{"title":"彼此交谈:构思水平、功利动机与创业团队的组建","authors":"Steven M. Gray, Travis Howell, Esther Sackett","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2022.16693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Entrepreneurs often struggle to add cofounders who are both interpersonally compatible and who possess complementary resources (i.e., hybrid ties). In this paper, we suggest that there are cognitive and motivational differences between lead entrepreneurs and potential cofounders that complicate the formation of hybrid ties. We propose that lead entrepreneurs prioritize resources, whereas potential cofounders prioritize interpersonal compatibility, because of differences in construal level and utilitarian motives during the team formation process. Although these differences can complicate the formation of hybrid ties, we posit that lead entrepreneurs can overcome these differences by communicating in ways that highlight their interpersonal compatibility with potential cofounders. We find support for our theory across three studies with data from (1) the Y Combinator Co-Founder Matching online platform, (2) an online experiment with entrepreneurs, and (3) a networking event at an incubator. Our findings add novel contributions to the entrepreneurial team formation, entrepreneurial networking, and social networks literatures. Funding: This work was supported by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation [2016 Dissertation Fellowship Award]. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16693 .","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Talking Past Each Other: Construal Level, Utilitarian Motives, and Entrepreneurial Team Formation\",\"authors\":\"Steven M. Gray, Travis Howell, Esther Sackett\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/orsc.2022.16693\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Entrepreneurs often struggle to add cofounders who are both interpersonally compatible and who possess complementary resources (i.e., hybrid ties). In this paper, we suggest that there are cognitive and motivational differences between lead entrepreneurs and potential cofounders that complicate the formation of hybrid ties. We propose that lead entrepreneurs prioritize resources, whereas potential cofounders prioritize interpersonal compatibility, because of differences in construal level and utilitarian motives during the team formation process. Although these differences can complicate the formation of hybrid ties, we posit that lead entrepreneurs can overcome these differences by communicating in ways that highlight their interpersonal compatibility with potential cofounders. We find support for our theory across three studies with data from (1) the Y Combinator Co-Founder Matching online platform, (2) an online experiment with entrepreneurs, and (3) a networking event at an incubator. Our findings add novel contributions to the entrepreneurial team formation, entrepreneurial networking, and social networks literatures. Funding: This work was supported by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation [2016 Dissertation Fellowship Award]. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16693 .\",\"PeriodicalId\":48462,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organization Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organization Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16693\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16693","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
创业者往往难以找到人际关系相容且资源互补的共同创始人(即混合关系)。在本文中,我们认为主要创业者和潜在联合创始人之间存在认知和动机差异,这使得混合纽带的形成变得更加复杂。我们认为,在团队形成过程中,由于构想水平和功利动机的差异,领头创业者优先考虑资源,而潜在联合创始人则优先考虑人际兼容性。虽然这些差异会使混合纽带的形成复杂化,但我们认为,领头创业者可以通过与潜在联合创始人进行沟通,突出他们的人际兼容性,从而克服这些差异。我们在三项研究中发现了对我们理论的支持,研究数据来自(1)Y Combinator 联合创始人匹配在线平台,(2)与创业者进行的在线实验,以及(3)孵化器的网络活动。我们的研究结果为创业团队组建、创业网络和社会网络研究做出了新的贡献。资助:这项工作得到了尤因-马里恩-考夫曼基金会(Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation)[2016 年论文奖学金]的支持。补充材料:在线附录见 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16693 。
Talking Past Each Other: Construal Level, Utilitarian Motives, and Entrepreneurial Team Formation
Entrepreneurs often struggle to add cofounders who are both interpersonally compatible and who possess complementary resources (i.e., hybrid ties). In this paper, we suggest that there are cognitive and motivational differences between lead entrepreneurs and potential cofounders that complicate the formation of hybrid ties. We propose that lead entrepreneurs prioritize resources, whereas potential cofounders prioritize interpersonal compatibility, because of differences in construal level and utilitarian motives during the team formation process. Although these differences can complicate the formation of hybrid ties, we posit that lead entrepreneurs can overcome these differences by communicating in ways that highlight their interpersonal compatibility with potential cofounders. We find support for our theory across three studies with data from (1) the Y Combinator Co-Founder Matching online platform, (2) an online experiment with entrepreneurs, and (3) a networking event at an incubator. Our findings add novel contributions to the entrepreneurial team formation, entrepreneurial networking, and social networks literatures. Funding: This work was supported by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation [2016 Dissertation Fellowship Award]. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16693 .
期刊介绍:
Organization Science is ranked among the top journals in management by the Social Science Citation Index in terms of impact and is widely recognized in the fields of strategy, management, and organization theory. Organization Science provides one umbrella for the publication of research from all over the world in fields such as organization theory, strategic management, sociology, economics, political science, history, information science, communication theory, and psychology.