Does entrepreneurial education matter for the performance of medium-sized venture entrepreneurs?

Arend, Richard; Unal, Ali; Bilodeau, Richard Article Does entrepreneurial education matter for the performance of medium-sized venture entrepreneurs? Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Arend, Richard; Unal, Ali; Bilodeau, Richard (2025) : Does entrepreneurial education matter for the performance of medium-sized venture entrepreneurs?, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 3, pp. 1-24, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15030075 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321219 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 14 November 2024 Revised: 6 February 2025 Accepted: 18 February 2025 Published: 24 February 2025 Citation: Arend, R., Unal, A., & Bilodeau, R. (2025). Does Entrepreneurial Education Matter for the Performance of Medium-Sized Venture Entrepreneurs? Administrative Sciences,15(3), 75. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/admsci15030075 Copyright: © 2025 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/). Article Does Entrepreneurial Education Matter for the Performance of Medium-Sized Venture Entrepreneurs? Richard Arend * , Ali Unal and Richard Bilodeau Department of Business Administration, School of Business, College of Management and Human Service, University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME 04103, USA; [email protected] (A.U.); [email protected] (R.B.) *Correspondence: richard.ar[email protected] Abstract: We explore the question of whether entrepreneurial education matters for medium-sized venture performance. We do so to better understand the conflicting evidence indicating that, while such education appears to have significant positive micro-level effects, it has no significant macro-level effects. The growing investment in entrepreneurial education has increased intentions and start-up rates in treatment effects studies but has yet to make an impact on national start-up or survival rates. To address the contradiction, we apply a different empirical approach—one based on the capabilities view—where we survey venture entrepreneurs about their firm’s performance and their education in order to determine whether their skills-enhancing entrepreneurial training is or is not a key driver of success. We find that while that training significantly increases their confidence, when taken as a whole—as a multidimensional measure—that entrepreneurial education does not significantly influence venture performance. We discuss the implications for research, policy, and education. Keywords: entrepreneurial education; real options value; medium-sized enterprises; capabilities view; survey 1. Introduction It is difficult to overstate the importance of entrepreneurial activity in modern economies, let alone in the US (Reynolds et al.,2004), where over 650,000 new ventures start up each year (Kauffman Foundation—https://indicators.kauffman.org/ [accessed on 1 June 2024]). The vast majority of start-ups are smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—globally, these are the ventures that power the engines of employment, product and process innovation, poverty alleviation, market creation, and economic development (e.g., Avdullahi & Ademi,2020;Malesios et al.,2018;Minai et al.,2018). Given that a ‘lack of education’ is one of the three major barriers to such activity (Rideout & Gray,2013), entrepreneurship education and training (henceforth denoted as EE) has become a major focus of universities, governmental departments, and researchers (e.g., Arend et al.,2025; Kuratko,2005;Rauch & Hulsink,2015;Suguna et al.,2024). For the purpose of this study, EE involves formal courses and training with content specific to entrepreneurship, delivered through a recognized school, college, or online program. It can involve ‘know what’ (e.g., general knowledge) and ‘know how’ (e.g., skills). Students of EE accrue several benefits—they have greater intensions to start businesses, actually start more businesses, and also grow them more (e.g., Dickson et al.,2008;Henry et al.,2005;Martin et al.,2013;Safranski,2004). As a result, the US (and many other countries) have invested heavily in EE for decades, and at several levels of schooling, in Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15030075 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 2 of 24 order to increase the positive effects of SME start-ups (e.g., Brush et al.,2003;Greene et al., 2004;Huber et al.,2014;Katz,2003;Peterman & Kennedy,2003;Sánchez,2013;Walter & Block,2016). In the US, EE has exploded from 16 programs in 1970 to 5000 courses taught by 9000 faculty in 2008, and even with some colleges requiring all students to take at least one EE course in 2013 (e.g., Finkle et al.,2006;Katz,2003;Kuratko,2005;Lyons & Zhang, 2018;Safranski,2004;Solomon,2007). Further, the number of start-ups funded by EE has increased by twenty-fold in ten years (AngelList,2015;CrunchBase,2013), with about one-third of business incubators housed at universities. Naturally, with the growth, size and economic importance of those investments in EE have come calls for more rigorous research into its effects (e.g., Davidsson et al.,2001; Haase & Lautenschlager,2011;Rideout & Gray,2013) in order to assuage doubts over its efficacy (e.g., Aronsson,2004;Martin et al.,2013;Rae & Carswell,2000;Weaver et al.,2006). Essentially, the calls for more research seek to answer the question of whether EE matters. To that stream of inquiry, we contribute with the analysis of the more focused question of whether EE matters to ME performance—a question that has not been answered1. A primary logic underlying the investment in EE is that such training improves the skills of entrepreneurs-to-be, where they, in turn, produce more and better SME activity to improve the economy (e.g., Bhatia & Levina,2020;Fayolle & Gailly,2008;Minai et al.,2018). Our analysis focuses on what appears to be an empirical flaw in that logic— a flaw that appears when one compares the small and big pictures of EE impact over the last few decades in the US. At the small scale, considerable evidence exists that EE training at the individual level is significantly positively correlated with several measures of their entrepreneurial activity (e.g., Martin et al.,2013). However, even though since 2018, the number of people trained in entrepreneurship has doubled the number of MEs started up each year, at the large and longer scale, neither the start-up rate of MEs nor their survival rate appears to have improved. In fact, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicates that ME start-up rates have fallen significantly in the last two decades (and more so for the largest firm sizes—i.e., of 50–499 employees) (e.g., Fairlie,2022). Survival rates based on Canadian data imply no significant changes in the past decades of most MEs (i.e., those with 5–99 employees) either, hovering around a 10-year rate of 55 percent (https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/sme-research-statistics/en/ key-small-business-statistics/key-small-business-statistics-2023#s1.2—Key Small Business Statistics, 2023, from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada [accessed on 1 June 2024]). This is not a temporary trend; it covers a significant time lag between taking EE and starting a business. While the interest in entrepreneurial careers has dramatically increased over the recent decades, supported and stoked by explosive EE investment (Rideout & Gray,2013), SMEs have consistently continued to suffer high failure rates due to weak performance (Machirori & Fatoki,2013;Minai et al.,2018). In other words, even though the levels of EE investment and training have increased by magnitudes over the past four decades, the quantity and quality levels of MEs have not actually increased at all. Our focus is on investigating the latter outcome—on identifying whether and how EE, controlling for factors at the founder and firm levels, affects ME performance along several dimensions. The results of our investigation help explain this inconsistency between the small and big pictures. Our study is different from most if not all, previous research on the effects of EE. We contribute to the entrepreneurship literature in three major but related ways, the first and most important being the application of a capabilities-based perspective to EE. Given our dependent variable is ME performance, we apply the standard approach in the capabilities view of trying to identify which firm factors contribute to their success on the margin (e.g., Barney,1991;Collis,1994). This retrospective approach differs from the vast majority Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 3 of 24 of EE research that takes a prospective, treatment-effects approach, where the focus is on whether an EE experience (versus none) differs in its effects on subsequent entrepreneurial behaviors like start-up activity. Such a difference in perspective implies that the appropriate sample for our study is existing MEs (rather than being a set of individuals, some of whom had EE training and some of whom did not) 2 . Our second major contribution, based on the virtue of our perspective, is how we capture EE—we do so as a multidimensional influence rather than as a one-shot treatment. Because starting an ME entails buy-in at a non-trivial scale that requires entrepreneurs to prove a wide range of skills (Lazear,2004,2005) and