Search results

Notwithstanding the emergence of hospitality education around the world, the hospitality industry itself has struggled to establish a talent pipeline of young ambitious managers. Typically, only 30% of hospitality students are predicted to develop their careers within the hospitality industry, while the remainder will relocate to other industries such as retail, banking and consulting. Although this manifestation has been globally documented, most studies have simply adopted a quantitative approach in defining this phenomenon; hence, despite its scale being appreciated, less attention has been paid to defining the underlying causes which drive this concern. This study contributes to this issue by interviewing 18 students at three key stages of their practical placements, namely, pre-, during and post their placement, drawing on the ‘Principles of a Sustainable HRM ROC framework’. This chapter concludes with significant findings from which some recommendations have been formulated.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of founding team experience (industry and venturing) in new venture creation. This paper posits the following questions: How does founding team experience influence the likelihood of new venture creation, in the nascent stage? How does industry context moderate this relationship? The study aims to fill an important gap in the literature by unpacking the impact of different types of founding team experiences on venture outcome, and by focusing on the influence of founding team in the venture creation process, specifically at the nascent stage.

The paper utilizes data from the Second Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics, a longitudinal data set of 1,214 nascent entrepreneurs in the USA. Logistics regression was employed to analyze the effect of founding team experience on new venture creation. Post hoc analysis was conducted to ensure the confidence of the findings.

The paper provides empirical insights about how founding team experience influences the likelihood of new venture creation in the nascent stage. At the nascent stage, founding team industry experience positively affects new venture creation while founding team venturing experience does not. However, in the high-technology industry environment, the influence of the founding team’s venturing experience on new venture creation is stronger than that in the low-technology industry environment.

Due to the design of the data set, there is a risk of “right-censoring” problem. Also, because the study used archival data on founding teams, the methodology did not allow for uncovering the underlying team processes and dynamics during the venture creation process based on learning from experience. Future studies are encouraged to examine other types of founding team experience and the underlying process-level factors on venture creation.

The paper provides important practical implications for nascent entrepreneurs/entrepreneurial teams on team assembling and composition. In general, a team with higher-level industry experience is critical for venturing success. A team with higher-level venturing experience is more desired in the high-technology industry.

This paper fulfills an important gap in the entrepreneurial team literature by highlighting the complex and nuanced ways in which founding team experience influences the likelihood of venture creation in the nascent stage of the firm, especially after incorporating the additional impact of the industry context.

The extant literature has established that industry-specialist auditors gain performance-enhancing industry-specific sub-specialty knowledge (e.g., Solomon, Shields, & Whittington, 1999) via training and on the job experience. This knowledge has been shown to allow specialists to outperform non-specialists on a range of industry-specific tasks. The current study extends this line of research by comparing and contrasting the relative performance gains enjoyed by industry-specialist auditors in two different industry settings, one regulated and the other unregulated. When specializing in regulated industries, auditors gain very detailed industry-specific knowledge which is not the case for specialists in unregulated industries (Dunn & Mayhew, 2004). By comparing industry-specialists to non-specialists with matching industry-based experience, this study measures the relative benefits of specialization in different industry settings, rather than the benefits of specialization per se, which has been well established in the literature. This study finds that the performance gains made by regulated industry-specialists significantly outweigh those made by unregulated industry-specialists on industry-specific tasks. The implications of these results for future research and practice are explored in the body of the chapter.

Little research to date has investigated how firm experience and industry experience in related inter‐organizational systems (IOS) affect the adoption of open IOS. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue.

Based on large‐scale archival data from European countries, logistic regression was used to test the research model.

It was found that firm experience in EDI and experience in proprietary IOS positively affect the adoption of open IOS; industry experience in EDI and experience in proprietary IOS have a negative effect on the adoption of open IOS; and industry experience in open IOS has a positive effect on the adoption of open IOS.

One main limitation is that the measures of the variables are based on single‐item and dichotomic scales. Also, this study only focused on the industry level and alternative explanations for the results have not been ruled out. The main implication is that IOS experience at firm and industry levels should be distinguished, as they can have different effects on the adoption of open IOS.

This paper is among the first that examines how the experience in prior generations of IOS affects the adoption of open IOS. Furthermore, the authors expand the literature by distinguishing IOS experience at two levels – firm level and industry level and show that it is necessary to recognize the different roles of different types of experience.

We consider conditions under which firms hire an intermediary advisor in acquisition deals. Although acquirers pay large advisory fees to investment banks for their assistance in acquisitions, we know little about the conditions under which acquirers form a relationship with an investment bank for an acquisition deal. Specifically, we examine the role of overall acquisition experience, acquisition experience specific to the target’s industry, prior relationship-specific experience, and deal size in relationship formation and continuation. We test their hypotheses using a dataset of US-based acquirers and targets between 1991 and 2015. Our findings provide nuanced insights into the role of acquisition experience for acquirer–investment bank pairing up on acquisition deals.

