[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp1″]
I need help by a senior psychology and business researcher in revising and rewriting this paper to make it an Academy of Management style theoretical article.
See the doc below
Social Learning Theory in Entrepreneurship Research
Propositions on:
Methods used to capture behavior and
Characteristics of entrepreneurial behavior
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Full term
e.g. exempli gratia (for example)
et al. et alteri (and others)
i.e. id est (that means)
p. page
pp. pages
1 Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to relate social learning theory (SLT) to an identified re-search gap in entrepreneurship. The social learning perspective is a behavioral theory founded in the works of prominent sociologists such as Albert Bandura, Gabriel Trade and Julian Rotter. According to Bandura (1977), the theory proposes that human behavior is driven by a reciprocal interaction among behavior, environment and cognitive-personal influences (p. 10): “[…] internal personal factors and behavior […] operate as reciprocal determinants [because] people’s expectations influence how they behave and the outcomes of their behavior change their expectations” (Bandura, 1977, p. 195). SLT has been applied in a variety of contexts, in particular education, criminology and healthcare see e.g. (Houts & Kassab, 1997; Leonard et al., 1999). Application in management science has been scarce, focusing mainly on leadership (substitutes) and managerial education (Sulsky & Kline, 2007; Yukl, 2005). The following paragraphs shall identify a research gap in entrepreneurship and assess potential gains from a deployment and adaption of SLT to entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship research has to this date not succeeded to developed clear concepts of its key terms and to delimit itself from management (Fueglistaller et al., 2008). Consequently, researchers have embarked in a variety of directions to explain and conceptualize entre-preneurship phenomena, which can be subsumized under the following three questions (Ste-venson & Jarillo, 1990)
– What happens when entrepreneurs act? (Results of entrepreneurial action)
– Why do entrepreneurs act? (Predispositions of entrepreneurial action)
– How do entrepreneurs act? (Behaviours / actions of entrepreneurs)
The first two questions have been extensively investigated in the disciplines of econom-ics and sociology respectively (Envick & Luthans, 1996; Gartner, 2008; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). The third question, however, is best to be examined in the field of business manage-ment research (Gartner, 1989; Timmons, 2002). Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) and Gartner (1989) postulate that it is fruitful to consider what entrepreneurs do behaviourally and how they succeed at being entrepreneurs. Despite almost 20 years having past, to this day little has been published on this topic. Recent research still claims for a focus on direct contempla-tion of entrepreneurial behaviour (Schwehm, 2007). Correspondingly, a comprehensive literature search has yielded a total of five publications on the topic, with only one study generating behavioural data (Crossley & Pittaway, 2000; Envick & Luthans, 1996; Good, 1993; Kilby, 1971; Man et al., 2002). This picture has been confirmed by a meta-study (Brown & Hanlon, 2004), also criticizing an apparent lack of scientific quality of extant research. This indicates the study of entrepreneurial behaviour to be a potentially fruitful area of investigation; with (exemplary) research questions being:
R1: What are activities, roles and tasks of entrepreneurs?
R2: How does entrepreneurial behaviour compare to and differ from managerial behav-iour?
R3: What are characteristic behaviours of successful entrepreneurs?
SLT can help enhance the quality of behavioural research in entrepreneurship by ad-dressing several problems. Most conspicuously, researchers have criticized that many, if not all, observational studies of human behaviour in management and entrepreneurship lack clear theoretical foundations (Martinko & Gardner, 1985, 1990; Schwehm, 2007). In particular, research design and methods are not devised based on theoretical / psychological rationales (Stewart, 1993). SLT as a behavioural theory supports researchers in identifying important areas and decisive variables for empirical data collection. Furthermore, the theory can be used to explain, model, and predict behaviour. In entrepreneurship, this could for example be used to generate hypothesis on commonalities and differences between entrepreneurial and managerial behaviour. Also, it can be deployed to explain activity patterns of founders (En-vick & Luthans, 1996). Lastly, SLT can be relied upon when researchers consider where and how to influence (entrepreneurial) behaviour in desirable ways (Bandura, 1985, 1986; Stew-art, 1993).
