Why Some Entrepreneurs Don't Know When to Quit

People mistakenly think it was the storm that caused the problem. It wasn't the storm that caused the problem; it was the time.

~Martin Adams, Mount Everest climber [1]

The sort of individual who is programmed to ignore personal distress and keep pushing for the top is frequently programmed to disregard signs of grave and imminent danger... In order to succeed you must be exceedingly driven, but if you're too driven you're likely to die.

~Jon Krakauer [2]

1. Introduction

In May 1996, eight people died on Mount Everest when they were caught in a storm as they descended from the summit. As professors of management Jeffery McMullen and Alexander Kier note, the avoidable disaster resulted from the unexpected decision by two expedition leaders to continue climbing when they should have abandoned their goal and turned back hours earlier:

In their pursuit of the summit both [Rob] Hall and [Scott] Fischer violated their turnaround times, which are optimal stopping points set to ensure that climbers have enough time to return to a point of safety before significant changes in the environment such as darkness or severe weather can occur. [3]

McMullen and Kier cite journalist Jon Krakauer, a climber on one of the expeditions who later wrote about his harrowing experience:

At Hall's suggestion, the two guides had agreed that "Anybody who wasn't within spitting distance of the summit by 2:00pm had to turn around and go down." But, adds Mountain Madness guide Neal Beidleman, "For whatever reason, it didn't happen..." Given Hall's conservative, exceedingly methodical nature, many of his colleagues have expressed puzzlement at this uncharacteristic lapse of judgment. [4]

Despite the unusual setting, McMullen and Kier believe the Everest disaster holds some important lessons for entrepreneurs, who, like expedition leaders, must decide at regular intervals whether or not to persist in a risky pursuit. While my clients aren't mountain climbers--at least not professionally--most of them are founder/CEOs, which means that they're also attempting something difficult that has a high likelihood of failure. You have to be an optimist to launch an entrepreneurial venture, and as I've written before, "there's a positive correlation between optimism and effective leadership, in part because the optimistic leader has a contagious effect on others, rendering success more likely." [5]

And yet the events on Everest tragically underscore a related concept that I've also noted previously: "There's a point at which unbridled confidence is merely a wish, and optimism becomes magical thinking, which can be particularly dangerous for a leader. Neuroscientist Richard Davidson notes that the risks of excessive optimism include resistance to negative data and failure to learn from experience." [6]

But why does this happen? Why did the experienced guides on Everest display such poor judgment? Why do some leaders persist in failing efforts past the point when they should quit?

 

2. Escalation of Commitment

The technical term for such behavior is "escalation of commitment," defined by McMullen and Kier as "the proclivity of decision makers to maintain commitment to a losing course of action, even in the face of quite negative news." [7] Behavioral psychologists Katy Milkman and Theresa Kelly provide further context on this phenomenon:

Escalation of commitment is a risk whenever a decision maker (a) commits resources to a course of action (thereby making an "investment") in the hope of achieving a positive outcome and (b) experiences disappointing results. Invested resources may take any form from time, money, and labor to mental and emotional energy... While there are many situations where the best course of action is to commit further resources to a failing investment, the term escalation of commitment describes only those situations where objective evidence indicates that continuing with an investment is unwise, and yet an individual chooses to invest further in spite of this. [8]

Research on escalation of commitment indicates that the primary cause is the powerful drive to maintain consistency between our past commitments and present behavior (and to appear consistent in the eyes of others), as well as the corresponding drive to minimize the cognitive dissonance we experience when our commitments and behavior are inconsistent (or are perceived as such by others.) [9] In psychologist Robert Cialdini's widely-cited work on influence, he identified this need for consistency as a "central motivator" of human behavior:

Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. Those pressures will cause us to respond in ways that justify our earlier decision... The drive to be (and to look) consistent constitutes a highly potent weapon of social influence, often causing us to act in ways that are clearly contrary to our own best interests... Once an active commitment is made, then, self-image is squeezed from both sides by consistency pressures. From the inside there is a pressure to bring self-image in line with action. From the outside, there is a sneakier pressure--a tendency to adjust this image according to the way others portray us. [10]

Milkman and Kelly expand upon the manifestations of our drive for consistency and related psychological factors that contribute to escalation of commitment:

Self-justification theory... Feeling personally responsible for an investment that turns sour intensifies the threat associated with failure and increases a decision maker's motivation to justify the original choice to herself. Negative feedback on a past investment decision calls the validity of the original decision into question and is dissonant with a decision maker's natural desire to see herself as competent. Many decision makers attempt to eliminate this conflict by convincing themselves that their failing ventures will turn around if they simply invest more resources. To do so and succeed would prove that their original choice was valid and eliminate the "cognitive dissonance" created by the initial negative feedback.

