Michael Araki

Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Michael’s research interests involve knowledge and its use in creative and entrepreneurial ways. He is conducting a research program on the concept of polymathy—the acquisition and integration of in-depth knowledge across diverse domains—and its implications for innovative behavior and creative problem-solving.

He also has a project at the macro level of entrepreneurship studies, investigating the role of institutions, networks, ecosystems, and policy on entrepreneurship and innovation. Method-wise, he has expertise in econometrics (e.g., panel data analysis) and psychometrics (e.g., scale development). Prior to his academic career, Michael worked in a variety of roles, including head of small businesses, enterprise solutions architect, business consultant, teacher, and flight crew.

Beyond Grades: Temperament and Interests, but Not School Grades, Highlight Distinct Polymathic Learning Abilities

Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000

More than “Jacks-of-all trades”: The rise of polymathic entrepreneurs

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

When you talk to a few entrepreneurs, a clear pattern emerges. They rarely follow a linear path. Instead, they moved across domains, built serious chops of learning and experience in different roles and systems, and now wear several hats at once: founder, investor, mentor, board member, educator, policy adviser. Unlike the (in)famous expression “jack-of-all trades and master of none” suggests, these are not dabblers. They bring substantial expertise to each role and describe strong synergies among them: academic work improves investing; consulting sharpens teaching; mentoring forces them to integrate insights from finance, strategy, and human behaviour.

Take, for example, Dr Demis Hassabis – a British AI researcher and entrepreneur, and the CEO and co-founder of Google DeepMind. A child prodigy in chess from the age of four, Dr Hassabis became interested in technology after buying his first computer in 1984 and taught himself how to program from books. He subsequently pursued a highly successful career in video game development before pivoting to obtain his PhD in cognitive neuroscience, seeking inspiration in the human brain for new AI algorithms. He held visiting academic roles with MIT and Harvard University, co-authored several influential papers and went on to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry last year. In addition to his leadership role at Google DeepMind, he serves as an adviser on AI to the UK Government and was named one of the “architects of AI”, collectively chosen as Time’s 2025 Person of the Year.

“Demis has an impressive trajectory and has very successfully drawn on knowledge from multiple domains to solve important and difficult problems,” said Dr Michael Araki, a lecturer in the School of Management and Governance at UNSW Business School.

“I suspect that, before AlphaFold, even Hassabis himself would have hardly predicted that his work would make a decisive contribution to chemistry,” said Dr Araki. “The deeper issue is that we are trained to think in disciplinary terms, whereas polymathic individuals are often energised by ’meta-disciplinary’ problems, which cut across or even reorganise extant disciplinary boundaries.”

New work by Dr Araki quantifies a phenomenon typified by Dr Hassabis. Having a ‘polymathic orientation’ – a natural tendency to pursue, develop, and apply knowledge with breadth, depth, and integration – can meaningfully shape who becomes an entrepreneur, how they behave, and what they achieve. Building on the 2500-year-old concept of polymathy, he explained that polymathic orientation goes much beyond the idea of developing trades and skills; it is a philosophical stance on how to navigate life, learn, and utilise one’s (broad and profound) knowledge to make a difference.

For his research, Dr Araki surveyed 243 adults to see whether people with stronger polymathic tendencies show distinct entrepreneurial patterns. He found that individuals with higher polymathic orientation scores were more confident in using their skills entrepreneurially, more likely to take concrete pre-startup actions, such as delivering pitches and taking specific training, and more likely to hit key milestones, such as securing funding or generating revenue. The differences are not small. A person high in polymathic orientation (one standard deviation above the average) was roughly 1.76 times more likely to be a successful founder than the average participant, and more than three times as likely as someone low in polymathic orientation (one standard deviation below the average). In other words, the more polymathic your learning style, the greater your chances of stepping into entrepreneurship and succeeding once you do.

Why set out to study polymathic entrepreneurs?

The catalyst for this research was a simple but neglected observation: many entrepreneurs behave like polymaths and are not “jacks” who lack mastery, according to Dr Araki. “Their careers sprawl across sectors and domains, they accumulate deep expertise across functions, and they rely on unusual combinations of knowledge when generating and pursuing opportunities,” he said.

While previous research on traits of entrepreneurs has paid attention to characteristics such as personality, risk-taking, resilience, and passion, there is an additional observation that Dr Araki said many founders recognise in themselves: they are not only driven or confident risk takers; they are lifelong, wide-ranging learners who possess an unusual knack for connecting ideas across domains.

