Cognitive Models of Entrepreneurial Leaders Meta Analytical Structural Equation Modeling

CognitiveModels of Entrepreneurial Leaders: Meta Analytical StructuralEquation Modeling


Understandingcognitive models of entrepreneurial leaders is very critical tocomprehending the concept of entrepreneurship, its origin, andevolution. This is particularly imperative if a transition fromdescriptive research to a one driven by theory is desired. Forinstance, if we intend to argue smartly that entrepreneurialdecisions are either enacted or discovered, theory is important.

Thepurpose of this research is to give a synopsis of the cognitionmodels that guide entrepreneurial leadership. The research questionsinclude:

  • Why do entrepreneurs select one opportunity and reject others?

  • In addition, why do entrepreneurs decide to undertake a venture at a certain time?

  • Which cognitive processes are linked to identifying and working on opportunities?

Basedon the above research questions, this research aims at accomplishingthe following objectives:

  • better comprehend why distinctive entrepreneurs settle on diverse choices

  • accommodate and incorporate two contending hypotheses of new decision-making by exhibiting that cognitive models of correlation and structural arrangement represent the diverse expectations of every hypothesis

  • strengthen the vitality of considering the role of entrepreneurs’ cognitive methods in clarifying the trend of entrepreneurial leadership at entry

  • Explain the effect of pre-information or knowledge on cognitive methodologies behind decision-making

  • further support the role of correlations and structural arrangement as key cognitive styles that underpin vital entrepreneurial choices, for example, opportunity distinction, assessment, and selection

Theresearch offers an easy way to understand the cognitive phenomena ofentrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. Currently, there is littleinformation or knowledge on the concept of “entrepreneurialpersonality.” It has always appeared counterintuitive to overlookindividual variations, especially psychological one. Indeed,entrepreneurs may be similar in one way or another as far as risktaking is concerned, however, they discover more opportunities.Research on cognition models will offer numerous mechanisms, whethertheory-based or empirically driven, to create a better, deepercomprehension of how entrepreneurial leaders identify differentopportunities.

Throughoutthe research, cognitive processes are imperative. Opportunities arediscovered if not enacted to be the most important precursors foropportunity points of view. Actions by entrepreneurs may need atangible facility or resource but are always neglected at the risk ofthe cognitive infrastructure (what allows people to understandindividually the credible opportunities.) Understanding cognitivemodels is also imperative due since it offers us a deeper opinion onhow entrepreneurial leadership can be nurtured.


Numerouscognitive models of entrepreneurial leadership are proposed andempirically analyzed. The models used in this research will examinethe managementand intervening impacts that individual and cognitive elements haveon self-efficiency, dependability, decision-making, andpurposefulness as hypothesis and literature review suggest. UtilizingMeta Analytical Structural Equation Modeling, a number of nestedmodels is expected to reveal that individual and cognitive elementshave an immediate and roundabout impact on entrepreneurialdecision-making and self-efficiency among others. This study makes animperative introductory stride in understanding the methodology ofhow entrepreneurs evaluate and process data. However, it also opensthe `black box` in looking at the variable methodologies and coursesthey use on their way to starting new enterprise ventures.

Leadershave a topic of research for a considerable length of time. Lately,men and women as leaders have been thought about. Understandingentrepreneurial cognition is basic to comprehending the heart ofentrepreneurship, how it rises and advances.

Researchinto entrepreneurial cognitive models offers an approach to bring theentrepreneurs into the business once again. While there still islittle information on the idea of a purported &quotentrepreneurialidentity&quot it generally appears illogical to disregard allindividual contrasts, particularly cognition contrasts. Yes,entrepreneurs may not be excessively distinctive in risk takingpenchant, yet (just about by definition) they see more opportunities.Perception examination offers us different instruments, bothhypothesis driven and experimentally vigorous, to assemble a deeper,wealthier understanding of how entrepreneurs make decision and howthey see opportunities. This paper seeks to add to thatunderstanding.

