Small Bus Econ (2021) 57:1681–1691
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00372-6
Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset
Donald F. Kuratko & Greg Fisher & David B. Audretsch
Accepted: 3 June 2020 / Published online: 17 June 2020
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Scholars have examined various aspects of the
entrepreneurial mindset, which have provided insights
into its attributes, qualities, and operations. However,
the different perspectives have led to a diverse array of
definitions. With the array of differing definitions, there
arises the need to better understand the concept of an
entrepreneurial mindset. Therefore, the question remains
as to what exactly is the entrepreneurial mindset and how
do people tap into it. In examining the literature, we find
that three distinct aspects have arisen through the years:
the entrepreneurial cognitive aspect—how entrepreneurs
use mental models to think; the entrepreneurial behavioral aspect—how entrepreneurs engage or act for opportunities; and the entrepreneurial emotional aspects—what
entrepreneurs feel in entrepreneurship. Using those as a
basis for our work, we unravel the entrepreneurial
mindset by examining deeper into the perspectives and
discuss the challenges for implementing it.
Keywords Entrepreneurial mindset . Entrepreneurial
cognition . Entrepreneurial behavior . Entrepreneurial
emotion
D. F. Kuratko (*) : G. Fisher : D. B. Audretsch
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
47405, USA
e-mail: dkuratko@indiana.edu
G. Fisher
e-mail: fisherg@indiana.edu
D. B. Audretsch
e-mail: daudrets@indiana.edu
JEL classifications L26 . L29
1 Introduction
“The mind is everything. What you think, you
become.” - Buddha
Entrepreneurship and innovation are central to individual and organizational success and advancement in the
modern economy. Innovation is critical to entrepreneurship (Schumpeter 1942) and a primary instrument of
competition for many firms (Baumol 2002). As technologies rapidly evolve and new markets dynamically
emerge, so too does the individual ability to innovate
and act in entrepreneurial ways sets certain individuals
apart from others. But what does it take to for an
individual to innovate and act in entrepreneurial ways?
It appears that the paradigm of entrepreneurship has
been elusive (Audretsch et al. 2015).
Some have argued that innovation stems from the
external environment and is largely dependent on being
in a specific location like Silicon Valley or Route 128 in
Boston. Others suggest it comes from being in an internal organizational environment with an informal atmosphere and a supportive organizational culture. Here, we
argue that the true source of innovation and entrepreneurship is an ability and perspective that resides within
each one of us, something we refer to as the entrepreneurial mindset (Naumann 2017; Kuratko 2020). This
1682
D. F. Kuratko et al.
mindset allows and empowers us to come up with new
ideas, solve problems, generate creative solutions, and
take action to pursue opportunities. It is the mental
perspective that precedes our actions and feeds our
emotions, allowing us to innovate. Yet, we tend to
believe the myths that block our own ability to innovate.
For example, some believe that innovation is an innate
ability, while others believe you have to be a crazy risk
taker to be an entrepreneur. This is sad because our true
potential is enhanced by our ability to innovate and act
entrepreneurially; this is accomplished by tapping into
our entrepreneurial mindset.
While some scholars have made broad and general
references to the concept of the entrepreneurial mindset
(e.g., Naumann 2017), few have clearly defined it or
provided insights into its underlying attributes, qualities,
and effects. So, the question remains as to what the
entrepreneurial mindset is and how do people tap into it.
2 The entrepreneurial mindset’s key perspectives
While some scholars have examined aspects of the
entrepreneurial mindset and provided general insights
into its attributes, qualities, and operations, the various
different perspectives have led to a diverse array of
definitions resulting in confusion about what it is and
how it operates. So the question remains as to what
exactly is the entrepreneurial mindset and how do people tap into it. By consolidating and integrating ideas
from across diverse literatures that make reference to the
entrepreneurial mindset, we propose that three distinct
aspects of the entrepreneurial mindset exist. As depicted
in Fig. 1, they are:
1. The cognitive aspect—how entrepreneurs use mental models to think.
2. The behavioral aspect—how entrepreneurs engage
or act for opportunities.
3. The emotional aspects—what entrepreneurs feel in
entrepreneurship.
2.1 The cognitive aspect
Early in the development of the domain of entrepreneurship research, scholars adopted a psychological lens to
study individual entrepreneurial characteristics
(Hornaday and Aboud 1971; Carland and Carland
1992). More recently, entrepreneurship scholars have
returned to their psychological roots to focus on cognitive processes of the entrepreneur (Baron 1998; Mitchell
et al. 2002a; Shepherd and Krueger 2002) and have
argued that cognition represents an important process
lens through which to “reexamine the people side of
entrepreneurship” (Mitchell et al. 2002a, b).
Cognition defined In science, cognition refers to mental
processes. These processes include attention, remembering, producing and understanding language, solving
problems, and making decisions. The term comes from
the Latin cognoscere, which means “to know,” “to
conceptualize,” or “to recognize,” and refers to a faculty
for the processing of information, applying knowledge,
and changing preferences. Cognition is used to refer to
the mental functions, mental processes (thoughts), and
mental states of intelligent humans (Estes 1975). Social
cognition theory introduces the idea of knowledge
The Cognitive Aspect
(Thinking)
Fig. 1 The triad of the
entrepreneurial mindset
The Emotional Aspect
(Feeling)
The Behavioral Aspect
(Acting)
Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset
structures—mental models (cognitions) that are ordered
in such a way as to optimize personal effectiveness
within given situations—to the study of entrepreneurship (Fiske and Taylor 1991). Concepts from cognitive
psychology are increasingly being found to be useful
tools to help probe entrepreneurial-related phenomena,
and, increasingly, the applicability of the cognitive sciences to the entrepreneurial experience are cited in the
research literature (Grégoire et al. 2011; Tryba and
Fletcher 2020).
