Search results

Although business incubators are a widely recognized form of entrepreneurial support, this paper aims to challenge the assumption that incubation is necessarily beneficial for early-stage entrepreneurs, and considers cases where, due to variability in the motives and behaviours of entrepreneurs, incubation may be unwarranted or even undesireable.

This study presents a theoretically derived typology of incubated entrepreneurs, based on their entrepreneurial competence and capacity for learning, which asserts that incubation may be unwarranted or even undesireable for three of the four proposed entrepreneur types. Qualitative data from interviews with entrepreneurs and managing directors from 10 business incubators is used to illustrate the existence of these types.

The data provides evidence of entrepreneurial types whose incubation may be counterproductive to the goals and objectives of their host incubators.

Implications for incubator management (intake screening and ongoing monitoring of portfolio) are developed and aimed at improving the outcomes of business incubation for stakeholders.

The paper contributes to the incubation typology literature by challenging a widely held assumption that entrepreneurs have the potential to benefit from incubation and by reconceptualizing incubators as “crucibles” that perform a critical function in distinguishing high-potential entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurial support organizations, such as business incubators and accelerators (BIAs), provide coaching as a core element of their service offering for startups. Yet little is known about how coaching creates value from the entrepreneur's perspective. This is an important issue given that entrepreneurship is recognized as a gendered phenomenon. The purpose of this article is to explore how the coaching services provided during incubation create value for men and women entrepreneurs.

Focusing on university business incubators, our comparative qualitative study of 18 men and women entrepreneurs takes a grounded theorizing approach, and draws abductively on entrepreneurial learning theory, to explore the dimensions of coaching services that support venture development and explain gender differences.

The emergent explanatory model suggests that venture development is supported by coaching service design (at the incubator level) and by coaching content and rapport (at the entrepreneur-coach dyad level). Gender differences were observed in the emphasis placed on accessibility of coaching services provided by the incubator and the guidance provided by the coaches. We theorize that these findings reflect differences in entrepreneurial learning.

To better support entrepreneurial learning, gender differences should be considered in both the design and delivery of coaching services.

Our findings provide deeper insight about how coaching services create value for entrepreneurs by revealing explanatory dimensions at two levels of analysis and theorizing the interrelationship between entrepreneurial learning, gender and venture development.

Although business incubators are widely used support mechanisms for innovative entrepreneurship, the literature still lacks theoretically based explanations of how the incubation process creates value for stakeholders. This study aims to address this gap by developing a conceptual model, and related research propositions, that explains how the entrepreneurial logic in use by an incubator influences the incubation process (selection criteria and service offering) and performance.

Integrating the effectuation and entrepreneurial opportunities literature, which shares common conceptualizations about how the predictability of the future affects entrepreneurial action, the authors posit two archetypes of entrepreneurial logic that are associated with different incubation processes (causal or effectual) and two archetypes of opportunity attributes (discovery- or creation-based) that affect the incubation process needed to support their development.

Juxtaposing these archetypes, the proposed cross-level conceptual model specifies four levels of fit (ideal, surplus, deficit and mismatch) between the incubation process and the opportunity attributes of individual ventures, which directly influence venture performance (high, moderate and low). In turn, an incubator's performance is largely shaped by the overall performance of ventures in its portfolio.

This paper responds to the call for theory-building that links the antecedents and outcomes of the incubation process across levels of analysis. In addition to developing a conceptual model and research agenda at the intersection of entrepreneurship and business incubation, the proposed model also has implications for incubator directors deciding how to allocate limited resources, and for public/private sector administrators interested in leveraging investment in business incubators.

To measure the factors contributing to corporate entrepreneurship cultivation and examine the relation between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance.

With interviews and questionnaires, 58 large‐middle size enterprises in China were randomly surveyed to test the hypotheses. Factor analysis is used to corporate entrepreneurship cultivation factors, corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance. And then, a series of multiple linear regression analyzes have been conducted to test the causality between the above three aspects.

It is found that there are four factors contributing to corporate entrepreneurship, and it is suggested that corporations can cultivate corporate entrepreneurship to enhance corporate innovation performance.

It's not an exhaustive list of corporate entrepreneurship cultivation factors. And the size of samples is not large enough which perhaps limits its usefulness.

Lack of corporate entrepreneurship is a common problem of the large corporations in China, so the system model which proved in the paper is useful to offer a guideline.

The paper brings forth a system model to better the methods of cultivating corporate entrepreneurship to enhance corporate innovation performance based on an empirical study.