r Academy of Management Journal

2019, Vol. 62, No. 2, 335–360.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1008

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS: HOW

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND GESTURING IN
ENTREPRENEURIAL PITCHES INFLUENCES
INVESTMENT JUDGMENTS
JEAN S. CLARKE
Emlyon Business School

JOEP P. CORNELISSEN
Erasmus University

MARK P. HEALEY
University of Manchester

A key challenge for entrepreneurs is to convince investors of their business ideas via a
pitch. While scholars have started to explore how entrepreneurs convey their passion
and preparedness in a pitch, they have overlooked the possible variation that exists in
entrepreneurs’ verbal and nonverbal expressions. We build on research in cognitive
science and entrepreneurship to examine the nature and influence of specific forms of
speech and gesturing used by entrepreneurs when pitching. In an initial qualitative field
study we identify distinct pitching strategies entrepreneurs use, involving different
combinations of verbal tactics (i.e., using literal and figurative language to frame a
venture) and gesture (i.e., using different types of hand gestures to emphasize parts of
their pitch and convey product and venture ideas). In a subsequent experimental study,
we examine the impact of these strategies on investors’ propensity to invest. We find
that, although variation in the type of language used by an entrepreneur has limited
effects, using gestures to depict and symbolize business ideas has strong positive effects.
Our findings indicate that the skilled use of gestures by entrepreneurs helps potential
investors imagine aspects of a new venture for themselves, thereby enhancing percep-
tion of its investment potential.

Being able to deliver a successful pitch is a uncertainty. For the entrepreneur, the challenge is to
daunting challenge for many entrepreneurs, and we make the venture appear legitimate and real in order
are only beginning to understand why and how en- to secure the necessary funding (Aldrich & Fiol,
trepreneurs are able to convince investors to support 1994). For the investor, she or he has to make an
their burgeoning ventures. The communication assessment of its feasibility (“Will this work?,” “Will
process between pitching entrepreneurs and evalu- anyone use this?”) and future earning potential. In-
ating investors is one that is marked by high levels of vestors will base such assessments on market and
financial data, but also rely on explicit as well as
more subtle social and symbolic cues that they glean
All authors contributed equally to this article. We are from a pitch (Clarke, 2011; Zott & Huy, 2007). Such
especially appreciative of the guidance of associate editor cues may involve the quality of the entrepreneur’s
Kevin Steensma and our three anonymous reviewers. This storytelling, which facilitates their sensemaking
research was funded by the Economic and Social Research about an investment opportunity (Martens, Jennings,
Council (grant number ES/K00185X/). We also thank
& Jennings, 2007). Other signals that investors may
Yorkshire Forward, which generously supported the data
look out for are indications of an entrepreneur’s
collection for the first study, and Manchester Business
Growth Hub for its assistance with data collection for preparedness or commitment, which fosters in-
Study 2. We are also grateful to seminar participants at tuitions about the personal abilities of the entrepre-
Emlyon, Boston College, and the University of Amsterdam neur behind the venture (Huang & Pearce, 2015). Yet
for their helpful feedback and comments on earlier ver- other cues are animated nonverbal displays, such as
sions of this paper. frequent gesturing and facial expressions, which to
335
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
336 Academy of Management Journal April

investors may convey the passion of an entrepreneur professional investors and students. We find strong
to commit her- or himself to a venture and strive to evidence for the importance of nonverbal hand ges-
make it a success (Chen, Yao, & Kotha, 2009). tures in influencing investment judgments following
Existing work thus helps in starting to understand a pitch. The findings also support our theorizing that
what matters when entrepreneurs pitch to investors entrepreneurial gesturing triggers mental imagery
but it leaves unanswered the bigger question of what among potential investors, enabling them to envis-
really determines the effectiveness of an entrepre- age a product or venture and thereby enhancing
neurial pitch. Research on pitching has not only been perception of its investment potential.
rather limited (Chen et al., 2009) but the work to date Overall, our findings contribute to the literature in
has also been quite fragmented in exploring verbal three main ways. First, the existing literature mainly
and nonverbal communication strategies in isolation views nonverbal behavior and bodily gestures as
(Huang & Pearce, 2015). In contrast, in the present secondary behaviors that are limited to conveying an
research we examine the nature and influence of entrepreneur’s passion (Cardon et al., 2009; Chen
verbal tactics and expressive bodily, nonverbal be- et al., 2009). We challenge this view and offer a
haviors in entrepreneurial pitching. While we know broadened account of entrepreneurs’ pitching strat-
from other contexts that verbal and nonverbal be- egies that considers nonverbal behaviors and bodily
haviors may be tightly coupled communication gestures as carriers of meaning as well as passion and
mechanisms—that is, they are synchronized and posits them as integral to communication and per-
each carries complementary but distinct meanings suasion. Second, prior work tends not to distinguish
(Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; McNeill, 2005)—we between the specific types of gestures entrepreneurs
know little about their separate and integrated use when they communicate with potential in-
effects in the high-stakes, high-uncertainty con- vestors and has not examined how they combine
text of entrepreneurial pitching. How do entre- gestures with verbal framing (Chen et al., 2009). We
preneurs combine verbal tactics and expressive extend current theory by distinguishing different
nonverbal behaviors when communicating to in- forms of gestures based on their unique functions
vestors? How do these two channels—alone and and by explicating how entrepreneurs combine them
in combination—influence the judgments of poten- with verbal tactics to communicate and persuade.
tial investors? What are the mechanisms through Third, we identify mental imagery—that is, the men-
which they influence investors? Our research is tal imagery experienced by viewers of a pitch as
designed to answer these questions, using a mixed evoked by the entrepreneur’s gestures—as a key
methods approach. mechanism through which entrepreneurs’ actions
We first develop a grounded theory of pitching influence others’ judgments of a venture’s investment
strategies based on an inductive study of the variety potential, responding to calls to understand how such
of ways in which entrepreneurs pitched at a regional actions affect investment judgments under uncertain
investment forum. We identify a much broader range conditions (Huang & Pearce, 2015).
of verbal and nonverbal forms of communication We draw on, and contribute to, two literatures in
in pitches than acknowledged in prior research developing and testing our theory of the nature and
(Cardon, Sudek, & Mitteness, 2009; Chen et al., effectiveness of entrepreneurial pitching strategies:
2009), uncovering distinct variation in how entre- (1) the broad literature on rhetoric and framing in
preneurs use figurative language to frame a venture entrepreneurship and (2) recent research on the im-
and use hand gestures (i.e., movements of hands and pact of expressive behavior during pitches on in-
arms that co-occur with speech) to explain and depict vestor evaluations. We first review these bodies of
their products and businesses. We use these obser- work to develop the ground for developing and
vations to inductively theorize how entrepreneurs testing our theorizing. We then go into detail re-
combine verbal and nonverbal communication into garding each of our studies and their findings, and
distinct types of pitching strategies. This integrated conclude the paper by discussing the main implica-
theoretical account contributes to our understanding tions for further research.
of how entrepreneurs pitch in real-life settings and
of the natural variation that exists in their pitching
ENTREPRENEURIAL PITCHING TO INVESTORS
strategies. We then use this emergent theory to de-
velop and test hypotheses concerning the effective- The acquisition of investment is a critical step
ness of various verbal and nonverbal pitching for many entrepreneurs in the early stages of their
strategies in an experimental design using samples of venture. Entrepreneurs, however, typically face
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 337

challenges in convincing investors of their venture at on the existing entrepreneurship literature, take
that stage, due to the “liability of newness” with often stock of the research to date, and motivate the re-
little in the way of a track record, obvious asset value, search questions of the current study.
or profitability to show (Brush, Greene, & Hart, 2001).
In this context, how entrepreneurs communicate
Framing Ventures as Investment Opportunities
about their ventures is crucial in terms of convincing
investors and securing investment (Bird & Schjoedt, A growing body of research examines how entre-
2009). Entrepreneurs generally use two broad cate- preneurs of early-stage ventures can establish le-
gories of communication for this purpose: textual gitimacy and mobilize support from important
and verbal forms of communication. Textual modes stakeholders, including investors and other resource
of communication include executive summaries, providers (customers, employees), as well as from
pitch decks (i.e., short series of explanatory slides), important information intermediaries (the media,
and written business plans or initial public offering public opinion leaders) by engaging in strategic
brochures, which are intentionally produced “texts” communication activities such as verbal framing and
that can be sent to or accessed by individual in- storytelling strategies (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010;
vestors (Giorgi & Weber, 2015; Martens et al., 2007). Garud, Schildt, & Lant, 2014; Wry, Lounsbury, &
Verbal communication, on the other hand, involves Glynn, 2011). These strategies are important for en-
formal pitches and presentations to investors as well trepreneurs, particularly when they help portray
as informal conversations and meetings between ventures in a positive or inclusive way or cue a fa-
entrepreneurs and investors (Huang & Knight, 2017). miliar frame of reference that investors and other
The first category is a mediated form of communi- stakeholders can easily understand, relate to, and
cation, whereas the latter is more interpersonal in potentially support (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). Such
nature, with investors judging the presentation and communication strategies, in other words, may help
performance of an entrepreneur in situ. Among ver- individual entrepreneurs to mobilize resources
bal forms of communication, one format—used by (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001), and may, in the process,
the majority of incubation schemes, investment also facilitate the legitimating of a nascent field as a
meetings, and entrepreneurship competitions—has whole, such as a new market or industry (Wry et al.,
emerged as the “industry standard” in recent years: a 2011).
five- to ten-minute long pitch in which the entre- As an umbrella construct, “framing” incorporates
preneur narrates a series of slides, providing an more specific verbal strategies, such as the use of
overview of the business plan to potential investors analogies, metaphors, and narrative storylines in
(Brooks, Huang, Kearney, & Murray, 2014). entrepreneurial presentations, written texts, and
Such pitches are characterized by high levels of other forms of communication (Lounsbury & Glynn,
uncertainty, as investors have to judge the feasibility 2001; Martens et al., 2007). These kinds of figurative
of a venture and its future ability to generate revenue and rhetorical forms of speech form the specific
on the basis of the limited information provided in a verbal tactics with which entrepreneurs are able
pitch. In this context, the persuasive abilities and to cue a particular frame of reference through which
communication skills of entrepreneurs in a pitch are the venture can be understood and impose a logi-
particularly crucial in shaping investor preferences cal structure upon equivocal happenings (Vough,
and investment evaluations. Prior research has sug- Bataille, Noh, & Lee, 2015) such that “a key aspect . . .
gested that both what is said and how it is said by the is their ability to reduce uncertainty” (Lounsbury &
entrepreneur appear to matter, including the way in Glynn, 2001: 549). As such, it has been argued that
which the contents of the business plan are framed in the use of these forms of language in entrepreneurial
a compelling and familiar way (Martens et al., 2007) communication can contribute to reducing the un-
and how the pitch is delivered in an involved and certainty with which the decision to invest in a new
animated manner (Chen et al., 2009). In addition, venture is surrounded by packaging information
research from the side of the investor suggests that about the venture in a more meaningful whole
both the verbal and nonverbal cues that are given by (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001), and by embedding the
an entrepreneur matter as well, including among unfamiliar in a well-known and familiar structure
other things the gender of the presenter (Brooks et al., (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010).
2014) and specific forms of body language and pos- While case studies of successful entrepreneurial
ture during the pitch (Huang & Pearce, 2015). In what activity highlight the role of strategically used lan-
follows, we contextualize these findings by drawing guage in securing investment (e.g., Navis & Glynn,
338 Academy of Management Journal April

