When the Quest for the Best Pays Off: How Maximising Entrepreneurs Improve Performance by Creating Entrepreneurial and Market Oriented Businesses

Abstract

New research in the behavioural sciences has identified that some individuals consistently strive to make the best choice through extensive information search (maximisers), while others are inclined to select options that are good enough (satisficers). The purpose of this study is to investigate how these decision-making styles impact the entrepreneurial process. It is predicted that maximising entrepreneurs will perform better in their entrepreneurial ventures than satisficing entrepreneurs. In order to achieve improved outcomes, it is expected that maximisers will apply their preference for information search to develop more entrepreneurially oriented and market-oriented businesses. Data gathered from a sample of 172 entrepreneurs in the United States indicate that entrepreneurs who maximise outperformed their satisficing counterparts. This relationship was mediated by both entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation, suggesting that maximising entrepreneurs are more likely than satisficers to adopt innovative and market driven approaches to improve entrepreneurial performance.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial performance entrepreneurial orientation market orientation maximising satisficing decision-making styles

Entrepreneurship is vital to economic growth as new products, services and business methods replace older and less productive ones (Schumpeter, 2000). The process of bringing new products and services to market requires a variety of knowledge, skills and abilities that allow entrepreneurs to overcome obstacles and make effective decisions despite operating in resource and information constrained environments. Given the importance of entrepreneurial activity in the economy, researchers have identified general trends in personality traits that influence entrepreneurial behaviour and performance. For example, entrepreneurs are innovative, proactive and resourceful (Dai et al., 2014; Michaelis et al., 2020), they are hardworking and goal oriented (Audia & Rider, 2005) and believe that their actions shape business outcomes (Asante & Affum-Osei, 2019). Entrepreneurial researchers have a long history of identifying individual characteristics that are linked to entrepreneurial behaviours (Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006; Rauch & Frese, 2000; for review, see Zhao et al., 2010) and new venture performance (see Begley & Boyd 1987; Collins et al., 2004; Rauch & Frese, 2007; Stewart & Roth, 2001; Zhao & Seibert, 2006 for review).

Another promising area of research has focuses on entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and market orientation (MO) as predictors of new venture success. EO has been characterised by a firm’s leanings toward innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness (Miller, 1983; Morris & Paul, 1987). Firms with an EO increase performance through innovation and by outmanoeuvring competitors in dynamic environments (McGee & Peterson, 2019). MO has been defined as ‘the organization-wide generation of market intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs, dissemination of the intelligence across departments, and organization wide responsiveness to it’ (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990, p. 6). This construct corresponds to a firm’s customer focus, which allows it to meet specific needs through the process of customer and competitive intelligence. Research has shown strong support for the relationship between MO and new venture performance (Baker & Sinkula, 2009; Matsuno et al., 2002; for review, see Montiel-Campos, 2018 ).

Given that entrepreneurs need to make accurate decisions in uncertain environments, it is not surprising that decision-making is a central topic in entrepreneurial research (for review, see Shepherd et al., 2015). At its most basic form, decision-making involves ‘selecting among possible actions’ (Gilhooly, 1988, p. 132). With his theories of bounded rationality, Simon (1955) proposed that individuals satisfice because they are limited in their ability to evaluate all possible outcomes in complex environments. In this early definition, satisficing was framed as a cognitive limitation that caused individuals to seek out satisfactory solutions rather than optimal ones. Recently, a team of researchers have reconceptualised the concept of maximising and satisficing as a measurable trait (Schwartz et al., 2002). Their research identifies that some individuals consistently strive to make the best choice through extensive information search (maximisers), while others are inclined to select options that are good enough (satisficers). These differences impact decision-making in a variety of everyday life applications. For example, the often-dreaded movie search on Netflix may be a dramatically different experience for maximisers than for satisficers. A maximiser would be more likely to browse many different titles to find the best, perhaps even looking at external sites for additional information. A satisficer, on the other hand, would be inclined to select the first movie that meets their minimum criteria, possibly landing on the one recommended by the search engine. Since the introduction of these different search strategies related to decision goals, researchers have found that maximising or satisficing decision-making styles impact a variety of personal and organisational outcomes (see Highhouse et al., 2008; Lai, 2010; Misuraca et al., 2015; for review, see Schwartz, 2016; Schwartz et al., 2002).

Although researchers have begun to understand how these differences impact work-related behaviours in organisational settings, there is little known about how these decision-making strategies influence entrepreneurs as they build new ventures. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to investigate how the decision-making styles of entrepreneurs who maximise or satisfice impact the performance of new ventures. The study also explores the mediating roles of EO and MO in this process. Specifically, it is predicted that entrepreneurs who maximise will outperform those who satisfice in their new ventures. Underlying this process, it is anticipated that maximisers will use their information search preferences to create more entrepreneurially oriented and market-oriented businesses, which will enhance their performance in competitive environments. The next section develops a theoretical basis for the research model, which is tested with a sample of 172 entrepreneurs in the United States. Findings of the study reveal several theoretical and practical implications that may improve our understanding of what makes entrepreneurs successful.

The Successful Entrepreneur

‘Entrepreneurship, in its narrowest sense, involves capturing ideas, converting them into products and, or services and then building a venture to take the product to market’ (Johnson, 2001, p. 138). The process of building a venture to launch new products or services requires many different roles and responsibilities. For example, entrepreneurs identify opportunities that can be exploited. They often work harder than others and are confident in their ability to make things happen; and they are required to make critical strategic decisions while facing resource constraints in uncertain environments. There is a long track record of researchers identifying traits that are best suited to carrying out the difficult task of entrepreneurship.

