4.7 Article

Founder or Joiner? The Role of Preferences and Context in Shaping Different Entrepreneurial Interests

期刊

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 61, 期 9, 页码 2160-2184

出版社

INFORMS
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2100

关键词

entrepreneurship; joiners; human capital; academic entrepreneurship; scientists and engineers

资金

  1. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
  2. Georgia Research Alliance
  3. National Science Foundation [SMA 1262270]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Entrepreneurial ventures rely not only on founders but also on joiners-start-up employees who are attracted to entrepreneurship, but who do not want to be founders themselves. Drawing on both preference and contextual theories of entrepreneurship, we examine how individuals' interest in being a founder, a joiner, or neither forms prior to the first career transition. We find that although individuals with founder and joiner interests share similar preferences for entrepreneurial job attributes such as autonomy and risk, their preferences for these attributes also differ in significantly meaningful ways. Contextual factors such as norms, role models, and opportunities exhibit very different relationships with founder and joiner interests. Most interestingly, our results suggest that preferences and context interrelate in unique ways to shape different entrepreneurial interests. In particular, an interest in being a founder is most strongly associated with individuals' preferences for entrepreneurial job attributes, whereas contextual factors do little to shape a founder interest in individuals who lack these preferences. An interest in being a joiner, on the other hand, is associated with both preferences and context, and this relationship is most pronounced for individuals with preferences that predispose them toward entrepreneurship. This study highlights joiners as a distinct type of entrepreneurial actor and demonstrates the importance of considering the interplay between preferences and context in the study of entrepreneurship.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据