Some studies on entrepreneurship focus on understanding the individual entrepreneur, the motivation to start new ventures, identify opportunities and take risks, in addition to understanding entrepreneurial activity in certain groups (Anderson et al., 2019; Bird et al., 2012; Kirzner, 1979; McClelland, 1965, 1987; Mourão & Locatelli, 2020; Pidduck et al., 2023).

The entrepreneurial individual has been identified as an active element in the development and creation of new ventures, thus being a fundamental part of the process (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Bird et al., 2012). Thus, it is reasonable that at least some of the aspects that guide their role in this process should be studied, including behavior.

Entrepreneurial behavior (EB) plays a prominent role in the creation of new ventures and, therefore, should be analyzed in the search for fundamental answers for understanding entrepreneurship (Baron, 2007; Mourão & Locatelli, 2020; Santos et al., 2021). However, the EB still has fragmented definitions (Bird et al., 2012), making it difficult to understand what encourages individuals to become entrepreneurs (Baron, 2007; Gartner & Carter, 2005; Kirkley, 2016; Santos et al., 2021).

For Kirkley (2016), entrepreneurship is a kind of self-determined behavior, which enables the individual to express and satisfy different primary needs. To this end, four unique values are critical to the EB's motivation – independence, creativity, ambition and daring, with the meaning that is attributed to each one of them congruent with that conferred by Krueger (2007), who highlights self-determinism, self-efficacy and identity of entrepreneurial individuals. According to Krueger et al. (2000), deep beliefs (values) support decision-making and the subsequent EB can be explained by individual (personality) and situational (context) variables, which, in turn, influence the EB's key attitudes and motivations.

Some authors point out that the academic interest in EB has been focused on exploring opportunities and creating, developing and growing new ventures, focusing on the concrete actions of entrepreneurial individuals (Bird et al., 2012; Kuratko et al., 2021; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Thus, EB can be explained based on three factors: (1) personal attributes – traits, knowledge, skills, talents, cognition (such as perceptions, thoughts, mental models and scripts); (2) motivation and emotion – independence, creativity, ambition, daring, self-efficacy, self-determinism and identity and; (3) proximal causes centered on the individual and on the results of the enterprise – existence, sales, product launches, survival and growth. Thus, EB research aims to explain, predict, and control (shape and change) individual and team behavior.

According to McClelland (1987), some characteristics of entrepreneurial individuals are innate, while others can be learned. He grouped them, then, into three categories – accomplishments, planning and power, characterizing each one from the EB in the face of adversities experienced by individuals on a daily basis (Cooley, 1990; McClelland, 1987; Mourão & Locatelli, 2020).

In the achievements category, EB characteristics include: (a) opportunity-seeking and initiative (the entrepreneur identifies new business opportunities and takes advantage of them); (b) risk-taking (the entrepreneur deliberately analyzes and weighs risks, taking measures to reduce them or control their results); (c) search for quality and efficiency (ways of acting in order to meet or exceed the expected standards of excellence); (d) persistence (repeatedly acting to overcome an obstacle or face a challenge; and (e) commitment (the entrepreneur personally assumes responsibility for fundamental performance to achieve established goals and objectives (Cooley, 1990; Kruger & Ramos, 2020; McClelland, 1987; Mourão & Locatelli, 2020).

In the planning category, there are: (a) search for information (the entrepreneur engages in obtaining fundamental information for his activity); (b) goal setting (he sets clear, specific and long-term goals, as well as stipulates and constantly reviews short-term goals, noting financial performance and other objectives, such as socio-environmental sustainability; and (c) plans and monitors systematically plans to segment large tasks into subtasks (frequently reviews the plans, evaluating the results obtained and the circumstantial changes that occurred, in addition to keeping records for decision-making (Cooley, 1990; McClelland, 1987; Mourão & Locatelli, 2020).

The power category involves EB characteristics related to the influence the entrepreneur has on others, such as: (a) networking and persuasion (the entrepreneur uses strategies to influence or persuade others and has key collaborators to assist him in achieving his goals; and (b) independence and self-confidence (he seeks autonomy from the norms and controls of others, and has confidence in his own ability to perform complex activities and tasks or overcome challenges (Cooley, 1990; McClelland, 1987; Michelin et al., 2022; Mourão & Locatelli, 2020).