Early work recognised that entrepreneurs display greater need for achievement than managers, which allows them to handle the difficulties associated with building a business (McClelland, 1965). Along with an achievement motive, entrepreneurs must take responsibility for their actions and feel that they can make a difference in results by applying an internal locus of control (Begley & Boyd, 1987; Mueller & Thomas, 2001). Successful entrepreneurs are proactive and take initiative to shape their environment (Frese & Fay, 2001); however, they prefer to not jump into things blindly as they actively seek out new information to keep themselves informed of changes in the market (Keh et al., 2007). A longitudinal study found that entrepreneurs who set goals, communicated their vision and had confidence in their abilities were able to grow their business much faster over a six-year period than those who did not (Baum & Locke, 2004). Given the complexities of running a business, entrepreneurs must have a well-rounded skillset to navigate various tasks and unanticipated challenges (Shane, 2003).

A meta-analysis of 116 entrepreneurship studies identified personality traits that were significantly related to both business creation and success (Rauch & Frese, 2007). Their analysis found that traits matching the specific tasks that entrepreneurs carry out were most predictive of success, including need for achievement, innovativeness, proactive personality and generalised self-efficacy. Another meta-analysis focusing on the Big Five personality traits, found that openness to experience and conscientiousness were most predictive of entrepreneurial performance (Zhao et al., 2010). Interestingly, the authors found that risk propensity was only moderately related to entrepreneurial intentions and had no correlation to performance. This may help to explain some of the discrepancies in other research on risk propensity. Although some studies have found that entrepreneurs have a greater appetite for risk (Stuart & Roth, 2001), others have found that entrepreneurs avoid risks and prefer to make calculated moves based on their ability to analyse the environment (Miner & Raju, 2004; Xu & Ruef, 2004). In either case, the ability to gather and process information is essential to effectively de-risking business decisions.

One way that entrepreneurs understand their competitive environment is through market research. MO involves the systematic gathering, processing and dissemination of information about current and prospective customers (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). Market intelligence is critical for both strategy formulation and tactical implementation of operational plans to meet customer needs. This market-driven approach allows organisations to offer superior value to customers and has been identified in the literature as an important driver of entrepreneurial success (Grinstein, 2008). For example, MO has been linked to the success of new product innovations (Boso, Cadogan et al., 2013; Frishammar & Ake Horte, 2007; Hong et al., 2013) and overall profitability of entrepreneurial firms (Baker & Sinkula, 2009; González-Benito et al., 2009; Slater & Narver, 2000).

EO has been defined as ‘a behavior that involves a firm’s style of making decisions and the practices it adopts to differentiate itself from competitors’ (Montiel-Campos, 2018, p. 292). Covin and Slevin (1991) describe three dimensions of EO—proactiveness, innovativeness and risk taking, which provide organisations with operational flexibility to meet changing market demands. Later, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) expanded EO to include competitive aggressiveness and autonomy. Through the creation of flexible operating processes and procedures, firms with an EO can better anticipate and react to new market opportunities, leading to superior performance in a variety of settings (Rauch et al., 2009; Wales et al., 2013).

EO and MO often work together synergistically because firms with flexible processes and procedures (EO) can react quicker to new market information discovered through market analysis (MO) (Montiel-Campos, 2018; Slater & Narver, 1994). Many studies have supported the complementary effects of EO and MO in enhancing entrepreneurial performance (Atuahene-Gima & Ko, 2001; Boso, Story et al., 2013; Li et al., 2008; Montiel-Campos, 2018; Todorovic & Ma, 2008). The reasoning for these performance gains is that the effective collection and use of market information allows firms to target their innovative actions in a way that meets specific customer needs. Other researchers have focused on identifying characteristics of the entrepreneur that are linked to EO and MO. For example, Di Zhang and Bruining (2011) found that entrepreneurs who have greater need for achievement, an internal locus of control and need for cognition are more likely to develop EO and MO businesses, which subsequently led to superior performance. They note that ‘When entrepreneurs believe we will have the best products and services, they combine both market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation to gain intimate understanding of what their customers want and need, and provide their customers with the best products and services through creativity and innovation’ (Di Zhang & Bruining, 2011, p. 94).

Maximising, Satisficing and Entrepreneurial Performance

Maximisers not only want to choose the best, they want to be the best (Weaver et al., 2015). Their greater need for achievement encourages them to overcome obstacles and resolve problems to accomplish something that they value as flawlessly as possible (Peng et al., 2018). However, their perfectionist tendencies sometimes leave them with feelings of regret as they believe they may have missed out on unexplored, but potentially better options (Iyengar et al., 2006; Schwartz et al., 2002). A study of the career search process found that maximisers looked for more job opportunities than satisficers by analysing both realised and unrealised career possibilities (Iyengar et al., 2006). Their efforts paid off by landing jobs with 20% higher starting salaries on average. Interestingly, even though their jobs were objectively better, they felt worse about their positions because they believed that they may have missed out on even better prospects (Iyengar et al., 2006). This post-decision dissonance often causes maximisers to be less satisfied with their choices than satisficers (Schwartz et al., 2002; Sparks et al., 2012).

Despite maximisers being less happy with their selections, it appears that they may achieve objectively better outcomes as a result of their extensive search. In their pursuit of the best, maximisers apply more time and effort than satisficers in the decision-making process (Polman, 2010; Schwartz et al., 2002). Their determination includes considering larger option sets (Chowdhury et al., 2009; Dar-Nimrod et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2013), engaging in more comparisons of options (Schwartz, 2016; Cheek & Ward, 2019) and evaluating greater consequences of each alternative, both positive and negative (Polman, 2010). As a result of their forward-thinking mindset (Misuraca et al., 2016), maximising entrepreneurs may be better at anticipating problems and building positive relationships with employees to tackle challenges. In a study of a group of managers, it was found that those who maximise (vs. satisfice) exhibited superior managerial effectiveness (Soltwisch & Krahnke, 2017). Interestingly, this relationship was mediated by an internal locus of control, suggesting that maximising managers tend to apply a belief that they can shape outcomes as they lead their work units. Similarly, executives who maximise (vs. satisfice) report putting in more time and energy to optimise outcomes for their company (Lai, 2010).