Entrepreneurial cognition Mitchell et al. (2002a): 97)
defined entrepreneurial cognition as “the knowledge
structures that people use to make assessments, judgments, or decisions involving opportunity evaluation,
venture creation, and growth.” In other words, entrepreneurial cognition is about understanding how entrepreneurs use simplifying mental models to piece
together previously unconnected information that
helps them to identify and invent new products or
services, and to assemble the necessary resources to
start and grow businesses. Specifically, then, the entrepreneurial cognitions view offers an understanding
as to how entrepreneurs think and “why” they do some
of the things they do. Research has also extended the
definition to the international context (Hafer and
Jones 2015).
While the research has focused on entrepreneurial
cognitions (Mitchell et al. 2002a, b; Baron 2004), a
new stream of thinking links the foundation of the
entrepreneurial mind-set to cognitive adaptability,
which can be defined as the ability to be dynamic,
flexible, and self-regulating in one’s cognitions given
dynamic and uncertain task environments. Adaptable
cognitions are important in achieving desirable outcomes from entrepreneurial actions (Haynie and
Shepherd 2009). In this light, a team of researchers
developed a situated, metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mind-set that integrates the combined effects
of entrepreneurial motivation and context, toward the
development of metacognitive strategies applied to information processing within an entrepreneurial environment (Flavell 1979; Haynie et al. 2010).
Consider an entrepreneur faced with the entrepreneurial task of developing a sound explanation for a
new venture in preparation for an important meeting
with a venture capitalist. Before the entrepreneur is
prepared to evaluate alternative strategies, the entrepreneur must first formulate a strategy to frame how
1683
he or she will “think” about this task. This process is
metacognitive. The process responsible for ultimately
selecting a response (i.e., a particular venture strategy)
is cognitive—the process responsible for ultimately
selecting how the entrepreneur will frame the entrepreneurial task is metacognitive. Thus, metacognition
is not to study why the entrepreneur selected a particular strategy for a set of alternative strategies (cognition), but instead to study the higher-order cognitive
process that resulted in the entrepreneur framing the
task effectually, and thus why and how the particular
strategy was included in a set of alternative responses
to the decision task (metacognition) (Haynie et al.
2012). Davis et al. (2016, p. 2) stated that the entrepreneurial mindset is a “constellation of motives,
skills, and thought processes that distinguish entrepreneurs from nonentrepreneurs.”
In sum, prior research on entrepreneurial cognition
has suggested that founders and other entrepreneurs
“think” differently than other individuals or business
executives. In addition, the work on metacognition demonstrates how entrepreneurs formulate a strategy to
frame how they will “think” about a task. Thus, the
work on entrepreneurial cognition has been substantively examined (Shepherd and Patzelt 2018; Grégoire et al.
2011). We integrate this into our conceptualization of
the entrepreneurial mindset to suggest that the entrepreneurial mindset entails a way to formulate how to think
and then actually think about an opportunity. However,
it remains less clear as to how this “cognitive difference”
leads to entrepreneurs’ efforts and actions. In order to
understand how an individual is much more likely to
engage in entrepreneurial action, we examine that behavioral aspect of the entrepreneurial mindset in the next
section.
2.2 The behavioral aspect
Bird and Schjoedt (2009: 327) point out: “The end of all
the cognition and motivation of entrepreneurs is to take
some action in the world, and by doing so, give rise to a
venture, an organization. Thoughts, intentions, motivations, learning, intelligence without action does not create economic value. The very nature of organizing is
anchored in actions of individuals as they buy, sell,
gather and deploy resources, work, etc.” It is this perspective that has inspired the important research examining entrepreneurial action and behavior (Van Geldren
et al. 2018).
1684
Opportunity and creation Research has shown that the
extent to which entrepreneurs identify opportunities and
bring new products and services to market is based on
their prior knowledge (Gruber et al. 2013; Shepherd and
DeTienne 2005). Prior knowledge, often from a human
capital perspective, has been of immense interest in
explaining aspects of opportunity identification for entrepreneurs. Consequently, specific prior knowledge is
central to the entrepreneur’s ability to identify an
opportunity—or miss an opportunity entirely
(McKelvie and Wiklund 2004).
Once an opportunity is identified, entrepreneurs must
then create a venture. While a true statement, its narrow
framing neglects the complete process of entrepreneurship and much of the reality regarding how ventures and
entrepreneurs come into being. A venture is not simply
produced by an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs do not preexist; they emerge as a function of the novel, idiosyncratic, and experiential nature of the venture creation
process. Venture creation is a lived experience that, as it
unfolds, forms the entrepreneur. In fact, the creation of a
sustainable enterprise involves three parallel, interactive
phenomena: emergence of the opportunity, emergence
of the venture, and emergence of the entrepreneur. None
are predetermined or fixed—they define and are defined
by one another (Morris et al. 2012).
