A relational performance model for developing innovation and long-term orientation in retail franchise organizations

Shockley, Jeff; Turner, Tobin

doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.013

Cited by 33 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although Cardon et al’s (2013) sub‐scales for passion towards inventing, founding, and developing activities have been the most widely used in subsequent empirical work (24 empirical studies at the individual level), there has been a great deal of inconsistency in how they have been used. For example, some researchers chose to focus on entrepreneurial passion in relation to one or two activities rather than all three activities (e.g., Adomako, Mole, Murnieks, & Franklin, 2019; Biraglia & Kadile, 2017; Campos, 2017; Kang, Matusik, Kim, & Phillips, 2016; Lopez et al, 2018; Huyghe, Knockaert, & Obschonka, 2016; Mueller et al, 2017; Mumi et al, 2018; Shockley & Turner, 2016), while others have focused on entrepreneurial passion towards all three activities, but used previous versions of the Cardon et al (2013) scale that did not measure identity centrality (Stenholm & Renko, 2016). Others added additional items that had been removed in the process in validating the scale (Adomako, Zheng, & Ahsan, 2018; Adomako et al, 2019; Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Drnovsek et al, 2016; Huyghe et al, 2016).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, there have been inconsistencies in how entrepreneurial passion towards each activity has been measured in relation to the interactive effects between intense positive feelings and identity centrality. While some researchers (Campos, 2017; Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Drnovsek et al, 2016; Kang et al, 2016; Mueller et al, 2017) have first aggregated the items measuring intense positive feelings towards each domain, before examining their interactive effects with the item measuring the centrality of the domain to the entrepreneur’s self‐identity as per the instructions of Cardon et al (2013), others have aggregated items measuring intense positive feelings and identity centrality together, against the advice of Cardon and colleagues (e.g., Biraglia & Kadile, 2017; Shockley & Turner, 2016; Turner & Gianiodis, 2018), or not included items which measured identity centrality (e.g., Gielnik et al, 2015, study 1). Such inconsistencies in how the Cardon et al (2013) measure has been used imply that it is difficult to ascertain the validity of the sub‐scales across different cultural contexts and the generalizability of findings from prior research, which may hamper the progress of research on entrepreneurial passion as a cumulative process (e.g., Block, 1995; Rauthmann, 2015; Roeser, Peck, & Nasir, 2006).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, whilst Kang et al (2016) found a strong relationship between passion for inventing and employees’ innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms, Cardon et al (2013) found a strong link between both passion for inventing and founding and entrepreneurs’ creative behavior. Drawing on social exchange and organizational justice theories, Shockley and Turner (2016) examined the link between the entrepreneurial passion of franchisees and the level of innovation in the franchises they owned. They found that entrepreneurial passion for inventing was strongly related to innovation, and that such a relationship was stronger when there were higher levels of distributive justice in the franchise relationship.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cardon et al (2013) found that passion for developing predicted entrepreneurs’ absorption in their business. Finally, Shockley and Turner (2016) found that entrepreneurial passion for inventing was positively related to franchisees’ long‐term orientation towards their franchise.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Entrepreneurial Passion: A Review, Synthesis, and Agenda for Future Research

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study undertakes a comprehensive and critical review of the body of empirical work on entrepreneurial passion. In particular, we document how the “first generation” of research on entrepreneurial passion and work passion in entrepreneurs has gained growing attention in various sub‐fields of entrepreneurship research including entrepreneurial management, psychology, and finance. We provide an overview over theories used, definitions and measurements adopted, research methods utilized (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative, survey‐based vs. experimental/intervention), the thematic focus of studies, and unit of investigation (e.g., individual vs. team). We not only flag the problems of inconsistencies and limitations with respect to theory use, the making of causal inferences, and the conceptualization and measurement of entrepreneurial passion in existing studies (e.g., jingle fallacies), but also review the antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial passion identified in prior work and work where it had been examined as a moderator. Following this, we offer a research agenda with concrete suggestions to act as a foundation for the “second generation” of entrepreneurial passion research that proactively addresses the issues and gaps identified in our review. Finally, we also highlight how insights from the entrepreneurial passion literature can inform scholarship on passion more broadly.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Entrepreneurial Passion: A Review, Synthesis, and Agenda for Future Research

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ensuring fair procedures and interactions and equitably distributed returns between buyer and supplier can achieve desirable outcomes and facilitate the types of activities that are critical for the ongoing and effective functioning of the relationship (Kumar et al 1995). Justice has, for example, been shown to enhance relationship quality (Muylle and Standaert 2016), satisfaction (Praxmarer-Carus et al 2013), commitment (Zaefarian et al 2016) trust (Hofer et al 2012), innovation (Shockley and Turner 2016), cooperation (Wagner et al 2011;Ling-yee 2010) and knowledge sharing (Liu et al 2012) in the relationship. However, the significance of justice in enhancing the implementation of SSSC practices and in driving suppliers to establish social sustainability has largely been unexplored in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) research to date.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing the Scales of Justice: Do Perceptions of Buyers’ Justice Drive Suppliers’ Social Performance?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major challenge for supply chain managers is how to manage sourcing relationships to ensure reliable and predictable actions of distant suppliers. The extant research into sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) has traditionally focused on the transactional and collaboration approaches through which buyers encourage suppliers to act responsibly. However, little effort has been devoted to investigating the factors that underpin and enable effective implementation of these two approaches, or to exploring alternative approaches to help sustain an acceptable level of social performance from suppliers. Building on organisational justice theory, we developed a framework in which we propose that buyers' justice (i.e. distributive, procedural and interactional) as perceived by suppliers can serve as an alternative and complementary vehicle to the conventional sustainability governance approaches for driving the social justice exhibited by suppliers. The paper sheds new light on an alternative relational approach to help to restrain potentially harmful acts of suppliers. It provides a foundation for new research avenues in the SSCM context and supports more informed decision making by practitioners.

show abstract

Passion at work: A meta‐analysis of individual work outcomes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic research on passion is much more complex than the extant literature or popular press portray. Although research on work-related passion has progressed rapidly over the last decade, much remains unknown. We are now just beginning to recognize the different theoretical underpinnings and empirical operationalizations that work passion research has adopted, and the confusion this has generated hampers our understanding of the construct and its relationship to workplace outcomes. Accordingly, we use a meta-analytic examination to study the work-related outcomes of three dominant literature streams of work passion: general passion, dualistic passion (i.e., harmonious passion and obsessive passion), and role-based passion (i.e., passion for developing, passion for founding, and passion for inventing). We employ meta-analytic techniques using random effects modeling summarizing 106 distinct samples across 87 manuscripts totaling 384 effect sizes (total unique N = 38,481; 43.54% women, average age is 38.04).Importantly, we highlight how each of the three streams of passion relates to various outcomes differently, illuminate several important heretofore undetected nuances in passion research, and provide a roadmap for future inquiry on passion at work. K E Y W O R D S dualistic model of passion, entrepreneurial passion, general work passion, meta-analysis, rolebased passion

show abstract

A relational performance model for developing innovation and long-term orientation in retail franchise organizations

Cited by 33 publications

References 78 publications

Entrepreneurial Passion: A Review, Synthesis, and Agenda for Future Research

Entrepreneurial Passion: A Review, Synthesis, and Agenda for Future Research

Balancing the Scales of Justice: Do Perceptions of Buyers’ Justice Drive Suppliers’ Social Performance?

Passion at work: A meta‐analysis of individual work outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About