Content uploaded by Christopher Hayter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christopher Hayter on Nov 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
!
1
In Search of the Profit-maximizing Actor: Motivations and Definitions of Success
From Nascent Academic Entrepreneurs
By
Christopher S. Hayter
Center for Organizational Research and Design
Arizona State University
School of Public Affairs
chayter@asu.edu
Abstract
Researchers have traditionally assumed the establishment and management of university spinoffs
are guided by growth and the pursuit of profit. However, few studies examine the motivations
and post-establishment success definitions of entrepreneurs themselves. The author seeks to
contribute to our understanding of the mediating factors of academic entrepreneurship by
conducting interviews with 74 nascent academic entrepreneurs. The results show that academic
entrepreneurs in the sample define success in a number of complex, interrelated ways, including
technology diffusion, technology development, financial gain, public service and peer
motivations, among others. Furthermore, a large percentage of the respondents have little
immediate interest in growth and have instead established their firms to pursue other sources of
development funding, such as SBIR. The results will be of interest to policymakers who expect
university spinoffs to play an important role in job creation and economic development within
their region.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship, Academic Entrepreneurship, Technology Transfer,
Universities, Economic Development
JEL Classification: 033, Z13
Submitted: June 16, 2010
!
2
1. Introduction
In the spirit of Solow (1956) and Romer (1986), new knowledge created in research
universities is an increasingly important element of regional economic growth and innovation
(Utterback, 1994). The role of research universities is conceptualized within the context of
Academic Capitalism (Slaughter and Rhodes, 2004) or the Triple Helix (Eztkowitz, 2003),
paradigms that emphasize the role of universities in a knowledge-based economy. Furthermore,
a blossoming literature investigates the specific contributions of universities to innovation
through a wide range of activities, including patenting, licensing, incubator facilities, science
parks, and the creation of new firms (Rothaermel et al., 2007; Phan and Siegel, 2006).
The seed corn for innovation is research conducted by individual university faculty
members. Unlike most research conducted in the private sector, the main goal of university
research is the production of new academic knowledge, not necessarily the creation of new
commercially viable technologies (Shane, 2004). Furthermore, the traditional mission of the
university is teaching, basic research, and knowledge dissemination; thus, there are many
structural and cultural barriers to technology commercialization (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008;
Chiesa and Piccaluga, 2004; Kenney and Goe, 2004; Markman et al., 2004; Slaughter and
Rhodes, 2004; Siegel et al., 2003).
The choice of individual faculty members to engage in technology transfer activities is
the basic building block for university economic development efforts. Given the “embryonic”
nature of university technology, university spinoffs offer these academic entrepreneurs an
alternative pathway, among others, for disseminating and commercializing their research (Shane,
2004; Lowe, 2002, Audretsch, 1995).
!
3
Given that new knowledge tends to be bounded within the region where it was created
(Audretsch and Feldman, 1996), university spinoffs are a local phenomenon and therefore
important to industry formation and regional economic development (Shane, 2004; Lowe 2002;
Pressman, 2002; Tornatzky et al., 1995). Furthermore, once established, spinoffs have a high
propensity for survival (Lowe, 2002; Pressman, 2002; Mustar, 1997), have a high likelihood of
attracting early-stage finance such as angel or venture capital (Shane, 2004), and of going public
(Goldfarb and Henrekson, 2003). Policymakers have therefore sought to encourage the
formation and growth of university spinoffs through numerous policies and programs (Lowe and
Gonzalez-Brambila, 2007).
The individual academic entrepreneur plays a critical role in the establishment of a
company and its subsequent business performance (Cooper, 1993; Kolvereid, 1992; Davidsson,
1992; Sexton, 1989). A robust literature examines the motivations for business start up, while
scholarly research on post-establishment growth ambitions is less mature but emerging.
Unfortunately, not only is empirical research on the growth and performance of university
spinoffs “virtually non-existent” (Shane, 2004), those that do exist to not examine how academic
entrepreneurs themselves define success (Rothaermel et al., 2007; Phan and Siegel, 2006; Shane,
2004).
This paper attempts to qualitatively and empirically address these opportunities in the
literature by exploring the motivations and post-establishment definitions of success among
nascent academic entrepreneurs. Addressing these questions will hopefully help researchers and
policymakers better understand the role of individual academic entrepreneurs themselves within
the spinoff process and implications for public policy.
!
4
The structure of this paper is as follows: (1) review of the entrepreneurship motivations,
growth aspirations and success literature (2) theory and methodology, (3) findings from an
inductive exploration of how success is defined among academic entrepreneurs, and (4) a
discussion of the findings.
2. Literature Review
According to Shane et al. (2003), entrepreneurial motivations are an individual’s a priori
reasons for establishing a business (see Appendix Table 1). The entrepreneurial motivations
research was undertaken in direct response to the failure of researchers to identify and validate
the specific individual traits or characteristics “responsible” for entrepreneurial propensity
(Hessels et al., 2008; Gartner, 1988). Shane et al. (2003) posit that motivations will affect the
decisions of entrepreneurs to positively evaluate opportunities, pursue resources, and to design
“mechanisms of exploitation,” therefore playing a critical role in the start up process.
Furthermore, emerging research suggests a relationship between motivations and post-
establishment definitions of success (Hessels et al., 2008; Cassar, 2007).
