Search results

This study examined the effect that venture creation action has on the outcomes of nascent entrepreneurship. A conceptual model was developed which proposes action as a fundamental mechanism in venture creation. Thus, action should rightly be considered as a means which transmits the effects of venture resource endowments on to venture creation outcomes. This conceptual model was empirically supported in a random sample of nascent ventures. Ventures with higher levels of human or social capital were found to be more active in venture creation. In turn, more active venture attempts were more likely to achieve improved venture creation outcomes. Further, human and social capital, on their own, exhibit little direct influence on the venture outcomes achieved. These findings confirm action's central place in the venture creation process.

The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating effect of an owner’s growth goal on the relationship between the gender of new venture owners and the growth outcomes of their ventures.

This is a quantitative study using a large, national database and structural equation modeling.

The findings indicate that the negative relationship between gender and growth outcomes is fully mediated by the growth goals of new venture owners, their available internal resources and the amount of time and money they are able (prepared) to invest in their new venture.

The research implications include the need to better understand the impact of goal setting on new venture performance outcomes.

The government policies (for example, to stimulate firm growth) need to be designed by having a proper understanding of the various motives/goals that entrepreneurs might have when launching a new venture. Similarly, anyone providing advice to individuals involved in establishing a new venture should, before providing that advice, ensure that they have a clear understanding of the individual’s goals.

Social implications include a need to better understand the negative impact that lower available human and financial capital can have on the goals set by female new venture owners and the outcomes achieved by those ventures.

This research makes an original contribution to the literature by demonstrating: the impact of gender on human, social and financial capital; the influence of these resources on new venture goals; and, in turn, the influence of goals on new venture performance outcomes.

Sustainable Family Business Theory states that human, social, and financial capital are important for new family venture growth, yet there may be multiple combinations that could be beneficial. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether all three types of resources are always needed for growth.

Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis, a configurational method, is used to investigate which combinations of human, social, and financial capital consistently lead to new family venture growth.

Multiple distinct combinations of resources – usually containing some form of human capital along with either social or financial capital – were sufficient for new family ventures to grow.

The findings contribute to a more accurate Sustainable Family Business Theory in terms of the resource bundles needed to achieve growth. Not all three primary resources are needed at founding for the venture to grow. Results suggest a need for renewed focus on human capital in family venture research, as well as further investigations of the resource configurations uncovered here and their effects on family firm outcomes.

Given the costs associated with acquiring resources, the findings can inform family entrepreneurs and other stakeholders purposed with assisting new family ventures regarding optimal avenues of achieving growth.

This study advances theory by demonstrating which combinations of primary resources lead to new family venture growth. The findings shed light on how human, social, and financial capital may substitute for each other, as well as how the value of each depends on the presence or absence of the others.

There is progress in entrepreneurship research. Important works in entrepreneurship increasingly appear in highly respected, mainstream journals (see Busenitz et al., 2003; Davidsson, Low & Wright, 2001). There is conceptual development that attracts attention (e.g. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and handbooks are compiled, providing the field with more of a common body of knowledge (Acs & Audretsch, 2003a; Shane, 2000a; Westhead & Wright, 2000). Further, there is evidence of methodological improvements (Chandler & Lyon, 2001) and accumulation of meaningful findings on various levels of analysis (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001). Moreover, due to time lags in publication the reported improvements are likely to be underestimated. This author’s experience as organizer, reviewer and participant in core entrepreneurship conferences on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g. Babson; RENT) suggests that much of the lower end of the quality distribution has either disappeared from the submissions or is screened out in the review process. Much more than used to be the case a few years back we find among the presented papers research that is truly theory-driven; research on the earliest stages of business development, and research that employs methods suitable for causal inference, i.e. experiments and longitudinal designs.

Despite the growing body of literature on both organizational learning (OL) and corporate venture development (CVD), very few attempts have been made to establish connections between these two literature streams. While existing literature provides some evidence that OL may facilitate the process of CVD, several interesting research issues remain unexamined. We know very little about (a) what type of learning processes are effective at various stages of CVD; and (b) whether and how knowledge created through various OL processes enhances venture performance. These research issues are examined in this paper by integrating the literature from OL and CVD. We develop a conceptual model that integrates organizational learning with the antecedents and outcomes of CVD. We argue that (a) organizational learning in CVD occurs through two distinct and yet complementary processes; (b) productive organizational learning occurs when organizations vary their emphases on different types of learning depending upon the stages of CVD; and (c ) different types of learning are associated with different types of venture outcomes. Propositions are developed and implications are discussed to facilitate empirical research.

Intelligence or general mental ability (GMA) is a strong predictor of job performance across most occupations, and educational attainment has been shown to be a predictor of entrepreneurial outcomes. However, there has been little research examining the simultaneous effects of entrepreneurs’ GMA and educational attainment on their venture outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of these human capital resources on venture performance and survival.

