The Power of Sustainability in the “Black Swan” Event: Entrepreneurial Cognition of Top Management Team and Dual Business Model Innovation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Dual Business Model Innovation
2.2. Entrepreneurial Cognition
2.3. Review Summary
3. Hypotheses Proposed
3.1. Entrepreneurial Cognition and Dual Business Model Innovation
3.2. The Mediating Role of Knowledge Search
3.3. Integrating Conceptual Models
4. Research Design
4.1. Procedures and Samples
4.2. Variable Measurement
4.3. Reliability and Validity Tests
4.4. Common Method Deviation Test
5. Hypotheses Test
5.1. Correlation Analysis
5.2. Direct Effect
5.3. Comparison of Structural Equation Models for Mediating Effects
5.4. Analysis of Mediating Effects
6. Results and Discussion
6.1. Conclusions
6.2. Theoretical Implications
6.3. Practical Implications
6.4. Shortcomings and Prospects
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Taleb, N.N. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 34–36. [Google Scholar]
- Nafday, A.M. Strategies for managing the consequences of black swan events. Leadersh. Manag. Eng. 2009, 9, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, C.S. Synergy, tensions, and smart power strategies: How to effectively implement a dual business model in product management. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2017, 64, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urbinati, A.; Chiaroni, D.; Chiesa, V.; Frattini, F. The role of business model design in the diffusion of innovations: An analysis of a sample of unicorn-tech companies. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2019, 16, 1950011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narayan, S.; Sidhu, J.S.; Volberda, H.W. From attention to action: The influence of cognitive and ideological diversity in top management teams on business model innovation. J. Manag. Stud. 2021, 58, 2082–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.; Zhao, Z. The antecedents of business model innovation: A literature review and research agenda. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2017, 39, 114–127. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, R.K.; Busenitz, L.; Lant, T.; Mcdougall, P.P.; Morse, E.A.; Smith, J.B. Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 2002, 27, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukoschek, C.S.; Gerlach, G.; Stock, R.M.; Xin, K. Leading to sustainable organizational unit performance: Antecedents and outcomes of executives’ dual innovation leadership. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.Z.; Chau, K.Y.; Chien, F.; Shen, H. The impact of startups’ dual learning on their green innovation capability: The effects of business executives’ environmental awareness and environmental regulations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Liu, J.; Ding, Y. Analysis of the relationship between open innovation, knowledge management capability and dual innovation. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 32, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciulli, F.; Kolk, A. Incumbents and business model innovation for the sharing economy: Implications for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 995–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miroshnychenko, I.; Strobl, A.; Matzler, K.; De Massis, A. Absorptive capacity, strategic flexibility, and business model innovation: Empirical evidence from Italian SMEs. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 130, 670–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tohãnean, D.; Buzatu, A.I.; Baba, C.A.; Georgescu, B. Business model innovation through the use of digital technologies: Managing risks and creating sustainability. Amfiteatru Econ. 2020, 22, 758–774. [Google Scholar]
- Sjödin, D.; Parida, V.; Jovanovic, M.; Visnjic, I. Value creation and value capture alignment in business model innovation: A process view on outcome-based business models. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2020, 37, 158–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stubbs, W. Strategies, practices, and tensions in managing business model innovation for sustainability: The case of an Australian BCorp. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1063–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashir, M.; Verma, R. Internal factors & consequences of business model innovation. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 262–290. [Google Scholar]