Confirmation bias. Biased information processing is one way that decision makers reduce the dissonance that arises when their positive self-perceptions conflict with evidence that past investments are under-performing. After committing to a choice, people are far more likely to notice and overweight evidence that supports their decision and ignore and underweight evidence that does not. Furthermore, decision makers actively seek information that confirms the validity of their decisions...

Loss aversion... Research on prospect theory has demonstrated the the disutility caused by losses is greater than the utility obtained from equivalent gains... Negative feedback on an investment frames the decision about whether to continue with the current course of action as a decision about whether to accept a loss or to take steps to prevent locking it in...

Impression management... A decision maker may escalate commitment to her original investment to avoid admitting to others that the venture was a failure or that her decision was flawed. Such admissions might cause others to doubt her competence. Further, people tend to punish decision makers for inconsistency. [11]

Entrepreneurs are as subject to these psychological drives and biases as anyone else, and yet a hallmark of entrepreneurship is a willingness not only to commit resources to risky ventures, but also to rapidly withdraw them when necessary. [12] The most effective entrepreneurs aren't heedless daredevils--they're keenly aware that they may need to abandon their immediate objectives in order to retain the ability to pursue their long-term vision. Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced former Theranos CEO who was recently convicted of fraud and now faces up to 20 years in prison, once said, "The minute that you have a backup plan, you've admitted that you're not going to succeed." [13] But that's not entrepreneurship--that's merely empty rhetoric that leads directly to escalation of commitment.

So why might entrepreneurs in particular fall prey to this dynamic, and what conditions make that outcome more likely? Why do some entrepreneurs--typically known for their adaptability--find it so hard to quit? To answer these questions it's necessary to understand two psychological concepts that have significant implications for entrepreneurs.

 

3. Mindset Theory of Action Phases and Regulatory Focus Theory

The Mindset Theory of Action Phases, first developed by psychologist Peter Gollwitzer, suggests that in setting and pursuing a goal there are two fundamentally distinct ways of thinking, gathering data, and processing information ("mindsets"). [14] Up until the decision to pursue a goal has been made, while goal-setting, we adopt a deliberative mindset, but once a goal has been selected and we've decided to pursue it, we adopt an implemental mindset. Gollwitzer notes key distinctions between the two mindsets in the realms of "cognitive tuning" (i.e. the information we tend to focus on), the degree of bias imparted to the information under consideration, and "open-mindedness" (i.e. receptivity to new information):

3.1. Mindset Theory of Action Phases

	Deliberative Mindset (Pre-Decision / Goal-Setting)	Implemental Mindset (Post-Decision / Goal Pursuit)
Cognitive Tuning	Focus on whether a goal is feasible and desirable via pros vs. cons and cost-benefit analysis.	Focus on where, when and how to accomplish the goal.
Biases	Information related to the feasibility and desirability of a goal is analyzed impartially. Accurate judgment of control.	Optimistic analysis that overestimates feasibility. Chosen goal seen as more desirable. Increased sense of control over events.
Open-Mindedness	Enhanced receptivity to all sources and types of information. Avoids dismissing information prematurely.	More selective information processing. Filters information based on relevance to the goal.

 

Regulatory Focus Theory, first developed by psychologist E. Tory Higgins, extends the basic "hedonic principle"--the idea that people approach pleasure and avoid pain. [15] Higgins suggests that there are two different types of motivation, which spring from two fundamental but distinct human needs: nurturance and security. When seeking nurturance we adopt a promotion focus, in which we strive to fulfill our aspirations and maximize accomplishments, but when seeking security we adopt a prevention focus, in which we strive to fulfill our responsibilities and maximize safety:

3.2. Regulatory Focus Theory

	Promotion Focus	Prevention Focus
Contributing Factors	Nurturance needs. A focus on ideals. Gain vs. non-gain situations.	Security needs. A focus on duties and obligations. Loss vs. non-loss situations.
Consequences	Sensitivity to positive outcomes. Approach as strategic means. Insure against errors of omission.	Sensitivity to negative outcomes. Avoidance as strategic means. Insure against errors of commission.

