This paper studies the role of entrepreneurs in investment tie formation in science–based entrepreneurial firms. Specifically, we address why investment tie formation is path dependent for some firms but more amenable to intentional management for others. Using longitudinal case studies, our evidence suggests that early investment tie formation is path dependent because scientific entrepreneurs typically approach only one or a few prospective investors from within their institutional context. Differences in experience between early investors affect the professionalization of entrepreneurial teams (or lack thereof), which influences the extent to which subsequent investment tie formation becomes more amenable to intentional management or remains path dependent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaronR.A. & MarkmanG.D. (2003). Beyond social capital: The role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41–60.
2.
BaumJ.A.C. & SilvermanB.S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 411–436.
3.
BeckmanC.M. & BurtonM.D. (2008). Founding the future: Path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19, 3–24.
4.
BeckmanC.M., BurtonM.D., & O'ReillyC.A. (2007). Early teams: The impact of entrepreneurial team demography on VC financing and going public. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 147–174.
5.
BinghamC.B., EisenhardtK.M., & FurrN.R. (2007). What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy, and effective capture of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 27–47.
6.
BottazziL., Da RinM., & HellmannT. (2008). Who are the active investors? Evidence from venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 89, 488–512.
7.
BrinckmannJ., SalomoS., & GemuendenH.G. (2011). Financial management competence of founding teams and growth of new technology–based firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 217–243.
8.
ColomboM. & GrilliL. (2010). On growth drivers of high–tech start–ups: Exploring the role of founders’ human capital and venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 610–626.
9.
CummingD.J. & DaiN. (2010). Local bias in venture capital investments. Journal of Empirical Finance, 17, 362–380.
10.
CummingD.J. & DaiN. (2013). Why do entrepreneurs switch venture capitalists?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, doi:10.1111/j.1540–6520.2012.00525.x.
11.
CummingD.J. & JohanS.A. (2009). Venture capital and private equity contracting: An international perspective. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Academic Press.
12.
DavidssonP., SteffensP., & FitzsimmonsJ. (2009). Growing profitable or growing from profits: Putting the horse in front of the cart?Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 388–406.
13.
EckhardtJ.T., ShaneS., & DelmarF. (2006). Multistage selection and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 52, 220–232.
14.
EisenhardtK.M. (1989a). Building theories from case–study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.
15.
EisenhardtK.M. (1989b). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57–74.
EnsleyM. & HmieleskiK. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university–based and independent start–ups. Research Policy, 34, 1091–1105.
18.
European Venture Capital Association (EVCA). (2005). Annual survey of pan–European private equity and venture capital activity. Zaventem: EVCA.
19.
FerraryM. (2010). Syndication of venture capital investment: The art of resource pooling. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 885–908.
20.
ForbesD.P., BorchertP.S., Zellmer–BruhnM.E., & SapienzaH.J. (2006). Entrepreneurial team formation: An exploration of new member addition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 225–248.
GompersP.A., KovnerA., LernerJ., & ScharfsteinD. (2008). Venture capital investment cycles: The impact of public markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 87, 1–23.
HallenB.L. (2008). The causes and consequences of the initial network positions of new organizations: From whom do entrepreneurs receive investments?Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 685–718.
25.
HallenB.L. & EisenhardtK.M. (2012). Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation: How entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 35–70.
26.
HellmannT. & PuriM. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of startup firms: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance, 57, 169–197.
27.
HiteJ.M. (2005). Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 113–144.
28.
HiteJ.M. & HesterlyW.S. (2001). The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 275–286.
29.
HoppC. (2010). When do venture capitalists collaborate? Evidence on the driving forces of venture capital syndication. Small Business Economics, 35, 417–431.
30.
HsuD.H. (2004). What do entrepreneurs pay for venture capital affiliation?The Journal of Finance, 59, 1805–1844.
31.
HsuD.H. (2007). Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36, 722–741.
32.
JanneyJ.J. & FoltaT.B. (2003). Signaling through private equity placements and its impact on the valuation of biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 361–380.
33.
KatilaR., RosenbergerJ.D., & EisenhardtK.M. (2008). Swimming with sharks: Technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 295–332.
34.
KnockaertM., UcbasaranD., WrightM., & ClarysseB. (2011). The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: The case of science–based entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 777–803.
35.
KnockaertM. & VanackerT. (2013). Investment strategies of European early stage high tech venture capitalists and their involvement in value adding activities. Small Business Economics, doi:10.1007/s11187–011–9378–8.
36.
LarsonA. & StarrJ.A. (1993). A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, 5–15.
37.
LernerJ. (1994). The syndication of venture capital investments. Financial Management, 23, 16–27.
38.
MaurerI. & EbersM. (2006). Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications: Lessons from biotechnology startups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 262–292.
39.
MeulemanM., LockettA., ManigartS., & WrightM. (2010). Partner selection decisions in interfirm collaborations: The paradox of relational embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 995–1019.
40.
MorayN. & ClarysseB. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science–based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 34, 1010–1027.
PisanoG.P. (2006). Can science be a business? Lessons from biotech. Harvard Business Review, 84, 114–125.
43.
RanganS. (2000). The problem of search and deliberation in economic action: When social networks really matter. Academy of Management Review, 25, 813–828.
44.
RosensteinJ., BrunoA.V., BygraveW.D., & TaylorN.T. (1993). The CEO, venture capitalists, and the board. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 99–113.
45.
SapienzaH.J., ManigartS., & VermeirW. (1996). Venture capitalist governance and value added in four countries. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 439–469.
46.
SeghersA., VanackerT., & ManigartS. (2012). The impact of human and social capital on entrepreneurs’ knowledge of finance alternatives. Journal of Small Business Management, 50, 63–86.
47.
ShaneS. & CableD. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48, 364–381.
48.
Slotte–KockS. & CovielloN. (2010). Entrepreneurship research on network processes: A review and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 31–57.
49.
Van de VenA.H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50.
VohoraA., WrightM., & LockettA. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high–tech spin–out companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.
51.
YinR.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
52.
ZhangJ., SouitarisV., SohP.H., & WongP.K. (2008). A contingent model of network utilization in early financing of technology ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 593–613.
53.
ZottC. & HuyQ. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 70–105.
