Challenging the Myth: Why Entrepreneurs Aren’t Scientists—And Shouldn’t Be

The idea that entrepreneurs should “think like scientists” has gained traction in education and training—but what if this popular metaphor misses the mark?

In this provocative commentary, we critically unpack the entrepreneur-as-scientist narrative, revealing how it oversimplifies and distorts the entrepreneurial process. While the metaphor offers a neat framework, it fails to capture key differences in how entrepreneurs and scientists understand knowledge, approach uncertainty, and solve problems in practice.

By highlighting these epistemological and practical gaps, we argue that the scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision-making, though well-intentioned, may be misleading and ultimately limiting. Instead, we call for a more grounded, nuanced view of entrepreneurship that reflects its distinctive logic and lived reality.

It’s time to rethink how we teach, study, and support entrepreneurship—beyond the lab coat.

What Really Matters for Entrepreneurial Survival? Rethinking Capital from a Subjectivist Lens

Not all startups begin with the same resources—but which starting conditions truly make the difference between survival and failure?

Our research tackles this critical question by adopting a subjectivist theory of entrepreneurship (STE) and a configurational approach to explore how combinations of capital—human, social, and financial—shape the early trajectory of new ventures. Drawing on empirical evidence, we show that it’s not the amount of capital that matters most—but the right mix.

In particular, we find that survival is more strongly linked to human and social capital configurations, while overreliance on financial capital can be a liability. These insights challenge common assumptions and help reconcile conflicting views on whether capital types act as substitutes or complements.

More than just a resource checklist, our study uncovers a crucial gap between identifying and exploiting opportunities—showing that capital alone doesn't create success, but how it's used, and by whom, truly does.

For entrepreneurs, educators, and policymakers alike, these findings offer a powerful new lens for understanding—and enabling—venture survival.

Where Do We Draw the Line? Rethinking Questionable Research Practices

In a world where research integrity is more critical than ever, the greatest threat to science may not be outright fraud—but the grey area in between.

Our study takes a bold step beyond simply listing questionable research practices (QRPs) by asking a deeper, more pressing question: when does a practice become questionable in the first place? Using the theory of communicative action, we explore the normative foundations of QRPs—where justifiability meets judgment—and reveal why individual decisions can’t be fully understood outside their collective context.

We introduce a new framework to help scholars, institutions, and policymakers assess when research behaviors cross the line from acceptable to unacceptable. This isn't just about identifying bad actors—it's about building a shared foundation for stronger scientific standards and higher-quality research.

It’s time to move beyond compliance and toward collective responsibility.

Entrepreneurship Isn’t One-Size-Fits-All—And That’s Exactly the Point

Why do some ventures soar while others stall? The answer may lie in the outliers—founders who operate outside the norm.

Our study challenges the idea of a standard entrepreneurial path by applying a power law perspective to understand how founder endowments—those rare, extreme capabilities—shape venture persistence. Drawing on data from over 1,200 nascent entrepreneurs, we reveal a crucial insight: success isn’t just about having strong resources—it’s about aligning those resources with the right expectations and actions.

Outlier founders thrive when they pursue ambitious, high-growth opportunities using novel methods. But when they “play small,” or when average founders chase big, risky goals, ventures are significantly more likely to fail. In short, misalignment between who founders are and what they pursue can undermine persistence.

Our findings offer a new lens on entrepreneurial success: one that highlights the importance of fit between a founder’s profile and the opportunity landscape.

Not all founders should follow the same playbook—and understanding that could change how we teach, fund, and support entrepreneurship.

Rethinking Entrepreneurship: Why Some Conditions Must Be Met—No Exceptions

What if success in entrepreneurship isn't just about what helps—but what must be in place?

Our research brings a fresh lens to entrepreneurship by spotlighting all-or-nothing necessary conditions—factors that don't guarantee success, but without which success simply can't happen. These aren’t just helpful tips or trends—they’re foundational thresholds that make entrepreneurial outcomes possible in the first place.

Rooted in rigorous philosophical reasoning and demonstrated through an empirical case focused on founder experience, our study introduces Necessary Condition Analysis as a powerful tool for entrepreneurship research. We show how this method clarifies which conditions are truly indispensable—reshaping how we think about cause and effect in the entrepreneurial journey.

This work calls for a shift in how we design, test, and apply entrepreneurship theory—placing theory-method alignment at the forefront to capture what really matters when building ventures.

If we want to understand what drives entrepreneurship, we need to know what makes it possible.

Unlocking the Hidden Power of Paradox: How Organizational Change Reshapes Identity

How do paradoxes within organizations—those persistent tensions between competing demands—reshape not only how people work, but who they believe themselves to be?

Our research uncovers the profound yet often overlooked impact of paradoxes on professionals’ identities and their connection to their organizations. Drawing on a rich 75-month longitudinal case study of a top European public university launching a for-profit business school, we explore how the same organizational paradoxes can have radically different effects on individuals—even within the same institution.

Using an identity threat lens, we reveal a dynamic and deeply human process: how individuals perceive paradoxes, interpret them as identity threats, and navigate their implications for self-concept and organizational belonging. The result is a new process model that not only explains these divergent responses but also identifies key boundary conditions that shape them.

This study offers timely insight for leaders, change agents, and scholars into the subtle yet powerful ways organizational paradoxes influence identity and engagement—paving the way for more empathetic and strategic approaches to change.

Join us in rethinking organizational transformation—through the eyes of those who live it.

Are we unintentionally coding bias into the future of tech? Our latest episode dives deep into the world of IT entrepreneurship to uncover how gender bias continues to shape the startup landscape.

We explore groundbreaking research that reveals a self-reinforcing cycle where maleness has become the default prototype for success—a dynamic that pressures female founders to conform and limits their access to crucial resources like funding, especially in volatile markets.

Using blockchain startups as a case study, we examine how female representation can paradoxically invite bias when it challenges the male-dominated norm.

Tune in to hear why solving gender imbalance in tech isn’t just about empowering individual women, but about breaking the cycle that defines success by outdated standards.