http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz A B S T R A C T Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2019, Vol. 29, No. 03, 16-32 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2019 Small Business Institute® w w w. j s b s . o rg Introduction Thomas Maran1, Marco Furtner2, Sascha Kraus3, Simon Liegl4, Paul Jones5 1University of Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein, thomas.maran@uni.li 2University of Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein, marco.furtner@uni.li 3ESCE International Buisness School, France, sascha.kraus@esce.fr 4University of Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein, simon.liegl@uni.li 5Swansea University,United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, w.p.jones@swansea.ac.uk Entrepreneurial leadership: An experimental approach investigating the influence of eye contact on motivation Entrepreneurial leadership, Charismatic leadership, Motivation, Communication APA Citation Information: Maran, T., Furtner, M., Kraus, S., Liegl, S., & Jones, P. (2019). Entrepreneurial leadership: An experimental approach investigating the influence of eye contact on motivation. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 29(3), 16-32. Effective leadership is a core ingredient for entrepre- neurial success (Banks et al., 2017), most of all in small and medium sized enterprises (Gonzales, Rodriguez, & Sossa, 2017; O’Regan, Ghobadian, & Sims, 2004). A key element of leadership is motivating followers, thereby achieving increased business performance (van Knippenberg, 2012). In this regard, certain leadership styles have proved more effective than others. For example, transformational lead- ership is often quoted as being the optimal approach to adopt (Bass, 1985). Closely related is the entrepreneurial leadership style, which takes the transformational concept, combines it with an entrepreneurial spirit and requires leaders to transport this spirit to their followers (Lajin & Zainol, 2015). Specifically, charismatic communication, which is characterized by a value-based, emotional, vision- ary and expressive style of delivery (Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart, & Shamir, 2016), enables leaders to inspire and motivate followers (Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti, 2011; Johnson & Dipboye, 2008; Towler, 2003). The simple cir- cumstance that charismatic leadership is effective (Banks et al., 2017), while imposing no additional production cost for the benefits it promotes, makes it relevant for small and medium size enterprises, which often struggle with a lack of resources (Greene, Brush, & Brown, 1997). Some tech- niques from the repertoire of charismatic communication have already been proven to be effective for entrepreneurs, including emotion-laden communication, storytelling (Roundy, 2014) or vision communication (Hensel & Visser, 2019). However, there is minimal empirical investigation on which operative tactics and concrete behaviors should be employed in management practice to foster charismatic communication, in order to successfully persuade and moti- Small, new firms lack the resources of most larger, established firms, which makes effectively motivating employees challenging. Charismatic leadership is effective in increasing the performance of both groups and entire organizations. Specifically, the impact of charismatic leadership practices on followers stems from nonverbal communication and construed immediacy. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of an entrepreneurial leader’s eye contact and smiling on followers’ objective motivation in an experimental leadership situation. A sample of 129 young adults was tested in a 2×2 (nonverbal tactics: high eye contact/low eye contact × high smile/low smile) experimental design. Motivation was measured by objective performance in a motoric reaction time task. The conditions were operationalized by manipulating gaze behavior and facial expressions of the leader in a staged instructional video, showing a start-up entrepreneur attempting to enhance the performance of his employees as part of a competitive comparison. Regardless of whether the leader smiled or not, participants showed faster responses and therefore performed more effectively when the leader maintained high eye contact.These findings support the hypothesis that increased eye contact is a strong nonverbal signal, which in the immediate context of leader-follower interactions, stimulates an increase in performance. In fact, eye contact could induce an increased level of motivational arousal in followers, resulting in improved confidence and self-reference when taking instructions. This study advances the existing research on learnable skills that can be used to appear more charismatic and thus potentially increasing follower performance by adopting simple nonverbal rules in communication behavior. This offers an invaluable and low-cost tool for leaders founding a start-up business. http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz http://www.jsbs.org 17 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 vate followers (Antonakis et al., 2016; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). This study evaluates communication between a start-up leader and followers, and aims to identify non- verbal signals that lead to increased employee motivation within simulated leader-follower interactions. The inves- tigation selected an experimental design that operational- izes nonverbal leader-follower communication signals as independent variables, and motivation regarding objective performance as a dependent variable. Thereby, our design allows the examination of whether specific communicative behaviors that are associated with charismatic leadership (Antonakis et al., 2016) exert effects on followers’ objec- tive motivation (Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011) at the moment of interaction, beyond the mere immediate construal of charisma ascriptions (Antonakis et al., 2011; Towler, 2003). Literature Review and Hypotheses The outstanding importance of charismatic leadership in organization science is clear considering convincing ev- idence, which proves its effectiveness in leading an organi- zation. Meta-analytic evidence from 76 independent studies shows that charismatic leadership increases organizational effectiveness by improving objective performance on mul- tiple levels (Banks et al., 2017). Specifically, charismatic leadership predicts supervisor-rated task performance, supervisor-rated citizenship behavior, and organization performance (Banks et al., 2017). Moreover, charismatic communication constitutes a crucial component of effective leadership in the early formation of an enterprise (McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Renko, El Tarabishy, Carsrud, & Brännback, 2015), as well as at subsequent higher management levels with more differentiated organizational structures (Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015). This means that alongside providing technical knowledge, leaders also need to adopt a visionary charismatic role in order to effectively sustain an organiza- tion (Thompson, 1999). Therefore, while some may show entrepreneurial talent and high levels of competence in a given field, they might lack the necessary charisma needed to increase the motivation of others, which is indispensable in order to join the leader in a risk-taking approach (Renko et al., 2015). Leaders’ charisma exerts its strongest influence on fol- lowers’ behavior in face-to-face communication. Hence, for small and medium size enterprises, where leaders and followers stay in close exchange and communicate direct- ly with each other, enhancing a leader’s charismatic com- munication should be particularly effective in meeting the challenge of motivating followers. In small scale businesses that are operated by either a manager or owner, the individ- ual and the organizational level may be equivalent (Frese, van Gelderen, & Ombach, 2000), while leadership in small and medium size enterprises is more direct than in larger companies. An entrepreneur’s decisions strongly shape the firm’s strategy, culture, and actions, and hence their behav- ior is critical to the survival and development of small and medium size enterprises (Beaver & Jennings, 2001; Davies, Hides, & Powell, 2002; Puplampu, 2005). Since leaders in small and medium size enterprises are intensively involved in operations, their leadership is highly demanding (Balde- gger & Gast, 2016; Gonzales et al., 2017; O’Regan et al., 2004). Additionally, when the firm and employee numbers grow, leaders increasingly have to manage formal leader- ship and micro-politics, which are constituted social and, in particular, interpersonal processes (Leitch, Mcmullan, & Harrison, 2013). Moreover, recent accounts describing leadership emphasize the crucial role of social influence and persuasion (Ruben & Gigliotti, 2016, 2017). Effectively understanding the way leaders communicate with their fol- lowers therefore offers a promising psychological approach towards an increased appreciation of a crucial component of successful entrepreneurial leadership (e.g. Roundy, 2014). In the early developmental stages of a new venture the entrepreneur’s leadership style tends to be mostly transfor- mational, often changing as the venture is growing, and be- coming more of a transactional style (Baldegger & Gast, 2016). However, early entrepreneurial leadership, which features certain combinations of leadership styles unique to this setting (Kempster & Cope, 2010), is not identical with transformational leadership, although many definitions recognize an ability to influence employees, strengthening their intrinsic motivation or commitment to increase busi- ness performance, as a key element (Gupta, MacMillan, & Surie, 2004; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003; Renko et al., 2015). A unique characteristic of entrepreneurial leadership is the additional focus on opportunities (Renko et al., 2015), particularly when recognizing and exploiting entrepreneur- ial opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) that enable accessing markets through innovations (Renko et al., 2015; Tidd, 2014). They also face challenges in the early stages of their business development, making it necessary to motivate their followers to improve performance, in order to succeed in gaining market share (McGrath & MacMillan, 2000). At the same time, they must still know their companies, their own, and their followers’ limits (Brazeal & Herbert, 1999), and operate with limited access to