because most entrepreneurs wait a significant time to start a venture after receiving training (e.g., Lange et al.,2014) and most entrepreneurs who receive EE training take more than one course (Nabi et al.,2017) and those courses can differ greatly by quality and method (Rideout & Gray,2013) and some of the outcomes of EE training lie beyond the skills taught (e.g., such as provided by networking—Eesley & Lee,2021), our assessment of EE spans several measures. The third contribution, relating to the first, involves the number of controls we have in our analysis to identify the marginal effects of the EE factors. While previous studies may have controlled for a handful of factors, mostly at the individual level (e.g., gender and age), we control for over ten relevant factors at both the individual and the firm levels (e.g., ME age, size, and its industry’s turbulence). We believe this is a more reasonable and objective way to verify the additional value of EE itself on ME performance. Our empirical results indicate that the overall EE—as a multidimensional collection of measures—has no significant positive effect on a variety of ME performance outcomes when individual and firm-level factors are controlled for. That being noted, we did find a significant positive effect on confidence-related measures, such as on the entrepreneur’s self-confidence and on her expectation of her ME’s future business success. Our main result is consistent with the big picture issue for EE impact (e.g., a lack of recognizable change of failure rates at the national level), while our analysis provides a story that is consistent with the small picture evidence—a story about EE providing its students with an option value that is often enough exercised to show significance in past treatment-based studies on entrepreneurial activities. In the remainder of the paper, we review the relevant literature, argue our hypotheses, explain our empirical methods and sample, describe our results, and then discuss their implications for EE and its stakeholders. 2. Literature Review It is no surprise that the question of EE’s effectiveness has been an active subject of research—there were 79 relevant studies published prior to 2013 alone. However, such research has itself been questioned. Many studies have been shown to be flawed due to biases in their treatment effects analyses (e.g., all but six of 79 studies failed to use randomized assignment for their treatment and control groups—Martin et al.,2013) and due to other methodological issues (Rideout & Gray,2013;Rauch & Hulsink,2015;Safranski, 2004;Shadish et al.,2001). Those flaws have caused some researchers to conclude that there is little evidence of EE’s effectiveness (Fiet,2000;Rideout & Gray,2013;Weaver et al.,2006). Such concerns are based not only on methodological issues but also due to the focus of most studies on short-term, subjective impact measures such as intentions and start-up activities rather than on long-term measures such as firm performance. From reviews of the literature, a call has arisen for future research to address that gap in focus (e.g., Garavan & O’Cinneide,1994;Henry et al.,2005;Nabi et al.,2017;Pittaway & Cope,2007). Here, we attempt to answer that call with a focus on the performance of MEs—MEs being the firms of most interest to policymakers because they start off with a positive employment impact and because they grow more than SEs. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 4 of 24 Historically, the two fundamental questions linked to EE are Can it be taught? and Is it necessary? (Kozlinska,2011). To the first question, while disagreement continues, the majority of studies affirm that entrepreneurship skills can be taught (e.g., Mayhew et al., 2012). EE generates entrepreneurial competencies (Minai et al.,2018)—the kind that is supposed to improve firm performance. Further, we expect that the students gaining those skills will likely become entrepreneurs given that Career Theory explains that individuals will enter specific professions when they have the related education (e.g., Rideout & Gray, 2013). Agency Theory also supports EE in its ability to cultivate agentic capabilities in its students, who then are more likely to pursue a wider array of opportunities and become more successful in realizing desired futures (e.g., Bandura,2006;Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Recent EE work reveals the role of education in building entrepreneurial skills and efficacy (Chatterji et al.,2019;Eller et al.,2021;Galvão et al.,2020;Kotha et al.,2019;Lyons & Zhang,2018;Sarasvathy,2001). Because such skills have been regarded as a key factor for success in business and innovation, EE programs and incubators have exploded in prevalence over the past decades (Lyons & Zhang,2018;Rigby & Ramlogan,2016). The question of teaching entrepreneurship may not simply stop at whether specific skills can be learned; EE is also often expected to provide the confidence, goal-setting, motivation, and self-efficacy that help ensure that those skills are actually applied (e.g., McClelland,1961;Rideout & Gray,2013). The Theory of Planned Behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991;Krueger & Carsrud,1993) hypothesizes that intentions precede behaviors, where the former have been proven to be heightened by EE (Rideout & Gray,2013). In fact, most models of EE’s impacts include a path to outcomes being paved by improved skills and confidence (e.g., Erikson,2003;Rae & Carswell,2000). To the second question of EE’s necessity for entrepreneurial success, existing evidence points to possible sufficiency as the best case. The review of 159 published articles from 2004 to 2016 indicated that EE has at least a short-term positive impact on select success measures (although most of those articles involve greatly under-described EE pedagogies and severely limited controls for selection effects—by Nabi et al.,2017). An earlier metaanalysis, based on 42 independent samples (N> 16,000), found that EE was significantly and positively related to entrepreneurship outcomes, with a correlation above 0.15 (Martin et al.,2013). Start-up, survival, and performance of ventures are all driven by the skills of entrepreneurs—skills that can come from EE exposure (Minai et al.,2018;Tehseen & Ramayah,2015). While such evidence supports the argument that EE can be sufficient for positive venture outcomes, there is no support for its necessity. That is because of the existence of substitutes like real experience acting as viable means to gain skills and confidence (e.g., as a protégé to a mentor entrepreneur, from working at a startup alongside an industry-savvy team, or from having to start-up one’s own business due to economic necessity). Experience-as-an-EE-substitute forms the basis for the Theil Scholarship and for many press-friendly stories of tech-billionaire college dropouts. 3. Hypotheses We now consider arguments about whether EE should matter to ME performance. Our main hypothesis concerns the expected impact of the ME CEO’s EE experience on their venture’s performance. We consider the arguments both for and against a positive impact because there are two schools on the subject—one that affirms that EE can effectively develop relevant, applicable skills and one that denies it (e.g., Mayhew et al.,2016). 3.1. The Affirmative School Grounded in a capabilities-based approach, the answer is that EE does matter, yes, because better factors are supposed to lead to better organizational performance (e.g., Barney, Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 5 of 24 1991). Given here that a set of those factors—managerial skills—are made better through EE, then EE should lead to better organizational performance, even when controlling for the differences in other relevant factors at the individual manager and organizational levels. And, that should be even easier to determine when a fuller assessment of the EE exposure (e.g., measuring both its quantity [in the number of courses taken] and quality [such as direct entrepreneurial experience]) is accounted for through a multi-dimensional measure. Previous research (e.g., Eller et al.,2021;Galvão et al.,2020;Martin et al.,2013;Mayhew et al.,2012) and extensive reviews of the literature (e.g., Gorman et al.,1997;Kuratko,2005; Pittaway & Cope,2007;Weaver et al.,2006) support this affirmative school (Mayhew et al.,2016). The logic underlying those findings is rooted in the training literature (Bell & Kozlowski,2008) and grounded in human capital theory (Becker,1964;Mincer,1958)—a theory drawn upon in the entrepreneurship literature to explain aspects of entrepreneurial success (e.g., Martin et al.,2013;Pfeffer,1994). As a process involving a set of related skills (e.g., in opportunity recognition and resource acquisition and use—Shane,2003), entrepreneurship theoretically can be cultivated through EE experiences (e.g., Gorman et al.,1997;Katz,2003;Pittaway & Cope,2007;Martin et al.,2013;Mayhew et al.,2016). The affirmative school is also supported by translating the past evidence of EE’s positive significant effects on intentions, skills improvements, and self-efficacy—through the Theory of Planned Behavior, Agency Theory and Career Theory—into the expectation that those factors will translate into positive, sustained and successful entrepreneurial activity by students. Further, it is even expected that such training has a reasonable shelf-life so that if a would-be entrepreneur were to wait years to strike at the right opportunity, then EE would still have a positive impact (Kolvereid & Moen,1997). 