For decades, economics research assumed that entrepreneurs were solely motivated to
maximize profit. The role of economic incentives—the so-called profit motive—is a long-held
maxim of neoclassical economics and has been observed in numerous studies. Specific to
entrepreneurship, it is fundamental to modeling entrepreneurial entry and self-employment
(Cassar, 2007; Moskowitz and Vissing-Jorsensen, 2002; Gimeno et al 1997; Davidsson, 1989).
In the early 1970s, researchers found increasing evidence of other, non-pecuniary
entrepreneurial motivations, such as the need for independence (Hofstede, 1980; Friberg, 1976),
desire to escape or avoid a negative situation (Friberg, 1976, Cooper, 1973), need for social
approval (Friberg, 1976, Maslow, 1943), and a drive to fulfill personal values or norms (Friberg,
!
5
1976). The emerging research not only questioned the singularity and primacy of the profit
motive, it showed that entrepreneurial rationales were multiple, interrelated, and complex
(Cassar, 2007; Locke, 2000; Kolvereid, 1996; Birley and Westhead, 1994; Shane et al., 1991;
Scheinberg and MacMillan, 1988).
Recent research finds that, in addition to the profit motive, other motivations among
specific subgroups of entrepreneurs. For example, surveys of high-technology entrepreneurs find
they are motivated by independence, challenge, and the dissemination of their work through
technical literature (Hessels et al. 2008, Wiklund et al., 2003; Roberts, 1991; Corman et al.,
1988). Researchers also find that, among samples of female entrepreneurs, respondents were
motivated by personal fulfillment and helping others (Brush, 1992), flexibility to spend more
time with family (Gundry and Welsch, 2001; Starr and Yudkin, 1996), and the ability to meet
family obligations (Morris et al., 2006). Bercovitz and Feldman (2008) and Stuart and Ding
(2006) find that role models provide a great deal of motivation for academic entrepreneurs.
While investigating how and to what extent financial gain is a motivation, scholars have
created explanatory dichotomies. For example, since 2001, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
(GEM) has differentiated between opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship (Reynolds et al.,
2001). Opportunity entrepreneurs voluntarily establish their business to pursue a specific market
opportunity, while necessity entrepreneurship is based on the absence of other employment
opportunities. Morris et al. (2006) group female entrepreneurs into “high-growth” and “modest”
categories mirroring the perceived tension between financial and non-financial goals,
respectively.
Similar to the motivations literature, scholars have also long assumed that the primary
post-establishment focus of entrepreneurs is firm growth (Hessels et al., 2008; Gundry and
!
6
Welsch, 2001). While few in number, recent studies also question this assumption and instead
suppose that firm growth is determined by, among other factors, the post-establishment
decision—the choice—of the individual entrepreneur. This is otherwise termed entrepreneurial
“growth aspirations” in the literature (Hessels et al., 2008; Cassar, 2007; Kolvereid, 1992; Ginn
and Sexton, 1989).
Many entrepreneurs choose not to grow their business and these ‘negative’ growth
aspirations are not related to experience, sex, location, or size of the firm (Wiklund et al., 2003;
Gundry and Welsch, 2001; Storey, 1994; Kolvereid, 1992; Davidsson, 1989). Similar to
entrepreneurial motivations, the growth aspirations literature also parses entrepreneurs into “non-
high-growth” and “high-growth” (Gundry and Welsch, 2001), “latent” and “actual”
entrepreneurs (Grillo and Thurik, 2005); or “traditional” and “modern” entrepreneurs with the
former being small and slow-growing, the latter prioritizing profits and growth, respectively
(Moore and Butner, 1997).
In a third thread of literature (see Appendix Table 2), definitions of success for university
spinoffs are based on the assumptions of scholars; little empirical research exists surveying
academic entrepreneurs directly. These studies define success in terms of whether or not a firm
continues to exist (Rothaermel and Thursby, 2005; Leitch and Harrison, 2005; Shane, 2004; and
Shane and Stuart, 2002) productivity measures (Blair and Hitchens, 1998), a firm’s ability to
attract early-stage finance, specifically venture capital, (Wright et al., 2006; Lockett and Wright,
2005; Zucker et al., 2002; Lockett et al., 2002; Shane and Stewart, 2002), whether or not a firm
had an initial public offering (IPO) (Shane, 2004; Goldfarb and Henrekson, 2003) and number
of patents and scientific papers (Zucker et al., 2002).
!
7
Limited empirical research suggests that academic entrepreneurs have their own, unique
motivations and growth aspirations. Meyer (2003) suggests that “entrepreneurial academics” in
public sector organizations may not define success by spinoff growth or profits but rather by the
prospect of finding other avenues to pursue their academic research agenda, especially if they
remain a university faculty member. O’Gorman et al. (2008) finds that university faculty
members in their sample are interested in spinoff and commercialization not for financial reasons
but in so much as it garners recognition by their peers and advances their academic career.
