
they might gain by acting and apply eagerness means, whereas prevention-focused leaders attend to what they might
lose by acting and apply vigilant means. Eagerness means denote actions to ensure hits and to avoid errors of omis-
sion, while vigilant means denote actions to ensure correct rejections and to avoid errors of commission (Hmieleski &
Baron, 2008; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012). Consequently, we find that promotion- and prevention-focused effectuation
principles can have opposite associations with a focal criterion; specifically, we observe positive (promotion focus)
versus negative (prevention focus) associations with EO. The distinction between promotion- and prevention-
focused principles therefore also clarifies the effectuation concept with respect to its implications, which belong to
the most important criteria to assess effectuation (Read et al., 2016).
Second, our study shows that the promotion-focused effectuation principles can be more similar to causation in
their association with relevant criteria than they are to the prevention-focused effectuation principles because causa-
tion is also promotion-focused. In contrast to prevention-focused effectuation principles, which are found to be neg-
atively related to EO, causation and the promotion-focused effectuation principles tend to be positively related to
EO. This finding illustrates that the widespread practice of depicting effectuation and causation as opposites (Brettel
et al., 2012; Dew, Read, et al., 2009; Reymen et al., 2015; Sarasvathy, 2001) may be helpful for illustrative purposes,
but can also be misleading: While prevention-focused effectuation principles and causation may indeed have oppo-
site associations with a focal criterion, promotion-focused effectuation principles and causation can exhibit congru-
ent associations with said criterion. As a consequence, the level of EO can be higher when organizational leaders
pursue causation and promotion-focused effectuation principles in combination than it is when leaders engage in a
trade-off between them. This insight extends the argument that effectuation and causation can be pursued in combi-
nation (e.g., Chandler et al., 2011; Perry et al., 2012; Reymen et al., 2015) by illuminating the implications of such a
combined pursuit. So far, studies into the implications of pursuing effectuation, which do not treat effectuation and
causation as the endpoints of a continuum, have rarely included causation in their analyses (see Smolka et al., in
press, for a notable exception). The implications of combing effectuation and causation are therefore still relatively
poorly understood. Our findings indicate that these implications may not be homogenous across various effectuation
principles: Relative to an exclusive pursuit of causation, pursuing causation in combination with effectuation princi-
ples can be associated with higher or with lower levels of a criterion such as EO. A higher level of this criterion may
be observed if the promotion-focused causation approach is combined with promotion-focused effectuation princi-
ples, whereas lower levels can be found if causation is combined with prevention-focused effectuation principles.
Our analysis thus generates insights that respond to Read et al.'s (2016, p. 531) call to study “useful ways to mix and
match” effectuation and causation.
Third, many scholars agree that the EO of an SME is substantially driven by the organizational leaders (Covin &
Slevin, 1991; Miller, 1983; Rauch et al., 2009). Studies that went beyond this general notion and examined the influ-
ence of specific leader-related antecedents on EO in greater detail have primarily focused on leaders' demographic
and psychological characteristics (e.g., Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2011; Poon, Ainuddin, & Junit, 2006; Simsek et al.,
2010; see Wales et al., 2013 for an overview). In contrast, relatively few of these efforts analyze how a firm's EO is
influenced by leaders' approaches to decision making (for a notable exception, see Chaston and Sadler-Smith's
(2012) study on leaders' use of intuitive cognition in making decisions). This scarcity of corresponding research has
PALMIÉ ET AL. 15
left us with a substantial knowledge gap. The approaches leaders adopt to make important decisions tend to have
substantial implications for organizational attributes such as EO (Covin & Wales, 2012; Engel et al., 2017). Research
into decision making as a correlate of EO is therefore “most promising” (Daily et al., 2002, p. 394) and calls to
advance our knowledge along these lines have accumulated in recent years (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011; Lumpkin, Ste-
ier, & Wright, 2011; Slevin & Terjesen, 2011; Wales, 2016). Our study contributes to closing the identified knowl-
edge gap by focusing on approaches to decision making that have developed into core concepts in strategy and
entrepreneurship research—effectuation and causation (Arend et al., 2015; Read et al., 2016; Reymen et al., 2015).
5.2 | Paths for future research
In addition to these contributions, our study has several further implications for future research. Our finding that
prevention-focused effectuation principles tend to be negatively associated with EO raises the question whether they
make a positive contribution to firms' entrepreneurial success and, if so, what their contribution looks like. Sarasvathy
(2001, 2008) derived the effectuation principles from an analysis of how expert entrepreneurs make entrepreneurial
decisions. It therefore seems likely that the application of these principles by organizational leaders will not be detri-
mental to entrepreneurial success per se. This reasoning could stimulate two lines of research: First, scholars could
search for specific criteria that are relevant to entrepreneurial success and that are positively related to prevention-
focused effectuation principles. For example, Covin and Lumpkin (2011) and Slevin and Terjesen (2011) advance the
notion that there may be alternative forms of EO that reflect other first-order constructs than risk taking, proactive-
ness, and innovativeness. As our results suggest that promotion-focused effectuation principles tend to be positively
related to the established form of EO, it could be that prevention-focused effectuation principles are positively related
to an alternative form of EO. Exploring this possibility is a promising path for future research since alternative forms of
EO represent one of two “high-potential research foci” regarding EO identified by Covin and Lumpkin (2011, p. 867).