This experiential view of the entrepreneur captures
the emergent and temporal nature of entrepreneurship. It
moves us past a more static “snapshot” approach and
encourages consideration of a dynamic, socially situated
process that involves numerous actors and events. It
allows for the fact that the many activities addressed as
a venture unfolds are experienced by different actors in
different ways (Davidsson 2004). Moreover, it acknowledges that venture creation transcends rational thought
processes to include emotions, impulses, and physiological responses as individuals react to a diverse, multifaceted, and imposing array of activities, events, and
developments. This perspective is consistent with recent
research interest in a situated view of entrepreneurial
action (Berglund 2007).
Entrepreneurial action McMullen and Shepherd
(2006) proposed a conceptual model of entrepreneurial
action—what they refer to as an “action framework” (p.
146). To do so, they linked the motivation and cognition
perspective in entrepreneurship research with an actionoriented perspective by theorizing how an individual’s
cognition and motivation lead to entrepreneurial action.
D. F. Kuratko et al.
They proposed a model in which entrepreneurial action
is driven by knowledge (what a person knows) and
motivation (an individual’s personal strategy) which
together lead to a third-person opportunity (an opportunity for someone). The feasibility and desirability of the
third-person opportunity is in turn assessed by an individual before being claimed as a first-person opportunity which spurs action. Thus, entrepreneurial action is an
outcome of a cognitive and motivational process.
Sarasvathy (2001, 2008) also combined entrepreneurial cognition with action in developing a theory of
effectuation, in which entrepreneurs “take a set of means
as given and focus on selecting between possible effects
that can be created with that set of means” (2001: 245).
She combined cognitive aspects of entrepreneurship,
such as attending available means in constructing opportunities and making decisions with respect to what
one is willing to lose (the affordable loss principle), with
more action-oriented aspects of entrepreneurship, such
as leveraging relationships (the strategic partnerships
principle) and exploiting contingencies (the leveraging
contingencies principle) (Sarasvathy 2008). When conceptualized as a process, the cognitive aspects of effectuation are assumed to spur the actions of partnering and
leveraging contingencies. Despite being combined with
action-related aspects, effectuation, at its core, is a cognitive theory reflected in it commonly being referred to
as “effectual reasoning” or the “logic of effectuation”
(Sarasvathy 2001, 2008).
Alvarez and Barney (2007) developed an actionorientated theory they labeled “creation theory” to account for the creation versus discovery of opportunities.
They argued that entrepreneurial “[opportunities] are
created, endogenously, by the actions, reactions, and
enactment of entrepreneurs exploring ways to produce
new products or services” (p. 15). Creation theory assumes that an entrepreneur’s actions are the essential
source of opportunities, and it is contrasted with
discovery theory where opportunities are assumed to
exist independent of entrepreneurs. The work of
Alvarez and Barney (2007) has prompted a number of
conceptual and empirical studies that take a constructionist perspective and associate entrepreneurial opportunities with action on the part of an entrepreneur to
create that opportunity (e.g., Alvarez et al. 2015;
Alvarez et al. 2013; Garud et al. 2010; Wood and
McKinley 2010). A mindset has been viewed as goal
directed emphasizing prior experiences (CohenKdoshay and Meiran 2007).
Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset
Recent research has uncovered specific actions that
entrepreneurs have exhibited in the execution of the
mindset. For example, Fisher et al. (2020) introduce
the concept of entrepreneurial hustle. They propose that
entrepreneurial hustle is an entrepreneur’s urgent, unorthodox actions that are intended to be useful in addressing immediate challenges and opportunities under conditions of uncertainty, which allows entrepreneurs to
navigate uncertainty. This is especially true for
exploiting new and untested technologies and new market opportunities that are common for entrepreneurial
opportunities (Audretsch 1995; Schumpeter 1934).
Behavioral definitions of the mindset Shepherd, Patzelt
and Haynie (2010, p. 62) adapted from Ireland et al.
(2003) and McMullen and Shepherd (2006) to define
the entrepreneurial mindset as the “ability to rapidly
sense, act, and mobilize in response to a judgmental
decision under uncertainty about a possible opportunity
for gain.” McGrath and MacMillan (2000) believe that
while entrepreneurs stay alert to new opportunities, they
pursue those opportunities that align with their strategy.
McMullen and Kier (2016, p. 664) agree by stating that
the entrepreneurial mindset is the “ability to identify and
exploit opportunities without regard to the resources
currently under their control”. The entrepreneurial
mindset has also been described as a dynamic process
of vision, change, and creation, requiring an application
of energy and passion toward the creation and implementation of new ideas and creative solutions. It is the
vision to recognize opportunity where others see chaos,
contradiction, and confusion (Kuratko 2020).
Thus, the behavioral aspect of the entrepreneurial
mindset begins with people (Mariz-Péreza et al. 2012).
By tapping into one’s entrepreneurial mindset, the opportunity exists to make tomorrow better through innovation. Again, we integrate this into our conceptualization of the entrepreneurial mindset to suggest that the
entrepreneurial mindset entails a way to behave and act
an opportunity and create a venture. However, there also
exists an emotional side to this mindset that must be
acknowledged as individuals tap into their entrepreneurial mindsets. We examine this particular aspect next.
