1042-2587

C 2017 SAGE Publications Inc.

V

Sources of
Entrepreneurial
Courage and
Imagination: Three
Perspectives, Three
Contexts
Danny Miller
Isabelle Le Breton-Miller

The strategy literature has been insightful in specifying the requirements for rents under
uncertainty, but has concentrated less on how to meet those requirements. We argue that
courage and imagination are essential drivers of such rents and that several streams in
the entrepreneurship literature enlighten us as to the sources of those drivers: these are
the perspectives of effectuation, entrepreneurial orientation, and strategic entrepreneur-
ship. Although these perspectives apply to multiple organizational contexts, we suggest
that their relevance to the sources of courage and imagination is especially acute in sim-
ple start-ups, dynamic high-tech innovators, and complex bureaucracies, respectively.
Moreover, we call attention to other possible sources of entrepreneurial courage and
imagination that have been underemphasized in the literature.

Introduction

There has to be this pioneer, the individual who has the courage, the ambition to
overcome the obstacles that always develop when one tries to do something
worthwhile, especially when it is new and different.
—Alfred P. Sloan

Core drivers of economic rents are seized opportunities and innovations that rivals
could not imagine or were afraid to assume the risks of exploiting. Entrepreneurial imagi-
nation and courage are central to the value-creation process, and the entrepreneurship lit-
erature has done more to highlight these attributes than the work on strategy (Corbett,
Covin, O’Connor, & Tucci, 2013; Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2002). However, this
literature—specifically, that of effectuation, entrepreneurial orientation, and strategic

Please send correspondence to: Danny Miller, tel.: 514-340-6501; e-mail: danny.miller@hec.ca, and to
Isabelle Le Breton-Miller at isabelle.lebreton@hec.ca.

September, 2017 667

DOI: 10.1111/etap.12281
entrepreneurship—is diverse, and each perspective emphasizes different, albeit overlap-
ping, drivers of courage and imagination. Moreover, although these perspectives may
apply more to some contexts than to others, those relationships have not been signaled.
In this essay, we examine the sources of courage and imagination as unveiled by the
above perspectives, and we relate them to three common organizational contexts. By
courage, we mean an active willingness to risk resources such as wealth, personal reputa-
tion, and power in the pursuit of objectives with uncertain outcomes. By imagination, we
mean the ability to conceive of opportunities, outputs, and solutions that are creative and
economically viable but cannot be imagined by most others in the same situation in the
normal course of events. Both concepts can apply to individual managers as well as teams
or departments within organizations.
We proceed as follows: First we examine the drivers of competitive advantage as
clarified by the strategy literature, and argue that although often neglected, courage and
imagination are vital in realizing these. Then we draw from three key perspectives in the
entrepreneurship literature to identify sources of courage and imagination, and apply
them to the contexts in which we believe these drivers will be most critical. This helps us
to contextualize the application of some very influential perspectives of entrepreneurship.
We close by considering sources of courage and imagination that have been under-
represented in the literature.

Effective Strategy and the Qualities for Its Realization

Several schools of strategy have attempted to define its requisites and sources of rents.
Based on an industrial economics framework, Porter (2008) has called attention to the
need for firms to find a market domain whose imperfections they can exploit by employ-
ing strategies such as differentiation, cost leadership, or some combination or variation of
these adapted to a specific niche. Resource-based scholars (Barney, 1991), by contrast,
argue that in order for strategies to produce abnormal rents, a firm must capture or create
resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and for which there are no acceptable substi-
tutes. Other scholars have focused on how firms must constantly renew and recombine
such resources to create unique “dynamic” capabilities and offerings that maintain strate-
gic relevance in a changing market environment (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2015;
Schumpeter, 1947; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997).
Finally, according to Lippman and Rumelt (2003) and Spender (2014), the essence of
strategy is visualizing and capturing opportunities under conditions of uncertainty. Strate-
gy is not static, nor can it be modeled by simple recipes (Teece, 2007). As Knight (1957)
maintains, there can be no rents where there is no uncertainty. Venturesome, creative
behavior, therefore, is demanded for a firm to conceptualize beyond convention and then
risk resources in a new way or in an uncharted market.