“This broader learning pattern also appears to shape how entrepreneurs navigate uncertainty. In the interviews, founders repeatedly described drawing on experiences from seemingly unrelated fields when making key decisions – whether assessing risk, designing products, dealing with regulators, or managing teams,” said Dr Araki.

“What looked like an eclectic background from a CV perspective often turned out to be a reservoir of insight that enabled better framing, faster adaptation, and more creative problem-solving. These entrepreneurs were not accumulating roles for the sake of variety; they were building a portfolio of capabilities that made them more versatile, more resilient, and more opportunity-aware.”

It also became evident that polymathic entrepreneurs thrive when ecosystems allow them to bring their full range to the table. Dr Araki explained how many interviewees said their varied experiences helped them act as “connectors” or “translators” between investors, founders, government bodies, educational institutions, and industry players.

“They could speak multiple professional languages, bridge silos, and help solve coordination problems that often slow down young ecosystems. For policymakers, investors, and ecosystem leaders, this raises an important insight: supporting polymathic talent is not only good for individual founders – it strengthens the ecosystem as a whole by enabling ideas, resources, and people to move more easily across boundaries,” he said.

What is polymathic orientation? (And do you have it?)

Polymathic orientation is defined as a dispositional tendency to pursue, develop, and apply knowledge with breadth, depth, and integration. In simpler terms, Dr Araki said it is a personal orientation toward being a polymath – someone who loves to learn many things, master some of them, and connect the dots between them.

To measure this, Dr Araki and colleagues developed the ‘polymathic orientation scale’, a validated instrument with 33 statements that assess those three dimensions. Respondents rate how well each statement describes them, painting a profile of how wide-ranging, non-cursory, and integrative their interests are.

“For example, a good candidate for a highly polymathic person might be someone who studied engineering and philosophy, later trained in design, and now tries to combine these strands in a startup,” said Dr Araki. “Or an artist who also trained in biology, teaches a business course, and designs niche training programs, drawing on all these experiences at once. Rather than a scattershot curiosity (that would be called ‘dilettantism’), polymathic orientation implies intentional learning across domains, commitment to developing real expertise, and a knack for synthesising ideas into something new,” said Dr Araki, who explained that it is this unique mix of qualities that researchers hypothesise can predispose someone toward entrepreneurial endeavours.

In a nutshell, the PO assessment distils polymathy into three core components:

Breadth: Do you explore a wide variety of subjects and skills? (E.g. “I find it essential to learn a wide range of subjects to live a fulfilling life.”)
Depth: Do you commit to mastering topics or crafts over time? (E.g. “I want to pursue excellence through long-term commitment to a topic, skill, or craft.”)
Integration: Do you seek connections between different fields or ideas? (E.g. “I find purpose in linking concepts others see as unrelated or incompatible.”)

“Individuals scoring high on all three are our modern ‘renaissance men and women’. This newly developed scale provides a quantitative way to identify polymathic tendencies even at early stages of career development. Importantly, it allows us to examine how these tendencies correlate with entrepreneurial behaviour,” Dr Araki explained.

The polymath advantage: Evidence from research

A polymathic orientation allows researchers to more systematically investigate how entrepreneurs translate their polymathic tendencies into meaningful entrepreneurial activity. Dr Araki’s research found that the effects of polymathic orientation held true even after controlling for traditional factors such as personality traits, suggesting that the new scale captures something beyond mere openness to new experiences or extroversion. Dr Araki said the research uncovered four key findings:

Higher likelihood of founding a successful business: Individuals one standard deviation above average on polymathic orientation were about 1.8 times more likely to have success as venture funders than the average person, and more than three times more likely than those one standard deviation below average (approximately 10% founder rate vs. 6% at the mean and 3% for low-PO individuals). In short, the more polymathic you are, the greater the odds of founding a venture with tangible outcomes (e.g., securing funding or hiring employees).
Greater entrepreneurial confidence and action: High-PO individuals expressed stronger entrepreneurial intentions and self-efficacy (the belief that they can successfully navigate entrepreneurial tasks and challenges). They not only believed more in their ability to start a business but were also more likely to have taken concrete pre-startup actions (such as writing a business plan, researching the market, and networking for a startup) than their low-PO counterparts. They did not just daydream about business ideas; they acted on them.
Better venture outcomes: A polymathic orientation also predicted success on early venture milestones. Those with higher PO scores were more likely to achieve key startup outcomes such as securing funding, generating revenue, and hiring employees in their new ventures. It suggests that the same traits that help polymathic entrepreneurs recognise opportunities likely help them navigate the challenges after launch, from pivoting strategies to innovating products.
Entrepreneurs are more polymathic (on average): One of the clearest findings in the data is that founders scored higher in polymathic orientation than non-entrepreneurs. This suggests that PO may be part of the underlying mindset that nudges people toward starting companies in the first place – a way of learning and integrating knowledge that goes beyond simply “having different skills.”

