@misc{ZambranoCurcioUrbigBoenteetal., author = {Zambrano-Curcio, Andr{\´e}s Felipe and Urbig, Diemo and B{\"o}nte, Werner and Schmutzler, Jana}, title = {At the Risk of Loss: Experimental Evidence on the Discriminant Validity of Self-Reported Measures of Risk Preferences}, series = {SSRN eLibrary}, journal = {SSRN eLibrary}, issn = {1556-5068}, doi = {10.2139/ssrn.4371973}, pages = {1 -- 39}, abstract = {In recent years, there has been increasing use of experimentally validated self-reported items to measure individuals' risk preferences, specifically risk aversion. While previous research supports their convergent validity, we argue that self-reported risk preference measures capture a broad spectrum of additional constructs involved in risky decision-making, notably including loss aversion as a potential confound. In broader applications, such as observational studies, associations with other constructs enhance a measurement's ability to predict risk-taking behaviors across diverse natural environments, often arising from the interplay of different constructs better captured by comprehensive self-reported measures than by narrower, construct-specific incentivized measures. Conversely, in focused tests where each construct has unique behavioral implications, using broad self-reported measures as a replacement for construct-specific incentivized measurements can result in significant endogeneity issues. By analyzing three samples from two independent studies, we demonstrate that even after accounting for incentivized risk preference measures that remove latent construct associations and focus on measurement-related confounds, self-reported risk preferences maintain a substantial association with incentivized loss aversion measures, indicating that the measurement captures a mixture of both risk and loss aversion. We also observe that the strength of associations depends on whether individuals interpret risk-taking as accepting higher variances or higher losses. Based on this finding, we propose a simple procedure that utilizes this individual heterogeneity in the confounding effect's strength to enhance the robustness of conclusions drawn from analyses of self-reported risk preference measures}, language = {en} } @misc{KappeUrbigLengsfeld, author = {Kappe, Karina and Urbig, Diemo and Lengsfeld, Stephan}, title = {Not my business! The role of organizational culture in supporting employees with side businesses}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {Organizations can benefit from their employees doing entrepreneurial side hustles through, e.g., empowerment or innovativeness, but do employers, as the most critical stakeholder for hybrid entrepreneurs, perceive and positively react to entrepreneurial side hustles? Research on the active role of the parental organization in the emergence and operation of entrepreneurial side activities is currently missing. Drawing on a large dataset with 855 managers, we explore the heterogeneity of organizations in responding to such employees. We place the organizational culture of the employers in the spotlight and examine its impact on managerial perceptions and their behavior in this context. We show that organizational characteristics such as flexibility or an internal focus lead to positive expectations of side hustles and claim that recognition is a relevant prerequisite to exploit arising opportunities or mitigate threats effectively. We fur-thermore show that next to indirect effects through outcome expectations, cultural characteris-tics also drive behavioral responses directly. For instance, focusing on flexibility leads to sup-portive behavior, while a strong focus on internal or external factors of an organization impedes supportive organizational behavior. We contribute to research on the emerging phenomenon of side hustles and push theory by revealing employer characteristics that lead to a more or less conducive environment for this type of entrepreneurs.}, language = {en} } @misc{RoederUrbigStoeckmannetal., author = {R{\"o}der, Martin and Urbig, Diemo and St{\"o}ckmann, Christoph and B{\"o}nte, Werner and Procher, Vivien D.}, title = {There's no fox like an old fox: Dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation and venture closure}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {Only a few scholars examined downsides of EO and suggest it may negatively affect survival. Previous research, which mainly focuses on mature companies, assumes that the relationship between EO and survival is constant. However, because firm characteristics and causal mechanisms change as young venture survive and grow into mature firms, the relationships between EO and survival could also change over time. We extend the EO literature by considering changing EO effects when venture grow into mature firms and by employing a multidimensional view on EO and identify isolating independent mechanisms for the influence of each dimension (i.e. innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking) on the survival of young ventures. While the nature of proactiveness on performance is rathe positive, risk-taking and innovativeness increases the variance of firm performance and thus the chances of failure. However, the latter can be separated according to whether the increase in variance occurs at a single point in time (risk-taking) or over time (innovation) and whether the survivors have more money or more innovations. For young firms, innovativeness and risk-taking inhibit survival, while proactiveness promotes it, so the dimensions have divergent effects. As a consequence of the attrition of young ventures, the associations of innovativeness and risk-taking reverse when they grow older. Our empirical analyses are based on panel data of 8,518 young firms.