The idea that principles such as affordable loss and precommitments could be positively related to the sought-after
construct might provide some guidance to scholars in search of an alternative form of EO.
Second, Baron (2004, p. 231) suggests that entrepreneurs who “temper [… their] promotion focus with some
aspects of a prevention focus” might be more adept at distinguishing between truly excellent opportunities and less
viable ones than entrepreneurs who adopt a pure promotion focus. This tempering of leaders' promotion focus could
represent an essential contribution of prevention-focused effectuation principles to entrepreneurial success. Future
research should seek to improve our understanding of how promotion and prevention focus can work together to
advance entrepreneurial success. Such research may find that there are success-related criteria for which fruitful
combinations of prevention-focused effectuation principles and the promotion-focused causation approach exist.
Such findings would further extend our knowledge about “useful ways to mix and match” effectuation and causation
(Read et al., 2016, p. 531). Moreover, future research could also build on Baron's (2004) argument in order to search
for firm-level attributes that act as complements to EO in affecting success-related outcome measures. Since our
findings indicate that EO is rooted in leaders' promotion focus, reasoning in analogy to Baron (2004) suggests that
EO may exert a stronger effect on success when it is tempered by a firm-level attribute that is rooted in leaders' pre-
vention focus than when it occurs in isolation. Such research would respond to the calls to intensify the analysis of
moderators of the EO-performance relationship (Rauch et al., 2009; Wales, 2016; Wang et al., 2017).
The notion that effectuation and causation can be mixed and matched presents another promising opportunity
for future research. Our study, like previous efforts (e.g., Chandler et al., 2011; Read et al., 2016; Reymen et al.,
2015; Sarasvathy, 2001), argues that it is possible to pursue effectuation and causation approaches to decision mak-
ing in combination. The cognitive underpinnings of this popular claim, however, are rather poorly understood. Most
research that makes this claim, including our study, refers to a certain time frame—such as the start-up phase or a
new product development endeavor—in which these approaches are combined. It is less clear if decision makers can
also combine effectuation and causation approaches at a single point in time and how easily they can switch between
these approaches. Research grounded in cognitive psychology and potentially even neuroscientific methods, such as
16 PALMIÉ ET AL.
functional magnetic resonance imaging, could improve our understanding of these important issues (Laureiro-Marti-
nez, Brusoni, Canessa, & Zollo, 2015; Ott, Eisenhardt, & Bingham, 2017).
We conclude this section by encouraging research to extend our analysis. Since effectuation and causation
approaches to decision making as well as EO have each developed into central concepts in the strategy and entrepre-
neurship literatures (Read et al., 2016; Slevin & Terjesen, 2011; Wales et al., 2013), the relationships of effectuation
and causation with EO deserve further attention. Future research may build on our insights by examining moderators
and mediators of the relationships under consideration here. Table 2 presents some suggestions for research along
these lines.
5.3 | Limitations
Future research could also address the limitations of our study. First, our empirical analysis focused on firms from the
Swiss RE and EE industries, even though our theoretical arguments are not specific to this particular country or this
particular sector. Future research could therefore test our theoretical claims in different settings. Second, our study
shares the common limitation that a cross-sectional design only allows us to infer association, not causality. The direc-
tion of influence we propose—from decision-making approaches adopted by the organizational leaders to the firm-level
concept of EO—is supported by much prior research that has highlighted leaders' influence on the properties of their
(small) firms. This supporting prior research includes some empirical studies with research designs that can establish
temporal precedence (e.g., Furr et al., 2012; Mihalache, Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2014; Simsek et al., 2010).
