Upper echelon theory highlights the importance of top management teams in large and established firms; however, effects are not always clear outside of this context. Due to the unique nature of new ventures, the composition of entrepreneurial teams and its effects on performance is worthy of investigation. Accordingly, we meta–analyze the effect of three characteristics of entrepreneurial team composition (i.e., aggregated, heterogeneity, team size) on new venture performance. Our meta–analysis, which includes 55 empirical samples and 8,892 observations, finds significant and unique effects of entrepreneurial team characteristics on new ventures. Based on our findings, we derive avenues for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AguinisH., GottfredsonR.K., & WrightT.A. (2011). Best–practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using meta–analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1033–1043.
2.
AmasonA.C., ShraderR.C., & TompsonG.H. (2006). Newness and novelty: Relating top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1), 125–148.
3.
AspelundA., Berg–UtbyT., & SkjevdalR. (2005). Initial resources’ influence on new venture survival: A longitudinal study of new technology–based firms. Technovation, 25(11), 1337–1347.
4.
Backes–GellnerU., WernerA., & MohnenA. (2015). Effort provision in entrepreneurial teams: Effects of team size, free–riding and peer pressure. Journal of Business Economics, 85(3): 205–230.
5.
BarneyJ.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
6.
BarneyJ.B., BusenitzL.W., FietJ.O., & MoeselD.D. (1996). New venture teams’ assessment of learning assistance from venture capital firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(4), 257–272.
7.
BeckmanC.M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741–758.
8.
BeckmanC.M. & BurtonM.D. (2008). Founding the future: Path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19(1), 3–24.
9.
BerscheidE. & ReisH.T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In GilbertD. T., FiskeS. T., & LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 193–281). New York: McGraw–Hill.
10.
BlauP.M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
11.
BloodgoodJ.M., SapienzaH.J., & AlmeidaJ.G. (1996). The internationalization of new high–potential US ventures: Antecedents and outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 20(4), 61–77.
12.
BoekerW. (1997). Executive migration and strategic change: The effect of top manager movement on product–market entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 213–236.
13.
BoekerW. & KarichalilR. (2002). Entrepreneurial transitions: Factors influencing founder departure. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 818–826.
14.
BoekerW. & WiltbankR. (2005). New venture evolution and managerial capabilities. Organization Science, 16(2), 123–133.
15.
BrannonD.L., WiklundJ., & HaynieJ.M. (2013). The varying effects of family relationships in entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(1), 107–132.
16.
BrutonG.D. & RubanikY. (2002). Resources of the firm, Russian high–technology startups, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(6), 553–576.
17.
BurtR.S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
BurtR.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.
19.
BusenitzL.W., FietJ.O., & MoeselD.D. (2005). Signaling in venture capitalist–new venture team funding decisions: Does it indicate long–term venture outcoes?Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(1), 1–12.
20.
BygraveW.D. (1988). The structure of the investment networks of venture capital firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), 137–157.
21.
ByrneD.E.1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
22.
CaiL., LiuQ., & YuX. (2013). Effects of top management team heterogeneous background and behavioural attributes on the performance of new ventures. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(3), 354–366.
23.
Campbell–HuntC. (2000). What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A meta–analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2), 127–154.
24.
CarpenterM.A. & FredricksonJ.W. (2001). Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 533–545.
25.
CarpenterM.A., GeletkanyczM.A., & SandersW.G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749–778.
26.
CertoS.T., LesterR.H., DaltonC.M., & DaltonD.R. (2006). Top management teams, strategy and financial performance: A meta–analytic examination. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 813–839.
27.
ChagantiR.S., WattsA.D., ChagantiR., & Zimmerman–TreichelM. (2008). Ethnic–immigrants in founding teams: Effects on prospector strategy and performance in new internet ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(1), 113–139.
28.
ChandlerG.N., HonigB., & WiklundJ. (2005). Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 705–725.
29.
ChandlerG.N. & JansenE. (1992). The founder's self–assessed competence and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), 223–236.
30.
ChenM.–H. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: Creativity in entrepreneurial teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(3), 239–249.
31.
ChenM.–H. & WangM.–C. (2008). Social networks and a new venture's innovative capability: The role of trust within entrepreneurial teams. R&D Management, 38(3), 253–264.
32.
ChenZ.W. & HaoX.L. (2008). Empirical study of relationship between entrepreneurship of entrepreneurial team and corporate performance. Journal of Management Science, 21(1), 39–48.
