Knowledge that Transforms

We build a new theoretical framework that conceptually differentiates ventures' knowledge disclosure to their corporate venture capitalist (CVC) from knowledge broadcasting beyond the venture-CVC dyad and links them to venture-CVC complementarity. We test their direct, indirect, and interactive effects on venture performance. Our moderated mediation model (i) establishes knowledge disclosure as a mechanism that connects complementarity with venture performance, and (ii) predicts knowledge broadcasting beyond this dyad as a boundary condition to this indirect effect. We use 944 observations of 349 ventures along with Twitter data to test our model. Disclosure and broadcasting have a positive direct effect on performance, complementarity has an indirect effect on performance through disclosure, and this indirect link diminishes with broadcasting. Our findings point to a conflict in ventures' broadcasting strategies.

Prior research agrees that uncertainty in entrepreneurship shapes individuals' decision between hybrid and full-time entry, but largely neglects the role of uncertainty in paid employment. By theorizing that hybrid entrepreneurship is a portfolio of real options in entrepreneurship and paid employment, we argue that both uncertainty in entrepreneurship and paid employment as well as their interplay determine individuals' decisions regarding their mode of entry into entrepreneurship. We validate our theory using data from the Current Population Survey and the Study of Income and Program Participation and contribute to the hybrid entrepreneurship literature and research on uncertainty in entrepreneurship.

In this article, we seek to contribute to theory on market co-creation through effectuation. To achieve this goal, we examine the different kinds of reasoning behind stakeholder commitments in effectuation processes. Although effectual and causal logics sufficiently account for decision-making in instrumental rationality, scholars have paid little attention to value rationality, and how it might influence stakeholder commitments and behavior. Different commitments may follow different rationales, ranging from instrumentally rational commitments based on causal or effectual logics, to value rational commitments based on state-belief or change-belief. The typology of these four commitment reasoning types provides a framework for analyzing stakeholder behavior based on different perceptions of the commitment decision space. Our typology shows that commitments based on value rationality may be qualitatively different from those driven by instrumental rationality and that value rationality may enable commitments under conditions that preclude instrumentally rational actions. Furthermore, different commitments influence market co-creation processes in different ways. In this article, we examine how different commitments affect (1) conflict and effectual churn and (2) the relative path dependence, or shapability, of the market co-creation space. Based on this typology, we propose avenues for future research on co-creation in effectuation processes, with a special focus on stakeholders.

Entrepreneurship scholarship finds itself in something of a quandary concerning rationality. While an increasingly large body of empirical work has found evidence of less-deliberative and even impulsive drivers of business venturing, the dominant theories of entrepreneurial action remain anchored to the assumption that intended rationality is a defining attribute of entrepreneurship. The growing schism between entrepreneurial action theory (EAT) on the one hand, and empirics and practice on the other hand, represents a consequential and exciting opportunity for the field to revisit its core assumptions regarding rationality, particularly the presence, role, and function of rational intentionality. In this study, we undertake a review and exploratory investigation of the assertion that without reasoned intentionality there is no entrepreneurship. Our work generates three important insights that contribute to rethinking key facets of the most prominent and influential EATs: alternative, non-rational pathways to business venturing exist with a non-ignorable prevalence; a proclivity towards reasoned intentionality is not invariably prescriptive; and, less-reasoned, less-deliberative tendencies do not constitute an entrepreneurial death sentence. Rather, entrepreneurs (including highly successful ones) embody a shifting blend of rational and non-rational proclivities, motivations, decisions, and actions.

Entrepreneurship scholars have devoted increasing attention to formalization (i.e., a firm's transition from informality to compliance with formal institutions). However, little is known about the actual process through which informal firms transition to pursue opportunities in a fully legally compliant way. This transition poses formidable challenges, especially in fields in which informality rather than formality is widespread. To understand how firms transition to full formality and manage the related institutional challenges in such contexts, we conduct a longitudinal, inductive case study of an informal firm, confiscated from the Mafia in Italy, and examine how it succeeded in operating formally in a field in which informality regulated transactions and was accepted across society. The findings suggest that formalizing in such contexts is a two-phase process that entails first extricating the enterprise from the influence of informal institutions and then cultivating formal institutions in the field to increase the firm's legitimacy. The study contributes to the literature on formalization, entrepreneurship, and institutional work by advancing the understanding of formalization as a dynamic and entrepreneurial endeavor that requires specific institutional work at different points in time to succeed.