2011; Weber, Heinze, & DeSoucey, 2008), there has two experiments, they found that, while the cogni-
been virtually no systematic research on the type of tive dimension of passion (preparedness) had a
language that is used in entrepreneurial pitches, and positive effect on investors’ decisions, the affective
how such language may impact investor evaluations. dimension of passion (the entrepreneur’s displayed
Prior theoretical work (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010; passion) had no direct impact on investors’ decisions
Garud et al., 2014) has speculated that the use of to fund the venture or not. Research has since tried to
specific forms of language, such as the use of story- replicate these findings, but with mixed results to
lines or metaphors, directly impacts investors to date (Cardon et al., 2009; Mitteness et al., 2012;
generate their own interpretations, such that they Murnieks, Cardon, Sudek, White, & Brooks, 2016).
“are likely to gain confidence in the viability of those These inconsistent findings appear to suggest that
possibilities and in others’ ability to make them a we may at present not yet have the full measure
reality” (Bartel & Garud, 2009: 112). However, such of whether and how the various expressive behav-
an effect cannot be assumed, and, instead, requires iors in a pitch influence the chances of securing
detailed empirical examination. Investors are savvy investment.
and experienced professionals who may not be eas- Illustrating this general point, an important recent
ily persuaded by verbal tactics alone and might at- study by Huang and Pearce (2015) highlighted the
tend to other tangible data and cues provided in a role of subtle, expressive cues that are provided by
pitch (Huang & Pearce, 2015). Accordingly, the first entrepreneurs in their communication, which they
research question that we pursue in this paper argued provide crucial “glimpses” of who they are to
concerns which discernible patterns of language investors. Combining an inductive qualitative study
entrepreneurs use as part of their pitch, and whether with two controlled experiments, they found that
and how variations in their language affect investor business angel investors base their investment de-
evaluations. cisions to a large extent on an intuitive “gut feel”
perception of the entrepreneur alongside assess-
ments of the viability of the business. Such positive
Expressive Behaviors and Investor Evaluations
person perceptions, they argued, were largely cre-
In recent years, a growing body of work within the ated on the back of verbal and nonverbal cues, giving
entrepreneurship domain has accumulated around investors an impression of whether the entrepreneur
the impact of all kinds of expressive behavior—facial would be able to follow through and realize the
expressions, posture, gesture, and speech—in en- venture’s potential. Although Huang and Pearce
trepreneurial pitches on investor judgments and (2015) did not directly measure or control for various
decision-making. Within the entrepreneurship field, forms of verbal and nonverbal communication, their
this body of work is most closely associated with a study creates an opening to evaluate expressive be-
specific line of research on entrepreneurial passion haviors in a pitch and how these influence investors.
(Cardon et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2009). However, we In general, expressive behaviors break down into
here use the broader label of expressive behaviors discrete verbal and nonverbal behaviors, which may
and examine how these behaviors influence investor combine into higher-order constructs (e.g., the dis-
evaluations of a pitch (Huang & Pearce, 2015). play of entrepreneurial passion). Besides verbal
Research on entrepreneurial passion has explored expression, nonverbal expressives involve bodily
the question of whether the demonstrated passion of movements (posture, gesturing, facial expressions),
an entrepreneur in a pitch has a direct influence on physical appearance (attire, attractiveness), vocal
investor decision-making (Cardon et al., 2009; Chen elements (intonation, prosody), and eye contact and
et al., 2009; Mitteness, Sudek, & Cardon, 2012; gaze (Bonaccio, O’Reilly, O’Sullivan, & Chiocchio,
Pollack, Rutherford, & Nagy, 2012). In an influential 2016). In the present paper, we direct our attention to
study, Chen et al. (2009) divided the passion con- bodily movements, or “kinesics” (Bonaccio et al.,
struct into affective and cognitive dimensions. “Af- 2016), as the natural nonverbal medium of commu-
fective passion” refers to the display of emotions, nication alongside verbal speech in interpersonal
enthusiasm, and energy in bodily movements, ges- communication settings such as pitches. Ambady
tures, and speech during a pitch. In contrast, “cog- and Rosenthal (1992) referred to the visual, non-
nitive passion”—which Chen et al. (2009) termed verbal channel of communication (facial expres-
“preparedness”—concerns the substance and un- sions and bodily movements), the verbal channel,
derstanding of the business idea that entrepreneurs which includes speech and transcripts, and the au-
communicate through the content of their pitch. In diovisual channel, which combines the two. We
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 339

similarly focus on these primary “channels,” and screened and assessed all ventures on the basis of the
their combination, in pitches, recognizing that en- viability of the technology and readiness for in-
trepreneurs naturally move their bodies when they vestment and had provided entrepreneurs with a
speak and these movements are not accidental, but, standard pitch template to guide the overall structure
as we know from other communication contexts, are of their pitches. All pitches were recorded live, but in
often tightly coupled to the messages speakers wish a non-obtrusive manner with cameras placed dis-
to convey (see, e.g., Kelly, Özyürek, & Maris, 2010). cretely at the side and back of the room. Two of the
Investors, we argue, take notice of these movements authors attended the live event, watched the pre-
alongside the entrepreneur’s speech and may, as sentations, and made field notes of what they felt
suggested by Huang and Pearce (2015), infer differ- stood out for each pitch. The setting did not allow
ent things about entrepreneurs and their messages them to infer the immediate effectiveness of the
as a result. pitches based on audience responses or the nature of
Accordingly, the second question that we ask in the questions posed by the investor panel.
this paper concerns the kind of bodily movements
that entrepreneurs display when they pitch and
Coding and Analysis
whether and to what extent such movements influ-
ence potential investors. Pursuing this question al- After developing a preliminary sense by watching
lows us to identify the role and impact of nonverbal these pitches live, the same two authors undertook a
expressives. Furthermore, by addressing our two more detailed analysis of each of the 17 videotaped
research questions together, we seek to theorize and pitches. The initial analytical approach that they
test the interplay between the verbal and nonverbal, took was open ended and inductive (Corbin &
or bodily, aspects of pitching, and how the alignment Strauss, 2008), but driven by a broad interest in
and synchronicity between these two “channels” identifying noticeable variation in the verbal and
(Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992) may influence and nonverbal behavior demonstrated in each pitch.
persuade investors. They watched each tape and, following an “open
coding” approach, cycled back and forth between
the data and their emergent interpretations. They
STUDY 1
then compared between themselves their initial ob-
The objective of our first study was to identify servations regarding all 17 pitches and realized that
different features of speech and bodily movements the large majority of the variation on the nonverbal
that are used by entrepreneurs when they pitch. The dimension existed primarily of gesturing, with little
motive for doing so was that, while prior research noticeable variation observed in facial expressions
has indicated the general importance of verbal and or body posturing. In the few instances where body
nonverbal tactics (Chen et al., 2009), these have not posturing was observed, it seemed to be part of an
been clearly identified nor therefore specifically open form of gesturing with both arms being moved
examined. outward by the presenter. On the verbal plane, both
coders similarly compared their initial observations
and realized that the general variation that they had
Study Context
identified consisted of a broad split between the use
In line with these objectives, we studied an entire of literal versus figurative language in the 17 pitches,
cohort of 17 independent technology entrepreneurs with some pitches being literal and factual accounts
pitching their ideas to specialist technology in- of a product or service and its development and other
vestors during a regional investment forum in the pitches demonstrating a significant use of figurative
North of England. Technology entrepreneurs are forms of speech. Figurative speech included the use
particularly likely to confront significant challenges of analogies or metaphors to generally describe a
in communicating their ideas to investors, due to the business opportunity or market, and the use of figu-
complexity of their technologies. All 17 entrepre- rative stories or symbolic anecdotes to relay a sense
neurs were in the early stages of commercializing of how the initial opportunity was identified.
their ventures across different industries, ranging Based on these consistent observations, the two
from biomedical innovations and inkjet printing to coders decided to approach the subsequent phase of
capturing green energy from tidal waves. The ma- the analysis by deductively drawing on existing pro-
jority of entrepreneurs were men (14 out of 17). Prior tocols for the coding of both gesture and figurative
to the pitches, expert investment advisers had pre- speech (see also Locke, 2001). Using these protocols,
340 Academy of Management Journal April

the coders (a) focused on whether speech was clearly stroke phase provides the most information for de-
marked in terms of more figurative versus literal termining a gesture’s likely primary function, or its
content, and (b) identified and annotated the ges- “meaning” (McNeill, 1992). Both coders viewed the
tures that were used throughout each pitch. We then 17 videos and divided the movements of the entre-
calculated the reliability of the coding based on a preneur’s hands into gestures and non-gestures (self-
sample of five pitches. If codes were assigned at adapting hand motions, such as touching one’s hair
random, alpha would take the value of 0; if agree- or playing with an inanimate object, that do not have
ment was complete, alpha would take the value of 1. a communicative role) (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). The
The alpha coefficient was 0.85 for the coding of the shape, motion, placement, and orientation of the
figurative language and 0.90 for the gesture coding, entrepreneur’s hands in each gesture was then de-
indicating a robust coding scheme (Carletta, 1996). scribed, initially without sound to ensure the initial
The analysis of speech involved systematically gesture coding was not influenced by the analysis of
identifying the use of figurative versus more literal the speech (Congdon, Novack, & Goldin-Meadow,
language in a pitch, to identify the “framing” used by 2018). Following this initial coding, both coders then
each of the entrepreneurs. We used an established revisited their annotation while listening to the
protocol from applied linguistics to reliably identify speech, sharpening their interpretations and also
figurative words and expressions as these were used highlighting instances in which speech and gesture
across each pitch (Pragglejaz Group, 2007). With this synchronized and aligned. The gestures were then
protocol, “figurative” language is defined as the use categorized into “ideational” gestures, which depict
of a word or expression (as single lexical units) that semantic information, or “beat” gestures, which mark
does not literally apply to the topic that was spoken points of emphasis in speech but “do not present a
about in the context of the speech. This often in- discernible meaning” (McNeill, 1992: 80) (see
volves words and expressions that have a contextual Table 1). Ideational gestures were further subdivided
meaning that is different from their basic and most into gestures used in an ideational “metaphoric” way
conventional meaning as established by common to refer to an abstract notion in terms of a physical
usage and dictionary definitions (Pragglejaz Group, form or movement (Kendon, 2004) and gestures used
2007). Using this protocol, both coders identified the to refer to a concrete referent—specifically, “iconic”
frequency of figurative language across each pitch, (reproduces the form of a physical object being spo-
and then calculated whether such usage was sys- ken about) or “deictic” (speaker points to objects
tematic and high versus more incidental and low.1 physically present or objects alluded to in the ac-
Table 1 provides an overview of the high versus low companying speech). Table 1 provides an overview
use of figurative language across the 17 cases. of the frequency and type of gesturing across the 17
For the coding of the gestures, the two coders drew cases.2
on an established protocol from cognitive linguistics After the full coding of the data in this manner, we
(Cienki, 2005). The coding focused on individual conducted axial coding (following Corbin & Strauss,
gesture strokes; that is, the phase of gestural move- 2008) to relate our emerging findings about the na-
ment that displays the most distinct exertion of ef- ture of the different patterns in pitching that we
fort, as opposed to the preparation leading up to it or found while consulting theoretical precedents that
the retraction of the hand after it (Kendon, 2004). The might help explain what was being uncovered. The
end result of this final stage was a conceptualization
1
Following conventions from corpus linguistics
(Deignan, 2005), frequency was calculated as a percentage
2
for each transcribed text and its total length. The banding of The frequency of gesturing was calculated based on the
frequency figures across the 17 texts was done inductively number of gestures used per minute, in line with protocols
(Moon, 1998) based on observed differences. In this re- from cognitive science (McNeill, 2005). There is no single
spect, it is important to note that entrepreneurial discourse baseline for determining whether the frequency of gestur-
is not a highly conventionalized discourse that is fully ing is high or low (e.g., the speed of talking may influence
structured by fixed expressions and conventional idioms the rate of gesturing). However, a standard baseline of
(Moon, 1998). Individual entrepreneurs can thus choose to around four gestures per minute is often maintained for
use either literal or figurative expressions when they are natural conversations (McNeill, 2005). Informed by this
pitching, as demonstrated by our data. This furthermore standard, we subsequently inductively banded the fre-
means that any noticeable increase in figurative language quency of gesturing into low versus high levels of ges-
that is observed is significant, marking a distinct pattern in turing, identified based on the type and frequency of
speech. gesturing.
 2019

TABLE 1
Study 1: Results of Gesture and Language Coding
Type and Frequency of Gestures Type and Frequency of Figurative Language

Total Gestures/ Figurative/ Proportion

Case Beat Iconic Deictic Metaphoric Minutesa Description of Gesturing Total Words Figurativeb Description of Framing

