@misc{MochkabadiKleinertUrbigetal., author = {Mochkabadi, Kazem and Kleinert, Simon and Urbig, Diemo and Volkmann, Christine}, title = {Turning extreme distinctiveness into an asset? How radically innovative ventures can achieve optimal distinctiveness in early-stage funding contexts}, series = {Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2022: Proceedings of the forty-second annual Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference}, journal = {Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2022: Proceedings of the forty-second annual Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference}, publisher = {Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship}, address = {Babson Park, Massachusetts}, isbn = {978-0-910897-00-6}, pages = {73 -- 78}, abstract = {This study relies on optimal distinctiveness theory to investigate how radically innovative ventures might attract funding. Conforming with existing norms can help new ventures gain legitimacy from resource providers, yet radically innovative ventures instead feature extreme distinctiveness. The results of three complementary empirical studies affirm that these radically innovative ventures suffer from reduced funding chances among equity crowdfunders. Contributing to optimal distinctiveness theory, the authors show that extremely distinctive ventures can shift to become optimally distinctive. Thus, radically innovative ventures can reverse the negative effect and avoid the downsides of non-conformity by leveraging external legitimacy sources, such as endorsements from alliance partners or professional investors. The optimal level of distinctiveness also varies by audience, such that radically innovative ventures' extreme distinctiveness evokes more negative judgments among equity crowdfunders who expect returns than among reward crowdfunders who seek novelty. Surprisingly though, without external legitimacy sources, radical innovativeness is never favored, even by novelty-seeking audiences. This fresh evidence that radical innovativeness constitutes both a liability and an asset, contingent on new ventures' external endorsements and audience expectations, points to important boundary conditions for optimal distinctiveness theory.}, 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} } @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 = {Journal of Business Venturing}, volume = {39}, journal = {Journal of Business Venturing}, number = {1}, issn = {0883-9026}, doi = {10.1016/j.jbusvent.2023.106340}, abstract = {We examine how external endorsements help new ventures with varying degrees of innovativeness to attract funding. According to optimal distinctiveness theory, new ventures should be as different from competitors as legitimately possible. However, initial research suggests that new ventures can also buffer their legitimacy through external endorsements. We clarify that effects of such legitimacy buffers depend critically on an audience's unique legitimacy-distinctiveness relationship. Specifically, external endorsements lead to different predictions about shifts in optimal distinctiveness for return-seeking audiences compared to novelty-seeking audiences as relevant new venture funders. For return-seeking audiences, new ventures are perceived as less legitimate when they are non-innovative or radically innovative so that incrementally innovative new ventures are most attractive without endorsements. External endorsements can thus buffer the legitimacy of non-innovative and radically innovative new ventures, but they lead to different performance implications for a return-seeking audience. While non-innovative new ventures increase their attractiveness, only radically innovative new ventures can become optimally distinctive and outperform other distinctiveness configurations. In contrast, novelty-seeking audiences already have a higher tolerance for radically innovative new ventures, so the effects of external endorsements are less pronounced. Four empirical studies, using observational data and experiments in equity and reward-based crowdfunding, provide strong support for this theory and account for alternative explanations such as risk perceptions. In turn, we shed new light on the crucial, audience-specific function of external endorsements, namely, as a means to alter optimal distinctiveness levels.}, language = {en} } @misc{GeenenMuehlfeldUrbig, author = {Geenen, Noreen Y. R. and M{\"u}hlfeld, Katrin and Urbig, Diemo}, title = {Foundations of innovativeness in the international arena: Foreign language use and creative performance}, series = {European Journal of International Management}, journal = {European Journal of International Management}, issn = {1751-6765}, doi = {10.1504/EJIM.2022.10045539}, abstract = {Individuals' creativity is a key resource underlying an organisation's innovativeness. With workplaces becoming increasingly multilingual, a question of growing relevance concerns whether using a native versus a foreign language affects individuals' creativity. This study integrates research on foreign language in international business and on determinants of individual creativity with cognitive psychological research. Experiments suggest a detrimental effect of foreign versus native language use on creative performance, which is stronger in verbal tasks. Subjectively perceived foreign language proficiency appears to mitigate this negative effect. In tasks framed in figural terms, foreign language use even seems to stimulate creativity compared with a native language setting. This finding implies a potential lever for organisations seeking to stimulate employees' creativity to deliberately use a foreign language context to encourage thinking outside the box, particularly when using nonverbal creativity tools. Important implications arise for future research and practice in international management and creativity and innovation management.}, language = {en} }