2.3 The emotional aspect
Popular view Emotions that entrepreneurs experience
or feel have been discussed in the popular media. Surprise, anticipation, and stress are more internally
1685
focused, and therefore, these emotions are ones that
the entrepreneur must handle in the confines of his or
her mind. How the entrepreneur mitigates these feelings
is demonstrated in the running of the business, and the
managing of relationships (Cole 2017).
Another article interviewed researchers about emotion and entrepreneurship. These researchers assessed
66 entrepreneurship teams in 569 decision-making
rounds. They assert that one of the main drivers of
entrepreneurial emotion comes from uncertainty. They
also found that if entrepreneurship teams are comprised
of friends, then this deepens the sense of commitment
among team members. Friends turned business partners
also work inherently well together, since there is an
established emotional understanding that underpins the
relationship (Knowledge @ Wharton 2019).
Academic focus Studies in the academic literature have
focused on different elements of emotion. One study
analyzed how emotion regulation of a venture’s lead
founder impacts ventures survival. The study examined
two types of emotion regulation: cognitive reappraisal
and expressive suppression. Overall, regulation of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression appear to
have mixed effects on venture survival depending on the
individual context of the venture (De Cock et al. 2020).
Fodor and Pintea (2017) assessed the relationship between affect and entrepreneurial performance. This concept of dispositional affect refers to the ability to feel a
range of emotions, including enthusiasm and pleasurable engagement. The negative side of this affect is
susceptibility to distress and nervousness. These emotions are often connected to a singular event for entrepreneurs. Yet, another study examined the idea of entrepreneurial judgment being affected by emergent role
demands (Giménez Roche and Calcei 2020).
Within the domain of emotion for entrepreneurs,
research has shown that there is a dark side derived
from the energetic drive of entrepreneurs which acts as
a destructive source. Kets de Vries (1985) acknowledged the existence of certain negative factors that
may envelop entrepreneurs and dominate their behavior.
While some of these factors could have a positive aspect, it is important for entrepreneurs to understand their
potential destructive side as well. Three specific ones
have been identified: risk, stress, and ego.
Confrontation with risk Entrepreneurs face a number of
different types of risk (Janney and Dess 2006; Caliendo
1686
et al. 2009). These can be grouped into four basic areas:
(1) financial risk, (2) career risk, (3) family and social
risk, and (4) psychic risk. In most new ventures, the
individual puts a significant portion of his or her savings
or other resources at stake, which creates a serious
financial risk. The entrepreneur also may be required
to sign personally on company obligations that far exceed his or her personal net worth. The entrepreneur is
thus exposed to personal bankruptcy (Caggese 2012).
Career risk is another major risk to managers who have
a secure organizational job with a high salary and a good
benefit package. Because a new venture requires much
of the entrepreneur’s energy and time, entrepreneurs
face a family and social risk exposing their families to
the risks of an incomplete family experience and losing
former friends due to missed events (Zahra et al. 2006).
However, the psychic risk may be the greatest risk to the
well-being of the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs who suffer financial, career, or family issues may be unable to
bounce back because the psychological impact has
proven to be too severe for them (Caliendo et al. 2010).
Dealing with stress Some of the most common entrepreneurial goals are independence, wealth, and work
satisfaction. To achieve their goals, however, these
entrepreneurs were willing to tolerate these effects of
stress (Afzalur 1996). In general, stress can be
viewed as a function of discrepancies between a
person’s expectations and ability to meet demands,
as well as discrepancies between the individual’s
expectations and personality. When entrepreneurs’
work demands and expectations exceed their abilities
to perform as venture initiators, they are likely to
experience stress. One research study has pointed
out how entrepreneurial roles and operating environments can lead to stress. Lacking the depth of resources, entrepreneurs must adopt a multitude of
roles, such as salesperson, recruiter, spokesperson,
and negotiator. These simultaneous demands can lead
to role overload (deMol et al. 2018). Finally, entrepreneurs often work alone or with a small number of
employees and therefore lack the support from colleagues that may be available to managers in a large
corporation (Kariv 2008).
Boyd and Gumpert (1983) made a significant contribution to entrepreneurial stress with presentation of
stress-reduction techniques which include acknowledging its existence, developing coping mechanisms, and
facing unacknowledged personal needs. Goldsby et al.
D. F. Kuratko et al.
(2005) examined the relationship between exercise and
the attainment of personal and professional goals for
entrepreneurs. The study addressed the issue by examining the exercise regimens of 366 entrepreneurs and the
relationship of exercise frequency with both the
company’s sales and the entrepreneur’s personal goals.
Specifically, the study examined the relationship that
two types of exercise—running and weightlifting—
had with sales volume, extrinsic rewards, and intrinsic
rewards. The results indicated that running is positively
related to all three outcome variables, and weightlifting
is positively related to extrinsic and intrinsic rewards.
This study demonstrates the value of exercise regimens
on relieving the stress associated with entrepreneurs.
The entrepreneurial ego In addition to the challenges of
risk and stress, the entrepreneur also may experience the
negative effects of an inflated ego. In other words,
certain characteristics that usually propel entrepreneurs
into success also can be exhibited to their extreme. We
examine some of these characteristics that may hold
destructive implications for entrepreneurs (Wright and
Zahra 2011).