resources (Druck- er, 1985; Greene et al., 1997; Leitch et al., 2013). Howev- er, there are also two aspects of charismatic leadership that seldom appear in the entrepreneurial leadership literature: 18 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 individualized consideration and, most notably, charisma (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Renko et al., 2015). Charismatic leaders are normally recognized as entrepreneurial (Conger, 1999), but it is not necessarily the other way around, with entrepreneurs often lacking the necessary charisma to moti- vate others in following their risk-taking approach (Renko et al., 2015). Charismatic Signalling and Entrepreneurial Leader- ship Thompson (1999) argues that entrepreneurial leaders are only able to sustain an effective organization if they adopt a visionary charismatic role underneath the architec- tural role (i.e. control) in their enterprise. Only a balance be- tween those aspects qualifies a founder to be an “entrepre- neur” or an “entrepreneurial manager” (Thompson, 1999). However, it is not only within their business that entrepre- neurs need to demonstrate charisma. As being an entrepre- neur means bringing novel and creative ideas to the market, it is necessary to positively influence others regarding idea validity (van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016). Persuasion as an outcome of charismatic leadership and communication (Niebuhr, Tegtmeier, & Brem, 2017; Tskhay, Zhu, Zou, & Rule, 2018) is required to acquire potential customers, but also to attract investors (Parhankangas & Ehrlich, 2014). Since newly founded businesses typically lack information regarding their market potential and cannot predict expected revenue, subjective factors like positive affect greatly influ- ence the decision of investors (Davis, Hmieleski, Webb, & Coombs, 2017; Dimotakis, Conlon, & Ilies, 2012). As de- scribed previously, positive affect is associated with charis- ma and effective leadership (Bono & Ilies, 2006; van Knip- penberg & van Kleef, 2016). The task of an entrepreneurial leader consists also of influencing their followers, which, as stated in the definitions of entrepreneurial leadership, is typ- ically achievable by being charismatic and inspiring trust (Alvarez & Barney, 2005, 2007). The necessity to acquire trusting and committed followers is described in Gupta et al. (2004) as “cast enactment”, being one of the two cross-cul- tural challenges entrepreneurial leaders have to face. In con- clusion, it seems that being a charismatic person is a key factor for attaining entrepreneurial success. This may sound challenging for those seeking to undertake a business start- up but lacking in personal charisma. However, as research demonstrates, appearing more charismatic can actually be taught (Antonakis et al., 2011; Frese, Beimel, & Schoen- born, 2003; Towler, 2003). Therefore, a potential perceived lack of charisma in entrepreneurial leadership (Renko et al., 2015) could and should be overcome. Signals of Leaders’ Charisma Even though convincing evidence exists on the ef- fectiveness of transformational or charismatic leadership (Banks et al., 2017), its definition and measurement have been criticized due to the lack of a tight definition (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). First of all, it remains unclear which specific behavioral signals and tactics charismatic leaders use to persuade and motivate their followers (An- tonakis, Day, & Schyns, 2012). Hence, opening the black box of charismatic communication represents a sparsely addressed approach in leadership research, but holds great promise in closing the gap between distal interpersonal per- ception of charisma and closely related transformational leadership, and proximal, measurable communicative sig- nals. We feel that this is an important step in advancing ef- fective leadership development. To address the above criticism, charisma has been more recently conceptualized as “values-based, symbol- ic and emotion-laden leader signaling” (Antonakis et al., 2016, p. 304). This conceptualization refers to signalling theory (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011), which is widely applied in research on management (Bergh, Con- nelly, Ketchen, & Shannon, 2014) and entrepreneurship (Moss, Neubaum, & Meyskens, 2015) and puts a clear fo- cus on charisma as a repertoire of leader signals. Signalling approaches state that a sender provides signals to give cred- ible information about his quality (Connelly et al., 2011). Such signals should be perceived by a receiver, and they should act upon the signal (Connelly et al., 2011). The ef- fect of charisma in the context of leadership relies on the communication signals of leaders (de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010), through both verbal and nonverbal channels (Connelly, Gaddis, & Helton-Fauth, 2013; Tskhay, Zhu, & Rule, 2017). Nonverbal signals are not merely an expression of an inner state, but at the same time act as a social signal, and therefore have an effect on the receiver. The expressive and communicative function of nonverbal cues either signals to the partner one’s own state, or the kind of behavior one would like to see from the other person (Jack & Schyns, 2015; van Kleef, 2009, 2014; van Kleef, van den Berg, & Heerdink, 2015). Thus, smiling while praising someone would first and foremost indicate an inner state (“I am hap- py”). But from an interactive point of view, different mes- sages are being sent on a relational level (e.g. “I am happy because you achieved something!”), which also communi- cates to the other person that smiling is likely if such behav- ior is being shown (“I like what you are doing, please keep on doing that!”; Chartrand & Lakin, 2013; Goldin-Meadow & Alibali, 2013). Hence, in the workplace, nonverbal be- 19 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 havior also plays a vital role, even beyond leadership pro- cesses (Reh, van Quaquebeke, & Giessner, 2017). In fact, it can promote affective and inferential reactions in orga- nizations (van Kleef, 2014; van Kleef, Homan, & Cheshin, 2012; van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016). In summary, it is clear that social influence is required for successful lead- ership (e.g. Côté & Hideg, 2011; Schultheiss & Brunstein, 2002; van Kleef, van Doorn, Heerdink, & Koning, 2011), and that nonverbal displays form crucial communicative skills for persuasion (Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006; Overbeck, Neale, & Govan, 2010; van Kleef et al., 2015). However, research is scarce on which exact nonver- bal signals increase followers’ motivation. Hypotheses Development The transfer of emotional arousal is a crucial mech- anism in leadership communication (van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016), and is one of the most significant inter- personal effects of emotions within the social and organiza- tional contexts (Erez, Misangyi, Johnson, LePine, & Halv- erson, 2008; Grabo, Spisak, & van Vugt, 2017; van Kleef, 2009, 2014). Nonverbal communication, especially when conveyed through emotional expressions and social gaze, can lead to affective and inferential reactions, depending on the adequacy of the nonverbal signal (van Kleef, 2014; van Kleef et al., 2012, 2015). Expressing energetic positive emotions such as enthusiasm, and showing more directed eye gaze, increases both the charisma attributed to a per- son (Bono & Ilies, 2006; Erez et al., 2008; Tskhay et al., 2017) and the arousal level of the social encounter (Krum- huber, Likowski, & Weyers, 2014; Myllyneva & Hietanen, 2015). Moreover, frequent and prolonged eye contact and smiling make a sender appear to be more effective, con- fident, powerful, dominant, and charismatic (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Brooks, Church, & Fraser, 1986; Damen, Van Knippenberg, & Van Knippenberg, 2008; Gardner, 2003; Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005; Holladay & Coombs, 1993; Howell & Frost, 1989; Strongman & Champness, 1968; Trichas, Schyns, Lord, & Hall, 2017; Tskhay et al., 2017) which in concert indicates leadership ability (Grabo et al., 2017). Since arousal reflects motivational activation (Calderon, Kilinc, Maritan, Banavar, & Pfaff, 2016; Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2010; Lang, 2010), a behavioral willing- ness on the part of the observer occurs (Damen et al., 2008). Hence, the transfer of arousal through nonverbal signalling might represent an essential mechanism by which charis- matic leaders effectively motivate their followers. In fact, motivational arousal not only alters cognitive functioning (Maran et al., 2017), but also modulates the processing of social signals (Maran, Sachse, & Furtner, 2015). Arousal re- fers to the activation of motivational systems (Calderon et al., 2016; Lang, 2010). More vividly, if emotional behavior were understood as a vector, the associated arousal would be the vector magnitude and reflect behavior invigoration (Calderon et al., 2016). This induction of a state of increased motivational willingness could have an immediate effect on followers’ behavior and performance (e.g. Koning & van Kleef, 2015). Thus, of primary interest is how nonverbal signals can act as a motivating tool in managerial practice in small and medium sized enterprises. Interestingly, even though eye signalling and smiling have been mentioned in all existing dramaturgical opera- tionalization of charismatic leadership in research (e.g. Johnson & Dipboye, 2008) research has so far paid little at- tention to how these signals affect followers’ performance. The importance of eye gaze is likely based on the fact that humans are hardwired to shift their attention towards fac- es, especially pairs of eyes (Johnson, Dziurawiec, Ellis, & Morton, 1991). Once mutual eye contact is established, this also increases arousal levels (Helminen, Kaasinen, & Hi- etanen, 2011; Myllyneva & Hietanen, 2015). In addition, directed eye gaze increases self-awareness and self-refer- ential information processing (Baltazar et al., 2014; Con- ty, George, & Hietanen, 2016). Thus, offering eye contact might be particularly effective in hijacking a group’s atten- tion and gaining trust with a captivating message. In a next step, followers can then be persuaded to join the pursuit of a leader’s entrepreneurial vision. Thus, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1. While offering task instructions, a leader’s increased and prolonged eye gaze leads to higher follower performance. Similarly, facial happiness regulates conversational dynamics (Kaukomaa, Peräkylä, & Ruusuvuori, 