“These findings position polymathic orientation as a notable ingredient in the making of an entrepreneur,” said Dr Araki. “We describe it as a potential ‘micro-foundation’ of entrepreneurship; a foundational disposition connecting lifelong learning patterns with the pursuit of new ventures. In plainer terms, being a polymath may predispose and enable someone to launch and grow a business. The breadth, depth, and integrative thinking that polymaths cultivate seem to translate into real entrepreneurial actions and achievements.”

From curiosity to company: What it means for aspiring founders

For entrepreneurs and would-be founders, Dr Araki said the rise of polymathic orientation in research carries important takeaways. “First, embrace your inner polymath,” he recommended. “If you have eclectic interests and a nonlinear career path, do not view that as a weakness to hide; it might be a strength and comparative advantage. Many of the skills and perspectives you have picked up in disparate fields could combine into a novel business idea or give you a creative edge in your industry.”

“The evidence shows that broad knowledge synergy can drive innovation. So, keep feeding that natural curiosity. The next time you feel inspired to learn an unrelated skill or explore a new domain, remember that you might be unconsciously training your entrepreneurial alertness.”

Second, Dr Araki said to avoid fear of breaking out of specialised career paths if they are beginning to feel too confining. Polymathic individuals often thrive when they design their own path, according to Dr Araki, who said this might mean starting a side hustle or venture where you can wear several hats. “The frustration you feel in a narrow role could be a signal that you are ready to build something broader. It is important to be strategic, though. Not everyone should quit their job tomorrow, but you can seek out projects or roles that allow you to be more polymathic rather than feel stuck in a very constrained role,” he said.

Additionally, the most effective polymathic entrepreneurs still develop a substantial level of mastery in key domains – they just happen to have several. “So, diversify your skill set, but also hone core strengths that will anchor and leverage your ideas. For example, early AlphaFold efforts showed promise but clear limitations. Once Demis Hassabis integrated biology and protein science experts into the team, the project reached completely new heights in terms of impact.”

Third, Dr Araki suggested using your integrational ability to avoid the trap of the breadth-depth trade-off mindset. “If both range and depth matter, how does a person realistically develop both? What truly moves the needle is not exhausting long hours but finding a personal rhythm for moments of self-driven exploration while preserving important chunks of the day for deepening existing strengths in ways that feel mutually reinforcing. A new curiosity-driven pursuit does not need to dilute expertise; on the contrary, it can sharpen it. The initial pull to explore can generate momentum, pushing someone to invest more deeply and, at times, uncover connections that strengthen their ongoing work rather than distract from it,” said Dr Araki.

“The founders who thrive are the ones who spot how a lesson from engineering sharpens a sales pitch, or how experience in marketing helps redesign an internal process. The connective skill of weaving those things together into sharper decisions and innovation is often where new value is created.”

Finally, Dr Araki said the research’s implications extend to how we educate and support future entrepreneurs. “Traditional career advice often pushes specialisation, but the entrepreneurial world clearly has room – and need – for individuals with range,” he said. “Problem-based courses, in-depth innovation programs, and the acknowledgement that students have meaningful engagement with hobbies can be a great benefit for nurturing polymathic capacity in our entrepreneurs or would-be entrepreneurs, especially when paired with techniques grounded in polymathy research and the study of exemplars of polymathic creativity and innovative entrepreneurship.

“The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor shows rising opportunity recognition worldwide, but also high fear of failure. Adding a narrow range of skills may do little to close that gap; building confidence and entrepreneurial alertness through a combination of broad, profound, and integrative learning may matter more, particularly as entrepreneurial problems increasingly demand a rare mix of knowledge – exactly what polymathic thinkers bring to the table.”

