Abstract
Temporality is a focal point in this work in gaining insight into the interplay with entrepreneurial cognitive processes and senior managers’ perception and has been largely ignored in entrepreneurial studies (Aldrich 2009; Miller and Sardais 2015). Decision making is regarding as an ongoing process, subjected to changes over time, and the empirical data and analysis presented here reflects its dynamic and ongoing nature. To explore what happens in the interactive decision-making process, Stage I, II, and III data as well as email data between the entrepreneur and senior managers was captured and the frequency of quarterly interviews recorded over a period of 12 months. Email data recorded the interaction as it was happening in real time, and through revisiting cognitive maps with each interview the chronological order of growth issue in the business, the changes and interrelatedness were monitored and assessed. This chapter presents the issues related to the entrepreneur’s cognitive duality and the interaction with the senior manager who perceives the temporal aspects and dualities differently. Some of these differences are due to imprinting based on the entrepreneur’s background and experience and can be seen to affect the entrepreneur-senior manager interrelationship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aldrich, H. E. (2009). Lost in space, out of time: Why and how we should study organizations comparatively. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 26, 21–44.
Churchill, N. C., & Lewis, V. L. (1983). Growing concerns – Five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30–50.
Greiner, L. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37–46.
Levie, J., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2010). A terminal assessment of stages theory: Introducing a dynamic state approach to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 317–350.
Miller, D., & Sardais, C. (2015). Bifurcating time: How entrepreneurs reconcile the paradoxical demands of the job. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 39(3), 489–512.
Mitchell, J. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of opportunity and entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 138–154.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2001). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SME’s. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 44–457.
Roe, R. A. (2008). Time in applied psycholgoy: The study of “what happens?” rather than “what is?”. European Psychologist, 13(1), 37–52.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Waller, M.J., Roe, R.A., Gevers, J.M.P., & Raes, A.M.L. (2005). Team effectiveness in dynamic settings: A bifurcation model. Workshop “Human in command – Military command team effectiveness: Research, models, and instruments.” NATO RTO HFM Panel Task Group 023 on Team Effectiveness, Soesterberg.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Taylor, L. (2017). Temporality and the Significance of Entrepreneurial Age 4200. In: The Entrepreneurial Paradox. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56949-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56949-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-56948-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-56949-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)