Fabio Quarato, Maria J. Sanchez‐Bueno, Domenico Rocco Cambrea, Fernando Muñoz‐Bullón, Mario Daniele Amore
Research SummaryWhile extant research has studied extensively the consequences of chief executive officer (CEO) succession, we explore the concept of family CEO mentoring (from a departing family CEO to a younger family leader) as a potential driver of post‐succession performance in family firms. Drawing on stewardship theory and using a data set of 1787 Italian firms experiencing a CEO succession over 14 years, we show that family CEO mentoring positively influences post‐succession financial performance. We then argue and empirically confirm that the performance benefit of family CEO mentoring is enhanced by the presence of nonfamily members on the board but is dampened by industry turbulence. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for research on CEO mentoring, CEO succession, and family business performance.Managerial SummaryTo thrive across generations, family firms need to navigate the many complexities of chief executive officer (CEO) succession. One way to overcome the challenge is to have a departing family leader who provides mentoring to the younger family leader. Our examination of 1787 Italian family firms that experienced CEO succession in the period 2003–2016 suggests that family CEO mentoring drives better post‐succession firm performance, especially when there is a high presence of nonfamily directors in the boardroom and when the firm operates in low‐volatility industries. This study enhances the understanding of CEO succession by integrating the role of family CEO mentoring as a driver of post‐succession financial performance.
{"title":"Family CEO mentoring and post‐CEO succession performance","authors":"Fabio Quarato, Maria J. Sanchez‐Bueno, Domenico Rocco Cambrea, Fernando Muñoz‐Bullón, Mario Daniele Amore","doi":"10.1002/sej.1539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1539","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryWhile extant research has studied extensively the consequences of chief executive officer (CEO) succession, we explore the concept of family CEO mentoring (from a departing family CEO to a younger family leader) as a potential driver of post‐succession performance in family firms. Drawing on stewardship theory and using a data set of 1787 Italian firms experiencing a CEO succession over 14 years, we show that family CEO mentoring positively influences post‐succession financial performance. We then argue and empirically confirm that the performance benefit of family CEO mentoring is enhanced by the presence of nonfamily members on the board but is dampened by industry turbulence. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for research on CEO mentoring, CEO succession, and family business performance.Managerial SummaryTo thrive across generations, family firms need to navigate the many complexities of chief executive officer (CEO) succession. One way to overcome the challenge is to have a departing family leader who provides mentoring to the younger family leader. Our examination of 1787 Italian family firms that experienced CEO succession in the period 2003–2016 suggests that family CEO mentoring drives better post‐succession firm performance, especially when there is a high presence of nonfamily directors in the boardroom and when the firm operates in low‐volatility industries. This study enhances the understanding of CEO succession by integrating the role of family CEO mentoring as a driver of post‐succession financial performance.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143872776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stephen E. Lanivich, Samuel Adomako, James M. Vardaman, Francis Donbesuur, Jintong Tang
Research SummaryThis article draws upon regulatory focus theory to examine the ways in which founders influence entrepreneurial orientation and performance in young ventures. Findings from studies of young ventures in Ghana (N = 226) and Kenya (N = 205) suggest that founder promotion focus has a positive effect on entrepreneurial orientation, while founder prevention focus has a negative effect. Furthermore, we find that entrepreneurial orientation mediates the effects of founder regulatory focus on young venture performance and that the strategic decision speed of founders moderates the entrepreneurial orientation—venture performance relationship. The results extend theory on entrepreneurial orientation and regulatory focus by elucidating the role of founders' characteristics in setting an entrepreneurial tone for their firms and enhancing the effects of entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance.Managerial SummaryWith this article, we highlight the roles of regulatory focus and decision speed with entrepreneurial orientation (EO) to suggest the founder is vital in setting an entrepreneurial tone in their organizations. Leaders in young ventures should realize that their dispositions have outsized influence in both the development of EO and how EO is put into action. Founders who recognize the merits of cultivating a promotion‐focused orientation can strategically leverage this orientation to fuel their ventures' EO. Conversely, the negative influence of founder prevention focus on EO signifies the potential challenges associated with risk aversion and loss avoidance in entrepreneurial ventures. Finally, leaders who acknowledge the significance of quick, informed decisions are better positioned to leverage the positive impact of EO on new venture performance.