- Kiss, A.N.; Cortes, A.F. Herrmann, P. CEO proactiveness, innovation, and firm performance. Leadersh. Q. 2021, 32, 101545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, B.; Zhang, T.; Yan, S. How corporate social responsibility influences business model innovation: The mediating role of organizational legitimacy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Osiyevskyy, O.; Dewald, J. Inducements, impediments, and immediacy: Exploring the cognitive drivers of small business managers’ intentions to adopt business model change. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 1011–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, B.; Pang, X.; Li, W. The role of top management team diversity in shaping the performance of business model innovation: A threshold effect. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 30, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, R.K.; Busenitz, L.; Lant, T.; Mcdougall, P.P.; Morse, E.A.; Smith, J.B. The distinctive and inclusive domain of entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 2004, 28, 505–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busenitz, L.W.; West, G.P., III; Shepherd, D.; Nelson, T.; Chandler, G.N.; Zacharakis, A. Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 285–308. [Google Scholar]
- Sassetti, S.; Marzi, G.; Cavaliere, V.; Ciappei, C. Entrepreneurial cognition and socially situated approach: A systematic and bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 2018, 116, 1675–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Yu, A. Empirical study on the relationship between entrepreneurial cognitions and enterprise strategic change prospectivity: The mediating effect of knowledge creation process. Nankai Manag. Rev. 2016, 19, 120–133. [Google Scholar]
- Mehrabi, H.; Coviello, N.; Ranaweera, C. Ambidextrous marketing capabilities and performance: How and when entrepreneurial orientation makes a difference. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 77, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, M.C.; Wang, C. Linking service innovation to firm performance. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2017, 11, 730–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferraris, A.; Monge, F.; Mueller, J. Ambidextrous IT capabilities and business process performance: An empirical analysis. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2018, 24, 1077–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kortmann, S.; Gelhard, C.; Zimmermann, C.; Piller, F.T. Linking strategic flexibility and operational efficiency: The mediating role of ambidextrous operational capabilities. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 475–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Zhu, L. Promoting business model innovation through social media strategic capability: A moderated mediation model. Eur. Manag. J. 2021, 40, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Chen, Y.; Wang, S. The formation mechanism of entrepreneurial cognition: Study of the dual-processing system and its selection. J. Manag. Case Stud. 2015, 8, 367–379. [Google Scholar]
- Groves, K.; Vance, C.; Choi, D. Examining entrepreneurial cognition: An occupational analysis of balanced linear and nonlinear thinking and entrepreneurship success. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2011, 49, 438–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frederiks, A.J.; Englis, B.G.; Ehrenhard, M.L.; Groen, A.J. Entrepreneurial cognition and the quality of new venture ideas: An experimental approach to comparing future-oriented cognitive processes. J. Bus. Ventur. 2019, 34, 327–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garbuio, M.; Dong, A.; Lin, N.; Tschang, F.; Lovallo, D. Demystifying the genius of entrepreneurship: How design cognition can help create the next generation of entrepreneurs. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2018, 17, 41–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, M.H.; Chang, Y.Y.; Chang, Y.C. The trinity of entrepreneurial team dynamics: Cognition, conflicts and cohesion. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2017, 23, 934–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flor, M.L.; Cooper, S.Y.; Oltra, M.J. External knowledge search, absorptive capacity and radical innovation in high-technology firms. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kneeland, M.K.; Schilling, M.A.; Aharonson, B.S. Exploring uncharted territory: Knowledge search processes in the origination of outlier innovation. Organ. Sci. 2020, 31, 535–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roper, S.; Love, J.H.; Bonner, K. Firms’ knowledge search and local knowledge externalities in innovation performance. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nuscheler, D.; Engelen, A.; Zahra, S.A. The role of top management teams in transforming technology-based new ventures’ product introductions into growth. J. Bus. Ventur. 