The characteristics that influence the EB interfere with how the strategy will be elaborated and executed (Calabrese & Costa, 2015). The theoretical articulation between entrepreneurship and strategy focuses on the EB and concrete actions, in the search for new opportunities and competitive advantage (Amalia et al., 2020; Anderson et al., 2019; Dogan, 2015; Ireland et al., 2009).

Due to intense global competition, organizations, regardless of size or age, are forced to establish more entrepreneurial strategies so that they can, in this globalized scenario, achieve and sustain competitive advantage (Asmussen et al., 2019; Hitt et al., 2019; Rascão, 2020).

There have been several efforts to conceptualize and define strat: Drucker (1954, 2007) sees it as an analysis of the context, which allows for change when necessary, using current and future resources; Quinn (1980) treats it as a way of establishing a pattern, plans, objectives, goals, sequence of actions, allocation of resources and capacity to act in the face of the unpredictable; and Porter (1980) considers it competitive, which requires the use of defensive and offensive actions, thereby establishing a defensible position, capable of successfully facing competitive forces and obtaining a greater return on investment.

Other authors, in addition to conceptualizing and defining strategy, add relevant aspects to it, such as Ansoff and McDonnell (1988), who consider it a rule for decision-making. Thus, strategic management comprises three main elements: the formulation of the strategy, the structuring of the organization's competences and the management of discontinued changes.

Eisenhardt (1999), for example, understands the strategic process as a quick set of movements, based on collective intuition and conflict resolution to improve thinking and maintain a disciplined pace of decision-making. In this way, the definition of strategy is conditioned to the answer to two questions: “where do you want to go?” (choice of an attractive market and a differentiated strategic positioning); and “how do you want to get there?” (which actions will be carried out later).

Still in this sense, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) and Mintzberg et al. (2010) identified different types of strategies, according to the focus, direction and control of each one. Thus, they can be classified as: (a) deliberate, as they result from prior formal strategic planning, created by top management, which makes them rigid and focused on control; and (b) emerging, which arise due to circumstances, focusing on collective actions and consonant behavior, with an emphasis on learning (Games et al., 2020; Mintzberg et al., 2010; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985).

In the literature, there are also four main nomenclatures associated with strategy: (1) strategic planning – the organization's management establishes and formalizes systems and procedures focused on decision-making (Hambrick, 1981; Ketokivi & Castañer, 2004; Mintzberg, 1994); (2) strategic thinking – cognitive ability that can be taught, as it is an intuitive, creative, innovative process that encourages all levels of the organization (Goldman, 2012; Mintzberg, 1994; Sloan, 2013); (3) strategic management – characterized by the requirement for decision-making among strategic moves to develop and sustain competitive advantage in a disruptive environment (Hitt et al., 2001, 2019; Porter, 1997; Sambamurthy et al., 2003); and (4) strategic leadership – an approach that establishes an innovative environment conducive to driving organizational, human, social and structural capabilities (Goffee & Jones, 2000; Hitt & Duane, 2002; Rahman et al., 2018).

In approaching the strategic management of entrepreneurs in the creation, development and maintenance of their enterprises, one of the main points discussed is their cohesive planning and deliberate prescription (Ketchen & Craighead, 2020; Rascão, 2020). It is noted, therefore, the need to consider other likely strategic approaches, involving the entrepreneur's action in a non-linear and non-deterministic view (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985; Wolf & Floyd, 2017).

For Autio and Acs (2010), strategic entrepreneurial behavior cannot be understood without analyzing the context in which it occurs, capable of driving some individuals to allocate efforts in search of growth; and to act systematically, changing strategies to face challenges and overcome obstacles, even if, for that, some personal sacrifice is necessary (Anderson et al., 2019; Autio & Acs, 2010; Carreira et al., 2015).

In this same context, Mintzberg (1973) introduced the notion of business strategy elaboration; Covin and Slevin (1990) presented the concept of entrepreneurial strategic posture in organizations; Lumpkin and Dess (1996) extended the concept of entrepreneurship, through the introduction of entrepreneurial orientation, as a function of organizations getting involved with innovations, admitting risks and proactive strategies; and Ireland et al. (2001), who expanded this concept to add strategic management to the favorable scenario for entrepreneurial actions.