{"title":"Founder regulatory focus: Effects on entrepreneurial orientation and venture performance","authors":"Stephen E. Lanivich, Samuel Adomako, James M. Vardaman, Francis Donbesuur, Jintong Tang","doi":"10.1002/sej.1535","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1535","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis article draws upon regulatory focus theory to examine the ways in which founders influence entrepreneurial orientation and performance in young ventures. Findings from studies of young ventures in Ghana (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 226) and Kenya (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 205) suggest that founder promotion focus has a positive effect on entrepreneurial orientation, while founder prevention focus has a negative effect. Furthermore, we find that entrepreneurial orientation mediates the effects of founder regulatory focus on young venture performance and that the strategic decision speed of founders moderates the entrepreneurial orientation—venture performance relationship. The results extend theory on entrepreneurial orientation and regulatory focus by elucidating the role of founders' characteristics in setting an entrepreneurial tone for their firms and enhancing the effects of entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance.Managerial SummaryWith this article, we highlight the roles of regulatory focus and decision speed with entrepreneurial orientation (EO) to suggest the founder is vital in setting an entrepreneurial tone in their organizations. Leaders in young ventures should realize that their dispositions have outsized influence in both the development of EO and how EO is put into action. Founders who recognize the merits of cultivating a promotion‐focused orientation can strategically leverage this orientation to fuel their ventures' EO. Conversely, the negative influence of founder prevention focus on EO signifies the potential challenges associated with risk aversion and loss avoidance in entrepreneurial ventures. Finally, leaders who acknowledge the significance of quick, informed decisions are better positioned to leverage the positive impact of EO on new venture performance.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"108 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143784784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryTaking a strategic human capital perspective on corporate venturing by employees, we consider the potential influence of their job and group experiences within the firm. Because building new ventures requires diverse functional knowledge, greater job specialization could create a barrier to undertaking corporate venturing. However, working in more functionally diverse groups within the firm can facilitate venturing—especially for more specialized employees—by enabling them to develop the skills needed to work with others who have such diverse knowledge. We test our hypotheses using a longitudinal dataset from over 16,000 employees in a large corporation. Our findings advance understanding of the micro‐foundations of internal corporate venturing, how bureaucracies shape corporate entrepreneurship, and how employees can build knowledge and skills with strategic value for the firm.Managerial SummaryWe examine how firms can prepare their employees to undertake corporate venture building activities by shaping their work experiences inside the firm. In a study of employees' work histories within a large corporation, we find that employees who had worked in more functionally diverse groups were more likely to undertake internal corporate venturing. Such experience was particularly important for those who had worked in more specialized jobs, since it could help them collaborate and connect with others with diverse functional knowledge. Our findings suggest that firms hoping to promote strategic growth and increase their competitiveness through corporate venture building consider providing employees with work experiences that help them develop cross‐functional knowledge and skills.
{"title":"Intra‐firm work experiences and corporate venturing by employees: The roles of job specialization and functionally diverse groups","authors":"Xu (Henry) Han, Martine R. Haas","doi":"10.1002/sej.1536","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1536","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryTaking a strategic human capital perspective on corporate venturing by employees, we consider the potential influence of their job and group experiences within the firm. Because building new ventures requires diverse functional knowledge, greater job specialization could create a barrier to undertaking corporate venturing. However, working in more functionally diverse groups within the firm can facilitate venturing—especially for more specialized employees—by enabling them to develop the skills needed to work with others who have such diverse knowledge. We test our hypotheses using a longitudinal dataset from over 16,000 employees in a large corporation. Our findings advance understanding of the micro‐foundations of internal corporate venturing, how bureaucracies shape corporate entrepreneurship, and how employees can build knowledge and skills with strategic value for the firm.Managerial SummaryWe examine how firms can prepare their employees to undertake corporate venture building activities by shaping their work experiences inside the firm. In a study of employees' work histories within a large corporation, we find that employees who had worked in more functionally diverse groups were more likely to undertake internal corporate venturing. Such experience was particularly important for those who had worked in more specialized jobs, since it could help them collaborate and connect with others with diverse functional knowledge. Our findings suggest that firms hoping to promote strategic growth and increase their competitiveness through corporate venture building consider providing employees with work experiences that help them develop cross‐functional knowledge and skills.