Courage and Imagination as Drivers of Competitive Advantage

These insights bring to light two important requirements confronting managers who
must conceive of and implement effective strategies. First, as strategies have to create val-
ue in a competitive and changing environment, they must be original in a way that
defies imitation, attracts customers, and produces economic rent. This requires insight,
imagination, and judgment—it cannot flow from the mere utilization of facts that are

668 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

easily attainable by others, and must be propagated as an enduring process rather than an
episode (Spender, 2014).
Second, given the need for originality, and the uncertainty of market responses
(Knight, 1957), ongoing courage is required to take risks and venture forth when the
results cannot be known in advance. Even when one imagines what a viable strategic
response might be, there must be an active willingness to commit and lose resources—
financial, social, and/or reputational—in the pursuit of rents. Indeed, as noted, this ele-
ment of uncertainty is what allows profits under competition: one can only earn abnormal
rents where the payoff is uncertain. Certainty or calculable risk opens a competitive
domain to rivals who quickly would erode initial rents (Schumpeter, 1947).
Although these notions of courage and imagination and their sources have not been
highlighted by strategy scholars, several central perspectives in the entrepreneurship liter-
ature provide more ample treatment.

Entrepreneurship Perspectives on Courage and Imagination

and their Contexts

Three perspectives on entrepreneurship—effectuation, entrepreneurial orientation,

and strategic entrepreneurship—provide important insights into potential sources of cour-
age and imagination. Although these perspectives apply to many situations, we shall
argue that they afford especially acute insights into these sources within three respective
contexts: simple start-ups, high-tech innovators, and complex bureaucratic corporations.
By start-ups we mean nascent and primitive ventures involving few people; high-tech
innovators refer to organizations, often adhocracies, which thrive on a constant flow of
cutting edge innovations; and complex corporations are large, often bureaucratic firms
with mature product lines that must renew themselves periodically to grow or remain via-
ble. These contexts are chosen because they are common, different from one another, and
subject to alternative drivers of entrepreneurial courage and imagination.

Effectuation in Simple Start-Ups

The important work on effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001) surfaces sources of courage

and imagination in the early phase of a business—when it is important to begin with what-
ever resources one has, to evolve without clear plans, and to step-by-step find a viable
path forward. Scholars of effectuation demonstrate in some detail how an evolutionary
process of building a business can foster courage by approaching risk incrementally with
an existing repertoire of means and modest aspirations, to fuel an opportunistic and imagi-
native approach to the environment.
According to Sarasvathy (2001, p. 249): “Effectuation processes take a set of means
as more or less given and focus on selecting between possible effects that can be created
with that set of means.” Although most strategic thinking assumes the existence of firms
and markets, scholars of effectuation are concerned with their creation—in its very
essence often an act of courage and imagination. This is because some entrepreneurs
launching a venture begin almost tabula rasa. They pursue an idea or a personal goal, and
in effect, start “from scratch” with limited resources and preconceptions to create a busi-
ness (Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001). An evolving step-by-step process helps these
entrepreneurs to build confidence and render risk taking less feared, while social
interaction surfaces options and resources, feeds the imagination, and fosters creativity

September, 2017 669

(Sarasvathy, 2009). For example, an entrepreneur’s talent may become marketable via
the contact of an acquaintance who requires a particular service and has complementary
skills. That person in turn has a friend who is willing to share some of the risk of setting
up shop. The first of these encounters stimulates the imagination to render an idea for an
enterprise a reality or a project with greater potential, while the second involves
additional members with the resources to attenuate actual or subjective risk.
Thus entrepreneurs work with available means and channel these to achieve desirable
effects, which are emergent, and adjusted to the situation at hand. It is actor-dependent,
and oriented toward exploiting evolving contingencies. It embraces uncertainty and the
opportunities it provides. But it also includes a social context that serves to both inform
and motivate imagination and venturing behavior. Moreover, it buttresses risk taking by
emphasizing affordable loss, not expected gain and the formation of alliances to extend
resources and capabilities. It exploits emerging contingencies to stimulate imagination
rather than relying on pre-existing knowledge and control of uncertainties (Wiltbank,
Dew, Read, & Sarasvathy, 2006). This liberating perspective draws sources of entrepre-
neurial imagination and courage to the fore.