Approach 1: The literal approach (low use of gesture, low use of figurative language)
Cloud Accounts 0 1 0 0 1/15.3 (0.06) Hands in trouser pockets for the majority of the pitch 21/1,504 13.96 Common business idioms (e.g., “entering the
marketplace,” “follow our lead”)
Screen for Health 1 0 1 0 2/10.3 (0.19) Hands rest on podium for majority of pitch; speaker 11/1,421 7.74 Common business idioms (e.g., “route to
reads from script, rarely looking up market”)
Meet Pal 1 0 1 0 2/12.4 (0.16) Hands are positioned behind the speaker’s back for the 16/2,374 6.74 Common business idioms (e.g., “route to
majority of the pitch market”)
Planet Net 0 0 1 1 2/8.6 (0.23) Hands are placed on the podium for the majority of the 21/1,544 13.60 Common business idioms (e.g., “there is a
pitch particular gap in the market here”)
Scent Advance 5 2 4 0 11/14.4 (0.76) Hands placed on podium or in trouser pockets through 21/1,491 14.08 Common business idioms (e.g., “route to
the pitch market”)
Safe Biotech 10 2 5 3 20/12.3 (1.6) Hands resting on podium or behind speaker’s back for 20/1,832 10.92 Common business idioms (e.g., “route to
much of the pitch market”)
Approach 2: The rhetorical approach (low use of gesture, high use of figurative language)
In Vitro Testing 4 2 5 3 14/10.45 (1.3) Left hand rests in pocket for much of the pitch while the 66/1,566 42.15 Extensive use of metaphors, analogies and
right hand rests on the podium common business idioms (e.g., “we start to
build up revenue as products kick in,” “two
pressures acting on the industry . . . and that is
where we come in,” “multi-chamber
bioreactor technology analogous to the human
body”)
Life Tech 3 4 1 3 11/10.28 (1.1) Hands are clasped together behind the speaker’s back 40/1,379 29 Extensive use of metaphors, analogies, and
for most of the presentation common business idioms (e.g., “the width of a
human hair,” “three routes to market,” “we
already have a toe in the water working with
major biopharmaceutical companies”)
Approach 3: The demonstrative approach (high use of gesture, low use of figurative language)
Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey

Sleeptight 43 9 8 8 65/14.3 (4.5) Uses beat gestures throughout, interspersed with 8/1,350 5.93 Minimal use of figurative language, but extended
ideational and metaphoric gesture (e.g., both hands use of single anecdote (the entrepreneur’s own
positioned centrally and together and then moved snoring problem)
apart, rotating hands slightly so that palms are facing
up upward in a smooth movement to show the
concept of “cash flow”)
Smart Rheology 150 1 0 2 153/14.7 (10.4) Uses an extensive amount of beat gestures throughout 22/1,727 12.7 Common business idioms (e.g., “speed up the
(e.g., right hand moves up and down at just above time to market”)
waist height with palm facing upward)
Safe Skins 82 15 7 5 109/10.02 (10.9) Uses gestures throughout, combining beat (e.g., right 17/1,587 10.7 Specific use of common idioms (e.g., “we are not
hand with palm facing upward moves up and down jumping through any specific legislative
or side to side) and ideational gestures (e.g., right hoops for this”)
hand used to imitate pushing down a door handle by
making a fist and rotating the fist in a downward
motion helping to explain how product works)
About Waste Water 54 5 3 4 66/10.18 (6.6) Uses gesture consistently throughout, predominantly 21/1,449 14.5 Common business idioms (“and this is just a
beat gesture using the right hand moving up and stepping stone toward accessing a global
down with palm sideways facing toward the middle market”)
of the body. The left hand often rests on the podium
341
 342

TABLE 1
(Continued)
Type and Frequency of Gestures Type and Frequency of Figurative Language

Total Gestures/ Figurative/ Proportion

Case Beat Iconic Deictic Metaphoric Minutesa Description of Gesturing Total Words Figurativeb Description of Framing

Ink Flow 103 9 8 14 134/13.6 (9.8) Gestures extensively throughout, often using a beat 38/2,123 17.9 Common business idioms (e.g., “we have got
gesture with right hand in “chopping” motion distributors in place now, we have them in
moving up and down and side to side at chest height place in the United States and in China”)
Approach 4: The integrated approach (high use of gesture, high use of figurative language)
Organ Solutions 215 11 1 14 241/13.5 (17.9) Uses all forms of gestures extensively throughout (e.g., 52/1,512 34.4 Extensive use of metaphors, analogies, and
left hand moves upward from waist to shoulder common business idioms (“window of
height to show the ability of the solution to maintain opportunity,” “the latest news off the press is we
transplant organs “twice as long” in comparison to will get. . .,” “need to grasp the opportunity of
rival products) the lapsing of patents and the lack of noise in
the market at this point in time”)
Power Tidal 119 9 7 6 141/12.6 (11.2) Gestures almost continuously throughout (e.g., left 46/1,341 34.3 Extensive use of metaphors, analogies, and
hand moves from waist height to above the speaker’s common business idioms (“government has
head with hand flat and palm facing the ground, ring-fenced a fund,” “the industry is starting to
illustrating that the turbines can be customized and catch onto this,” “we expect to be switching on
made larger) the lights within two weeks”)
Angel Mobile 59 8 18 9 94/10.1 (9.3) Gestures continuously throughout, including an 79/1,600 49.3 Extensive use of metaphors, analogies, and
extensive use of deictic gestures to emphasize points common business idioms (e.g., “we have
and draw the audience’s attention to key avoided technical difficulties that got in the way
information in his speech of making this work,” “to understand the
difference, just consider a bookshop,” “we
Academy of Management Journal

send the request to the spontaneity engine”)

Tech Ambition 249 3 7 7 266/15.2 (17.5) Uses extensive beat gestures throughout. The right 36/1756 20.5 Extensive use of metaphors, analogies, and
hand “beats” up and down according to the rhythm common business idioms (e.g., “it was a
of the speech, and the upward and downward deliberate tactic to get ourselves through the
movements became more pronounced at particular initial phase . . . we will break into profitability,
points indeed we are already ahead,” “we are on track
for growth”)

a
Figures in parentheses are the number of gestures per minute of the pitch.
b
“Proportion figurative” refers to the number of figurative words per 1,000 words of the pitch.
April
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 343

of four distinct pitching strategies as inferred from being discussed. For example, the entrepreneur of
the verbal and nonverbal coding of the 17 pitches. Power Tidal, a green energy company that captures
and resells energy from tidal waves, explained the ba-
sic technology of his company through a series of
Results and Discussion analogies and metaphors:
The coding and analysis of the 17 pitches dem-
Twin submerged horizontal foils or blades present an
onstrated significant variety in the frequency and
angle into the flow and are driven up or down by the
variety of figurative language across the pitches (see
movement of the water across their surface. And this
Table 1). A number of pitches involved very little
is completely analogous to the way that an airplane
figurative language and instead featured literal and wing provides lift. This unique approach to capturing
technical descriptions of the technology. Other tidal power energy is different from all of the other
pitches involved a frequent and repetitive usage of technologies around. As you can see, they’re all based
figurative language, interspersed with more literal on rotating devices, which we would class as un-
descriptions of the technology. derwater windmills if you like. And we believe that
In a majority of cases, the figurative language that our approach is fundamentally more suited to the
was used was rather incidental and limited to com- challenges faced by tidal power.
mon figurative business idioms that refer to the po-
sitioning of the venture in the market and its Here, the entrepreneur analogically employs estab-
potential for growth. In these cases, figurative lan- lished technologies to explain the novel technology
guage was not used to describe the core of the tech- of wave and tidal energy. By providing the listener
nological product, describing its function or value, with analogous examples of technologies they al-
but was limited to idiomatic expressions that charted ready understand (e.g., windmills, airplanes), the
the overall development of the venture. Almost all listener is better able to grasp the basic elements of
entrepreneurs used common business idioms around the new technology and form a clearer understand-
their current “position” in the market and the “exit” ing of the venture.
point that they were aiming for. For example, the At the gesture level, we similarly observed con-
entrepreneur from Cloud Accounts, which offers siderable variety in the frequency of gesturing and in
cloud-based accounting software as an alternative to the types of gestures that were used as part of a pitch.
traditional offline accounting procedures, outlined In a number of pitches, entrepreneurs used little or
their current position and exit strategy as follows no gesturing at all. In other instances, entrepreneurs
(note that, following linguistic conventions, figura- supplemented beat gestures with frequent ideational
tive language is underlined in this extract): gestures to symbolize their ideas for their audience.
For example, the entrepreneur of Smart Rheology,
Brand awareness is our biggest barrier to achieving which develops instruments for the rheology market,
our targets and our potential. From an exit strategy used an extensive number of beats throughout his
point of view, we would be potentially looking at a presentation alongside a very small number of ide-
trade sale or maybe floating on AIM [a submarket of ational gestures. The beat gestures consisted of his
the London Stock Exchange for smaller growing right hand flapping up and down just above waist
companies]. We’ve got a fantastic business proposi- height with his palm opened toward the ceiling. This
tion, so, if you would like to come and speak to us, gesturing had no specific meaning and was not no-
then see us in the stand outside, I’ve got some of my
ticeably tied to any points of emphasis in his accom-
guys with me; I think you’ll realize we’re good at
panying speech. In this case, his gesturing may have
communication.”
been a way of structuring his own thinking while
Such a specific and limited use of business idioms speaking (McNeill, 1992). In other cases, the entre-
contrasts with the use of analogies and metaphors in preneurs used beats to emphasize certain points in
other cases where they are centrally used to depict their speech. For example, the entrepreneur from Life
the basic functioning of the technology and the Tech for most of his presentation either rested his
products or services that it gives rise to. In these hands on the lectern or placed them behind his back.
cases, the use of figurative language is high and He used only a small number of “beat” gestures
present throughout the pitch, from start to finish— throughout to mark the rhythm of his speech and in an
whereas the use of business idioms is limited to the attempt to seemingly engage his audience.
front end and the back end of the pitch at which stages In contrast, the entrepreneur representing Organ
the potential for growth and financial projections are Solutions, a company that develops solutions to
344 Academy of Management Journal April

preserve transplant organs, used a high number of highlighted that with the company they “now have
both beat and ideational gestures (including iconic over 50 accountants signed up . . . and not only have
and metaphorical gestures). Iconic gestures that she [these accountants] bought in to sell to their clients,
used included using her index finger alongside her they are now using [this online system] to do their
thumb to highlight and “capture” the distinctive own books.” He also stressed that all members of the
properties of the solution compared to competitors. venture team are “professionally qualified with a
In doing so, the entrepreneur objectifies the differ- wealth of experience in many areas ranging from
ence with the competition. The entrepreneur also accounting, marketing, sales, to business develop-
used a series of metaphorical gestures, including a ment.” Instead of evoking figurative language, the
constant rolling movement with both hands clasped emphasis is on persuasion through appeals to their
in front of her body and tilted inward toward each experience, professionalism, and expert knowledge.
other, and with both arms then rotated outwards to The second approach we term the “rhetorical”
indicate the progress that the company has made approach and it involves a high level of figurative
since its inception. She also on a number of occa- language to frame the venture, but with very little
sions moved her right hand, palm down, upward gesturing. The emphasis in this instance is on con-
vertically (a so-called “more is up” metaphorical vincing investors purely through the strength of one’s
gesture; see Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) to symbolize the figurative speech. This approach was evident in just
fact that her company’s organ transplant solution two cases. The entrepreneur from In Vitro Testing, for
allows organs to be preserved for twice as long example, illustrated this approach; he stood in a sta-
compared to rival products. tionary position throughout the presentation with his
In identifying these different uses of gestures (see left hand in his pocket and his right hand resting on
Table 1), we draw attention to the difference between the lectern and used very few gestures. His speech,
“hand gestures such as ‘beats,’ meaningless forms however, was littered with figurative language. The
of hand movements that are used to increase the venture provides an alternative to testing pharma-
prominence of certain aspects of speech or regulate ceutical drugs on animals by allowing pharmaceuti-
interactions” (Özyürek, 2014: 2) and ideational ges- cal companies to test the impacts of drugs on cultured
tures that signify and convey meaning through cells using bioreactor technology. In his pitch, he
“perceptual, motoric, and analogic mappings that constantly used the analogy of the functioning of the
can be drawn between gestures and the conceptual human body to explain how the technology worked:
content they evoke” (Wu & Coulson, 2011: 184). This
difference is, we argue, instructive, as these gestures What we’ve got is a system that’s analogous to the
play different roles in pitching and may, on that basis human body. If you look at the details, you see that
we’ve got multiple chambers and they’re inter-
(as we argue below), impact investor evaluations
connected and we have flowing media going round
differently. This difference has, however, not been
our system so it’s like the blood flowing through the
recognized in prior research, with different gestures
body through the different organs.
being confounded in a composite factor and with the
ideational role of gesturing being neglected (Cardon Furthermore, to persuade investors he uses a meta-
et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2009). phor of physical size to express the market oppor-
Combining the analysis of the language and the tunity with phrases such as “just to give you a feel of
gestures used by entrepreneurs, we can identify four how enormous this market is” and “some estimates
distinct styles of pitching, as highlighted in Table 1. say that [there] will be an additional eight million
The first, which we label as a “literal” approach, in- animal tests needed, so that’s the scale of the
volves a low level of figurative language and a neg- problem.”
ligible use of gestures. The emphasis in this approach The third, “demonstrative” approach involves
is on persuading investors through a literal, techni- hardly any or no use of figurative language, but relies
cal, and fact-like description of a venture. This ap- on an animated delivery through a repetitive use of
proach is common (six cases) across the 17 cases. An gestures, including beats, to mark and punctuate
example of this “literal” approach is Cloud Ac- one’s speech and to engage the audience, and idea-
counts, which as described above provides cloud- tional gestures that provide concrete imagery through
based accounting software. The entrepreneur stood which to understand a venture and its product(s).
throughout the presentation with his hands in his This approach was used in five out of the 17 cases. A
trouser pockets and relied on factual statements case that represents this approach is Safe Skins, a
about the opportunity he presented. For example, he company that designs and manufactures antibacterial
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 345