Nevertheless, future research could deploy longitudinal designs to address causality in the relationship between effec-
tuation and EO more comprehensively. Third, like other recent empirical efforts on effectuation (Deligianni et al., 2017;
Smolka et al., in press), our study restricts itself to the scales developed by Chandler et al. (2011). In line with Sarasv-
athy (2001), Chandler et al. (2011) feature four effectuation principles, but this selection need not be exhaustive. For
instance, Sarasvathy (2008) herself occasionally refers to five (pp. 15–16) or six (p. 255) principles. Future research may
work on establishing the predominant regulatory focus of effectuation principles not included here. Fourth, whereas
four of our five hypotheses are supported, we do not observe a significant result for experimentation. A potential
explanation for this result can be found in recent approaches to the development of new products for new markets
(e.g., design thinking and the lean start-up methodology). These approaches recommend testing new product ideas
through a series of quick, focused, and frugal experiments with customers (Blank, 2013; Furr & Dyer, 2014). These
repeated experiments are specifically designed to reduce risk and costs, render the firm's new products tried and true
early on, and contribute to a gradual exploration of the environment (Furr & Dyer, 2014). The emerging approaches
therefore illustrate that experiments can also entail characteristics of a low EO (Covin & Slevin, 1989). Overall, the rela-
tionship between experimentation and EO may be more complex than previously thought. A fine-grained analysis of
this relationship seems to be especially promising as more and more firms apply the lean start-up method and other
similar approaches. Moreover, our nonsignificant result regarding experimentation points toward another avenue for
additional research. Organizational leaders could use experimentation—or “trial and error” (Chandler et al., 2011,
p. 380)—to test the effects of their intentions and their means at hand on others until they find a solution that works
(Read, Sarasvathy, Dew, & Wiltbank, 2015). Read et al. (2015, p. 11) argue that such trial and error goes beyond the
effectuation perspective as it neglects the active involvement of committed stakeholders in the transformation of the
means. Consequently, experimentation as such does not always describe effectuation's means-based approach ade-
quately. Future research may therefore reexamine the scale for the means-based principle in light of these insights.
5.4 | Implications for management education and practice
Our findings offer several important insights to management education and management practice. First, our findings
suggest that the effectuation principles differ in their relationships with relevant organizational attributes and should
therefore not be interchanged at will. Pursuing promotion-focused effectuation principles and pursuing prevention-
PALMIÉ ET AL. 17
TABLE
2Su
ggestions
forpo
tentialm
ode
rators
andmed
iators
oftheeffectua
tion/causation–e
ntrepren
eurialorien
tation(EO)relationships
Our
find
ings
Sugg
estedpathforfuture
research
Shortmotiva
tion
Theo
reticalfoundation
Cau
sationan
deffectua
tionprinciples
arerelatedto
EO
Does
theinstitutiona
len
vironm
entmode
rate
such
relationships?
Institutiona
lenv
ironm
ents
may
differ
intheex
tent
towhich
they
consider
EO
legitimate
(Kreiser,M
arino,&
Wea
ver,2010).Le
gitimacyco
nsiderationsco
uld
pullfirm
stowarda
certainleve
lofEO
(Bruton,
Ahlstrom,&
Li,2
010).Effortsto
keep
thedev
iationfrom
thisleve
llow
couldinflue
ncetherelationships
ofcausationan
deffectuationprinciples
withEO.
Institutionaltheo
ry(Brutonet
al.,2010)
Cau
sationtend
sto
bepo
sitive
lyrelatedto
EO
Does
afirm
'splan
ning
capa
bilitymode
rate
this
relation?
Afirm
'splan
ning
capa
bilitymay
affect
thequ
alityofitsplan
s(e.g.,theco
mprehen
sive
ness
ofissues
cove
red)
anditsab
ility
toallocate
resourcesto
planned
initiative
s(Slotegraaf&Dickson,
2004).Astrong
plan
ning
capa
bilitymay
hen
cehelpfirm
ssense
andseizeopp
ortun
ities(W
olf&Floyd
,2017).Asaresult,theeffectiven
essofcausation
couldincrea
sewithincrea
sesin
theleve
lofafirm
'splan
ningcapab
ility.
Dyn
amiccapab
ilities
(Tee
ce,2
007;W
olf&
Floyd
,2017)
Exp
erim
entationmay
bepo
sitive
lyrelatedto
EO
Dothefirm
'sex
ploitation
ende
avors
mode
rate
this
relation?
Exp
erim
entationha
sbe
enassociated
withex
ploration(M
arch
,1991).Theam
bidex
terity
literaturehigh
lightsbo
thch
alleng
esan
dpo
tentialb
enefitsofco
mbiningex
ploration
andex
ploitation(Lavie,S
tettne
r,&Tushm
an,2
010).The
firm
'sex
ploitationen
deavors
may
therefore
influe
ncetheeffectiven
essofex
perimen
tation.
Ambidex
terity
(Lavie
etal.,2010).
Flexibilitytend
sto
bepo
sitive
lyrelatedto
EO
Does
thefirm
'sleve
lof
absorptive
capa
city
mode
rate
thisrelation?
Absorptive
capa
city
helpsfirm
sco
llect
externalinform
ation,u
nderstan
dnew
opp
ortun
itiesto
servetheircu
stomers,an
drespond
toch
angingmarke
tdem
ands
(Jan
sen,
Van
Den
Bosch,
&Volberda
,2005).Ahigh
leve
lofab
sorptive
capacityshould
supp
ortfirm
ssw
itch
ingto
emerging
opp
ortun
itiesto
makethemost
oftheirflex
ibility.
Absorptive
capacity
(Volberda,Foss,&
Lyles,2010)
Preco
mmitmen
tstend
tobe
negative
lyrelatedto
EO
Doattributes
ofthe
committing
parties
mode
rate
thisrelation?