}, language = {en} } @misc{StoeckmannKensbockUrbig, author = {St{\"o}ckmann, Christoph and Kensbock, Julia and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {Synthesizing a new conceptual and empirical understanding of ambidexterity and its effects on firm performance}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {Ambidexterity is a wide-established and popular construct that promises to combine two seemingly opposing strategic actions—exploration and exploitation—for higher firm performance. Nevertheless, the (apparently peaceful) coexistence of two different conceptions of ambidexterity hampers a unified theoretical and empirical understanding in the field. This study introduces a new conceptual framework to study ambidexterity and its effects on firm performance. We propose that firms need to overcome two distinct types of trade-off—a trade-off in effects and a trade-off in implementing exploration and exploitation. If firms manage to be ambidextrous in effects and ambidextrous in implementing, they will achieve what we consider a higher-order synergetic ambidexterity. In addition to our theoretical framework, we provide an empirical illustration based on a commonality analysis. Our findings demonstrate how (a) independent effects of exploration and exploitation, (b) interaction effects of exploration and exploitation (representing ambidexterity in effects), and (c) shared effects of exploration and exploitation (representing ambidexterity in implementing) separately and jointly contribute to higher firm performance. We find that the highest effect on firm performance can be observed when firms are both ambidextrous in effects and ambidextrous in implementing.}, language = {en} } @misc{HermannsUrbigBlocketal., author = {Hermanns, Thomas and Urbig, Diemo and Block, J{\"o}rn and M{\"u}hlfeld, Katrin}, title = {Economic adjustment strategies of self-employed individuals during essential crises: The case of complementary paid jobs}, series = {39th EGOS Colloquium. Organizing for the good life: Between legacy and imagination, University of Cagliari July 6-8, 2023, Cagliari, Italy}, journal = {39th EGOS Colloquium. Organizing for the good life: Between legacy and imagination, University of Cagliari July 6-8, 2023, Cagliari, Italy}, abstract = {Research on entrepreneurs combining their own start-ups with wage work—often referred to as hybrid or part-time entrepreneurship—has primarily focused on employees (temporarily) retaining their wage jobs while (gradually) transitioning into entrepreneurship. During crises, however, entrepreneurs seeking to ensure survival of their existing ventures may strive to supplement self-employment with entry into wage jobs. Specifically, we hypothesize that such crisis-coping may facilitate venture survival through two separate pathways, an income-portfolio-driven one and one geared towards business model testing. The latter effect is contingent upon the degree of uncertainty regarding the business model change. We test these hypotheses empirically against the backdrop of the Covid-19 crisis using a sample of more than 10.000 German self-employed individuals. The results largely support our hypotheses and overall offer interesting implications for both future research as well as policymakers seeking to support small businesses during crisis periods.}, language = {en} } @misc{KleinUrbig, author = {Klein, Sarah and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {Should I stay or should I go? Die Rolle von Hoffnung in Jobwechseldynamiken}, series = {Krisen meistern, Ressourcen aufbauen, Nachhaltigkeit st{\"a}rken. Abstracts zur 26. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft f{\"u}r angewandte Wirtschaftspsychologie (GWPs)}, journal = {Krisen meistern, Ressourcen aufbauen, Nachhaltigkeit st{\"a}rken. Abstracts zur 26. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft f{\"u}r angewandte Wirtschaftspsychologie (GWPs)}, editor = {Sachse, Katharina and Kurzenh{\"a}user-Carstens, Stephanie}, publisher = {Pabst Science Publishers}, address = {Lengerich/Westfalen}, isbn = {978-3-95853-834-4}, pages = {S. 33}, abstract = {Theoretischer Hintergrund: Hoffnung wirkt als motivationaler Mechanismus auf Handlungsintentionen in Krisensituationen und Situationen unter Unsicherheit (Krafft \& Walker, 2018). Obwohl sich Hoffnung in den vergangenen Jahren als wichtige psychologische Ressource f{\"u}r pers{\"o}nliche Leistung und Zielerreichung in der Forschung etabliert hat, gibt es wenige Studien zum Einfluss auf berufsbezogene Entscheidungen. Diese zeigen jedoch Beziehungen zu wichtigen berufsbezogenen Variablen wie Jobzufriedenheit und Jobwechselabsicht (Reichard et al., 2013). Fragestellung/Hypothesen: {\"U}ber bekannte Effekte hinaus untersucht