3.2. The Dissenting School The dissenting school argues that EE does not matter to ME performance. Scholars in this school cast doubt on the past evidence of the positive linkage between EE and venture success. They also raise difficult questions about the limits of EE. These scholars believe that the available research into the impact of EE is of insufficient quantity, quality, and consistency to prove its effectiveness in creating more and better entrepreneurs (e.g., Cox et al.,2002;Davidsson,2015;Martin et al.,2013). Further, healthy skepticism exists over whether one can learn entrepreneurship in a classroom setting (e.g., Bhatia & Levina,2020; Kuratko,2004). It is difficult to imagine how one can teach effective ways to address specific internal politics, build trust among a specific set of stakeholders, increase alertness, build a jack-of-all-trades expertise, make decisions under ambiguity, be lean yet not unsafe, fake it until you make it (without being dishonest), or beg, borrow, and steal needed resources (legally). The reality that many of these key lessons for entrepreneurial success can only be taught out of the classroom has been exposed in stories of billionaires—in the Internet boom and beyond—who had little, if any, formal EE training (Mayhew et al.,2016). 3.3. Finding a Synthesis of the Opposing Schools in Real Options Thinking A synthesis of these opposing schools is offered to reconcile their opposing logic, arguments, and evidence. It is a logic that, on the one hand, recognizes the underlying potential value of EE training while, on the other hand, also recognizes the constraints and conditionals of realizing that value in any specific application to an ME. We find that synthesis in a real options-based perspective (which is a new argument to the literature on EE effectiveness). Our theoretical contribution lies in extending the capabilities perspective—the approach that drives our empirical investigation—by considering the underlying real option value of EE-based capabilities, specifically in how that value is or is not realized when Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 6 of 24 the option is exercised in a given context. The investment in EE generates a valuable real option (e.g., McGrath,1999) for the entrepreneur who then ‘owns’ the capability but does not have the obligation to start up and manage a new venture (such as an ME). However, like most real options, the exercised value is often much lower than the holding value. Not only are the exercise costs usually higher-than-expected (e.g., in terms of start-up and foregone opportunity costs), but the time-to-exercise and the upper bound to the market are often lower than expected due to reactions by imitators and defending incumbents (e.g., Copeland & Tufano,2004;Van Putten & MacMillan,2004). Taking on this real options perspective shifts the question debated by the two schools— about whether EE has value connected to ME performance—to the question of whether that value is often enough realized in its application. Because of the capabilities-based logic and the associated evidence from treatment-based effects research, we must agree with the affirmative school that EE could have a positive significant effect on ME performance. Simply put, EE does provide the relevant skills and self-efficacy to its students that are applicable. However, we must also recognize the concerns of the dissenting school regarding the realization of that effect. First, we must recognize that there are constraints on the skills and lessons that EE can provide—constraints that affect the potential positive impact of EE. Second, we must recognize that there are contextual conditions that may significantly limit the positive impacts of those skills in specific applications (i.e., to a single firm, with a single idea, at a single time and place). We now consider those caveats that limit EE’s exercised option value. EE is constrained by many factors. Consider the following issues involved in teaching entrepreneurship in an institutional setting: Content must be taught widely versus narrowly, given the variety of students’ interests and the level of generality of most relevant theories and frameworks. The intensity and complexity of the personal stakes involved, of the pressures applied, of the politics or legal or financial concerns must all be tamped down for student safety in any educational experience. The prescription of ‘marginal’ business behaviors (e.g., the fake it ‘til you make it attitude, various corner-cutting tactics, and creative accounting) that rivals and others are likely to use is disallowed in accredited institutions. And, no EE program alone provides the training in the underlying venture idea’s skill (e.g., in coding, engineering, science, design, and crafting to generate that ‘ten-thousandhours-level’ expertise that is often required to generate a novel and commercializable idea—Gladwell,2008). These constraints imply that the value of EE as a real option is likely to be low when exercised in any specific ME. This is because those EE capabilities—taught as general, unpressured, ideal, loosely linked skills—are likely to lose much of their impact when applied to a specific idea, in a specific industry, in a specific market segment at a specific time, under specific start-up resource constraints, under real pressures, in a tightly-linked structure at a specific ME. When the application context differs from the learned context there must be a loss of a skill’s value, at a minimum, until adjustments can be made (e.g., McKeachie,1987). When that application context not only differs in specificity and pressure but involves greater uncertainty and dynamics as well, that degradation will be significant (e.g., Comfort & Wukich,2013;Moynihan,2008). Added to these concerns is the likelihood that the EE training was incomplete—in that critical gaps, often concerning tacit skills (e.g., in leadership, sales, hiring, negotiation, pivoting, reading rival moves), would have gone unfilled, rendering any of the learned skills much less impactful (e.g., Jackson, 2012;Jackson & Chapman,2012). In sum, the evidence and logic on EE can be supported by a real options-based capabilities story that can predict both an affirmative and a dissenting outcome. On the one hand, the capabilities-based logic and the historical evidence of treatment-based research Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 7 of 24 predicts that EE will increase general skills related to the entrepreneurial process—that EE has a high potential option value to students—and so could positively affect ME performance. On the other hand, there is insufficient evidence that, once that option value is exercised in a specific application, EE must result in better performance (e.g., due to mismatches in capabilities and opportunities—Williamson,1999). The real options logic strongly suggests that the value of general skills will be severely degraded due to a myriad of factors, including possible gaps in necessary skills (e.g., concerning the underlying technology of the venture and the ability to apply general lessons to the specifics of a new and uncertain opportunity); the competitive reactions of others with similar, better, or more specialized skills; a real-life lack of information for the idealized decision-making processes taught; a lack of resources and time; and the costly internal and market frictions that commonly exist with new endeavors. Thus, our first (competing) hypotheses are as follow: H1a. EE will have a significant positive impact on ME performance. H1b. EE will not have a significant impact on ME performance. EE not only builds skills but also builds confidence. The training in a skill includes becoming more familiar with its history, value, and general use. Such training often includes the application of that skill but almost always in an artificial setting (e.g., where any possible failure is limited, where information and feedback are timely, constructive, and mostly costless, and where a positive outcome is generally expected). EE builds the confidence needed for start-ups to occur, or as McMullen and Shepherd (2006, p. 141) note, “[ . . . ] through learning efforts and/or the encouragement of others, one may be able to overcome doubt and act [on a given opportunity]”. Research shows that EE increases positive perceptions (e.g., of feasibility and desirability) of entrepreneurial activities (Athayde,2009;Souitaris et al.,2007) and that such increased feasibility is only possible with increased confidence in personal skills. An undisputed goal of education, let alone EE, is to increase a student’s self-efficacy (e.g., Shinnar et al.,2014;Wilson et al.,2007). That growth in confidence results from the positive experience that the student should experience in using new skills with increasing success in pseudo-direct, indirect, and social contexts. In EE, the pseudo-direct applications are through simulated or constructed, low-risk, often-isolated real-world activities; the indirect applications are through cases, mentorships, guest lectures, limited consulting, and possibly some valuation and low-risk investment exercises, and the social interactions occur through discussions with other students and by partaking in business plan competitions. All are experienced in controlled environments supplemented by constructive, timely feedback. We expect that the positive impact of EE on student confidence to not only apply to the entrepreneur’s skills and self-image—of her past and present image—but also to project onto her current venture as well (e.g., Cassar,2010;Von Bergen & Bressler,2011). Obviously, if she were not confident in her skills relating to the current venture, or worse, if she were not confident in the future of that venture, she would not rationally be working on it in the present. Our second hypothesis follows: H2. EE will have a positive and significant impact on the entrepreneur’s confidence in herself and her venture’s future. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 8 of 24 4. Empirical Methods 4.1. Sample and Procedures In the tradition of the capability view’s empirical testing approach (Barney & Mackey, 2005), we sample from a population of firms of interest, recording from each firm several measures of specific factors and relevant performance outcomes for analysis. The focal factors are regressed, with controls, on performance in order to determine whether significant correlation is present and in the expected direction. Here, the sample of firms are MEs, the focal factors involve the multiple dimensions of EE, the controls are at the individual and venture levels, the performance outcomes span several perceptions of relative success, and the regressions are hierarchical in nature. Our sample data come from an online survey of compensated participants using Amazon MTurk’s marketplace. Filters were used to access the targeted population of ventures (i.e., sized between 5 and 500 full-time equivalent employees [FTEs] and located in the US) and respondents (i.e., the entrepreneur managing the ME). The survey was conducted online through Qualtrics in mid-2021. That approach resulted in 213 responses from a cross-section of industries and demographics, with only a handful of missing or inconsistent data, which provided 197 complete records. This approach is consistent with the majority of related studies that use cross-sectional data (e.g., in the capabilities view research and in the entrepreneurial activity research, including that involving EE), and especially when surveys are employed (e.g., Nabi et al.,2017;Padilla-Angulo et al.,2021). Among the 213 entrepreneurs in our sample, 60.1% were male, the average age was 39.5, average work and entrepreneurship experience was 15 years and 9 years, respectively, most with a business education degree. On average, participants had two prior start-up experiences, had taken over 5 entrepreneurship-specific courses, and were involved in a firm with an average of over 130 FTEs and an average age of over 14 years. We used the extrapolation technique (Armstrong & Overton,1977) to test for nonresponse bias, which is commonly adopted in the literature (e.g., Engelen et al.,2015; Simsek et al.,2007). Based on the assumption that late respondents could be similar to non-respondents, we split the data into two groups and used t-tests to compare the mean values of main constructs between early and late respondents. We found no significant differences between the mean values, indicating that non-response bias was not a threat to our study. To address the problems related to common method bias, we took several recommended precautionary measures. To mitigate the biasing effects, we ensured anonymity to the participants and informed them that their answers would be strictly confidential and that the data would only be published in aggregate form in an academic journal; we encouraged objectivity by indicating that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions; we separated the questions capturing independent and dependent variables to reduce perception of any linkages between the constructs; and we carefully worded survey items and, whenever available, used established validated measures (Johnson et al.,2011; Podsakoff et al.,2012). We also used the correlational marker-variable technique (based on a variable theoretically unrelated to other substantive variables) to detect common method bias (Lindell & Whitney,2001;Richardson et al.,2009). There were no significant correlations between the marker variable (i.e., a variable measuring whether seeking out information was the primary way the venture deals with uncertainty—a variable that was not directly related to the research questions at hand) and the other substantive variables in the study that were subject to common method bias. Moreover, there were no significant changes in the partial correlation coefficients and significance levels between the independent and dependent variables when Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 15 of 24 5. Results Tables 3and 4depict the main results from our hierarchical OLS analyses regressing EE on ME performance and entrepreneurial confidence. There is overall support for H1b over H1a, but there are individual elements of EE that provide spotty support for H1a. The marginal impact of EE—as a set of measures collectively capturing its multiple dimensions of influence—is not statistically significant (p< 0.5) on any of our four ME performance outcomes. It is a non-significant but positive (i.e., in terms of the sign of the sum of the component standardized coefficients) influence on currently perceived ME business success [BIZSUCC], with one component (EE_intensity) being individually highly positively significant (ß= 0.28, p< 0.01). It is a non-significant but positive influence on perceived ME business growth level [LoGrHiGr], with three components (Direct_Exp,Netwrkg, and Harms) being individually significant in the expected directions (ß= 0.16, p< 0.05; ß= 0.13, p< 0.1; ß= − 0.13, p< 0.1). It is a non-significant and negative influence on COVID-era sales revenue change [CovidPerf], with two components (Direct_Exp and EE_Width) being individually significant in the different directions (ß= 0.16, p< 0.05; ß= − 0.21, p< 0.05). As such, we surmise, consistent with our real-options perspective on EE, that when the application context is much more specific or unusual than what was taught, the value of such expertise can degrade to the point of getting in the way of what should be performed (as in some ‘failure to drop the tools’ in an emergency—Weick,1996). And finally, EE is a non-significant but positive influence on intellectual property generation [IP5YR], with no significant components. Table 3. Incremental Improvement in R2of EE variables a. Dependent Variable BIZSUCC LoGrHiGr CovidPerf IP5YR b Control variables R2∆R2∆F/df R2∆R2∆F/df R2∆R2∆F/df R2∆R2∆F/df Entrepreneur characteristics 0.25 *** 4.12 (15, 181) 0.27 *** 4.45 (15, 181) 0.23 *** 3.57 (15, 181) 0.33 *** 5.92 (15, 181) Venture characteristics 0.34 0.09 † 1.58 (14, 167) 0.50 0.23 *** 5.45 (14, 167) 0.33 0.10 * 1.81 (14, 167) 0.63 0.30 *** 5.20 (14, 167) Independent Variables Entrepreneurship education and training 0.41 0.07 † 1.68 (11, 156) 0.54 0.04 1.38 (11, 156) 0.39 0.06 1.39 (11, 156) 0.68 0.05 0.65 (11, 156) ENTSUCC SELFCONF FUTBSUCC Control variables R2∆R2∆F/df R2∆R2∆F/df R2∆R2∆F/df Entrepreneur characteristics 0.26 *** 4.29 (15, 181) 0.21 *** 3.19 (15, 181) 0.33 *** 6.02 (15, 181) Venture characteristics 0.35 0.09 † 1.67 (14, 167) 0.32 0.11 * 1.89 (14, 167) 0.41 0.08 † 1.61 (14, 167) Independent Variables Entrepreneurship education and training 0.45 0.10 ** 2.54 (11, 156) 0.45 0.13 *** 3.49 (11, 156) 0.53 0.12 *** 3.49 (11, 156) a n= 197. BIZSUCC = degree to which business has been successful; LoGrHiGr = venture’s growth; CovidPerf = amount that monthly revenue has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; IP5YR = any patents or valuable intellectual property produced in the last 5 years; SELFCONF = self-confidence in your entrepreneurial capabilities. ENTSUCC = perception of entrepreneurial success; FUTBSUCC = expectation of future success. bProbit analysis reporting McFadden pseudo-R2.†p< 0.10; * p< 0.05; ** p< 0.01; *** p< 0.01. These results are consistent with our options-based narrative. The comprehensive EE impact is non-significant on ME performance, but the most application-related factors—the ones considering the depth and personal involvement (EE_intensity and Direct_Exp) of the training—are significant. So, while general skills provide high option value, only the hands-on, immersive competencies translate into added performance. We also note that EE’s influence on ME performance is significant when regressing on the measures without the individual and firm-level controls, which may help explain some results of those past studies that have involved fewer controls and fewer dimensions of the EE construct. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 16 of 24 Table 4. Standardized regression coefficients estimating venture and entrepreneur success a. Dependent Variable BIZSUCC LoGrHiGr CovidPerf IP5YR bENTSUCC SELFCONF FUTBSUCC EE variables EE_courses 0.05 0.08 −0.08 0.02 0.02 −0.11 −0.08 EE_levels 0.02 0.02 −0.05 −0.04 0.02 0.03 −0.01 ENT_spec −0.06 0.04 0.01 0.33 −0.02 0.05 0.04 SI_college 0.03 0.04 −0.11 −0.06 −0.07 −0.04 0.04 Direct_Exp −0.01 0.16 * 0.16*0.52 0.05 −0.09 0.02 Indir_Exp −0.01 −0.04 0.01 −0.22 0.05 0.08 −0.03 Netwrkg 0.03 0.13 †0.12 0.65 −0.06 0.13 0.05 Res_Needd 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.34 0.08 −0.02 0.08 EE_width 0.03 −0.05 −0.21 * −0.04 −0.07 0.22 * 0.02 Harms −0.07 −0.12 †−0.02 0.05 −0.11 −0.28 ** −0.19 ** EE_intensity 0.28 ** −0.04 −0.12 0.37 0.35 *** 0.03 0.35 *** R20.41 0.54 0.39 0.68 0.45 0.45 0.53 F(40, 156) 2.73 *** 4.64 *** 2.49 *** 3.21 *** 3.22 *** 4.36 *** Chi2[40] 184.98 *** a n= 197. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. Entrepreneurand venture-level controls are included in the models. BIZSUCC = degree to which business has been successful; LoGrHiGr = venture’s growth; CovidPerf = amount that monthly revenue has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; IP5YR = any patents or valuable intellectual property produced in the last 5 years; SELFCONF = self-confidence in your entrepreneurial capabilities; ENTSUCC = perception of entrepreneurial success; FUTBSUCC = expectation of future success. bProbit analysis reporting McFadden pseudo-R2.†p< 0.10, * p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001. Tables 3and 4also reveal consistent support for H2. The marginal impact of EE is (statistically) significant on all (three) entrepreneurial confidence measures. It is a significant (p< 0.01) and positive influence on self-perceived entrepreneurial success [ENTSUCC], with one component (EE_intensity) being individually highly positively significant (ß= 0.35, p< 0.001). It is a significant (p< 0.001) and positive influence on perceived self-confidence in one’s own entrepreneurial abilities [SELF-CONF], with two components (EE_width and Harms) being individually significant in the expected directions (ß= 0.22, p< 0.05; ß= − 0.28, p< 0.01). And it is a significant (p< 0.001) and positive influence on perceived confidence in the ME’s future success [FUTBSUCC], with two components (EE_intensity and Harms) being individually significant in the expected directions (ß= 0.35, p< 0.001; ß= − 0.19, p< 0.01). We interpret these results, especially on SELF-CONF, as confirming that EE has a strong and continued impact on self-efficacy (consistent with many past studies)3. 6. Discussion To answer the research question of whether EE matters to ME performance, our analysis provides results consistent with our expectations that, although EE increases confidence, the skills taught tend not to lead to significantly increased venture success. That said, in almost all of the analyses, the collective impact of EE was positive. These results support our narrative that EE creates a high option value embodied in the entrepreneur’s general skills and self-efficacy, that such options are often exercised in the form of new venture creation, but that exercising such an option by creating a new venture entails a realized value that is often significantly reduced by the specificities and frictions found in any particular start-up attempt by the entrepreneur focused on a given core idea, resource set, and market context. Our narrative contains an explanation for that reduction in exercised option value—one that is based on the limitations of EE itself as being constrained in the specificity and depth of the skills that can be taught and on the reality that EE substitutes readily exist (e.g., in first-hand experiences) that are often more specific and that many rival managers may have obtained. One important reason for investigating this research question was to better understand the glaring contrast between the input and the output of the ‘EE-related industrial complex’ Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 17 of 24 (i.e., the massive investment in programs, faculty, centers, chairs, and incubators) in the US and in similar economies (e.g., Canada). While the input side has enjoyed explosive investment and growth in the past few decades, the output side—at the macro-level (e.g., in start-up and survival rates)—has been too stable (and, over some measures, has worsened). That contrast is all the more frustrating because we know that entrepreneurial activity matters to economies, to politicians and policy-makers, to places of higher learning, and to the existence of billion-dollar institutes like the Kauffman Foundation, which all desire to see the innovation and job-creation EE promises. What is confusing is that this EE industrial complex has mostly avoided confronting its macro-level ineffectiveness. Instead, most of its studies are treatment-based and carry a positive and micro-level bias towards EE’s impacts on the short-term and on perhaps more trivial outcomes, such as the increased intentions of students to engage in entrepreneurship. Cynically, one could see why that has occurred—it is more difficult to assess macro-level impacts (especially when generated from audited numbers from several government agencies that each partially capture entrepreneurial activity) than micro-level impacts based on numbers from self-interested, proprietary, program-specific, primary data sources. Regardless, the lack of evidence that EE makes a significantly positive macro-level impact—which should most logically result from the accumulation of the well-documented micro-level impacts—is disappointing. It is all the more so for two reasons: the money and expertise to study that paradox readily exist, and the fact that EE is at such a scale now that every ME entrepreneurial team could be individually trained each year, which, given the evidence that such training should have a short-term positive impact, logically would provide the desired macro-level change. We find cold comfort that our main result is consistent with the disappointing lack of impact of EE, and specifically where we would like to see it most (i.e., on the performance of the ventures that are most important to the economy—MEs). Regardless, our study’s findings also reflect the outcomes of several related empirical investigations: EE does not disproportionately create very successful firms (Fairlie et al.,2015), EE does not have a significant statistical impact on the sales growth of SMEs (Avdullahi & Ademi,2020), EE has no lasting effect on venture performance (Fairlie et al.,2015), and EE has little to no impact on subsequent operating performance of new ventures (Lange et al.,2014). But, while our research produced similar results, it brought added insight: Ours is the first study to consider the real option value of EE, specifically in how that is translated into shortand longer-term outcomes. In the short run, EE’s provision of general skills is likely to increase start-up intentions and even rates, especially when fueled by increased confidence. In the long run, while the influence of EE on confidence may linger, the exercise value of the skills-based real option in starting up and managing an ME is likely to decrease for several reasons, including the degradation during the delay, the missed updates; the specificity required for successful application; the uncertainties involved in exploiting a new opportunity (that, by definition, cannot be pre-taught); and the impact of rivals who can imitate observed skills or access substitutes for EE training (e.g., from mentors, investors, relatives, business partners, and experienced others). While our real options-based narrative fits the past evidence, at this point, it is worthwhile to consider some alternative explanations. First, the macro-level issues may be being driven by forces outside of the influence of EE: There may be structural and cultural forces at play at the macro-level (in the US). It may be that the capacity of the economy to absorb and sustain new offerings from new ventures (especially those resulting from EE experience) is limited (e.g., given the time it takes to legitimize a new market—Aldrich & Fiol,1994). It may be that more and more R&D races are being won by deeper-pocketed incumbents (Schroth & Szalay,2010), making capitalization rather than education the more important factor for success. Or it may be that the adaptability and reactivity of incumbents Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 18 of 24 have improved so much as to offset the actions of entrepreneurial startups (e.g., there may be Red Queen effects involved—see Barnett & Hansen,1996). Second, it may be that the real option value of EE involves weaknesses that are more likely brought out at a macro rather than at a micro-scale. This may be based on EE being incomplete—in that it teaches many skills but not all, and so it is neither necessary nor sufficient for success (Edelman et al.,2008;Lange et al.,2014). This is because there are specific gaps in most programs: in teaching social and emotional intelligence (Murray et al.,2018), in teaching technical skills (Czuchry et al.,2004), in teaching hiring and selling skills (Gendron,2004), and so on. Further, EE is constrained by its institutional contexts—places where it is simply not possible to teach students how to act in chaos and ambiguity (Aronsson,2004;Gendron, 2004), even though that may be what is required in order to succeed. A related alternative explanation is that EE has quality problems—such that teachable content is simply not being absorbed by students due to issues regarding instructors, delivery modes, and so on. Third, it might be that we are using the wrong macro-level measures here to assess success. Perhaps the focus should be on whether the student brings entrepreneurial insight to any firm she works at, regardless of whether it is a SE, ME, incumbent, governmental institution, NGO, or other. While we are not advocating moving the goal-posts, it may be prudent, given both the large investments that have been made in EE and the inconsistency between microand macro-level impacts, to identify intermediate goals and measures in order to better explain the value generated by EE and where to find it. Linking EE to the wrong measures may work to decrease its effectiveness and detract from its societal benefits (Zawadzki,2019)4. 