Entrepreneurs rely on conceptual skills to understand how various parts of the business fit together and how they interact with environmental factors. This wholistic approach requires being knowledgeable in many different domains. Entrepreneurs must make decisions that satisfy the overall business goals by understanding trade-offs between departmental units. Maximisers’ aptitude for reasoning through decision trade-offs (Misuraca et al., 2016) may encourage them to make compromises that satisfy overall business objectives. As leaders, maximisers (vs. satisficers) may also play a critical role as devil’s advocate since they are more likely to engage in counterfactual thinking (Leach & Patall, 2013). The literature on maximising and satisficing has revealed other positive leadership traits associated with maximising including need for cognition, optimism, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation and desire for consistency (Lai, 2010). The desire for more information and the aptitude to evaluate that information may allow entrepreneurs who maximise to take a wholistic approach to managing their business by understanding how different parts of the organisation fit together to meet long-term objectives. Among entrepreneurs, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation have been linked to superior performance (Hmieleski & Corbett, 2008; McGee & Peterson, 2019), suggesting that maximisers may similarly apply their greater self-confidence when carrying out essential entrepreneurial tasks.

In addition to understanding the innerworkings of the business, entrepreneurs must be alert to external changes and new opportunities. Kirzner (1979) described entrepreneurial alertness as a distinct set of cognitive processing skills that allows individuals to recognise opportunities that may go unnoticed by others. Researchers have identified that various personality traits make entrepreneurs more alert to opportunities, including need for cognition (Ko, 2012), belief in decision-making abilities (Krueger & Dickson, 1994), creativity and proactive personality (Hu et al., 2018). Maximisers persistent search for more information to find the best (Schwartz et al., 2002) may encourage them to look outside their business to identify profitable business opportunities. For example, a study of the job search process found that maximisers (vs. satisficers) sought out more external sources of information to locate additional opportunities, resulting in landing jobs that paid 20% more on average (Iyengar et al., 2006). Due to their persistent drive for information to find the best option, maximisers may be more proactive in recognising and capitalising on profitable business opportunities in their environment.

Implementation of business ideas is arguably the most challenging aspect of launching a new venture, as entrepreneurs navigate difficult strategic decisions with limited information. Careful planning reduces the failure rate in new businesses by accelerating organising activities and new product developments (Delmar & Shane, 2003). Entrepreneurs face many obstacles early on and must overcome challenges to launch new products and services in competitive markets. To be successful, they must be persistent in pursuing their goals despite potential setbacks. Researchers have found that having a strong commitment to the goal of business creation (start-up motivation) and self-confidence in one’s ability to launch the new venture (self-efficacy) are important traits for successfully launching a new business (Hopp & Stephan, 2012).

In their persistent goal to be the best, maximisers report working harder and having greater intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in work settings (Lai, 2010). It is likely that they would apply these same high standards to entrepreneurial ventures. Maximisers are achievement oriented and believe that their actions impact outcomes (Peng et al., 2018), suggesting that they may put forth greater effort to achieve their goals. Based on the previous discussion, it is predicted that entrepreneurs who apply a maximising decision-making style will outperform those who satisfice.

H₁: Maximising entrepreneurs will have superior entrepreneurial performance than satisficing entrepreneurs.

The Role of EO and MO

EO involves a willingness to be proactive, innovative, and risk taking in seeking out self-directed actions to capitalising on opportunities (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). Businesses with an EO can differentiate themselves from competitors by exploiting new market opportunities, increasing their survival prospects and performance (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005; Zahra & Garvis, 2000). EO has been correlated with various entrepreneurial traits and tends to be a mediating factor in predicting performance. For example, Palmer et al. (2019) found that self-confident and assertive entrepreneurs are more likely to create EO firms, which leads to superior market performance. The authors note that the combination of individual characteristics (self-confidence and assertiveness) together with EO is highly predictive of new venture success (Palmer et al., 2019). In a study of 2,200 start-up companies in Canada, it was found that need for achievement, internality of control and need for cognition were positively related to both EO and MO, which mediated the relationship with firm performance. The authors note, ‘By carefully developing appropriate strategic orientations for their company, entrepreneurs and their senior management teams have found effective ways of utilizing their personal contribution to create a sustainable competitive advantage for the firm’ (Di Zhang & Bruining, 2011, p. 94).

Maximisers attempt to optimise outcomes for themselves and others, and will put forth greater effort than satisficers to do so (Luan et al., 2018). In addition to wanting objectively better outcomes, they are more concerned with their relative standing (Weaver et al., 2015) and affected by social comparisons, especially with those who are doing better (Polman, 2010). This focus on being the best among others may encourage maximisers to adopt innovate systems and processes within their businesses to outmanoeuvre competitors. Maximisers carefully evaluate and reconsider options to meet their decision goals (Hughes & Scholer, 2017) and prefer to have the flexibility to change their minds after deciding on a course of action (Shiner, 2015). Their forward-thinking mindset and ability to evaluate trade-offs (Misuraca et al., 2016), may encourage them to be proactive in anticipating and reacting to changes in their competitive environment. For these reasons, it is predicted that maximisers will adopt an EO in their decision-making processes and business practices, which will assist them in achieving superior performance.

H₂: Maximising entrepreneurs are more likely than satisficing entrepreneurs to adopt an EO to achieve superior performance.

