Logical reframing: A theory‐based view of entrepreneurial persuasion
Timo Ehrig, Jens SchmidtAbstract
Research Summary
Prior literature that addresses how entrepreneurs systematically deal with Knightian uncertainty has primarily focused on individual entrepreneurs but has largely neglected that, to be successful, entrepreneurs must also persuade others of their view of the future. Uncertainty implies that others may initially have different and potentially conflicting framings of the future. In this article we offer a belief revision framework for persuasion under uncertainty based on the idea of logical reframing: using and communicating theories and what‐if beliefs that allow recipients to draw logical conclusions in line with the sender's view. Our propositions identify the trade‐offs the receiver has to make between contradictory explanations in her mind so she can be persuaded. The central insight from our framework concerns the role of filters, which are sets of beliefs that create resistance against an argument. Overall, our article contributes by taking the theory‐based view of entrepreneurship to a multi‐agent setting. We also continue the formalization of the theory‐based view, introducing ranking theory, which can be used to model how agents revise their beliefs, to the management literature.
Managerial Summary
Entrepreneurs often need stakeholders to accept not only a proposed action but also a shared account of why that action can succeed under uncertainty. We develop a framework of logical reframing in which entrepreneurs use arguments to connect stakeholders’ existing beliefs to a desired conclusion. Persuasion requires a complete logical route to that conclusion, a theory whose weakest premise is sufficiently strong and can overcome any additional contradictions activated by the argument. We show that what‐if beliefs can prepare stakeholders to accept an argument but they can also generate resistance by connecting the argument to conflicting prior beliefs. Our framework helps entrepreneurs identify which assumptions require strengthening, which objections must be addressed, and when an alternative route to persuasion may be more effective.