door levers and door handles for use in hospital set- Bouwmeester, & Cornelissen, 2015); however, Study
tings to prevent infection. The entrepreneur repre- 1 demonstrated only limited use of this strategy.
senting this company used gestures throughout, When put to the test, the “rhetorical” approach may
combining beat gestures (e.g., his right hand with the actually turn out to be less persuasive than an embodied
palm facing upward moved up and down or side to “demonstrative” strategy involving an animated use of
side when emphasizing important points) and idea- gestures (Chen et al., 2009). Furthermore, it may well
tional gestures to help provide the audience with a be that, analogous to other communicative situations,
visual representation of the properties of the product. pitches gain in persuasive strength when they “integrate”
In order to explain how the product works, he outlined the representation of ideas in speech and gesture,
that “we have an injection-molded holster which at- such that they operate as a “composite signal” (Clark,
taches directly onto the door handle, so, whether or 1996) or an “integrated system” (McNeill, 1992).
not it be push pads, door levers, or a pull handle, this To answer these questions, it was important to use
will actually be retrofitted onto the door.” Accompa- a method that would permit valid causal inferences
nying this speech was a series of complementary concerning the effects of figurative language and
gestures to illustrate how the product works; with his gesturing. For this reason, we conducted a second
right hand, he imitated pushing down a door lever by study using an experimental design.
making a fist and rotating the fist in a downward mo-
tion, and then, using the same fist, he made a pulling
STUDY 2
movement toward himself as if opening a door.
The fourth and final “integrative” approach in- In Study 1, we identified distinct pitching styles
volves a high use of both figurative speech and ges- based on noticeable variation in the use of figurative
tures, including the use of ideational gestures that, language and gesturing. For Study 2, we extend the
when aligned with figurative speech, form an au- identified styles into a series of hypotheses to theo-
diovisual “ensemble” (Kendon, 2004) that is used to rize and test whether using a particular style of
convince an audience. This approach was used in pitching influences others’ willingness to invest in a
four cases in our sample. The entrepreneur repre- venture. For this theorization, we draw on additional
senting Organ Solutions is an example of this ap- sources from entrepreneurship and cognitive sci-
proach. While explaining that their competitors’ ence research to build up the theoretical support for
organ preservation solutions “provide only a very the predicted effects around each style and to inform
narrow window of opportunity with respect to the our theorizing concerning potential mediators.
amount of time it takes for the organ to degenerate In Study 1, we found that some entrepreneurs
beyond use,” the entrepreneur visually represented adopt an approach of concentrating on the rhetorical
this narrow metaphorical “window” by bringing strength of the language that they use in their pitch.
both hands to stomach height with fingers pointing The adoption of this style rests on the assumption
out toward the audience and palms facing each other that a pitch is more likely to be persuasive when it
about a waist width apart, and then pushing them includes classical rhetorical virtues such as anec-
slightly toward each other. This hand movement dotes (personal stories) and centrally used figures of
physically illustrated the short period of time that speech (metaphor and analogy) that frame a venture
competitors’ solutions retain the viability of an organ, in familiar and oftentimes more concrete terms and
compared to the much longer period of time provided therefore make it more easily understood. The tar-
by the technology offered by Organ Solutions. geted use of such figurative language may make “the
Overall, Study 1 provides an inductive overview unfamiliar familiar” (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001:
of how entrepreneurs in naturalistic settings use 549), disambiguating the overall understanding of
different types of gestures and figurative speech the venture in the minds of possible investors.
when pitching their ventures to potential investors. The high levels of uncertainty that exist in the eyes
The typology that emerges from the findings raises of investors concerning the market potential and
important questions concerning which of these ap- future earnings of a venture at the stage of pitching
proaches is more likely to be effective in persuading (Brooks et al., 2014) may arguably heighten the ef-
investors to invest in a venture. These questions arise fectiveness of such rhetorical tactics in helping in-
directly from Study 1 but also align with prior en- vestors to instantly form an understanding of the
trepreneurship research. For example, the “rhetori- venture and its product or service. We thus hypoth-
cal” approach has been promoted as an effective esize that entrepreneurs who use a high level of fig-
approach in much prior work (e.g., Van Werven, urative language (by which we mean the frequent use
346 Academy of Management Journal April

of personal anecdotes, analogies, and metaphors) separate expressive “channels” (Ambady & Rosenthal,
throughout their pitch are more likely to make their 1992). However, the findings of Study 1 show that
venture understood by investors, compared to pre- entrepreneurs can also combine figurative language
dominantly using literal and nondescript language and gesture when pitching to potential investors
in a pitch. In turn, we expect that, all else being equal, (i.e., the “integrated” approach). As highlighted, such
investors are more likely to consider such ventures combinations may consist of a synchronous reference
as investment targets. Thus: in figurative language and in an ideational gesture,
such that both converge and reinforce the same idea.
Hypothesis 1. When entrepreneurs use a high (vs. low)
The excerpts of the pitch of Organ Solutions in Study
level of figurative language when pitching their busi-
1 demonstrate such synchronicity as part of an “in-
ness, people will be more inclined to invest.
tegrated” delivery.
Chen et al. (2009) argued that gesturing in a pitch Informed by the findings of Study 1, we argue that
has a positive effect on persuading investors, be- an alignment between figurative language and ges-
cause gesture communicates affective passion to in- ture may create a more effective pitch, with both
vestors. However, in two studies, they failed to find channels of communication being used to depict the
empirical support for this thesis. Our findings in venture and its product or service and reinforcing the
Study 1 suggest a possible explanation for this null same underlying idea. In the high-stakes, high-
finding: gesturing communicates more than passion. uncertainty context of entrepreneurial pitching, in-
Whereas previous research in entrepreneurship has dividual investors may also be particularly focused
not differentiated the functions of different types of on how various verbal and nonverbal cues in a pitch
gesture, we distinguished two main forms of gestures combine in order to form an integrated “audiovisual”
used by entrepreneurs—namely, beat gestures and assessment of a business opportunity and of the en-
ideational gestures (McNeill, 2005)—and observed trepreneur (Huang & Pearce, 2015). We thus suggest
that entrepreneurs frequently use ideational gestures that the co-alignment of figurative language and
in their pitches. Where beat gestures mark the rhythm of gesturing in a pitch might provide a clearer depiction
an entrepreneur’s speech and provide emphasis, ges- of as well as reinforce key messages about the busi-
tures that are used in an ideational manner symbolize ness, thereby augmenting investors’ ability to picture
abstract ideas associated with the business or demon- the business and to form a clear sense of the oppor-
strate the features of a product or a service in use. Such tunity. Investors will then be more likely to invest,
ideational gestures in particular may provide investors compared to pitches that rely on the expressive force
with direct visual information about a product or service of these verbal and nonverbal “channels” separately.
and about the venture, consistent with findings in psy- Accordingly:
chology and cognitive science according to which
gestures have been found to convey meanings as a Hypothesis 3. There will be a significant interaction
separate “channel” on their own alongside speech effect between figurative language and gesture on the
(Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; McNeill, 2005). propensity to invest; specifically, individuals will be
We accordingly theorize that, when entrepreneurs more inclined to invest in a venture when entrepre-
neurs use a high (vs. low) level of figurative language
gesture frequently and combine numerous beat and
combined with a high (vs. low) level of gesturing to
ideational gestures in the delivery of their pitch—which
emphasize and depict their ideas when pitching their
we refer to as a high level of gesturing—potential in-
business.
vestors are able to form a clearer idea of the product and
of the business. The enhanced understanding that this By revealing how pitching entrepreneurs use ide-
creates in the minds of investors positively influences ational gestures, Study 1 suggested an intriguing al-
their propensity to invest in the venture, as compared to ternative mechanism through which gesturing might
pitches that are delivered with a lower level of gesturing influence viewers; namely, by helping them to better
where such gestures are largely absent. imagine and vicariously experience the products
and ventures described in a pitch. Building on this
Hypothesis 2. When entrepreneurs use a high (vs. low) finding, we propose that effective gesturing by an
level of gesturing to emphasize and depict their ideas
entrepreneur can evoke mental imagery among
when pitching their business, people will be more
viewers, allowing potential investors to form a
inclined to invest.
clearer and more concrete image of how the product
Hypotheses 1 and 2 concern the separate (i.e., works and of how the venture is likely to evolve. This
main) effects of figurative language and gesture, as mechanism constitutes an alternative pathway to
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 347

persuading investors, beyond communicating pas- enabled us to control the types and levels of figura-
sion (Cardon et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2009; Murnieks, tive language and gesturing used by the entrepre-
Mosakowski, & Cardon, 2014). neur. Moreover, because an experimental design
Our underlying explanation for how gesturing permits robust causal inferences (Shadish, Cook, &
works in this context builds on research in cognitive Campbell, 2002), it enabled us to assess with confi-
science showing that gestures are a form of simulated dence whether variations in figurative language and
action (Hostetter & Alibali, 2008). When people think gesturing actually cause different reactions among
about an object or idea, such as a product or venture, potential investors. We employed a 2 (figurative
they use mental imagery to simulate perceptions and language: high, low) 3 2 (gesture: high, low)
actions associated with that object and use gestures between-subjects design and randomly assigned
to describe their mental images (Hostetter & Alibali, participants to one of the four treatment groups.
2008). Such gesture-based mental simulation helps
them manipulate symbols in their own minds when
Participants and Procedure
solving problems (Chu & Kita, 2011) as well as
communicate those symbols to others (Goldin- We conducted our experiment with samples of
Meadow, 1999). Viewers who in turn see and under- professional investors (sample 1) and business stu-
stand a speaker’s gestures are triggered to mentally dents (sample 2). By replicating our study using the
simulate, through mental imagery, the underlying same design and measures but with a different pop-
perceptual and motor processes for themselves ulation, we provide a test of empirical generalization
(Alibali, Boncoddo, & Hostetter, 2014), incorporat- (Tsang & Kwan, 1999). Empirical generalization
ing this information into their own representations of helps to set the empirical foundations of a theory,
the object in order to evaluate and interact with that which aids subsequent theory development and
object (Cook & Tanenhaus, 2009). knowledge accumulation (Tsang & Kwan, 1999), and
We theorize that investors who see an entrepre- provides a more robust basis for providing practical
neur’s hand gestures simulating the features of a advice (Bettis, Helfat, & Shaver, 2016).
product (e.g., its physical characteristics, its work- Sample 1 comprised 124 investors with significant
ings, its benefits) or of the venture and its market experience investing in new ventures. We recruited
(e.g., its growth, maturity) can better imagine those these investors by attending national events orga-
characteristics for themselves, enabling them to nized for investors (see http://venturefestnetwork.
mentally simulate what the product or market looks com) and by contacting investors via email through
like, how it makes one feel, and what it is like to links with a regional investment hub in Manchester,
touch or use a product. Gestures may thus be an UK. The average age of investors was 51.38 (SD 5
important means by which entrepreneurs mitigate 13.18) and 80% were men. Investors had an average
investors’ cognitive uncertainty about a product and of 28.7 years’ work experience (SD 5 12.37) and an
venture (Navis & Glynn, 2011), enabling them to vi- average of 12.32 years’ (SD 5 13.89) experience
cariously imagine, via an entrepreneur’s bodily investing in new ventures. Thirty-five percent iden-
demonstrations, how products and businesses work tified as personal investors, 28.3% were angel in-
and making them seem more tangible and “real.” We vestors, 21.7% were organizational investors, 11.7%
thus predict that, when an entrepreneur’s gestures were venture capitalists, and 3.3% were peer-to-peer
evoke such mental imagery among potential in- or crowd-funding investors. Investors had made an
vestors, they will be more inclined to invest in the average of 5.4 investments (SD 5 4.54, min. 5 2,
venture depicted. max. 5 20). They were also very experienced in
evaluating investment opportunities presented to
Hypothesis 4. The degree to which gestures evoke them, having evaluated an average of 57.3 pitches
mental imagery among potential investors mediates
(min. 5 3, max. 5 300). We checked for response
the effect of an entrepreneur’s gestures on the pro-
differences between those recruited in person (n 5
pensity to invest.
65) and those recruited by email (n 5 59); the two
groups did not differ significantly in their evalua-
tions of the pitches.
Research Design
Sample 2 comprised 180 business students from a
To test our hypotheses, we conducted an experi- large U.K. university. Previous research on entre-
ment in which participants evaluated an entrepre- preneurial pitching has used professional investors
neur pitching a new venture. Using an experiment and nonprofessional evaluators to establish the
348 Academy of Management Journal April