Still in this sense, Rascão (2020) focused his research on the intersection between entrepreneurship and strategic management in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and startups, due to the central role of the entrepreneur in the strategic management process, and his important link with the business plan.

Authors such as Ketchen and Craighead (2020), in turn, included supply chain management at the intersection between entrepreneurship and strategic management, driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to understand organizational success and failure in this scenario, and to guide managers, especially in times of adversity.

The entrepreneurial aspect contributes to the ability of companies to identify new opportunities, while the strategic perspective allows isolating and exploiting those most likely to obtain sustainable competitive advantage and subsequent means to form advantage (Anderson et al., 2019; Prado et al., 2020). Practice occurs both in the strategy formulation process and in its implementation, according to the expected result (Hitt et al., 2001, 2019).

For Mintzberg and Westley (2001), strategy formulation is an interactive learning process, as the strategist develops the strategy in his mind and organizes its application and acceptance in the organization. This denotes its importance as an articulator of the other elements of the organization, considering that the development of a strategy depends on numerous factors (culture, beliefs and value judgment) and conditions (context, availability of resources, adversities and opportunities) that they alternate and change over time (Anderson et al., 2019; Mintzberg et al., 2010; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985; Wolf & Floyd, 2017).

Krueger et al. (2000) and Bird et al. (2012), in the same context, suggest that deep beliefs (values), individual (personality) and situational (context) variables greatly influence the key attitudes and motivations of the EB.

The elaboration of the SLR involved some fundamental steps: after identifying the research gap, defining the objectives and the research question, the research protocol was chosen (Table 1), which is a fundamental item to guarantee rigor, transparency and the replicability of the method (Kraus et al., 2020; Machado et al., 2020).

In the analysis, only articles published in peer-reviewed and freely available journals were included, through access to the Federated Academic Community (CAFe) and the agreement between Universities and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).

The research was carried out in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, which are considered valuable sources, as they mainly concentrate journal publications with a relevant impact factor for the areas of Applied Social Sciences and, specifically, for the field of studies in entrepreneurship (Kraus et al., 2020).

The search performed did not include a specific period, obtaining 272 studies, reduced to 182, after applying some filters (Table 1) to compose the sample.

Table 1
Research protocol
Note: Prepared by the authors (2023).

In the second stage, the selected articles formed the object of the SLR, with the purpose of identifying, evaluating and interpreting the available research related to the topic in question (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007), that is, the relationship between EB and strategy. To support this selection process, the “State of the Art through Systematic Review” (StArt) tool was used as a facilitator of the SLR.

With the help of StArt, among the 182 articles selected in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, 39 duplicate articles were identified and excluded from the sample, leaving 143 articles. Through a preliminary analysis of the title, abstract and keywords, it was found that 55 articles were not in accordance with the scope of this study, as they did not contain the concepts of EB and strategy, and were therefore excluded. Thus, 88 articles met this inclusion criterion and were incorporated into the review.

Fully analyzed and classified by two researchers, based on each of the pre-established criteria in the protocol (Table 1), the articles showed little divergence. To provide a tie-breaking opinion, a third researcher was called, thus remaining the studies in which at least two researchers agreed (Nassif et al., 2010). In this way, it was ensured that the triangulation of researchers obtained a greater number of views about the articles analyzed (Flick, 2020).

After the in-depth analysis stage, 32 publications did not meet the adopted inclusion criteria – only peer-reviewed articles that address the EB of the individual business owner, strategies and Entrepreneurial Orientation and Intention as sub-dimensions of the EB. Thus, as a final sample for this study, 56 publications remained.

Following the recommendations of Tranfield et al. (2003), a summary was developed for each of these 56 articles, with entry in a data extraction table built in Excel, in order to identify the evolution of concepts and theoretical currents used to define EC and strategy. Figure 1 shows the methodological procedures adopted in the SLR.

Figure 1
Methodological procedures of the systematic review of the literature
Note: Prepared by the authors (2023).

The Atlas.ti software was then used to integrate the surveys and identify the pre-established categories, according to the SLR of each of the articles analyzed (Woods et al., 2016). The codes and subcodes related to each of the EB categories and strategies were defined, a priori, based on references in the literature (Table 2).