3. Theory and Methodology
According to the literature above, if an entrepreneur establishes a company with no
intentions for growth, reinforced by his operational management decisions, this may negatively
impact firm performance. Given the R&D intensity of university spinoffs, the fledgling
Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship (KSTE) offers a useful theoretical lens
(Audretsch et al., 2006; Acs et al., 2004). While KSTE embraces Romer’s (1986) assumption
that new knowledge is the source of innovation, productivity, and economic growth, it does not,
assume that not all knowledge is necessarily economically useful or automatically spills over. It
is instead subject to institutional, geographic, and cost constraints (Almeida and Kogut, 1999;
Jaffe, 1989; Jaffe et al., 1993) known collectively as the “knowledge filter” (Audretsch et al.,
2006; Acs et al., 2004).
Important to the knowledge filter is the notion that tacit knowledge—often referred to as
know-how—is not easily codified and is typically embodied in individuals, organizations, and
processes (Audretsch and Feldman, 1996), in this case the individual academic entrepreneur. In
addition to affecting spinoff success, understanding the motivations and growth aspirations of
!
8
academic entrepreneurs may therefore provide a deeper understanding of the diffusion and
commercialization of new knowledge generated in universities.
Previous studies of entrepreneurial motivations and growth aspirations are criticized for
their reliance on structured surveys, predefined measures, and working assumptions that exclude
more inductive responses (Shane et al., 2003; Cliff, 1998; Brush, 1992). Conventional
quantitative research approaches are not appropriate for unique phenomenon, like university
spinoffs, a series of events that are infrequent, unanticipated, and/or extraordinary, especially
when no comprehensive database exists (Davidsson, 2004; Shane, 2004; Baumol, 1983).
Therefore, inductive, qualitative approaches are recommended while building and informing a
broader theory (Phan and Siegel, 2006; Shane, 2004; Gartner and Carter, 2003; Cooper, 2003;
Patton, 2002).
Cliff (1998), for example, included in her research a series of open-ended questions
“tapping the owner’s goals, definitions of success, and growth intentions” to better understand
growth ambitions among female entrepreneurs. In this case, similar open-ended questions are
posed to a theoretically-relevant sample of academic entrepreneurs. Given the inductive nature
of this paper, an initial entrepreneurial motivations question is also posed in an effort to elicit a
greater range of responses relating to success.
Q1: Why did you establish your company? What were your main motivations to do so?
Q2: Now that your business is established, how do you define success?
This paper also seeks to address previous methodological concerns of the existing
literature such as recall bias among entrepreneurs (Carter et al., 2003; Shane et al., 2003; Gundry
and Welsch, 2001; Amit et al., 2000) and the inherently static approach taken to examine
entrepreneurial motivations and success (Shane et al., 2003; Gundry and Welsch, 2001). Absent
!
9
cross-sectional data, spinoffs are observed no more than six years after their establishment in a
similar stage of development or “critical juncture” (Vohora et al., 2004). Furthermore, asking
the academic entrepreneur about both their motivations and post-establishment growth ambitions
will provide a more evolutionary perspective on spinoff development.
4. Data
Given the paucity of empirical data on academic entrepreneurs, a contact database was
originally constructed to support the author’s doctoral research. Davidsson (2004) recommends
that researchers obtain data from a sample of cases that are “theoretically relevant,” reflecting the
critical unit of analysis, the relevant variance in the characteristics of the phenomenon, and are
“workable” from a practical point of view. Therefore, the database is populated with university
spinoffs of diverse institutions from different states, emphasizing a substantial degree of variance
including different stages of development, technological focus, with varying locational and
environmental factors.
The database was constructed from August 2008 to January 2009 with a total of 231
academic entrepreneurs from 18 different states in all regions of the country. A total of 148
individuals responded to the author’s request for interview with 74 meeting the firm
establishment age requirement for this paper. Academic entrepreneurs were interviewed in
person or over the phone and asked to respond to the open questions above. All answers were
recorded and subjected to attributional coding as described by Harvey et al. (1980) in Gatewood
et al. (1995) where each answer is separated into a number of separate explanations.
Academic entrepreneurs in the sample define success in a variety of complex ways (See
Table 3). While the majority of these responses fit both the motivations and post-establishment
!
10
definitions of success categories, technology diffusion and peer motivations, in particular, were
limited to the former. Table 4 reviews these responses in greater depth, presented in order of
plurality.
Table 1: Total Estimation for Responses
Response Total Mean Std. Error 95% Conf. Interval
Technology Diffusion 70 .9459 1.9584 66.0968 73.9032
Technology Development 56 .7568 3.7159 48.5941 63.4059
Personal Financial Gain 44 .5946 4.2523 35.5251 52.4749
Public Service 22 .2973 3.9587 14.1103 29.8897
Peer Effects 19 .2568 3.7835 11.4594 26.5406
Career Enrichment 13 .1757 3.2959 6.4313 19.5687
Job Creation 10 .1351 2.9609 4.0989 15.9011
Skill Enhancement 8 .1081 2.6894 2.6400 13.3600
Table 2: Motivations and Success Definitions Among Academic Entrepreneurs
Response
Explanation
Technology Diffusion
Respondents view their spinoff as a way to disseminate the
results of their research and get new technologies out of the
university. Some see their spinoff as the best method for
working with the commercial world while others were
unhappy with their technology transfer office (TTO).
Technology Development
Establishing a spinoff is a way for respondents to develop
their technologies with resources not available within the
university. These resources include early stage finance
such as angel and venture capital funding and government
grants. Respondents differed with regard to their
development timeline: most favored immediate
commercialization while some felt little urgency and were
content with obtaining funding with few outcome
requirements, especially the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program.
