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.