MO is typically measured by whether a firm uses market intelligence as a basis for strategic decision-making (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Slater & Narver, 1995). A strong MO prioritises acquiring information in three main areas: (1) customers (i.e., satisfaction, preferences and perceptions); (2) factors that influence customers (i.e., economic conditions, sociocultural issues and competitive environment); and (3) issues that may affect the firm’s ability to meet customer needs (i.e., political and regulatory changes, technology). To produce products and services that are well received in the market, entrepreneurs should have an in-depth understanding of customers’ requirements and preferences. As a result of this, entrepreneurial research has paid considerable attention to the role of MO in enhancing new venture performance (Crittenden et al., 2011; Gruber-Muecke & Hofer, 2015; Lekmat et al., 2018). This market-driven approach allows firms to capture greater value by producing products and services that are appealing to customers.

Companies with leaders who emphasise MO tend to generate and disseminate greater amounts of market intelligence, leading to superior responsiveness and business performance (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kirca et al., 2005). Similarly, a meta-analysis found that MO leaders are associated with more customer focused businesses that have superior innovativeness, customer loyalty and overall quality (Kirca et al., 2005). With the goal of increasing customer satisfaction and company performance, these leaders emphasise the importance of being responsive to customer needs throughout the organisation. Leaders who also have an EO may be more likely to focus on responsiveness through customer intelligence (MO) because they are looking to differentiate their business by proactively identifying and exploiting market opportunities (Dess et al., 1997; Knight, 2000). Other entrepreneurial traits have been linked to MO such as need for achievement, internal locus of control and need for cognition (Di Zhang & Bruining, 2011).

As they attempt to find the best, maximisers spend more time and effort than satisficers in the information search process. In doing so, they consider more options (Chowdhury et al., 2009), engage in more comparisons of alternatives (Schwartz et al., 2002) and identify more positive and negative consequences of each course of action (Polman, 2010). Individuals who maximise tend to meticulously scan through as much information as possible before selecting (Schwartz et al., 2002). For example, maximising consumers are more likely to purchase products with additional features as they perceive added utility from having more options (Brannon & Soltwisch, 2017). Maximisers will go the extra mile to obtain more option. In fact, one study found that maximisers are willing to drive greater distances to ice cream parlours with 200 flavours rather than 20, because they prefer to have more options available (Dar-Nimrod et al., 2009). In addition to searching through more possibilities to find the best for themselves, maximisers put forth greater effort to optimise outcomes for others and will advise them to search for better options for themselves (Luan et al., 2018). For example, when purchasing a gift for others, maximisers spend more time and effort to browse for the best gift, and will even exchange the gift at the last minute if they think a better one is available (Chowdhury et al., 2009).

Maximisers have a clear idea of what their goals are and use tenacity and persistence to meticulously process large amounts of information to achieve them (Misuraca et al., 2015). They are more future-oriented, aware of decision trade-offs (Misuraca et al., 2015) and willing to engage in counterfactual thinking to produce multiple arguments to inform their decision-making (Leach & Patall, 2013). Their achievement orientation (Lai, 2010) may encourage maximisers to strive for the best customer service possible. In order to accomplish this, they may rely on their preference for information to better understand customer needs through market research. Therefore, it is predicted that maximisers will adopt a MO to assist them in achieving superior performance.

H₃: Maximising entrepreneurs are more likely than satisficing entrepreneurs to adopt MO to achieve superior performance.

EO involves a proactive decision-making style that allow firms to develop systems and processes to differentiate themselves from competitors. Inevitably, this strategic flexibility requires market research to inform the decision-making process, and is the reason why researchers have consistently found strong correlations between the EO and MO, even though they are distinct constructs (Hult & Ketchen, 2001; Roskos & Klandt, 2007; Slater & Narver, 2000; Smart & Conant, 1994). ‘The underlying theme of this relationship is that EO provides an environment that motivates creativity and innovativeness of organisational members, whereas MO provides the tools and procedures necessary to foster and maintain such a culture’ (Kwak et al., 2013, p. 153). As a result of their complementary nature, a meta-analysis found that most studies contained both EO and MO as sequential mediators in models predicting performance, with EO being an antecedent to MO in the majority (Montiel-Campos, 2018). In line with this research stream, it is predicted that EO and MO will be positively related.

H₄: Entrepreneurial orientation will be positively related to market orientation.

The mediating hypotheses above (H₂ and H₃) suggest that maximisers may be more likely than satisficers to adopt EO and MO businesses in order to achieve superior performance, suggesting that EO and MO may mediate the relationship between maximising decision-making style and performance. Based on this discussion, the research model is shown in Figure 1.

Study and Measures

A Qualtrics panel study was hired to recruit 172 business founders in the United States (51% female, average age = 40.8 years). Participants responded to a survey that included previously validated measures that were assessed on a 7-point Likert type scale. EO was measured with a scale developed and validated by Hughes and Morgan (2007). The scale indicates a company’s overall EO based on five dimensions: innovativeness, autonomy, risk-taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness (Cronbach’s α = 0.92 in this study). Following Covin and Wales (2012), EO represents a first-order reflective construct in this study. Examples of items include: ‘Our business emphasizes both exploration and experimentation of opportunities’ and ‘We actively introduce improvements and innovations in our business’.

The Deshpandé and Farley (1998) market orientation (MORTN) scale was used to measure MO (Cronbach’s α = 0.92 in this study), which contains 10 items that focus on a firm’s commitment to customer satisfaction through market intelligence. Of the established MO scales, the MORTN measure (Deshpandé & Farley, 1998) is considered as the most powerful (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). Samples of items from the scale include: ‘We continually monitor customers and competitors to find new ways to improve customer satisfaction’, ‘Our strategy for competitive advantage is based on our understanding of customers’ needs’ and ‘Data on customer satisfaction are disseminated at all levels in this business on a regular basis’.