2019, 34, 122–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, L.A.; Buyl, T.; Jansen, R.J.G. Leading corporate sustainability: The role of top management team composition for triple bottom line performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Phadnis, S.S.; Sheffi, Y.; Caplice, C.; Singh, M. Strategic cognition of operations executives. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2017, 26, 2323–2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzgerald, T.; Balsmeier, B.; Fleming, L.; Manso, G. Innovation search strategy and predictable returns. Manag. Sci. 2021, 67, 1109–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, M.; Xu, P.; Llerena, P.; Afshar Jahanshahi, A. The impact of the openness of firms’ external search strategies on exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roper, S.; Love, J.H. Knowledge context, learning and innovation: An integrating framework. Ind. Innov. 2018, 25, 339–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, C.Y.; Lim, M.S.; Yoo, J.W. Ambidexterity in external knowledge search strategies and innovation performance: Mediating role of balanced innovation and moderating role of absorptive capacity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abrahamsson, J.; Boter, H.; Vanyushyn, V. Business model innovation of international new ventures: An empirical study in a Swedish context. J. Int. Entrep. 2019, 17, 75–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Inigo, E.A.; Albareda, L.; Ritala, P. Business model innovation for sustainability: Exploring evolutionary and radical approaches through dynamic capabilities. Ind. Innov. 2017, 24, 515–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, J.B.; Mitchell, J.R.; Mitchell, R.K. Entrepreneurial scripts and the new transaction commitment mindset: Extending the expert information processing theory approach to entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrep. Theor. Pract. 2010, 33, 815–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Liu, Y.; Xiang, G.; Ning, P. Business model innovation in the context of china’s transitional economy: Theme design and scale development. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2018, 40, 33–49. [Google Scholar]
- He, Y.; Liang, F. Firm knowledge search strategy and its influencing factors on the context of industry-university-research institution collaboration. Sci. Sci. Manag. 2017, 38, 12–22. [Google Scholar]
- Carayannis, E.G.; Grigoroudis, E.; Sindakis, S.; Walter, C. Business model innovation as antecedent of sustainable enterprise excellence and resilience. J. Knowl. Econ. 2014, 5, 440–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Mackenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Ling, W. Multiple mediation models and their applications. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 32, 433–435. [Google Scholar]
- Netemeyer, R.G.; Burton, S.; Johnston, M.W. A nested comparison of four models of the consequences of role perception variables. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1995, 61, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, G.W.; Lau, R.S. Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organ. Res. Methods 2008, 11, 296–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snihur, Y.; Wiklund, J. Searching for innovation: Product, process, and business model innovations and search behavior in established firms. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 305–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hock-Doepgen, M.; Clauss, T.; Kraus, S.; Cheng, C.F. Knowledge management capabilities and organizational risk-taking for business model innovation in SMEs. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 130, 683–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Combe, I.A.; Rudd, J.M.; Leeflang, P.S.; Greenley, G.E. Antecedents to strategic flexibility: Management cognition, firm resources and strategic options. Eur. J. Mark. 2012, 46, 1320–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhatti, S.H.; Santoro, G.; Khan, J.; Rizzato, F. Antecedents and consequences of business model innovation in the IT industry. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gielnik, M.M.; Krämer, A.C.; Kappel, B.; Frese, M. Antecedents of business opportunity identification and innovation: Investigating the interplay of information processing and information acquisition. Appl. Psychol. 2014, 63, 344–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutschera, I. Cognitive Style and Decision Making: Implications of Intuitive and Analytical Information Processing for Decision Quality; University of Oregon: Eugene, OR, USA, 2002; pp. 47–53. [Google Scholar]