generalizability of the persuasiveness of different entrepreneurs in the field in Study 1. To ensure the
types of pitches (Brooks et al., 2014). Research in presentations possessed psychological realism
finance also suggests that students can be a useful (Colquitt, 2008), we based the script for the pitch on a
proxy for investors (Libby, Bloomfield, & Nelson, real-life case and changed the identifying details.
2002), particularly when the complexity of the task is This case involved an individual entrepreneur who
not high (i.e., does not require the integration of had developed a digital temperature-controlled com-
complex technical knowledge; see Elliott, Hodge, pression device for treating sports and physical in-
Kennedy, & Pronk, 2007). To the extent that our juries. We selected this case as the product and the
manipulations of figurative language and gesturing associated technology, while novel and unfamiliar to
represent fundamental features of human commu- investors, does not require advanced knowledge to
nication rather than features that require complex assess its investment potential.
professional knowledge to assess, it seems reason- The first experimental factor we manipulated was
able that professional and nonprofessional evalua- the use of figurative language by the entrepreneur to
tors will evaluate the pitches in similar ways—that frame his new venture. In the low figurative language
is, find certain levels of figurative language and conditions, the entrepreneur delivered the pitch
gesturing similarly persuasive or unpersuasive. without figurative language, providing a literal and
Replicating our findings with a sample of non- technical description of the venture focused on facts
professional evaluators would thus increase confi- associated with the product and business. In the high
dence in the generalizability of the findings. Student figurative language conditions, the pitch included
participants received £5 ($7.21) for taking part. The the same basic information on the nature of the
average age was 20.07 (SD 5 2.87) and 58% were product and the market but also a range of figurative
female. expressions. These expressions included the use of
We invited participants in both samples to watch a an anecdotal story to link the product’s origins to the
video of an entrepreneur pitching an idea for a new entrepreneur’s own embodied experience of treating
business by following a hyperlink to an online study an injury that was sustained while playing soccer. He
website. After completing equipment tests to ensure also likened his venture (i.e., shifting from ice packs
that the video presentations would be suitably visi- to an electronic treatment device) to the progression
ble and audible, participants were instructed to from analog to digital communication technologies
imagine they were considering investing in a new to connote a “next-generation” technology. Further-
venture and were about to view the entrepreneur’s more, when stating the market penetration strategy for
funding pitch. After watching the presentation, par- the product, he described this through a range of
ticipants completed various measures using an in- metaphorical expressions as a “targeted” and con-
built survey tool. trolled “top-down” movement into a series of markets
and “toward growth,” whereby he not only “pene-
trates” each market but is also able through this
Materials and Manipulations
strategy to “cover” each of these markets in its en-
Materials. We manipulated the degree of figura- tirety. Hence, the contrast between the low and high
tive language and gesturing used by the entrepreneur figurative language conditions replicated the natural
by creating four videos corresponding to the treat- conditions observed in Study 1, where we observed a
ment groups. As Brooks et al. (2014) noted, video contrast between the absence of figurative language
pitches are an increasingly common way for entre- and the targeted use of metaphors and analogies and
preneurs to communicate with potential investors. personal anecdotes to frame the core venture and its
Investment websites such as Kickstarter and product or service.
Crowdcube enable different types of investors to The second experimental factor we manipulated
volunteer finance based on entrepreneurs’ video was the use of gestures. In the low gesture conditions,
pitches, while platforms such as AngelList enable the entrepreneur used no explicit hand or overt
accredited investors to provide equity to new busi- bodily gestures in his presentation. The actor’s hands
nesses based on uploaded video pitches. To create and body remained static during the presentation,
our video pitches, we employed a professional actor with his hands clasped in front of the body in a
and camera operator and video-recorded the ac- manner consistent with some entrepreneurs ob-
tor performing four different versions of the same served in Study 1. In the high gesture conditions, the
pitch. The videos were consistent with the four actor delivered the pitch using frequent beat gestures
contrasting approaches to pitching identified among and a series of ideational gestures. Beat gestures
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 349

included a rhythmic beating of the arms and hands to FIGURE 1

emphasize the pattern and cadence of the speech and Illustrative Gestures in Materials for Study 2
single beats to mark important points in the pitch.
The ideational gestures used included iconic ges-
tures (e.g., simulating the product compressing the
entrepreneur’s knee joint) and metaphoric gestures
(e.g., moving the arms and hands away from the body
in a forward motion to represent the growing market
for the product). These ideational gestures commu-
nicated and embodied physical and abstract mean-
ings. Hence, the high gesture condition mimicked
the natural conditions observed in Study 1, in which
entrepreneurs frequently combined different types
of gestures in their pitch. Figure 1 illustrates exam-
ples of the gestures used in the pitches.
Notwithstanding our manipulations of language
use and gesture, the pitches adhered to a strict script Notes: Metaphoric gesture representing the ability of the entre-
preneur to cover the entire market. In this gesture, widening of the
to ensure that, in each condition, the basic content distance between the hands connotes expanded market coverage.
of the pitch was identical. Specifically, each pre-
sentation contained information typically included
in a pitch to potential investors, including detail on
the product’s features (its evolution, development,
technological competencies, and medical benefits),
the characteristics of the target market (industry size,
market growth), development of the business and
strategy (sales to date, marketing and distribution),
and details on the management team. The experi-
mental design enabled us to control for possible
variations in pitching arising from the venture idea
itself, the characteristics of the individual entrepre-
neur (e.g., age, gender, etc.), and other nonverbal
parameters (e.g., physical appearance, posture, vi-
sual gaze, etc.), which were all held constant.
Manipulation checks. We checked the efficacy of
our manipulations by collecting responses to our Notes: Iconic gesture illustrating product usage. This gesture
materials from 128 working adults recruited via refers to a physical object (the treatment device) and its placement
Amazon Mechanical Turk (Buhrmester, Kwang, & on the body (compressing an injured joint).
Gosling, 2011). We paid participants one dollar for
taking part. Sixty-one percent were male, the average business,” and “used descriptive and imaginative
age was 35.44 (SD 5 10.29), and participants had an language to explain the product and/or business”)
average of 14.13 years’ (SD 5 11.50) full-time work measured on an 11-point scale (0 5 not at all to 10 5 a
experience. We randomly assigned participants to lot; a 5 .72, M 5 7.06, SD 5 2.56). We measured
watch one of the four videos and to rate the language perceptions of the nature and extent of gesturing
and gesturing perceived; we also included an in- using the mean of three further items (the presenter
structional manipulation check and factual ques- “used hand gestures while speaking,” “used simple
tions on the video content to detect inattention and hand gestures when describing the product and/or
satisficing response behavior (Paolacci, Chandler, & business, such as waving his hand in rhythm with
Ipeirotis, 2010). speech and using his hands to emphasize points,”
We measured perceptions of the nature and extent and “used complex hand gestures while describing
of figurative language using the mean of three items the product and/or business, such as using his hands
(the presenter “used a personal story to explain the to demonstrate their features,” using the same scale
origins of the product and/or business,” “used met- (a 5 .87, M 5 5.39, SD 5 3.12). Participants who
aphors and analogies to describe the product and/or viewed the pitches with frequent use of figurative
350 Academy of Management Journal April

language (M 5 8.79, SD 5 1.58) perceived signifi- agree). We averaged responses to these items to form
cantly higher levels of figurative language than those a single score of investment intentions (sample 1, a 5
who viewed the versions where such language was .94; sample 2, a 5 .82).
absent (M 5 5.27, SD 5 2.10), t(126) 5 10.71, p , A further limitation of a binary yes–no outcome for
.001. Participants who viewed the high gesture measuring investors’ propensity to invest is that it is
pitches (M 5 7.68, SD 5 1.96) perceived significantly potentially too coarse (Aguinis, Pierce, & Culpepper,
higher levels of gesturing than those who viewed the 2008) to distinguish persuasive pitches from un-
low gesture pitches (M 5 2.87, SD 5 2.26), t(126) 5 persuasive ones. In our pre-testing, several investors
12.93, p , .001. These results confirm the efficacy of said that they would never invest without un-
our manipulations. dertaking their own research into the background of
the entrepreneur; under such conditions, even a
pitch that was very persuasive would be insufficient
Measures
to obtain a “yes” decision. Based on these observa-
Dependent variable: Propensity to invest. Some tions, we employed a more nuanced indicator by
previous studies have measured potential investors’ asking participants to indicate how likely they
decision to invest in the business depicted in entre- would be to invest in the business, using an 11-point
preneurs’ pitches using a single binary choice out- scale anchored at 0 (0% chance) and 10 (100% cer-
come (e.g., “Would you invest?”—“yes” or “no”; see tain) (Huang & Pearce, 2015).
Chen et al., 2009). However, our research led us to Previous research has suggested that, when eval-
question the validity and diagnosticity of this type of uating new ventures, potential investors combine
measure. Based on pre-tests of our survey instrument the different dimensions of their evaluations of the
with 12 experienced investors, we found that in- entrepreneur and his or her business and factor them
vestors deemed it unrealistic to make a yes–no in- into an overall judgment of an opportunity’s in-
vestment decision based solely on a pitch. Rather, vestment potential (Brooks et al., 2014; Huang &
they characterized the investment decision as a Pearce, 2015). Supporting this view, our four-item
staged process involving multiple steps before such intentions measure and single-item likelihood mea-
a decision was taken. From this perspective, the sure were significantly correlated (sample 1, r 5 .66,
communicative act of the pitch (including its lan- p , .001; sample 2, r 5 .68, p , .001) and combining
guage and gestures) is crucial for securing progress in the five items yielded a reliable single scale (sample
this process—if not necessarily sufficient to secure a 1, a 5 .90; sample 2, a 5 .73). To examine whether
yes–no investment decision. According to this view, the two measures were tapping into a common un-
after seeing pitches, investors decide whether or not derlying construct, we first conducted a principle
to pursue the opportunity further, involving finding components analysis on sample 1. The results sup-
out more about the business or market and the en- ported this view; all five items loaded significantly
trepreneur in order to inform their decision to invest. on a single component (all loadings . .76), which
This stage-based view is consistent with models of had an eigenvalue of 3.93 and explained 78.56% of
investor decision-making that distinguish a first- the variance. To confirm this structure, we con-
phase and second-phase evaluation (e.g., Fried & ducted a confirmatory factor analysis on sample 2.
Hisrich, 1994), the former involving a first-line check The results showed that a single factor model fit the
on the feasibility of the entrepreneur and business data well: x2 [4] 5 5.27, p 5 .26, comparative fit index
and the latter involving probes into financial and (CFI) 5 .99, root mean square error of approxima-
other aspects of the venture. tion (RMSEA) 5 .04. In comparison, a two-factor
Building on this stage-based view, we used four model with the intentions items loading on one
items to measure investment intentions. Re- factor and investment likelihood as a second factor
spondents indicated whether, based on the pitch, fit the data poorly: x2 [5] 5 52.98, p , .000, CFI 5 .84,
they would take the opportunity further with a view RMSEA 5 .23. Accordingly, we first standardized
to investing in the business, by “finding out more the measures of investment intentions and invest-
information about the business,” “doing further re- ment likelihood and then combined them into a
search into the industry and/or market of the busi- single summative indicator, which we termed “pro-
ness,” “meeting with the entrepreneur again,” pensity to invest.”
and “finding out more information about the Mental imagery. We used an established scale to
entrepreneur/management team,” using a Likert- measure the nature and extent of the mental imagery
type scale (1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly triggered by the pitches. This variable is distinct from
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 351

