Human capital has emerged as a highly utilized theoretical lens through which scholars can better understand entrepreneurship. To synthesize the progress of this stream and promote its use, we review 109 articles in leading management and entrepreneurship journals over two decades. We organize our discussion in terms of multi–theory approaches, methods and analyses, constructs, and study focus. A number of research gaps and promising areas for inquiry are put forward. We develop a typology of human capital and discuss how future investigations of types of human capital related to the entrepreneurship process can benefit research and practice.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate different types of investment actions undertaken by entrepreneurial firms to determine how these actions influence performance. Specifically, the effects of entrepreneurial action with regards to investments in human capital, the capabilities of the firm and the competitive dynamics of the business relative to other firms are examined. These actions are examined in conjunction with the offering of products, services or both, to determine the benefits of specific actions for firms. Design/methodology/approach The sample is taken from the confidential version of the Kauffman Firm Survey (KFS). The data are analyzed using a fixed effects model. Findings Results show that investment in human capital development actions and capability development actions improve firm performance. Further, investment in human capital development actions is shown to have the largest positive impact on the performance of firms that offer products only. Competitive positions actions have the greatest positive impact on firms that offer products and services. Research limitations/implications Results contribute to multiple theoretical lenses within the context of entrepreneurship and demonstrate applicability of theory related to entrepreneurial action to other established theories. Findings also demonstrate that different entrepreneurial actions benefit firms that offer products or services in different ways. Limitations of the study are those associated with survey research generally, such as self-reported measures, non-response bias and the KFS specifically such as survivorship bias and variance in survey items across years. Originality/value The consideration of firms whose primary focus is the selling of products compared to services and how they moderate specific actions is novel and valuable. Theoretical development tying human capital, competitive dynamics and dynamic capabilities to entrepreneurial action creates new avenues for inquiry.

No abstract

This study examines how written expressions of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and hope may affect investor evaluations of funding potential in business plan competitions. To understand why some firms are evaluated more favorably, we combine screening and signaling theory when analyzing early-stage venture-investor communication. Findings support that expressions of EO while business planning contribute to greater expressions of hope to cope with the Knightian uncertainty when developing new business models. Results suggest that the impact of hopeful dialogue on investor impressions of fundability critically depends upon the presence or absence of past founder financial investment. Implications for future research are discussed.

In this rejoinder, we provide a different perspective on the positions put forth by Giacalone and Promislo as they relate to (1) the claims of the pervasiveness of “misinformation” that is communicated by management faculty and (2) the proposition that management educators should teach in a nonideological fashion. Our position on these topics is that the pervasiveness of the misinformation problem in the focal article is unsubstantiated and not supported by data, and that it is impossible to effectively teach social science without at least acknowledging the impact of individual bias or ideology on all parties involved, including faculty. We present our rationale along with data gathered from a variety of current management textbooks to support our assertions.