Using a sample of 234 self-employed entrepreneurs from a longitudinal database, regression analysis was employed to examine the predictors of venture performance. A hazard model was utilized to assess venture survival.

Entrepreneurs’ intelligence influenced venture performance directly and indirectly via educational attainment. Entrepreneurs with higher GMA were subsequently able to obtain more education, and GMA had an indirect, positive influence on venture performance through this additional educational attainment. Findings also demonstrated an inverted-U, curvilinear effect on venture survival for GMA and educational attainment. This indicates that both intelligence and educational attainment should be considered when examining how likely entrepreneurs are to persist or survive in their ventures.

Entrepreneurs with higher GMA had ventures that performed better and obtained more education, which influenced venture survival. These findings suggest that entrepreneurs’ intelligence is likely to be an important predictor of venture outcomes, as well as a source of entrepreneurs’ human capital acquisition. Therefore, GMA should have a more central role in the human capital discussion within the entrepreneurship literature.

In this study we confirm the often assumed but largely untested belief that entrepreneurs think and behave differently than others. We examine a group of more than 700 nascent entrepreneurs and 400 nonentrepreneurs. We determine the entrepreneurs’ cognitive style propensity for problem solving (Innovator versus Adaptor); we compare their expectations; and, we examine the outcomes (performance and start-up) of their ventures. We find that nascent entrepreneurs are more likely to be overly optimistic Innovators, most people are Adaptors, and oneʼs cognitive style can indeed play a role in the initial development and outcome for the venture, but not always as expected.

This research aims to theorize how a critical factor, resource access, can paradoxically impact the comprehensiveness of venture location decision processes and the relationship between decision comprehensiveness and new venture performance. To do so, the authors focus on nascent entrepreneurs’ venture location decision processes and introduce resource access as a double-edged sword.

In this conceptual article, the authors draw from the strategic decision-making and resource mobilization literature to theorize about the new venture location decision-making process and its performance implications.

By uncovering the paradox of resource access, the authors propose that high levels of resource access create a paradoxical situation in which nascent entrepreneurs are less likely to use comprehensive decision processes when their benefits are at their greatest.

This work contributes to entrepreneurship research on new venture location and resource mobilization in three important ways. First, the authors advance the literature on nascent entrepreneurs’ location decision-making processes by introducing “location decision comprehensiveness” as a decision process construct and juxtaposing it with resource access to uncover the entrepreneurial decision-making process. Second, the authors develop a more nuanced theorization of the location choices made by nascent entrepreneurs instead of relying on generalized conclusions drawn from well-established corporations’ location decisions. Last, the authors extend the literature on resource mobilization in entrepreneurship by shedding light on the paradoxical aspect of resource access. While previous research has emphasized the favorable effects of resource access on new venture processes and outcomes, the authors contend that it can also negatively impact entrepreneurs’ ability to make effective decisions.

Though often considered a critical factor in predicting venture success, past research into the effects of founder experience has often produced mixed results. What factors influence founders’ decisions to use, or not use, experience they possess? This study examines the role job dissatisfaction might play in a founder's decision to leverage multiple types of experience (sector, entrepreneurial, role model and education) on external (sales performance) and internal (founder intrinsic satisfaction) outcomes. Greater dissatisfaction was associated with decreased likelihood of founders building on sector experience. While dissatisfaction influenced the use of experience, greater experience levels did not consistently account for higher levels of venture sales performance. Moreover, no differences were found in founders’ intrinsic satisfaction, regardless of sales performance. The differing results in the two outcome measures suggest potential differences in the goals and consequent actions of entrepreneurs in the study. By examining multiple types of experience, and what might moderate founders’ use of that experience, these findings provide additional insights into the entrepreneurial process.

In this chapter, we examine two theorized approaches to entrepreneurial activity: experiential versus prediction based strategies. We empirically assess the comparative performance of several commonly recommended approaches – researching customer needs, researching the competitive landscape, writing a business plan, conceptually adapting the business plan or experimentally adapting the primary business activity. We found that the majority of nascent entrepreneurs began with a business plan, but only about a third adapted their plan in later stages. We also found that talking with customers and examining the competitive landscape were normative activities. Those who started a plan were more likely to create a venture, although the effects much stronger for those who changed their plan later on, as well as for those who researched customer needs.

Our results show that the selection of these activities is both ubiquitous and driven by pre-start-up experience and new venture characteristics. The activities themselves do not robustly link with successful new venture foundation. Hence, pre-start-up experiences, venture characteristics, and the institutional environment are more important in explaining successful performance than recommended activities. Implications for research, practice, and pedagogy are discussed.