6.1. Implications Our analysis implies a real options story for EE, while our discussion implies important issues that help explain EE’s short-run, micro-level positive impacts in the face of disappointing, non-significant long-run, macro-level ones. In turn, that implies that determining the proper goals, measures, and associated pedagogies would help address those issues. Taking further actions on those implications at this point, however, is confounding, at least for those parties currently benefiting from the EE industrial complex. There seems to be little incentive to rock a boat when it has been building out so well for decades and with few leaks. There is a clear motivation to keep publishing short-term, positive-impact treatment studies, to keep feeding the media and alumni success stories, and to keep growing the programs as long as interest remains. To the entrepreneurship students, the implication from our analysis is to use EE as an option, one that needs to be supplemented with both more specific (e.g., in technological expertise and in skills application experience) and more general (e.g., in a jack-of-all-trades span) training to be most impactful. Students need to be patient, both in obtaining that extra training and in identifying the right opportunity where they can use their more-generalized skills to add the most value. To policy-makers, two big questions remain, however—about whether EE has been worth such a massive investment and what can be used to justify continuing it at present or higher levels (Walter & Block,2016). Some scholars suggest that EE may not be the most cost-effective method of addressing innovation and job creation, let alone of addressing deeper issues over human capital, discrimination, or inequity (Fairlie et al.,2015). We have raised the former point directly, given the scale of EE today—where, hypothetically, every US ME start-up team could be personally trained through the courses offered each year but is not. So, we would urge policy-makers to reconsider how those resources should be best deployed (after identifying what goals are best and proper for EE to pursue). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 19 of 24 To educators, the implications of our analyses support a re-examination and framing of best pedagogical approaches. Perhaps working with recent graduates who have gone on the find market success could yield innovative thinking that helps shift the focus in the ways we teach to more practically relevant methods and topics. And, perhaps it is time to practice more of what we preach, moving out of the traditional lecture/theory-oriented classroom and into one where students are placed in risky, uncertain situations that require agile thinking. This may be a classroom where students get comfortable with failure, learn from it, and assess the failures of others to learn more. This may involve more skills in being lean, in learning from fast and cheap experimentation (e.g., based on minimum viable products—see Stevenson et al.,2024). This is likely to be more of a place where experience and practice are prioritized and one where empathy and need recognition drive creative and design thinking (e.g., Bender-Salazar,2023) as a process that produces greater value through better testing and market offerings. As such, we encourage educators to continue to reimagine and experiment with what EE can be (e.g., in terms of curricula that help students translate the general to the specific, that tailor some lessons to different venture types, and that work on building personal resilience and adaptability, including teaching students how to analyze and build on relevant feedback and available data). 6.2. Limitations and Areas for Future Work As with every survey-based, restricted sample-sized, cross-sectional, national empirical study, our research product involves several limitations. Our survey involved recollection, which raises valid concerns about historical accuracy. Our sample was restricted in size while applying many controls, raising some concerns over statistical power (although significant results and reasonable R 2 s were obtained). Our sample was collected in the second year of the pandemic and restricted to US-based MEs. The usual warnings about over-generalizing beyond such a context may apply (especially geographically), and so we call for further such studies to be done in other countries. Using MTurk—which is an accepted source—also carries possible concerns about the kind of respondent who applies to this mode of survey call (and that involves a nominal monetary payment that other surveys often do not). Sampling across industries, while providing a fuller picture of the impact of EE across the economy, may hide some possible industry-specific effects. And, relying on the respondents for information about both the focal factors and the focal outcomes, rather than applying some triangulation, again while standard, raises possible response-related biases. Further, we acknowledge that EE (with its various impacts) represents a complex phenomenon (given its many dimensions of quality, delivery, timing, practicality, and intensity) that is difficult to explore in any one study. Acknowledging all of these limitations, we remain confident in our main results—given that bias-related testing (e.g., over non-response and single response) did not reveal issues and that (many) more than the usual controls and outcome variants were used in the analysis. Future work could be valuable in several areas. First, follow-on research would be useful to address the empirical limitations described above (e.g., using triangulated and longitudinal data to increase validity and better explore causation and possible co-evolution). Second, it would be useful to have future studies replicate and extend our findings (e.g., to new countries, to specific industry sectors, to specific venture types, to new measures of EE, to different measures of success, with more controls). Third, further insights may be gleaned with data analysis involving specific substitutes to EE, and different forms of EE that could be provided in separate educational settings (at different costs and through different delivery modes). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 20 of 24 6.3. Conclusions Even if the promise and the reality of EE differ, it remains a well-intentioned activity that doubtlessly builds significant real option value for its students. We explored an important research question about the impact of EE to help explain the conflicting evidence of its positive effects in the short-run at the micro-level versus its non-effects in the long-run at the macro-level; we did so by surveying US-based entrepreneurs about their ME firm’s performance and their own educational experiences. We found that while EE positively impacted their confidence, it was non-significant in improving venture performance when considered as a multi-dimensional driver. We argue that EE may be constrained in offering sufficiently specific and comprehensive application-targeted skills, and so, as an option, loses value when exercised, especially in contexts where substitutes and uncertainties exist. We expect that further investigation into the impact and limits of EE—as a decades-long investment that has reached a scale where it should have a macro-level influence—will reveal more answers that can provide new directions and objectives to help improve the outcomes we desire in future entrepreneurial activity. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.A., A.U., R.B.; methodology, R.A., A.U.; validation, R.A., A.U.; formal analysis, R.A., A.U.; investigation, R.A., A.U.; resources, R.A.; data curation, R.A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.A., A.U.; writing—review and editing, R.A., A.U.; project administration, R.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of University of Southern Maine (#21-06-1699—29 July 2021). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Dataset available on request from the authors. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Notes 1An ME being a medium-sized [5–499 employee] enterprise (e.g., Harney & Alkhalaf,2021). 2 Our research question cannot be answered simply by considering the experience of participants in EE; instead, it is necessary to explore how entrepreneurs managing MEs (at differing levels of performance) learned the skills to do so (Rae & Carswell,2000). That requires conducting research using practicing entrepreneurs as the unit of analysis in order to determine, from recall, how their EE experiences informed success, including at their current ventures (Mayhew et al.,2016). Our retrospective approach complements the standard prospective approach in the literature to provide a richer consideration of the big research question concerning whether EE matters. 3Main results were robust to sub-samples (e.g., by gender, experience, minority status and so on). 