Inthis research, a few cognitive handling models of entrepreneurialdecision making and consideration will be proposed and empiricallytested. The models of the study look at the immediate and backhanded(directing and interceding) impact that individual and cognitivevariables have on self-sufficiency, decision-making, seeingopportunities, and risk-taking as hypothesis and literature reviewsuggest. We start by talking about past researches on entrepreneurialpropositions, dependability, and the part of insight in understandingthe expectations process.

Theresearch offers an easy way to understand the cognitive phenomena ofentrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. Currently, there is littleinformation or knowledge on the concept of “entrepreneurialpersonality.” It has always appeared counterintuitive to overlookindividual variations, especially psychological one (Eva et al. 113).Indeed, entrepreneurs may be similar in one way or another as far asrisk taking is concerned, however, they discover more opportunities.Research on cognition models will offer numerous mechanisms, whethertheory-based or empirically driven, to create a better, deepercomprehension of how entrepreneurial leaders identify differentopportunities.


Ina research on entrepreneurship and cognition, researchers gave themeaning of entrepreneurial cognition, and the broadly acknowledgedone is the information structures that individuals utilize to makeevaluations, judgments, or decisions including opportunity assessmentand project creation and development (Renko et al. 06). In alternatewords, entrepreneurial cognition is about how entrepreneurs utilizedisentangled cognition model to analyze data that is then used makenew items or services, and turn them into business opportunities,then pick up the fundamental asset for development.


Becausethe objective of the research is to understand the linkagebetween entrepreneurial cognition models and entrepreneurialactivities like business start-ups, the following questions will befocused on:

  1. What are the personalities that entrepreneurs accept they must have amid the startup period of their new projects?

  2. Does an individual`s self-efficiency on these abilities lead to entrepreneurial aims?

3. Doentrepreneurial decisions lead to entrepreneurial activities?

4. isthere a distinction in general levels of risk taking betweenentrepreneurs?


Cognitivemodels are steady disposition and inclination that focus the way anindividual sees, recalls, thinks and tackles issues (Sadler-Smith03).They have been recommended to affect almost all human exercises thatinfer insight (D`Intino27).previous exploration of cognitive models therefore has beenconstrained to a dichotomous methodology of cognitive styles, to bespecific diagnostic versus natural cognitive style, whereby individuals with a logical cognitive style support objectivedecision making and individuals with an instinctive cognitive stylesupport instinctive decision making. In any case, bipolarone-dimensional cognitive style models are under levelheadeddiscussion (D`Intinoet al. 115).

Multidimensionalcognitive models offer a profitable option. A characterization andinstrument of specific interest to this study will be the Cognitive Style Indicator (Birte,Sean, and Roxanne 202).The COSI characterizes three cognitive styles: a knowing, arranging,and making style. Individuals with a knowing style will be individuals portrayed by a drive for information and truths.Organizers have a need for structure and esteem arrangement as wellas planning. Individuals with a making style like out-of-the boxspeculation and experimentation.

Researchproposes that individual attributes will be imperative in decidinggroup adequacy (Bob114).Cognitive comparability for example, has been contended as gainfulfor entrepreneurs as far as 1960 (Renkoet al. 54).In view of the comparative way entrepreneurs with a cognitive fitassess occasions, correspondence is more powerful, shared lovingheightens and a better progress will be made in accomplishing collaboration objectives (Esaet al. 21).

Matchinghas undoubtedly been accounted for as having an immediate impact onexecution (John, Dempsey and Jennings 49)or by implication by means of a positive impact on mentality(Riccardo et al. 06). Cognitivenonconformist has been proposed to prompt clash because of contrastsin diversions, qualities, and critical thinking procedures (Wong,Lee, and Leung 20). It is a long-held view that cognitivecomparability prompts upgraded common liking, better advancement, andexpanded correspondence viability. In the event that individuals have a totally distinctive approach to an errand, they will have clashing desires or objectives. This results in distinctivepractices concerning exertion, objective setting, arranging, andcorrespondence (Williams 07). Such contrasts can represent a dangeron the potential viability of the group. Similitude can possiblybuild the consistency of conduct of the other team members, alongthese lines facilitating participation, reckoning of one another`sactivities, and understanding of assignments (Yong 01 Lee, Foo, andLeung 19).however some have remained suspicious with respect to theconstructive event of matching individuals as indicated by theirstyle, examination into the matching of cognitive styles inclinestowards the comparability fascination ideal model (Ianand Beukel 21), consequently embroiling a negative impact of assorted qualities onexecution. Past exploration has connected differing qualities incognitive styles to interpersonal relations. Because of an absence ofexamination relating differing qualities in cognitive styles to groupexecution, we draw a parallel with exploration on interpersonalrelations (Greenberg,McKone-Sweet, and Wilson 08).

