Discover the world's scientific knowledge

I am writing my thesis about corporate venture capital, startup programs and their implications for corporate financial performance.

At the moment, I consider absorptive capacity as one moderator of the above relationship.

Any suggestions for a further moderator?

What is new about new forms of Corporate Venturing Units?

Hey,

I am computing a Meta-Analysis to find out whether Family Firms or Non-Family Firms are more successful.

Unfortunately, most primary studies only report panel data. They report the Number of Firms AND the Number of firm-year observations.

Which one of these should I use as my sample size? My goal is to compute the mean correlation effect size.

One study (van Essen, M., Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E. R. and Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2015), How does Family Control Influence Firm Strategy and Performance? A Meta-Analysis of US Publicly Listed Firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23: 3–24. doi: 10.1111/corg.12080) obviously used the number of firm-year observations. Another (E.H. O’Boyle Jr., J.M. Pollack, M.W. Rutherford: Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects

Journal of Business Venturing, 27 (1) (2012), pp. 1–18) used the number of firms.

Thanks in advance.

Todor

Once a corporate has acquired a minority share into a Venture, the process of Corporate Venturing more or less starts. It is now up to the Corporate to make good on their promises on being able to scale the Venture. This makes me curious on how corporates approach this dilemma. Therefore, my questions are:

(i) Are there any theoretical frameworks helpful to the scale-up traject of Ventures?

(ii) Are there any mechanisms by which a corporate could efficiently embed a Venture within the organization

I know these are broad questions, but I am open to any kind of information source.

Do you have valid & reliable questionnaires to measure the following:

Your early reply will be highly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Sarasvathy, the researcher behind the model of effectuation, stated the gap between effectuation used by entrepreneurs and the application of this model at established firms. How does the logic of the model, the effectual logic, in a most effective way can be applied at etablished firms and what benefits would this bring? Are there any possible downsides? And lastly: are there any recent findings on this topic or actual cases, from which new knowledge can be drawn?

The research im basing my assesment on:

 Brettel, M, Mauer, R, Engelen, A, Küpper, D. 2012. Corporate effectuation: Entrepreneurial action and its impact on R&D project performance. Journal of Business Venturing 27: 167-184.

 Reymen, IMMJ, Andries, P, Berends, H, Mauer, R, Stephan, U, van Burg, E. 2015. Understanding dynamics of strategic decision making in venture creation: A process study of effectuation and causation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 9: 351-379.

Sarasvathy, S. 2001. Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review 26(2): 243-263.

Thanks a lot in advance!

Daniel Klaus

Today, the frequency of research endeavors and their dissemination platforms viz. journals, periodicals, magazines, forums, round tables, conferences in the areas of entrepreneurship and small business management have increased significantly. Institutions, both academic and research, are very enthusiastically aiming and organizing such events where the research findings (both empirical and review) are being shared by researchers, academicians and professionals.

Research in entrepreneurship domain mostly revolves around entrepreneurship development process (ideation to scale-up); environmental and external determinant of entrepreneurship including studies on inclusivity in the context of Gender, Disadvantage group etc. The psychological, cognitive and individual characteristics have been studied as well to understand more about entrepreneurs, their mindset and profiles. Of late, it is observed that entrepreneurship research dimensions have increased from a few areas to many sectors and societal groups. The role of Government, both the future policies and reviews of existing policies and programmes on entrepreneurship, has also been debated in the research endeavours. In fact, scholars have explored the nuances of Public Policies including impact assessments of various initiatives aiming for livelihood and self-employment.

Studies on corporate venturing has grown into studying corporate entrepreneurship in the emergence of technology business incubator which is the key supportive factor to new-Gen innovative tech-ventures. Though researchers have included many of the societal issues in their entrepreneurship literature, but still I feel that there is a need to go beyond studying ‘formal entrepreneurship’ to informal entrepreneurship ‘or ‘inclusive entrepreneurship’ or ‘grassroots entrepreneurship’. The bottom of the pyramid in our society mostly depended upon some livelihood activities (self-employment, Tiny/Nano enterprises) and their approach is extremely different than formal enterprises, where the growth, expansion, vision, strategy etc. maters too much.

The researchers who are studying entrepreneurship using social theories must make an attempt to differentiate ‘How entrepreneurship, management, psychology, sociology and economics theories behave when these are used in Grassroots Entrepreneurship context?’ There is also need to study some issues for instance, Social Network Structures of Grassroots Entrepreneurs; Fear of Failure among entrepreneurs at the grassroots level; Stigmatization of Failed Grassroots Entrepreneurs; Mindset of Grassroots entrepreneurs etc.