Personal Financial Gain
Most respondents articulated modest financial goals and
saw money as a beneficial (potential) result of their work.
Several spoke of how their financial ambitious had become
more modest over time, given the difficulty of
commercialization.
Public Service
A large number of respondents see entrepreneurship as an
!
11
important part of their faculty responsibilities, closely tied
to the public service mission of their institution. In
particular, they viewed their spinoff as a way to develop
technologies that could positive impact society, for
example, by creating and releasing a new drug.
Peer Effects
More of a motivation than definition of success,
respondents were influenced by relationships with other
entrepreneurs at their university, other universities, or
within their region. They spoke of these peer leaders as
important sources of experience, guidance, and—in a few
cases—management talent for their company. Conversely,
several respondents see their peers negatively, as an
obstacle to their efforts.
Career Enrichment
A few respondents, as accomplished academic researchers,
see establishing a company as a natural progression for
their career. Some were seeking excitement while others
wanted to be their own boss.
Job Creation
A subset of their public service duties (mentioned above) a
few respondents see entrepreneurial success as providing
interesting, well-paying jobs to individuals in the region.
Skill Enhancement
A few respondents defined success in terms of enhancing
the relevance and quality of their university teaching and
research.
5. Discussion
This paper examines motivations and definitions of success among academic
entrepreneurs through a KSTE lens under the assumption that these factors may also impact
knowledge spillover from universities, firm performance, and the resultant potential for
economic growth. While a few studies point to the importance of knowledge dissemination and
commercialization, this paper is among the first to empirically examine motivations and post-
establishment definitions of success among a theoretically relevant sample of nascent academic
!
12
entrepreneurs (Krabel and Mueller, 2009; Hessels et al. 2008; Wiklund et al., 2003; Roberts,
1991; Corman et al., 1988).
University spinoffs are a well-accepted vehicle for the dissemination and
commercialization of new knowledge and a wide range of policies have been recommended and
implemented to encourage their formation in hopes of spurring innovation and regional
economic development (Shane, 2004). The paper finds, however, that the motivations and
growth aspirations of nascent academic entrepreneurs are myriad and not necessarily focused on
short-term commercialization or profit-maximization.
Before reviewing these findings in detail, several words of caution are offered. First, the
sample is very small with 231 academic entrepreneurs in the contact database whose spinoffs
were established over the course of the past 24 years; only 149 responses were received, 74 of
which were used for this paper. By some estimates, over 3,000 university spinoffs (as defined in
this paper) have been established since 1980, including those from private universities.
Furthermore, the sample only includes spinoffs that have formal IP agreements with their
universities overlooking other types of spinoffs (Link et al., 2007) or other forms of
commercialization (Phan and Siegel, 2006). The contact database is not a probability sample,
remains painfully small, and is thus subject to sampling error.
Another challenge is that the data rely on a point-in-time snapshot among academic
entrepreneurs and subsequent spinoff outcomes are not available without extensive follow-on
research. While previous research suggests that motivations and growth ambitions may
influence firm success, it is unclear as to the strength of this influence. A point in time approach,
especially one that examines relatively new firms, may also overlook more dynamic aspects of
firm development such as the impact of external investors or managers, emerging market
!
13
opportunities, or shifting priorities, capabilities, or outlooks of academic entrepreneurs.
Academic entrepreneurs in the sample established their companies for varying and
typically multiple reasons, including technology development, personal financial gain, public
service, career enrichment, job creation, and skill enhancement, all factors that carry through in
operative terms to entrepreneurs’ respective definition of success. For example, if an
entrepreneur was motivated to establish her company to benefit financially, she defines success
by whether or not she is currently making money.
Unique to their motivations, yet primary in response, academic entrepreneurs in the
sample started their companies to disseminate technology out of their respective university. This
response would seem to support the well-documented notion that spinoffs are vehicles for
technology diffusion (Audretsch et al., 2006; Acs et al., 2004). However, while all entrepreneurs
in the sample have license agreements with their home university, most have yet to
commercialize their technologies. In most cases, their technology requires extensive
development. Therefore, with KSTE, just because a technology has been licensed to a
company—including a spinoff—does not necessarily signify penetration of the knowledge filter.
While the IP is no longer owned by the university, it remains embedded in the individual faculty
entrepreneur until it is commercialized, a point explored below (Audretsch et al., 2006).
Also unique to motivations is the influence of peers on academic entrepreneurs
supporting the findings of Bercovitz and Feldman (2008) and Stuart and Ding (2006). For
academic entrepreneurs in the sample, however, these “motivating peers” were often outside the
university, within the region, or included others within the university who themselves are seen as
“rebels” by the larger university community. Many of these influential individuals are
professional managers or provide funding, technical assistance, or advice, factors important to
!
14
commercialization success (Martinelli et al., 2008; Degroof et al., 2004; Heirman et al., 2004;
Franklin et al., 2001). Respondents also spoke about de-motivating peers and “obstructionist”
policies that created a negative environment for academic entrepreneurship—though this did not
seem to prevent the respondents from establishing their company (Bekkers et al., 2006; Renault,
2006; Kenney and Goe, 2004).