 

A more specific body of research has explored the implications of these concepts for entrepreneurial behavior. Studying the Mindset Theory of Action Phases, professors of entrepreneurship Servane Delanoë-Gueguen and Alain Fayolle have found that aspiring founders experience a mindset shift that enhances their commitment to the venture:

[Founders] become committed to their start-up goal and engage in a set of goal-directed actions...with the objective of launching their business... At this point, individuals pass a psychological Rubicon and reach a level of commitment at which giving up their project becomes less likely. [16]

In another study, professors of entrepreneurship Matthew Lynch and Andrew Corbett suggest that successful entrepreneurs regularly move from one mindset to another, depending on the circumstances and their immediate needs:

The cognitive shift from [deliberative] to implementative [mindsets] and back...is an ongoing process inherent in entrepreneurial action, and continues as the entrepreneur evaluates the opportunity... This shift of orientation within the entrepreneurial mindset is critical as flexibility with these cognitive mechanisms is often the determinant between failure and growth of the venture. [17]

Similarly, Higgins, the originator of Regulatory Focus Theory, and professors of management Joel Brockner and Murray Low, propose that entrepreneurs must alternate between a promotion focus and a prevention focus at various stages of the venture's development:

Rather than suggesting that one regulatory focus orientation is more likely to be associated with entrepreneurial success than the other, we suggest that both promotion and prevention foci are necessary for entrepreneurial success. For certain aspects of the entrepreneurial process (e.g., generating ideas with the potential to be successful), greater promotion focus is necessary. For other aspects of the entrepreneurial process (e.g., doing the "due diligence" when screening ideas), greater prevention focus is necessary. [18]

To clarify, there's no single mode--deliberative or implemental mindset, promotion or prevention focus--that characterizes entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurs move from one mindset to the other and from one focus to the other over the course of their journey--and the most successful entrepreneurs are able to make such moves repeatedly as the environment evolves and new information emerges.

But under certain conditions entrepreneurs can find it difficult to shift from one mode to another as needed--and this is what may have caused the 1996 Everest disaster. The events on the mountain vividly illustrate the potential consequences of escalation of commitment, and McMullen and Kier suggest that it occurred because the expedition guides found themselves stuck in an implemental mindset with a promotion focus--and that being trapped at the intersection of these modes poses a risk for every entrepreneur.

 

4. Escalation of Commitment and Entrepreneurship

McMullen and Kier's assessment of the joint influence of the Mindset Theory of Action Phases and Regulatory Focus Theory on entrepreneurial behavior portrays four quadrants, which they label "eager goal-setting," "cautious goal-setting," "eager goal pursuit," and "cautious goal pursuit." [19] They note that each quadrant is characterized by strengths and weaknesses--and the key weakness of "eager goal pursuit" is escalation of commitment:

4.1. Joint Influence on Entrepreneurial Behavior

	Promotion Focus	Prevention Focus
Deliberative Mindset	Eager Goal-Setting: Strength: Alert to opportunities to replace the goal. Weakness: Sets unfeasible goals.	Cautious Goal-Setting: Strength: Careful planning. Weakness: Difficulty getting started.
Implemental Mindset	Eager Goal Pursuit: Strength: Alert to opportunities to achieve the maximal goal. Weakness: Escalation of commitment	Cautious Goal Pursuit: Strength: Vigilant to threats to the minimal goal and avoids unnecessary risks. Weakness: Over-cautious.

 

So while the adoption of an implemental mindset and a promotion focus enables an entrepreneur to remain undaunted by obstacles and persist in the face of long odds, it also increases the likelihood of escalation of commitment. The distinguishing factor, McMullen and Kier suggest, is what psychologists Veronika Brandstätter and Julia Schüler call an "action crisis," defined as the "phase of goal striving when setbacks have accumulated and failures in making progress towards one's goal are becoming highly visible...the phase in which the individual has already invested a great deal into his/her goal, encounters recurring difficulties, and finally is caught between further goal pursuit and disengagement." [20]

While an action crisis is an unpleasant experience for an entrepreneur, it serves an essential purpose by compelling them to assess the viability of their venture in the current environment. Research by Brandstätter and Schüler shows that people experiencing an action crisis return to a deliberative mindset, triggering a cost-benefit analysis that shifts the emphasis from how to accomplish their goal back to whether the goal should be pursued at all. [21]