For business leaders, Dr Araki also highlighted a practical takeaway: supporting employees who explore multiple domains can expand organisational opportunities, since novel ideas frequently come from people who integrate knowledge rather than keeping it siloed. “The next useful insight or innovation may come from someone who draws on broad experience, deep expertise, and the ability to connect ideas across domains – the three elements that define polymathic contribution,” he concluded.

Different Strokes for Different Folks: A Configurational Analysis of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Governança da Criatividade: Estruturas Adaptadas para Projetos Inovadores

Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Resumo da pesquisa:

Tipologia de Projetos: Introdução de uma matriz que categoriza projetos em quatro tipos — replicativos, de incubação, intuitivos e inovadores — com base nos parâmetros de excepcionalidade e opacidade.
Framework de Governança: Proposta de mecanismos adaptados para cada tipo de projeto, integrando criatividade e empreendedorismo à governança corporativa.
Contribuições Teóricas e Práticas: Avanços para entender como a governança se relaciona com projetos de diferentes graus de criatividade e insights para empresas que desejam explorar incertezas de forma estratégica.

A governança corporativa tradicional está associada ao controle e monitoramento. No entanto, em cenários de alta incerteza e criatividade, como os enfrentados por projetos empreendedores, é necessário repensar mecanismos. Recente pesquisa explora como a governança pode ser adaptada para apoiar a criatividade e a inovação. Além disso, ela oferece um framework que categoriza projetos empresariais e sugere abordagens de governança específicas para cada tipo.

A pesquisa foi conduzida por Henrique Castro Martins, da FGV EAESP, e Michael Araki, da UNSW Sydney, e publicada na European Management Review. Com base na literatura sobre criatividade e empreendedorismo, a análise desenvolveu uma matriz conceitual para classificar projetos organizacionais segundo os parâmetros de excepcionalidade e opacidade.

Os conceitos de opacidade e excepcionalidade são fundamentais para categorizar os projetos dentro do framework de governança proposto. Assim, opacidade refere-se à dificuldade de prever, de forma precisa, os resultados de um projeto antes de sua execução. Quanto maior a opacidade, maior a incerteza sobre o sucesso ou a qualidade das ações previstas, demandando mais análise e adaptação.

Já a excepcionalidade está ligada à raridade e à surpresa de uma ideia ou oportunidade. Um projeto altamente improvável baseia-se em caminhos não óbvios ou descobertas inesperadas, geralmente gerando maior potencial de inovação. Quando combinados, esses dois parâmetros ajudam a classificar os projetos em uma matriz que equilibra previsibilidade e criatividade, orientando as estruturas de governança mais adequadas para cada tipo de iniciativa.

Os autores identificaram quatro categorias de projetos:

Replicativos: Caracterizados por baixa excepcionalidade e opacidade, esses projetos seguem fórmulas conhecidas. A governança deve focar no controle estrito e na execução de rotinas padronizadas.
Incubação: Apesar de previsíveis (baixa excepcionalidade), esses projetos enfrentam alta opacidade, exigindo tempo e análise detalhada. A governança deve priorizar conselhos internos com especialistas e incentivos para monitoramento estratégico
Intuitivos: Com baixa opacidade, mas alta excepcionalidade, esses projetos envolvem identificar e explorar oportunidades raras e claras. A governança deve ser flexível, permitindo respostas rápidas a insights de mercado inesperados.
Inovadores: Projetos excepcionais e opacos exigem tolerância à ambiguidade e estruturas de governança que promovam o tato gerencial e o alinhamento estratégico. Aqui, conselhos de governança precisam de expertise técnica e visão de longo prazo.

Portanto, a pesquisa destaca que o papel da governança em projetos criativos vai além do controle. Empresas devem equilibrar a necessidade de supervisão com a flexibilidade para capturar oportunidades únicas. Para isso, é fundamental adaptar a governança ao tipo de projeto predominante, utilizando mecanismos específicos que estimulem a inovação e minimizem riscos.

Por fim, este framework oferece ferramentas práticas para navegar na complexidade dos projetos (intra)empreendedores. Ele reforça a importância de integrar criatividade, empreendedorismo e governança no contexto corporativo.

Leia o artigo na integra.