Attribu
tesoftheco
mmitting
partiesmay
notonlyaffect
thequalityoftheco
llaboration,
butthey
may
also
influe
nceattributes
ofthefocalfirm.A
saresult,thefirm
'sattributes
andthepa
rtne
rs'attribu
tescanbe
comemore
compa
tible(Bundy,Voge
l,&Zachary,
2018).Thisco
uldim
plythat
precommitmen
tswillbe
less
detrimen
taltoEO
ifthefirm
collabo
rateswithpa
rtiesthat
possessastrong
EO
them
selves.
Organ
ization-stake
holder
fit(Bundyet
al.,2018)
Emph
asisonaffordab
leloss
tend
sto
bene
gative
lyrelatedto
EO
Dofactors
groun
dedin
organ
izationa
lculture
andorgan
izationa
lclim
atemode
rate
this
relation?
The
affordab
leloss
principleplaces
aco
nstraint
ontheresources
available
for
entrep
rene
uriale
ndea
vors.F
actors
groun
dedin
team
clim
ate(e.g.,open
commun
ication,
psycho
logicalsafety)
have
been
foun
dto
affect
therelationship
betw
eenresource
constraintsan
doutco
mes
such
asteam
crea
tivity
(Rosso,2
014;
Weiss,H
oeg
l,&Gibbe
rt,2
011).Ittherefore
seem
spo
ssible
that
factors
grounded
inorgan
izationa
lclim
atean
dcu
ltureha
vean
impa
ctontherelationship
betwee
naffordab
leloss
andEO.
Resource-co
nstrained
innovation(Reinhardt,
Gurtner,&
Griffin,
2018)
Cau
sationan
deffectua
tionprinciples
arerelatedto
EO
Doorgan
izationa
llea
ders'
selectivepe
rcep
tionan
dco
nstrue
dreality
med
iate
therelationship
betw
eentheprinciples
andEO?
Strategiclead
ership
theo
rysugg
ests
that
therelationshipbe
twee
nex
ecutive
s'psycho
logicalfactors
(e.g.,co
gnitivestyle,co
gnitivemode
l)an
dorgan
izational
outco
mes
ismed
iatedby
executives'filteringprocess,inc
ludingtheirselective
percep
tionan
dco
nstrue
dreality(Finke
lstein
etal.,2009,p
.45).Ascausationan
deffectua
tionprinciples
areassociated
withvarious
cogn
itiveprocesses
(Sarasvathy,
2008),organ
izationa
llea
ders'selective
percep
tionan
dco
nstrued
realitymightmed
iate
therelationshipbe
twee
ntheprinciples
andEO.
Strategiclead
ership
theo
ry(Finke
lstein
etal.,2009)
18 PALMIÉ ET AL.
focused effectuation principles can have fundamentally different implications, such as positive versus negative asso-
ciations with EO. Consequently, organizational leaders should not only consider the question of whether they want
to pursue the effectuation approach or not, but also the question of which effectuation principles they wish to apply.
Second, our study indicates that the effectuation principles also differ in their similarity with causation. Some effectu-
ation principles and causation share the same regulatory focus and exhibit congruent (positive) associations with EO,
whereas other effectuation principles and causation possess disparate regulatory foci and exhibit opposite (negative
vs. positive) associations with EO. This finding cautions educators and managers against generalizing experiences
made with combinations of promotion-focused effectuation principles and causation to combinations of prevention-
focused effectuation principles and causation, and vice versa.
Our results suggest that a joint pursuit of causation and the effectuation principle flexibility can be associated
with a very high level of EO. Such a joint pursuit means that organizational leaders engage in strategic planning and
competitive analysis (causation) but deviate from the intended course of action if promising opportunities emerge
(flexibility). To be able to pursue causation and flexibility in combination, organizational leaders need to overcome
planning's “natural tendency to engender inflexibility” (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999, p. 424). The hesitancy to deviate
from plans is in part driven by the fear that deviations will be interpreted as flaws in the initial plan, by the fear of loss
of face, and by the development of psychological momentum (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999). To overcome these psy-
chological impediments to flexibility, organizational leaders should emphasize the provisional nature of their plans
from the outset. Moreover, leaders should explicate the critical assumptions underlying their plans and collect infor-
mation that allows them to assess whether these assumptions are appropriate (Mullins & Komisar, 2010). Leaders
can complement periodic reviews in which they check whether their firm has met its specified targets with repeated
assessments in which they check whether once appropriate assumptions continue to hold. These checks can stimu-
late leaders' receptivity for upcoming developments and facilitate the switch to emerging opportunities. Finally, orga-
nizational leaders can allow for flexibility when implementing their plans. For instance, they can negotiate contracts
that favor adjustments or they can choose multi-purpose over highly specialized equipment.
The effectuation principles, which have been derived from an analysis of expert entrepreneurs (Sarasvathy,
2008), represent “teachable and learnable elements of entrepreneurial expertise” (Sarasvathy et al., 2014, p. 73).