4 For example, we need to realize that a significant level of venture failure is inevitable, given innovation and new venture creation are uncertain by definition. We can train students to make smart bets, based on sophisticated valuations, but that is no guarantee of success, especially when others get similar training and are similarly motivated. Identifying proper EE measures that are fair yet hard-to-exploit (e.g., to not hide ‘bad’ teaching) is a challenge. That then leads to difficult epistemological questions about what constitutes useful knowledge is in entrepreneurship and how best to present it (Bhatia & Levina,2020;Williams Middleton & Donnellon,2014). References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,50, 179–211. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review,19, 645–670. [CrossRef] AngelList. (2015). Angel list accelerator—Company types. Available online: https://angel.co/ (accessed on 15 June 2015). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 21 of 24 Arend, R. J., Unal, A. F., & Bilodeau, R. (2025). Addressing the paradox in entrepreneurial education’s impacts. The International Journal of Management Education,23(1), 101092. [CrossRef] Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research,14, 396–402. [CrossRef] Aronsson, M. (2004). Education matters—But does entrepreneurship education? An interview with david birch. Academy of Management Learning & Education,3, 289–292. Athayde, R. (2009). Measuring enterprise potential in young people. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,33(2), 481–500. Avdullahi, A., & Ademi, V. F. (2020). The impact of the entrepreneur and firm related factors on small and medium enterprise sales growth. International Journal of Business & Economic Sciences Applied Research,13(1), 61–68. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science,1(2), 164–180. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Barnett, W. P., & Hansen, M. T. (1996). The red queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal,17(S1), 139–157. [CrossRef] Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,17, 99–120. [CrossRef] Barney, J. B., & Mackey, T. B. (2005). Testing resource-based theory. In Research methodology in strategy and management (pp. 1–13). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. Columbia University Press. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology,93(2), 296–316. [CrossRef] Bender-Salazar, R. (2023). Design thinking as an effective method for problem-setting and need-finding for entrepreneurial teams addressing wicked problems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,12(1), 24. [CrossRef] Bhatia, A. K., & Levina, N. (2020). Diverse rationalities of entrepreneurship education: An epistemic stance perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education,19(3), 323–344. Brush, C. G., Duhaime, I. M., Gartner, W. B., Stewart, A., Katz, J. A., Hitt, M. A., Alvarez, S. A., Meyer, G. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management,29(3), 309–331. [CrossRef] Cassar, G. (2010). Are individuals entering self-employment overly optimistic? An empirical test of plans and projections on nascent entrepreneur expectations. Strategic Management Journal,31(8), 822–840. Charney, A., & Libecap, G. D. (2000). The impact of entrepreneurship education: An evaluation of the Berger entrepreneurship program at the University of Arizona, 1985–1999. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract _ id=1262343 (accessed on 20 June 2024). Chatterji, A., Delecourt, S., Hasan, S., & Koning, R. (2019). When does advice impact startup performance? Strategic Management Journal,40(3), 331–356. [CrossRef] Collis, D. J. (1994). How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal,15(8), 143–152. Comfort, L. K., & Wukich, C. (2013). Developing decision-making skills for uncertain conditions: The challenge of educating effective emergency managers. Journal of Public Affairs Education,19(1), 53–71. [CrossRef] Copeland, T., & Tufano, P. (2004). A real-world way to manage real options. Harvard Business Review,82(3), 90–99. Cox, L. W., Mueller, S. L., & Moss, S. E. (2002). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,1(1), 229–245. CrunchBase. (2013). The startup accelerator trend is finally slowing down. Available online: https://www.crunchbase.com/ (accessed on 2 May 2013). Czuchry, A., Yasin, M., & Gonzales, M. (2004). Effective entrepreneurial education: A framework for innovation and implementation. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,7(1), 39–56. Davidsson, P. (2015). Book reviews. Academy of Management Learning & Education,14(1), 139–142. Davidsson, P., Low, M. B., & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s introduction: Low and Macmillan ten years on: Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,25(4), 5–16. [CrossRef] Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection and success: Does education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,15(2), 239–258. [CrossRef] Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T. S., & Brush, C. G. (2008). Entrepreneurship education: Correspondence between practices of nascent entrepreneurs and textbook prescriptions for success. Academy of Management Learning & Education,7(1), 56–70. Eesley, C. E., & Lee, Y. S. (2021). Do university entrepreneurship programs promote entrepreneurship? Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 833–861. [CrossRef] Eller, F. J., Gielnik, M. M., Yeves, J., Alvarado, Y. C., & Guerrero, O. A. (2021). Adjusting the sails: Investigating the feedback loop of the opportunity development process in entrepreneurship training. Academy of Management Learning & Education,21(2), 209–235. Engelen, A., Schmidt, S., & Buchsteiner, M. (2015). The simultaneous influence of national culture and market turbulence on entrepreneurial orientation: A nine-country study. Journal of International Management,21(1), 18–30. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 22 of 24 Erikson, T. (2003). Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences among potential entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,10(1), 106–112. [CrossRef] Fairlie, R. (2022). National report on early-stage entrepreneurship in the United States: 2021. Kauffman Indicators of Entrepreneurship, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Fairlie, R. W., Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2015). Behind the GATE experiment: Evidence on effects of and rationales for subsidized entrepreneurship training. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy,7(2), 125–161. Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training,32(7), 569–593. [CrossRef] Fiet, J. O. (2000). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing,16(1), 1–24. [CrossRef] Finkle, T. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Goldsby, M. G. (2006). An examination of entrepreneurship centers in the United States: A national survey. Journal of Small Business Management,44(2), 184–206. [CrossRef] Galvão, A., Marques, C., & Ferreira, J. J. (2020). The role of entrepreneurship education and training programmes in advancing entrepreneurial skills and new ventures. European Journal of Training and Development,44(6/7), 595–614. [CrossRef] Garavan, T. N., & O’Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship education and training programs: A review and evaluation—Part 1. Journal of European Industrial Training,18(8), 3–12. [CrossRef] Gendron, G. (2004). Practitioners’ perspectives on entrepreneurship education: An interview with Steve Case, Matt Goldman, Tom Golisano, Geraldine Laybourne, Jeff Taylor, and Alan Webber. Academy of Management Learning & Education,3(3), 302–314. Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little, Brown. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education. International Small Business Journal,15(3), 56–77. [CrossRef] Greene, P. G., Katz, J. A., & Johannisson, B. (2004). Introduction to special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning and Education,3(3), 238–241. [CrossRef] Haase, H., & Lautenschlager, A. (2011). The teachability dilemma of entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal,7, 145–162. [CrossRef] Harney, B., & Alkhalaf, H. (2021). A quarter-century review of HRM in small and medium-sized enterprises: Capturing what we know, exploring where we need to go. Human Resource Management,60(1), 5–29. [CrossRef] Henry, C., Hill, F. M., & Leitch, C. M. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught? Education + Training,47, 98–111. [CrossRef] Huber, L., Sloof, R., & van Praag, M. (2014). The effect of early entrepreneurship education: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. European Economic Review,72, 76–97. [CrossRef] Jackson, D. (2012). Business undergraduates’ perceptions of their capabilities in employability skills: Implications for industry and higher education. Industry and Higher Education,26(5), 345–356. [CrossRef] Jackson, D., & Chapman, E. (2012). Non-technical skill gaps in australian business graduates. Education + Training,54(2/3), 95–113. [CrossRef] Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology,96(4), 744–761. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review,16(2), 366–395. [CrossRef] Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of american entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing,18(2), 283–300. [CrossRef] Kolvereid, L., & Moen, Ø. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: Does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference? Journal of European Industrial Training,21(4), 154–160. [CrossRef] Kotha, R., Lin, Y., Ohlsson-Corboz, A. V., & Vissa, B. (2019). Does management training help entrepreneurs grow new ventures? Field experimental evidence from Singapore. INSEAD Working Paper. Available online: https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/ files/images/ik_vissa_full_paper.