Academic entrepreneurs in the sample are certainly interested in financial gain but, unlike
‘rational, profit-maximizing actors, money is clearly not their primary goal. They often see
financial gain as compensation for the time they spend away from their academic jobs as
opposed to an end in itself. Several academic entrepreneurs described money as a beneficial
“side affect” of entrepreneurial activity. Respondents also discuss the fact that they work in a
university environment where commercialization is looked down upon by colleagues, if not
discouraged.
It is from their views on technology development that a dichotomy emerges, presaging
the respective entrepreneur’s outlook on growth. Respondents define technology development as
an immediate emphasis on technology commercialization and the resources needed to do so—or,
distinctly, a pursuit of funding not available within the university. To be sure, building business
systems and commercializing technology are complex endeavors subject to multiple internal and
external factors (Hayter 2010). But related to the ambitions of academic entrepreneurs, it is
important for policymakers to understand that many of these individuals (at least among those
within this sample) have little interest in commercializing their technology in the near-term.
Instead many see their spinoff as a platform for consulting and access to government grants,
especially SBIR awards.
!
15
In general, these findings seem to support the aforementioned entrepreneurship literature
which questions the primacy of the neo-classical economic profit motive by exploring non-
pecuniary motivations and definitions of success, especially among various subsets of
entrepreneurs (Morris et al., 2006; Gundry and Welsch, 2001; Kolvereid, 1992; Sexton, 1989;
Cliff, 1988). Non-pecuniary factors among academic entrepreneurs clearly include public
service, peer factors, and career enrichment. Furthermore, given their differing views of
technology development dichotomy, these findings may help explain the “living dead”
phenomenon where firms have very high survival rates but show no indication of growth or
profitability—and certainly have implications for public policy (Colombo et al., 2010; Reitan,
1997; Roberts, 1991). In short, all spinoffs are not created to maximize profit.
These findings may also support a “latent/actual” (Grillo and Thurik, 2005) or
“growth/non-growth” (Gundry and Welsch, 2001) entrepreneurship dichotomy. A specific
difference among academic entrepreneurs, however, may be their more technology-centric
“push” view of entrepreneurship, arguably at the expense of a market response or opportunity
recognition paradigm (Shane et al., 2003; Venkataraman, 1997). Therefore, a
commercialization/non-commercialization dichotomy may be a more useful framework by which
to view the economic development potential of academic entrepreneurs (Hayter, 2010).
While recent policy discussions highlight the challenges faced by spinoffs with attracting
seed and venture capital, recruiting experienced, competent managers, and commercializing their
technology, perhaps the most basic consideration are the motivations and ambitions of the
academic entrepreneurs themselves. It may be nearly impossible to identify the a priori
motivations of academic entrepreneurs but for policymakers interested in the success and
!
16
economic impact of university spinoffs, technology commercialization offers an attractive
proxy—and a noble policy goal.
APPENDIX TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL MOTIVATIONS
LITERATURE
AUTHOR
MOTIVATIONS
Cassar (2007); Moskowitz and Vissing-
Jorsensen (2002); Locke (2000); Gimeno et al
1997; Day and Sunder (1996); Birley and
Westhead (1994); Shane et al. (1991); Davidsson
(1989); Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988);
Friberg (1976)
Entrepreneurs are primarily motivated by
profit; the prevalence of economic
incentives; economic opportunity; material
gain
Cassar (2007); Locke (2000); Kolvereid (1996);
Birley and Westhead (1994); Shane et al. (1991);
Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988); Bowen and
Hisrich (1986); Hofstede (1980); Friberg (1976)
Independence
Bercovitz and Feldman (2008); Stuart and Ding
(2006); Kolvereid (1996); Birley and Westhead
(1994); Shane et al. (1991); Scheinberg and
MacMillan (1988); Friberg (1976); Maslow
(1943)
Need for social approval; peer recognition;
peer effects; authority
Cassar (2007); Locke (2000); Kolvereid (1996);
Bowen and Hisrich (1986); Friberg (1976);
Maslow (1943)
Drive to fulfill personal values or norms;
need for achievement; egotistic passion;
self-realization
Kuratko, Hornsby, and Naffzinger (1997);
Kolvereid (1996); Monroy and Folger (1993)
Challenge
Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988); Friberg
(1976); Cooper (1973)
Desire to escape a negative situation
Morris et al. (2006); Gundry and Welsch (2001);
Star and Yudkin (1996)
Flexibility, time with family
Shane et al. (1991); Scheinberg and MacMillan
(1988)
Need for personal development; learning
Birley and Westhead (1994); Brush (1992);
Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988)
Contribute to the community;
communitarianism
!
17
Reynolds et al. (2001); Kolvereid (1996)
Economic opportunity
Roberts (1991); Corman et al. (1988)
Opportunity to disseminate their work,
publish
Birley and Westhead (1994)
Tax reduction
Kolvereid (1996)
Security
Reynolds et al. (2001)
Economic necessity
Corman et al. (1988)
Bring new ideas to market
APPENDIX TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF LITERATURE: DEFINITIONS OF SPINOFF
SUCCESS
AUTHOR
SUCCESS MEASURE
Rothaermel and Thursby (2005); Leitch and
Harrison (2005); Shane (2004); Shane and
Stuart (2002)
Whether or not the spinoff continues to exists.
