PurposeThis paper aims to explore the question of confidence in entrepreneurship, and the impact confidence has on key tasks in the venture development process.Design/methodology/approachPropositions about the relationship between key elements of confidence (optimism and overconfidence) are made in order to unpack the confidence construct. Simple tests of these propositions are conducted using a small sample of Australian entrepreneurs. Further propositions are made about the impact of optimism and overconfidence on activity across different phases of the new venture development process.FindingsTwo elements of confidence, optimism and overconfidence, are distinct in their association with each other and with a third individual difference (regulatory focus). The dual and sometimes opposing impacts of optimism and overconfidence on new venture activity are explored. Optimism and overconfidence are both beneficial when deciding to become an entrepreneur, but overconfidence is harmful when making decisions in response to setbacks.Research limitations/implicationsConclusions are limited by the sample size and simple analytical techniques. Rather, the impact of the paper is in the implications of the independence of optimism and overconfidence. Future research can explore and test the propositions made about when each is harmful and when beneficial.Practical implicationsFor entrepreneurs, it is important to be aware of your optimism and overconfidence in different situations. When optimism is beneficial, use it, but when overconfidence is harmful, mitigate against it by asking the right questions and working with others to check assumptions and strategies.Originality/valueThis paper distinguishes between two individual differences, optimism and overconfidence, that are typically thought to be interdependent and beneficial for entrepreneurs.

PurposeThe central question of this paper is, “What determines an entrepreneur's effort on different tasks?” The paper aims to address this question.Design/methodology/approachPropositions about the impact cognitive processes have on entrepreneurial effort across different tasks are developed. These propositions draw on self‐regulatory theory, in particular our understanding of regulatory focus and self‐efficacy.FindingsIt is argued that a promotion orientation motivates effort on explorative tasks, and a prevention orientation motivates effort on exploitative tasks. Further, it is proposed that high self‐efficacy motivates effort on action tasks, but high self‐efficacy reduces effort on judgment tasks.Practical implicationsOne implication of these propositions for entrepreneurs is to understand self‐regulatory processes and to consciously decide how much effort to put into different tasks, rather than relying on (hidden) preferences. Another implication is for those involved in selecting and developing entrepreneurs. That implication is that entrepreneurs' self‐regulatory processes can inhibit effective effort. These processes can be managed to increase effectiveness.Originality/valueBy introducing task type into the discussion of self‐regulation and entrepreneurial effort, a more fine‐grained understanding of cognitive processes in actual entrepreneurial activities is developed.

This paper considers the paradoxical effects of an autonomous leadership style. The well-documented empowering effect of autonomy on work attitudes is shown to be counterbalanced by the negative effects of isolation and a deprivation of valued inputs when a leader is uninvolved. The paradox of autonomy lies in these dual positive and negative influences. The diverse effects of autonomy are explained by the dynamic processes by which autonomy is granted to group members, using an interactionist perspective. The core dimensions of the autonomy process are direction and involvement. The interactions between leader and group member along these dimensions influence satisfaction differently, and motivation very little. It is suggested that there are substitutes for leadership that more directly affect motivation. Data were collected from an academic scientific research institute, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, from which these propositions emerged.