Entrepreneurial Orientation in “High-Tech” Innovators

The work on EO (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Miller, 1983, 2011) places particular
emphasis on venturing forth creatively and innovating. It applies acutely to situations in
which pioneering activities are an essential part of everyday life in the business. Certain-
ly, this is the case in high technology and other kinds of innovators that thrive via cutting-
edge innovation, and typically face exacting competition and rapid obsolescence. It is
argued that firms with heightened EO are able to develop the knowledge capital (Wiklund
& Shepherd, 2003) and dynamic capabilities (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009;
Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson, 2006) essential for such ongoing pioneering.1
Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989) have argued that an action can only be
considered entrepreneurial if it is possessed of three qualities: innovativeness, proactive-
ness, and risk. The logic is that when any of these qualities is missing in an organizational
initiative, the venture does not qualify as being entrepreneurial. Moreover, consistent
with the notion of Knightian rents, where there is no risk, when a decision is merely reac-
tive, and where no innovation is entailed, there are unlikely to be abnormal returns.
Scholars of EO have discovered a good deal about the personal and organizational
characteristics that are sources of imaginative innovation and courageous risk taking.
These include specific leader and top team psychological attributes such as internal locus
of control, flexibility, and self-efficacy. For example, internal locus of control executives
and those with positive self concepts are more apt to have the courage to take risks and be
more boldly proactive (Miller, Kets de Vries, & Toulouse, 1982). Executives with flexible
cognitive styles and low levels of dogmatism are more apt to stress imaginative innova-
tion (Miller & Toulouse, 1986). For firms that must constantly innovate, these attributes
may be especially valuable.
Organization-level variables also may enhance managers’ courage and imagination
to drive EO. Flat, informal adhocracy structures, broad and versatile job designs, flexible
working conditions, tolerance of rebels, colocation of different functions, and

1. Miller (1983) has contrasted EO in simple, organic, and planning firms, however, EO reached its highest
levels by far in his organic firms, which are similar to our high-tech innovators.

670 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

collaborative cultures provide the latitude and courage to take risks and develop imagina-
tive projects (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011; Rauch et al., 2009; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003;
Zahra, 1993). Governance too plays a role where firm founder–owners or owner–managers
have the power to take courageous risks and innovate (Naldi, Nordqvist, Sj€oberg, &
Wiklund, 2007). Frequently, studies of EO examine simultaneously the interactions among
such personal, organizational, and contextual variables (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005).

Strategic Entrepreneurship in Complex Bureaucracies

Strategic Entrepreneurship represents a more structured and formal approach to entre-

preneurship. It attempts to integrate the strategic management and entrepreneurship per-
spectives to consider not simply advantage-seeking but also opportunity-seeking behaviors
(Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001; Hitt et al., 2002; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003). SE,
although applicable to numerous contexts, may be especially useful in surfacing sources of
courage and imagination in mature, complex, and bureaucratic organizations with estab-
lished strategies, resources, processes, and hierarchies that need reawakening. It encourages
a systematic process of opportunity discovery and periodic renewal, guided by regular and
sometimes formal scanning and boundary-spanning activities.
Covin and Miles (1999) have argued that SE can combat stagnation by taking on a
number of different forms, ranging from strategic renewal to refresh the basis of compet-
ing, sustained regeneration to continue the process of new product and process develop-
ment, domain redefinition to broach new markets, and organizational rejuvenation to
support any of the above. Ireland, Hitt, Camp, and Sexton (2001) argue the importance in
wealth creation of institutionalizing formal processes of innovation and market expan-
sion, purposive network formation, and assiduous organizational learning.
According to Ireland et al. (2003, p. 963):

Established firms often are relatively more effective in establishing competitive

advantages but are less able to identify new opportunities. . . . Strategic entrepre-
neurship proponents highlight the importance of an entrepreneurial mindset, an
entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurial leadership, the strategic management
of resources, and applying creativity to develop innovations.