How local policies can enable business growth (despite federal regulation)

Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0000

When the US state of Oregon weakened the enforceability of non-compete agreements in 2008, it marked one of the first significant state-level reforms targeting these controversial employment contracts. The change meant that companies could no longer restrict employees from working for competitors or starting competing businesses unless the employee was a senior executive with access to trade secrets or held substantial customer relationships. This reform affected businesses across Oregon’s major technology hubs like Portland and Eugene, where skilled workers had previously faced significant barriers to changing employers or launching startups.

The policy change aligned with similar reforms in other states including Montana, South Carolina and New Hampshire between 2009-2011. These natural experiments provided researchers with valuable data to examine how reducing labour market frictions through weakened non-compete enforcement influenced business growth and entrepreneurship at the regional level. The reforms also sparked renewed debate about balancing employer interests in protecting intellectual property with worker mobility and economic dynamism.

This real-world policy shift formed the foundation for new research examining how changes in labour market regulations influenced regional business growth across the United States. The study revealed that reducing restrictions on employee mobility through weakened non-compete enforcement led to significant increases in high-growth entrepreneurship – but with important caveats about how other institutional factors affected outcomes.

The research paper, Labor market reform as an external enabler of high-growth entrepreneurship: A multi-level institutional contingency perspective, took in data from 270 metropolitan areas over 13 years, with a view to understanding how reduced enforcement of non-compete agreements affected business growth rates. The study, which was co-authored by Dr Michael Araki, a Lecturer in the School of Management and Governance at UNSW Business School, together with Associate Professor Daniel Bennett in the Department of Management and Entrepreneurship at the University of Louisville, and Professor Gary Wagner in the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, focused specifically on how these state-level policy changes interacted with both federal regulations and local pro-market institutional changes.

“While reducing the enforceability of NCAs can foster regional high-growth entrepreneurship, the effectiveness of such reforms is heavily influenced by concurrent federal and local institutional changes,” the researchers noted in their findings published in the Journal of Business Venturing.

“Our motivation was to understand how changes in the labour market rules can influence high-growth entrepreneurship—not just starting new ventures, but helping them scale. We had reason to believe that these effects were not uniform across the board, so we set out to explore how broader policy dynamics, especially the interplay between federal, state, and local institutions, shape this outcome. In the process, we also identified mechanisms that may hinder entrepreneurial growth rather than support it.”

The impact of non-compete reforms

The research demonstrated that when states weakened non-compete agreement enforcement, affected regions experienced meaningful increases in high-growth entrepreneurship. Specifically, these policy changes led to between 8.7 to 10.1 new high-growth establishments per 100,000 incumbent establishments in the analysed period.

This growth occurred because reducing non-compete enforcement lowered barriers for employees to either start their own ventures or join growing companies. As the researchers explained: “NCAs may act like other types of labour market institutions that impede labour mobility.”

The impact was particularly significant for high-skilled workers and knowledge-intensive industries. The study found that “NCAs are particularly common among high-skilled employees, who may possess important industry knowledge and strategic human capital that is key for successful entrepreneurship.” This finding highlights how non-compete agreements can create substantial friction in labour markets where expertise and specialised knowledge drive innovation and growth.

The researchers identified several key mechanisms through which reduced non-compete enforcement enabled business growth. “When NCAs are enforceable, prospective entrepreneurs may delay or be deterred from leaving secure employment to start new ventures by the loss of income and time while waiting for the noncompete duration to expire,” the study noted. By removing these barriers, the reforms allowed entrepreneurs to “conserve valuable time and resources that can be used to plan and finance their ventures.”

The federal regulation factor

However, the positive effects of reduced non-compete enforcement were not uniform across all industries. The research found that sectors facing increased federal regulatory requirements experienced significantly diminished benefits from the labour market reforms.

“In industries experiencing high levels of federal regulatory expansion, this may not be the case. Especially for high-growth entrepreneurship, where timing is critical for capitalising on technological advances or market opportunities, the ability to quickly seize an opportunity might be dampened,” the researchers observed.

The study identified specific mechanisms through which increased federal regulation counteracted the benefits of non-compete reforms. “Because extra efforts are necessary for navigating these regulatory changes, dynamism can be lost and the decision-making process can be elongated, ultimately slowing down the translation of entrepreneurial opportunities into de facto high-growth entrepreneurship,” the researchers explained. This regulatory burden was particularly evident in sectors like healthcare, financial services, and utilities, where compliance requirements grew substantially during the study period.