Table 2
Codes used in Atlas.ti

Note: Prepared by the authors (2023).

Thus, it was possible to establish, in the articles analyzed, the relationships with the categories formed throughout the SLR and, from this, it was possible to perform the inductive analysis of the content of the studies (Woods et al., 2016).

Through the Excel spreadsheet, methods, techniques and approaches used in the SLR component studies were identified and checked with the help of Atlas.ti. It is expected, therefore, to contribute to the improvement and epistemological expansion of the EB phenomenon, especially in the context of organizational strategy.

For the survey of the methodological profile of the studies, after reading the articles, they were classified, with the help of the Atlas.ti software, in a generic way, in three categories: theoretical, theoretical-empirical and empirical, as proposed by Machado da Silva et al. (1990).

After this stage, a subclassification was performed regarding the methodological approach used, identifying qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies (Creswell & Poth, 2016) (Table 4).

Most of the studies carried out on EB and the strategy were empirical (75%), totaling 42 studies, with the others (25%) considered theoretical (Table 4).

Table 4
Methodologies applied in studies

Note: Prepared by the authors (2023).

In studies of qualitative methodologies (n=28), the predominant methods were, respectively, interviews (17), multiple case studies (4), followed by focus groups (2); and the main data collection technique was the interview with a semi-structured script (12).

The minimum sample (four respondents) and the maximum (94) predominantly underwent data processing, carried out by a thematic and inductive content analysis.

Research with a qualitative approach enables a detailed study of the culture, values, environment and context of EB (Ekanem & Uwajeh, 2017). In this study of quantitative methodologies (n=22), the predominant method was the use of Survey (15), with questionnaires on the Likert scale (14), ranging from 5 to 10 points.

The main statistical techniques used were: structural equation modeling (9), regression analysis (7), exploratory factor analysis (5) and descriptive statistics (3), emphasizing that some articles used more than one data analysis technique.

The minimum sample was 17 and the maximum 1,457 respondents, with data processing carried out mostly with the aid of software, especially the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (5), Smart PLS 2.0 (3) and the R-CRAN package plspm (1).

In mixed methodology studies (qualitative and quantitative n=6), the predominant method was semi-structured interviews (four) and multiple case studies (3), for the qualitative stage; and survey (2), in the quantitative stage.

The main statistical technique was regression analysis (3), whose sample was relatively smaller than in single-method studies, ranging from 24 to 225 participants.

The theoretical studies (n=14), for the most part (71.55%), used qualitative methodologies (n=10) and, predominantly, aimed at developing theoretical models. Theoretical studies with quantitative methodologies (n=4), mainly aimed at developing generalizable theoretical models, using an open access database, such as the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM).

After the full analysis of the 56 articles, the theoretical perspectives addressed in the studies, objects of this SLR, were synthesized based on the authors' presentations, in the theoretical foundation section of each article (Table 5).

Table 5
Theories covered

Note: Prepared by the authors (2023).

The predominance of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), by Ajzen (1991), with publications from 1993 to 2020 (used in six studies) was identified. This theory maintains that entrepreneurial intention depends on the influence of attitude to-wards entrepreneurship; of subjective norms; and perceived behavioral control – a variable in which the author incorporates two dimensions: self-efficacy (belief in one's ability to organize and carry out behaviors); and controllability (belief in con-trolling one's own conduct).

The second most discussed theoretical current (five studies) was based on Kolb's Theories of Knowledge Management (KM) (1984), with more frequent publications from 2016 onwards (Table 5). Through it, theorists establish a systematic approach to capture and manage the use of knowledge, in order to guarantee the organizational efficiency of this information.

The Theory of Motivation and Need for Achievement, by McClelland (1961, 1965), which deepens the perspective that the motivation for personal achievement positively impacts the EB, was the basis for four studies, published from 2013 to 2021.

In addition, four studies addressed gender issues and adopted the Social Feminist Theory (SFT) as a basis (Fischer et al., 1993); and the Female Entrepreneurship Theory (Lerner et al., 1997), whose publications began in 2011, highlighting culturally incorporated differences between men and women, especially with regard to the experience and knowledge of women entrepreneurs (Table 5).