entrepreneurial passion (Chen et al., 2009), which 5 5 very much). Both subscales demonstrated good
assumes that bodily displays on the part of the en- reliability (passion: sample 1, a 5 .92, sample 2, a 5
trepreneur express affect (i.e., passion) rather than .92; preparedness: sample 1, a 5 .87, sample 2,
meaning. In contrast, our measure of mental imagery a 5 .88).
focuses on imagination and feeling on the part of the Control variables. We measured four individual
viewer, consistent with our theorizing that mental characteristics that could theoretically influence
imagery is a key mechanism by which investors un- participants’ evaluations in order to control for these
derstand new products and ventures, as triggered in variables in our analyses. First, because prior re-
the present case by an entrepreneur’s verbal and search has suggested that investors become more risk
nonverbal communication acts. To assess the mental seeking with age (Summers, Duxbury, Hudson, &
imagery evoked in pitches, we used a measure of Keasey, 2006), we recorded respondents’ age. Second,
communication-evoked imagery originally devel- since research suggests than men are more over-
oped by Bone and Ellen (1992) and subsequently confident in their investments than women (Barber &
refined by Babin and Burns (1998). Since we were Odean, 2001), we also recorded respondents’ gender.
primarily interested in the effects of figurative lan- For sample 1, we recorded two additional controls.
guage and gesture on viewers’ ability to mentally We recorded investors’ experience investing in new
simulate the product and business, we focused on ventures (in years), because prior research shows that
two dimensions of evoked imagery most closely re- experienced investors may make decisions differ-
lated to simulated action; namely, imagery quantity ently from inexperienced investors; for example, by
and imagery elaboration (Escalas, 2004). Three items using rules of thumb based on knowledge learned
assessed the quantity of imagery experienced (e.g., (Korniotis & Kumar, 2011). Also, there is evidence
“Many images came to mind”) on a seven-point that different types of investors have different atti-
Likert style scale (1 5 strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly tudes and preferences and may evaluate ventures
agree). Three items assessed imagery elaboration, differently; for instance, angel investors give greater
which concerns viewers’ bodily responses evoked emphasis to the entrepreneur while venture capital-
by the imagery experienced (e.g., “I imagined what it ists emphasize market and financial issues (Mason &
was like to use the product,” “I imagined the feel of Stark, 2004). For this reason, we also dummy variable
the product”), using the same scale. We summed coded investor type (personal, angel, and peer in-
responses to these six items to form our measure of vestors 5 0, venture capitalists and organizational
mental imagery, which showed good reliability investors 5 1) as a further control variable.
(sample 1, a 5 .86; sample 2, a 5 .88). Following recent guidelines for the use of statistical
Passion and preparedness. As well as seeking to control variables (Becker, 2005; Spector & Brannick,
confirm the hypothesized mediating effect of mental 2011), we initially ran our analyses including the
imagery, we also sought to conduct a comparative appropriate controls and then re-ran them without
test of gesture’s indirect effects through mental im- controls. For sample 1 analyses, we initially included
agery against other possible mediators established in all four variables as controls. For sample 2 analyses,
the literature; namely, passion and preparedness. To we initially included gender and age. However, none
this end, we used the 11-item scale developed by of the controls was significantly correlated with the
Chen et al. (2009) to measure perceptions of the dependent variable. Moreover, the pattern of results
passion and preparedness shown by the entrepre- was the same with and without the controls (i.e., all
neur. The scale breaks down into two dimensions. hypotheses test results were identical and all sub-
The first corresponds to the preparedness of the stantive variable relations were equivalent), meaning
presenter (which Chen and colleagues termed “cog- that we could rule out the controls as a potential ex-
nitive passion”) and includes five items, including planation for the findings. Because including impo-
“The presentation content had substance” and “The tent or suppressing control variables can reduce
presentation was thoughtful and in-depth.” The statistical power and increase the chances of Type I
second dimension concerns the passion displayed and Type II errors (Becker, 2005), below we report
by the presenter, termed “affective passion” by Chen only the results from the analyses without controls.
et al. (2009), and uses six items concerning their body
language (e.g., “The presenter had energetic body
Data Analysis
movements”) and verbal delivery (e.g., “The pre-
senter talked with varied tone and pitch”). All items We conducted confirmatory factor analyses to ex-
were measured on a five-point scale (1 5 not at all to amine the factor structure of the four focal variables:
352 Academy of Management Journal April

mental imagery, passion, preparedness, and pro- mediation, we used the PROCESS procedure de-
pensity to invest. The expected four-factor solution veloped by Hayes (2013), which involved using
demonstrated good fit (sample 1: x2 [199] 5 322.46, bootstrapping to draw 5,000 replacement samples
CFI 5 .94, RMSEA 5 .07; sample 2: x2 [198] 5 345.19, from the focal sample and constructing bias-
CFI 5 .93, RMSEA 5 .06) and for both samples was a correcting confidence intervals around the indirect
significantly better fit than alternative models, in- effects. Confidence intervals that do not contain 0
cluding a three-factor model with passion and pre- indicate a significant indirect effect. However, after
paredness loading on one factor and mental imagery initially examining the relationships between the
and propensity to invest loading on two other factors, independent variable, proposed mediators, and the
a two-factor model with all items relating to the pitch dependent variable, we observed that gesture was
loading on one factor and investment items loading not significantly related to preparedness (sample 1:
on the other, and a single-factor model. b 5 .14, SE 5 .16, t 5 .85, p 5 .40; Sample 2: b 5 .13,
SE 5 .11, t 5 1.25, p 5 .21). Hence, we dropped
preparedness from this analysis and included only
Results and Discussion
passion and mental imagery as mediators.
Table 2 shows means, standard deviations, and Table 4 shows the results for the full regression
correlations for both samples. Table 3 shows group model predicting propensity to invest. Table 5 shows
means. the results of the bootstrapped tests for the indirect
Effects of figurative language and gesture on effects. The indirect effect of gesture through mental
propensity to invest. We used a two-way analysis of imagery was significant in both samples (sample 1:
variance to test Hypotheses 1 to 3 concerning, re- b 5 .20, SE 5 .09, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04,
spectively, the main effect of figurative language, the 0.39]); sample 2: b 5 .10, SE 5 .06, 95% CI [0.01,
main effect of gesturing, and their interaction effect 0.24]). These results support Hypothesis 4; mental
on the propensity to invest. There was no main effect imagery mediates the effects of gesture on the pro-
of figurative language in either sample: sample 1, F(1, pensity to invest. In contrast, the indirect effect of
120) 5 0.08, p 5 .76; sample 2, F(1, 176) 5 3.08, p 5 gesture via passion was not significant for sample 1,
.08. Hence, Hypothesis 1 is not supported. However, b 5 .14, SE 5 .12, 95% CI [20.09, 0.39], but was
the main effect of gesture was significant in both significant for sample 2, b 5 .13, SE 5 .06, 95% CI
samples: sample 1, F(1, 120) 5 6.28, p 5 .01, h2 5 .05; [0.04, 0.27]. Furthermore, for sample 2, the indirect
sample 2, F(1, 176) 5 7.15, p 5 .008, h2 5 .04. When effect via mental imagery was not significantly dif-
the entrepreneur used a high level of gesturing ferent from the indirect effect via passion (contrast
(sample 1: M 5 0.22, SE 5 .12; sample 2: M 5 0.17, coefficient 5 .04, SE 5 .08, 95% CI [20.13, 0.18]).
SE 5 .09), participants showed a greater propensity These results suggest that, for professional inves-
to invest than when the entrepreneur used a low tors, mental imagery rather than passion mediates
level of gesturing (sample 1: M 5 20.19, SE 5 .11; the effects of gesture on the propensity to invest,
sample 2: M 5 20.17, SE 5 .09). These findings while, for non-professional evaluators, mental im-
support Hypothesis 2. However, the interaction be- agery and passion collectively mediate the effects
tween figurative language and gesture was not sig- of gesture.
nificant: sample 1, F(1, 120) 5 0.02, p 5 .89; sample Post hoc analysis: Moderated mediation. To
2: F(1, 176) 5 0.53, p 5 .47. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is not tease out the conditions under which the theorized
supported. mediators may be more or less dominant, in post hoc
The mediating influence of mental imagery. analysis we examined the possibility that the indirect
Hypothesis 4 predicted that mental imagery medi- effects of gesture might depend on the level of figura-
ates the effects of gesture on the propensity to invest. tive language used. This possibility is consistent with
However, we recognized that gesture might influ- the idea that figurative speech provides a basis for
ence the propensity to invest through multiple accompanying ideational gestures to convey symbolic
routes. That is, gesture might simultaneously influ- meanings more strongly (Alibali, Bassok, Solomon,
ence the propensity to invest through mental imag- Syc, & Goldin-Meadow, 1999; Congdon et al., 2018), so
ery, passion, and preparedness. Accordingly, we that when gesturing is allied to figurative speech it is
tested Hypothesis 4 using models of mediation in- better equipped to evoke mental imagery, strengthen-
volving multiple mediators (Hayes, 2013; Preacher & ing this pathway through which gesturing influences
Hayes, 2008), theorizing mental imagery, passion, the propensity to invest. In contrast, it seems likely that
and preparedness as parallel mediators. To test for gesture can communicate passion even without the
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 353

TABLE 2
Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variables, Sample 1a Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 0.83 0.38

2. Age 52.16 11.88 .18*
3. Investment experience 12.25 11.97 .21* .42**
4. Investor type 0.22 0.41 .08 .00 .00
5. Figurative language 0.49 0.50 .14 2.04 .07 2.09
6. Gesture 0.49 0.50 .09 .06 .01 2.03 .13
7. Mental imagery 3.35 1.41 .02 .08 2.03 2.06 .05 .22* (.86)
8. Passion 2.19 1.00 .11 .00 .08 2.07 .37** .65* .33** (.92)
9. Preparedness 3.34 0.89 .01 2.02 2.07 2.11 .08 .08 .38** .25** (.87)
10. Propensity to investb 0.00 0.91 .01 .07 2.08 .04 .00 .22** .56** .31** .58**

Variables, Sample 2c Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender 0.42 0.50

2. Age 20.07 2.87 .05
3. Figurative language 0.50 0.50 .02 .03
4. Gesture 0.50 0.50 2.16* .11 .00
5. Mental imagery 4.30 1.12 .02 2.01 .09 .15* (.88)
6. Passion 2.63 0.89 .05 .16* .18* .41** .37** (.92)
7. Preparedness 3.82 0.72 2.07 2.02 .06 .09 .33** .23** (.88)
8. Propensity to investb 0.00 0.86 .01 2.06 .13 .20** .46** .36** .54**