Entrepreneurs are driven by a strong need to control
and sometimes a need for power in their ventures. This
internal focus of control spills over into a preoccupation
with controlling everything. An obsession with autonomy and control may cause entrepreneurs to work in
structured situations only when they have created the
structure on their terms. This, of course, has serious
implications for networking in an entrepreneurial team,
because entrepreneurs can visualize external control by
others as a threat of subjection or infringement on their
will. Worse yet, the strong desire for power can be a
corruptive force that could lead to negative consequences. Thus, the same characteristic that entrepreneurs need for successful venture creation also contains
a destructive side (Beaver and Jennings 2005).
The entrepreneur’s ego is involved in the desire for
success. Although many of today’s entrepreneurs believe they are living on the edge of existence, constantly
stirring within them is a strong desire to succeed in spite
of the odds. Thus, the entrepreneur rises up as a defiant
person who creatively acts to deny any feelings of
insignificance. Some have termed this behavior as “hubris” of an entrepreneur (Hayward et al. 2006). Others
have termed it as overconfidence (Salamouris 2013).
One study examined overconfidence across four cultures and found overplacement and overprecision were
Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset
common in many entrepreneurs (Muthukrishna et al.
2018). The individual is driven to succeed and takes
pride in demonstrating that success. Therein lie the
seeds of possible destructiveness. The ceaseless optimism that emanates from entrepreneurs (even through
the bleak times) is a key factor in the drive toward
success. Entrepreneurs maintain a high enthusiasm level
that becomes an external optimism—which allows
others to believe in them during rough periods. However, when taken to its extreme, this optimistic attitude and
overconfidence can lead to a fantasy approach to the
business (Koellinger et al. 2007; Hogarth and Karelaia
2011). A self-deceptive state may arise in which entrepreneurs ignore trends, facts, and reports and delude
themselves into thinking everything will turn out fine.
This type of behavior can lead to an inability to handle
the reality of the business world (Haynes et al. 2015).
These examples do not imply that all entrepreneurs
fall prey to these scenarios, nor that each of the characteristics presented always gives way to the “destructive”
side. Nevertheless, all potential entrepreneurs need to
know that the dark side of an entrepreneurial mindset
exists.
In essence, the emotional aspect describes what entrepreneurs feel. Many times it is those feelings that can
drive entrepreneurial mindset. It is clear that the emotional side must be considered a crucial element of the
entrepreneurial mindset.
Examining the three aspects of the entrepreneurial
mindset certainly offers value but only to the extent that
they are integrated for an interactive relationship that
fosters the initiation of the entrepreneurial mindset.
3 The interacting elements of the entrepreneurial
mindset
Central to understanding the entrepreneurial mindset is
the recognition that the three aspects described above—
the cognitive aspect, the behavioral aspect, and the
emotional aspect—do not operate independently of
one another; rather they interact and reinforce each
another. The cognitive aspect, which focuses on the
mental functions, thoughts, and mental states of entrepreneurial individuals (Estes 1975), serves as an enabler
and facilitator of individual actions and emotions (Wood
et al. 2012). It is commonly recognized that individual
thoughts impact actions and emotions (Dweck and
Leggett 1988). This underpins the common
1687
philosophical notion, attributed to Buddha stating that:
“The mind is everything. What you think, you become”
(Stevenson 2019). Yet, in the same way that the cognitive aspect of the entrepreneurial mindset serves as
an enabler and facilitator of individual actions and
emotions, the behavioral aspect—what entrepreneurs
do—also influences their cognitions and emotions. An
individual’s mind and feelings are highly reactive to
what they are doing. By taking action entrepreneurs
can influence how they feel about the world around
them and begin to transform the perceptions and mental models they adopt (McMullen and Shepherd 2006;
Sarasvathy 2001). Emotions too can have a direct and
significant impact on the other aspects of the entrepreneurial mindset. The way that an entrepreneur feels,
and the affect they experience, can affect how they
think about things and actions that they take (Cardon
et al. 2012; Morris et al. 2012). Thus, there is a
reciprocal and self-reinforcing cycle between the different aspects of the entrepreneurial mindset (Shepherd
et al. 2010). If individuals embrace this mindset and
realize the interactive nature of the three aspects then
they will likely become even more entrepreneurial
over time; whereas those individuals that fail to utilize
the interactive aspect of their entrepreneurial mindset
will find it more difficult to tap into their entrepreneurial mindset as time progresses.
The self-reinforcing cycle of the entrepreneurial
mindset also means that a breakdown in any one
aspect of the mindset—the cognitive aspect, the behavioral aspect, and the emotional aspect—will make
it difficult for an entrepreneur to operate optimally in
the other areas. For example, if an individual avoids
acting on their entrepreneurial impulses, perhaps because a manager in a corporation discourages any
kind of entrepreneurial behavior (Kuratko et al.
2005), then over time that individual’s passion for
entrepreneurial endeavors and their cognitions toward entrepreneurial opportunities will likely dissipate. Similarly, someone who is not allowed explore
and express their passions and other emotions related
to entrepreneurship will overtime, stop thinking and
acting in entrepreneurial ways (Cardon et al. 2009).
In the same vein, someone who adopts mental models
and ongoing thoughts that guard against opportunity
pursuit, risk taking, and exploration, will find it very
difficult to sustain any kind of emotion or action to
support an entrepreneurial mindset (Shepherd et al.
