Abstract Research Summary Extending the opportunity‐discovery perspective on Kirznerian entrepreneurship, we propose a general framework in which new businesses emerge from three distinct mechanisms situated at the individual‐opportunity nexus: discovery , discernment , and exploitation . We propose observing opportunities in market exchanges and characterizing their profitability potential based on a component that is common to all observers and one that is specific to individual observers who vary in access to market information. Analysis of an online platform for freelance labor demonstrates our contributions in theory, measurement, and inference. In this context, discovery and exploitation mechanisms shape individuals' entrepreneurial transitions from freelancer to founder. We discuss applications of our framework across settings, extensions to other types of entrepreneurship, and the viability of opportunity as an orienting construct for entrepreneurship research. Managerial Summary Entrepreneurial opportunities are present in all markets but there is no systematic way of observing or valuing such opportunities, much less predicting where and when they become the basis for new businesses. We propose doing this with data commonly collected and archived by online platforms. We acknowledge that new businesses are often founded if one is in the right place at the right time; if one can distinguish a great opportunity from a good (or bad) one; or if one is capable of making a market. Our framework makes each of these intuitions empirically distinct, thus offering insights on where, when, and by whom new businesses are likely to be founded.

Abstract We suggest that AI can help decision‐makers learn; specifically, that it can help them learn strategic interactions by serving as artificial training partners and thus help them to overcome a bottleneck of scarce human training partners. We present evidence from chess computers, the first widespread incarnation of AI. Leveraging the staggered diffusion of chess computers, we find that they did indeed help chess players improve by serving as a substitute for scarce human training partners. We also illustrate that chess computers were not a perfect substitute, as players training with them were not exposed to and thus did not learn to exploit idiosyncratic (“human”) mistakes. We discuss implications for research on learning, on AI in management and strategy, and on competitive advantage.

Abstract Research Summary Can accelerators pick the most promising startup ideas no matter their provenance? Using unique data from a global accelerator where judges are randomly assigned to evaluate startups headquartered across the globe, we show that judges are less likely to recommend startups headquartered outside their home region by 4 percentage points. Back‐of‐the‐envelope calculations suggest this discount leads judges to pass over 1 in 20 promising startups. Despite this systematic discount, we find that—in contrast to many past studies—judges can discern startup quality and are no better at evaluating local firms. These differences emerge because the pool of startups accelerator judges evaluate is both broader and less “local,” suggesting that judging ability depends on the composition of the companies they are tasked with evaluating. Managerial Summary Accelerators often seek the most promising startup ideas. Yet, they can only do so if their judges can discern the quality of startups, both local and foreign to them, without systematic bias. We used unique data from a global accelerator where judges are assigned to evaluate startups headquartered across the globe and find that, while judges can detect the quality of both local and foreign startups, they discount startups foreign to them, hindering their ability to accept the best startup ideas. As venture capitalists increasingly source startups from accelerators, this foreign discounting can result in investors passing over promising ideas. However, simple measures like reducing the threshold for startups evaluated by foreign judges may help reduce judges' foreign discounting and enable picking the best companies.

Abstract Research Abstract We examine whether salary transparency influences gender pays inequality in the context of Canadian universities by exploiting a policy change enacted in one Canadian province that required salary disclosure through a publicly searchable database, thus lowering the cost of monitoring the gender pay gap. We find that, on average, salary disclosure improves gender pay equality but institutions respond in different ways. Despite little media attention around gender equality at the time of the policy, institutions most likely to anticipate higher scrutiny, such as top ranked institutions, respond more aggressively to improve gender pay equality—both in terms of the magnitude and type of response. Combined, our findings suggest that the extent of change from salary transparency depends on the reduction in monitoring costs and organizational characteristics. Managerial Abstract Salary transparency has been implemented in various ways around the world as a strategy by firms and policy makers to reduce the gender pay gap. However, whether and how it can achieve this in practice is unclear. We examine a salary transparency policy that mandated disclosure to the public through an online database in one Canadian province by comparing the change in gender pay inequality in that province relative to the change in the gender pay gap in provinces without disclosure. We find that salary transparency improves average gender pay equality primarily within the most visible organizations that likely anticipate high levels of public scrutiny. Our findings imply that facilitating low‐cost public monitoring of gender inequalities can motivate organizations to enact change.