Throughoutthe research, cognitive processes are imperative. According to JoséLuis et al. (06), opportunities are discovered if not enacted to bethe most important precursors for opportunity points of view. Actionsby entrepreneurs may need a tangible facility or resource but arealways neglected at the risk of the cognitive infrastructure (whatallows people to understand individually the credible opportunities.)Understanding cognitive models is also imperative due since it offersus a deeper opinion on how entrepreneurial leadership can be nurtured(Melek and Canani).

Regardlessof expanding research on entrepreneurial cognition, this literaturereview demonstrates that little has been done to enhance thecognitive methods of leaders with entrepreneurial movement. Onecurrent structure clarifies that entrepreneurial activities on thepremise of whether results of such entrepreneurial conduct eithermeet or surpass the desires set by directors before undertaking theaction (Shinnar,Giacomin, and Janssen 88).Nevertheless, there is a literature gap in our understanding of whatcould be possible for entrepreneurial leaders preceding that basicclip of sanctioning or declining further entrepreneurial tasks. Theaim for this dissertation is to address that gap in the writing bycognitive theory as a system for entrepreneurial leaders to improvetheir cognitive skills. For this reason, the following werehypothesized:

Hypothesis1: Some entrepreneurs are more creative than others are

Theaims model has vigorously demonstrated that variables, for example,identity or demographics or situational qualities influence plan (andconduct) just in a roundabout way. That is, the exogenous variablesinfluence conduct just to the degree they can influence aims and keyforerunners. Hence, it is hypothesized here that cognitive styleadditionally serves as a go between, proposing the first step is totest whether key exogenous variables (particularly sexualorientation) are connected with cognitive style.

Hypothesis2: Positive self-efficacy affects entrepreneurial activities

Onlythose entrepreneurs with entrepreneur intention are most capable ofstarting an entrepreneur venture.

Hypothesis3: Planned behavior affects entrepreneurial leadership

Plannedbehavior affects entrepreneur’s decision-making. In this manner,excellent economic theories propose that entrepreneurs, by the verynature of their practices and roles in economy and society, cannot bedisinclined from risk.



Themeta-analysis will incorporate 10 studies with a general specimensize of 1000 people. All members will be informed that the aim of theresearch is to better comprehend their cognition and decision-makingin regards to entrepreneurial ventures. In their survey, theentrepreneurs will be given questionnaires to fill in about theirenthusiasm for beginning their own business (entrepreneurialexpectations) and also their apparent aptitudes in performingparticular entrepreneurial roles like decision-making. To acquirethese studies, an exhaustive literature review in Google Scholar,EBSCO Host, Springer link, and other online libraries will beconducted. The major keywords that will be sued include cognitionmodels, the personality of entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial leadership,subjective standard, state of mind, self-efficacy, apparentbehavioral control, starting a business, decision-making, andbecoming an entrepreneur.



Here,a 34-item self-efficacy model will be used which has six measures:coming up with a new item and opportunity, creating an inventiveenvironment, enhancing investor associations, determining coreobjectives, getting used to common difficulties, and creatingimportant human resources (De Noble et al., 1999). The participantswill be gauged on how competent they think they are in undertakingthe mentioned duties by utilizing a 7-point likert scale.