The data revealed that “while the mean number of requirements per industry during our sample period is 64,218 restrictions, this ranges from an average low of 6,150 in wholesale trade to a high of more than 207,000 in manufacturing.” These regulatory disparities helped explain why some industries benefited more from non-compete reforms than others. As the researchers noted, “the transaction costs savings enabled by weakened NCA enforceability can be dwarfed by the increased transaction costs associated with regulatory compliance.”

The local policy solution

Perhaps the most significant finding for regional policymakers was that local pro-market institutional changes could effectively counteract the growth-dampening effects of increased federal regulation. The research showed that regions implementing business-friendly local policies helped preserve the positive impact of reduced non-compete enforcement, even in heavily regulated industries.

“Local policymakers enacting tax and spending reforms that allow individuals and businesses to retain a greater portion of their income and resources can serve as a conservation mechanism, buffering the resource escalation imposed by federal regulatory expansion,” the study noted.

The researchers identified specific ways local institutions could offset federal regulatory burden. “Local pro-market institutional changes may also simplify the process of local institutional compliance, acting as a compression mechanism that buffers the elongation associated with a growing federal regulatory burden, enabling entrepreneurs to allocate more of their time and effort to launching and growing their business instead of focusing on compliance issues,” they explained.

This finding builds on market-preserving federalism theory, which suggests that lower-level institutions can counteract the effects of upper-level regulatory changes. As the study demonstrated, “local pro-market institutional changes can create a more favourable environment for high-growth entrepreneurship through an enclosing mechanism that allows high-growth-potential ventures to focus more on capturing the value they create.” The data showed that when a region increased its pro-market institutions by one standard deviation, the high-growth establishment rate increased by 2.8 rather than declined due to higher regulatory burden.

Practical implications for business leaders For business leaders and entrepreneurs, these findings highlight several important considerations when making location decisions. Regions with weak non-compete enforcement may offer advantages for both launching and scaling ventures, particularly in accessing skilled talent. However, industry-specific regulatory burdens should factor into location strategy.

“Entrepreneurs that have already launched their ventures and have their eyes set on growth may be hindered in this aspiration by the high costs of attracting high human capital employees imposed by NCAs,” the researchers explained. They suggested that such entrepreneurs “may also want to consider relocating to states with weak enforcement of such contracts where their access to human capital resources will be expanded.”

The research also emphasised the importance of evaluating local business policies when choosing operating locations. Areas with pro-market local institutions demonstrated better conditions for growth, even when federal regulatory burdens increased. This suggests business leaders should consider the complete institutional environment – federal, state and local – when making strategic location decisions.

Key takeaways for business The study provides valuable insights for both business leaders and policymakers about enabling regional business growth. For entrepreneurs and executives, understanding how different levels of regulation and policy interact can inform better strategic decisions about where to locate and expand operations.

For local policymakers, the research demonstrates that they retain significant ability to foster business growth through local institutional changes, even in the face of increasing federal regulation. As the researchers concluded: “Local pro-market institutional changes can create a more favourable environment for high-growth entrepreneurship through an enclosing mechanism that allows high-growth-potential ventures to focus more on capturing the value they create.”

For business leaders, whose success depends on how well they allocate scarce resources such as capital, labour, and time, navigating changes in policy and institutional environments is key. This research helps to understand how the broad institutional environment shapes the balance between opportunity and challenge. Some policies, like weakened non-compete enforcement, may enable entrepreneurial potential by freeing up human capital. Conversely, federal regulatory expansion imposes frictions through what we call “elongation,” which slows business processes, and “resource escalation,” which diverts resources from core activities. Finally, supportive local policies can help preserve growth opportunities even as regulatory complexity increases at the federal level. This knowledge can help business leaders to strategically respond to policy dynamics, conserve important resources, and better position their businesses to seize emerging opportunities.

Labor market reform as an external enabler of high-growth entrepreneurship: A multi-level institutional contingency perspective

Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Regional Innovation Networks & High-Growth Entrepreneurship

Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0000

The importance of activity‑specific differentiation between orientation‑related temperament traits

Fri, 21 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Creativity governance: A conceptual framework for tailoring governance to the creativity and uncertainty in entrepreneurial projects

Fri, 17 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Psychometrics vs neurochemistry: A controversy around mobility-like scales of temperament

Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Creative Polymathy and the COVID-19 Crisis

Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0000

Scientific Polymathy: Is the era of the “Two Cultures” finally coming to an end?

Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0000

Polymathy: A New Outlook

Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0000