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143784786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryWe explore how CEO sensegiving through framing influences incumbent firm response to business model innovation. Our historical analysis of Borders and Barnes & Noble (B&N) in the US bookselling industry after the entry of Amazon.com reveals that although both CEOs framed Amazon's entry as an opportunity, they did so in strikingly different ways. Their opportunity framing differed on four dimensions—intensity, concreteness, future orientation, and inclusiveness—closely associated with specific patterns in the respective incumbent's response: separation between the old and new business model for Borders and blending of the old and new models for B&N. Our study highlights the role of multidimensional and sustained opportunity framing for blending actions contributing to business model innovation in established firms over time.Managerial SummaryWhat role do CEOs play in how established firms react to new entrants with innovative business models? We examined how the CEOs at B&N and Borders framed the opportunity provided by the new online business model introduced by Amazon and found significant differences in their framing that influenced how the two firms adapted to it. The more intense, concrete, future‐oriented, and inclusive framing by B&N's top managers contributed to a successful blending of the traditional store‐based and the new online model, while at Borders the business models were kept separate. Our study shows the importance of multidimensional and sustained framing of digital opportunities over time for the successful integration of new business models.
{"title":"Incumbent response to business model innovation: The role of CEO opportunity framing","authors":"Yuliya Snihur, Christoph Zott, Andreea N. Kiss","doi":"10.1002/sej.1534","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1534","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryWe explore how CEO sensegiving through framing influences incumbent firm response to business model innovation. Our historical analysis of Borders and Barnes & Noble (B&N) in the US bookselling industry after the entry of Amazon.com reveals that although both CEOs framed Amazon's entry as an opportunity, they did so in strikingly different ways. Their opportunity framing differed on four dimensions—intensity, concreteness, future orientation, and inclusiveness—closely associated with specific patterns in the respective incumbent's response: separation between the old and new business model for Borders and blending of the old and new models for B&N. Our study highlights the role of multidimensional and sustained opportunity framing for blending actions contributing to business model innovation in established firms over time.Managerial SummaryWhat role do CEOs play in how established firms react to new entrants with innovative business models? We examined how the CEOs at B&N and Borders framed the opportunity provided by the new online business model introduced by Amazon and found significant differences in their framing that influenced how the two firms adapted to it. The more intense, concrete, future‐oriented, and inclusive framing by B&N's top managers contributed to a successful blending of the traditional store‐based and the new online model, while at Borders the business models were kept separate. Our study shows the importance of multidimensional and sustained framing of digital opportunities over time for the successful integration of new business models.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143635661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryThe emotional rollercoaster of entrepreneurship is characterized by encounters with challenges that impede venture progress. Consequently, resilience, which is reflected in the ability to maintain functioning through such challenges, has become of particular interest to scholars. Existing research emphasizes the ability of resilient individuals to use positive emotions to overcome challenges. Yet, scholarship has largely overlooked the role of affective fluctuations in resilience processes, which is problematic for entrepreneurs facing the chahighs and lows of venturing. This daily diary study of technology entrepreneurs reveals that those who are more resilient report smaller day‐to‐day fluctuations in their affective state over the course of two working weeks. This finding suggests that theory on self‐regulation may serve as an important key in understanding the microprocesses underlying resilience.Managerial SummaryEntrepreneurship is often considered an emotional rollercoaster. For this reason, many entrepreneurs are interested in understanding resilience and its role in managing the ups and downs of business venturing. This research examines the relationship between resilience and fluctuations in affect by studying entrepreneurs over the course of two working weeks, as they confront a challenge in their venture. The results show that entrepreneurs who are more resilient also report smaller changes in affect day‐to‐day. This suggests that entrepreneurs looking to enact resilience may need to turn the emotional rollercoaster of entrepreneurship into a train ride.
