IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Promotors or Champions? Pros and Cons of role Specialisation for Economic Process

  • Katja Rost
  • Katharina Hölzle
  • Hans-Georg Gemünden

According to the Great-Man Theory, the creation of something new used to be accredited solely to one outstanding individual: the champion. This prevailing notion in Angloamerican research was first challenged by Witte (1973), who concluded that an innovation cannot be a one-man decision, since the creation of something new usually involves highly complex and multi-person decision processes. Witte’s model credits the success not to one all-around individual, but to the cooperation of several different specialized persons (so called promotors). Even though the Great-Man Theory is still leading the discussion, the idea of specialized promotors should not be underestimated. In this article we discuss the circumstances under which specialized promotors or generalized champions are better suited for economic progress. We find extensive empirical proof for both roles.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.vhb.de/sbr/pdfarchive.html
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by LMU Munich School of Management in its journal Schmalenbach Business Review.

Volume (Year): 59 (2007)
Issue (Month): 4 (October)
Pages: 340-363

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:sbr:abstra:v:59:y:2007:i:4:p:340-363
Contact details of provider: Postal: Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 Muenchen
Phone: 0049 89 2180 2166
Fax: 0049 89 2180 6327
Web page: http://www.sbr-online.com

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sbr:abstra:v:59:y:2007:i:4:p:340-363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (sbr)

The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask sbr to update the entry or send us the correct address

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.