Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When members of entrepreneurial teams differ: linking diversity in individual-level entrepreneurial orientation to team performance

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While prior research has focused on differences in entrepreneurial orientation between organizations, we direct attention to differences in entrepreneurial orientation within organizations. We propose that individual members in entrepreneurial teams may differ in their dispositions to act in entrepreneurial ways, that is, in their individual entrepreneurial orientation (iEO) and that these differences have meaningful implications for team performance. Drawing upon research in team diversity and entrepreneurial orientation, we argue that the three iEO diversity dimensions—proactiveness, risk taking, and innovativeness diversity—affect team outcomes in different ways, although they belong to the same diversity type and even belong to a common superordinate construct. Empirical data gathered in 104 dyadic entrepreneurial teams supports our theory: Diversity in proactiveness within a team impairs team performance. Risk-taking diversity also harms team performance by heightening relationship conflict. However, innovativeness diversity facilitates team performance. The present study contributes to two streams of research, namely, entrepreneurial team research and research on entrepreneurial orientation and is of practical significance to entrepreneurial team formation and performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Following insightful reviewer comments, we conducted two additional checks to evaluate the robustness of our findings (all detailed analyses available upon request from the authors). First, we conducted a series of three increasingly rigorous tests for common method variance (see Podsakoff et al. 2003). Neither Harman’s single-factor test nor single-factor versus multifactor confirmatory factor analyses indicated common method bias would pose a serious threat to our data. In addition, we used a split sample approach as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003) and recently applied by Klein et al. (2011) in which we used the responses from one randomly selected team member to capture relationship conflict and the responses from the other team member to capture team performance. The hypothesized effects remained the same, reinforcing that method-related effects did not bias our results. Second, we reran the analyses while splitting team performance into effectiveness and efficiency in order to examine whether our diversity variables affected both facets in comparable ways. All hypothesized effects reported above were successfully replicated for both outcomes.

References

  • Amason, A. C., Shrader, R. C., & Tompson, G. H. (2006). Newness and novelty: relating top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1), 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., & Edwards, B. D. (2007). A longitudinal examination of the comparative criterion-related validity of additive and referent-shift consensus operationalizations of team efficacy. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, H. J. (2008). The influence of personality differences between subordinates and supervisors on perceptions of LMX an empirical investigation. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 216–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J., Sandner, P., & Spiegel, F. (2015). How do risk attitudes differ within the group of entrepreneurs? The role of motivation and procedural utility. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, C., & Hendriks, W. (2009). Top management team diversity and firm performance: moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity. Management Science, 55(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresman, H. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: a multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21(1), 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttner, E. H., & Gryskiewicz, N. (1993). Entrepreneurs’ problem-solving styles: an empirical study using the Kirton adaption/innovation theory. Journal of Small Business Management, 31(1), 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury, S. (2005). Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: is it important? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 727–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A. J., & Timmermans, B. (2014). Two’s company: composition, structure and performance of entrepreneurial pairs. European Management Review, 11(2), 117–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 855–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International entrepreneurial orientation: conceptual considerations, research themes, measurement issues, and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 11–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Heeley, M. B. (2000). Pioneers and followers: competitive tactics, environment, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34, 42–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, J. P., Parker, S. K., Wennekers, S., & Wu, C. (2015). Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations: does job design matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 981–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, B. D., Day, E. A., Arthur Jr., W., & Bell, S. T. (2006). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 727–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438–1446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D. M., Bell, S. T., Dierdorff, E. C., & Belohlav, J. A. (2012). Facet personality and surface-level diversity as team mental model antecedents: implications for implicit coordination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 825–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florin, J., Karri, R., & Rossiter, N. (2007). Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: an attitudinal approach. Journal of Management Education, 31(1), 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foo, M. (2011). Teams developing business ideas: how member characteristics and conflict affect member-rated team effectiveness. Small Business Economics, 36, 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foo, M., Wong, P. K., & Ong, A. (2005). Do others think you have a viable business idea? Team diversity and judges’ evaluation of ideas in a business plan competition. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 385–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friar, J. H., & Meyer, M. H. (2003). Entrepreneurship and start-ups in the Boston region: factors differentiating high-growth ventures from micro-ventures. Small Business Economics, 21(2), 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glomb, T. M., & Welsh, E. T. (2005). Can opposites attract? Personality heterogeneity in supervisor-subordinate dyads as a predictor of subordinate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 749–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillaume, Y. R., Brodbeck, F. C., & Riketta, M. (2012). Surface-and deep-level dissimilarity effects on social integration and individual effectiveness related outcomes in work groups: a meta-analytic integration. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 80–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, V. K., & Gupta, A. (2015). The concept of entrepreneurial orientation. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 55–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. C. (1988). Involvement as a predictor of performance in I/S planning and design. Center for Information Systems Research Working Paper #175, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