{"title":"Rethinking the rollercoaster: Resilience and affect in entrepreneurship","authors":"Lauren A. Zettel","doi":"10.1002/sej.1533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1533","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThe emotional rollercoaster of entrepreneurship is characterized by encounters with challenges that impede venture progress. Consequently, resilience, which is reflected in the ability to maintain functioning through such challenges, has become of particular interest to scholars. Existing research emphasizes the ability of resilient individuals to use positive emotions to overcome challenges. Yet, scholarship has largely overlooked the role of affective fluctuations in resilience processes, which is problematic for entrepreneurs facing the chahighs and lows of venturing. This daily diary study of technology entrepreneurs reveals that those who are more resilient report smaller day‐to‐day fluctuations in their affective state over the course of two working weeks. This finding suggests that theory on self‐regulation may serve as an important key in understanding the microprocesses underlying resilience.Managerial SummaryEntrepreneurship is often considered an emotional rollercoaster. For this reason, many entrepreneurs are interested in understanding resilience and its role in managing the ups and downs of business venturing. This research examines the relationship between resilience and fluctuations in affect by studying entrepreneurs over the course of two working weeks, as they confront a challenge in their venture. The results show that entrepreneurs who are more resilient also report smaller changes in affect day‐to‐day. This suggests that entrepreneurs looking to enact resilience may need to turn the emotional rollercoaster of entrepreneurship into a train ride.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143401230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryThis study reviews four decades of fragmented and contradictory empirical literature on the real effects of private equity (PE) buyouts on portfolio companies, differentiating between efficiency and growth outcomes. We hypothesize how institutional forces, including regulatory, cognitive, and normative institutions explain heterogeneity in post‐buyout efficiency and growth across time and countries. We argue that competition and population‐level learning have shifted the cognitive frame underlying value creation in buyouts from financial engineering toward operational engineering and strategic entrepreneurship. Using meta‐analysis, we find support for several of our hypotheses using samples from 66 empirical studies across the finance, management, economics, and entrepreneurship disciplines.Managerial SummaryThis study delves into four decades of fragmented private equity (PE) literature to unravel the practical implications for post‐buyout efficiency and growth. Using meta‐analysis, we explore the role of institutional forces—regulatory, cognitive, and normative—in shaping outcomes across diverse temporal and geographical contexts. We observe an overall paradigm shift in PE value creation over time, transitioning from focusing on financial engineering to operational value creation and strategic entrepreneurship. This transformation is driven by heightened competition and widespread population‐level learning. Validating our hypotheses through a thorough examination of 66 empirical studies spanning finance, management, economics, and entrepreneurship disciplines, our findings offer insights for policymakers and practitioners navigating the nuanced landscape of PE buyouts.
{"title":"Institutions and the real effects of private equity buyouts: A meta‐analysis","authors":"Jeroen Verbouw, Miguel Meuleman, Sophie Manigart","doi":"10.1002/sej.1532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1532","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis study reviews four decades of fragmented and contradictory empirical literature on the real effects of private equity (PE) buyouts on portfolio companies, differentiating between efficiency and growth outcomes. We hypothesize how institutional forces, including regulatory, cognitive, and normative institutions explain heterogeneity in post‐buyout efficiency and growth across time and countries. We argue that competition and population‐level learning have shifted the cognitive frame underlying value creation in buyouts from financial engineering toward operational engineering and strategic entrepreneurship. Using meta‐analysis, we find support for several of our hypotheses using samples from 66 empirical studies across the finance, management, economics, and entrepreneurship disciplines.Managerial SummaryThis study delves into four decades of fragmented private equity (PE) literature to unravel the practical implications for post‐buyout efficiency and growth. Using meta‐analysis, we explore the role of institutional forces—regulatory, cognitive, and normative—in shaping outcomes across diverse temporal and geographical contexts. We observe an overall paradigm shift in PE value creation over time, transitioning from focusing on financial engineering to operational value creation and strategic entrepreneurship. This transformation is driven by heightened competition and widespread population‐level learning. Validating our hypotheses through a thorough examination of 66 empirical studies spanning finance, management, economics, and entrepreneurship disciplines, our findings offer insights for policymakers and practitioners navigating the nuanced landscape of PE buyouts.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"75 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143071866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tommaso Minola, Davide Hahn, Giuseppe Criaco, Daniel Pittino, Francesca Visintin
Research SummaryThis study draws on the behavioral theory of the firm and a duality perspective to investigate the impact of founders' focus on academic goals on the financial performance of academic spin‐offs (ASOs)—a specific type of hybrid venture. We theorize that such relationship follows an inverse U‐shaped curve and is moderated by the degree of academic ownership. These hypotheses are tested using a sample of 179 Italian ASOs. Our findings indicate that when academic ownership is low, the relationship displays an inverted U‐shape. Moreover, as academic ownership increases, the relationship flattens and eventually shifts to a U‐shape. These results challenge the prevailing notion of inherent conflicts between economic and non‐economic logics in hybrid ventures, demonstrating when focusing on non‐economic (e.g., academic) goals enhances financial outcomes.Managerial SummaryAcademic spin‐offs (ASOs) play a pivotal role in science commercialization and often pursue academic goals due to their academic origins. However, the extent to which founders' focus on academic goals benefits or hinders ASOs' financial performance has remained largely underexamined. In this study of 179 Italian ASOs, we investigate the relationship between a focus on academic goals and firm performance. Our findings reveal that at lower levels of academic ownership, a moderate focus on academic goals is optimal for ASOs' financial performance. Conversely, at higher levels of academic ownership, either a low or high focus on academic goals proves optimal for financial performance. These insights can help practitioners improve ASO performance by aligning goal and ownership structures.