2015), sup- ports human cooperation (Centorrino, Djemai, Hopfensitz, Milinski, & Seabright, 2015; Danvers & Shiota, 2018; Mus- sel, Göritz, & Hewig, 2013), and affects social perception (Chanes, Wormwood, Betz, & Barrett, 2018), for example promoting positive impressions in marketing communi- cation (Söderlund & Sagfossen, 2017). Most importantly, happy facial expressions increase ascriptions of leadership, sympathy and charisma (Damen et al., 2008; Rychlowska et al., 2017; Trichas et al., 2017), and vice versa charismat- ic leaders generally display more positive emotions, which positively influence their followers (Bono & Ilies, 2006; Erez et al., 2008). Finally, like directed eye gaze, smiling induces a state of heightened arousal in the observer (Krum- huber et al., 2014). Thus, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 2. While offering task instructions, a leader’s 20 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 facial happiness leads to higher follower performance. Taken together, the goal of this study is to investigate whether the deliberate use of directed eye gaze and facial happiness is effective in motivating followers using an ex- perimental design. Following Hisrich, Langan-Fox, and Grant (2007), we developed an experimental design simu- lating an entrepreneurial context to examine the causal role of nonverbal signals in invigorating performance (Kraus, Meier, & Niemand, 2016). Considering psychological meth- ods and experimental designs in entrepreneurship research is a valuable approach, which offers insight into novel fac- ets of entrepreneurial success at the behavioral level (Frese & Gielnik, 2014; Frese et al., 2000; Kraus et al., 2016). To test our hypotheses, we developed a 2 × 2 be- tween-subject design with four experimental conditions. Participants received video-based task instructions from an entrepreneurial leader either displaying shortened or prolonged directed eye gaze and a low or high amount of smiling. Thereafter, participants performed the instructed motoric response task, where motivation was objectively measured by assessing response latencies. Although mo- tivation is a multi-layered construct (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999), findings reveal that during a tapping task, mo- tivated participants make significantly more taps than less motivated participants (Eysenck, 1964). Thus, when infor- mation is gathered that extends beyond basic introspective surveys (Wilson, Tunstall, & Eysenck, 1972), the time re- quired to achieve a specific reaction to a set target stimulus can be viewed as an objective measurement of motivation (Chiew & Braver, 2016; Zedelius, Veling, Bijleveld, Aarts, & Mattes, 2012). Moreover, leaders’ nonverbal signals might exert their effect on followers through the transfer of arousal (van Kleef, 2009, 2014; van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016), which reflects the magnitude of behavior in- vigoration (Calderon et al., 2016; Lang, 2010). Hence, the readiness to react, as reflected by response latencies, rep- resents a reliable indicator of motivation. In fact, a plethora of evidence shows response latencies to be susceptible to systematic variations in immediate and future monetary re- ward, hence reflecting fluctuations in motivation (Bijleveld, Custers, & Aarts, 2012; Zedelius et al., 2012, 2014). Evidence supporting our hypotheses would be an in- crease in objective performance, as measured by the reac- tion time, when the leader maintains directed eye gaze (hy- pothesis one) or shows more smiling (hypothesis two) as compared to the respective control condition. Furthermore, since evidence on the cumulative use of nonverbal displays is sparse, we performed exploratory analyses to test for an interaction between nonverbal signals. Method A staged face-to-face situation was used to test the conditions of both high and low amounts of directed eye gaze as well as high and low amounts of smiling. In this experiment, participants played the role of followers and watched one of four instructional videos. Each video corre- sponded to one of the four 2 × 2 factorial conditions (high directed eye gaze vs. low directed eye gaze × high smile vs. low smile). Consistent with the experimental conditions there were four different versions of the video, which, aside from the manipulated variables, were completely identical in terms of their content and presentation. The simulated leader in the video first presented himself as a successful entrepreneur who explained to the participants the impor- tance of cooperation in the experiment towards optimizing business success and provided instructions on the following experimental task (see visual stimulus material). Participants were randomized into four groups (high-directed eye gaze and low directed eye gaze and/or high smile and low smile). They then completed a motoric reaction time task as soon as the video had finished. The measured task performance, namely reaction time, was op- erationalized as the dependent variable reflecting an objec- tive indicator of participants’ motivation. Participants All participants were volunteers and had normal or corrected-to-normal visual ability. They were not under the influence of psychoactive substances or psychopharmaco- logic treatment, nor had they suffered major head injuries at any time in their lives (self-report). Overall, 129 participants (67 females, 62 males; (Mage = 21.58, SD = 2.40; age range: 18-32 years) were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions and performed the motoric reaction time task. Informed consent was obtained according to the guidelines of the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology, University of Innsbruck. Visual Stimulus Material The video sequences lasted for five minutes. The con- tent and delivery (i.e. prosody, speech tempo) were iden- tical and showed an individual elaborating their career as the founder of a successful business start-up. The individu- al went on to explain the importance of ongoing employee tests, then revealing to the participants their participation in the subsequent task. For the sake of comparability, they should participate as part of their team. The video informed test participants that work precision, perception, and re- 21 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 action time would be measured and that the requirements were accuracy and efficiency in task completion. Thereaf- ter, participants were informed regarding the task they had to complete following the video. Depending on the testing condition, the participants viewed one of four videos where the entrepreneur either made high level or limited degree of directed eye gaze, and correspondingly smiled significantly or only to a limited extent (high directed eye gaze vs. low directed eye gaze × high smile vs. low smile). Notably, re- garding directed eye gaze, it has been demonstrated that in- creased contact is equally as effective regardless of whether it is viewed as a video or through face-to-face interaction (Fry & Smith, 1975). Motoric Reaction Time Task In order to measure participants’ performance, a reac- tion time task was used. Participants initially did one test round and received the instruction to press the space key as fast as possible as soon as they would see the letter “X” on the computer screen. Ten other white letters appeared during the test on a black background in one-second in- tervals as distractions between the target stimuli. The task lasted seven minutes and thirty seconds and was presented in one of three conditions with five blocks each. The par- ticipants’ motoric reaction time was measured as the time difference between the target letter appearing on the dis- play and pressing the space key (Orosz, Cattapan-Ludewig, Gal, & Feldon, 2008; Orosz, Feldon, Gal, Simon, & Catta- pan-Ludewig, 2007). The task results were evaluated with the goal of the investigation in mind, i.e. objectively under- standing the motoric reaction time, since it proves to be a valid measurement for the participant’s motivational level (Eysenck, 1964). Data Analysis A two-factor analysis of variance was performed to ex- amine the interaction and primary effects of the 2 × 2 (high directed eye gaze vs. low directed eye gaze × high smile vs. low smile) investigation design. In addition, in order to test the hypotheses described above, a t-test for independent random samples (separated for each factor) was computed to allow a comparison of the participants’ performance under the varying conditions. Degrees of freedom were corrected in case of deviance from sphericity (Greenhouse-Geisser). Effect sizes are reported by partial eta squared ηPart 2 [0.01 = small; 0.06 = medium; 0.14 = large] for analyses of variance and as Cohen’s d [0.3 = small; 0.5 = medium; 0.8 = large] for t-tests (Elis, 2010). Bayesian factors were calculated according to the guidelines of Marsman and Wagenmakers (2017) and Wagenmakers et al. (2018). Bayes factors were reported as BF10 [1 to 3 = anecdotal evidence; 3 to 10 = moderate evidence; 10 to 30 = strong evidence; 30 to 100 = very strong evidence; > 100 = extreme evidence; (Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014)]. Data analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 24) and JASP (Version 0.8.6; JASP Team 2018). Results Effects of Directed Eye Gaze and Smiling A 2 × 2 (high directed eye gaze vs. low directed eye gaze × high smile vs. low smile) factorial univariate analy- sis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to investigate the interaction between eye contact and smiling. The results are presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. There was a main effect for directed eye gaze F(1,125) = 10.117, MSE = 7082.266, p = 0.002, ηPart 2 = 0.075, BF10 = 14.51, with neither an inter- action between factors, F(1,125) = 0.927, MSE = 641.603, p = 0.340, BF10 = 0.39 nor a main effect for smiling F(1,125) = 1.386, MSE = 970.578, p = 0.241, BF10 = 0.31. In support of our first prediction, results indicate that maintained eye contact during the leadership situation alters performance, as reflected by faster reaction times. On the other hand, no effect was found for smiling as stated in hypothesis two, or for an interplay between both directed eye gaze and smiling. Effects of Directed Eye Gaze on Performance T-tests for independent samples of the cross-subject variables of directed eye gaze and smiling were conducted to analyse performance differences. Compared to the low Table 1 Effects of alterations in eye contact and affective displays on the participants’ motivational level, as indicated by their