33.
ChenZ.W. & LeiH.H. (2008). Empirical study of relationship among conflict in the entrepreneurial team, team entrepreneurship and firm performance. Economic Management, 30(15), 47–52.
34.
CohenS.G. & BaileyD.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.
35.
CombsJ.G., CrookT.R., & ShookC.L. (2005). The dimensionality of organizational performance and its implications for strategic management research. In KetchenD. J. & BerghD. D. (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (pp. 259–286). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
36.
de CarolisD.M., LitzkyB.E., & EddlestonK.A. (2009). Why networks enhance the progress of new venture creation: The influence of social capital and cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(2), 527–545.
37.
DelmarF. & ShaneS. (2003). Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures?Strategic Management Journal, 24(12), 1165–1185.
38.
DelmarF. & ShaneS. (2006). Does experience matter? The effect of founding team experience on the survival and sales of newly founded ventures. Strategic Organization, 4(3), 215–247.
39.
DessG.G., LumpkinG.T., & CovinJ.G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677–695.
40.
DingW.W. (2011). The impact of founders’ professional–education background on the adoption of open science by for–profit biotechnology firms. Management Science, 57(2), 257–273.
41.
EisenhardtK.M. & SchoonhovenC.B. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 504–529.
42.
EnsleyM.D. & HmieleskiK.M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university–based and independent start–ups. Research Policy, 34(7), 1091–1105.
43.
EnsleyM.D., HmieleskiK.M., & PearceC.L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231.
44.
EnsleyM.D. & PearceC.L. (2001). Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 145–160.
45.
EnsleyM.D., PearsonA.W., & AmasonA.C. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(4), 365–386.
46.
EnsleyM.D., PearsonA.W., & SardeshmukhS.R. (2007). The negative consequences of pay dispersion in family and non–family top management teams: An exploratory analysis of new venture, high–growth firms. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1039–1047.
47.
FinkelsteinS. & HambrickD. C. (1990). Top management team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484–503.
48.
FinkelsteinS. & HambrickD.C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
49.
FischerH.M. & PollockT.G. (2004). Effects of social capital and power on surviving transformational change: The case of initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 463–481.
50.
FlorinJ., LubatkinM. & SchulzeW. (2003). A social capital model of high–growth ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 374–384.
51.
ForbesD.P. (2005). Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others?Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 623–640.
52.
GartnerW.B., ShaverK.G., GatewoodE., & KatzJ.A. (1994). Finding the entrepreneur in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18(3), 5–9.
53.
HaleblianJ. & FinkelsteinS. (1993). Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 844–863.
54.
HambrickD.C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16(1), 171–213.
55.
HambrickD.C. (1995). Fragmentation and the other problems CEOs have with their top management teams. California Management Review, 37(3), 110–127.
56.
HambrickD.C. (2005). Upper echelons theory: Origins, twists and turns, and lessons learned. In SmithK. G. & HittM. A. (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 109–127). New York: Oxford University Press.
57.
HambrickD.C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.
58.
HambrickD.C. & AbrahamsonE. (1995). Assessing managerial discretion across industries: A multimethod approach. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1427–1441.
59.
HambrickD.C., ChoT.S., & ChenM.–J. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 659–684.
60.
HambrickD.C. & FinkelsteinS. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9(2), 369–406.
61.
HambrickD.C., FinkelsteinS., & MooneyA.C. (2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 472–491.
62.
HambrickD.C. & FukutomiG.D.S. (1991). The seasons of a CEO's tenure. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 719–742.
63.
HambrickD.C. & MasonP.A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
64.
HarrisonD.A. & KleinK.J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.
65.
HattonL. & RaymondB. (1994). Developing small business effectiveness in the context of congruence. Journal of Small Business Management, 32(3), 76–89.
66.
HaytonJ.C. (2002). The effect of intellectual capital on entrepreneurial orientation in high technology new ventures. Doctoral dissertation, J. Mack Robinson College of Business Georgia State University.
67.
HmieleskiK.M. & EnsleyM.D. (2007). A contextual examination of new venture performance: Entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 865–889.
68.
HsuD.H. (2007). Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36(5), 722–741.
69.
HugginsR. (2000). The success and failure of policy–implanted inter–firm network initiatives: Motivations, processes and structure. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(2), 111–135.
70.
