The Entrepreneur's Odyssey – Zombie Theory Brawler

The Curriculum

Five Zones.
Thirty Zombies.
One Mountain.

Each zone is a distinct visual world with 6 zombie souls to defeat. Claim enough souls in each zone to unlock the gate and enter the next. The theories get deeper and more complex as you climb.

Zone One · Biological & Foundational Theories

🌲 The Awakening — Foggy Grasslands

The opening zone is a misty, tree-dotted grassland. The five zombie souls here embody the oldest and most foundational questions in entrepreneurship: Can you be made a leader, or must you be born one? Can an organisation survive environmental selection pressure? Where does your niche end and a competitor's begin? The Resilience zombie is the hardest — it literally gets back up. You need 5 souls to unlock the gate to Zone II.

Great Man Theory (1841) Systems Theory (1966) Population Ecology (1977) Niche Theory (1978) Resilience (2014)

Zone Two · Capability & Classical Theories

🏙️ The Market Metropolis — Urban Ruins

Zone II is a ruined city of commerce. Brown building husks and burned-out market stalls fill the screen. Six zombie souls roam what was once a thriving economy. These are the theories of what a founder needs to do: tolerate ambiguity, orient toward innovation, master a wide enough skill set (Jack of All Trades), identify the oldest economic risk (Cantillon, 1755), and measure utility beyond money alone. Requires 10 total souls claimed to gate-pass.

Ambiguity Tolerance (1949) Entrepreneurial Orientation (1983) Jack of All Trades (2004) Dynamic Capabilities (2007) Risk-Bearing Theory (1755) Utility Theory (1890)

III

Zone Three · Cognitive & Behavioral Theories

🖤 The Labyrinth — Dark Cave & Rock Maze

Zone III is pitch-dark — rocky floors, deep shadows, and narrow corridors. Six zombie souls embody the cognitive traps that every real entrepreneur falls into: the hubris of early success (Hayward et al., 2006), the paralysis of prospect-theory loss-framing (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), the failure to learn from experience (Kolb, 1984), and the alertness that separates opportunity-finders from the crowd (Kirzner, 1973). Requires 15 total souls to unlock. This is where most players die.

Experiential Learning (1984) Planned Behavior (1991) Hubris Theory (2006) Attribution Theory (2017) Prospect Theory (2017) Entrepreneurial Alertness (2019)

Zone Four · Controversial & Social Theories

🏔️ The Summit of Systems — Mountain Plateau

Zone IV is a rocky mountain plateau with steel-blue tones. Entrepreneurship is not a solo act — and neither is this zone. These five zombie souls embody the social and economic tensions that surround every venture: the X-efficiency gaps that allow entrepreneurial entrants to destroy incumbents (Leibenstein, 1966), the social capital networks that can make you or break you (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), the capital constraints that gate entry to the market (Evans & Jovanovic, 1989), and the agency conflicts inherent in every investor relationship. Gate requires 20 souls.

X-Efficiency Theory (1966) Achievement Motivation (1967) Social Capital (1969) Liquidity Constraint (1989) Agency Theory (2019)

Zone Five · Taxonomic & Modern Theories

❄️ The Final Ascent — Snow & Ice Summit

The final zone is rendered in bleached whites and ice-blue — the most visually striking and theoretically dense zone of the game. Eight zombie souls lurk here, representing the newest and most contested frontiers: Corporate Entrepreneurship, Lifestyle ventures redefining success, Social Entrepreneurship pursuing double-bottom-line returns, and the chilling Zombie Firms Theory (literally appropriate). Digital and Sustainable Entrepreneurship demand you reconcile profit with planet. The final boss — Entrepreneurial Energy (2024) — asks what keeps a founder burning through it all. Full 28 souls required before the final gate opens.

Corporate Entrepreneurship (1997) Lifestyle Entrepreneurship (2000) Necessity vs. Opportunity (2002) Social Entrepreneurship (2017) Zombie Firms (2018) Digital Entrepreneurship (2019) Sustainable Entrepreneurship (2020) Entrepreneurial Energy (2024)

Educational Value

Why This Works as
a Learning Tool

The game is built on three proven educational science principles — every mechanic exists to drive retention, not just engagement.