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021). Kozlinska, I. (2011). Contemporary approaches to entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Management,4, 205–220. Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,5(4), 315–330. Kuratko, D. F. (2004). Entrepreneurship education in the 21st century: From legitimization to leadership. USASBE National Conference, 2(3), 1–16. Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,29(5), 577–598. [CrossRef] Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P. (2008). Using a multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classroom-level factors upon student achievement: A study testing the validity of the dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,19(2), 183–205. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 23 of 24 Lange, J., Marram, E., Jawahar, A. S., Yong, W., & Bygrave, W. (2014). Does an entrepreneurship education have lasting value? A study of careers of 3775 alumni. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship,25(2), 1–31. Lazear, E. P. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. American Economic Review,94(2), 208–211. [CrossRef] Lazear, E. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics,23(4), 649–680. [CrossRef] Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(1), 114. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Lyons, E., & Zhang, L. (2018). Who does (not) benefit from entrepreneurship programs? Strategic Management Journal,39(1), 85–112. Machirori, T., & Fatoki, O. (2013). The impact of firm and entrepreneur’s characteristics on networking by smes in south africa. Journal of Economics,4(2), 113–120. [CrossRef] Malesios, C., Skouloudis, A., Dey, P. K., Abdelaziz, F. B., Kantartzis, A., & Evangelinos, K. (2018). The impact of sme sustainability practices and performance on economic growth from a managerial perspective: Some modeling considerations and empirical analysis results. Business Strategy and the Environment,27(7), 960–972. [CrossRef] Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing,28(2), 211–224. [CrossRef] Mayhew, M. J., Simonoff, J. S., Baumol, W. J., Selznick, B. S., & Vassallo, S. J. (2016). Cultivating innovative entrepreneurs for the twenty-first century: A study of us and german students. The Journal of Higher Education,87(3), 420–455. [CrossRef] Mayhew, M. J., Simonoff, J. S., Baumol, W. J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Klein, M. W. (2012). Exploring innovative entrepreneurship and its ties to higher educational experiences. Research in Higher Education,53, 831–859. [CrossRef] McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Van Nostrand. McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of Management Review,24(1), 13–30. [CrossRef] McKeachie, W. J. (1987). Cognitive skills and their transfer: Discussion. International Journal of Educational Research,11(6), 707–712. [CrossRef] McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review,31(1), 132–152. [CrossRef] Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal,39(3), 519–543. [CrossRef] Minai, M. S., Raza, S., bin Hashim, N. A., Zain, A. Y. M., & Tariq, T. A. (2018). Linking entrepreneurial education with firm performance through entrepreneurial competencies: A proposed conceptual framework. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,21(4), 1–9. Mincer, J. (1958). Investment in human capital and personal income distribution. Journal of Political Economy,66, 281–302. [CrossRef] Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Learning under uncertainty: Networks in crisis management. Public Administration Review,68(2), 350–365. [CrossRef] Murray, A., Crammond, R. J., Omeihe, K. O., & Scuotto, V. (2018). Establishing successful methods of entrepreneurship education in nurturing new entrepreneurs: Exploring entrepreneurial practice. Journal of Higher Education Service Science and Management,1(1), 1–11. Nabi, G., Linan, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education,16(2), 277–299. Padilla-Angulo, L., García-Cabrera, A. M., & Lucia-Casademunt, A. M. (2021). Unpacking Entrepreneurial Education: Learning Activities, Students’ Gender and Attitude towards Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Learning & Education,21(4), 532–560. Parker, S. C., & van Praag, C. M. (2006). Schooling, capital constraints, and entrepreneurial performance: The endogenous triangle. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics,24(4), 416–431. Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,28(2), 129–144. [CrossRef] Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the workforce. Harvard University Press. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510. [CrossRef] Plaschka, G. R., & Welsch, H. P. (1990). Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: Curricula designs and strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,14(3), 55–71. [CrossRef] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 539–569. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century. McGraw-Hill. Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2000). Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial learning: The development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experiences. Education + Training,42(4/5), 220–227. [CrossRef] Rauch, A., & Hulsink, W. (2015). Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education,14(2), 187–204. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 75 24 of 24 Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., & Autio, E. (2004). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2003 executive report. Babson College, London Business School, and the Kauffman Foundation. Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods,12(4), 762–800. [CrossRef] Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management,51(3), 329–351. [CrossRef] Rigby, J., & Ramlogan, R. (2016). The impact and effectiveness of entrepreneurship policy. In Handbook of innovation policy impact (pp. 129–160). Edward Elgar Publishing. Safranski, S. R. (2004). Resource reviews. Academy of Management Learning & Education,3(3), 340–342. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review,26(2), 243–263. [CrossRef] Sánchez, J. C. (2013). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management,51(3), 447–465. [CrossRef] Schroth, E., & Szalay, D. (2010). Cash breeds success: The role of financing constraints in patent races. Review of Finance,14(1), 73–118. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. Guilford Press. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin. Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Elgar. Shinnar, R. S., Hsu, D. K., & Powell, B. C. (2014). Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender: Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. The International Journal of Management Education,12(3), 561–570. [CrossRef] Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., & Lubatkin, M. H. (2007). The impact of managerial environmental perceptions on corporate entrepreneurship: Towards understanding discretionary slack’s pivotal role. Journal of Management Studies,44(8), 1398–1424. [CrossRef] Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,14, 168–182. [CrossRef] Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing,22(4), 566–591. [CrossRef] Stevenson, R., Burnell, D., & Fisher, G. (2024). The minimum viable product (MVP): Theory and practice. Journal of Management,50(8), 3202–3231. [CrossRef] Suguna, M., Sreenivasan, A., Ravi, L., Devarajan, M., Suresh, M., Almazyad, A. S., Xiong, G., Ali, I., & Mohamed, A. W. (2024). Entrepreneurial education and its role in fostering sustainable communities. Scientific Reports,14, 7588. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Tehseen, S., & Ramayah, T. (2015). Entrepreneurial competencies and SMES business success: The contingent role of external integration. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,6(1), 50. [CrossRef] Van Putten, A. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (2004). Making real options really work. Harvard Business Review,82(12), 134–142. [PubMed] Von Bergen, C. W., & Bressler, M. S. (2011). Too much positive thinking hinders entrepreneur success. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship,23(1), 30–52. Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An institutional perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216–233. [CrossRef] Weaver, K. M., Dickson, P. H., & Solomon, G. (2006). Entrepreneurship and education: What is known and what is not known about the links between education and entrepreneurial activity. In C. Moutray (Ed.), The small business economy: A report to the president (pp. 113–156). SBA Office of Advocacy. Weick, K. E. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly,41(2), 301–313. [CrossRef] Williams Middleton, K., & Donnellon, A. (2014). Personalizing entrepreneurial learning: A pedagogy for facilitating the know why. Entrepreneurship Research Journal,4(2), 167–204. [CrossRef] Williamson, P. J. (1999). Strategy as options on the future. MIT Sloan Management Review,40(3), 117–126. Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,31(3), 387–406. [CrossRef] Zawadzki, M. (2019). Book review. Academy of Management Learning & Education,18(4), 643–646. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.