information from a new event, situation, or other change in the environment) fits closely to the existing framework, an individual might decide to further explore that idea as it has potential to be a real opportunity. The frameworks (see Table 5.1 for a full overview of the specific arguments) show that novice entrepreneurs tend to focus more on “newness” or “uniqueness” of business ideas in OI, while experienced entrepreneurs focus more on the actual process of starting and running a new business.
Although empirical research has provided insight into the cognitive expert frameworks of independent entrepreneurs, there is still a lack of clarity on intrapreneurial cognitions (Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007). As Corbett and Hmieleski (2007) argue, the cognitions of corporate entrepreneurs could differ from those of independent entrepreneurs, because their context is different. Corporate entrepreneurs work for an organisation with its own rules, regulations, culture, strategy, and structure. More specifically, large organisations generally have a more bureaucratic structure, while small ventures often have an organic structure (Garrett & van Holland, 2015). Similarly, corporate entrepreneurs are oriented towards existing markets, while independent entrepreneurs tend to focus on new markets. As such, employees willing to act entrepreneurial might face different challenges and might need to apply different strategies in order to realise innovations.
5.3.1 Team cognition in entrepreneurship
The importance of investigating team cognition in (corporate) entrepreneurship is repeatedly underlined in the literature. For instance, Klotz, Hmieleski, Bradley, and Busenitz (2013) reviewed the literature on new venture teams and state that new ventures are mostly founded by teams, instead of by solo entrepreneurs. Similarly, Shepherd and Krueger (2002) argue that in corporate entrepreneurship “teams are central to our understanding of what makes an organization entrepreneurial” (p. 167).
Grégoire and colleagues (2011) suggest that the cognitive perspective is not limited to the individual level of analysis – mental representations can also be a result of team or organisational efforts. As West (2007) argues, individuals and teams face similar processes and decisions in the entrepreneurial process. Both individuals and teams need information in order to make decisions, learn, develop a mental schema, and, eventually, refine it into an expert schema. Both individuals and teams use this schema to define next steps, and determine whether or not an opportunity is worth pursuing.
Despite these similarities, it is expected that collective cognition is significantly different from the simple sum of individual cognitions, because the process underlying the eventual collective map is different. Team members get the opportunity to discuss
5
and share information with each other (Shepherd & Krueger, 2002). As a result, team cognition might be more than the compilation of individual cognitions. However, how the cognitive frameworks of individuals and teams differ, remains unclear. Therefore, in the current study it is investigated whether or not and if so, how the cognitive OI frameworks of individual employees and teams differ. Additionally, as a way to interpret the cognitive OI frameworks of the employees, it is investigated to what extent these frameworks correspond with the OI framework of experienced, independent entrepreneurs.
5.4 Methods
For the current study, a performance assessment was applied to measure OI. Below, the participants and procedure are explained, followed by the measures and analyses.
5.4.1 Participants
Twelve SMEs (11 Dutch, one German) from the manufacturing industry voluntarily participated in the current study. The focus on the SME context was chosen because 9 out of 10 companies in the European Union (EU) is an SME (European Commission, 2015). Moreover, SMEs are considered the driving force behind economic growth and stimulate entrepreneurial thinking in the EU. The companies were active in the paper, agricultural, food, and metal industry and all introduced at least one new product, service or process on the market in the last three years (see Chapter 4 and Table 4.1 for a complete description and an overview of the participating companies). In sum, 225 participants, representing 51 teams, participated in a performance assessment. Because entrepreneurial challenges in existing SMEs involve a broad range of activities, for which employees fulfilling all kinds of roles and jobs are needed (Toner, 2011), a mix of employees was invited to participate in the study. As such, the educational background of the participants differed strongly, and so did the jobs they fulfilled at the moment of testing: some worked on the “shop floor” (e.g., in the greenhouse or with machines), others worked for departments such as human resources, marketing, sales, and still others were member of the top management teams of the companies. The majority of the participants was male (73.8%) and the mean age of the participants was 41 (SD=10 years), ranging from 21 to 60 years of age.
5.4.2 Procedure
Each company was personally invited to participate in the research project. The first author visited all companies to explain the procedure and expectations. In close
5
collaboration with the company, it was decided who was invited to participate in the performance assessment. At all companies a representative group of employees for the organisation was invited for participation. All data were collected by the first author. A maximum of 15 individuals participated in the testing at the same time. At the moment of data collection, the procedure was explained and the participants signed a declaration of consent stating (1) that their results would be processed confidentially and (2) that they gave permission for the use of their results for scientific purposes.
Next, the participants worked on an individual task for five minutes. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to teams, and worked on a group task for 10 minutes.
The size of the teams was four persons (30 teams) or five persons (21 teams). Finally, the participants completed a questionnaire. Together, the testing procedure (i.e., introduction, individual and group tasks, and questionnaire) took about three hours, as it was part of a larger research project. About two weeks later, the first author returned to the company to evaluate the data collection and discuss the results with the management and/or human resources. During this meeting, only mean scores were discussed, individual (confidential) results were not shared with any employees from the companies.
5.4.3 Measures
A performance assessment was used to investigate OI. The individuals got exactly the same assignment individually and as a team. Data on background variables, such as gender, age, job, and educational background, were collected with a questionnaire which was distributed after the participants completed the tasks.
An accepted way to measure expert scripts, is the use of a “script-scenario construction model” (Mitchell et al., 2000, p. 982). When experts face a task within their field of expertise and are asked to respond to a task by choosing the best out of different given options, they are expected to select those options that align with their script. The selection of the expert-specific options is an indicator for the existence of an expert script. Accordingly, the frameworks of Baron and Ensley (2006) offer insight into the typical script of a novice and the typical script of an experienced entrepreneur, as they include different arguments that novice and experienced entrepreneurs use when identifying business opportunities. Hence, the task was designed based on the arguments derived from these frameworks. First, the individual-level task was designed and tested in a pilot among 115 master’s students at a Dutch university in the life sciences domain. Secondly, the task was tested on the individual and group level in an innovative SME among 29 employees. Based on the pilots among the students and