{"title":"Are non‐economic goals and financial performance friends or foes in hybrid ventures? A duality perspective on academic spin‐offs","authors":"Tommaso Minola, Davide Hahn, Giuseppe Criaco, Daniel Pittino, Francesca Visintin","doi":"10.1002/sej.1529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1529","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis study draws on the behavioral theory of the firm and a duality perspective to investigate the impact of founders' focus on academic goals on the financial performance of academic spin‐offs (ASOs)—a specific type of hybrid venture. We theorize that such relationship follows an inverse U‐shaped curve and is moderated by the degree of academic ownership. These hypotheses are tested using a sample of 179 Italian ASOs. Our findings indicate that when academic ownership is low, the relationship displays an inverted U‐shape. Moreover, as academic ownership increases, the relationship flattens and eventually shifts to a U‐shape. These results challenge the prevailing notion of inherent conflicts between economic and non‐economic logics in hybrid ventures, demonstrating when focusing on non‐economic (e.g., academic) goals enhances financial outcomes.Managerial SummaryAcademic spin‐offs (ASOs) play a pivotal role in science commercialization and often pursue academic goals due to their academic origins. However, the extent to which founders' focus on academic goals benefits or hinders ASOs' financial performance has remained largely underexamined. In this study of 179 Italian ASOs, we investigate the relationship between a focus on academic goals and firm performance. Our findings reveal that at lower levels of academic ownership, a moderate focus on academic goals is optimal for ASOs' financial performance. Conversely, at higher levels of academic ownership, either a low or high focus on academic goals proves optimal for financial performance. These insights can help practitioners improve ASO performance by aligning goal and ownership structures.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142989791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Eduard Esau, Christina Lara Kannegießer, Manuel Reppmann, Erk P. Piening, Laura Marie Edinger‐Schons
Research SummarySustainable new ventures seeking to tackle grand challenges such as climate change or biodiversity loss through new business models face the difficult task of reconciling social and ecological goals with profit. To provide a better understanding of how founders balance such tensions and develop viable business models, this longitudinal case study traces the evolution of business models in six nascent sustainable ventures. We find that depending on the founding team's cognitive configuration (i.e., narrow vs. paradoxical), sustainable new ventures develop business models along two alternative paths. Reflecting different approaches to business model design in terms of what is done, how it is done, and when it is done, these trajectories explain why some ventures survive beyond the proof‐of‐concept phase while others do not.Managerial SummaryOur study of six sustainable new ventures provides several insights for entrepreneurs on creating viable business models that meet social, ecological, and commercial goals. Founders should pursue a patient, experimental approach to business model design, avoiding early commitments while seeking stakeholder feedback for deeper insights into the challenges at hand. Furthermore, the team's mindset (narrow or paradoxical), influenced by members' value concepts (idealistic or pragmatic), determines the venture's design path. Teams with a paradoxical mindset, simultaneously integrating social, ecological, and economic goals, are more likely to navigate beyond the proof‐of‐concept phase successfully. Moreover, having idealistic and pragmatic perspectives within the team fosters cognitive diversity, which is crucial to dealing with complex challenges effectively.