Now that these principles have been extracted, virtually “anyone can learn these tools” (Read et al., 2015, p. 4). The
same applies to causation techniques (Dew, Read, et al., 2009). Research on the implications of applying effectuation
and causation is therefore likely to be very relevant for management education. Our findings encourage management
education to pay more attention to the individual effectuation principles and the differences among them instead of
focusing only on effectuation as a unitary concept. Moreover, our study highlights commonalities between causation
and some effectuation principles, which deserve to be discussed alongside the differences between the approaches.
Such insights should help organizational leaders reflect upon and adapt their own decision-making approach to influ-
ence their firms in the desired direction.
6 | CONCLUSION
Responding to the call to clarify the effectuation concept (Read et al., 2016; Welter et al., 2016), our study introduces
the distinction between promotion- and prevention-focused effectuation principles, which exhibit opposite (positive
vs. negative) associations with a firm's EO. This distinction also allows us to reconcile the paradox that the literature
concurrently depicts effectuation and causation as opposites, yet suggests that it may be useful to pursue them in
combination (Reymen et al., 2015; Sarasvathy, 2001). Our study indicates that both positions possess some merit:
Causation and prevention-focused effectuation principles are opposites with respect to their underlying regulatory
focus and their association with EO. At the same time, the combined pursuit of promotion-focused effectuation prin-
ciples and causation—which each exhibit a positive association with EO—is related to a particularly high level of this
criterion. Future research may deepen our knowledge about the implications of distinguishing between promotion-
PALMIÉ ET AL. 19
and prevention-focused effectuation principles. For the moment, we conclude that it not only makes a difference
whether decision makers pursue an effectuation or causation approach, but also which effectuation principles they
choose.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank SEJ editor Tom Lumpkin and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive guidance. We also thank
Naomi Haefner for her extensive support and continued feedback throughout the writing and revision processes.
Finally, we thank Raphael Boemelburg, Stuart Read, Vangelis Souitaris, and Joakim Wincent for their valuable com-
ments on previous drafts of the manuscript. This project was completed as part of the research of the Swiss Compe-
tence Center for Energy Research (SCCER) CREST and benefitted from financial support by the Swiss Innovation
Agency Innosuisse. We also gratefully acknowledge the support by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE).
REFERENCES
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms
create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 521–543.Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entre-
preneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76–87.Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.Andries, P., Debackere, K., & Looy, B. (2013). Simultaneous experimentation as a learning strategy: Business model develop-
ment under uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(4), 288–310.Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal
of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.Arend, R. J., Sarooghi, H., & Burkemper, A. (2015). Effectuation as ineffectual? Applying the 3E theory assessment frame-
work to a proposed new theory of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 630–651.Ariño, A., & de la Torre, J. (1998). Learning from failure: Towards an evolutionary model of collaborative ventures. Organiza-
tion Science, 9(3), 306–325.Baron, R. A. (2004). The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship's basic “why” questions. Jour-
nal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 221–239.Barringer, B. R., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 421–444.Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 64–72.Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Brettel, M., Mauer, R., Engelen, A., & Küpper, D. (2012). Corporate effectuation: Entrepreneurial action and its impact on
R&D project performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 167–184.Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., & Kapsa, D. (2010). Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A metadata-analysis on
contextual factors impacting the planning-performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1),
24–40.Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Murray, B. L. (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, 19(2), 203–220.Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H.-L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do
we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 421–440.Bryant, P. (2009). Self-regulation and moral awareness among entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 505–518.Bundesamt für Statistik. (2007). Marktwirtschaftliche Unternehmen und Beschäftigte nach Grössenklassen. Betriebszählung
2005. Retrieved from http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/06/02/blank/key/01/groesse.htmlBundy, J., Vogel, R. M., & Zachary, M. A. (2018). Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compro-
mise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2), 476–501.Burmeister-Lamp, K., Lévesque, M., & Schade, C. (2012). Are entrepreneurs influenced by risk attitude, regulatory focus or
both? An experiment on entrepreneurs' time allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4), 456–476.Burns, B. L., Barney, J. B., Angus, R. W., & Herrick, H. N. (2016). Enrolling stakeholders under conditions of risk and uncer-
tainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(1), 97–106.Chandler, G., DeTienne, D., McKelvie, A., & Mumford, T. (2011). Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study.
Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 375–390.
20 PALMIÉ ET AL.
Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international businessresearch. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.
Chaston, I., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Entrepreneurial cognition, entrepreneurial orientation and firm capability in the crea-tive industries. British Journal of Management, 23(3), 415–432.
Chen, M.-J., & Hambrick, D. C. (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in compet-itive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 453–482.
Cope, J., Kempster, S., & Parry, K. (2011). Exploring distributed leadership in the small business context. International Journalof Management Reviews, 13, 270–285.
Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a needed construct.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 855–872.
Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International entrepreneurial orientation: Conceptual considerations, research themes, mea-surement issues, and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 11–44.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 10(1), 75–87.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 16(1), 7–25.
Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,36(4), 677–702.
Daily, C., McDougall, P., Covin, J., & Dalton, D. (2002). Governance and strategic leadership in entrepreneurial firms. Journalof Management, 28(3), 387–412.
DeCarolis, D. M., & Saparito, P. (2006). Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 41–56.
Deligianni, I., Voudouris, I., & Lioukas, S. (2017). Do effectuation processes shape the relationship between product diversifi-cation and performance in new ventures? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 349–377.
Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision making:Differences between experts and novices. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 287–309.
Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S., Read, S., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Affordable loss: Behavioral economic aspects of the plunge decision.Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 105–126.
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley.Engel, Y., Van Burg, E., Kleijn, E., & Khapova, S. N. (2017). Past career in future thinking: How career management practices
shape entrepreneurial decision making. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(2), 122–144.Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top manage-
ment teams and boards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variances and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Foxon, T., Gross, R., Chase, A., Howes, J., Arnall, A., & Anderson, D. (2005). UK innovation systems for new and renewable
energy technologies: Drivers, barriers and systems failures. Energy Policy, 33(16), 2123–2137.Furr, N., & Dyer, J. H. (2014). Leading your team into the unknown. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 80–88.Furr, N. R., Cavarretta, F., & Garg, S. (2012). Who changes course? The role of domain knowledge and novel framing in mak-
ing technology changes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 236–256.George, B. A. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation: A theoretical and empirical examination of the consequences of differing
construct representations. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1291–1313.Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation.
Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1081–1111.Greve, H. R. (2003). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 46(6), 685–702.Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & McMullen, J. S. (2009). An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evalua-
tion decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 337–361.Herrmann, P., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Managing strategic change: The duality of CEO personality. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 35(9), 1318–1342.Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 30, 1–46.Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Regulatory focus and new venture performance: A study of entrepreneurial
opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4),285–299.
Hmieleski, K. M., Carr, J. C., & Baron, R. A. (2015). Integrating discovery and creation perspectives of entrepreneurial action:The relative roles of founding CEO human capital, social capital, and psychological capital in contexts of risk versusuncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 289–312.
Janney, J., & Dess, G. (2006). The risk concept for entrepreneurs reconsidered: New challenges to the conventional wisdom.Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 385–400.
PALMIÉ ET AL. 21
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: Howdo organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Chang, C. H. D., & Lin, S. H. J. (2015). Getting to the core of locus of control: Is it an evaluationof the self or the environment? Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1568–1578.
Joshi, A. W., & Sharma, S. (2004). Customer knowledge development: Antecedents and impact on new product performance.Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 47–59.
Kammerlander, N., Burger, D., Fust, A., & Fueglistaller, U. (2015). Exploration and exploitation in established small andmedium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEO's regulatory focus. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 582–602.
Kline, R. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Knudsen, E. S., & Lien, L. B. (2015). Hire, fire, or train: Innovation and human capital responses to recessions. Strategic Entre-
preneurship Journal, 9(4), 313–330.Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K. M. (2010). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orienta-
tion scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 71–94.Laureiro-Martinez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., & Zollo, M. (2015). Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An
fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 319–338.Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of
Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., & Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orien-
tation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 47–69.Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moder-
ating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–451.Lumpkin, G. T., Steier, L., & Wright, M. (2011). Strategic entrepreneurship in family business. Strategic Entrepreneurship Jour-
nal, 5(4), 285–306.Luo, Y. (2008). Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1),
27–46.Lyon, D. W., Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research: Operationalizing and mea-
suring a key strategic decision-making process. Journal of Management, 26(5), 1055–1085.March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A. (2013). Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 195–245.Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organiza-
tional behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1031–1056.Mauer, R., Wuebker, R., Schlüter, J., & Brettel, M. (2018). Prediction and control: An agent-based simulation of search pro-
cesses in the entrepreneurial problem space. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2), 237–260.McMullen, J. S., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and executives' intentions to commit their firms to entrepreneurial
action. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 26(23), 1–14.Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organiza-
tional behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20(2), 439–464.Mihalache, O. R., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2014). Top management team shared leadership and
organizational ambidexterity: A moderated mediation framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(2), 128–148.Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873–894.Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2011). Governance, social identity, and entrepreneurial orientation in closely held public
companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 1051–1076.Mullins, J. W., & Komisar, R. (2010). A business plan? Or a journey to plan B? MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(3), 1–6.Murnieks, C. Y., Haynie, J. M., Wiltbank, R. E., & Harting, T. (2011). “I like how you think”: Similarity as an interaction bias in
the investor-entrepreneur dyad. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1533–1561.Nakos, G., Brouthers, K. D., & Dimitratos, P. (2014). International alliances with competitors and non-competitors: The dispa-
rate impact on SME international performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(2), 167–182.Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Ott, T. E., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2017). Strategy formation in entrepreneurial settings: Past insights and future
directions. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 306–325.Parida, V., George, N. M., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). Influence of subjective interpretation, causation, and effectuation
on initial venture sale. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4815–4819.Perry, J. T., Chandler, G. N., & Markova, G. (2012). Entrepreneurial effectuation: A review and suggestions for future
research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 837–861.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommen-
dations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.