Proactiveidentities recognize opportunities and follow up on them theydemonstrate initiative, take responsibility, and endure until theyrealize important change. To evaluate proactive identity, five itemsfrom Bateman and Crant`s (1993) scale will be utilized. Thingsincluded in this measure: &quotI appreciate confronting andovercoming challenges to my thoughts,&quot &quotNothing is moreenergizing than seeing my thoughts transform into reality,&quot &quotIexceed expectations at recognizing open doors,&quot &quotI want totest the norm,&quot and &quotI can recognize a decent open doormuch sooner than others can.&quot Participants will be evaluatedthese things on a seven-point Likert scale


Thebuild of hardiness develop out of the anxiety and adapting writing toclarify singular contrasts in anxiety flexibility. The idea oftoughness is viewed as an identity style comprising of threeinterrelated components, to be specific responsibility (people whoinvolve themselves in whatever they are doing), control (people whoaccept and go about as though they can impact the occasions mouldingtheir lives), and test (people who consider change as a risk as wellas an open door for improvement). The build will be measured byutilizing the 50-item Personal Views Survey.

Alertnessfor Opportunities

Togauge readiness, Hills et al. (1997) measure of entrepreneurialreadiness will be used. Particular factors included, &quotI have anuncommon sharpness or affectability to circumstances&quot and &quotIappreciate simply considering and/or searching for new businessopportunities.&quot

CognitiveStyle Index

Cognitivestyle will be surveyed on the premise of the explanatory instinctivemeasurements. Members will complete the Cognitive Style Index, a38-item measure that has a genuine false reaction mode (genuine codedas `1&quot and false coded as `0`). The closer the aggregate scoreis to 0, the more natural the respondent and the closer to thehypothetical greatest of 38, the more diagnostic the respondent.


Attractivequality to begin a business will be measured by asking, &quotHowappealing is it begin your own business?&quot likewise theirapparent plausibility will be measured by asking, &quotHow doablewould it be for you to begin your own business?&quot


Itis expected that the results acquired in this research will beconsistent with past exploration in different fields in regards tocognitive correlations and entrepreneurial leadership.

Inthis current paper`s foundational suggestions, it is stated thatentrepreneurs are people who select opportunities and choose when toundertake an opportunity, to some degree, through cognitiveexamination forms whereby they adjust applicable parts of features.

Inthe same vein, results are expected to exhibit that when makingalternative decisions, entrepreneurs’ considerations of alienablecontrasts impact their determination of opportunities, yet not theirchoices in regards to the timing of venturing. Similarly,entrepreneurs’contemplationsof non-alignable contrasts influence both their determination ofopportunities, and their decisions in regards to the timing of theventures.

ResearchGantt chart


Bing-Sheng,Teng. “Cognitive Biases and Strategic Decision processes: anintegrative perspective.” Journalof Magament Studies 36:6(1999).

Birte,Kuhn Sean, Patrick and Roxanne, Zollin. “EntrepreneurialManagement as a Strategic Choice in Firm Behavior: Linking it withPerformance.”Paper to be presented at the HTSF Conference in Twente, TheNetherlands.

Bob,Croes. A bold entrepreneurial leader. SmallBusiness Economics : an Entrepreneurship Journal.43.1 (2014): 101-117. Print.

Crant,M.J. 1996. The Proactive Personality Scale as a Predictor ofEntrepreneurial Intentions. Journalof Small Business Management 34(3),42-4

Charles,Schwenk. “The cognitive perspective on cognitive decisionmaking.”Journalof Management Studies. 25:1(1988): 0022-2380.

Cheung,Mike W. L, and Wai Chan. &quotMeta-analytic Structural EquationModeling: a Two-Stage Approach.&quot PsychologicalMethods.10.1 (2005): 40-64. Print.

DeNoble, A., Jung, D. &amp Ehrlich, S. (1999). Entrepreneurialself-efficacy: The development of a measure and its relationship toentrepreneurial action. Paper presented at the Babson Frontiers ofEntrepreneurship Research Conference, Columbia, SC.

D`Intino,Robert, Michael Goldsby, Jeffery Houghton, and Christopher Neck.&quotSelf-leadership: a Process for Entrepreneurial Success.&quotJournalof Leadership &amp Organizational Studies.13.4 (2007): 105-120. Print.

Drnovšek,Mateja, Joakim Wincent, and Melissa S. Cardon. &quotEntrepreneurialSelf-Efficacy and Business Start-Up: Developing a Multi-DimensionalDefinition.&quot InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &amp Research.14.4 (2010): 329-348. Print.