Few studies have explored how multinational firms (MNCs) use their experience when expanding abroad. According to the “knowledge projection” model of the MNC, appropriately disseminating industry experience, country experience and mode experience can a priori increase the chances of success of new subsidiaries. However, with inconsistent findings, prior research is of limited assistance in understanding this relationship. We argue that this situation can be explained by a focus on firm’s potential for experience accumulation, rather than on the actual transfer of experience. Deploying expatriate managers enable MNCs to apply organizational experience in foreign markets. It should also have an impact on foreign subsidiary’s chances of success and survival. Therefore, this paper examines how the use of expatriates to transfer experience can affect subsidiary survival.

Studies on spinoffs neglect firms founded by single individuals (i.e. proprietorships) thus overlooking a large portion of new ventures. Moreover, scholars usually do not consider the effect of the rank, and the amount, of founder’s working experience on spinoff’s survival. The purpose of this paper is to analyze a sample of 3,456 Italian manufacturing proprietorships.

Out of an initial population of some 6,000 firms, the authors obtained a sample of 3,456 usable records with complete information about new ventures and founders’ background. The authors relied on the class of methods known as “proportional hazard models” to perform survival analyses.

Analyses show that spinoffs from surviving parents outlive other startups. Surprisingly, spinoffs from high-ranked positions have comparable hazard rates than other startups while spinoffs from low-ranked positions have lower hazard rates than other startups. Finally, industry-specific working experience has a curvilinear inverted U-shape effect on spinoffs’ survival.

The present study contributes to the debate on spinoffs’ survival and bears important ramifications into the relationship between knowledge inheritance and entrepreneurial dynamic capabilities. It is also helpful in informing public policies aimed at encouraging entrepreneurial activities in the form of new proprietorships.

This study aims to investigate how new CEOs’ previous experiences in other organizations and other industries create value in acquisitions. Drawing on the upper echelon perspective, this study theorizes that the multiorganizational experience of new CEOs is positively associated with acquisition performance and, in particular, that the multi-industry experience of new CEOs leads to better performance in diversifying acquisitions than in related acquisitions. While new CEOs without multiorganizational experience undergo a cognitive entrenchment in firm-specific experience, new CEOs with multiorganizational experience can lead acquisitions with more flexibility and agility.

Acquisition and organizational data were drawn from the US manufacturing industries (SIC 20-39) between 2008 and 2010. The event study method was used to test hypotheses. In 346 acquisitions made by 139 firms, acquisition performance was measured according to cumulative abnormal returns.

Consistent with the hypotheses, the multiorganizational experience of new CEOs was positively associated with acquisition performance and, in particular, the multi-industry experience of new CEOs led to better performance in diversifying acquisitions than in related acquisitions.

This paper contributes to the CEO literature and acquisition literature by suggesting that the multiorganizational experience of new CEOs can be a valuable source of competitive advantages, particularly when implementing corporate strategies involving interorganizational integration processes.

The entrepreneurʼs experience, personality, and values affect the entrepreneurʼs behaviors and decisions (Chrisman, Bauerschmidt, and Hofer 1998). Past research results show that (1) more experienced new venture founders have a greater likelihood of leading their ventures to early success than less experienced founders (Delmar and Shane 2006) and (2) founders who engage in legitimacy-seeking behaviors have a greater likelihood of leading their ventures to early success than founders who do not do so (Tornikoski and Newbert 2007). We propose that more experienced founders understand the importance of obtaining legitimacy for their ventures and therefore will engage in more legitimacy-seeking behaviors. In addition, we propose that entrepreneursʼ growth aspirations and internal locus of control are also associated with engagement in legitimacy-seeking behaviors. We test and find support for these propositions in a sample of new ventures and their founders.

This paper aims to investigate how alliances and acquisitions matter for the adaptation of firms facing industry convergence. Building on the disruptive innovation perspective, this study theorizes that during industry convergence, as firms' inter-industry alliance (acquisition) experience increases, those that have more intra-industry alliance (acquisition) experience will exhibit higher survival chances than those that do not.

A longitudinal panel data set of 147 firms' alliances, acquisitions and exit data was constructed in the context of convergence between the US telecommunications equipment and computer networking industries from 1989 to 2003. The survival analysis method was used to test hypotheses. Firms' patent and product-market portfolio data reveal a steady rise in the extent of convergence between the two industries within the period of the study.

The results suggest that both hypotheses gain support, having only inter-industry alliance experience negatively affects firm survival and the survival-enhancing impact of combined inter- and intra-industry acquisition experience is weaker than the impact of combined inter- and intra-industry alliance experience.

This paper contributes to the industry convergence literature and disruptive innovation research by furnishing evidence that the combination of inter- and intra-industry alliance (acquisition) experience can be a valuable source of survival-enhancing benefits during industry convergence that has pernicious influences on firms.