22 PALMIÉ ET AL.
Poon, J. M., Ainuddin, R. A., & Junit, S. O. H. (2006). Effects of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial orientation on firm
performance. International Small Business Journal, 24(1), 61–82.Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assess-
ment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Wiltbank, R. (2015). Unreasonable assumptions in ASB. Detail of discussion in Read, Sar-
asvathy, Dew & Wiltbank (2016). Retrieved from http://www.effectuation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/amr_asb_
assumptions_detailed-1.pdfRead, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Wiltbank, R. (2016). Response to Arend et al: Co-creating effectual entrepreneurship
research. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 528–556.Read, S., Song, M., & Smit, W. (2009). A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture performance. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24(6), 573–587.Reinhardt, R., Gurtner, S., & Griffin, A. (2018). Towards an adaptive framework of low-end innovation capability: A systematic
review and multiple case study analysis. Long Range Planning, 51, 770–796.Reymen, I. M., Andries, P., Berends, H., Mauer, R., Stephan, U., & Burg, E. (2015). Understanding dynamics of strategic decision
making in venture creation: A process study of effectuation and causation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 351–379.Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship
between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441–457.Rosso, B. D. (2014). Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of Research and
Development teams. Organization Studies, 35(4), 551–585.Salomo, S., Talke, K., & Strecker, N. (2008). Innovation field orientation and its effect on innovativeness and firm perfor-
mance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 560–576.Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inventability to entrepreneurial
contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 234–263.Sarasvathy, S. (2008). Effectuation—Elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Sarasvathy, S. (2014). The whole deal: Models, metaphors and mechanisms in entrepreneurial cognition. In J. R. Mitchell,
R. K. Mitchell, & B. Randolph-Seng (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial cognition (pp. 448–470). Cheltenham, England:
Edward Elgar.Sarasvathy, S., & Dew, N. (2005). New market creation through transformation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15(5),
533–565.Sarasvathy, S., Kumar, K., York, J. G., & Bhagavatula, S. (2014). An effectual approach to international entrepreneurship:
Overlaps, challenges, and proactive possibilities. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, 38(1), 71–93.Sarasvathy, S., Simon, H., & Lave, L. (1998). Perceiving and managing business risks: Differences between entrepreneurs and
bankers. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 33(2), 207–255.Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management
Review, 25(1), 217–226.Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Veiga, J. F. (2010). The impact of CEO core self-evaluation on the firm's entrepreneurial orienta-
tion. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 110–119.Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team
behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69–84.Sivadas, E., & Dwyer, F. R. (2000). An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and
alliance-based processes. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 31–49.Sleptsov, A., & Anand, J. (2008). Exercising entrepreneurial opportunities: The role of information-gathering and
information-processing capabilities of the firm. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 357–375.Slevin, D., & Terjesen, S. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation: Reviewing three papers and implications for further theoretical
and methodological development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(5), 973–987.Slotegraaf, R. J., & Dickson, P. R. (2004). The paradox of a marketing planning capability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 32(4), 371–385.Smolka, K. M., Verheul, I., Burmeister-Lamp, K., & Heugens, P. (in press). Get it together! Synergistic effects of causal and
effectual decision-making logics on venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/
etap.12266Sorescu, A. B., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2003). Sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: Insights from
pharmaceuticals. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 82–102.Staples, D. S., Hulland, J., & Higgins, C. (1999). A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in
virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 758–776.Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise perfor-
mance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.Teo, H. H., Wie, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional per-
spective. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 19–49.Thomke, S. H. (1998). Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Management Science, 44(6), 743–762.
PALMIÉ ET AL. 23
Tocher, N., Oswald, S. L., & Hall, D. J. (2015). Proposing social resources as the fundamental catalyst toward opportunity cre-
ation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(2), 119–135.Tumasjan, A., & Braun, R. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: How regulatory focus and self-efficacy interact in influencing
opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(6), 622–636.Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential
in the organization field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.Wales, W. J. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directions. International Small
Business Journal, 34(1), 3–15.Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., & Mousa, F. T. (2013). Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and sug-
gestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 357–383.Wang, T., Thornhill, S., & De Castro, J. O. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation, legitimation, and new venture performance.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(4), 373–392.Weiss, M., Hoegl, M., & Gibbert, M. (2011). Making virtue of necessity: The role of team climate for innovation in resource-
constrained innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(S1), 196–207.Welter, C., Mauer, R., & Wuebker, R. (2016). Bridging behavioral models and theoretical concepts: Effectuation and bricolage
in the opportunity creation framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(1), 5–20.Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive
CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477–514.Wiltbank, R., Read, S., Dew, N., & Sarasvathy, S. (2009). Prediction and control under uncertainty: Outcomes in angel invest-
ing. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2), 116–133.Wolf, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2017). Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6),
1754–1788.Wood, M. S., & McKinley, W. (2010). The production of entrepreneurial opportunity: A constructivist perspective. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(1), 66–84.Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Jour-
nal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 587–602.Wuebker, R., Hampl, N., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2015). The strength of strong ties in an emerging industry: Experimental evi-
dence of the effects of status hierarchies and personal ties in venture capitalist decision making. Strategic Entrepreneur-
ship Journal, 9(2), 167–187.Yamakawa, Y., Peng, M. W., & Deeds, D. L. (2008). What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to devel-
oped economies? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 59–82.Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome
expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342.