- Andriani, M.; Samadhi, T.A.; Siswanto, J.; Suryadi, K. Knowledge management strategy: An organisational development approach. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2019, 25, 1474–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, J.Q.; Karhade, P.P.; Rai, A.; Xu, S.X. How firms make information technology investment decisions: Toward a behavioral agency theory. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2021, 38, 29–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Y.B.; Yoon, S.J.; Yoo, J.S. Development of a knowledge-based intelligent decision support system for operational risk management of global supply chains. Eur. J. Ind. Eng. 2018, 12, 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Number and Title | |
---|---|---|
Entrepreneurial Cognition | Configuration Cognition (EC1) | q1. TMT tends to offer products or services to the market that have a technological advantage or are protected by patents. |
q2. TMT focuses on building and maintaining trusting relationships with our partners. | ||
q3. TMT has certain assets, contacts and expertise that are scarce in this industry. | ||
Willingness Cognition (EC2) | q4. TMT is more process-oriented rather than results-oriented when looking for opportunities. | |
q5. TMT prefers to take risks and experiment rather than waste time on judging opportunities. | ||
q6. TMT looks beyond the current gains and losses to the long term when earnings do not meet expectations. | ||
Ability Cognition (EC3) | q7. TMT tends to think rationally and come up with multiple alternatives when dealing with problems, rather than relying on instinct. | |
q8. TMT is able to allocate people, money and materials appropriately in the face of new investment decisions. | ||
q9. TMT responds to changes in the external environment through a pool of expertise rather than “relying on the sky”. | ||
Dual Business Model Innovation | Proactive Business Model Innovation (BMI1) | y1. The company in which we work identify new opportunities and develop new markets in an out-of-the-box way. |
y2. The company leads a novel trading mechanism and establishes new operational processes, practices and norms. | ||
y3. The company plays a central role in the stakeholder business ecosystem. | ||
y4. The company has obtained more new ideas, inventions and patents through its business model. | ||
Reactive Business Model Innovation (BMI2) | y5. The company is constantly improving its main products and services to meet customer needs. | |
y6. The company continuously optimizes existing processes, knowledge and technology, and values the satisfaction of our trading partners. | ||
y7. The company strives to integrate into existing external innovation cooperation networks. | ||
y8. The company tends to follow the market leader in innovation. | ||
Knowledge Search | Exploratory Search (KS1) | k1. The company in which we work place emphasis on gathering cutting-edge information on technology and science. |
k2. The company values the progress of discovering forward-looking information and knowledge from the outside. | ||
k3. The company focuses on new knowledge in the market outside of our main business areas. | ||
k4. The company places emphasis on absorbing new knowledge from outside the organization. | ||
Exploitative Search (KS2) | k5. The company values the storage of existing knowledge. | |
k6. The company can discover similar information or knowledge from outside. | ||
k7. The company is able to search for new knowledge related to your main business. | ||
k8. The company is concerned about the state of technology development in this field and related industry information. | ||
k9. The company is constantly absorbing new knowledge that will help improve current products. |
Variable | Items | Factor Loading | α Value | AVE | CR | Goodness of Fit | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Entrepreneurial Cognition | EC1 | q1 q2 q3 | 0.835 0.826 0.645 | 0.718 | 0.599 | 0.815 | RMSEA = 0.009 GFI = 0.975 CFI = 0.999 TLI = 0.999 |
EC2 | q4 q5 q6 | 0.773 0.788 0.791 | 0.742 | 0.615 | 0.827 | ||
EC3 | q7 q8 q9 | 0.856 0.785 0.837 | 0.823 | 0.683 | 0.866 | ||
Dual Business Model Innovation | BMI1 | y1 y2 y3 y4 | 0.701 0.633 0.754 0.774 | 0.725 | 0.515 | 0.809 | RMSEA = 0.012 GFI = 0.980 CFI = 0.999 TLI = 0.998 |
BMI2 | y5 y6 y7 y8 | 0.696 0.752 0.762 0.709 | 0.744 | 0.533 | 0.820 | ||
Knowledge Search | KS1 | k1 k2 k3 k4 | 0.692 0.794 0.824 0.708 | 0.786 | 0.572 | 0.842 | RMSEA = 0.037 GFI = 0.967 CFI = 0.989 TLI = 0.985 |
KS2 | k5 k6 k7 k8 k9 | 0.645 0.798 0.753 0.781 0.747 | 0.830 | 0.558 | 0.862 |
Model | χ2 | df | TLI | CFI | SRMR | RMSEA(90% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seven-factor Model: EC1,EC2,EC3,KS1,KS2,BMI1,BMI2 | 558.617 | 413 | 0.932 | 0.940 | 0.052 | 0.040 (0.031,0.048) |
