نمونه متن انگلیسی مقاله
In their article on entrepreneurship, effectuation, and over-trust, Goel and Karri suggest relationships between effectuation, over-trust, and certain psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs. In this response we debate their article. Goel and Karri are correct in claiming that effectuation supposes over-trust. However, we argue that effectual logic works in a different way than they presented because it neither predicts nor assumes trust. Goel and Karri’s article also draws attention to the behavioral assumptions underlying constructs such as over-(under) trust. Our suggestion is that effectuation is based on alternative behavioral assumptions that open up interesting avenues for future research in entrepreneurship.
In the July 2006 issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Goel and Karri (2006) made an interesting and provocative link between effectual logic and over-trust. They then went on to develop a series of propositions relating various psychological constructs to over-trust. In doing so, they opened the door to an interesting conversation not only about effectual logic but also about the behavioral assumptions underlying major theories of entrepreneurship.
Their central argument (as stated in the abstract of the paper) goes as follows:
Specific personality characteristics of the entrepreneur interact with effectual logic to make the entrepreneur more susceptible to over-trust (p. 477). In their article, they develop in some length the links between effectuation and over-trust (laid out in the Simplot example in Table 1 and the analysis in Table 2) as well as the links between certain entrepreneurial characteristics and over-trust (summarized in Table 3). Links between entrepreneurial characteristics and effectuation, however, are not explicitly developed.
In our response in succeeding discussions, we examine all three sets of links with a view to (1) deepening our understanding of the effectuation model itself and (2) furthering and cumulating larger streams of theorizing in the field of entrepreneurship research that have to do with behavior, cognition, and action. We proceed in three steps. First we accept the concept of over- (under) trust and examine its implications for the use of effectual logic in general and the Simplot case in particular. Next we scrutinize the relationship between the psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs and the use of effectual logic. Finally we outline a key objection to the behavioral assumptions underlying constructs such as over- (under) trust and suggest an alternative that opens up interesting avenues for future research in entrepreneurship.
By making a link between effectuation and over-trust, our hope is that Goel and Karri’s article might stimulate entrepreneurship researchers not only to investigate these topics in more depth but also to scrutinize the behavioral assumptions used in entrepreneurship research with an eye to how these assumptions inform the way we interpret theory. In our view, in order to look at entrepreneurial phenomena through an effectual lens we need to weaken our assumptions about prediction, opportunism, and psychological stratification and deepen them on intelligent altruism, heterogeneity, lability, and contextuality. Once we shed our monistic baggage, it is easier to see why over-trust—although it may be an important concept in a causal scenario—is largely irrelevant in effectual ones.
This notion that entrepreneurial phenomena look different through the lens of behaviors such as intelligent altruism can be extended in a number of other directions that we think may present productive avenues for future research. Take, for instance, the notion of “opportunity discovery.” As outlined in the work of Kirzner (1979, 1989), opportunity discovery is premised on the ethic of “finders keepers”—the entrepreneur who finds (discovers) an opportunity is the rightful keeper of entrepreneurial profits arising from the opportunity. These conclusions logically follow from Kirzner’s subjectivist perspective. But however useful this perspective might be for some purposes, it can explain only a fraction of opportunity discovery.