Author:
Shepherd Dean A.,Patzelt Holger
Abstract
AbstractDespite admonishments that anthropomorphizing represents a serious error in scientific thinking, we show that anthropomorphizing has been a critically important tool for developing influential theories in entrepreneurship. Analyzing the literatures related to an organization’s entrepreneurial orientationand organizational knowledge reveals how scholars build on their rich and highly accessible understanding of humans (i.e., the self and others) to (1) make guesses and sense of entrepreneurial anomalies at the organizational level, (2) articulate theoretical mechanisms to build more robust entrepreneurship theories, and (3) create plausible stories that facilitate sensegiving to editors, reviewers, and other audiences. However, anthropomorphizing does not always lead to such positive outcomes. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of the conditions under which entrepreneurship scholars’ anthropomorphizing will be more or less effective.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference126 articles.
1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40.
2. Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 468–479.
3. Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.
4. Aldrich, H. E., & Kenworthy, A. (1999). The accidental entrepreneur: Campbellian antinomies and organizational foundings. In J. A. C. Baum & W. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 19–33). Sage.
5. Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Houghton-Mifflin.