Bridging the above identified research gap by studying the actual “entrepreneurs job” or his true behaviour contributes to theory and practice in a number of ways: First, by compar-ing or injecting knowledge on real entrepreneurial tasks, activities and behaviours to available definitions and concepts of entrepreneurship, these can be validated, rejected, enriched and/or refined. Second, the proposed study lays a foundation for research into cause-effect relationships of entrepreneurial behaviour, for example which behaviours promote success and which failure. Third, entrepreneurship education can benefit from knowing which spe-cific tasks entrepreneurs have to perform on a day-to-day basis. This essentially refers to the issue as to ‘how can we educate and train managers [entrepreneurs] if we don’t know what managers [entrepreneurs] do?’ (Mintzberg, 1990). Fourth, the study supports entrepreneurs reflecting and gaining consciousness about their behaviour, supporting them to potentially identify more effective or efficient ways to work.
The paper is structured as follows. After the introduction, section two will elaborate on methodology and findings of extant behavioural research in management and entrepreneur-ship. In section three, the core constructs of SLT shall be comprehensively described to build the groundwork for subsequent applications. Section four will formulate and substantiate SLT propositions with regard to methodology used to capture and explain entrepreneurial behaviour and with regard to differences between managerial and entrepreneurial behaviour. Section five will summarize the main findings of the paper.
2 Literature review
The literature review shall first focus on methodological background of behavioural re-search in management. Thereafter, key findings on managerial and entrepreneurial behaviour will be summarized.
2.1 Methodology used to capture behaviour
Henry Mintzberg (1968) pioneered direct observation and analysis of managerial behav-iours, using systematic observation as a sociological device to capture the data. His study challenged and ultimately changed the then prevailing conception of management (Kurke & Aldrich, 1983; Stewart, 1989; Tengblad, 2001). Mintzberg and replicating studies primarily relied on the following approach in generating their data: A trained researcher observes the manager doing his job for a predefined period of time (mostly one working week), taking notes of all events and activities. This documentation is done in a number of dimensions, primarily duration and description of activity, but also purpose, participants, as well as self initiation and place of the event (Envick & Luthans, 1996; Martin, 1982). Only during and ex post this observation, however, the researcher is to develop a system to categorize the ob-served events or behaviours. The researchers coding should not be influenced by an a priori analysis of extant literature, behavioural theorizing or his own past experience but “by the single event taking place before him” (Mintzberg, 1973). Furthermore, hypotheses are de-rived as well as theories are developed iteratively during or deductively after (most of) the study has taken place (Mintzberg, 1971). After coding the recorded events, a multidimen-sional quantitative analysis was performed to identify activity patterns, time allocation and communication models. Based on this, further (theoretical) deductions were made, in par-ticular a role theory of management was developed (Mintzberg, 1968).
Mintzberg’s approach has been criticised for a number of reasons, most conspicuously in terms of lack of internal, construct and external validity as well as reliability (Lamond, 2003; Martinko & Gardner, 1985; Stewart, 1989). Also, a lack of theoretical foundation of the method has been reported (Stewart, 1989). While rigor of the methodology can be improved through larger sample size, multi-method multi-rater approaches and other complimentary research devices, the question remains if the approach as such generates the right data to explore, analyse and explain (entrepreneurial) behaviour. This issue of theoretical foundation of behavioural observation methods shall be addressed in the course of this paper through application of SLT.
2.2 Managerial and entrepreneurial behaviour
Managerial behaviour has been the focus of a number of studies in management research, mostly founded in the seminal work by Henry Mintzberg (1971). Mintzberg (1971) found managerial activities to be characterized by brevity, being dictated by external events and necessities. Based on his findings, he developed a managerial role concept which finds managers to take on interpersonal, informational and decisional roles. Although Mintzberg’s sample was small and parts of his methodology questionable (see above), subsequent stud-ies made similar findings (Kurke & Aldrich, 1983).
In the much younger discipline of Entrepreneurship research, direct studies of entrepre-neurial behaviour are scarce. Still, a Mintzberg replicating research conducted in small en-terprises has found that Entrepreneurs exhibit the same behaviours as traditional managers, only in different configurations and with different emphasis (Envick & Luthans, 1996). Moreover, they also exhibit increased fragmentation of activities (Choran, 1969). Still, nei-ther the managerial nor the entrepreneurship research summarized above relied on psycho-logical theory to model, predict or explain observed behaviour. Consequently, a behavioural approach such as SLT can benefit understanding, validity and reliability of research (Davis & Luthans, 1980). The following section shall depict the concepts of SLT, which are subse-quently used to derive propositions for entrepreneurship research.