Thus scholars of SE emphasize a proactive mindset that drives managers to leverage

resources to pursue opportunities, and to work to develop the organizational qualities that
are required to realize these opportunities (Covin & Kuratko, 2008; Kuratko & Audretsch,
2009). For example, they make reference to organizational information and reward sys-
tems which encourage and reward risk-taking and tolerate well-intentioned failures. They
favor collaborative structural mechanisms such as liaison devices, and participative pro-
cesses of management engagement that stimulate imaginative solutions (Ireland et al.,
2003). Also they advocate networking and partnering strategies with other organizations
that breed innovation and promote courage by managing risk (see also Stevenson &
Jarillo, 1990). Setting up separate “skunkworks” to take on risky new initiatives are
another way a corporation can innovate in an unencumbered way, while buffering the
more stable parts of the firm from any resulting turbulence. All of these levers may act to
bolster strategic renewal in a complex bureaucracy.
It is interesting that as we move from the perspectives of effectuation to EO to SE,
there is a progression from a focus on the behavior and attributes of the individual entre-
preneur to one more centered on organizational structural and process characteristics.

September, 2017 671

Table 1

Sources of Courage and Imagination: Three Perspectives, Three Contexts

Sources of courage Sources of imagination

Effectuation in Begin with means, not daunting goals, step-by-
simple start-ups step advancement, limited by affordable loss,
help from contacts and allies
EO in high-tech Personalities with internal locus of control, high
innovators self-efficacy; risk tolerant organizational cul-
tures and teams, hiring of rebels
SE in complex Opportunity-oriented objectives, formal systems
bureaucracies to reward risk taking, skunkworks to isolate
risky projects, strategic alliances
Alertness to chance encounters, flexibility,
embrace of uncertainty
Flexible cognitive styles, flat organic organization
structures, broad job designs and ample discre-
tion, colocation of functions
Entrepreneurial mindset and culture, formal scan-
ning, boundary spanning and liaison devices,
creative resource orchestration

Ultimately, courage and imagination are human qualities, and the organizational attrib-
utes we mention serve to facilitate their emergence and fruition.
Table 1 summarizes our discussion of the perspectives and contexts.

What Is Neglected?

Although these streams in the entrepreneurial literature provide insight into the sour-
ces of courage and imagination, particularly as they apply to different contexts, there
remain several potential influences that have been relatively neglected and may apply in
many contexts.

Neglected Sources of Courage

At the personal level, it is difficult to deny that character and personality are critical
sources of courage. Childhood upbringing, early experiences, and schooling may play
central roles in engendering or suppressing attributes such as risk taking, persistence, con-
fidence, and other variables that shape entrepreneurial courage (Hayward, Forster, Saras-
vathy, & Fredrickson, 2010; Klotz & Neubaum, 2015). Moreover, significant life-
challenges may build strong character such that the courage required for entrepreneurial
venturing pales with that demanded in everyday life. Thus the handicapped and war veter-
ans are over-represented in the ranks of entrepreneurs, perhaps because they are able to
put business risk into proper perspective (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2017). Finally, the
strength and salience of values at the personal and organizational level can be a great
source of courage. For example, those with strongly held values regarding a substantive
organizational mission (e.g., to help others, to find a cure, to feed a family) might be
emboldened to withstand the personal risks of related entrepreneurial endeavors. Indeed,
family firms with substantive social and technological missions have been shown to be
exceptionally courageous in their pursuit (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005).
At the organizational level, although the EO, effectuation, and SE domains have paid
attention to important macro factors such as experimental cultures and flat organization
designs that facilitate risk taking, these domains have paid less attention to micro factors

672 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

such as reward and compensation systems and vehicles for telling truth to power which
could boost the courage to try new ideas. In addition, corporate governance arrangements
such as founder ownership may be another factor that enhances entrepreneurial courage
and warrants further investigation.

Neglected Sources of Imagination

The psychological and organizational literature on creativity, flexibility, and playful-
ness has been embraced by some of the organizational literature, but seems somewhat
less present in studies of entrepreneurship (Amabile, 1996). Researching entrepreneurial
imagination at the cognitive level may be worthy of experimental study. Lengthy organi-
zational time horizons may also be important provocations for broader and more imagina-
tive conceptions of offerings and markets. Finally, although the literature stresses the
positive impact of resources on the ability to innovate, one wonders whether some indi-
vidual or organizational disadvantages or resource restrictions compel the search for
more imaginative solutions as traditional paths and approaches simply may not work
(Gladwell, 2013). Again, this is an avenue that may warrant looking into.