2010).
1688
The delicate nature of the entrepreneurial mindset
means that individuals who strive to embrace this
mindset as a means to live their life to its potential, need
to guard against placing themselves in situations where
one (or more) of the aspects is threatened or put under
strain. And if they do find themselves in situations
where one of the aspects of the entrepreneurial mindset
is threatened or constrained, they need to work hard to
eliminate the threat or constraint. This might entail an
internal locus of control, where they actively manage
their cognitions, emotions and behaviors so as to foster
elements of each that support their entrepreneurial
mindset. Alternatively, it may entail an external locus
of control, where they remove themselves from the
situation that is creating the threat or constraint, so that
it is easy to think, act and feel in a way that supports and
reinforces an entrepreneurial mindset.
The external influence of contextual factors and relationships on different aspects of an individual’s entrepreneurial mindset is part of the reason that context
matters so much in framing and influencing entrepreneurial behavior (Welter et al. 2019). As John Donne
(1624) admonished four centuries ago, “No man is an
island.” An organizational context clearly matters
(Kuratko et al. 2014). Compelling empirical evidence
suggests that entrepreneurial behavior is neither equally
nor randomly distributed across firms and other organizations (Parker 2018). A firm or organization comprised
of and conducive to individuals with an entrepreneurial
mindset can be characterized as entrepreneurial and is
more likely to continue to be entrepreneurial, allowing it
to adapt to technological changes and industry dynamics, seizing new opportunities enabling it to be competitive over time (Kuratko et al. 2015).
So too can a place, such as a community, city, region,
state or even entire country be comprised by individuals
with and conducive to an entrepreneurial mindset. The
empirical evidence confirms that entrepreneurial activity is not evenly distributed across geographic space
(Bennett 2020). However, the spatial variance in entrepreneurial activity is closely linked to characteristics and
institutions specific to the specific place. Thus, what
holds for firms and organizations also holds for communities, cities, regions, states and entire countries—
they can be considered to be entrepreneurial if they are
characterized by people with and are conducive to an
entrepreneurial mindset. In addition, if they continue to
support and foster all aspects of the entrepreneurial
mindset—the cognitive aspects, the behavioral aspects,
D. F. Kuratko et al.
and the emotional aspects—then such communities,
cities, regions, states, and countries will likely be more
effective and competitive over time, generating new
innovations, ideas, and business models that allow them
to flourish in the long term (Kuratko et al. 2017).
4 Conclusions
Research and thinking about entrepreneurship has developed something of a schizophrenia in understanding
what distinguishes the entrepreneurial mindset. One
strand of the literature views the cognitive decision
making as the distinctive feature characterizing and
differentiating entrepreneurship. A second view puts
the focus on behavior as the most salient feature of the
entrepreneurial mindset. Yet, a third strand of the literature revolves around the emotional aspects of the entrepreneurial mindset. This paper integrates all three
views and proposes a unified view of what constitutes
the entrepreneurial mindset—thoughts, action, and feelings (see Fig. 1).
Attempting to understand the entrepreneurial mindset
from only one of these three perspectives—cognitive,
behavioral, or emotional—incurs the risk of
misrepresenting and inaccurately characterizing the entrepreneurial mindset. That the entrepreneurial mindset
is influenced by the context, spanning from the organizational to the spatial, only exacerbates the inherent
complexity. The popular press is replete with such mischaracterizations erroneously based on a limited perspective and context, such as entrepreneurs “embrace
failure” (Markowitz 2010). Similarly, the understanding, analysis, and advocacy of polices to foster entrepreneurship may be limited or even misguided if their
view of the entrepreneurial mindset along with the context is limited (Lerner 2009).
Still, this paper demonstrates that by incorporating
all three dimensions of the triad of the entrepreneurial
mindset a fuller and more replete understanding of
the entrepreneurial mindset is within the grasp of
both scholars as well as thought leaders in business
and policy. It is up to subsequent research to probe
the various ways that these three dimensions of the
entrepreneurial mindset—cognition, behavior, and
emotions—interact with each other as well as how
they are shaped and influenced by the specific
context.
Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset
References
Afzalur, R. (1996). Stress, strain, and their moderators: An empirical comparison of entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of
Small Business Management, 34(1), 46–58.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation:
Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.
Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and
exploiting opportunities: The implications of discovery and
creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization Science, 24(1), 301–317.
Alvarez, S. A., Young, S. L., & Wooley, J. L. (2015).
Opportunities and institutions: A co-creation story of the king
crab industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 95–112.
Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation, growth and survival.
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4),
441–457.
Audretsch, D. B., Kuratko, D. F., & Link, A. N. (2015). Making
sense of the elusive paradigm of entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics, 45(4), 703–712.
Baron, R. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship:
Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other
people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 275–295.
Baron, R. (2004). The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for
answering entrepreneurship's basic “why” questions. Journal
of Business Venturing, 19(2), 221–239.
Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beaver, G., & Jennings, P. (2005). Competitive advantage and
entrepreneurial power: The dark side of entrepreneurship.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
12(1), 9–23.
Bennett, D. L. (2020). Local institutional heterogeneity & firm
dynamism: Decomposing the metropolitan economic freedom index. Small Business Economics, (In press).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00322-2.