Notes: Coefficient alphas are on the diagonal in parentheses. Gender: 0 5 female, 1 5 male. Investor type: 0 5 low-value investors, 1 5 high-
value investors. Framing: 0 5 low framing, 1 5 high framing. Gesture: 0 5 low gesture, 1 5 high gesture.
a
n 5 124 (sample 1).
b
Standardized.
c
n 5 180 (sample 2).
*p , .05
**p , .01

accompanying use of figurative language; in this drawing 5,000 replacement samples to calculate
case, the indirect effect of gesturing through passion bootstrapped confidence intervals for the condi-
should not depend on the level of figurative language. tional indirect effects. As Table 6 shows, the results
To test these ideas, we used Hayes’s (2013) pro- confirmed the presence of moderated mediation.
cedure to perform a conditional process analysis, When a pitch involved a low level of figurative lan-
guage, the indirect effect of gesture on the propensity
to invest through mental imagery was not significant
TABLE 3
(sample 1: b 5 .11, SE 5 .08, 95% CI [0.00, 0.31];
Study 2: Group Means and Standard Deviations
sample 2: b 5 .04, SE 5 .04, 95% CI [20.01, 0.17]).
Propensity to Investa However, when a pitch involved a high level of fig-
Condition Sample 1b Sample 2c urative language, the indirect effect of gesture on the
propensity to invest through mental imagery was
Low figurative language, low gesture 20.18 20.23 significant (sample 1: b 5 .28, SE 5 .11, 95% CI [0.08,
(1.01) (0.78) 0.52]; sample 2: b 5 .14, SE 5 .08, 95% CI [0.01,
Low figurative language, high gesture 0.25 0.01 0.32]). Moreover, the index of moderated mediation
(0.62) (0.81)
High figurative language, low gesture 20.21 20.10 (Hayes, 2015) confirmed that the indirect effect of
(0.98) (0.93) gesturing through mental imagery was significantly
High figurative language, high gesture 0.18 0.32 different at high and low levels of figurative language
(0.89) (0.84) (sample 1: .17, SE 5 .09, 95% CI [0.04, 0.45]; sample
2: .10, SE 5 .07, 95% CI [0.01, 0.30). In contrast, the
Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses.
a
Standardized.
index of moderated mediation for passion was not
b
n 5 124 (sample 1). significant (sample 1: 2.29, SE 5 .23, 95% CI [20.78,
c
n 5 180 (sample 2). 0.12]; sample 2: .08, SE 5 .10, 95% CI [20.12, 0.28]).
354 Academy of Management Journal April

TABLE 4
Study 2 Results: Mental Imagery and Passion Mediating the Effects of Gesture on Propensity to Invest
Sample 1 Sample 2

b SE 95% CI[LL, UL] b SE 95% CI[LL, UL]

Constant 21.36*** .21 21.78 20.96 21.81*** .24 22.29 21.34

Passion .11 .09 20.08 0.29 .19* .07 0.04 0.33
Mental imagery .33*** .05 0.23 0.43 .29*** .05 0.19 0.40
Gesture .06 .18 20.29 0.42 .10 .12 20.14 0.34
R2 0.33 0.26
F (df) 19.48*** 20.49***
(3, 120) (3, 176)

Notes: b 5 unstandardized regression coefficient; SE 5 standard error. LL and UL 5 lower limit and upper limit, respectively, of a
confidence interval.
*p , .05
** p , .01
***p , .001

These results show that the indirect effect of gesture mental imagery evoked by gestures mediates their
through mental imagery depended on the level of effects on the propensity to invest. We thus introduce
figurative language, whereas the indirect effect a new mechanism to explain how entrepreneurs’
through passion did not. Figure 2 shows this mod- nonverbal expressive behaviors can influence judg-
erated mediation model. ments of a venture’s investment potential. However,
The results of Study 2 extend the findings of Study the findings also show that this mechanism depends
1 by confirming that the types of language and ges- on how an entrepreneur frames his or her venture,
turing we observed entrepreneurs using in their suggesting that only when gestures are coupled with
pitches in the field do influence how others evaluate figurative language are entrepreneurs able to trigger
the investment potential of their ventures. In partic- the type of mental imagery that persuades potential
ular, high levels of gesturing—specifically, the use of investors of the venture’s worth.
beat and ideational gestures—had significant effects
on the propensity to invest, a finding we replicated
GENERAL DISCUSSION
across two samples. Indeed, when we analyzed the
specific effects of gesturing on investment likeli- Based on an inductive theory-building study and a
hood, we found that, among investors, the likelihood controlled experiment with two samples, our find-
of investing was 12.06% higher for pitches with a ings extend current understanding of how entre-
high level of gesturing compared to those with a low preneurs influence investment judgments through
level of gesturing (95% CI mean difference [3.63%, their language and gesturing in a pitch. Our find-
18.29%]). The results also support our thesis that the ings revealed considerable natural variation in how

TABLE 5
Study 2 Results: Bootstrapped Indirect Effects of Gesture on Propensity to Invest through Mental Imagery and Passion
Sample 1 Sample 2

Indirect 95% Direct Total Indirect 95% Direct Total

Effects CI[LL, UL] Effects Effects Effects CI[LL, UL] Effects Effects

Passion .14 20.09 0.39 .13 0.04 0.27

(.12) (.06)
Mental imagery .20 0.04 0.39 .10 0.01 .24
(.09) (.06)
Gesture .06 .40 .10 .33
(.18) (.16) (.12) (.13)

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses (standard errors for indirect effects are bootstrapped). LL and UL 5 lower limit and upper limit,
respectively, of a confidence interval.
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 355

TABLE 6
Study 2 Results: Bootstrapped Conditional Indirect Effects of Gesture on Propensity to Invest through Mental
Imagery and Passion
Sample 1 Sample 2

Indirect Effects SE 95% CI[LL, UL] Indirect Effects SE 95% CI[LL, UL]

Mental imagery
Low figurative language .11 .08 0.00 0.31 .04 .04 20.01 0.17
High figurative language .28 .11 0.08 0.52 .14 .08 0.01 0.32
Passion
Low figurative language .37 .20 0.02 0.82 .06 .09 20.11 0.26
High figurative language .08 .14 20.20 0.37 .19 .07 0.06 0.34

Notes: SE 5 standard errors (bootstrapped). LL and UL 5 lower limit and upper limit, respectively, of a confidence interval.

entrepreneurs pitch. Study 1 identified four distinct language, his or her gesturing, or indeed by a com-
pitching strategies that are structured around the bination of the two. We found empirical support for
same topics (i.e., the product and market, team and the effectiveness of pitching strategies where entre-
organization, and financial projections), but differ preneurs not only gesture on a frequent basis but also
significantly in whether literal or figurative language use specific ideational gestures to symbolically de-
is used and whether the pitch is delivered with a pict their product or service and venture. The effect
frequent and varied use of gestures or not. of figurative language, as a way of framing a venture
In a controlled experiment, we subsequently ex- and its products or services, proved to have a limited
plored the effectiveness of these different strategies, direct effect across two samples. Our results also
systematically testing the extent to which inves- highlight a key mechanism through which gesturing
tors are swayed by the entrepreneur’s figurative influences investors—namely, by evoking mental

FIGURE 2
Study 2 Results: Moderated Mediation Model of the Effects of Gesturing on Propensity to Invest

Figurative
language

* Mental Low: .11 .04

Imagery High: .28* .14*
.18*
.61*
.29***
.34* .40**
.34** Propensity
Gesturing
(.06) to Invest
1.28*** (.10) .29*
.72*** .19***

Low: .37* .06

Passion
High: .08 .19*

Notes: Numbers within the model are unstandardized path coefficients of the direct relationship of one variable to another. Numbers outside
the model are the conditional indirect effects of gesturing on propensity to invest through mental imagery and perceived passion. “Low”
denotes the indirect effects at low levels of figurative language, whereas “High” denotes the indirect effects at high levels of figurative language.
Finally, the numbers in parentheses below the path for the direct effect of gesturing on propensity to invest are the effects of gesturing after
accounting for the mediators. Sample 1 results are in bold text and sample 2 results are in regular text.
* p , .05
** p , .01
*** p , .001
356 Academy of Management Journal April

imagery of the venture and its product in the minds or other resource providers (see, e.g., Van Werven
of investors. Specifically, we find that demonstrating et al., 2015). A more symmetrical approach that
and depicting a business idea with gestures increases models communication as a joint activity between
the propensity to invest by triggering mental imag- entrepreneurs and investors would serve future re-
ery, with this indirect effect being particularly strong search well. Such an approach implies the need to
when gestures are coupled with figurative language. better connect the entrepreneurship and investment
Through such mental imagery, gestures present decision-making literatures (Huang & Pearce, 2015),
perceptual and imagistic representations of products as we have attempted to do in our studies.
and venture ideas, which investors can comprehend The second main implication of our research is for
in an immediate and intuitive manner (McNeill, the emerging stream of work on expressive behaviors
1992). This result intriguingly suggests that in- and investor judgments and decision-making
formation that is conveyed in a pitch through ges- (Huang & Pearce, 2015). We highlight an entrepre-
tures may have a higher impact than information neur’s gesturing as a crucial form of nonverbal ex-
given only verbally (Beattie, 2003). pressive behavior that influences investors in their
Thus, we find that, instead of being swayed by evaluations of a business opportunity. Prior research
figurative language directly, potential investors ap- has focused on frequent gesturing as an indicator of
pear to be looking for a concrete articulation and an entrepreneur´s passion while pitching (Cardon
gestural depiction of the entrepreneur’s basic ideas. et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2009; Murnieks et al., 2014).
The uncertain and interpersonal nature of the pitch In our experimental study, we indeed found that
may in fact augment the role of gestures over lan- gesturing makes entrepreneurs seem more passion-
guage. Under such uncertain conditions, investors ate in the eyes of potential investors. Crucially,
may shift to an intuitive mode of processing and fo- however, our findings also indicate that gesture is
cus on bodily cues and any other information that not only a carrier of emotion; rather, it plays a more
they can glean from the person’s presence and per- central role in expressing meaning to persuade
formance to anchor their judgments and strengthen investors.
their beliefs about the investment potential (Huang & Our results suggest the need for further study of the
Pearce, 2015; Mitteness et al., 2012). role that expressive behaviors, including gestures,
play in a pitch alongside the preparedness that an
entrepreneur demonstrates on stage and in her or his
Theoretical and Research Implications
written business plans (see Huang & Pearce, 2015). In
The first implication of our findings is for research addition, as prior research has produced equivocal
on entrepreneurial rhetoric and framing (Lounsbury findings concerning the influence of entrepreneurs’
& Glynn, 2001). Notwithstanding the possibility that gesturing and their demonstration of affective pas-
future research might uncover other forms of rhetoric sion (Chen et al., 2009; Mitteness et al., 2012;
and storytelling in pitches that do more directly Murnieks et al., 2016), future research would benefit
persuade investors, our findings suggest that the role not only from recognizing gesturing as a significant
and effect of such strategic forms of language use form of nonverbal expressive behavior (Ambady &
may have been overemphasized. A contextualized Rosenthal, 1992) but also from distinguishing more
and more empirically driven approach is therefore clearly between the different types of gestures—such
needed in future research to provide a more detailed as beats and ideational gestures—we distinguished
understanding of the function and effectiveness of in order to better understand their functions and ef-
different forms of language use across various en- fects. Such distinctions may lead to more refined
trepreneurial tasks and communicative interactions. measures of the communicative functions of ges-
Prior entrepreneurship research has often started at tures, as opposed to compounding such functions
the outset with the theoretical assumption that spe- into a simple frequency measure of gesturing as a
cific forms of linguistic framing matter and that these proxy for conveying emotions or passion (Chen et al.,
are, when effectively used, able to drive the percep- 2009; cf. Ekman & Friesen, 1969).
tions and evaluations of others (e.g., Cornelissen & Although, in this research, we focused on gesture
Clarke, 2010; Navis & Glynn, 2011). Depending on as a route to persuasion via mental imagery, it seems
the context, though, this may not necessarily be the likely that, from the perspective of verbal and non-
case. This base assumption also privileges the com- verbal expressive behaviors (Ambady & Rosenthal,
municative acts of the entrepreneur, as the speaker, 1992; Bonaccio et al., 2016), additional nonver-
over those of the listener, whether they are investors bal modalities—including paralinguistic elements
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 357