Six-factor Model: EC1 + EC2, EC3, KS1,KS2,BMI1,BMI2 | 661.304 | 419 | 0.889 | 0.900 | 0.057 | 0.051 (0.044,0.059) |
Five-factor Model: EC1 + EC2 + EC3, KS1, KS2, BMI1, BMI2 | 708.192 | 424 | 0.871 | 0.882 | 0.058 | 0.055 (0.048,0.062) |
Four-factor Model: EC1 + EC2 + EC3 + KS1, KS2, BMI1, BMI2 | 767.838 | 428 | 0.847 | 0.859 | 0.061 | 0.060 (0.053,0.067) |
Three-factor Model: EC1 + EC2 + EC3 + KS1 + KS2, BMI1, BMI2 | 833.669 | 431 | 0.820 | 0.833 | 0.068 | 0.065 (0.059,0.072) |
Two-factor Model: EC1 + EC2 + EC3 + KS1 + KS2 + BMI1, BMI2 | 927.115 | 433 | 0.780 | 0.795 | 0.066 | 0.072 (0.066,0.079) |
One-factor Model: EC1 + EC2 + EC3 + KS1 + KS2 + BMI1 + BMI2 | 1112.026 | 434 | 0.699 | 0.719 | 0.078 | 0.084 (0.078,0.091) |
Variable | Mean Value | Standard Deviation | EC1 | EC2 | EC3 | KS1 | KS2 | BMI1 | BMI2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EC1 | 3.950 | 0.621 | 1 | ||||||
EC2 | 3.977 | 0.537 | 0.334 ** | 1 | |||||
EC3 | 3.944 | 0.647 | 0.386 ** | 0.447 ** | 1 | ||||
KS1 | 3.998 | 0.456 | 0.367 ** | 0.427 ** | 0.439 ** | 1 | |||
KS2 | 3.954 | 0.516 | 0.438 ** | 0.496 ** | 0.507 ** | 0.494 ** | 1 | ||
BMI1 | 3.904 | 0.504 | 0.487 ** | 0.490 ** | 0.468 ** | 0.598 ** | 0.574 ** | 1 | |
BMI2 | 4.067 | 0.480 | 0.424 ** | 0.458 ** | 0.445 ** | 0.555 ** | 0.560 ** | 0.465 ** | 1 |
Regression Path | Standardized Path Coefficient | Significance p-Value | Assumptions Are Validated or Not |
---|---|---|---|
Proactive Business Model Innovation← Configuration Cognition | 0.422 | 0.000 (<0.001) | H1a is adopted |
Proactive Business Model Innovation← Willingness Cognition | 0.382 | 0.000 (<0.001) | H1b is adopted |
Proactive Business Model Innovation← Ability Cognition | 0.187 | 0.036 (<0.050) | H1c is adopted |
Reactive Business Model Innovation← Configuration Cognition | 0.304 | 0.001 (<0.010) | H2a is adopted |
Reactive Business Model Innovation← Willingness Cognition | 0.358 | 0.000 (<0.001) | H2b is adopted |
Reactive Business Model Innovation← Ability Cognition | 0.219 | 0.025 (<0.050) | H2c is adopted |
Overall model fitting index | , TLI = 0.997, CFI = 0.998, SRMR = 0.042, RMSEA = 0.010 |
Model | χ2 | df | RMSEA | SRMR | TLI | CFI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M0 | 327.175 | 285 | 1.148 | 0.026 | 0.046 | 0.977 | 0.980 |
M1 | 315.487 | 282 | 1.119 | 0.023 | 0.047 | 0.982 | 0.984 |
M2 | 323.580 | 282 | 1.147 | 0.026 | 0.046 | 0.977 | 0.980 |
M3 | 311.832 | 279 | 1.118 | 0.023 | 0.047 | 0.982 | 0.984 |
Regression Path | Standardized Path Coefficient | Significance p-Value |
---|---|---|
Exploratory Search← Configuration Cognition | 0.235 | 0.010 (<0.050) |
Exploratory Search← Willingness Cognition | 0.346 | 0.000 (<0.001) |
Exploratory Search← Ability Cognition | 0.228 | 0.021 (<0.050) |
Exploitative Search← Configuration Cognition | 0.312 | 0.000 (<0.001) |
Exploitative Search← Willingness Cognition | 0.376 | 0.000 (<0.001) |
Exploitative Search← Ability Cognition | 0.225 | 0.012 (<0.050) |
Proactive Business Model Innovation← Exploratory Search | 0.404 | 0.000 (<0.001) |
Proactive Business Model Innovation← Exploitative Search | 0.222 | 0.035 (<0.050) |
Reactive Business Model Innovation← Exploratory Search | 0.366 | 0.000 (<0.001) |
Reactive Business Model Innovation← Exploitative Search | 0.332 | 0.003 (<0.010) |
Proactive Business Model Innovation← Configuration Cognition | 0.268 | 0.003 (<0.010) |
Proactive Business Model Innovation← Willingness Cognition | 0.178 | 0.084 (>0.050) |
Proactive Business Model Innovation← Ability Cognition | 0.036 | 0.684 (>0.050) |
Reactive Business Model Innovation← Configuration Cognition | 0.126 | 0.187 (>0.050) |
Reactive Business Model Innovation← Willingness Cognition | 0.123 | 0.262 (<0.050) |
Reactive Business Model Innovation← Ability Cognition | 0.050 | 0.594 (>0.050) |
Model Goodness of Fit:, TLI = 0.982, CFI = 0.984, SRMR = 0.047, RMSEA = 0.023 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ni, Y.; Wang, J.; Li, C. The Power of Sustainability in the “Black Swan” Event: Entrepreneurial Cognition of Top Management Team and Dual Business Model Innovation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063530
Ni Y, Wang J, Li C. The Power of Sustainability in the “Black Swan” Event: Entrepreneurial Cognition of Top Management Team and Dual Business Model Innovation. Sustainability. 2022; 14(6):3530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063530
Chicago/Turabian StyleNi, Yuan, Jia Wang, and Cui Li. 2022. "The Power of Sustainability in the “Black Swan” Event: Entrepreneurial Cognition of Top Management Team and Dual Business Model Innovation" Sustainability 14, no. 6: 3530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063530