This dissertation deals with the investigation of success factors in the field of entrepreneurship, especially entrepreneurship training, from a psychological perspective. In particular, I argue that the identification of certain psychological aspects helps to better understand the underlying mechanisms for successful entrepreneurship trainings and thus, enables successful entrepreneurship. In the second chapter I theoretically examined planning as a fundamental action an entrepreneur hast to undertake in order to succeed. Scholars are in disagreement about the question if planning is crucial for the entrepreneurship. Thus, I provide a comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages of planning in entrepreneurship from a psychological perspective. I explain negative aspects (e.g., lack of knowledge, difficulty to predict the future, and inflexibility) as well as positive aspects (e.g., legitimating, action-regulatory, and learning function) about planning in entrepreneurship. Furthermore, I develop a theoretical model that combines both the positive and negative aspects of planning in entrepreneurship. With this theoretical model, I integrate different types of planning (e.g., formal and informal plans) as well as positive and negative functions of planning (e.g., learning or stickiness, inflexibility) to provide a first approximation for a theory of entrepreneurial planning. In the third chapter, to focus on the field of entrepreneurial trainings, I empirically examine the under-researched field of the relation between trainer and trainee. I use the transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985) and a theory of learning outcome (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993), to hypothesize that the trainers´ charisma has a positive effect on the trainees´ entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Additionally, I search for possible moderators for the hypothesized trainer-trainee-relationship in an explorative manner, using insight from different research areas (e.g., pedagogy, philosophy). To test the hypotheses, I conducted a 12-week entrepreneurship training by which I had 12 measurement waves across four classes with 161 students and 12 trainers, which lead to 919 observations. In the fourth chapter, to broaden the perspective on the mechanisms within entrepreneurship training, which lead to a successful outcome, I empirically examined the short- and long-term effects of entrepreneurship training on life satisfaction. To do so, I developed a theoretical model based on theories of life satisfaction, that explain the underlying mechanisms of the short- and long-term effects of the entrepreneurship training on life satisfaction. With this model I hypothesize, that entrepreneurship training has a positive short- effect on life satisfaction, which is mediated through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. I furthermore hypothesize, that the long-term effect of the entrepreneurship training is mediated through self-employment. The short term-effect acts like a boost and vanishes over time, whereas the long-term effect holds in the long run. To test these hypotheses, I conducted entrepreneurship training as part of a randomized controlled field experiment with five measurement waves over a total period of 2.5 years. Using discontinuous growth modeling to take into account the temporality of our hypothesized effects we statistically analyzed the 1,092 observations from 312 students. Chapter 5 concludes this dissertation with general discussion of the three chapters.
Over the last decades corporate irresponsibility has gained increasing interest among practitioners and researchers. Corporate irresponsibility is often the result of intentionally irresponsible strategies, decisions, or actions, which negatively affect an identifiable stakeholder or environment. For instance, these range from the violation of the human rights and labor standards to environmental damages. Organizations enacting irresponsible practices rely on different factors upon multiple levels (field, organizational, individual) and its interrelations as well as processes evolving within the organization leading to such behavior. However, reasons for the occurrence of and explanations for corporate irresponsibility so far have been limited, leaving a fragmented understanding of this phenomenon. This dissertation helps to improve the understanding and explanation of corporate irresponsibility by identifying driving patterns of corporate irresponsibility and showing how the interactions across multiple levels add to this phenomenon. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the topic of corporate irresponsibility, the theoretical approaches of this dissertation and an introduction to the chapters. The second chapter offers a review and analysis of the corporate irresponsibility literature. The chapter presents a variance model outlining the concept, antecedents, moderators and outcomes of recent corporate irresponsibility literature as well as the different factors across levels (field, organizational, individual). Chapter 2 offers a critical analysis of what we know by referring to current literature and offers insights on what we don´t know by deriving main implications for future research on corporate irresponsibility. Chapter 3 enlarges the understanding of corporate irresponsibility introducing a process approach to explain how corporate irresponsibility evolves over time and under which conditions. Based on a qualitative meta-analysis findings converge around two distinct process paths of corporate irresponsibility, the opportunistic-proactive, and, the emerging-reactive, subdivided into three phases. Chapter 3 sheds different lights upon the phases of corporate irresponsibility and its underlying mechanisms. The final chapter 4 focuses on different underlying mechanisms driving the final downfall or demise of organizations, organizational failure. Chapter 4 offers an alternative explanation to the competing extremism and inertia mechanisms driving organizational failure in recent studies by suggesting that these explanations are rather complementary. In addition, chapter 4 enlarges the explanation of organizational failure identifying the role of conflict mechanisms and its interplay with rigidity mechanisms. In sum, this dissertation contributes to a better understanding of what causes and increases corporate irresponsibility, and a better explanation of how and why corporate irresponsibility and organizational failure emerges, develops, grows or terminates over time. Hopefully all three articles motivate more research on this important topic to prevent such behavior in advance. 4