🔁

Active Recall

The soul quiz forces retrieval of the theory under stress. Cognitive science consistently shows retrieval practice outperforms passive re-reading for long-term retention (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). You do not just see the theory — you are tested on it the moment you see it.

⚠️

Stakes & Consequence

Wrong answers resurrect the enemy and drain your health. This emotional consequence encodes the correction more deeply than a neutral “Try again” prompt. Mistakes are memorable because they cost you something.

🎯

Contextual Encoding

Each zombie's story frames the theory inside a real scenario before the quiz. Contextual learning — grounding abstract concepts in narrative — dramatically improves recall during unrelated assessments like exams and case-study discussions.

Theory Spotlight

Six Theories Worth Knowing Before You Play

🧟

Zone I · Foundational · 1841

Great Man Theory

Carlyle (1841) argued that history is shaped by exceptional individuals born with innate qualities that set them apart. Applied to entrepreneurship, this raises the uncomfortable question: is the capacity to found and scale a venture nature or nurture? Modern scholarship overwhelmingly sides with nurture — but the zombie of the Great Man Theory keeps rising.

📊

Zone II · Classical · 1755

Risk-Bearing Theory

Cantillon (1755) identified the entrepreneur as the actor who buys at certain prices and sells at uncertain ones, bearing all residual risk. This is the oldest formal theory of entrepreneurship — over 270 years old — and its core insight about who absorbs uncertainty remains foundational to every venture capital conversation today.

💡

Zone III · Cognitive · 1979

Prospect Theory

Kahneman & Tversky (1979) showed that humans feel losses roughly 2x more intensely than equivalent gains — a finding with profound implications for how entrepreneurs frame pivots, cut sunk costs, and evaluate risk. Applied to startups: founders routinely hold failing ventures too long because the loss of shutting down feels worse than the ongoing losses of continuing.

👥

Zone IV · Social · 1998

Social Capital Theory

Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) defined social capital as the sum of actual and potential resources embedded in, available through, and derived from networks. For entrepreneurs, your network is not a nice-to-have — it is the asset. Access to mentors, co-founders, investors, and early customers flows almost entirely through social capital, not credentials.

🧙

Zone V · Modern · 2018

Zombie Firms Theory

Adalet McGowan et al. (2018) coined the term “zombie firm” for companies that generate just enough cash to service debt but cannot grow or invest. In the game, this zombie is the most on-the-nose: a corporation trapped in undead stasis, neither thriving nor dying. The theory argues that zombie firms crowd out productive entrants by consuming cheap credit that should flow to innovators.

⚡

Zone V · Modern · 2024

Entrepreneurial Energy Theory

Stephan, Rauch & Hatak (2023) showed that happy entrepreneurs are systematically more productive — not because happiness is a reward, but because positive affect releases the energetic resources required for sustained creative output. This is the final boss of the game and the most personal question of the course: what is your source of founder energy, and is it renewable?

Learning Objectives

What You Will Be Able to Do After Playing

✓

Name and define all 30 theories covered in ENT 527, including original author, year, and core claim.

✓

Distinguish between biological, classical, cognitive, social, and modern schools of entrepreneurship theory.

✓

Apply theories to live case scenarios — the soul quiz trains you to deploy frameworks under time pressure, exactly like a case exam.

✓

Cite primary and secondary sources for each theory in APA 7th Edition format directly from the in-game theory cards.

✓

Evaluate which theories are complementary, competing, or contextually dependent — a higher-order skill tested in final papers.

✓

Recall theories reliably under exam conditions — the resurrection mechanic on wrong answers trains exactly the kind of self-correcting recall exams require.

Academic References

Works Cited

All 90 sources cited in APA 7th Edition format, organized by act and theory as presented in the game.

ACT I: Biological & Foundational Theories

1. The Great Man Theory of Entrepreneurship (1841)

Carlyle, T. (1841). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. James Fraser.