Acquisitions are an important exit strategy for technology entrepreneurs and investors, but what can technology ventures do to increase their chances of achieving an acquisition? We draw on signaling theory to examine the role that market orientation plays behind acquisitions. We test our hypotheses in a sample of young biotechnology ventures, and our findings are three-fold. First, we show that a target's market orientation is an important direct driver of acquisitions, thus incorporating a marketing perspective into a literature that has hitherto focused primarily on technological and reputational factors. Second, we find a substitutive interaction effect between market orientation and new product development stage, indicating that for exits through acquisitions, a high level of market orientation can compensate for an early stage of product development. Third, a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) shows that in some contexts, the monopoly power afforded by patents can further amplify the positive effect of market orientation on acquisition likelihood. Taken together, our findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how different signals interact, and suggest that technology ventures should invest in market orientation early on in their life cycle.

We systematically review the past four decades of research on tensions in corporate venture capital (CVC) and inductively identify three main tensions: (1) multiple stakeholders championing CVC-based exploration versus core business-focused exploitation, (2) CVC programs simultaneously belonging to the corporate parent versus the startup/venture capital (VC) world, and (3) startups and VCs viewing CVC programs as a threat versus an opportunity. By combining the understanding of the CVC phenomenon with that of the paradox literature, we expand our understanding of why, how, and when contradictory goals and multiple stakeholder expectations result in tensions and how these tensions can be managed.

While entrepreneurship can generate economic and social benefits, it can also be a source of negative outcomes. We need to gain a deeper understanding of how individual entrepreneurs interpret their context and engage in entrepreneurial action that can generate substantial negative outcomes. In this paper we shed light on the entrepreneurial process at the micro-level by exploring how bunkerers—oil thieves—engage in, justify, and persist with entrepreneurial action that, while generating some benefits for the entrepreneurs and the local community, causes substantial destruction to the local environment, community, and the entrepreneurs' health. By inductively generating a personal adversity model of justifying entrepreneurial action that generates substantial negative outcomes (for the local community and environment), we provide new insights into (1) the link between aspects of entrepreneurship under adversity and substantial costs (and some benefits) experienced by local communities already facing adverse conditions, (2) how entrepreneurs' claim varying levels of agency in the same justification of the same action and its negative consequences, and (3) how entrepreneurs entangle the self and others to justify their actions and its costs.

By integrating organizational learning theory with the family firm literature, we seek to enhance our understanding of radical innovation in (multi)family-owned firms. We theorize that the goal diversity and path dependency that multifamily ownership creates negatively affects the positive relationship between knowledge integration and radical innovation. However, this is not the case for multifamily-owned firms in which family members embrace a commitment to change. We contend that commitment to change mitigates the negative moderating effect of multifamily ownership by ensuring the effective translation of integrated knowledge into radical innovation within the firm. Overall, our results highlight the complexity of radical innovation in (multi)family-owned firms as a product of the joint effect of knowledge integration, the number of unrelated owning families, and a commitment to change.

Social entrepreneurs can be powerful change agents for alleviating the suffering of the disadvantaged. However, their prosocial motivation and behavior frequently result in detrimental impacts on those they intend to support, especially when their operations span different socio-spatial contexts. We conducted a multiple comparative case study among 12 transnational social entrepreneurs of foreign, domestic non-indigenous, and local indigenous origin, who are seeking to improve the livelihoods of indigenous communities in rural Ecuador. We introduce the concept of prosocial power to social entrepreneurship research and demonstrate how it can work as a double-edged sword in the hands of transnationally embedded social entrepreneurs who operate in vulnerable places. Context-bound variations in social distance, bi-directional learning, reflexive impact measurement, and socio-spatial dominance were identified as being decisive for prosocial power to lead to positive or negative impacts on disadvantaged others.