(such as intonation, pitch, and prosody), body pos- This endeavor promises to further advance our un-
ture, and facial expressions—may shape entrepre- derstanding of effective entrepreneurial communica-
neurs’ interactions with investors. These other tion and provide evidence-based recommendations
modalities have so far not been studied even though for entrepreneurs and investors in practice.
they may also turn out to be important drivers of, for
example, investors’ intuitions about entrepreneurs REFERENCES
(Huang & Pearce, 2015) or of the relationship that the
entrepreneur and investor build up over time (Huang Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., & Culpepper, S. A. 2008. Scale
& Knight, 2017). It might also be interesting to com- coarseness as a methodological artifact: Correcting
correlation coefficients attenuated from using coarse
pare the role of interpersonal forms of communica-
scales. Organizational Research Methods, 12: 623–
tion, such as pitching, where these bodily modalities
652.
play a role, with mediated forms of communication,
such as initial public offering prospectuses (Martens Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. 1994. Fools rush in? The in-
stitutional context of industry creation. Academy of
et al., 2007) or business plans, in order to identify the
Management Review, 19: 645–670.
effects of different forms of entrepreneurial com-
munication on investor decision-making. Alibali, M. W., Bassok, M., Solomon, K. O., Syc, S. E., &
Future research might also address some of the Goldin-Meadow, S. 1999. Illuminating mental repre-
limitations of our research. In our experimental ma- sentations through speech and gesture. Psychological
terials, we used a male actor to play the role of the Science, 10: 327–333.
entrepreneur. Given that the gender of the entrepre- Alibali, M. W., Boncoddo, R., & Hostetter, A. B. 2014.
neur seems to influence investors’ evaluations Gesture in reasoning: An embodied perspective. In L.
(Brooks et al., 2014), an interesting question is Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of embodied
whether the effects we found would also hold for cognition: 150–159. New York, NY: Routledge.
female entrepreneurs. We furthermore manipulated Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. 1992. Thin slices of expres-
the use of both repetitive hand gestures (beats) and sive behavior as predictors of interpersonal conse-
gestures that symbolize or convey ideas (ideational quences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
gestures) in a conjoint manner as part of the treat- 111: 256–274.
ment materials for the experiment, mimicking the Babin, L. A., & Burns, A. C. 1998. A modified scale for the
natural conditions that we observed in Study 1. Fu- measurement of communication-evoked mental im-
ture research, however, may control for the effect of agery. Psychology and Marketing, 15: 261–278.
beats alongside ideational gestures on investors’ Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. 2001. Boys will be boys: Gender,
evaluations, replicating and extending the current overconfidence, and common stock investment.
study. Another boundary condition of our experi- Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116: 261–292.
mental study is that we focused on a basic techno- Bartel, C. A., & Garud, R. 2009. The role of narratives in
logical product that, while uncertain in its future sustaining organizational innovation. Organization
revenues, would be possible to understand by ex- Science, 20: 107–117.
perienced and novice investors alike. While we be-
Beattie, G. 2003. Visible thought: The new psychology of
lieve that this increases the generalizability of our
body language. London, U.K.: Routledge.
findings, future research could usefully examine
whether the effects that we found equally hold for Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical
products and services that are technically or con- control of variables in organizational research: A
ceptually more sophisticated and rely to a greater or qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organi-
zational Research Methods, 8: 274–289.
lesser extent on the know-how of an investor. In
terms of other limitations, we measured our media- Bettis, R. A., Helfat, C. E., & Shaver, J. M. 2016. The ne-
tors and dependent variable contemporaneously, cessity, logic, and forms of replication. Strategic
which may have inflated the relationships we ob- Management Journal, 37: 2193–2203.
served. To address this concern, future research Bird, B., & Schjoedt, L. 2009. Entrepreneurial behavior: Its
should measure mediators of entrepreneurial com- nature, scope, recent research, and agenda for future
munication so that they are separated in time from research. In A. L.Carsrud & M.Brännback (Eds.),
investment judgments and decisions. Understanding the entrepreneurial mind: 327–358.
In conclusion, we hope that our findings stimulate New York, NY: Springer.
further research on the nature and effects of verbal Bonaccio, S., O’Reilly, J., O’Sullivan, S., & Chiocchio, F.
and nonverbal expressives used by entrepreneurs. 2016. Nonverbal behavior and communication in the
358 Academy of Management Journal April

workplace: A review and an agenda for research. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative re-
Journal of Management, 42: 1044–1074. search: Techniques and procedures for developing
Bone, P. F., & Ellen, P. S. 1992. The generation and con- grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
sequences of communication-evoked imagery. Jour- SAGE.
nal of Consumer Research, 19: 93–104. Cornelissen, J., & Clarke, J. 2010. Imagining and rational-
Brooks, A. W., Huang, L., Kearney, S. W., & Murray, F. E. izing opportunities: Inductive reasoning, and the
2014. Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures creation and justification of new ventures. Academy
pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the Na- of Management Review, 35: 539–557.
tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and corpus linguistics.
America, 111: 4427–4431. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. 2001. From initial Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. 1969. The repertoire of non-
idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial chal- verbal behavior. Categories, origins, usage and coding.
lenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Semiotica, 1: 49–98.
Management Executive, 15: 64–78.
Elliott, W. B., Hodge, F. D., Kennedy, J. J., & Pronk, M. 2007.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. 2011. Ama- Are MBA students a good proxy for nonprofessional
zon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, investors? Accounting Review, 82: 139–168.
yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological
Escalas, J. E. 2004. Imagine yourself in the product: Mental
Science, 6: 3–5.
simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion.
Cardon, M. S., Sudek, R., & Mitteness, C. 2009. The impact Journal of Advertising, 33: 37–48.
of perceived entrepreneurial passion on angel invest-
Fried, V. H., & Hisrich, R. D. 1994. Toward a model of
ing. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29:
Article 1. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2009.44244277. venture capital investment decision making. Finan-
cial Management, 23: 28–37.
Carletta, J. 1996. Assessing agreement on classification
tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, Garud, R., Schildt, H., & Lant, T. 2014. Entrepreneurial
22: 249–254. storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of
legitimacy. Organization Science, 25: 1479–1492.
Chen, X. P., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. 2009. Entrepreneur pas-
sion and preparedness in business plan presentations: Giorgi, S., & Weber, K. 2015. Marks of distinction: Framing
A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding and audience appreciation in the context of invest-
decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52: ment advice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60:
199–214. 333–367.

Chu, M., & Kita, S. 2011. The nature of gestures’ beneficial Goldin-Meadow, S. 1999. The role of gesture in commu-
role in spatial problem solving. Journal of Experi- nication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
mental Psychology. General, 140: 102–116. 3: 419–429.
Cienki, A. 2005. Image schemas and gesture. In B. Hampe Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation,
(Ed.), Perception to meaning: Image schemas in and conditional process analysis: A regression-
cognitive linguistics: 421–442. Berlin, Germany: based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mouton de Gruyter. Hayes, A. F. 2015. An index and test of linear moderated
Clark, A. 1996. Being there: Putting brain, body and mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50:
world together. Cambridge, MA: MIT. 1–22.
Clarke, J. 2011. Revitalizing entrepreneurship: How visual Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. 2008. Visible embodi-
symbols are used in entrepreneurial performances. ment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic
Journal of Management Studies, 48: 1365–1391. Bulletin & Review, 15: 495–514.
Colquitt, J. A. 2008. Publishing laboratory research in AMJ: Huang, L., & Knight, A. P. 2017. Resources and relation-
A question of when, not if. Academy of Management ships: An exchange theory of the development and
Journal, 51: 616–620. effects of the entrepreneur–investor relationship.
Academy of Management Review, 42: 80–102.
Congdon, E. L., Novack, M. A., & Goldin-Meadow, S. 2018.
Gesture in experimental studies: How videotape Huang, L., & Pearce, J. 2015. Managing the unknowable:
technology can advance psychological theory. Orga- The effectiveness of early-stage investor gut feel in
nizational Research Methods, 21: 489–499. entrepreneurial investment decisions. Administra-
Cook, S. W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. 2009. Embodied com- tive Science Quarterly, 4: 634–670.
munication: Speakers’ gestures affect listeners’ ac- Kelly, S. D., Özyürek, A., & Maris, E. 2010. Two sides of the
tions. Cognition, 113: 98–104. same coin: Speech and gesture mutually interact to
2019 Clarke, Cornelissen, and Healey 359

enhance comprehension. Psychological Science, 21: judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of
260–267. Management Review, 36: 479–499.
Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Özyürek, A. 2014. Hearing and seeing meaning in speech
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. and gesture: Insights from brain and behavior. Philo-
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Lon-
Korniotis, G. M., & Kumar, A. 2011. Do older investors
don. Series B, Biological Sciences, 369: 20130296.
make better investment decisions? Review of Eco-
nomics and Statistics, 93: 244–265. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. 2010. Running
experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by.
and Decision Making, 5: 411–419.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pollack, J. M., Rutherford, M. W., & Nagy, B. G. 2012. Pre-
Libby, R., Bloomfield, R., & Nelson, M. W. 2002. Experi-
paredness and cognitive legitimacy as antecedents of
mental research in financial accounting. Accounting,
new venture funding in televised business pitches.
Organizations and Society, 27: 775–810. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36: 915–939.
Locke, K. 2001. Grounded theory in management re- Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying
search. London, U.K.: SAGE. metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepre- and Symbol, 22: 1–39.
neurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and
resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 545– resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
564. indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav-
Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, P. D. 2007. Do ior Research Methods, 40: 879–891.
the stories they tell get them the money they need? Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 2002. Ex-
The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource ac- perimental and quasi-experimental designs for
quisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50: generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton
1107–1132. Mifflin.
Mason, C., & Stark, M. 2004. What do investors look for in a Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. 2011. Methodological
business plan? A comparison of the investment crite- urban legends: The misuse of statistical control vari-
ria of bankers, venture capitalists and business angels. ables. Organizational Research Methods, 14: 287–
International Small Business Journal, 22: 227–248. 305.
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal Summers, B., Duxbury, D., Hudson, R., & Keasey, K. 2006.
about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago As time goes by: An investigation of how asset allo-
Press. cation varies with investor age. Economics Letters,
91: 210–214.
McNeill, D. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press. Tsang, E. W., & Kwan, K. M. 1999. Replication and theory
development in organizational science: A critical re-
Mitteness, C., Sudek, R., & Cardon, M. S. 2012. Angel in-
alist perspective. Academy of Management Review,
vestor characteristics that determine whether per-
24: 759–780.
ceived passion leads to higher evaluations of funding
potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 27: 592– Van Werven, R., Bouwmeester, O., & Cornelissen, J. P.
606. 2015. The power of arguments: How entrepreneurs
convince stakeholders of the legitimate distinctive-
Moon, R. E. 1998. Fixed expressions and idioms in En- ness of their ventures. Journal of Business Venturing,
glish: A corpus-based approach. Oxford, U.K.: Clar- 30: 616–631.
endon Press.
Vough, H. C., Bataille, C. D., Noh, S. C., & Lee, M. D. 2015.
Murnieks, C. Y., Cardon, M. S., Sudek, R., White, T. D., & Going off script: How managers make sense of the
Brooks, W. D. 2016. Drawn to the fire: The role of ending of their careers. Journal of Management
passion, tenacity and inspirational leadership in angel Studies, 52: 414–440.
investing. Journal of Business Venturing, 31: 468–
Weber, K., Heinze, K., & DeSoucey, M. 2008. Forage for
484.
thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-
Murnieks, C. Y., Mosakowski, E., & Cardon, M. S. 2014. fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science
Pathways of passion: Identity centrality, passion, and Quarterly, 53: 529–567.
behavior among entrepreneurs. Journal of Manage-
Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2011. Legitimating
ment, 40: 1583–1606. nascent collective identities: Coordinating cultural
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. 2011. Legitimate distinctiveness entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22: 449–
and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor 463.
360 Academy of Management Journal April

Wu, Y. C., & Coulson, S. 2011. Are depictive gestures like School of Management, Erasmus University. He received
pictures? Commonalities and differences in semantic his PhD from Manchester Metropolitan University. His
processing. Brain and Language, 119: 184–195. research focuses on the role of corporate and managerial
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2007. How entrepreneurs use sym- communication in the context of innovation, entrepre-
bolic management to acquire resources. Administra- neurship, and change, and on social evaluations of the
tive Science Quarterly, 52: 70–105. legitimacy and reputation of start-up and established
firms.
Mark Healey ([email protected]) is senior
lecturer (associate professor) in strategic management at
Jean Clarke ([email protected]) is a professor of entre- Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Man-
preneurship and organization at Emlyon Business School, chester. He received his PhD in management sciences
France. She received her PhD from the University of Leeds, from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and
UK. Her research explores how language and bodily dis- Technology (UMIST). His research focuses on cognition
plays are used in entrepreneurial communication as a and emotion in organizations, particularly their role in
means to develop legitimacy and access resources. strategic adaptation.
Joep Cornelissen ([email protected]) is professor of
corporate communication and management at Rotterdam
Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.