Spector, B. A. (2016). Carlyle, Kahn, and the 'Great Man' theory of leadership. Leadership, 12(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715015571393

Bratton, J. (2020). Leadership: A critical text (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

2. Systems Theory and Entrepreneurship (1966)

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. Braziller.

Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory—The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197

3. Population Ecology and Entrepreneurship (1977)

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964. https://doi.org/10.1086/226424

Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Prentice-Hall.

Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. (1994). Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. Oxford University Press.

4. Niche Theory of Entrepreneurship (1978)

Freeman, J., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). Niche width and the dynamics of organizational populations. American Journal of Sociology, 88(6), 1116–1145. https://doi.org/10.1086/227797

Hutchinson, G. E. (1978). An introduction to population ecology. Yale University Press.

Popielarz, P. A., & McPherson, J. M. (1995). On the edge or in between: Niche position, niche overlap, and the duration of voluntary association memberships. American Journal of Sociology, 101(3), 698–720. https://doi.org/10.1086/230756

5. Resilience and Entrepreneurship (2014)

Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2014). Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of resilience and self–efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(3), 473–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12006

Ayala, J. C., & Manzano, G. (2014). The resilience of the entrepreneur. Influence on the success of the business. A longitudinal study. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 30(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2014a1

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford University Press.

ACT II: Capability & Classical Theories

6. Ambiguity Tolerance and Entrepreneurship (1949)

Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01236.x

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x

McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual's tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053001020

7. Entrepreneurial Orientation (1983)

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/258632

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100107

8. Jack of All Trades Theory of Entrepreneurship (2004)

Lazear, E. P. (2004). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(3), 649–680. https://doi.org/10.1086/383104

Wagner, J. (2003). Testing Lazear's jack-of-all-trades view of entrepreneurship with German micro data. Applied Economics Letters, 10(11), 687–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350485032000133273

Silva, O. (2007). The Jack-of-all-trades entrepreneur: Innate talent or occupational choice? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(1), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2006.02.001

9. Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Entrepreneurship (2007)

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640

Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332

Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x

10. Risk-Bearing Theory of Entrepreneurship (1755)

Cantillon, R. (1755). Essai sur la nature du commerce en général. Fletcher Gyles.

Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (1988). The entrepreneur: Mainstream views and radical critiques. Praeger.

Murphy, A. E. (1986). Richard Cantillon: Entrepreneur and economist. Oxford University Press.

11. Utility Theory of Entrepreneurship (1890)

Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. Macmillan.

Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2002). Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870202600305

Lévesque, M., Shepherd, D. A., & Douglas, E. J. (2002). Employment or self-employment: A dynamic optimization model. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00054-1

ACT III: Cognitive & Behavioral Theories

12. Experiential Learning and Entrepreneurship (1984)

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

Politis, D. J. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x

Corbett, A. C. (2005). Experiential learning and the process of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00094.x

13. Planned Behavior Theory and Entrepreneurship (1991)

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(4), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985629300000020

Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879602100104

14. Hubris Theory of Entrepreneurship (2006)

Roll, R. (1986). The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. The Journal of Business, 59(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1086/296325

Hayward, M. L., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. (2006). A hubris theory of entrepreneurship. Management Science, 52(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0483

Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.455

15. Attribution Theory and Entrepreneurship (2017)

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879201600204

Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(5), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(95)00035-7

16. Prospect Theory and Entrepreneurship (2017)

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

Barberis, N. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.1.173

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574

17. Entrepreneurial Alertness Theory (2019)

Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press.

Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011132102464

McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379628

ACT IV: Controversial & Social Theories

18. X-Efficiency Theory of Entrepreneurship (1966)

Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency vs. "X-efficiency." The American Economic Review, 56(3), 392–415.

Leibenstein, H. (1968). Entrepreneurship and development. The American Economic Review, 58(2), 72–83.

Frantz, R. S. (1988). X-efficiency: Theory, evidence and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

19. Achievement Motivation Theory of Entrepreneurship (1967)

McClelland, D. C. (1967). The achieving society. Free Press.

Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1701_6

Hansemark, O. C. (2003). Need for achievement, locus of control and the prediction of business start-ups: A longitudinal study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00188-5

20. Social Capital Theory and Entrepreneurship (1969)

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134367

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

21. Liquidity Constraint Theory of Entrepreneurship (1989)

Evans, D. S., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808–827. https://doi.org/10.1086/261629

Holtz-Eakin, D., Joulfaian, D., & Rosen, H. S. (1994). Sticking it out: Entrepreneurial survival and liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 102(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/261918

Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1), 26–60. https://doi.org/10.1086/209881

22. Agency Theory and Entrepreneurship (2019)

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/258191

Panda, B., & Leepsa, N. M. (2017). Agency theory: Review of theory and evidence on problems and perspectives. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 10(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974686217701467

ACT V: Taxonomic & Modern Theories

23. Corporate Entrepreneurship (1997)

Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors' introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5–15.

Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90019-A

Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300302

24. Lifestyle Entrepreneurship (2000)

Ateljevic, I., & Doorne, S. (2000). 'Staying within the fence': Lifestyle entrepreneurship in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(5), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667374

Marchant, B., & Mottiar, Z. (2011). Understanding lifestyle entrepreneurs and digging beneath the issue of profits. Tourism Planning & Development, 8(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2011.554039

Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2014). Small business activity does not measure entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(5), 1760–1765. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307983111

25. Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurship (2002)

Reynolds, P. D., Camp, S. M., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., & Hay, M. (2002). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2001 Summary Report. London Business School.

Acs, Z. J. (2006). How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1162/itgg.2006.1.1.97

Block, J. H., & Wagner, M. (2010). Necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs in Germany: Characteristics and earnings differentials. Schmalenbach Business Review, 62(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396803

26. Social Entrepreneurship (2017)

Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Duke University.

Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei–Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x

27. Zombie Firms Theory (2018)

Adalet McGowan, M., Andrews, D., & Millot, V. (2018). The walking dead? Zombie firms and productivity performance in OECD countries. Economic Policy, 33(96), 685–736. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiy012

Caballero, R. J., Hoshi, T., & Kashyap, A. K. (2008). Zombie lending and depressed restructuring in Japan. American Economic Review, 98(5), 1943–1977. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.5.1943

Banerjee, R., & Hofmann, B. (2018). The rise of zombie firms: Causes and consequences. BIS Quarterly Review, 67–78.

28. Digital Entrepreneurship (2019)

Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12225

Hull, C. E., Cazier, J. A., & Yen, D. C. (2007). Taking advantage of digital opportunities: A typology of digital entrepreneurship. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 4(3), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJNVO.2007.015166

Zaheer, A., Wennberg, K., & George, G. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(4).

29. Sustainable Entrepreneurship (2020)

Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001

Belz, F. M., & Binder, J. K. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A converged process model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1887

Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognizing sustainable development opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00413.x

30. Entrepreneurial Energy Theory (2024)

Stephan, U., Rauch, A., & Hatak, I. (2023). Happy-productive entrepreneurs: The roles of efficiency, energetics, and passion. Journal of Business Venturing, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2022.106266

Cardon, M. S., Glauser, M., & Murnieks, C. Y. (2017). Passion for what? Expanding the domains of entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.05.004

Warnick, B. J., Murnieks, C. Y., McMullen, J. S., & Brooks, W. T. (2018). Passion and preparedness in entrepreneurs' business plan presentations. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(3), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.01.002

The Entrepreneur'sOdyssey

Kill the Zombie. Claim the Soul. Master the Theory.

One Founder.Thirty Zombie Souls.One Survivor.

Fight to Learn.Learn to Win.

30 Zombie Souls

GTA Health Bar

Weapon Hotbar

Soul Quiz — Wrong Answer Resurrects

Gold & Progression

Zone Gate Requirements

Live Minimap

90 APA 7th Citations

Victory Screen

Five Zones.Thirty Zombies.One Mountain.

Why This Works asa Learning Tool