diese Studie den Einfluss von dispositioneller Hoffnung auf Jobwechseldynamiken. Wir betrachten Hoffnung als kontextunspezifischen, mehrdimensionalen Faktor, bestehend aus internaler selbstbezogener Hoffnung (Snyder, 2002) und ex ternaler Hoffnung auf einflussreiche Dritte sowie Zufall oder Schicksal (Bernardo, 2010). Wir hypothetisieren, dass insbesondere internale Hoffnung Jobwechselprozesse beeinflusst und den negativen Zusammenhang von Jobzufriedenheit und Jobwechselabsicht verst{\"a}rkend moderiert. Methodik/Ergebnisse: Die Hypothesen werden mittels Regressionsanalysen an einer Stichprobe von N=826 Berufst{\"a}tigen gepr{\"u}ft. Internale Hoffnung korreliert negativ mit aktuellen Jobwechselabsichten, unter Kontrolle f{\"u}r Jobzufriedenheit wird dieser Zusammenhang positiv. Wir best{\"a}tigen den verst{\"a}rkenden Effekt internaler Hoffnung auf den negativen Zusammenhang von Jobzufriedenheit und Jobwechselabsicht. Die Effekte sind robust, wenn f{\"u}r dispositionellen Optimismus als Alternativerkl{\"a}rung kontrolliert wird. Internale Hoffnung ist zudem positiv mit fr{\"u}heren Jobwechseln sowie aktueller Jobzufriedenheit assoziiert. Diskussion/Implikationen: Unsere Studie leistet einen Beitrag zur Hoffnungsforschung im betrieblichen Kontext und belegt den Einfluss von Hoffnung auf Jobwechselprozesse. Eine divergente Wirkung von Hoffnung wird durch die Verst{\"a}rkung von Jobwechselabsichten unter Jobunzufriedenheit gezeigt, bei gleichzeitiger Assoziation mit Jobzufriedenheit. Hoffnung sollte als personalpsychologischer Wirkmechanismus st{\"a}rker in den Mittelpunkt innerbetrieblicher Maßnahmen ger{\"u}ckt werden, um diesen gezielt im Personalmanagement einzusetzen.}, language = {en} } @misc{UrbigDostGeiger, author = {Urbig, Diemo and Dost, Florian and Geiger, Ingmar}, title = {Entrepreneurs misdiagnosing their ventures' innovativeness: The roles of causation and effectuation}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {This text discusses the concept of misdiagnosis in entrepreneurial ventures, where managers' unrealistic optimism can lead to misaligned strategies and late pivots. The study explores the connection between misdiagnosis and decision logics (effectuation and causation) through motivated reasoning and beliefs. The researchers conducted a study with 266 ventures from innovative industries and measured misdiagnosis by comparing managers' judgments with external experts' assessments of venture innovativeness. The results show that causation logic positively influences misdiagnosis, but this effect is reduced when coupled with flexibility. The study highlights the importance of objective performance measures and suggests that motivated reasoning and beliefs explain the link between causation logic and misdiagnosis. Additionally, older and larger ventures with a prevalence of causation logic may experience more misdiagnosis and potential delays in innovation efforts. Flexibility is crucial for older ventures to remain innovative.}, language = {en} } @misc{MochkabadiKleinertUrbigetal., author = {Mochkabadi, Kazem and Kleinert, Simon and Urbig, Diemo and Volkmann, Christine}, title = {From distinctiveness to optimal distinctiveness: External endorsements, innovativeness and new venture funding}, series = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, journal = {26th Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs, 2023}, abstract = {To maximize their performance, new ventures should be optimally distinctive, that is, as differentiated from competitors as is legitimately possible. External endorsements, through affiliations with reputable third-parties, might alter the level of optimal distinctiveness for new ventures among different resource-providing audiences. To develop and test this prediction, the authors study new ventures with varying degrees of innovativeness that seek funding from return- and novelty-seeking resource providers. The former expect some distinctiveness but reject too little or too much (e.g., non- or radically innovative new ventures). External endorsements can buffer the legitimacy of these non-innovative and radically innovative ventures, but they lead to different performance implications. For non-innovative ventures, external endorsements function as a shield against low legitimacy, so they are less penalized for their lack of novelty. For radically innovative ventures, external endorsements function as a performance booster; they can become even optimally distinctive and outperform other distinctiveness configurations. In contrast, novelty-seeking audiences already have a higher tolerance for more innovative new ventures, so these effects are less pronounced among these resource providers. Four empirical studies, using observational data and experiments in equity and reward-based crowdfunding, provide strong support for this theory and account for several alternative explanations. In turn, this study sheds new light on the crucial, audience-specific function of external endorsements, namely, as a means to alter optimal distinctiveness levels.