HunterJ.E. & SchmidtF.L. (2004). Methods of meta–analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
71.
IaquintoA.L. & FredricksonJ.W. (1997). Top management team agreement about the strategic decision process: A test of some of its determinants and consequences. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 63–75.
72.
JacksonS.E. (1992). Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. In WorchelS., WoodW., & SimpsonJ. A. (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 136–180). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
73.
JacksonS.E. & JoshiA. (2011). Work team diversity. In ZedeckS. (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 651–686). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
74.
JansenJ.J.P., Van den BoschF.A.J., & VolberdaH.W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.
75.
JoshiA. & RohH. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta–analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.
76.
KammJ.B., ShumanJ.C., SeegerJ.A., & NurickA.J. (1990). Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: A research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 14(4), 7–17.
KhandwallaP.N. (1976). Some top management styles, their context and performance. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 7(4), 21–51.
79.
KirznerI.M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.
80.
KlotzA.C., HmieleskiK.M., BradleyB.H., & BusenitzL.W. (2014). New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226–255.
81.
KnightF.H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: August M. Kelley.
82.
KorY.Y. (2003). Experience–based top management team competence and sustained growth. Organization Science, 14(6), 707–719.
83.
KorY.Y. (2006). Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1081–1099.
84.
KorY.Y. & MisangyiV.F. (2008). Outside directors’ industry–specific experience and firms’ liability of newness. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1345–1355.
85.
KozlowskiS.W.J. & BellB.S. (2003). Work groups and and teams in organizations. In BormanW. C., IlgenD. R., & KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). New York: John Wiley.
86.
KozlowskiS.W.J. & KleinK.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In KleinK.J. & KozlowskiS.W.J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
87.
KraiczyN.D., HackA., & KellermannsF.W. (2015). What makes a family firm innovative? CEO risk–taking propensity and the organizational context of family firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 334–348.
88.
KrollM., WaltersB.A., & SonA.L. (2007). The impact of board composition and top management team ownership structure on post–IPO performance in young entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1198–1216.
89.
LantT.K., MillikenF.J., & BatraB. (1992). The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal, 13(8), 585–608.
90.
LearyM.M. & DeVaughnM.L. (2009). Entrepreneurial team characteristics that influence the successful launch of a new venture. Management Research News, 32(6), 567–579.
91.
LeeC., LeeK., & PenningsJ.M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology–based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 615–640.
92.
LiJ. (2008). Top management team restructuring in pre–IPO high technology startups: The influence of TMT characteristics and firm growth. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 19(1), 59–69.
93.
LiJ. & TangY.I. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 45–68.
94.
LuJ.Y. & ChenG. (2009). An empirical study on relationship among cognitive conflict, cooperative behavior in entrepreneurial team and corporate performance. Journal of Science and Management of S&T, 5(1), 117–123.
95.
LubatkinM.H., SimsekZ., LingY., & VeigaJ.F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small–to medium–sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.
96.
MarvelM.R. (2013). Human capital and search–based discovery: A study of high–tech entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(2), 403–419.
97.
MaschkeK. & Knyphausen–AufseßD.Z. (2012). How the entrepreneurial top management team setup influences firm performance and the ability to raise capital: A literature review. Business Research Journal, 5(1), 83–123.
98.
McGeeJ.E., DowlingM.J., & MegginsonW.L. (1995). Cooperative strategy and new venture performance: The role of business strategy and management experience. Strategic Management Journal, 16(7), 565–580.
99.
McMullenJ.S. & ShepherdD.A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
100.
MillerD. & DrögeC. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 539–560.
101.
MurnighanJ.K. & ConlonD.E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 165–186.
102.
O'ReillyC.A., CaldwellD.F., & BarnettW.P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 21–37.
103.
PalichL.E., CardinalL.B., & MillerC.C. (2000), Curvilinearity in the diversification–performance linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2), 155–174.
104.
PatzeltH. (2010). CEO human capital, top management teams, and the acquisition of venture capital in new technology ventures: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(3–4), 131–147.
105.
PitcherP. & SmithA.D. (2001). Top management team heterogeneity: Personality, power, and proxies. Organization Science, 12(1), 1–18.
106.
RauchA. & RijsijkS.A. (2013). The effects of general and specific human capital on long–term growth and failure of newly founded businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(4), 923–941.
107.
ReagansR. & McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
108.
