Knowledge that Transforms

The model developed in this paper draws on human capital theory to explain how newly founded business ventures achieve long–term growth and reduce their chances of failure. Using a sample of 201 business start–ups and assessing growth and venture failure over a period of 12 years, we found that general and specific human capital lead to growth and failure in different ways. More specifically, we found that the effect of general human capital on failure was mediated by growth. Unexpectedly, specific human capital was not related to growth and had direct negative effects on business failure.

Using resource–based logic, we integrate and extend theory and research on familiness and innovation in family firms. Supporting our efforts to do this is the suggestion that recent mixed results regarding the ability of family firms to innovate are at least partially accounted for by the failure to fully consider the importance of resource bundling processes as a mediator of the relationship between familiness as a unique organizational resource and innovation. Specifically, we suggest that the individual components of the resource bundling process—stabilizing, enriching, and pioneering—each mediate the relationship between familiness and innovation, and that these mediation effects account for at least part of the previously reported inconsistent results. Using theory and by integrating insights about familiness, innovation, and resource bundling, we seek to provide a more complete model of conditions affecting family firms’ ability to innovate.

Goal setting in family firms is very complex due to the interplay between family and business systems. However, this topic is largely overlooked in family business research. In this qualitative study of goals and goal formulation processes among 76 organizational members across 19 family firms, we identify goal diversity as a direct consequence of the overlap between the family, ownership, and business systems. We found that goal diversity is expressed more strongly in the proximity of generational transitions, triggering social interaction processes through which organizational members contrast their goals. Our findings suggest that different types of social interactions lead to different behaviors, with familial social interactions being more effective than professional social interactions in managing goal diversity toward the formation of collective commitment to family–centered goals.

Family entrepreneurial teams are groups of related individuals who engage in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial teams studies emphasize the resources that members bring to the team. Family business studies suggest that relationships and social theories are important. Social capital explains the formation and composition of family entrepreneurial teams (FETs). Analysis is of case studies of FETs based in Honduras. A shared commitment to entrepreneurial stewardship of the family's assets underpins formation of FETs. Trust and shared values were important for membership. This study highlights that families are not internally consistent, and family ties are not equally strong.

Despite evidence that embedded ties are important to entrepreneurs seeking low–cost resources, no research to date has explored how this relationship unfolds in the context of emerging organizations, how the inevitable dependence on ties might drive up resource acquisition costs, or how the manner in which ties are embedded might affect the specificity of these resources. We develop a conceptual model that examines these relationships and, analyzing data from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics I, find support for the majority of our hypotheses. We then discuss the implications of our findings for scholars and practitioners.

Our research begins with a theoretical critique of the social capital literature, and then focuses on Old Harbor, Alaska. In this remote outpost, mainly populated by Alutiiq people, all entrepreneurs self–identified as Euro–Americans or multi–ethnic, not Alutiiq. Although Alutiiq people have abundant social capital, which they employed for economic purposes, they did not employ their social capital for commercial entrepreneurship. Our findings suggest that social capital promotes entrepreneurship only when supportive cultural capital is in place.

What types of knowledge and experience enable those who have the desire to start a venture find an appropriate opportunity? To respond to this question, a human capital perspective is used with a sample of 166 founders of new technology ventures in university incubators. General human capital is assessed using experience depth and formal education. Specific human capital is measured using prior start–up experience as well as Shane's knowledge framework of markets, customer problems, and ways to serve markets. Findings reveal key aspects of human capital vital to explaining search–based discovery. Implications for research and entrepreneurship education are drawn.

Entrepreneurial persistence occurs when the entrepreneur chooses to continue with an entrepreneurial opportunity regardless of counterinfluences or enticing alternatives. The decision to persist is influenced by personal characteristics and by feedback from the environment relative to thresholds. Using a conjoint experiment, we investigate how adversity and values influence the weight placed on the decision attributes for the persistence decisions of 100 entrepreneurs. The findings suggest that the persistence decision policies are heterogeneous depending on the level of adversity experienced and the individual values held by the entrepreneurs. The results provide interesting insights into why and how entrepreneurs choose to persist.

We model and test the relationship between social and commercial entrepreneurship drawing on social capital theory. We propose that the country prevalence rate of social entrepreneurship is an indicator of constructible nation–level social capital and enhances the likelihood of individual commercial entry. We further posit that both social and commercial entrepreneurial entry is facilitated by certain formal institutions, namely strong property rights and (low) government activism, albeit the latter impacts each of these types of entrepreneurship differently. We apply bivariate discrete choice multilevel modeling to population–representative samples in 47 countries and find support for these hypotheses.