average reaction times Eye Contact Affective Display Total Low High M [ms] SE [ms] M [ms] SE [ms] M [ms] SE [ms] Low 394.16 4.53 404.12 4.11 398.90 3.12 High 383.79 4.99 384.82 4.85 384.31 3.45 Total 388.98 3.41 394.01 3.41 22 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 directed eye gaze group [M = 398.90; SE = 3.12], the partic- ipants from the high directed eye gaze group [M = 384.31; SE = 3.45] displayed faster reaction times, t(127) = 3.13, p = 0.002, d = 0.551, BF10 = 14.51. These results highlight a difference in the reaction time between both groups, sup- porting our first hypothesis, that a leader keeping eye con- tact within the simulated organizational context does in fact enhance objective performance. Effects of Smiling on Performance A t-test for independent samples was also conducted as part of diversity tests of the independent variables high smile and low smile. Compared to the low smile group [M = 388.98; SE = 3.41], test participants from the high smile group [M = 394.01; SE = 3.41], t(127) = -1.04, p = 0.299, BF10 = 0.309, did not display faster reaction time. Contrary to our second prediction, results showed that increased smiling on the part of the entrepreneur during the leader-fol- lower interaction does not alter participants’ performance. Figure 1. Mean reaction times in the motoric reaction time paradigm across the four experimental conditions (low/ high directed eye gaze × low/high smile). Error bars denote SE. Discussion The objective of this investigation was to determine whether the simple, deliberate use of a leaders’ directed eye gaze and smiling, two nonverbal signals, could increase objective performance in human subjects within an experi- mentally staged leader-follower situation. Indeed, our find- ings show enhanced performance when an entrepreneurial leader displayed high amounts of directed eye gaze as com- pared to low amounts of directed eye gaze while giving in- structions. Participants who received eye contact from the leader reacted faster to the target stimulus than participants receiving low eye contact. Hence, directed eye gaze led to an increased behavioral readiness to act. This indicates that directed eye gaze acts on immediate motivational channels, as we determined it through an objective behavioral perfor- mance measurement. Manipulating directed eye gaze might represent a simple communication strategy to highlight the importance of any given task and potentially improve its ex- ecution through subtle persuasive signals, without having to use costly resources. Hence, a start-up leader’s use of non- verbal signals might be effective in motivating followers to show increased performance, and thereby represent a sim- ple and effective tool in managerial practice. Our findings thus support the notion that a charismatic communication style characterized by increased directed eye gaze is benefi- cial for performance (Boies, Fiset, & Gill, 2015; Koning & van Kleef, 2015). But surprisingly and contrary to our ex- pectations, alterations in the leader’s smiling behavior did not impact followers’ performance. Based on our findings, two questions require further explanation. First, why does a leader’s directed eye gaze increase follower performance and second, why does smiling show no such effect? First, a plausible explanation for the performance en- hancing effect of prolonged eye gaze is due to the fact that directed eye gaze increases arousal (Helminen et al., 2011; Jarick, Laidlaw, Nasiopoulos, & Kingstone, 2016). Arousal represents the driving force behind motivated behavior and indicates the intensity of a performed action (Calderon et al., 2016; Pfaff & Banavar, 2007). Thus, enhanced arousal leads to an increased behavioral preparedness, as measured by our motoric performance paradigm (Calderon et al., 2016; Lang, 2010; Lang & Bradley, 2010). Moreover, current the- oretical models trying to explain the effect of leadership on followers’ motivation postulate the transfer of arousal to be a key component (Damen et al., 2008; van Kleef, 2014). Therefore, increased arousal might enhance the motivation- al value of a represented task instruction (Zedelius et al., 2012) or simply increase action readiness (Calderon et al., 2016; Maran, Sachse, & Furtner, 2018). The notion of arousal being a crucial phenomenon un- derlying the motivation-enhancing effects of leadership is supported by existing models that identify arousal as the central mode of action in organizational communication processes (van Kleef, 2014), focusing first and foremost on the effects of emotional facial expressions. Moreover, interpersonal transfer of arousal represents one crucial psy- chological mechanism behind the attribution of charisma 23 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 and persuasion to leaders through their nonverbal emotion- al displays (Côté & Hideg, 2011; Damen et al., 2008). Be- yond having merely an arousing effect, being gazed upon by others has also been demonstrated to promote compa- rable psychological effects to hearing our own name being called (Kampe, Frith, & Frith, 2003), as well as increasing self-focus (Conty et al., 2016). Hence, perceiving a leader’s gaze might enhance the self-referential nature of a leader’s instruction by signalling to followers that the leader’s mes- sage is directed to oneself. Our findings indicate that directed eye gaze is effec- tive in motivating followers. This fits well with existing findings, showing social gazing having strong impact on receivers’ behaviors. Interestingly, these behaviors, like the effects found in the current study, are highly relevant for effective leadership of followers. Experiencing directed eye gaze can increase self-awareness (Myllyneva & Hietanen, 2016), self-focus (Conty et al., 2016) and even alter cog- nitive functioning (Conty, Gimmig, Belletier, George, & Huguet, 2010; Hietanen, Myllyneva, Helminen, & Lyyra, 2016), for example by activating mind reading abilities (Senju & Johnson, 2009). Since humans are biologically hard-wired to orient towards faces (Johnson et al., 1991), and particularly the eye region, from birth (Farroni, Csi- bra, Simion, & Johnson, 2002), the eyes essentially shape our social behavior by offering social information to others (i.e. social referencing; Striano & Rochat, 2000), enhancing cooperative behaviors (Bateson, Nettle, & Roberts, 2006; Ekström, 2012) and reducing dishonesty (Nettle, Nott, & Bateson, 2012). Thus, offering eye contact might be espe- cially effective in grabbing the attention of a follower or a whole group, to create a mutual bond, stimulate followers’ social cognition supporting group interaction (Grossmann, 2017) and cooperation between them (Bateson et al., 2006; Ernest-Jones, Nettle, & Bateson, 2011; Grabo & van Vugt, 2016). Summarizing, establishing mutual eye contact rep- resents a strong social signal that allows leaders to grab their followers’ attention and influence them towards join- ing the organizational vision. Second, in contrast, even though smiling is considered a crucial cue eliciting arousal in followers (Damen et al., 2008), contrary to our expectations, we found an increased amount of smiling had no influence on subjects’ perfor- mance. There are several reasons, which could explain why smiling failed to enhance performance in our study. First, when looking at the hierarchy dividing leaders and followers within an organization, our findings contribute to the contradictions found in the current literature on vertical- ity and positive emotional expressions (Hall, Halberstadt, & O’Brien, 1997; Hall, Horgan, & Carter, 2002). Although facial happiness shapes leadership perception (Trichas et al., 2017), promotes ascriptions of charisma (Damen et al., 2008) and represents a potent tool for persuasion (Crivelli & Fridlund, 2018) in the workplace, the social message sent by a smile is highly dependent on context (e.g. culture or ade- quacy; Krys et al., 2016, van Kleef, 2014) and reaches from affiliative to aggressive intentions ascribed (Rychlowska et al., 2017). Second, although smiling has been considered to promote a transfer of arousal in organizational communica- tion (Damen et al., 2008), psychological evidence suggests that happiness represents a state of low arousal, hence low in motivational intensity (Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2010, 2011; Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009). Third, in our study, non- verbal tactics were experimentally varied in a way that the entrepreneurial leader motivates and directs instructions to- wards his followers. Directed eye gaze acts as a personal cue (Kampe et al., 2003) signals dominance (Strongman & Champness, 1968) and promotes both increased self-focus (Hietanen et al., 2016) and self-referencing (Conty et al., 2016). Hence, social gazing supports a more self-referen- tial processing of a leader’s instructions and increases the affordance of a leader’s message by signalling status. By contrast, facial happiness signals affiliative intent (Dan- vers & Shiota, 2018; Marsh, Ambady, & Kleck, 2005), is linked to less dominant traits (Deska, Lloyd, & Hugenberg, 2018; Hess, Adams, & Kleck, 2009) and reliably indicates decreased physical dominance in competitive challeng- es (Kraus & Chen, 2013). Although smiling represents a strong nonverbal signal in organizational communication (van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016), presumably acting as a social reward signal (Lin, Adolphs, & Rangel, 2012), facial happiness alone might fail to increase the affordance of a leader’s message. In eye contact, our findings were able to unlock at least one piece of the puzzle of how entrepreneurial leaders are able to increase their followers’ performance. Leaders’ eye contact can exert influence on a company’s chance to suc- ceed via three pathways. First, because of the common lack of time and money in new and small businesses (Greene et al., 1997), leaders are dependent on motivating their employees to performance that exceeds their competitors, without being able to provide monetary incentives (Renko, 2018). Therefore, the ability to employ simple communi- cative tools to motivate your followers, like eye contact, is of great use for entrepreneurial leaders. Second, entrepre- neurial leaders are often characterized by their passion, an affective state high in arousal, when pursuing their com- pany’s goals (Cardon, Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek, 2009, Renko, 2018). Existing findings show that directing your gaze towards your followers’ eyes allows for the transfer of emotion and arousal onto followers (Helminen et al., 2011; Myllyneva & Hietanen, 2015). While other research finds 24 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 that the successful transfer of arousal facilitates goal set- ting (Locke & Latham, 1990), and increases, in a second step, followers’ own affective commitment to these goals (Breugst, Domurath, Patzelt, & Klaukien, 2012). Third, eye contact increases self-referential processing in perceivers (Conty et al., 2016), enabling a spoken vision accompanied by eye-directed gaze to become deeply rooted within fol- lowers and thus being accepted as their own. Motivated em- ployees who show passion for achieving their company’s goals, and are internally convinced of their leader’s vision, will show exceptional performance, and are therefore the key in compensating small and medium businesses’ limited resources, making the company able to compete and suc- ceed on the market (Renko, 2018; Renko et al., 2015). Limitations and Future Research Despite the application of a reliable experimental para- digm (e.g. Koning & van Kleef, 2015) and results providing strong evidence (Lee & Wagenmakers, 2014) for the derived predictions, the present study has some limitations. First, although we refer to entrepreneurial leadership, our de- sign was not performed in an organizational context, hence ecological validity represents one important limitation. To ensure the transfer of our findings to organizational perfor- mance and to prove their importance for actual leadership practice, there is a need to design field studies using a simi- lar experimental approach. One possible approach might be to train leaders to show increased or decreased eye contact in motivational employee meetings, and to then assess their followers’ motivation, or even to later measure performance directed towards achieving goals set in the meeting. Sec- ond, in contrast to some evidence, our findings show that positive nonverbal displays are not effective in increasing follower motivation. The social message conveyed by smil- ing does in fact seem ambiguous and strongly context de- pendent (Rychlowska et al., 2017), but existing evidence shows smiling to increase charisma ascriptions (Bono & Ilies, 2006; Erez et al., 2008) and leadership effectiveness (van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2016). Therefore, further research is needed to address the question under which con- ditions smiling affects follower motivation. For example, since smiling acts as a reward signal, it seems plausible that facial happiness increases motivation in followers when a leader’s expression is shown after any given performance, acting as social reinforcement. In fact, recent approach- es highlight the crucial role of adequacy when displaying facial expressions in the workplace (van Kleef, 2014; van Kleef et al., 2012), indicating that facial emotion exerts its effects when displayed as an evaluative response to a given situation. Nevertheless, our study provides support for the notion that communicating tactics are an effective instru- ment for start-up leaders to motivate their followers. Thus, measures of entrepreneurial leadership (e.g. Renko et al., 2015) should consider assessing it from a signalling point of view by measuring objective leader behaviors and includ- ing the style of communication employed (Antonakis et al., 2016). Practical Implications This study offers important lessons for business prac- tice, however its topics would profit from additional inves- tigation. For one, our study provides further evidence for the impact of nonverbal signals on business communication effectiveness (van Kleef, 2014; van Kleef et al., 2012). Our findings show that eye contact invigorates followers’ moti- vation in a simulated start-up context, increasing their task performance. However, examining the signals underlying efficient motivational communication remains an under-re- searched endeavour, emphasizing the need for further re- search into individual constituent behaviors (Yukl, 1999). Our findings add to existing knowledge, which supports the importance of nonverbal communication tactics in the performance of entrepreneurial leadership, and thereby of- fer insights that might be addressed by effective leadership training. Previously, the effectiveness of business training, even in terms of financial outcomes, has been queried by existing studies (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Jones, Beynon, Pickernell, & Packham, 2013). However, leaders can indeed be trained to appear charismatic (Antonakis et al., 2011; Frese et al., 2003; Towler, 2003). Specifically, in business start-ups, survival is only possible if leaders are able to motivate their employees to deliver optimum performance (Renko et al., 2015), while possessing limited resources (Drucker, 1985; Leitch et al., 2013). Therefore, it is essential to use business resources as advantageously as possible. This research provides ev- idence for an easy way to achieve a state of motivational preparation for interactions with employees. Finally, the op- portunity to increase followers’ performance by employing simple behavioral tactics like maintaining directed eye gaze while delivering important messages would increase busi- ness performance. This study recognizes the need for future experimental research examining teachable, business-rele- vant behaviors for leaders to appear more charismatic, en- abling them to adopt a more efficient and charismatic lead- ership communication style. Conclusion Motivating employees to commit to their company’s 25 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 goals is an essential element of transformational leadership, and especially of entrepreneurial leadership, caused by the necessity to efficiently exploit opportunities (Hensel & Visser, 2019; McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Shane & Ven- kataraman, 2000). The goal of this study was to investigate how an entrepreneurial leader’s charismatic communication can exert influence on followers’ motivation to act. Our find- ings demonstrate that increased leader eye contact promotes enhanced performance of followers in a simulated start-up context. This supports the hypothesis that an increased stra- tegic use of specific nonverbal signals such as directed eye gaze is effective for motivating followers. By contrast, this effect was not found with increased amounts of smiling by the leader. In managerial practice leader’s eye contact might act like a pointer, tagging followers with the spoken content, as reflected by increased self-referential processing (Lamer, Reeves, & Weisbuch, 2015), along with increased self-fo- cus (Conty et al., 2016) and even altered attention (Böckler, van der Wel, & Welsh, 2014). Indeed, the effects of directed eye gaze stretch across multiple aspects. Not only can the eyes of others increase self-awareness (Myllyneva & Hie- tanen, 2016) and arousal (Helminen et al., 2011; Myllyne- va & Hietanen, 2015), but eye gaze can affect cooperation (Bateson et al., 2006; Ekström, 2012), prosocial behavior (Shotland & Johnson, 1978), honesty (Nettle et al., 2012) and even facilitates behavioral synchronization (Prinsen et al., 2017), hence creating the antecedents of successful group coordination, the main function of leadership (Grabo & van Vugt, 2016). We conclude that a leader’s deliberative use of directed eye gaze might be effective in motivating followers to show increased performance, hence represent- ing a simple and effective tool in leadership communication to enhance managerial practice. Although charismatic leadership represents the most effective form of leadership (Banks et al., 2017; Barling et al., 1996; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002), it has re- cently been criticized for its conceptual definition and op- erationalization (Antonakis et al., 2016; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Since our study examines the effect of ob- servable and measurable behavior on follower motivation, it advances the quest to link the distal construal of leaders’ charisma and proximal behavior (Antonakis et al., 2016). Finally, this study supports the value of experimental approaches for research on leadership behavior, extending beyond survey data and cross-sectional designs to identi- fy and examine causal factors (Bommer, Pesta, & Storrud‐ Barnes, 2011; Fodor, Curşeu, & Fleştea, 2016; Kraus et al., 2016; Rico & Cohen, 2005). References Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). How do entrepre- neurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31(5), 776–793. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206305279486 Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and cre- ation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4 Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 293–319. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062305 Antonakis, J., Day, D. V., & Schyns, B. (2012). Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renais- sance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2012.05.002 Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2011). Can charis- ma be taught? tests of two interventions. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(3), 374– 396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0012 Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of lead- er charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 345–373. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00022-3 Baldegger, U., & Gast, J. (2016). On the emergence of lead- ership in new ventures. International Journal of En- trepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(6), 933–957. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2015-0242 Baltazar, M., Hazem, N., Vilarem, E., Beaucousin, V., Picq, J. L., & Conty, L. (2014). Eye contact elicits bodily self-awareness in human adults. Cognition, 133(1), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNI- TION.2014.06.009 Banks, G. C., Engemann, K. N., Williams, C. E., Gooty, J., McCauley, K. D., & Medaugh, M. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarter- ly, 28(4), 508–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lea- qua.2016.12.003 Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827–832. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.827 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expec- tations. New York: Academic Press. Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of 26 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2(3), 412–414. https://doi. org/10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509 Beaver, G., & Jennings, P. (2001). Human resource devel- opment in small firms. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000001101298837 Bergh, D. D., Connelly, B. L., Ketchen, D. J., & Shannon, L. M. (2014). signalling theory and equilibrium in strategic management research: An assessment and a research agenda. Journal of Management Stud- ies, 51(8), 1334–1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/ joms.12097 Bijleveld, E., Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2012). Adaptive re- ward pursuit: How effort requirements affect uncon- scious reward responses and conscious reward deci- sions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 728–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027615 Böckler, A., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., & Welsh, T. N. (2014). Catching eyes: Effects of social and nonsocial cues on attention capture. Psychological Science, 25(3), 720– 727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516147 Boies, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1080–1094. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2015.07.007 Bommer, W. H., Pesta, B. J., & Storrud‐Barnes, S. F. (2011). Nonverbal emotion recognition and perfor- mance: Differences matter differently. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(1), 28–41. https://doi. org/10.1108/02683941111099600 Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emo- tions and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarter- ly, 17(4), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEA- QUA.2006.04.008 Brazeal, D. V., & Herbert, T. T. (1999). The gene- sis of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship The- ory and Practice, 23(3), 29–46. https://doi. org/10.1177/104225879902300303 Breugst, N., Domurath, A., Patzelt, H., & Klaukien, A. (2012). Perceptions of entrepreneurial passion and employees’ commitment to entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 6520.2011.00491.x Brooks, C. I., Church, M. A., & Fraser, L. (1986). Effects of duration of eye contact on judgments of personali- ty characteristics. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.19 86.9713572 Calderon, D. P., Kilinc, M., Maritan, A., Banavar, J. R., & Pfaff, D. W. (2016). Generalized CNS arousal: An el- ementary force within the vertebrate nervous system. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 167– 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.05.014 Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40633190 Centorrino, S., Djemai, E., Hopfensitz, A., Milinski, M., & Seabright, P. (2015). A model of smiling as a costly signal of cooperation opportunities. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 1(3), 325–340. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40750-015-0026-4 Chanes, L., Wormwood, J. B., Betz, N., & Barrett, L. F. (2018). Facial expression predictions as drivers of social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 380–396. https://doi. org/10.1037/pspa0000108 Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 285–308. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754 Chiew, K. S., & Braver, T. S. (2016). Reward favors the pre- pared: Incentive and task-informative cues interact to enhance attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000129. supp Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspec- tive on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145–179. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00012-0 Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206310388419 Connelly, S., Gaddis, B., & Helton-Fauth, W. (2013). A closer look at the role of emotions in transformation- al and charismatic leadership. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charis- matic leadership: the road ahead 10th anniversary edition (monographs in leadership and management) (5th ed.) (pp. 299–327). England, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/ S1479-357120130000005023 Conty, L., George, N., & Hietanen, J. K. (2016). Watch- ing eyes effects: When others meet the self. Con- sciousness and Cognition, 45, 184–197. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.08.016 27 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 Conty, L., Gimmig, D., Belletier, C., George, N., & Huguet, P. (2010). The cost of being watched: Stroop interfer- ence increases under concomitant eye contact. Cog- nition, 115(1), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. COGNITION.2009.12.005 Côté, S., & Hideg, I. (2011). The ability to influ- ence others via emotion displays. Organization- al Psychology Review, 1(1), 53–71. https://doi. org/10.1177/2041386610379257 Crivelli, C., & Fridlund, A. J. (2018). Facial displays are tools for social influence. Trends in Cognitive Sci- ences, 22(5), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. TICS.2018.02.006 Damen, F., Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Knippenberg, B. (2008). Leader affective displays and attributions of charisma: The role of arousal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(10), 2594–2614. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00405.x Danvers, A. F., & Shiota, M. N. (2018). Dynamically en- gaged smiling predicts cooperation above and be- yond average smiling levels. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(1), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. EVOLHUMBEHAV.2017.10.007 Davies, J., Hides, M., & Powell, J. (2002). Defining the development needs of entrepreneurs in SMEs. Ed- ucation + Training, 44(8/9), 406–412. https://doi. org/10.1108/00400910210449240 Davis, B. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Webb, J. W., & Coombs, J. E. (2017). Funders’ positive affective reactions to en- trepreneurs’ crowdfunding pitches: The influence of perceived product creativity and entrepreneurial pas- sion. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.006 de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = communication? The relations of lead- ers’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 367–380. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2 Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A me- ta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 Deska, J. C., Lloyd, E. P., & Hugenberg, K. (2018). The face of fear and anger: Facial width-to-height ratio biases recognition of angry and fearful expressions. Emotion, 18(3), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/ emo0000328 Dimotakis, N., Conlon, D. E., & Ilies, R. (2012). The mind and heart (literally) of the negotiator: Personality and contextual determinants of experiential reac- tions and economic outcomes in negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 183–193. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0025706 Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. New York: Harper & Row. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Im- pact of transformational leadership on follower de- velopment and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735–744. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069307 Ekström, M. (2012). Do watching eyes affect charitable giv- ing? Evidence from a field experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(3), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10683-011-9312-6 Elis, P. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statis- tical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Erez, A., Misangyi, V. F., Johnson, D. E., LePine, M. A., & Halverson, K. C. (2008). Stirring the hearts of fol- lowers: Charismatic leadership as the transferal of af- fect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.602 Ernest-Jones, M., Nettle, D., & Bateson, M. (2011). Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: A field experiment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhum- behav.2010.10.006 Eysenck, H. J. (1964). Involuntary rest pauses in tapping as a function of drive and personality. Perceptu- al and Motor Skills, 18(1), 173–174. https://doi. org/10.2466/pms.1964.18.1.173 Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Simion, F., & Johnson, M. H. (2002). Eye contact detection in humans from birth. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unit- ed States of America, 99(14), 9602–9605. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.152159999 Fodor, O. C., Curşeu, P. L., & Fleştea, A. M. (2016). Af- fective states and ecological rationality in entrepre- neurial decision making. Journal of Managerial Psy- chology, 31(7), 1182–1197. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JMP-07-2015-0275 Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic leadership: Two evalua- tions of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision. Per- sonnel Psychology, 56(3), 671–698. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00754.x Frese, M., & Gielnik, M. M. (2014). The psychology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Organization- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9312-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9312-6 28 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 al Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 413–438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-org- psych-031413-091326 Frese, M., van Gelderen, M., & Ombach, M. (2000). How to plan as a small scale business owner: Psycholog- ical process characteristics of action strategies and success. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(2), 1–18. Fry, R., & Smith, G. F. (1975). The effects of feedback and eye contact on performance of a digit-coding task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 96(1), 145–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1975.9923275 Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010). The motivational dimensional model of affect: Implications for breadth of attention, memory, and cognitive categorisation. Cognition & Emotion, 24(2), 322–337. https://doi. org/10.1080/02699930903378305 Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2011). Attentional con- sequences of pregoal and postgoal positive affects. Emotion, 11(6), 1358–1367. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0025611 Gardner, W. L. (2003). Perceptions of leader charisma, effectiveness, and integrity. Management Commu- nication Quarterly, 16(4), 502–527. https://doi. org/10.1177/0893318903251324 Goldin-Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 257–283. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143802 Gonzales, A. C., Rodriguez, Y., & Sossa, A. (2017). Lead- ership and governance decisions in family business performance: An application of fuzzy sets logic. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 27(1), 51–66. Grabo, A., Spisak, B. R., & van Vugt, M. (2017). Cha- risma as signal: An evolutionary perspective on charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarter- ly, 28(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEA- QUA.2017.05.001 Grabo, A., & van Vugt, M. (2016). Charismatic leader- ship and the evolution of cooperation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(5), 399–406. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.03.005 Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., & Brown, T. E. (1997). Re- sources in small firms: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 8(2), 25–40. Grossmann, T. (2017). The eyes as windows into other minds. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 107– 121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616654457 Gupta, V., MacMillan, I. C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entre- preneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business Ventur- ing, 19(2), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883- 9026(03)00040-5 Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonver- bal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.131.6.898 Hall, J. A., Halberstadt, A. G., & O’Brien, C. E. (1997). “Subordination” and nonverbal sensitivity: A study and synthesis of findings based on trait mea- sures. Sex Roles, 37(5/6), 295–317. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1025608105284 Hall, J. A., Horgan, T. G., & Carter, J. D. (2002). As- signed and felt status in relation to observer-cod- ed and participant-reported smiling. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26(2), 63–81. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1015683720462 Helminen, T. M., Kaasinen, S. M., & Hietanen, J. K. (2011). Eye contact and arousal: The effects of stimulus dura- tion. Biological Psychology, 88(1), 124–130. https:// doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOPSYCHO.2011.07.002 Hensel, R., & Visser, R. (2019). Explaining effective team vision development in small, entrepreneurial teams: A shared mental models approach. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 29(1), 1–15. Hess, U., Adams, R. B., & Kleck, R. E. (2009). The cat- egorical perception of emotions and traits. Social Cognition, 27(2), 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1521/ soco.2009.27.2.320 Hietanen, J. K., Myllyneva, A., Helminen, T. M., & Lyyra, P. (2016). The effects of genuine eye contact on vi- suospatial and selective attention. Journal of Exper- imental Psychology: General, 145(9), 1102–1106. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000199 Hisrich, R., Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2007). Entrepre- neurship research and practice: A call to action for psychology. American Psychologist, 62(6), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.575 Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993). Commu- nicating visions. Management Communica- tion Quarterly, 6(4), 405–427. https://doi. org/10.1177/0893318993006004003 Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 78(6), 891–902. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963– 989. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00086- 2 Jack, R. E., & Schyns, P. G. (2015). The human face as a dy- 29 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 namic tool for social communication. Current Biol- ogy, 25(14), R621–R634. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. CUB.2015.05.052 Jacquart, P., & Antonakis, J. (2015). When does charisma matter for top-level leaders? Effect of attributional ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1051–1074. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0831 Jarick, M., Laidlaw, K. E. W., Nasiopoulos, E., & Kings- tone, A. (2016). Eye contact affects attention more than arousal as revealed by prospective time estima- tion. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(5), 1302–1307. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016- 1085-8 Johnson, M. H., Dziurawiec, S., Ellis, H., & Morton, J. (1991). Newborns’ preferential tracking of face- like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cogni- tion, 40(1–2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010- 0277(91)90045-6 Johnson, S. K., & Dipboye, R. L. (2008). Effects of charis- matic content and delivery on follower task perfor- mance. Group & Organization Management, 33(1), 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106291072 Jones, P., Beynon, M. J., Pickernell, D., & Packham, G. (2013). Evaluating the impact of different training methods on SME business performance. Environ- ment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31, 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12113b Kampe, K. K. W., Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2003). “Hey John”: signals conveying communicative intention toward the self activate brain regions associated with “mentalizing”, regardless of modality. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(12), 5258–5263. https://doi. org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-12-05258.2003 Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2015). How listeners use facial expression to shift the emotion- al stance of the speaker’s utterance. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058607 Kempster, S., & Cope, J. (2010). Learning to lead in the entrepreneurial context. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(2), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011020054 Koning, L. F., & van Kleef, G. A. (2015). How leaders’ emotional displays shape followers’ organization- al citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(4), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEA- QUA.2015.03.001 Kopelman, S., Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Process- es, 99(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OBH- DP.2005.08.003 Kraus, M. W., & Chen, T. W. D. (2013). A winning smile? Smile intensity, physical dominance, and fighter performance. Emotion, 13(2), 270–279. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0030745 Kraus, S., Meier, F., & Niemand, T. (2016). Experimental methods in entrepreneurship research: The status quo. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(6), 958–983. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJEBR-05-2016-0135 Krumhuber, E. G., Likowski, K. U., & Weyers, P. (2014). Fa- cial mimicry of spontaneous and deliberate duchenne and non-duchenne smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Be- havior, 38(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919- 013-0167-8 Krys, K., Vauclair, C. M., Capaldi, C. A., Lun, V. M. C., Bond, M. H., Domínguez-Espinosa, A., … Yu, A. A. (2016). Be careful where you smile: culture shapes judgments of intelligence and honesty of smiling individuals. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-015-0226- 4 Lajin, N. F. M., & Zainol, F. A. (2015). The effect of entre- preneurial leadership, self-efficacy and organization- al performance: A conceptual paper. International Academic Research Journal of Social Science, 1(1), 16–24. Lamer, S. A., Reeves, S. L., & Weisbuch, M. (2015). The nonverbal environment of self-esteem: Interactive effects of facial-expression and eye-gaze on perceiv- ers’ self-evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JESP.2014.09.010 Lang, P. J. (2010). Emotion and motivation: Toward con- sensus definitions and a common research pur- pose. Emotion Review, 2(3), 229–233. https://doi. org/10.1177/1754073910361984 Lang, P. J., & Bradley, M. M. (2010). Emotion and the motivational brain. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOPSY- CHO.2009.10.007 Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2014). Bayesian cogni- tive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leitch, C. M., Mcmullan, C., & Harrison, R. T. (2013). The development of entrepreneurial leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital. British Journal of Management, 24(3), 347–366. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00808.x Lin, A., Adolphs, R., & Rangel, A. (2012). Social and mon- 30 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 etary reward learning engage overlapping neural sub- strates. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(3), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr006 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal set- ting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Maran, T., Sachse, P., & Furtner, M. R. (2015). From specificity to sensitivity: Affective states modulate visual working memory for emotional expressive faces. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1297. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01297 Maran, T., Sachse, P., & Furtner, M. (2018). Negative arousal reduces sensitivity for processing context in- formation. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(6), 985–994. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6878 Maran, T., Sachse, P., Martini, M., Weber, B., Pinggera, J., Zuggal, S., & Furtner, M. R. (2017). Lost in time and space: States of high arousal disrupt implicit ac- quisition of spatial and sequential context informa- tion. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 206. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00206 Marsh, A. A., Ambady, N., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). the effects of fear and anger facial expressions on approach-and avoidance-related behaviors. Emotion, 5(1), 119– 124. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.119 Marsman, M., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2017). Bayesian ben- efits with JASP. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(5), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17405629.2016.1259614 McGrath, R., & MacMillan, I. (2000). The entrepreneur- ial mindset. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Moss, T. W., Neubaum, D. O., & Meyskens, M. (2015). The effect of virtuous and entrepreneurial orienta- tions on microfinance lending and repayment: A sig- naling theory perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/ etap.12110 Mussel, P., Göritz, A. S., & Hewig, J. (2013). The value of a smile: Facial expression affects ultimatum-game responses. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 381–385. Myllyneva, A., & Hietanen, J. K. (2015). There is more to eye contact than meets the eye. Cognition, 134, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITI- ON.2014.09.011 Myllyneva, A., & Hietanen, J. K. (2016). The dual nature of eye contact: to see and to be seen. Social Cogni- tive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(7), 1089–1095. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv075 Nesse, R. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009). Evolution, emo- tions, and emotional disorders. American Psychol- ogist, 64(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0013503 Nettle, D., Nott, K., & Bateson, M. (2012). ‘Cycle thieves, we are watching you’: Impact of a simple sig- nage intervention against bicycle theft. PLoS One, 7(12), e51738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0051738 Niebuhr, O., Tegtmeier, S., & Brem, A. (2017). Advancing research and practice in entrepreneurship through speech analyses – from descriptive rhetorical terms to phonetically informed acoustic charisma metrics. Journal of Speech Sciences, 6(1), 3–26. O’Regan, N., Ghobadian, A., & Sims, M. (2004). The link between leadership, strategy, and performance in manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 15(2), 45–58. Orosz, A. T., Cattapan-Ludewig, K., Gal, G., & Feldon, J. (2008). Latent inhibition and learned irrelevance paradigms: A convenient way to assess information processing deficits in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research Trends. New York: NY: Nova Science Pub- lishers, Inc. Orosz, A. T., Feldon, J., Gal, G., Simon, A., & Catta- pan-Ludewig, K. (2007). Repeated measurements of learned irrelevance by a novel within-subject para- digm in humans. Behavioural Brain Research, 180(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2007.02.008 Overbeck, J. R., Neale, M. A., & Govan, C. L. (2010). I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interperson- al effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 126–139. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.OBHDP.2010.02.004 Parhankangas, A., & Ehrlich, M. (2014). How entrepreneurs seduce business angels: An impression management approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 543– 564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.08.001 Pfaff, D. W., & Banavar, J. R. (2007). A theoretical frame- work for CNS arousal. BioEssays, 29(8), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20611 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satis- faction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142. https:// doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 Prinsen, J., Bernaerts, S., Wang, Y., de Beukelaar, T. T., Cuypers, K., Swinnen, S. P., & Alaerts, K. (2017). Direct eye contact enhances mirroring of oth- ers’ movements: A transcranial magnetic stim- 31 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 ulation study. Neuropsychologia, 95, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROPSYCHOLO- GIA.2016.12.011 Puplampu, B. B. (2005). Toward a framework for under- standing the distressed organization: Insights from practitioner-based organizational interventions in an emerging economy. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(4), 246–258. https://doi. org/10.1037/1065-9293.57.4.246 Reh, S., van Quaquebeke, N., & Giessner, S. R. (2017). The aura of charisma: A review on the embodiment perspective as signaling. The Leadership Quarter- ly, 28(4), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEA- QUA.2017.01.001 Renko, M. (2018). Entrepreneurial leadership. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), Nature of leadership (3rd ed.) (pp. 381–408). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publica- tions. Renko, M., El Tarabishy, A., Carsrud, A. L., & Brännback, M. (2015). Understanding and measuring entrepre- neurial leadership style. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jsbm.12086 Rico, R., & Cohen, S. G. (2005). Effects of task inter- dependence and type of communication on per- formance in virtual teams. Journal of Manage- rial Psychology, 20(3/4), 261–274. https://doi. org/10.1108/02683940510589046 Roundy, P. T. (2014). Doing good by telling stories: Emo- tion in social entrepreneurship communication. Jour- nal of Small Business Strategy, 24(2), 41–68. Ruben, B. D., & Gigliotti, R. A. (2016). Leadership as social influence. Journal of Leadership & Orga- nizational Studies, 23(4), 467–479. https://doi. org/10.1177/1548051816641876 Ruben, B. D., & Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). Communication - sine qua non of organizational leadership the- ory and practice. International Journal of Busi- ness Communication, 54(1), 12–30. https://doi. org/10.1177/2329488416675447 Rychlowska, M., Jack, R. E., Garrod, O. G. B., Schyns, P. G., Martin, J. D., & Niedenthal, P. M. (2017). Func- tional smiles: Tools for love, sympathy, and war. Psy- chological Science, 28(9), 1259–1270. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956797617706082 Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2002). Inhibited power motivation and persuasive communication: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality, 70(4), 553–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05014 Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tics.2008.11.009 Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of en- trepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi. org/10.2307/259271 Shotland, R. L., & Johnson, M. P. (1978). Bystander behav- ior and kinesics: The interaction between the helper and victim. Environmental Psychology and Nonver- bal Behavior, 2(3), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01145820 Söderlund, M., & Sagfossen, S. (2017). The consumer ex- perience: The impact of supplier effort and consumer effort on customer satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, 219–229. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.JRETCONSER.2017.08.019 Striano, T., & Rochat, P. (2000). Emergence of selective so- cial referencing in infancy. Infancy, 1(2), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0102_7 Strongman, K. T., & Champness, B. G. (1968). Dominance hierarchies and conflict in eye contact. Acta Psycho- logica, 28, 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001- 6918(68)90026-7 Thompson, J. L. (1999). A strategic perspective of entre- preneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneur- ial Behavior & Research, 5(6), 279–296. https://doi. org/10.1108/13552559910306105 Tidd, J. (2014). Conjoint innovation: Building a bridge be- tween innovation and entrepreneurship. Internation- al Journal of Innovation Management, 18(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919614500017 Towler, A. J. (2003). Effects of charismatic influence train- ing on attitudes, behavior, and performance. Per- sonnel Psychology, 56(2), 363–381. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00154.x Trichas, S., Schyns, B., Lord, R., & Hall, R. (2017). “Fac- ing” leaders: Facial expression and leadership per- ception. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.013 Tskhay, K. O., Zhu, R., & Rule, N. O. (2017). Perceptions of charisma from thin slices of behavior predict lead- ership prototypicality judgments. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(4), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. LEAQUA.2017.03.003 Tskhay, K. O., Zhu, R., Zou, C., & Rule, N. O. (2018). Cha- risma in everyday life: Conceptualization and vali- dation of the general charisma inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000159 van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32 T. Maran, M. Furtner, S. Kraus, S. Liegl, & P. Jones Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) / 16-32 18(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8721.2009.01633.x van Kleef, G. A. (2014). Understanding the positive and negative effects of emotional expressions in organi- zations: EASI does it. Human Relations, 67(9), 1145– 1164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713510329 van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., & Cheshin, A. (2012). Emotional influence at work: Take it EASI. Organi- zational Psychology Review, 2(4), 311–339. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2041386612454911 van Kleef, G. A., van den Berg, H., & Heerdink, M. W. (2015). The persuasive power of emotions: Effects of emotional expressions on attitude formation and change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1124–1142. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000003 van Kleef, G. A., van Doorn, E. A., Heerdink, M. W., & Koning, L. F. (2011). Emotion is for influence. Euro- pean Review of Social Psychology, 22(1), 114–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2011.627192 van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Leadership: A person-in-sit- uation perspective. (K. Deaux & M. Snyder, Eds.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398991.013.0027 van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical as- sessment of charismatic—transformational leader- ship research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60. https://doi.org/1 0.5465/19416520.2013.759433 van Knippenberg, D., & van Kleef, G. A. (2016). Lead- ership and affect: Moving the hearts and minds of followers. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 799–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.11 60515 Wagenmakers, E. J., Love, J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., … Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applica- tions with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017- 1323-7 Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and perfor- mance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organi- zation Management, 36(2), 223–270. https://doi. org/10.1177/1059601111401017 Wilson, G. D., Tunstall, O. A., & Eysenck, H. J. (1972). Measurement of motivation in predicting industrial performance: A study of apprentice gas fitters. Occu- pational Psychology, 46(1), 15–24. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2 Zedelius, C. M., Veling, H., Bijleveld, E., Aarts, H., & Mattes, S. (2012). Promising high monetary rewards for future task performance increases intermediate task performance. PLoS One, 7(8), e42547. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042547 Zedelius, C. M., Veling, H., Custers, R., Bijleveld, E., Chiew, K. S., & Aarts, H. (2014). A new perspec- tive on human reward research: How consciously and unconsciously perceived reward information influences performance. Cognitive, Affective, & Be- havioral Neuroscience, 14(2), 493–508. https://doi. org/10.3758/s13415-013-0241-z