Berglund, H. (2007). Entrepreneurship and phenomenology. In J.
Ulhoi & H. Neergaard (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship (pp. 75–96). London:
Edward Elgar.
Bird, B., & Schjoedt, L. (2009). Entrepreneurial behavior: Its
nature, scope, recent research, and agenda for future research.
In Understanding the entrepreneurial mind (pp. 327–358).
Springer, New York.
Boyd, D. P., & Gumpert, D. E. (1983). Coping with entrepreneurial stress. Harvard Business Review, 61(2), 46–56.
Caggese, A. (2012). Entrepreneurial risk, investment, and innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 106(2), 287–307.
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F. M., & Kritikos, A. S. (2009). Risk
attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs–new evidence from an
experimentally validated survey. Small Business
Economics, 32(2), 153–167.
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F. M., & Kritikos, A. S. (2010). The impact
of risk attitudes on entrepreneurial survival. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1), 45–63.
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The
nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of
Management Review, 34(3), 511–532.
1689
Cardon, M. S., Foo, M. D., Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2012).
Exploring the heart: Entrepreneurial emotion is a hot topic.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 1–10.
Carland, J. C., & Carland, J. W. (1992). Managers, small business
owners, entrepreneurs: The cognitive dimensions. Journal of
Business & Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 55–66.
Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of
instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker
paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 60(8), 1140–1154.
Cole, N. (2017). 7 powerful emotions that all entrepreneurs feel.
Inc.com. https://www.inc.com/nicolas-cole/7-powerfulemotions-all-entrepreneurs-feel.html Accessed 16 Apr 2020.
Davidsson, P. (2004). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The
individual-opportunity nexus. International Small Business
Journal, 22(2), 206–219.
Davis, M. H., Hall, J. A., & Mayer, P. S. (2016). Developing a new
measure of entrepreneurial mindset: Reliability, validity, and
implications for practitioners. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 68(1), 21–48.
De Cock, R., Denoo, L., & Clarysse, B. (2020). Surviving the
emotional rollercoaster called entrepreneurship: The role of
emotion regulation. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(2),
105936.
deMol, E., Ho, V. T., & Pollack, J. M. (2018). Predicting entrepreneurial burnout in a moderated mediated model of job fit.
Journal of Small Business Management, 56(3), 392–411.
Donne, J. (1624). No man is an island. Meditation 17; Devotions
upon Emergent Occasions, https://web.cs.dal.
ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html Accessed 26, Apr 2020.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review,
95(2), 256.
Estes, W. K. (1975). Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 1). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fisher, G., Stevenson, R., Burnell, D., Neubert, E., & Kuratko,
D.F. (2020). Entrepreneurial hustle: Navigating uncertainty
and enrolling venture stakeholders through urgent and unorthodox actions. Journal of Management Studies,
Forthcoming.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). McGraw-Hill series in social
psychology. Social cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new
area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American
Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Fodor, O. C., & Pintea, S. (2017). The “emotional side” of entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of the relation between positive
and negative affect and entrepreneurial performance.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 310.
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Karnøe, P. (2010). Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies,
47(4), 760–774.
Giménez Roche, G. A., & Calcei, D. (2020). The role of demand
routines in entrepreneurial judgment. Small Business
Economics, (In press). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-01900213-1.
Goldsby, M. G., Kuratko, D. F., & Bishop, J. W. (2005).
Entrepreneurship and fitness: An examination of rigorous
1690
exercise and goal attainment among small business owners.
Journal of Small Business Management, 43(1), 78–92.
Grégoire, D. A., Corbett, A. C., & McMullen, J. S. (2011). The
cognitive perspective in entrepreneurship: An agenda for
future research. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6),
1443–1477.
Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2013).
Escaping the prior knowledge corridor: What shapes the
number and variety of market opportunities identified before
market entry of technology start-ups? Organization Science,
24(1), 280–300.
Hafer, R. W., & Jones, G. (2015). Are entrepreneurship and
cognitive skills related? Some international evidence. Small
Business Economics, 44(2), 283–298.
Haynes, K. T., Hitt, M. A., & Campbell, J. T. (2015). The dark
side of leadership: Towards a mid-range theory of hubris and
greed in entrepreneurial contexts. Journal of Management
Studies, 52(4), 479–505.
Haynie, M., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). A measure of adaptive
cognition for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 33(3), 695–714.
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C.
(2010). A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 217–229.
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2012). Cognitive
adaptability and an entrepreneurial task: The role of
metacognitive ability and feedback. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 36(2), 237–265.
Hayward, M. L. A., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. (2006). A
hubris theory of entrepreneurship. Management Science,
52(2), 160–172.
Hogarth, R. M., & Karelaia, N. (2011). Entrepreneurial success
and failure: Confidence and fallible judgment. Organization
Science, 23(6), 1733–1747.
Hornaday, J. A., & Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful
entrepreneurs. Personnel Psychology, 24, 141–153.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of
strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions.
Journal of Management, 29, 963–990.
Janney, J. J., & Dess, G. G. (2006). The risk concept for entrepreneurs reconsidered: New challenges to the conventional
wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 385–400.
Kariv, D. (2008). The relationship between stress and business
performance among men and women entrepreneurs. Journal
of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 21(4), 449–476.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1985). The dark side of entrepreneurship.