But the challenge for the entrepreneur, according to McMullen and Kier, is that the adoption of an implemental mindset and a promotion focus is likely to forestall the onset of an action crisis. As a result they remain stuck in "eager goal pursuit," and this is what leads to escalation of commitment. What does this look like in practice? McMullen and Kier discuss four contributing factors:

Lack of Contingency Planning

Exit strategies prepare the entrepreneur for appropriate disengagement from goal pursuit, and thus minimize any future losses from a delayed reaction to environmental changes. However, the proactive behavior of planning for negative contingencies is practically eliminated by [eager goal pursuit.] By emphasizing the opportunities as opposed to the threats hidden by uncertainty, [eager goal pursuit] foregoes contingency planning, allocates attention toward efforts to avoid missed opportunities, and ensures that the entrepreneur responds to any opportunities revealed in the future by a changing environment. This can lead potentially negative outcomes to be overlooked and contingency plans to be ignored for best-case scenarios. [22]

Insufficient Risk Monitoring

Entrepreneurs commit to a particular goal assuming a certain level of risk exposure... However...entrepreneurs can find their assumptions violated by unanticipated negative changes in the environment... Upon recognition of these negative changes, an action crisis emerges in which the entrepreneur must evaluate whether the expected return is worth the increased risk exposure. Before such a decision can be made, however, one must become aware of the need to make it. Unfortunately, this awareness is delayed by the implemental mindset's allocation of attention toward volitional concerns [i.e. how to accomplish the goal] and away from motivational concerns [i.e. whether to accomplish the goal] caused by these unanticipated negative changes in the environment... Thus, forgoing contingency planning is likely to delay an action crisis because of increasing, but unmonitored, risk exposure from a deteriorating environment. [23]

Delayed Negative Feedback

An uncompleted goal prevents production costs from being treated as sunk because they are mentally categorized as investments rather than expenses until evidence overwhelmingly disconfirms the likelihood that they will produce the expected return... If commitment grows with time spent in goal striving, then anything that delays awareness of negative feedback is likely to encourage escalation. For example, sunk costs and time invested are costs of abandonment that grow from delay, further increasing the desirability of outcome attainment for decision makers who do not want to appear wasteful. Additionally, experience is likely to increase over time, making the entrepreneur more likely to believe that he or she can overcome negative feedback and succeed, thereby increasing the likelihood of escalation. [24]

Gain-Loss vs. Net Wealth Framing

Upon having an action crisis, cautious goal strivers are more capable than eager goal strivers of reclassifying the costs of goal pursuit from unrealized to realized losses because their cautious goal striving encourages the use of a net wealth frame used in decision-making as opposed to the gain-loss frame encouraged by eager striving. A gain-loss frame emphasizes what is lost if the entrepreneur fails to achieve the desired outcome... In contrast, a net wealth frame considers these costs in the context of what might also be lost in the entrepreneur is wrong in his decision to consider goal pursuit both in the moment...and over time. [25]

 

5. What Can Entrepreneurs Do?

The fundamental dilemma for any entrepreneur is that their propensity for "eager goal pursuit" is both a source of strength and a potential weakness. The very attitude that will enable them to resist the urge to give up when the going gets tough may also lead them into an unstoppable escalation of commitment. The dogged pursuit of their immediate objectives may then result in catastrophic losses that preclude them from finding alternative means of achieving their overarching vision.

Sadly, this is what happened to Rob Hall and Scott Fischer on Mount Everest in 1996. Presumably caught in the grip of "eager goal pursuit," they ignored or downplayed the deteriorating weather conditions, remained determined to lead their expeditions to the summit on May 10, and ultimately ignored their turnaround time. Among the most experienced mountaineers in the world, both men died in a storm described by Jon Krakauer as "nothing extraordinary; it was a fairly typical Everest squall. If it had hit two hours later, it's likely nobody would have died." [26]

So if you're an entrepreneur pursuing an ambitious, high-risk venture, what can you do to avoid escalation of commitment? How might you capitalize on your capacity for "eager goal pursuit" while minimizing the possibility that you won't know when to quit? There's no single solution, but the research under discussion here and my work with founder/CEOs over the years suggest a number of potential steps:

Assess the Situation

All entrepreneurs can be subject to escalation of commitment, but certain situational factors can heighten the risk, as highlighted by psychologists Milkman and Kelly [27]:

• Personal responsibility. "An individual is more likely to commit additional resources to a bad investment if she was the one who originally endorsed it." To what extent do you feel personally responsible for the selection, pursuit and achievement of this goal?
• Sunk costs. "The more resources that have been spent on an investment, the more likely a decision maker is to escalate commitment." What costs--not only time, money, and labor, but also mental and emotional energy--have you invested in this goal?
• Proximity to completion. "The closer a project is to completion, the more likely decision makers are to exhibit escalation of commitment." How long have you been pursuing this goal? How close do you think you are to completion?
• Exogenous explanations for failure. "Escalation of commitment is also more pronounced when past investment failures can be blamed on unforeseeable, exogenous events... Any opportunity to blame a setback on an exogenous source helps a decision maker maintain his positive self-concept and the belief that his original decision was valid, increasing the risk of escalation of commitment." What unforeseen events have affected your venture? To what extent do you hold them responsible for the challenges you currently face?

Expand Your Self-Awareness

While an implemental mindset and a promotion focus may increase your determination to pursue your goals, one of the means by which this occurs is through a systematic distortion of the information you pay attention to, the information you ignore, and how you interpret that data. Greater self-awareness in the following areas can help you determine whether the specific distortions you're experiencing are a competitive advantage--or a source of danger:

• Attention management. A theme in my practice is that a leader's attention is their most precious resource--and yet it's both hard to direct and easy to waste, particularly when we're anxious or under stress. What observations can you make about where your attention is being directed, and why?
• How you think. As I've noted before, "leaders generally need longer blocks of uninterrupted time, free from distractions, to think creatively and to augment logical reasoning with intuition and inspiration." What do you know about the conditions that enable--and detract from--your ability to do your best thinking?
• Decision-making. Physician and psychologist Pat Croskerry has highlighted a range of factors that enable us to make better decisions. [28] How well do you understand the factors that help--and hinder--effective decision-making for you?
• Cognitive biases. The distortions induced by "eager goal pursuit" are a form of cognitive bias, a type of mental shortcut that we employ when problem-solving. What biases and heuristics can you identify in your own thinking?

Plan Ahead (and Embrace the Action Crisis)

As McMullen and Kier note, escalation of commitment occurs not at a single moment, but over the course of an extended period of time and is a consequence not of a single act (or a momentary failure to act), but of a series of steps that build upon each other:

The groundwork for escalation is often established long before the actual decision is made... Whether a decision to disengage or persist is made (cost-benefit analysis), depends on when that decision is made--i.e. how early a threat is detected (risk assessment)--which in turn depends on how that decision is made--by predetermined rules or in situ (contingency planning)--which ultimately depends on what information is cognitively accessible to the decision maker (the mindsets employed to manage environmental uncertainty). [29]

Assessing the situation and expanding your self-awareness are best undertaken well before they become necessary, but they remain useful at any point in the journey. And yet it's important to realize that the cumulative impact of a failure to engage in these efforts early on may be to delay an "action crisis"--that crucial juncture when "setbacks have accumulated and failures in making progress towards [your] goal [have become] highly visible." As noted previously, the value of this all-too-painful moment is that it shifts you out of "eager goal pursuit," causing you to stop asking how to achieve your goal, and compels you to ask whether you should continue. In addition to the steps above, you can prevent the deferral of an action crisis via the following:

• Slow down. A theme in my practice is the idea that "The impulse to hurry should often be interpreted as a signal to slow down"--and yet note that the state of "eager goal pursuit" can leave us feeling frantically behind, exacerbating the tendency to rush headlong toward the goal. What regular routines or habitual practices compel you to slow down and take stock?
• Seek out objective viewpoints. As Andy Grove, the CEO of Intel, once wrote, "People who have no emotional stake in a decision can see what needs to be done sooner." [30] Do you have trusted advisors who are invested in your personal well-being without being attached to the venture's success or failure?
• Prepare for cognitive dissonance. As I've noted before, entrepreneurs often experience cognitive dissonance because they must maintain "two very different views of the world... They must be exuberant optimists, portraying a compelling vision of a successful future... [And they] must also be keenly aware of the nearly endless list of risk factors and things that could go wrong." What helps you manage the uncomfortable feelings that result from this dissonant state?
• Learn from failure. Yet another theme in my practice is the inevitability of failure, in entrepreneurship and in life, which presents all of us with the same challenge: "See our failures clearly and acknowledge our contributions to the outcome. Study them closely to ensure we don't repeat the same mistakes. And remain sufficiently resilient to keep trying, sometimes over a period of years, while also knowing when to quit and abandon efforts that are unlikely to yield results." In what ways might you put these ideas into practice?