3 Theoretical model
As stated in the introduction, SLT represents a general theory of behaviour (Bandura, 1986; Leonard et al., 1999). Synthesizing principles of learning with behaviourism and cog-nitive psychology, SLT is one approach to understanding and explaining human behaviour relying on a variety of far-reaching constructs (Bandura, 2006; Freeman et al., 2004). SLT does neither describe humans as impelled from within by psychological drives nor as con-trolled by the external environment (Leonard et al., 1999). Rather, “human functioning […] involves interrelated control systems in which behaviour is determined by external stimulus events, by internal processing systems and regulatory codes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 19). The triadic reciprocality of this proposition (see figure I) does not, however, imply that the re-spective two sides influence each other with equal strength (Freeman et al., 2004). Rather, it has been proposed that personality and activity do constitute the strongest couple in produc-ing social behaviour in standard situations, whereas situational influences are more important in extreme situations (Bandura, 2006; Freeman et al., 2004). Also, the influences can (and usually are at one specific point in time) unidirectional (Bandura, 1986). In the following, SLT’s key propositions further to triadic reciprocality shall be considered in detail, in par-ticular within a model suggested for research on entrepreneurial behaviour.
— Insert figure I about here —
Researchers have repeatedly suggested the use of SLT as an alternative to more tradi-tional leadership theories or even as an underlying framework for the field of organizational behaviour itself (Envick & Luthans, 1996; Ginter & White, 1982; Schmude et al., 2008). More specifically, Davis and Luthans (1980) developed a framework for behavioural analysis within the social learning approach to organizational behaviour. This contingency approach analyses the interactive nature of the situation (S), the organism (O), the behaviour (B) and the consequence (C). It allows for modelling and functional analysis of environmental-cognitive-behavioural events. The operationalization of the framework in behavioural research can be performed by defining and measuring variables depicting the qualities of the SOBC (Ginter & White, 1982). For entrepreneurship this implies that internal and external situational variables are to be measured (S), the motives, values, cognitive abilities of entre-preneurs are to be assessed (E), behaviours should be observed (B) and consequences re-coded (C) (see figure II).
— Insert figure II about here —
Further to this, Bandura (1986) find that the predictive power of SLT (and of psycho-logical theories in general) lies in micromeasures rather than in mixed conglomerates (aver-aged measures) (p. 11). Thus, he argues for an idiographic rather than nomothetic approach, meaning that SLT acknowledges that humans are different in their make-up. Still, humans are not entirely unique in their reaction to influences, which again gives room for search of general principles of behaviour (Bandura, 1986; Davis & Luthans, 1980). Applying the above concepts in the realm of entrepreneurship, SLT brings about implications for research design and methods on the one hand and supports formulation of hypothesis on the other hand.
4 Development of propositions
4.1 Propositions regarding methodology used to capture behaviour
Considering behavioural research in management and entrepreneurship through the lens of SLT, a number of methodological flaws become apparent. First, early research focused on explaining behaviour through internal dispositions, for example by trying to identify traits of managers or entrepreneurs. These traits were subsequently used to, for example, explain managerial success or failure. Hence, the approach takes a predominantly unidirectional perspective, and collects data on personality and physical traits (Chomsky, 1967; Fueglistaller et al., 2008). More recently, research has taken a contingent perspective, with the envi-ronment and personality influencing the behaviour of entrepreneurs (Yukl, 2005). Methods were focusing on extracting relevant data from the environment, still being inconsistent in their epistemological assumptions and theoretical foundations (Stewart, 1993). Based on the propositions from SLT, however, research should take ideographic and interactionist per-spective, in which individual behaviour, cognitive and other internal events and the external environment produce a behavioural outcome. Thus, the behaviour should be captured in situ taking all ecological variables into account and subsequently into the analysis. This step has, however, not been thoroughly taken within entrepreneurship research (Schwehm, 2007). Consequently, the first propositions refer to the choice of variables to include in the empirical exploration and subsequent explanation and modelling of entrepreneurial behaviour:
P1.1: To comprehensively explore entrepreneurial behaviour data on relevant environ-ment and personality variables as well as actual content of activities needs to be col-lected.
