Entrepreneurial orientation as a mediator of ADHD – Performance relationship: A staged quasi-replication study

Entrepreneurship as an auspicious context for mental health research

“…In one of the initial works to dive into how ADHD can relate to entrepreneurship, Wiklund et al (2016) provide important motivation for the continuation of research in this area. Building upon this work, Shirokova et al (2022) present evidence that ADHD can benefit entrepreneurial performance via a positive effect on a firm's entrepreneurial orientation. Conversely, Tucker et al (2021) find that ADHD is not universally beneficial for entrepreneurial self-efficacy or opportunity recognition, and the study by Vörös and Lukovszki (2021) indicates that ADHD could impair subjective income and health perceptions for entrepreneurs.…”

Is It Okay to Study Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) at the Individual Level? Yes!

“…Indeed, the classic upper-echelon case made in Hambrick and Mason (1984) articulates this clearly and overtly in their title ''the organization as a reflection of its top managers,'' implying that individuals are the central actors and architects of a firm. Simply put, researchers frequently integrate individuallevel variables and firm-level outcomes (e.g., Keil et al, 2017;Shirokova et al 2022). Consequently, a point of view that considers only firms without any explicit regard for the individuals within and around them seems unduly limited.…”

“…The conflation of firm and CEO-EO measurement means researchers cannot be clear what can be concluded about CEO-EO. Also, Shirokova et al (2022) recorded the ADHD symptoms in owners or top managers, and then recorded firm-level EO (using the M/CS scale, presumably with the same respondent) to moderate ADHD-firm performance relationship. ADHD would likely interact internally with Ind.EO influencing the dispositional values or the resulting cognitions and behaviors.…”

“…Multiple attempts have been made to extend the EO construct to individual entrepreneurs employing a variety of methodological approaches, including adapting the M/CS scale for entrepreneurs (e.g., Becherer & Maurer, 1997); creating new individual assessments of risk-taking, proactiveness, and innovation (e.g., Bolton & Lane, 2012); employing M/CS on a single top management team (TMT)-member respondent (e.g., Shirokova et al, 2022); generating surveys based on Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) five dimensions (e.g., Hughes & Morgan, 2007 2 ); developing entirely original conceptualizations of individual EO (e.g., Smart & Conant, 1994); and, most recently, embracing an upper-echelon perspective and suggesting firm EO and CEO’s Ind.EO are effectively equivalent (e.g., Keil et al, 2017). These attempts have been largely derided as “concept traveling” by some in the EO community (e.g., George & Marino, 2011).…”

“…Despite these influential critiques, the extent of interest, reflected by the prevalence of Ind.EO research in quality journals, is burgeoning (e.g., Keil et al, 2017; Kraus et al, 2019; Martins & Perez, 2020; Santos et al, 2020; Shirokova et al, 2022). Perhaps most telling, EO research has now reached a critical mass such that scholars from psychology (DeGennaro et al, 2016), education (Bolton & Lane, 2012), anthropology (Holmes et al, 2019), public policy (Meynhardt & Diefenbach, 2012), and elsewhere are also making valuable advancements to EO scholarship at the individual level.…”