Abstract R esearch Summary We inductively analyze rich qualitative and quantitative data on the global census of pioneering mobile money firms to examine how firm characteristics shape digital platform ecosystem configuration choices regarding (a) internal versus external integration and (b) the creation of network externalities through open versus closed end‐user access. In contrast to received wisdom, we find pioneering firms were equally likely to engage in external and internal integration; moreover, diversifying entrants were less likely to internally integrate than startups. We uncover the important role of motives, in addition to capabilities, for creating alignment between pioneering firms and their partners. Such alignment was key for addressing path‐dependent implementation challenges through experimentation and navigating nascent industry uncertainty for success. Managerial Summary Our study showcases how enterprising firms pioneered and diffused mobile money, a digital platform that improves access to financial services. The successful take‐off and growth of this industry, as revealed by our inductive analysis, was contingent on aligned capabilities and motives among platform co‐providers and critical partners. We illuminate why and how pioneer capabilities and motives influenced key platform choices regarding internal versus external integration, and open versus closed end‐user access. These choices then created different implementation challenges. The successful pioneers navigated these challenges to create a robust ecosystem for network effects by engaging in two actions: they developed lasting partner relationships, and they experimented to determine distinct demand segments, identify unmet needs, and develop value propositions.

Abstract Research Summary Despite a plethora of studies, the moderating effects of contingency factors regarding the relationship between corporate planning (CP) and organizational performance (OP) remain open to discussion. Our meta‐analysis analyzes 183 independent study samples, 84 of which are examined for the first time. We expand on previous meta‐analyses by correcting for measurement error and dichotomization, and we use moderation analyses and meta‐analytical regressions to explain heterogeneity in these studies. We find evidence for the moderating effects of task interdependence and uncertainty avoidance as contingency factors. Unexpectedly, we identify an interaction of the measurements of OP and CP with uncertainty avoidance. Our results provide new insights into the relationship between CP and OP. Management Summary Managers who may doubt whether planning is still fruitful in turbulent times obtain a clear answer from our study: Yes, it is. CP is definitely correlated with OP. The effect sizes are stable over time and for different types of planning. However, the effect of CP on performance depends on the organizational context. Manufacturing firms benefit more than nonmanufacturing firms, and larger firms benefit more than smaller firms. Organizations in countries with high uncertainty avoidance show larger effects in relation to those in countries with low uncertainty avoidance. Finally, organizations facing high environmental uncertainty show higher effects of CP than organizations in more stable environments. However, the identified effects are conditional on the type of measurement of performance and CP.

Abstract Research Summary Whilst existing research generally assumes corporate social responsibility (CSR) is seen as universally positive, firms increasingly adopt practices, and take stands, on highly polarizing social issues (e.g., gun‐control, LGBTQ rights, abortion). To better understand this phenomenon, we develop a theory about when firms will emulate, ignore, or oppose each other's CSR efforts, based on attributes of the underlying social issue (its salience and polarization), the level of market competition, and the substantiveness of CSR. Our theory predicts several distinct equilibrium outcomes, including the potential for social counter‐positioning, whereby rival firms take advantage of socio‐political polarization to horizontally differentiate by taking opposing stances on a polarizing issue. Counterpositioning is more likely when salience is high, but agreement is low, when markets are competitive, and when CSR is largely symbolic. Managerial Summary Firms increasingly find themselves drawn, willingly or not, to taking stances on a controversial social issue (e.g., gun rights, abortion), though doing so risks alienating (some) stakeholders. In this paper, we develop a theory of why, when, and how firms should take a stance on a polarizing issue. We argue that firms profit from doing so when (1) the issue is salient, (2) markets are competitive, and (3) the actions are mostly symbolic. We also show that taking a stance on polarizing issues creates opportunities for the firms' competitors to counter their ideological positioning, strengthening weaker rivals in the process. Thus, in competitive markets, taking clear stances on polarizing, salient issues can segment the market, increasing the profits of all firms, and, potentially, intensifying polarization.