Other important theories were cited in at least three studies (Table 5), such as the Internationalization Theory; Institutional Theory; the Theory of Self-efficacy, with publications from 2013; and the Effectuation and Causation Theory, with publications between 2013 and 2018.

In general, 25 theories were identified in this research, of which 20% are specific to Entrepreneurship; 16% mastery of Psychology; 12% are theories of organizations; and 8% are from the Administration. It should be noted that 21 studies used more than one theory; and eight did not mention any theory.

From 2016 onwards, a period in which research intensified, it is possible to notice an effort on the part of researchers to use different theoretical approaches, from different domain areas, to help define the constructs Entrepreneurial Behavior and Strategy. A predominant theoretical current related to a certain period was not identified.

From the reading of the 56 studies comprising this SLR, the EB definitions presented were imputed in Atlas.ti and, from the analysis of the list of most repeated words and the word cloud created by the software, with these definitions (Figure 4), a proposal for conceptualizing the EB of individual business owners was outlined.

Figure 4
Word cloud of analyzed EB definition
Note: Prepared by the authors, with the help of Atlas.ti (2023).

This study concluded that the EB deals with concrete actions, used to identify opportunities and assume risks in the creation and development of businesses. Characterized by the search for innovations, self-efficacy and autonomy, whose motivations may or may not be pecuniary, they can be classified into three main categories: (1) need for achievement, (2) ability to deal with uncertainties; and (3) developing networks of relationships (Bird et al., 2012; Gartner et al., 2010; Kirkley, 2016; Kuratko et al., 2005; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; McClelland, 1965, 1987; Sarasvathy, 2004; Shane, 2003, Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005).

Previous reviews have been prepared with the aim of establishing the relationship between the EB and strategy, such as those by: (a) Markowska (2018), who argues about the differences in behavior between novice and experienced entrepreneurs, due to the self-perception of their ability to act, develop and use strategies that allow them to rely on perceived control over means and ends; (b) Herrera et al. (2020), who investigated the EB of immigrants in Spain, showing that, during the economic crisis, ethnic companies increased significantly, with the adoption of new strategies and the proof of the resilience of these immigrants; and (c) Pathak and Goltz (2021), who studied the links between emotional intelligence (EI), EB and entrepreneurial coping; postulating that the EI of entrepreneurs works as an antecedent that guides the selection of their coping strategies, through initial optimism and acceptance of the stressful situation.

Despite committed efforts, previous research has not identified the types of EB and the strategies adopted by entrepreneurs, nor has it indicated in which contexts this may occur.

The analysis of previously selected articles to identify the types of EB and adopted strategies allowed this study to verify that both concepts have fragmented definitions (Bird et al., 2012). In this perception, it was found that there are two important distinctions that characterize the EB phenomenon in the existing literature: a micro view and a macro view.

In the micro view, the phenomenon is analyzed from the point of view of the individual owner of the company, the focus of this SLR, characterizing the EB by concrete actions used in the identification and exploration of opportunities, and in the creation and development of new businesses (Bird et al., 2012; McClelland, 1987), being recognized as a precursor to social change and a facilitator of innovation in emerging companies (Gartner et al., 2010) and in established ones (Kuratko et al., 2005).

Studies that adopted this approach were classified into three categories, according to Bird et al. (2012): (1) motivations and emotions – need for achievement, autonomy, risk-taking and self-efficacy; (2) personal attributes – traits, knowledge, talents, abilities, cognition, proactivity, innovativeness and creativity; and (3) outcome-centered proximal causes – existence, sales, product launches, survival, growth, and external factors (Table 6).

Table 6
Categorization of entrepreneurial behaviors and identified strategies

Note: Prepared by the authors (2023).

In the macro view, from the point of view of the organization, the EB is characterized as synonymous with Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) which, according to Covin and Slevin (1990), denotes the characteristics of organizations that manifest proactivity, innovation and risk-taking simultaneously. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) also add two other dimensions to the concept of EO – autonomy and aggressiveness.

Although Covin and Slevin (1990) and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) have established this classification within the framework of the analysis of organizations, and this has not been the focus of this SLR, some studies appropriate these definitions to classify the EO as a subdimension of the EB of entrepreneurial individuals within their own organization, making analyzes of the personal attributes of these entrepreneurs. Because of this, these studies were considered in the sample composition of this SLR: Branicki et al. (2018); Cortellazzo et al. (2020); Futterer et al. (2018); Hammerschmidt et al. (2021); Moruku (2013) and Van der Veen and Wakkee (2009).