Harvard Business Review, 63(6), 160–167.
Knowledge @ Wharton. (2019). How feelings and friendship
factor into startup success and failure. https://knowledge.
wharton.upenn.edu/article/role-of-feelings-inentrepreneurship/ Accessed 16 Apr 2020.
Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2007). “I think I can, I
think I can”: Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 502–527.
Kuratko, D. F. (2020). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, practice (11th ed.). Mason: Cengage publishers.
Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S.
(2005). A model of middle-level managers’ entrepreneurial
behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 699–
716.
D. F. Kuratko et al.
Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2014). Why
implementing corporate innovation is so difficult. Business
Horizons, 57(5), 647–655.
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015). Corporate
entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge for a new global
economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 245–
253.
Kuratko, D. F., Fisher, G., Bloodgood, J., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017).
The paradox of new venture legitimation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 119–
140.
Lerner, J. (2009). Boulevard of broken dreams: Why public efforts
to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital have failed–
and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Mariz-Péreza, R. M., Teijeiro-Alvareza, M. M., & GarcíaAlvareza, M. T. (2012). The relevance of human capital as
a driver for innovation. Human Resource Management
Review, 35(98), 68–76.
Markowitz, E. (2010). Why Silicon Valley loves failures. Inc,
august 16. https://www.inc.com/eric-markowitz/brilliantfailures/why-silicon-valley-loves-failures.html accessed 26,
Apr, 2020.
McGrath, R., & MacMillan, I. (2000). The entrepreneurial
mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunity in
an age of uncertainty. Canbridge: Harvard Business School
Press.
McKelvie, A., and Wiklund, J. (2004). How knowledge affects
opportunity discovery and exploitation among new ventures
in dynamic markets? In Opportunity Identification and
Entrepreneurial Behaviour, ed. J. E. Butler (Greenwich,
CT: Information age publishing), 219–239.
McMullen, J. S., & Kier, A. S. (2016). Trapped by the entrepreneurial mindset: Opportunity seeking and escalation of commitment in the Mount Everest disaster. Journal of Business
Venturing, 31(6), 663–686.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action
and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur.
Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
Mitchell, R., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P., Morse, E., &
Smith, B. (2002a). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27(2), 93–
105.
Mitchell, R. K., Smith, J. B., Morse, E. A., Seawright, K. W.,
Peredo, A. M., & McKenzie, B. (2002b). Are entrepreneurial
cognitions universal? Assessing entrepreneurial cognitions
across cultures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
26(4), 9–33.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Schindehutte, M. (2012).
Framing the entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 36(1), 11–40.
Muthukrishna, M., Henrich, J., Toyokawa, W., Hamamura, T.,
Kameda, T., & Heine, S. J. (2018). Overconfidence is universal? Elicitation of genuine overconfidence (EGO) procedure reveals systematic differences across domain, task
knowledge, and incentives in four populations. PLoS One,
13(8), e0202288.
Naumann, C. (2017). Entrepreneurial mindset: A synthetic literature review. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics
Review, 5(3), 149–172.
Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset
Parker, S. (2018). The economics of entrepreneurship
(Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2nd edition).
Salamouris, I. S. (2013). How overconfidence influences entrepreneurship. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
2(8), 1–8.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a
theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2),
243–263.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy.
New York: Harper and Brothers.
Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge,
potential financial reward, and opportunity identification.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 91–112.
Shepherd, D. A., & Krueger, N. (2002). Cognition, entrepreneurship & teams: An intentions-based perspective.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 167–185.
Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2018). Entrepreneurial cognition:
Exploring the mindset of entrepreneurs. Cham: Springer
International Publishing AG.
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Haynie, J. M. (2010).
Entrepreneurial spirals: Deviation-amplifying loops of an
entrepreneurial mindset and organizational culture.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(1), 59–82.
Stevenson, T. (2019). What we think is what we become: Control
your mind, control your life. Medium, March 5.
https://medium.com/@tom.stevenson78/what-we-think-iswhat-we-become-df58a698de99 Accessed 9 May 2020.
1691
Tryba, A., & Fletcher, D. (2020). How shared pre-start-up moments of transition and cognitions contextualize effectual and
causal decisions in entrepreneurial teams. Small Business
Economics, (In press). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-01900148-7.
Van Geldren, M., Kautonen, T., Wincent, J., & Binari, M. (2018).
Implementation intentions in the entrepreneurial process:
Concept, empirical findings, and research agenda. Small
Business Economics, 51(4), 923–941.
Welter, F., Baker, T., & Wirsching, K. (2019). Three waves and
counting: The rising tide of contextualization in entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 319–330.
Wood, M. S., & McKinley, W. (2010). The production of entrepreneurial opportunity: A constructivist perspective.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(1), 66–84.
Wood, M. S., Williams, D. W., & Grégoire, D. A. (2012). The
road to riches? A model of the cognitive processes and
inflection points underpinning entrepreneurial action.
Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth,
14, 207–252.
Wright, M., & Zahra, S. (2011). The other side of paradise:
Examining the dark side of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 1(3), 1–5.
Zahra, S. A., Yavuz, R. I., & Ucbascaran, D. (2006). How much
do you trust me? The dark side of relational trust in new
business creation in established companies.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 541–559.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.