}, language = {en} } @misc{HofmockelProcherUrbigetal., author = {Hofmockel, Alexandra S. and Procher, Vivien D. and Urbig, Diemo and Gottschalk, Sandra}, title = {Heterogeneity among hybrid entrepreneurs: Motives and performance}, series = {Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings}, volume = {2023}, journal = {Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings}, number = {1}, issn = {0065-0668}, doi = {10.5465/AMPROC.2023.13956abstract}, abstract = {We draw on a variety of research areas that explain why individuals combine paid employment and self-employment. We provide a comprehensive empirical comparison of the relevance and co-occurrence of multiple motives. Our analysis shows that motives can be meaningfully distinguished according to whether a motive is endogenously transitory or not, and suggests the presence of three dominant classes of hybrid entrepreneurs. In particular, learning and growth constraints, which we refer to as transitory motives resolving over time, play a crucial role in distinguishing between the three classes. Based on an analysis of 3,868 hybrid and pure entrepreneurs, we show that our typology helps better understand the potentially heterogeneous relationships between being a hybrid entrepreneur and entrepreneurial performance and innovation behavior.}, language = {en} } @misc{KleinUrbig, author = {Klein, Sarah and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {The motivational effects of hope on effort: Hope for success with or without effort}, series = {Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings}, volume = {2023}, journal = {Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings}, number = {1}, publisher = {Academy of Management}, issn = {2151-6561}, doi = {10.5465/AMPROC.2023.15106abstract}, abstract = {Existing research focuses on hope as a motivational driver for personal effort. We argue that hope can facilitate individuals' decisions for and against effort, depending on specific conditions. Based on a vignette study with 350 subjects, we test this suggestion with a scenario where a person decides for or against an effortful training that experts consider appropriate for that person, presuming that one could hope for success based on training but also for success without training. We find that hope can leverage individuals' decisions to engage in and avoid effortful behavior. Moreover, ambiguity in a behavioral outcome strengthens the effect of hope on the likelihood of choosing the corresponding behavior. Separating internal from a more general kind of hope, we find that hope for success by training is mainly driven by internal hope but hope without training relates less to internal hope. Carefully separating the effects of hope from the effects of optimism, our study highlights the relevance of hope beyond optimism.}, language = {en} } @misc{HuberDreberHuberetal., author = {Huber, Christoph and Dreber, Anna and Huber, J{\"u}rgen and Johannesson, Magnus and Kirchler, Michael and Weitzel, Utz and Abell{\´a}n, Miguel and Adayeva, Xeniya and Ay, Fehime Ceren and Barron, Kai and Berry, Zachariah and B{\"o}nte, Werner and Br{\"u}tt, Katharina and Bulutay, Muhammed and Campos-Mercade, Pol and Cardella, Eric and Claassen, Maria Almudena and Cornelissen, Gert and Dawson, Ian G. J. and Delnoij, Joyce and Demiral, Elif E. and Dimant, Eugen and Doerflinger, Johannes Theodor and Dold, Malte and Emery, C{\´e}cile and Fiala, Lenka and Fiedler, Susann and Freddi, Eleonora and Fries, Tilman and Gasiorowska, Agata and Glogowsky, Ulrich and Gorny, Paul Matthias and Gretton, Jeremy David and Grohmann, Antonia and Hafenbr{\"a}dl, Sebastian and Handgraaf, Michel and Hanoch, Yaniv and Hart, Einav and Hennig, Max and Hudja, Stanton and H{\"u}tter, Mandy and Hyndman, Kyle and Ioannidis, Konstantinos and Isler, Ozan and Jeworrek, Sabrina and Jolles, Daniel and Juanchich, Marie and Raghabendra, Pratap K.C. and Khadjavi, Menusch and Kugler, Tamar and Li, Shuwen and Lucas, Brian and Mak, Vincent and Mechtel, Mario and Merkle, Christoph and Meyers, Ethan Andrew and Mollerstrom, Johanna and Nesterov, Alexander and Neyse, Levent and Nieken, Petra and Nussberger, Anne-Marie and Palumbo, Helena and Peters, Kim and Pirrone, Angelo and Qin, Xiangdong and Rahal, Rima Maria and Rau, Holger and Rincke, Johannes and Ronzani, Piero and Roth, Yefim and Saral, Ali Seyhun and Schmitz, Jan and Schneider, Florian and Schram, Arthur and Schudy, Simeon and Schweitzer, Maurice E. and Schwieren, Christiane and Scopelliti, Irene and Sirota, Miroslav and Sonnemans, Joep and Soraperra, Ivan and Spantig, Lisa and Steimanis, Ivo and Steinmetz, Janina and Suetens, Sigrid and Theodoropoulou, Andriana and Urbig, Diemo and Vorlaufer, Tobias and Waibel, Joschka and Woods, Daniel and Yakobi, Ofir and Yilmaz, Onurcan and Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz and Zeisberger, Stefan and Holzmeister, Felix}, title = {Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs}, series = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, volume = {120}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, number = {23}, issn = {0027-8424}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.2215572120}, abstract = {Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity—variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity—estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs—indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.}, language = {en} }