How to cite this article: Palmié M, Huerzeler P, Grichnik D, Keupp MM, Gassmann O. Some principles are
more equal than others: Promotion- versus prevention-focused effectuation principles and their disparate
relationships with entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2018;1–25. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sej.1305
APPENDIXA. DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE STUDY'S ITEM-BASED MEASURES
Risk taking (Cronbach's alpha = 0.704; Covin & Slevin, 1989). (RiTa1) In general, the top managers of my firm have
(1) a strong proclivity for low risk projects (with normal and certain rates of return) (7) a strong proclivity for high-risk
projects (with chances of very high returns); (RiTa2) In general, the top managers of my firm believe that (1) owing to
the nature of the environment, it is best to explore it gradually via timid, incremental behavior (7) owing to the nature
of the environment, bold, wide-ranging acts are necessary to achieve the firm's objectives; (RiTa3) When confronted
with decision-making situations involving uncertainty, my firm (1) typically adopts a cautious, “wait-and-see” posture
in order to minimize the probability of making costly decisions (7) typically adopts a bold, aggressive posture in order
to maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities.
24 PALMIÉ ET AL.
Proactiveness (alpha = 0.603; Covin & Slevin, 1989). (PrAc1) In dealing with its competitors, my firm (1) typically
responds to actions which competitors initiate (7) typically initiates actions which competition then respond to;
(PrAc2) In dealing with its competitors, my firm (1) is very seldom the first business to introduce new products/ser-
vices, administrative techniques, operating technologies, and so on. (7) is very often the first business to introduce
new products/services, administrative techniques, operating technologies, and so on.
Innovativeness (alpha = 0.668; Covin & Slevin, 1989). (Inno1) In general, the top managers of my firm favor (1) a
strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true products or services (7) a strong emphasis on R&D, technological
leadership, and innovations; (Inno2) Changes in product or service lines have (1) been mostly of a minor nature
(7) usually been quite dramatic; (Inno3) What percentage of sales did you generate with new products (less than
5 years old)? (1) 0–5%, (2) 5–15%, (3) 15–30%, (4) 30–50%, (5) 50–70%, (6) 70–90%, (7) 90–100%.
Causation (alpha = 0.754; Chandler et al., 2011). To what extent do the following statements apply to your
approach? “1” means “not at all,” “7” “completely”: (Caus1) We analyzed long run opportunities and selected what we
thought would provide the best returns; (Caus2) We developed a strategy to best take advantage of resources and
capabilities; (Caus3) We designed and planned business strategies; (Caus4) We organized and implemented control
processes to make sure we met objectives; (Caus5) We researched and selected target markets and did meaningful
competitive analysis; (Caus6) We had a clear and consistent vision for where we wanted to end up; (Caus7) We
designed and planned production and marketing efforts.
Experimentation (alpha = 0.605; Chandler et al., 2011). To what extent do the following statements apply to your
approach? “1” means “not at all,” “7” “completely”: (Exp1) We experimented with different products and/or business
models; (Exp2) The product/service that we now provide is essentially the same as originally conceptualized; (Exp3)
We tried a number of different approaches until we found a business model that worked; (Exp4) The product/service
that we now provide is substantially different than we first imagined.
Flexibility (alpha = 0.646; Chandler et al., 2011). To what extent do the following statements apply to your
approach? “1” means “not at all,” “7” “completely”: (Flex1) We allowed the business to evolve as opportunities
emerged; (Flex2) We were flexible and took advantage of opportunities as they arose.
Precommitments (alpha = 0.753; Chandler et al., 2011). To what extent do the following statements apply to your
approach? “1” means “not at all,” “7” “completely”: (Preco1) We used a substantial number of agreements with cus-
tomers, suppliers and other organizations and people to reduce the amount of uncertainty; (Preco2) We used pre-
commitments from customers and suppliers as often as possible.
Affordable loss (alpha = 0.842; Chandler et al., 2011). To what extent do the following statements apply to your
approach? “1” means “not at all,” “7” “completely”: (AfLo1) We were careful not to commit more resources than we
could afford to lose; (AfLo2) We were careful not to risk more money than we were willing to lose with our initial
idea; (AfLo3) We were careful not to risk so much money that the company would be in real trouble financially if
things did not work out.
PALMIÉ ET AL. 25