Blair and Hitchens (1998)
Productivity measures: sales per employee
Samson and Gurdon (1993)
View of the entrepreneur and spinoff
profitability
Wright et al. (2006); Lockett et al. (2005);
Zucker et al. (2002); Lockett et al. (2002);
Shane and Stewart (2002)
Whether or not the spinoff attract early-stage
finance, especially venture capital funding
Shane (2004); Goldfarb and Henrekson
(2003)
Whether or not the spinoff has an initial public
offering (IPO)
Zucker et al. (2002)
Number of patents and scientific papers
Roberts (1991)
Index based on average sales growth and
projections, how long the company has been in
business, and its profitability
Vohora et al. (2004)
Achieved by passing through a series of
iterative, non-linear “critical junctures”;
specific resources and capabilities they must
be acquire in order to pass to the subsequent
phase
Meyer (2003)
Defined in terms of the prospect to pursue their
!
18
academic agenda through their entrepreneurial
activities, not spinoff growth or profits
O’Gorman (2008)
Defined in terms of how well entrepreneurial
activities bolsters their academic career
through peer recognition and traditional
university rewards
Acknowledgements:
I am grateful to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation for their financial support. [more to
follow if accepted and reviewed]
References:
Acs, Z. and D. Audretsch (eds) (2003). Handbook of Entrepreneurship, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Acs, Z., D. Audretsch, P. Braunerhjelm, and B. Carlsson (2004). “The Missing Link:
The Knowledge Filter and Endogenous Growth,” Discussion paper, London,
Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). (2004/2005) Knowledge Spillover
Theory.
Almeida, P., and B. Kogut (1999). Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of
Engineers in Regional Networks. Management Science 45 (7), 905-917.
Amit, R., K. McCrimmon, C. Zietsma, and J. Oesch (2000). “Does Money Matter?:
Wealth Attainment as the Motive for Initiating Growth-Oriented Technology
Ventures,” Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 119-143.
Audretsch, D., M. Keilbach, and E. Lehmann (2006). Entrepreneurship and Economic
Growth, London: Oxford University Press.
Audretsch, D. (1995). Innovation and Industry Evolution, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Audretsch, D. and M. Feldman (1996). ‘R&D spillovers and the geography of
innovation,” American Economic Review, 86, 630-640.
Baumol, W. (1983). “Toward Operational Models of Entrepreneurship,” in J. Ronen (ed.)
Entrepreneurship, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Bekkers, R., V. Gilsing, and M. van der Steen (2006). “Determining Factors of the
Effectiveness of IP-based Spin-offs: Comparing the Netherlands and the U.S.,
Journal of Technology Transfer, 31: 545-566.
Bercovitz, J. and M. Feldman (2008). “Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change
and the Individual Level,” Organization Science, (19)1, 69-89.
Birley, S. and P. Westhead (1994). “A Taxonomy of Business Start-up Reasons and Their
Impact on Firm Growth and Size,” Journal of Business Venturing, (9) 7-31.
Blair, D. and D. Hitchens (1998). Campus Companies—U.K. and Ireland. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate.
Bowen, D. and R. Hisrich, 1986, The Female Entrepreneur: A Career Development
!
19
Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 2, 393–407.
Brush, C. (1992). “Research on Women Business Owners: Past Trends, a New
Perspective, and Future Directions,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Summer, 12, 27-35.
Carree, M. and A. Thurik. (1999). “Industrial Structure and Economic Growth,” in D.
Audretsch and A. Thurik, eds., Innovation, Industry Evolution, and Employment. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, N., W. Gartner, K. Shaver, K. Shaver, and E. Gatewood (2003). “The Career
Reasons of Nascent Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 13-39.
Cassar, G. (2007). “Money, Money, Money: A Longitudinal Investigation of
Entrepreneur Career Reasons, Growth Preferences and Achieved Growth,”
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19.
Cliff, J. (1998). “Does One Size Fit All? Exploring the Relationships Between Attitudes
Towards Growth, Gender, and Business Size,” Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 523-
542.
Chiesa, V and A. Piccaluga (2000). “Exploitation and Diffusion of Public Research: The
Case of Academic Spinoff-off companies in Italy, R&D Management, 30(4), 267-
281.
Columbo, M., P. Mustar, and M, Wright (2010). “Dynamics of Science-based
Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 1-15.
Cooper, A (2003). “Entrepreneurship: The Past, the Present, the Future,” in Z. Acs and
D. Audretsch (eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 21-36.
Cooper, A. (1973). “Technical Entrepreneurship: What do we Know?” R&D
Management, 3(2).
Corman, J., B. Perles, and P. Vancini (1988). “Motivational factors Influencing High-
technology Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Small Business Management, January.
Davidsson, P. (2004), Researching Entrepreneurship, New York: Springer.
Davidsson, P. (1989). "Entrepreneurship—and After? A study of Growth Willingness in
Small Firms," Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 211-226.
Degroof J.J. and E. Roberts (2004). “Overcoming Weak Entrepreneurial Infrastructure
for Academic Spin-off Ventures,” Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4): 327-357.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003) Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-
Government Relations,” Social Science Information, 42(3): 293-337.
Franklin, S., Wright, M., and Lockett, A. (2001). “Academic and Surrogate Entrepreneurs
in University Spin-out Companies,” Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2):
127-141.