To measure firm performance, a scale developed by Shan et al. (2016) was used to account for six categories of performance outcomes: return on investment, meeting objectives, profitability, sales growth relative to competitors, market share gain relative to competitors and net profits relative to competitors (Cronbach’s α = 0.89 in this study). Finally, the 9-item maximising tendency scale (Highhouse et al., 2008; Cronbach’s α = 0.89) was completed to measure the independent variable of maximising or satisficing. Some examples of the maximising tendency scale items include: ‘I am a maximiser’; ‘My decisions are well thought through’; and ‘I never settle’.

Firm size and age may affect firm performance (Baum et al., 2001), and therefore were controlled for in this study. Firm size was measured by the number of employees and age was assessed by the number of years the firm had been in business. As more experienced entrepreneurs may have an advantage in achieving superior performance (Hisrich, 1990; Poon et al., 2006), entrepreneurial experience was controlled for by having respondents report on how many years of entrepreneurial experience they had. In addition, industry variation was controlled for as a dummy variable based on the Standard Industry Classification coding system. See Table 1 above showing correlations among study variables.

Table 1.

Correlations Among Variables

		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	Firm Perform	4.57	1.23
2	Market orient	5.11	1.22	.51**
3	Ent. orient	5.02	1.07	.45**	.72**
4	Maximising	5.12	1.25	.46**	.64**	.64**
5	Employees	14.13	31.8	–.01	–.09	–.16*	–.24**
6	Years in business	10.23	9.85	.1	.06	.02	.08	.13
7	Ent. experience	12.31	11.46	.01	.11	.12	.16*	–.07	.63**
8	Industry	7.72	3.06	–.03	.01	–.06	.09	–.20**	.02	.03

Source: The authors.

Notes: Ent.: Entrepreneurial.

N = 172.

*p < .05; **p < .01. Bold characters indicate significant correlations.

Results

To recap the predictions, it was posited that maximising entrepreneurs will outperform satisficing entrepreneurs, and that this relationship will be mediated by EO and MO. To test the relationship between maximising and entrepreneurial performance, entrepreneurial performance was regressed on participants’ maximisation scores. Consistent with H₁, results indicate that maximising (vs. satisficing) was significantly related to better entrepreneurial performance even with the controls included (b = 0.48 t(166) = 6.89, p < .01). Maximisation was also a significant predictor of EO (b = 0.55 t(166) = 10.45, p < .01) and MO (b = 0.64 t(166) = 10.6, p < .01).

H₂–H₄ were tested using sequential mediation of EO and MO with model 6 of the bootstrapping process described by Hayes and Preacher (2014) with 5,000 samples. The control variables were included in the model as covariates. See Figure 2 and Table 2 above displaying the mediation model and regression results respectively.

Table 2.

Regression Results of Maximisation on Dependent and Mediating Variables

	Firm Performance		Market Orientation		Entrepreneurial Orientation
	β	t	β	t	β	t
Employees	0.01	0.86	0.02	0.99	0.01	–0.22
Years in business	0.02	1.73	–0.01	–0.2	–0.01	–1.06
Entrepreneurial experience	–0.02	–1.74	0.01	0.27	0.01	0.99
Industry	–0.02	–0.81	–0.02	–0.65	0.04*	–2.07
Maximisation	0.48**	6.89	0.64**	10.6	0.55**	10.45
Model R²	0.24		0.42		0.43
Adjusted R²	0.21		0.39		0.41
Model F	10.3		23.54		24.74

Source: The authors.

Notes: N=172.

*p < .05; **p < .01. Bold characters indicate significant correlations.

The first path (a1) of H₂ with the mediation of EO indicated that maximisation was significantly related to EO (b = 0.54, t(166) = 10.45, p < .01). The second path (b1) indicated that EO was not significantly related to performance (b = 0.13, t(164) = 1.16, p > .05). Thus, EO did not fully mediate the relationship with firm performance (b = 0.05, CI_95% [–0.07, 0.23]), indicating only partial support for H₂. H₃ tested the mediation of MO in the relationship between maximising and firm performance. The first path (a2) found that maximisation was significantly related to MO (b = 0.31, t(165) = 4.61, p < .01). The second path (b2) found that MO was significantly related to firm performance (b = 0.30 t(164) = 2.96, p < .01). The bootstrapping results indicate that MO fully mediates the relationship between maximising and firm performance (b = 0.06, CI_95% exclusive of 0 [0.02, 0.19]), supporting H₃. In addition, EO was significantly related to MO (b = 0.61 t(165) = 8.08, p < .01), supporting H₄. Finally, the sequential mediation of the maximising > EO > MO > firm performance path was supported (b = 0.07, CI_95% exclusive of 0 [0.03, 0.20]), indicating that EO and MO together fully mediate the relationship between maximising and firm performance.

Discussion

Entrepreneurs face many challenging decisions as they attempt to grow their businesses. As a result of this, a substantial amount of research has focused on the decision-making process to identify what makes entrepreneurs more successful (for review, see Shepherd et al., 2015). The findings of this study enhance this research stream by recognising that fundamental differences in thinking styles related to how entrepreneurs approach decisions—whether they search extensively to find the best (maximising) or are satisfied with options that meet their minimum requirements (satisficing)—may impact their performance as they pursue entrepreneurial ventures. Specifically, this study found that entrepreneurs who maximise their decision-making efforts outperformed those who satisfice, and that this relationship was mediated by an entrepreneurial and MO.