Alike EC, strategy has different nomenclatures identified in the literature, such as strategic thinking, strategic planning, strategic management and strategic leadership (Table 7).

Table 7
Categorization of the definitions of strategies identified in the studies

Note: Prepared by the authors (2023).

From the reading and analysis of these articles (Table 7), it was possible to identify that:

1. 1. The strategy, in the organizational context, is characterized as allocation of decision rights, availability and allocation of resources to lower-level members, degree of formalization of positions and relationships, project selection criteria, as well as planning and measurement systems of performance (Burgelman, 1983, 1991; Zahra, 2008). It is, then, a set of selection processes, based on raw data, facts, prior knowledge and personal experience of gain and loss, which helps and affects decision-making (Haselhuhn et al., 2012; Payne et al., 1992; Porter, 1997, 2007).
2. 2. In some studies, strategy is defined as synonymous with strategic planning, characterized as a managerial methodological process, responsible for the direction of the organization, with a tendency to promote greater interaction with the environment (Kotler, 1975; Mintzberg, 1994). It can be seen, therefore, as an “integrative device”, which enables greater participation of different members in decision-making (Ketokivi & Castañer, 2004). Thus, it is a tool capable of broadening the understanding of the business environment and promoting the identification of opportunities (Burgelman, 1983; Hambrick, 1981), which involves, establishes and formalizes the systems and procedures focused on decision making (Mintzberg, 1994).
3. 3. The concept of strategy, in other studies, is defined as strategic thinking, characterized as a dynamic, continuous and interactive process (Goldman, 2012; Mintzberg, 1994), through which the organization becomes an integrated set to its environment. This strategic thinking, according to Sloan (2013), can be taught, as it is an underlying, advanced and complex cognitive ability, different from that required in the strategic planning process. Therefore, its emphasis is on being an intuitive, creative, innovative process that encourages all levels of the organization (Mintzberg, 1994).
4. 4. Strategic management is characterized by the requirement to make decisions in various strategic moves in order to develop and sustain competitive advantage in a disruptive environment (Hitt et al., 2001; Porter, 1997; Sambamurthy et al., 2003). In the general field of strategic management, a growing emphasis on the “entrepreneurial process, i.e., the decision-making methods, practices, and styles that managers use to act entrepreneurially” (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, p. 136).
5. 5. Finally, strategic leadership has been presented by several authors as an approach that establishes an innovative environment conducive to driving organizational, human, social and structural capabilities (Goffee & Jones, 2000; Hitt & Duane, 2002; Ireland et al., 2001).

From the categorization, through inductive content analysis, with the help of Atlas.ti, it was possible to identify some of the strategies adopted and relate them to the three EB categories (Bird et al., 2012). Then, an analysis was performed to divide the articles into two periods: from 1987 to 2015, period in which the publications were more spaced (n=25); and from 2016 to 2021, period in which there was greater interest from academia in relation to the topic (n= 31) (Table 6).

From 1987 to 2015, it was possible to highlight studies that proposed to analyze the relationship between the EB and the strategy, based on proximal causes, centered on performance results (about 46% of the articles). According to most of them, entrepreneurial individuals should improve their strategic skills (Gartner et al., 1999; Gibb, 1999; Gilinsky et al., 2010; Herron & Robinson, 1993; Sandberg & Hofer, 1987), considering that the The entrepreneur's cognitive apparatus employs different strategies to produce solutions in the face of adversity (Mathews, 2008), that is, to develop an entrepreneurial culture, it is essential to have learning strategies (Freeman et al., 2013; Gartner et al., 1999; Gibb, 1999).

In this context, Herron and Robinson (1993) pointed out causality between behaviors and strategies in determining performance. Krueger et al. (2000) complement, pointing out intention as the best EB predictor, which must be understood to understand the phenomena related to them, such as strategic decisions for growth and innovation (Gundry et al., 2014).