{"title":"Stairway to impact or highway to failure? A cognitive perspective on business model design processes in nascent sustainable ventures","authors":"Eduard Esau, Christina Lara Kannegießer, Manuel Reppmann, Erk P. Piening, Laura Marie Edinger‐Schons","doi":"10.1002/sej.1531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1531","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummarySustainable new ventures seeking to tackle grand challenges such as climate change or biodiversity loss through new business models face the difficult task of reconciling social and ecological goals with profit. To provide a better understanding of how founders balance such tensions and develop viable business models, this longitudinal case study traces the evolution of business models in six nascent sustainable ventures. We find that depending on the founding team's cognitive configuration (i.e., narrow vs. paradoxical), sustainable new ventures develop business models along two alternative paths. Reflecting different approaches to business model design in terms of what is done, how it is done, and when it is done, these trajectories explain why some ventures survive beyond the proof‐of‐concept phase while others do not.Managerial SummaryOur study of six sustainable new ventures provides several insights for entrepreneurs on creating viable business models that meet social, ecological, and commercial goals. Founders should pursue a patient, experimental approach to business model design, avoiding early commitments while seeking stakeholder feedback for deeper insights into the challenges at hand. Furthermore, the team's mindset (narrow or paradoxical), influenced by members' value concepts (idealistic or pragmatic), determines the venture's design path. Teams with a paradoxical mindset, simultaneously integrating social, ecological, and economic goals, are more likely to navigate beyond the proof‐of‐concept phase successfully. Moreover, having idealistic and pragmatic perspectives within the team fosters cognitive diversity, which is crucial to dealing with complex challenges effectively.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142912019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Paola Rovelli, Michael Razen, Carlotta Benedetti, Nina Schweiger, Alfredo De Massis, Kurt Matzler
Research SummaryWe investigate family CEO birth order as an antecedent of family firms' CSR behavior. Despite psychology literature recognizing it as a key predictor of individual behavior, birth order has been largely neglected in management research. Drawing on behavioral economics and evolutionary psychology—specifically, the Family Niche Model—we identify economic and social preferences as two competing channels through which birth order effects propagate to CSR behavior. An unbalanced panel dataset of 550 firm‐year observations from 84 family firms between 2010 and 2022 reveals a negative relationship between family CEO birth order and CSR behavior, pointing to the dominance of the economic channel, whereby the higher risk tolerance among later borns manifests. This relationship is positively and negatively moderated by family CEO sibship size and age, respectively.Managerial SummaryWe examine the role of family CEO birth order in shaping family firms' CSR behavior considering that individuals' economic and social preferences are strongly influenced by their birth order. The results show that family CEO birth order negatively relates to CSR behavior. We argue that this relationship is driven by higher risk tolerance among later‐born family CEOs, who are consequentially less inclined to adopt CSR behavior as a risk‐mitigating strategy. The relationship is attenuated by family CEO sibship size and amplified by CEO age. Our study cautions family firms concerned with CSR to carefully consider the implications of birth order when selecting family members for the CEO position. Concurrently, family CEOs should be aware that their early family experiences may affect their CSR decisions.