P1.2: Similarly, to explain, model and predict entrepreneurial behaviour, the personality as well as external events of the specific situation need to be carefully evaluated using SLT parameters.
4.2 Propositions regarding entrepreneurial behaviour
Without going into much detail, the following shall exemplarily depict how SLT can help develop propositions on entrepreneurial behaviour, in particular with regard to its de-limitation from managerial behaviour. Hypotheses should integrate the findings of extant entrepreneurship and management literature in the SLT perspective (Davis & Luthans, 1980; Stewart, 1993).
Considering situational stimulus (S) and entrepreneur (E) as the factors interactively producing behaviour, we find that both managers and entrepreneurs are active in fundamen-tally similar environments (S) (see figure I & II). This is because both are in charge of man-aging a firm or an organization, with all the necessities arising from that (Cunningham & Lischeron, 1991). More specifically, entrepreneurs must engage in managerial activities to ensure survival of their ventures (Cunningham & Lischeron, 1991; Fueglistaller et al., 2008). If strong necessities from the environment arise, people have been shown to exhibit similar, predictable behaviour (Freeman et al., 2004). Hence, the following proposition can be formu-lated:
P2.1: Entrepreneurs engage in all activities comprised in a general managers activity profile
Still, studies have found little overlap in general traits of managers and entrepreneurs (E) (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Llewellyn & Wilson, 2003). Also, aspects of the entrepreneurial environment (S) are more dynamic and unstable (Gartner, 2008). Considering these differ-ences in S and E leads to the conclusion that some behaviours of entrepreneurs and managers are to differ, particularly in terms of time spend on specific tasks (Envick & Luthans, 1996):
P2.2: The activity profile between entrepreneur and manager exhibits differences in terms of time allocated to activities
More specifically, literature reports that entrepreneurs are continuously focused on the external environment, searching for new products or services, market developments and communicating with external parties (Chandler & Hanks, 1994). In contrast to that, managers dedicate most of their time on internally oriented activities (McCall et al., 1978 ). Therefore, we can hypothesize that entrepreneurs engage in activities beyond the organizational boundaries more frequently (for example networking activities with investors, peers and customers).
P2.3: Entrepreneurs spend more time on activities directed beyond organizational boundaries than managers
5 Conclusion
At the outset of this paper we identified a research gap in entrepreneurship regarding studies of entrepreneurial behaviour. Furthermore, the limited extant research on behaviour lacks theoretical foundation of research design and research guiding hypotheses. SLT has been found an appropriate theoretical basis to address these issues. The twofold contribution of the theory relates to supporting the elaboration of an appropriate research design, the modeling and explanation of entrepreneurial behavior as well as the formulation of proposi-tions. More specifically, the data collection method should focus on generating comprehen-sive records on the entrepreneurial behavior, its environment and the entrepreneur. Further-more, propositions on the difference between managerial and entrepreneurial behavior can be formulated relying on SLT. Although not being very detailed in this paper, a more elaborated ‘social learning theory of entrepreneurship’ could yield compelling behavioral modeling for entrepreneurship and management research.
Figure I
Figure II
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2006). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Chicago: Aldine.
Brown, T. C., & Hanlon, D. (2004). Developing behavioural observation scales to foster effective entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 103-116.
Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Founder competence, the environment, and venture performance. Entrepreneurship — Theory and Practice, 18(3).
Chomsky, N. A. (1967). A review of skinner’s verbal behavior. In L. A. M. Jakobovits, Murray S. (Ed.), Readings in the psychology of language (pp. pp. 142-143): Prentice-Hall.
Choran, I. (1969). The manager of a small company. McGill University, Montreal
Crossley, B., & Pittaway, L. (2000). The self-perception of entrepreneurial competencies: Are large organisations losing the battle of corporate enterprise?, British Academy of Management Conference. Edinburgh, Scotland.
Cunningham, J. B., & Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(1), 45-61.