Friberg, M. (1976). “Is the Salary the Only Incentive for Work?” Sociologisk Forskning,
4, 52-65.
Gartner, W.B. (1988). “Who is the entrepreneur? is the wrong question.” American
Journal of Small Business, 12, 11-32.
Gartner, W. and N. Carter (2003). “Entrepreneurial Behavior and Firm Organizing
Processes,” in Z. Acs and D. Audretsch (eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 21-36.
Gatewood E., K. Shaver, and W. Gartner (1995). "A Longitudinal Study of Cognitive
Factors Influencing Start-up Behaviors and Success at Venture Creation", Journal
!
20
of Business Venturing, 10, 371-391.
Gimeno, J., T. Folta, A. Cooper, and C. Woo (1997). “Survival of the fittest?
Entrepreneurial Human Capital and the Persistence of Underperforming Firms,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 750-783.
Ginn, C. & Sexton, D. (1989). “Growth: A Vocational Choice and Psychological
Preference,” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 9, 1-13.
Goldfarb, B. and M. Henrekson (2003). “Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards
the commercialization of university intellectual property,” Research Policy, 32(4),
639-658.
Grillo, I and R. Thurik (2005). Strategies, Uncertainty, and Performance of Small
Business Startups, Small Business Economics, 15(3).
Gundry, L. and H. Welsch (2001). The Ambitious Entrepreneur: Growth Strategies of
Women-owned Enterprises, Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 453-470.
Harvey, J., K. Yarkin, J. Lightner, and J. Town (1980). Unsolicited Interpretation and
Recall and Interpersonal Events,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
35: 556-568.
Hayter, C. (2010). “The Open Innovation Imperative: Perspectives on Success From
Faculty Entrepreneurs,” PhD dissertation, George Washington University.
Lowe, R. (2002). “Invention, innovation and entrepreneurship: the commercialization of
university research by inventor-founded firms,” PhD dissertation, University of
California at Berkeley.
Heirman, A. and B. Clarysse (2004). ‘How and why do research-based startups differ at
founding? A resource-based configurational perspective,’ Journal of Technology
Transfer, 29, 247-268.
Hessels, J., M. Van Gelderen, and R. Thurik (2008). Entrepreneurial Aspirations,
Motivations, and Their Drivers, Small Business Economics, 31, 323-339.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related
Values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hisrich, R. and C. Brush (1984). The Woman Entrepreneur: Management Skills and
Business Problems, Journal of Small Business Management, January.
Jaffe, A, M. Trajtenberg and R. Henderson (1993). "Geographic Localization of
Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations." Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
Jaffe, A. (1989). "Real Effects of Academic Research." American Economic Review
79(5), 957-970.
Kenney, M. and W.R. Goe (2003). “The role of social embeddedness in professorial
entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC
Berkeley and Stanford.” Research Policy, 33 (5), 691-707.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). “Prediction of Employment Status Choice Intentions,
Entrepreneurship Status Choice Intentions,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21,
47-57.
Kolvereid, L. (1992). “Growth Aspirations Among Norwegian Entrepreneurs,” Journal
of Business Venturing, 7, 209-222.
Krabel, S. and P. Mueller (2009). “What Drives Scientists to Start Their Own Company?
An Empirical Investigation of Max Planck Society Scientists,” Research Policy, 38, 947-
956.
!
21
Kuratko, D., Hornsby, J. and Naffzinger, D. (1997). “An Examination of Owner’s Goals
in Sustaining Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Small Business Management, pp. 30-
45 January, in Kuratko, D. and Hodgetts, R. ‘Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process
& Practice, Sixth Edition’ South Western division, Thompson Learning, 2004.
Leitch, C. and R. Harrison (2005). “Maximizing the potential of university spin-outs: the
development of second-order commercialization activities,” R & D Management, 35(3),
257-272.
Link, A., D. Siegel and B. Bozeman (2007). “An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of
Academics to Engage in Informal University Technology Transfer,” Industrial and
Corporate Change, 16, 4: 1-15.
Locke, E. (2000). The Prime Movers, New York: Amacom.
Lockett, A. and M. Wright (2005). “Resources, Capabilities, Risk Capital and the
Creation of University Spin-Out Companies: Technology Transfer and Universities’
Spin-out Strategies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043-1057.
Lockett, A., S. Manigart, M. Meuleman, P. Desbrieres, and H. Landstrom (2002). "The
Syndication of Venture Capital Investments", in Bygrave, W.D., S. Manigart, C. Mason,
G. Meyer, H. Sapienza, and K. Shaver (eds) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
Waltham MA: P&R Publications Inc.
Lowe, R. (2002). “Invention, innovation and entrepreneurship: the commercialization of
university research by inventor-founded firms,” PhD dissertation, University of
California at Berkeley.
Lowe, R. and C. Gonzalez-Brambila (2007). “Faculty Entrepreneurs and Research
Productivity,” Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 173-194.
Markman, G., P. Phan, D. Balkin, and P. Gianiodis (2004). “Entrepreneurship From the
Ivory Tower: Do Incentive Systems Matter?” Journal of Technology Transfer
26(3), 233-245.