If you're an entrepreneur wrestling with the profoundly difficult question of whether or not to continue on the path, I truly wish you the best.

 

---

Footnotes

[1] The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest, page 261 (Anatoli Boukreev and G. Weston DeWalt, 1997)

[2] Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster, page 233 (Jon Krakauer, 1997)

[3] Trapped by the Entrepreneurial Mindset: Opportunity Seeking and the Escalation of Commitment in the Mount Everest Disaster, page 667 (Jeffery McMullen and Alexander Kier, Journal of Business Venturing, 2016). Thanks to Ethan Mollick for the reference to this compelling paper.

[4] Krakauer, pages 261 and 273.

[5] The Traps We Set for Ourselves. For more on optimism and leadership, see Dispositional Affect and Leadership Effectiveness: A Comparison of Self-Esteem, Optimism, and Efficacy (Martin Chemers, Carl Watson, and Stephen May, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000) and Impact of Leadership Style and Emotion on Subordinate Performance (Janet McColl-Kennedy and Ronald Anderson, The Leadership Quarterly, 2002).

[6] Ibid. For more on the psychological consequences of excessive optimism, see The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How Its Unique Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel, and Live--and How You Can Change Them (Richard Davidson and Sharon Begley, 2012)

[7] McMullen and Kier, page 664.

[8] Escalation of Commitment (Katherine Milkman and Theresa Kelly), pages 256-259 in the Encyclopedia of Management Theory (Eric Kessler, editor, 2013)

[9] For more on escalation of commitment, in addition to the McMullen & Kier and Milkman & Kelly papers cited above see Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action (Barry Staw, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976), The Escalation of Commitment to a Course of Action (Barry Staw, The Academy of Management Review, 1981), and Escalation of Commitment in Individual and Group Decision Making (Max Bazerman, et al, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1984)

[10] Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, pages 57-77 (Robert Cialdini, 2006, 2nd edition)

[11] Milkman and Kelly.

[12] "A Perspective on Entrepreneurship," page 9 (Howard Stevenson, Chapter 1 in New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur, 1998, 5th edition)

[13] Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes: 'Avoid Backup Plans' (Deborah Petersen, Inc., 2015)

[14] Mindset Theory of Action Phases (Peter Gollwitzer, Chapter 25 in Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Volume One, Paul van Lange, Arie Kruglanski and E. Tory Higgins, editors, 2012). Also see Action Phases and Mind-Sets (Peter Gollwitzer, Chapter 2 in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Volume Two, E. Tory Higgins and Richard Sorrentino, editors, 1990)

[15] Beyond Pleasure and Pain (E. Tory Higgins, American Psychologist, 1997). Also see Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle (E. Tory Higgins, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1998)

[16] Crossing the Entrepreneurial Rubicon: A Longitudinal Investigation, pages 1058-1059 (Servane Delanoë-Gueguen and Alain Fayolle, Journal of Small Business Management, 2019)

[17] Entrepreneurial mindset shift and the role of cycles of learning, page 11 (Matthew Lynch and Andrew Corbett, Journal of Small Business Management, 2021)

[18] Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process, page 203 (Joel Brockner, E. Tory Higgins and Murray Low, Journal of Business Venturing, 2004)

[19] McMullen and Kier, page 672.

[20] Action crisis and cost-benefit thinking: A cognitive analysis of a goal-disengagement phase, page 544 (Veronika Brandstätter and Julia Schüler, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2012)

[21] Ibid, page 550.

[22] McMullen and Kier, page 677.

[23] Ibid, pages 678-679.

[24] Ibid, page 679.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Krakauer, page 354.

[27] Milkman and Kelly, pages 257-258.

[28] The theory and practice of clinical decision-making (Pat Croskerry, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 2005)

[29] McMullen and Kier, pages 677, 679.

[30] Only the Paranoid Survive, page 92 (Andy Grove, 1996)

 

For Further Reading

To expand your self-awareness:

• Attention Surplus Disorder (Anxiety and Distraction)
• How to Think (More on Open Space and Deep Work)
• Pat Croskerry on Effective Decision-Making
• When Heuristics Go Bad

To prepare for and embrace the action crisis:

• The Importance of Slowing Down
• Investment vs. Attachment
• The Cognitive Dissonance of the CEO
• The Ruling Out of Possibilities (On Failure)

 

Photo by Rick McCharles.