{"title":"Is Cain more able? A behavioral perspective on the relationship between family CEO birth order and family firms' CSR","authors":"Paola Rovelli, Michael Razen, Carlotta Benedetti, Nina Schweiger, Alfredo De Massis, Kurt Matzler","doi":"10.1002/sej.1530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1530","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryWe investigate family CEO birth order as an antecedent of family firms' CSR behavior. Despite psychology literature recognizing it as a key predictor of individual behavior, birth order has been largely neglected in management research. Drawing on behavioral economics and evolutionary psychology—specifically, the Family Niche Model—we identify economic and social preferences as two competing channels through which birth order effects propagate to CSR behavior. An unbalanced panel dataset of 550 firm‐year observations from 84 family firms between 2010 and 2022 reveals a negative relationship between family CEO birth order and CSR behavior, pointing to the dominance of the economic channel, whereby the higher risk tolerance among later borns manifests. This relationship is positively and negatively moderated by family CEO sibship size and age, respectively.Managerial SummaryWe examine the role of family CEO birth order in shaping family firms' CSR behavior considering that individuals' economic and social preferences are strongly influenced by their birth order. The results show that family CEO birth order negatively relates to CSR behavior. We argue that this relationship is driven by higher risk tolerance among later‐born family CEOs, who are consequentially less inclined to adopt CSR behavior as a risk‐mitigating strategy. The relationship is attenuated by family CEO sibship size and amplified by CEO age. Our study cautions family firms concerned with CSR to carefully consider the implications of birth order when selecting family members for the CEO position. Concurrently, family CEOs should be aware that their early family experiences may affect their CSR decisions.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142887367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Max Ganzin, Francesco Chirico, Jochem J. Kroezen, M. Tina Dacin, David G. Sirmon, Roy Suddaby
Research SummaryThis work explores the intersection of strategic entrepreneurship and craft‐based ventures, focusing on the integration of materiality, authenticity, and tradition in the creation of competitive advantage. Craft, historically rooted in artisanal, small‐scale production, has evolved into “advanced craft,” requiring high expertise while also engaging with modern economic goals such as scaling, technological adoption, and global value chains. Craft‐based strategic entrepreneurship embraces creativity and innovation, alongside traditional values and high‐quality production, to engage with the modern economy without the alienating effects of industrialization. We highlight how craft entrepreneurs balance the pursuit of innovation with the preservation of authenticity and heritage. By examining the materiality, authenticity, and tradition embedded in craft, our work contributes to the understanding of how these elements influence competitive advantage and the broader relationship between economy and society in entrepreneurial ventures.Managerial SummaryWe offer practical insights for owners and managers in craft‐based ventures seeking to balance tradition with modern business strategies. As the craft sector evolves into “advanced craft,” entrepreneurs must integrate artisanal expertise with scalable operations, technology adoption, and global market engagement. We highlight how successful craft ventures maintain high quality, authenticity, and cultural heritage while embracing strategic entrepreneurship practices like innovation, planning, and partnerships with larger organizations. For owners and managers, the key takeaway is the importance of preserving the unique values of craftsmanship—such as materiality, authenticity, and tradition—while also adopting modern tools like advanced technology and marketing strategies to scale and compete. By understanding these dynamics, craft‐based businesses can enhance their competitive advantage, foster meaningful customer engagement, and navigate challenges like technological disruption and market expansion without losing their core identity.
{"title":"Craft and strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring and exploiting materiality, authenticity, and tradition in craft‐based ventures","authors":"Max Ganzin, Francesco Chirico, Jochem J. Kroezen, M. Tina Dacin, David G. Sirmon, Roy Suddaby","doi":"10.1002/sej.1528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1528","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis work explores the intersection of strategic entrepreneurship and craft‐based ventures, focusing on the integration of materiality, authenticity, and tradition in the creation of competitive advantage. Craft, historically rooted in artisanal, small‐scale production, has evolved into “advanced craft,” requiring high expertise while also engaging with modern economic goals such as scaling, technological adoption, and global value chains. Craft‐based strategic entrepreneurship embraces creativity and innovation, alongside traditional values and high‐quality production, to engage with the modern economy without the alienating effects of industrialization. We highlight how craft entrepreneurs balance the pursuit of innovation with the preservation of authenticity and heritage. By examining the materiality, authenticity, and tradition embedded in craft, our work contributes to the understanding of how these elements influence competitive advantage and the broader relationship between economy and society in entrepreneurial ventures.Managerial SummaryWe offer practical insights for owners and managers in craft‐based ventures seeking to balance tradition with modern business strategies. As the craft sector evolves into “advanced craft,” entrepreneurs must integrate artisanal expertise with scalable operations, technology adoption, and global market engagement. We highlight how successful craft ventures maintain high quality, authenticity, and cultural heritage while embracing strategic entrepreneurship practices like innovation, planning, and partnerships with larger organizations. For owners and managers, the key takeaway is the importance of preserving the unique values of craftsmanship—such as materiality, authenticity, and tradition—while also adopting modern tools like advanced technology and marketing strategies to scale and compete. By understanding these dynamics, craft‐based businesses can enhance their competitive advantage, foster meaningful customer engagement, and navigate challenges like technological disruption and market expansion without losing their core identity.","PeriodicalId":51417,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142849109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：