Overall, entrepreneurs are less successful when entering unfamiliar fields (Cooper et al., 1994). This is due in large part to the substantial learning curve and lack of information to make knowledgeable decisions. It appears that those who search extensively for information (maximisers) may have an advantage in navigating these new business environments by moving up the learning curve faster. There may be several mechanisms underlying this advantage. For example, maximisers’ preference for more information may provide them with the benefit of identifying more profitable business opportunities and resource partners. Their foresight may allow them to identify critical market changes and potential constraints that could negatively impact the business as it grows. It is possible that they spend more time researching industry reports and analysing benchmarks to acquire best practices. In addition to the benefits of information, it is likely that maximisers’ commitment to optimal outcomes may encourage them to put forth greater effort toward achieving their entrepreneurial goals. It may be fruitful for researchers to explore the specific processes used by maximisers or satisficers as they make strategic decisions using case studies or longitudinal designs.

This study provides a first look at how maximisers or satisficers approach entrepreneurial ventures by identifying that maximisers are more likely than satisficers to develop entrepreneurial and market-oriented business to achieve superior performance. With EO and MO being well established constructs in the entrepreneurship literature (Montiel-Campos, 2018), this study identifies that those who pursue a maximising decision-making strategy are more likely than those who satisfice to incorporate entrepreneurial and market-based principles into their business operations. As maximisers want to be the best among their peer groups (Polman, 2010; Weaver et al., 2015), it is not surprising that they adopt innovative systems and processes to outmanoeuvre competitors. As leaders, their forward-thinking mindset and ability to evaluate trade-offs (Misuraca et al., 2016), may foster a proactive culture that is conducive to change. In line with work suggesting that maximisers will push others to optimise outcomes, it appears that maximisers may encourage an organisation-wide commitment to innovation and learning as they build new ventures.

Innovative firms engage in new explorations by experimenting and supporting new ideas to fulfil customer needs. These efforts often result in new or improved products, services or technological processes that provide firms with a first mover advantage (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Firms that focus exclusively on marketing aspects may miss innovative opportunities, because customers cannot always articulate future wants and desires; and thus, these firms should also incorporate an EO to insure they are proactive in meeting customers’ evolving needs (Li et al., 2008). For this reason, there has been growing interests in studying the complementary effects of EO and MO on firm performance (Montiel-Campos, 2018). In this study, EO and MO together fully mediate the relationship between maximisation and firm performance, suggesting that maximising entrepreneurs may benefit from having systems and processes that incorporate new market information into the innovative process.

Although the EO-performance link has been well established (see Rauch et al., 2009 for review), other studies have found that the effects of EO tend to become insignificant when MO is also entered into the model (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). Similarly, this study found a significant positive relationship for the direct effect of EO on performance (b = .32 t(166) = 6.69, p < .01); however, the effects of EO on performance became insignificant when MO was also added to the model as a mediator (b = 0.13 t(166) = 1.16, p > .05), providing further evidence for the complementary nature of these constructs. Although this was a surprising result, it stands to reason that innovative actions may be fruitless without accurate information to discern if they will add value in the market.

This study indicates that EO is positively related to MO, which is consistent with other empirical research connecting these constructs (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). Although EO and MO are theoretically unique, the common theme among them is a focus on organisational learning. Given maximisers’ fondness for information to find the best, it is not surprising that they would orient their entrepreneurial ventures in a way that promotes continuously learning. It would be interesting to investigate how maximisers may integrate information within their organisations to create performance gains. Perhaps they emphasise systems and processes to track innovation related data to help them learn more about how new products or services are working out in the market. Another interesting opportunity for future research could be to investigate how these decision-making styles impact group decision-making in entrepreneurial teams. It is plausible that maximising and satisficing decision-making styles are complimentary in some respects. Satisficers may be able to push a project along if maximisers take too long to evaluate information.

With the goal of exploring the role of maximising or satisficing in entrepreneurial decision-making, this study makes several contributions to theory and practice. There is a long history of research focused on matching personality traits to the difficult tasks of entrepreneurship (for review, see Rauch & Frese, 2007). As a relatively new area of study, maximising or satisficing appears to play an important role in the entrepreneurial process. Logically, this connection makes sense given the characteristics shared by both successful entrepreneurs and maximisers (i.e., proactiveness, resourceful, forward-thinking, hardworking and goal orientation). The maximising or satisficing construct could be included in future research models to gain a better understanding of what makes entrepreneurs successful. The findings of this study may help educators to prepare the entrepreneurs of tomorrow. For example, future entrepreneurs could take the maximisation inventory to recognise how their decision-making style may impact the way they approach new venture decisions. Great entrepreneurs have the capacity to alter the way we live and work. Their innovations improve our daily lives and contribute to economic vitality. Undoubtedly, researchers can build on the findings of this study to advance our understanding of what makes entrepreneurs successful.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Asante

E. A.

, & Affum-Osei

(2019). Entrepreneurship as a career choice: The impact of locus of control on aspiring entrepreneurs’ opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Research, 98, 227–235.

Atuahene-Gima

, & Ko

(2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization Science, 12(1), 54–74.

Audia

P. G.

, & Rider

C. I.

(2005). A garage and an idea: What more does an entrepreneur need? California Management Review, 48(1), 6–28.

Baker

W. E.

, & Sinkula

J. M.

(2009). The complementary effects of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4), 443–464.

Baum

J. R.

, & Locke

E. A.

(2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587.

Baum

J. R.

, Locke

E. A.

, & Smith

K. G.

(2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303.

Begley

T. M.

, & Boyd

D. P.

(1987). Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 79–93.

Boso

, Cadogan

J. W.

, & Story

V. M.

(2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation as drivers of product innovation success: A study of exporters from a developing economy. International Small Business Journal, 31(1), 57–81.

Boso

, Story

V. M.

, & Cadogan

J. W.

(2013). Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: Study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 708–727.

10.