Davis, T. R. V., & Luthans, F. (1980). A social learning approach to organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 281-290.
Envick, B. R., & Luthans, F. (1996). Identifying the activities of entrepreneur-managers: An idiographic approach, Academy of Entrepreneurship Conference. Maui, Hawaii.
Freeman, A., Mahoney, M. J., Devito, P., & Martin, D. (2004). Cognition and psychotherapy (2 ed.). New York: Springer.
Fueglistaller, U., Müller, C., & Volery, T. (2008). Entrepreneurship modelle – umsetzung – perspektiven mit fallbeispielen aus deutschland, österreich und der schweiz Schweiz: Gabler Verlag.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical pers-pective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32-58.
Gartner, W. B. (1989). “Who is an entrepreneur?” Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 47-68.
Gartner, W. B. (2008). Entrepreneurship hop. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 32(2), 361-368.
Ginter, P. M., & White, D. D. (1982). A social learning approach to strategic management: Toward a theoretical foundation. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 253-261.
Good, W. S. (1993). Building a dream: A comprehensive guide to starting a business of your own. . Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Houts, S., & Kassab, C. (1997). Rotter’s social learning theory and fear of crime: Differences by race and ethnicity. Social Science Quarterly (University of Texas Press), 78(1), 122-136.
Kilby, P. (1971). Entrepreneurship and economic development. New York: The Free Press.
Kurke, L. B., & Aldrich, H. E. (1983). Mintzberg was right!: A replication and extension of the nature of managerial work. Management Science, 29(8), 975-984.
Lamond. (2003). Henry mintzberg vs henri fayol: Of lighthouses, cubists, and the emperor’s new clothes. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(4).
Leonard, K. E., Blane, H. T., & Blane, H. T. (1999). Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism (2 ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Llewellyn, D. J., & Wilson, K. M. (2003). The controversial role of personality traits in entrepreneurial psychology. Eucation + Training, 45(6), 341-345.
Man, T. W. Y., Lau, T., & Chan, K. F. (2002). The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises a conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal of Busi-ness Venturing, 17(2), 123.
Martin, W. J. (1982). Studying educational organizations with structured observation. Pea-body Journal of Education, 59(3), 160-169.
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1985). Beyond structured observation: Methodological issues and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 676-695.
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1990). Structured observation of managerial work: A replication and synthesis. Journal of Management Studies, 27(3), 329-357.
McCall, M. W., Jr., Morrison, A. M., & Hannan, R. L. (1978 ). Studies of managerial work: Results and methods. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Mintzberg, H. (1968). The manager at work – determinig his activities, roles, and programs by structured observation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston.
Mintzberg, H. (1971). Managerial work: Analysis from observation. Management Science, 18(2), B-97-B-110.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). The manager’s job – folklore and facts. Harvard Business Re-view(March-April).
Schmude, J. r., Welter, F., & Heumann, S. (2008). Entrepreneurship research in germany. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 32(2), 289-311.
Schwehm, M. O. (2007). Entrepreneurship im internationalen vergleich: Erfassung, beobachtung und erklärung. Marburg: Books on Demand GmbH.
Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(4), 17-27.
Stewart, R. (1989). Studies of managerial jobs and behaviour: The ways forward. Journal of Management Studies, 26(1), 1-10.
Stewart, R. (1993). Managerial behaviour. In To be published: International encyclopedia of business and management: Routledge.
Sulsky, L. M., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Understanding frame-of-reference training success: A social learning theory perspective. International Journal of Training & Development, 11(2), 121-131.
Tengblad, S. (2001). Classic, but not seminal: Revisiting the pioneering study about mana-gerial work. Scandinavian Journal of Management.
Timmons, J. A. (2002). New venture creation – entrepreneurship for the 21st century.
Yukl, G. A. (2005). Leadership in organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Place your order of custom research paper With us NOW. The assignment will be written from scratch by our qualified and experienced writers.
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp2″]
A-Research-Paper.com is committed to deliver a custom paper/essay which is 100% original and deliver it within the deadline. Place your custom order with us and experience the different; You are guaranteed; value for your money and a premium paper which meets your expectations, 24/7 customer support and communication with your writer. Order Now
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]