  • Henderson, J. C., & Lee, S. (1992). Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective. Management Science, 38(6), 757–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, S. K. (2005). The compositional impact of team diversity on performance: theoretical considerations. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, J. S. C., & Hung, Y. W. (2013). Exploring the interaction effects of social capital. Information & Management, 50(7), 415–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: the effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, U., & Müller, B. (2015). Skill heterogeneity in startups and its development over time. Small Business Economics, 45, 787–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, T., Maula, M., & Syrigos, E. (2015). CEO entrepreneurial orientation, entrenchment, and firm value creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi:10.1111/etap.12213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khedhaouria, A., Gurau, C., & Torrès, O. (2015). Creativity, self-efficacy, and small-firm performance: the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Small Business Economics, 44, 485–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, M. J. (1980). Adaptors and innovators in organizations. Human Relations, 33(4), 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, M. J. (1984). Adaptors and innovators—why new initiatives get blocked. Long Range Planning, 17(2), 137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, M. J. (2003). Adaption-innovation: in the context of diversity and change. Routledge, London, UK.

  • Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L. (2011). When team members’ values differ: the moderating role of team leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, A. C., & Neubaum, D. O. (2015). Research on the dark side of personality traits in entrepreneurship: observations from an organizational behavior perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi:10.1111/etap.12214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams a review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmann, T., & Stöckmann, C. (2014). Filling the entrepreneurial orientation–performance gap: the mediating effects of exploratory and exploitative innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1001–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, S. I., Frese, M., Friedrich, C., & Unger, J. M. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation: a psychological model of success among Southern African small business owners. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 315–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Weaver, K. M. (2013). Disaggregating entrepreneurial orientation: the non-linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking on SME performance. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 273–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 524–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. Y. C., Chen, H. G., Chen, C. C., & Sheu, T. S. (2011). Relationships among interpersonal conflict, requirements uncertainty, and software project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 547–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomberg, C., Urbig, D., Stöckmann, C., Marino, L., & Dickson, P. H. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation: the dimensions’ shared effects in explaining firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi:10.1111/etap.12237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: a reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. C., Burke, L. M., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives: implications for strategic decision processes. Strategic Management Journal, 19(1), 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 740–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudd, S. (1996). Kirton’s A–I theory: evidence bearing on the style/level and factor composition issues. British Journal of Psychology, 87(2), 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, J. W., & Forlani, D. (2005). Missing the boat or sinking the boat: a study of new venture decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2013). Cultural diversity and team performance: the role of team member goal orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 782–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. G., & Lee, J. (2014). Knowledge sharing in information systems development projects: explicating the role of dependence and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 32(1), 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: a meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raver, J. L., Ehrhart, M. G., & Chadwick, I. C. (2012). The emergence of team helping norms: foundations within members’ attributes and behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 616–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1120–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schepers, J., Voordeckers, W., Steijvers, T., & Laveren, E. (2014). The entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in private family firms: the moderating role of socioemotional wealth. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffens, P., Terjesen, S., & Davidsson, P. (2012). Birds of a feather get lost together: new venture team composition and performance. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 727–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. (2003). Entrepreneurial founder teams: factors associated with member entry and exit. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utsch, A., Rauch, A., Rothfuss, R., & Frese, M. (1999). Who becomes a small scale entrepreneur in a post-socialist environment: on the differences between entrepreneurs and managers in East Germany. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(3), 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, E., & Van Knippenberg, D. (1996). Buying and selling exchange goods: loss aversion and the endowment effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(4), 517–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W. P., & Homan, A. C. (2013). Diversity mindsets and the performance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderheyden, K., & De Baets, S. (2015). Does cognitive style diversity affect performance in dyadic student teams? Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales, W. J. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation: a review and synthesis of promising research directions. International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., & Mousa, F. (2011a). Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: an assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 895–923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wales, W., Monsen, E., & McKelvie, A. (2011b). The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 895–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, K. M., Dickson, P. H., Gibson, B., & Turner, A. (2002). Being uncertain: the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and environmental uncertainty. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 10(2), 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 91–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wincent, J., Thorgren, S., & Anokhin, S. (2014). Entrepreneurial orientation and network board diversity in network organizations. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. F., & Stone, E. R. (1992). The risk construct. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior (pp. 1–25). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi, X. & Wang, S. (2015). Revisiting the curvilinear relation between job insecurity and work withdrawal: the moderating role of achievement orientation and risk aversion. Human Resource Management. doi:10.1002/hrm.21638.

  • Zahra, S. A. (1993). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: a critique and extension. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaleskiewicz, T. (2001). Beyond risk seeking and risk aversion: personality and the dual nature of economic risk taking. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: the mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Business Administration, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitaetsstr. 9, 45141, Essen, Germany

    Tobias Kollmann, Christoph Stöckmann, Yvonne Meves & Julia M. Kensbock

Authors
  1. Tobias Kollmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Stöckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yvonne Meves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julia M. Kensbock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia M. Kensbock.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Meves, Y. et al. When members of entrepreneurial teams differ: linking diversity in individual-level entrepreneurial orientation to team performance. Small Bus Econ 48, 843–859 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9818-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9818-6

Keywords

JEL classifications

Search

Navigation