Brannon

D. C.

, & Soltwisch

B. W.

(2017). If it has lots of bells and whistles, it must be the best: How maximizers and satisficers evaluate feature-rich versus feature-poor products. Marketing Letters, 28(4), 651–662.

11.

Cheek

N. N.

, & Ward

(2019). When choice is a double-edged sword: Understanding maximizers’ paradoxical experiences with choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 55–61.

12.

Chowdhury

T. G.

, Ratneshwar

, & Mohanty

(2009). The time-harried shopper: Exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers. Marketing Letters, 20(2), 155–167.

13.

Collins

C. J.

, Hanges

P. J.

, & Locke

E. A.

(2004). The relationship of achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17(1), 95–117.

14.

Cooper

A. C.

, Gimeno-Gascon

F. J.

, & Woo

C. Y.

(1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.

15.

Covin

J. G.

, & Slevin

D. P.

(1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–26.

16.

Covin

J. G.

, & Wales

W. J.

(2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 677–702.

17.

Crittenden

V. L.

, Crittenden

W. F.

, Ferrell

L. K.

, Ferrell

O. C.

, & Pinney

C. C.

(2011). Market-oriented sustainability: A conceptual framework and propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 71–85.

18.

Dai

, Maksimov

, Gilbert

B. A.

, & Fernhaber

S. A.

(2014). Entrepreneurial orientation and international scope: The differential roles of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 511–524.

19.

Dar-Nimrod

, Rawn

C. D.

, Lehman

D. R.

, & Schwartz

(2009). The maximization paradox: The costs of seeking alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5–6), 631–635.

20.

Delmar

, & Shane

(2003). Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 24(12), 1165–1185.

21.

Deshpandé

, & Farley

J. U.

(1998). Measuring market orientation: Generalization and synthesis. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 2(3), 213–232.

22.

Dess

G. G.

, Lumpkin

G. T.

, & Covin

J. G.

(1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677–695.

23.

Di Zhang

, & Bruning

(2011). Personal characteristics and strategic orientation: Entrepreneurs in Canadian manufacturing companies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 17(1).

24.

Frese

, & Fay

(2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187.

25.

Frishammar

, & Åke Hörte

(2007). The role of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation for new product development performance in manufacturing firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(6), 765–788.

26.

Gilhooly

K. J.

(1988). Thinking: Directed, undirected and creative. Academic Press.

27.

González-Benito

Ó.

, González-Benito

, & Muñoz-Gallego

P. A.

(2009). Role of entrepreneurship and market orientation in firms’ success. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3–4), 500–522.

28.

Grinstein

(2008). The effect of market orientation and its components on innovation consequences: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 166–173.

29.

Gruber-Muecke

, & Hofer

K. M.

(2015). Market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and performance in emerging markets. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 10(3), 560–571.

30.

Hayes

A. F.

, & Preacher

K. J.

(2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470.

31.

Highhouse

S. E.

, Diab

D. L.

, & Gillespie

M. A.

(2008). Are maximizers really unhappy? The measurement of maximizing tendency. Judgment and Decision Making Journal, 3(5), 364.

32.

Hisrich

R. D.

(1990). Entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship. American Psychologist, 45(2), 209.

33.

Hmieleski

K. M.

, & Corbett

A. C.

(2008). The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfaction. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 482–496.

34.

Hong

, Song

T. H.

, & Yoo

(2013). Paths to success: How do market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation produce new product success? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 44–55.

35.

Hopp

, & Stephan

(2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the performance of nascent entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and start-up success. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9–10), 917–945.

36.

, Wang

, Zhang

, & Bin

(2018). Creativity, proactive personality, and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurial alertness. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 951.

37.

Hughes

, & Morgan

R. E.

(2007). Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(5), 651–661.

38.

Hughes

, & Scholer

A. A.

(2017). When wanting the best goes right or wrong: Distinguishing between adaptive and maladaptive maximization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 570–583.

39.

Hult

G. T. M.

, & Ketchen Jr

D. J.

(2001). Does market orientation matter?: A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 899–906.

40.

Iyengar

S. S.

, Wells

R. E.

, & Schwartz

(2006). Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the “best” job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17(2), 143–150.

41.

Jaworski

B. J.

, & Kohli

A. K.

(1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

42.

Johnson

(2001). What is innovation and entrepreneurship? Lessons for larger organisations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(4), 135–140.

43.

Keh

H. T.

, Nguyen

T. T. M.

, & Ng

H. P.

(2007). The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing information on the performance of SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 592–611.

44.

Kirca

A. H.

, Jayachandran

, & Bearden

W. O.

(2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41.

45.

Kirzner

I. M.

(1979). Perception, opportunity, and profit: Studies in the theory of entrepreneurship (pp. 142–143). University of Chicago Press.

46.

(2012). Entrepreneurial opportunity identification: A motivation-based cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 23–37.

47.

Kohli

A. K.

, & Jaworski

B. J.

(1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

48.

Kolvereid

, & Isaksen

(2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 866–885.

49.

Knight

(2000). Entrepreneurship and marketing strategy: The SME under globalization. Journal of International Marketing, 8(2), 12–32.

50.

Krueger Jr

, & Dickson

P. R.

(1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25(3), 385–400.

51.

Kwak

, Jaju

, Puzakova

, & Rocereto

J. F.

(2013). The connubial relationship between market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21(2), 141–162.

52.

Lai

(2010). Maximizing without difficulty: A modified maximizing scale and its correlates. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(3), 164.

53.

Leach

J. K.

, & Patall

E. A.

(2013). Maximizing and counterfactual thinking in academic major decision making. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(3), 414–429.

54.

Lekmat

, Selvarajah

, & Hewege

(2018). Relationship between market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and firm performance in Thai SMEs: The mediating role of marketing capabilities. International Journal of Business & Economics, 17(3).