Conclusions

The field of strategy has been insightful in describing the resources, capabilities, and
positioning requirements that are able to deliver sustainable rents. Adopting a Knightian
perspective, we have argued that courage and imagination are required to garner such
rents. We have suggested that the perspectives of effectuation, EO, and SE disclose some
of the important sources of courage and imagination in contexts such as business start-
ups, high-tech innovators, and complex corporations, respectively. We also have men-
tioned the possible importance of less emphasized factors such as values, personal histo-
ry, human resource processes, resource restrictions, governance arrangements, and time
horizons.
In all cases, courage and imagination are shown to be a product of sources acting at
personal and organizational levels. We believe that the field of strategy may benefit from
considering in greater detail these sources that may facilitate strategic opportunity capture
and realization.

REFERENCES
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview Press.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99–120.

Corbett, A., Covin, J.G., O’Connor, G.C., & Tucci, C.L. (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship: State-of-the-
art research and a future research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 812–820.

Covin, J.G. & Kuratko, D.F. (2008). The concept of corporate entrepreneurship. In V. Narayanan & G.
O’Connor (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of technology and innovation management. (pp. 207–212).
Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers.

Covin, J.G. & Lumpkin, G.T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a
needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 855–872.

September, 2017 673

Covin, J.G. & Miles, M.P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63.

Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environ-
ments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.

Gladwell, M. (2013). David and Goliath: Underdogs, misfits, and the art of battling giants. New York:
Little-Brown.

Hayward, M.L., Forster, W.R., Sarasvathy, S.D., & Fredrickson, B.L. (2010). Beyond hubris: How highly
confident entrepreneurs rebound to venture again. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6), 569–578.

Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial
strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6), 479–491.

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. (Eds.). (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creat-
ing a new mindset. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic
management actions to create firm wealth. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49–63.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., & Sirmon, D.G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct
and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989.

Klotz, A. & Neubaum, D. (2015). Research on the dark side of personality traits in entrepreneurship: Observa-
tions from an organizational behavior perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(1), 7–17.

Knight, F.H. (1957). Risk, uncertainty and profit (Eighth Impression.). London: London School of
Economics.

Kuratko, D. & Audretsch, D. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring different perspectives of an

emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(1), 1–17.

Le Breton-Miller, I. & Miller, D. (2015). The paradox of resource vulnerability: Considerations for orga-
nizational curatorship. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 397–415.

Lippman, S.A. & Rumelt, R.P. (2003). A bargaining perspective on resource advantage. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 24(11), 1069–1086.

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.

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

Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) Revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the
future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873–894.

Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M., & Toulouse, J.M. (1982). Top executive locus of control and its relation-
ship to strategy-making, structure, and environment. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2), 237–253.

Miller, D. & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage
from great family businesses. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Miller, D. & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2017). Underdog entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
41(1), 7–17.

Miller, D. & Toulouse, J.M. (1986). Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in
small firms. Management Science, 32(11), 1389–1409.

674 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Porter, M.E. (2008). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New
York: Simon and Schuster.

Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sj€oberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and
performance in family firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33–47.

Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business per-
formance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 33(3), 761–787.

Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitabil-
ity to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.

Sarasvathy, S.D. (2009). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward
Elgar Publishing.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. The Journal of Economic History,
7(2), 149–159.

Spender, J.C. (2014). Business strategy: Managing uncertainty, opportunity and enterprise. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Stevenson, H. & Jarillo, J. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal,

11(5), 17–27.

Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1334.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18, 509–533.

Venkataraman, S. & Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001). Strategy and entrepreneurship: Outlines of an untold story.
New York: Wiley.

Wiklund, J. & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the per-
formance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314.

Wiklund, J. & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A con-
figurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91.

Wiltbank, R., Dew, N., Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S.D. (2006). What to do next? The case for non-
predictive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(10), 981–998.

Zahra, S.A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic
approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340.

Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A
review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.

Danny Miller is research professor at HEC Montreal.

Isabelle Le Breton-Miller is chair professor at HEC Montreal.

September, 2017 675