ReuberA.R. & FischerE. (1997). The influence of the management team's international experience on the internationalization behaviors of SMEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 807–825.
109.
RosenthalR. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.
110.
SandersW.M.G. & CarpenterM.A. (1998). Internationalization and firm governance: The roles of CEO compensation, top team composition, and board structure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(2), 158–178.
111.
SarasvathyS.D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
112.
SciasciaS., MazzolaP., & ChiricoF. (2013). Generational involvement in the top management team of family firms: Exploring nonlinear effects on entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(1), 69–85.
113.
ShaneS. & VenkataramanS. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
114.
ShraderR. & SiegelD.S. (2007). Assessing the relationship between human capital and firm performance: Evidence from technology–based new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(6), 893–908.
115.
SimsekZ., VeigaJ.F., LubatkinM.H., & DinoR.N. (2005). Modeling the multilvel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69–84.
116.
SouitarisV. & MaestroB.M.M. (2010). Polychronicity in top management teams: The impact on strategic decision processes and performance of new technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6), 652–678.
117.
StarrJ.A. & MacMillanI.C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11(4), 79–92.
118.
SteffensP., TerjesenS., & DavidssonP. (2012). Birds of a feather get lost together: New venture team composition and performance. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 727–743.
119.
StewartG.L. (2006). A meta–analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32(1), 29–55.
120.
SullivanD.M. & MarvelM.R. (2011). Knowledge acquisition, network reliance, and early–stage technology venture outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1169–1193.
121.
TaheriM. & van GeenhuizenM. (2011). How human capital and social networks may influence the patterns of international learning among academic spin–off firms. Papers in Regional Science, 90(2), 287–311.
122.
TalaulicarT., GrundeiJ., & WerderA.V. (2005). Strategic decision making in start–ups: The effect of top management team organization and processes on speed and comprehensiveness. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(4), 519–541.
123.
TianL. & XueH.Z. (2009). Entrepreneurial team's prior experience, commitment and new technology venture's initial performance: An interaction effect model and its implication. R&D Management, 21(4), 1–9.
124.
UngerJ.M., RauchA., FreseM., & RosenbuschN. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta–analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341–358.
125.
UtterbackJ.M. (1996). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
126.
van KnippenbergD., De DreuC.K.W., & HomanA.C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.
127.
van KnippenbergD. & SchippersM.C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 515–541.
128.
VissaB. & ChacarA.S. (2009). Leveraging ties: The contingent value of entrepreneurial teams’ external advice networks on Indian software venture performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1179–1191.
129.
WagnerW.G., PfefferJ., & O'ReillyC.A.III. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in top–management group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 74–92.
130.
WangrowD.B., SchepkerD.J., & BarkerV.L. (2015). Managerial discretion: An empirical review and focus on future research directions. Journal of Management, 41(1), 99–135.
131.
WeiszN. (2004). A theoretical and empirical assessment of the social capital of nascent entrepreneurial teams. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
132.
WestG.P. (2007). Collective cognition: When entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, make decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(1), 77–102.
WhitenerE.M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta–analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 315–321.
135.
WilliamsK.Y. & O'ReillyC.A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20(1), 77–140.
136.
XueH.Z. (2011). Founding team, formal structure, and new venture performance. Journal of Management Science, 24(1), 1–10. (in Chinese)
137.
YangJ., TianL., ZhangY.L., & WangW.Y. (2010). Innovation or imitation: The role of entrepreneurial teams’ experience heterogeneity and conflicts. Management World, 3(1), 84–96.
138.
YeY., XueX., & ShenL. (2006). The different relationship of high–tech and low–tech new venture teams’ competencies with venture performances. Conference paper. 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, Singapore.
139.
ZahraS.A. (1996). Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate–sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(4), 289–321.
140.
ZhangY. & LiH. (2010). Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: The role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 88–109.
141.
ZhaoH., SeibertS.E., & LumpkinG.T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta–analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(2), 381–404.
142.
ZhaoY.L. & Di BenedettoC.A. (2013). Designing service quality to survive: Empirical evidence from Chinese new ventures. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1098–1107.
143.
ZhaoY.L., SongM., & StormG.L. (2013). Founding team capabilities and new venture performance: The mediating role of strategic positional advantages. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(4), 789–814.
144.
ZhengY. (2012). Unlocking founding team prior shared experience: A transactive memory system perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5), 577–591.