55.

, Zhao

, Tan

, & Liu

(2008). Moderating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on market orientation-performance linkage: Evidence from Chinese small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 113–133.

56.

Luan

, Fu

, & Li

(2018). Do maximizers maximize for others? Self-other decision-making differences in maximizing and satisficing. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, 52–56.

57.

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.

58.

Lumpkin

G. T.

, & Dess

G. G.

(2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–451.

59.

Matsuno

, Mentzer

J. T.

, & Özsomer

(2002). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 18–32.

60.

McClelland

D. C.

(1965). N achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 389.

61.

McGee

J. E.

, & Peterson

(2019). The long-term impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 720–737.

62.

Michaelis

T. L.

, Carr

J. C.

, Scheaf

D. J.

, & Pollack

J. M.

(2020). The frugal entrepreneur: A self-regulatory perspective of resourceful entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(4), 105969.

63.

Miller

(1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.

64.

Miner

J. B.

, & Raju

N. S.

(2004). Risk propensity differences between managers and entrepreneurs and between low-and high-growth entrepreneurs: A reply in a more conservative vein. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 3–13.

65.

Misuraca

, Faraci

, Gangemi

, Carmeci

F. A.

, & Miceli

(2015). The decision making tendency inventory: A new measure to assess maximizing, satisficing, and minimizing. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 111–116.

66.

Misuraca

, Teuscher

, & Carmeci

F. A.

(2016). Who are maximizers? Future oriented and highly numerate individuals. International Journal of Psychology, 51(4), 307–311.

67.

Montiel-Campos

(2018). Entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 20(2), 292–322.

68.

Mueller

S. L.

, & Thomas

A. S.

(2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–75.

69.

Morris

M. H.

, & Paul

G. W.

(1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 247–259.

70.

Palmer

, Niemand

, Stöckmann

, Kraus

, & Kailer

(2019). The interplay of entrepreneurial orientation and psychological traits in explaining firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 94, 183–194.

71.

Peng

, Zhang

, Gong

, Han

, Sun

, Fei

, & Miao

(2018). A new look at the impact of maximizing on unhappiness: Two competing mediating effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 66.

72.

Polman

(2010). Why are maximizers less happy than satisficers? Because they maximize positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(2), 179–190.

73.

Poon

J. M.

, Ainuddin

R. A.

, & Junit

S. O. H.

(2006). Effects of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance. International Small Business Journal, 24(1), 61–82.

74.

Rauch

, & Frese

(2000). Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: A general model and an overview of findings. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15, 101–142.

75.

Rauch

, & Frese

(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.

76.

Rauch

, Wiklund

, Lumpkin

G. T.

, & Frese

(2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.

77.

Reed

A. E.

, Mikels

J. A.

, & Löckenhoff

C. E.

(2013). Preferences for choice across adulthood: Age trajectories and potential mechanisms. Psychology and Aging, 28(3), 625.

78.

Roskos

, & Klandt

(2007). Young technology ventures in Europe: Aspects of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 4(5), 543–563.

79.

Schumpeter

J. A.

(2000). Entrepreneurship as innovation. In Swedberg

(Eds.), Entrepreneurship: The social science view (pp. 51–75). Oxford University Press.

80.

Schwartz

(2016). On the meaning and measurement of maximization. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(2), 126.

81.

Schwartz

, Ward

, Monterosso

, Lyubomirsky

, White

, & Lehman

D. R.

(2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178.

82.

Shan

, Song

, & Ju

(2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: Is innovation speed a missing link? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 683–690.

83.

Shane

S. A.

(2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.

84.

Shepherd

D. A.

, Williams

T. A.

, & Patzelt

(2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11–46.

85.

Shiner

R. L.

(2015). Maximizers, satisficers, and their satisfaction with and preferences for reversible versus irreversible decisions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 896–903.

86.

Simon

H. A.

(1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

87.

Slater

S. F.

, & Narver

J. C.

(1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46–55.

88.

Slater

S. F.

, & Narver

J. C.

(1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.

89.

Slater

S. F.

, & Narver

J. C.

(2000). The positive effect of a market orientation on business profitability: A balanced replication. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), 69–73.

90.

Smart

D. T.

, & Conant

J. S.

(1994). Entrepreneurial orientation, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 10(3), 28–38.

91.

Soltwisch

B. W.

, & Krahnke

(2017). Maximizing decision making style and managerial effectiveness: Understanding how maximizing and locus of control impact managers’ performance on the job. Managing Global Transitions, 15(3), 215–230.

92.

Sparks

E. A.

, Ehrlinger

, & Eibach

R. P.

(2012). Failing to commit: Maximizers avoid commitment in a way that contributes to reduced satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(1), 72–77.

93.

Stewart Jr

W. H.

, & Roth

P. L.

(2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145.

94.

Todorovic

Z. W.

, & Ma

(2008). Entrepreneurial and market orientation relationship to performance. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 2(1), 21–36.

95.

Wales

W. J.

, Gupta

V. K.

, & Mousa

F. T.

(2013). Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 357–383.

96.

Weaver

, Daniloski

, Schwarz

, & Cottone

(2015). The role of social comparison for maximizers and satisficers: Wanting the best or wanting to be the best? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(3), 372–388.

97.

Wiklund

, & Shepherd

(2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91.

98.

, & Ruef

(2004). The myth of the risk-tolerant entrepreneur. Strategic Organization, 2(4), 331–355.

99.

Zahra

S. A.

, & Garvis

D. M.

(2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 469–492.

100.

Zhao

, & Seibert

S. E.

(2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259.

101.

Zhao

, Seibert

S. E.

, & Lumpkin

G. T.

(2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(2), 381–404.