Advertisement

Cognitive Determinants of Entrepreneurial Leadership

  • Ananya RajagopalEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
  • 608 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter discusses cognitive determinants of entrepreneurial leadership in reference to epistemological evolution of qualitative research. Qualitative information analysis has been carried out using in-depth interviews and analyzing their content. The content analysis leads to validating predetermined research propositions, which reveals that employee openness and organizational flexibility are the key contributors in improving the performance of start-up enterprises (SUEs) in competitive marketplace. The analysis of qualitative information suggests that employee commitment, implementing innovative utilitarian ideas, and effective team culture helps start-up enterprises improve market competitiveness and organizational performance of SUEs. Co-created innovations have the possibility of aggressive expansion with the scope of grabbing high market share in potential markets rather than being confined to niche market with unbranded innovations. This chapter reveals that collective decision-making is a better approach as compared to a leader-driven, top-down decision-making practice.

Keywords

Qualitative analysis Employee openness Decision-making Market competitiveness Organizational performance Team culture Leadership 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ali, A. J., Lee, M., Hsieh, Y. C., & Krishnan, K. (2005). Individualism and collectivism in Taiwan. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 12(4), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almatrooshi, B., Singh, S. K., & Farouk, S. (2016). Determinants of organizational performance: A proposed framework. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6), 844–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamkin, M., Maynard, S., & Goulding, A. (2016). Grounded theory and ethnography combined: A methodology to study children’s interactions on children’s mobile libraries. Journal of Documentation, 72(2), 214–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bangwal, D., & Tiwari, P. (2019). Workplace environment, employee satisfaction, and intent to stay. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(1), 268–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cannon, W. B. (1927). The James-Lange theory of emotions: A critical examination and an alternative theory. American Journal of Psychology, 39(1–4), 106–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cash, P. J. (2018). Developing theory-driven design research. Design Studies, 56(1), 84–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahmani, S., Boucher, X., Pellion, S., & Vesombes, B. (2016). A reliability diagnosis to support servitization decision-making process. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27(4), 502–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foss, R. A. (2016). A self-organizing network model for decision making by the honey bee swarm. Kybernetes, 45(3), 358–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halaweh, M. (2012). Using grounded theory as a method for system requirements analysis. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 9(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Knapp, M. S. (2017). The practice of designing qualitative research on educational leadership: Notes for emerging scholars and practitioner-scholars. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 12(1), 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kumar, S., & Goyal, N. (2016). Evidence on rationality and behavioral biases in investment decision making. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 8(4), 270–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Magids, S., Zorfas, A., & Leemon, D. (2015). The new science of customer emotions. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Marci, D. M., Tagliaventi, M. R., & Bertolotti, F. (2002). A grounded theory for resistance to change in small organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., & Mudd, B. (2017). A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: A new national index from 56-country study. Cross-Culture and Strategic Management, 24(3), 386–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miocevic, D., & Morgan, R. E. (2018). Operational capabilities and entrepreneurial opportunities in emerging market firms: Explaining, exporting SME growth. International Marketing Review, 35(2), 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morgan, D. E., & Zaffane, R. (2003). Individualism in organizations: Does employment contract innovation make a difference? Employee Relations, 25(6), 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1975). Determinants of supervisory behavior: A role set analysis. Human Relations, 28, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rajagopal. (2017). Innovative business projects: Breaking complexities, building performance (Fundamentals and project environment, Vol. 1). New York: Business Expert Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rajagopal. (2018). Consumer behavior theories: Convergence of divergent perspectives with applications to marketing and management. New York: Business Expert Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rajagopal. (2019). Qualitative marketing research: Understanding how behavioral complexities drive marketing strategies. New York: Business Expert Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rajagopal, & Rajagopal, A. (2008). Team performance and control process in sales organizations. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 14(1–2), 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Randal, W. S., & Mello, J. E. (2012). Grounded theory: An inductive method for supply chain research. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 42(8/9), 863–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rips, L. J. (2002). Circular reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26(6), 767–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rivera, M. J. (2017). Leveraging innovation and intrapreneurship as a source for organizational growth. International Journal of Innovation Science, 9(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roman, D. J., Osinski, M., & Erdmann, R. H. (2017). The construction process of grounded theory in administration. Contaduria y Administracion, 62(3), 985–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Russell-Rose, T., Chamberlain, J., & Azzopardi, L. (2018). Information retrieval in the workplace: A comparison of professional search practices. Information Processing & Management, 54(6), 1042–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwab, L., Gold, S., Kunz, N., & Reiner, G. (2017). Sustainable business growth: Exploring operations decision-making. Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(1), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sebastian, V. (2014). Neuromarketing and evaluation of cognitive and emotional responses of consumers to marketing stimuli. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 753–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Segne, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Szyjewska-Bagin´ska, J., & Szyjewski, Z. (2018). Selected problems of contemporary research on behavior. Procedia Computer Science, 126, 1748–1757.Google Scholar
  32. Tse, H. H. M. (2014). Linking leader-member exchange differentiation to work-team performance. Leadership and Organizational Development, 35(8), 710–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Administrative SciencesEGADE Business School, Tecnológico de Monterrey (ITESM)MexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options