For Matheus (2008), the EB determines the type and form of entrepreneurship, showing how individuals who undertake adapt strategies and goals to manage opportunities and adversities. Autio and Acs (2010) and Gundry et al. (2014) complete this thought, claiming that the context is an important regulator of the individual EB which, in turn, influences entrepreneurs' strategic resource allocation decisions (Anderson et al., 2019; Krueger, 2007).

In studies published from 2016 to 2021, the predominant focus was: (a) on personal attributes (48% or 14 articles); (b) on motivations and emotions (28% or eight studies); and (c) on outcome-centered proximal causes (24% or seven articles).

Studies that focused on personal attributes related EB especially to the search for opportunities, based on knowledge and skills (Anosike, 2018; Olsson & Bernhard, 2021; Seikkula-Leino & Salomaa, 2020; Wójcik & Ciszewska-Mlinarič, 2020); and in the proactivity, innovation and creativity of entrepreneurs (Ahadi & Kasraie, 2020; Branicki et al., 2018; Cortellazzo et al., 2020; Futterer et al., 2018; Hammerschmidt et al., 2021; Huq et al., 2020; Thompson, 2018; Zollo et al., 2021).

Some of these studies established the relationship between the EB and the strategy, highlighting the influence of the context (Anosike, 2018; Capello & Lenzi, 2016; Cortellazzo et al., 2020; Seikkula-Leino & Salomaa, 2020; Wójcik & Ciszewska-Mlinarič, 2020), especially when there are adversities, such as a pandemic, for example (Hammerschmidt et al., 2021; Mucha, 2020), and conflicts (Anosike, 2018).

Markowska (2018) showed EC differences between entrepreneurial, novice and experienced individuals, given that the greater the strength in the beliefs of action controls, the greater the incentives for them to develop and use strategies that allow them to trust in the means and ends supported by their perceived ability. In this way, experienced entrepreneurs behave more like experts.

Other studies establish a relationship between EB and strategy, based on gender comparisons (Huq et al., 2020; Mucha, 2020; Olsson & Bernhard, 2021). In this sense, characteristics of the female EB, such as female values and attributes (altruism, sensitivity, courage, search for continuous learning, propensity for innovation and interpersonal relationships) influence the strategies adopted by female entrepreneurs: in the relationship with clients; in branding (Huq et al., 2020); recruitment and learning (Olsson & Bernhard, 2021); and in defensive strategies, such as cost reduction in the midst of a crisis (Mucha, 2020).

Studies that focused on motivations and emotions related the EB mainly to the need for achievement (Garcia-Rodriguez et al., 2015; Mourão & Locatelli, 2020; Pathak & Goltz, 2021; Woodside et al., 2016); autonomy and self-efficacy (Munoz, 2018; Quintillán & Peña-Legazkue, 2019; Troise & Tani, 2020); and risk-taking (Quintillán & Peña-Legazkue, 2019; Zollo et al., 2021). Such studies suggest that EB is driven not only by reason, but also by the motivations, emotions and cognitions of entrepreneurs, which, in turn, influence strategic decisions (Mourão & Locatelli, 2020; Munoz, 2018; Quintillán & Peña-Legazkue, 2019; Troise & Tani, 2020; Woodside et al., 2016; Zollo et al., 2021).

And there are other studies worth mentioning, such as: (a) Mourão and Locatelli (2020) and Munoz (2018), which suggest the relationship between the EB and the strategic analysis of sustainable businesses; (b) Pathak and Goltz (2021), who show optimism and proactivity as influencers of strategies to reduce and manage stressors: (c) Troise and Tani (2020), who relate EB to strategic decision-making for product co-creation and network exploration; and (d) Woodside et al. (2016), for whom innovative production strategies are driven by EB.

The identification of the definitions of the EB and strategy constructs, which served as the basis for this research, was approached holistically in most of the analyzed articles. This allowed a research agenda to be systematized and categorized based on the reading of the 56 articles, based on the propositions and limitations that emerged from the existing literature (Table 8).

Table 8
Agenda for future research

Note: Prepared by the authors (2023).

With this systematization in ten different themes, it is expected: (a) to contribute to the advancement of research related to the subject in question, addressed in this RSL; (b) help other researchers make decisions regarding the design of new studies; and (c) contributing to managers and entrepreneurs, who can use the results found in the literature on the subject as a subsidy to manage their enterprises.

claudiamsbezerra@gmail.com