Martinelli, A., M. Meyer, and N. von Tunzelmann (2008). “Becoming an Entrepreneurial
University? A Case Study of Knowledge Exchange Relationships and Faculty Attitudes
in a Medium-sized, Research-oriented University,” Journal of Technology Transfer, 33:
259-283.
Maslow, A. (1943). “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychology Review, July, 370-
396.
Meyer, M. (2003). “Academic Entrepreneurs or Entrepreneurial Academics? Research-
based Ventures and Public Support Mechanisms,” R&D Management, 33(2):
2003.
Moore, D. and E. Buttner (1997). Women Entrepreneurs: Moving Beyond the Glass
Ceiling, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Monroy, T., & Folger, R. (1993). A Typology of Entrepreneurial Styles: Beyond
Economic Rationality,” Journal of Private Enterprise, 9(2), 64-79.
Morris, M., N. Miyasaki, C. Watters, and S. Coombes (2006). “The Dilemma of Growth:
Understanding Venture Size Choices of Women Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Small
Business Management, 44(2), 221-244.
Moskowitz, T. and A. Vissing-Jorgensen (2002). “The Returns to Entrepreneurial
Investment: A Private Equity Premium Puzzle,” American Economic Review,
92(4), 745-778.
Mustar, P. (1997). “Spin-off enterprises, How French academics create high-tech
!
22
companies: conditions for success or failure,” Science and Public Policy, 24(1).
O’Gorman, C., O. Byrne, and D. Pandya (2008). “How Scientists Commercialise New
Knowledge via Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23-43.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Phan, P. and D. Siegel (2006). “The effectiveness of university technology transfer:
lessons learned,” Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77-144.
Pressman, L., ed. (2002). AUTM Licensing Survey: FY 2001, Northbrook, IL:
Association of University Technology Managers.
Renault, Catherine Searle (2006). Academic Capitalism and University Incentives for
Faculty Entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227-239.
Reynolds, P., S. Camp, W. Bygrave, E. Autio, and M. Ha (2001). Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 Summary Report. Kansas City: Kauffman Center for
Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
www.entreworld.org/gem2001 and www.gemsonsortium.org
Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in High Technology, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Romer, P. (1986). "Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth," Journal of Political
Economy, 94, 1002-1037.
Rothaermel, F, S. Agung, and L. Jiang (2007). “University Entrepreneurship: A
Taxonomy of the Literature,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 16: 691-791.
Rothaermel, F. and M. Thursby (2005). “Incubator Firm Failure or Graduation? The Role
of University Linkage,” Research Policy, 34(3): 1076-1090.
Samson, K. and M. Gurdon (1993). “University Scientists as Entrepreneurs: A Special
Case of Technology Transfer and High-tech Venturing, Technovation, 13(2), 63-71.
Scheinburg, S. and I. MacMillan (1988). “An 11 Country Study of Motivations to Start a
Business,” in B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. McMullan, K. Vesper, and W. Wetzel, Jr.
(eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 669-
687.
Sexton, D. (1989). “Research on Women-Owned Businessess: Current Status and Future
Directions,” in O. Hangan, C. Rivchun, and D. Sexton (eds.), Women-Owned Businesses.
New York: Praeger, 183-193.
Siegel, Donald S., Waldman, David A., and Link, Albert N. (2003). “Assessing the
Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology
Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study.” Research Policy, 32(1), 27-48.
Shane, S. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation,
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Shane, S., L. Kolvereid, and P. Westhead (1991). “An Exploratory Examination of the
Reasons Leading to New Firm Foundations Across Country and Gender,” Journal
of Business Venturing, 6, 431-446.
Shane, S., E. Locke, and C. Collins (2003). “Entrepreneurial Motivation,” Human
Resource Management Review, (13), 257-279.
Shane, S. and T. Stuart (2002). ‘Organizational endowments and the performance of
university start-ups’, Management Science, 48 (1), 154-70.
Slaughter, S. and G. Rhoades (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy:
Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
!
23
Solow, Robert M. (1956). "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth."
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70: 65-94.
Starr, J. and M. Yudkin (1996). Women Entrepreneurs: A Review of Current Research,
Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, MA.
Storey, D. (1994). Understanding Small Firms, London: Routledge.
Stuart, T. and W. Ding (2006). The Social Structural Determinants of Academic
Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of University Scientists’ Participation in
Commercial Ventures, American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97-144.
Tornatzky, L., P. Waugaman, L. Casson, S. Crowell, C. Spahr, and F. Wong (1995).
“Benchmarking best practices for university-industry technology transfer: Working with
start-up companies”, A Report of the Southern Technology Council, Atlanta: Southern
Technology Council.
Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Vohora, A.; Wright, M.; Lockett, A. (2004). "Critical Junctures in the Development of
University High-Tech Spin-Out Companies," Research Policy, 33, 147-175.
Wiklund, J., P. Davidsson, and F. Delmar (2003). “What do They Think and Feel About
Growth? An Expectancy-Value Approach to Small Business Managers’ Attitudes
Toward Growth,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Spring, 247-270.
Wright, M.; B. Clarysse, A. Lockett, M. Binks (2006). "University Spin-Out Companies
and Venture Capital," Research Policy, 35(4), 481-501.
Zucker, L., M. Darby, and J. Armstrong (2002). Commercializing Knowledge:
University Science, Knowledge Capture, and Firm Performance in Biotechnology,”
Management Science 48(1), 138-153.