Eva,Cools Katleen De Stobbeleir, Kim Bellens and Dirk Buyens. “Exploringthe influence of cognitive styles on people’s feedback-seekingpatterns: what can educational practice learn from workplacecontexts?” Reflectingeducation. 8:1.(2012), pp. 94-113.

EugeneSadler-Smith. CognitiveSTYLES and learning styles: theorise or die? RefereedPaper

Esa,Muneera, Anuar Alias, and Zulkiflee A. Samad. &quotProjectManagers??? Cognitive Style in Decision Making: a Perspective fromConstruction Industry.&quot InternationalJournal of Psychological Studies.6.2 (2014). Print.

Greenberg,Danna, Kathleen McKone-Sweet, and H J. Wilson. TheNew Entrepreneurial Leader: Developing Leaders Who Shape Social andEconomic Opportunity.San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2011. Internetresource.

John,Watson P. E. J. G. P, Dianna Dempsey, and Jennifer Jennings. &quotGenderand Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: a Learning Perspective.&quotInternationalJournal of Gender and Entrepreneurship.6.1 (2014): 28-49. Print.

JoséLuis Martínez Campo. “Analysis of the influence of self-efficacyon entrepreneurial intentions.”Prospect. Vol. 9, No. 2, Julio – Diciembre de 2011, págs. 14-21

Hills,G. E., Lumpkin, G. T., &amp Singh, R. 1997. Opportunity recognition:Perceptions and behaviors of entrepreneurs. Frontiersof Entrepreneurship Research,17: 168-182.

Ian,Keith and Beukel. “Perceptionsof followers? performance, self-identity and communication skills andtheir impact on entrepreneurial intention in a developing countrycontext.” Paperto be presented at the DRUID Society Conference2014, CBS, Copenhagen, June 16-18.

Lee,L, P.K Wong, M.D Foo, and A Leung. &quotEntrepreneurial Intentions:the Influence of Organizational and Individual Factors.&quot Journalof Business Venturing.26.1 (2011): 124-136. Print.

MelekKalkan and Canani Kaygusuz. ThePsychology of Entrepreneurship.Mahwah,N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Print.

Murayama,Kou, and Andrew J. Elliot. &quotThe Competition–performanceRelation: a Meta-Analytic Review and Test of the Opposing ProcessesModel of Competition and Performance.&quot PsychologicalBulletin.138.6 (2012): 1035-1070. Print.

Renko,Maija, Tarabishy A. El, Alan L. Carsrud, and Malin Br??nnback.&quotUnderstanding and Measuring Entrepreneurial Leadership Style.&quotJournalof Small Business Management.53.1 (2015): 54-74. Print.

RiccardoFini, Rosa Grimaldi, Gian Luca Marzocchi, and Maurizio Sobrero. “Thefoundation of entrepreneurial intention.”International Journal of Selection and Assessment.21.2 (2013): 211-221. Print.

Shinnar,R.S, O Giacomin, and F Janssen. &quotEntrepreneurial Perceptions andIntentions: the Role of Gender and Culture.&quot Entrepreneurship:Theory and Practice.36.3 (2012): 465-493. Print.

Wilson,Fiona, Jill Kickul, and Deborah Marlino. &quotGender,Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions:Implications for Entrepreneurship Education.&quot EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice.31.3 (2007): 387-406. Print.

Williams,David W. WhyDo Different New Ventures Internationalize Differently? a CognitiveModel of Entrepreneurs` Internationalization Decisions.ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University, 2010. Internet resource.

Wong,Poh Kam Lee, Lena and Leung, Aegean. &quotentrepreneurship bycircumstances and abilities: the Mediating role of job satisfactionand moderating role of self-efficacy,&quot Frontiersof Entrepreneurship Research. 26: 6 (2006). Available at:

Yong,Lu. IsExperiential-intuitive Cognitive Style More Inclining to Err onConjunction Fallacy than Analytical-rational Cognitive Style?Frontiersin Psychology.6:85. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00085