Entrepreneurial teams: definition and performance ...

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0140-9174.htm

Entrepreneurial teams: definition and performance factors

Entrepreneurial teams

Leon Schjoedt College of Business, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, USA, and

Sascha Kraus

513

Institute for Entrepreneurship, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to stimulate future research on entrepreneurial teams (ET). Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents a literature-driven definition of ET and model of factors influencing entrepreneurial team performance. Findings – The paper illustrates potential fruitful areas for future research on entrepreneurial teams. Research limitations/implications – A literature-driven approach on ET provides an improved basis for future research. Modeling entrepreneurial team performance factors based on a heuristic model provides a basis for both conceptual and empirical research in the future. Practical implications – By stimulating additional research on entrepreneurial teams, this paper assists in creating a better distinction on how and why the entrepreneurial team influences new venture performance. Originality/value – Most research on ET is based on an inadequate definition of the concept. This paper adds value by presenting a literature-driven definition of entrepreneurial teams. Research on ET tends to focus on demographic heterogeneity. This article adds value by illustrating potential fruitful areas of research on ET based on a heuristics team performance model from the organizational literature. Keywords Teams, Entrepreneurialism, Team performance Paper type Research paper

Introduction Entrepreneurial teams (ET) start a significant number of new ventures; or a team is created within the early years of start-up (Aldrich et al., 2002; Kamm et al., 1990; Ruef et al., 2003; Watson et al., 1995). Existing research shows a strong association between higher corporate success and team-created ventures (Birley and Stockley, 2000; Cooper and Bruno, 1977; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990). One reason for this superior performance is that an entrepreneurial team has – relative to an individual – more human and social capital at its disposal in dealing with the uncertainties and vicissitudes associated with new venture creation in today’s environment (Chowdhury, 2005; Lechler and Gemu¨nden, 2003; West, 2007). Additionally, also in established firms, the top management team (TMT) has shown to have greater influence on organizational performance than an individual executive (Barrick et al., 2007; Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; O’Reilly et al., 1993). This situation is also evident from the entrepreneurship literature which shows that the ET influences new venture performance (Amason et al., 2006; Ensley and Pearce, 2001; Foo et al., 2006; This article is based upon a paper, ‘‘Defining entrepreneurial teams and modelling entrepreneurial team performance’’, presented at the 2007 ICSB World Conference, Turku, Finland, by the first author. An earlier version of the paper: ‘‘Entrepreneurial teams: definitions and determinants’’ was presented at the 2002 Annual USASBE National Conference, Reno, Nevada.

Management Research News Vol. 32 No. 6, 2009 pp. 513-524 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0140-9174 DOI 10.1108/01409170910962957

MRN 32,6

514

Francis and Sandberg, 2000; Mellewigt and Spa¨th, 2002; Vyakarnam et al., 1999). Furthermore, venture capital firms rarely consider venture proposals from individual entrepreneurs, but favor proposals from ET because team-based ventures, overall, have a better performance record (Baum and Silverman, 2004; Kamm et al., 1990; Timmons and Spinelli, 1999). Therefore, the ET appears to play a critical role to new venture success (Clarkin and Rosa, 2005; Cooper and Daily, 1997). Despite the importance of the ET, most of the extant entrepreneurship literature has focused on the individual entrepreneur (Watson et al., 1995), with ET neglected in the literature (Foo et al., 2006). One reason for this neglect might be that the concept of ET has not been adequately defined (Birley and Stockley, 2000). Thus, there is a need to define the ET and to examine how factors influence ET performance and, in turn, new venture performance. This article seeks to advance the entrepreneurship literature by presenting a reformulated literature-driven definition of ET and by modeling factors which influence ET performance. The article has two major parts. The first part focuses on defining the ET based on a review of the extant literature in response to the observation that the ET has yet to be adequately defined (Birley and Stockley, 2000). Using the heuristic model of team performance presented by Cohen and Bailey (1997) the second part of this article models factors which influence ET performance. Specifically, the team performance model shows that the external environment of the new venture, the ET composition, and the ET processes have a significant influence on ET performance. As a consequence, the second part of this article is divided into three respective subchapters, being followed by the concluding comments. Definition of entrepreneurial teams Unlike TMTs (Hambrick, 2007; O’Reilly et al., 1993), the concept of the ET has not been adequately defined in the literature (Birley and Stockley, 2000). The existing literature contains numerous differing definitions of the ET. These definitions share one common indicator: the ET consists of, at least, two individuals (Cooney, 2005). However, this kind of definition disregards other important aspects, especially the difference between the concepts of groups and teams. The literature on groups shows that the concept of teams is different from that of groups (Katzenbach and Smith, 2003). Also, the literature on the TMT recognizes this difference. Hambrick (1994, 2007), for example, points out that the TMT is not a team per se, but a group of people with management responsibilities. To better define the ET, the concept of groups needs to be considered first. A group is defined as ‘‘two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives’’ (Robbins and Judge, 2008, p. 123). Cohen and Bailey (1997) note that next to that, a team also shares the outcomes. The researchers also note that for a team to be considered a team, its members must see themselves as a social unit. This definition shows that teams are a special kind of group in which members are more closely connected and stand up for one another, and are characterized by engagement and commitment (Katzenbach and Smith, 2003). Thus, an ET is more than a group, because it involves a shared commitment to the new venture (Cooper and Daily, 1997). While the shared commitment is important, these scholars stop short of defining what constitutes a shared commitment. Other researchers have made suggestions on what constitutes the shared commitment. For example, Katzenbach and Smith (2003) propose that what must be shared by the ET is accountability. Whereas, Kamm and Nurick (1993) suggest that the shared commitment of the ET is established when two or more people formally establish a

new venture in which they share ownership. Thus, the shared commitment seems to be towards the ET as a whole and the performance of the new venture. Where Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990) note the ET is a group of people holding executive positions during the founding process of a new venture. Nevertheless, Shepherd and Krueger (2002) only call a team entrepreneurial when it is focused on the proactive and creative search for opportunities with the target of bringing future goods and services into existence. Building on these perspectives, the following definition of ET is proposed: An entrepreneurial team consists of two or more persons who have an interest, both financial and otherwise, in and commitment to a venture’s future and success; whose work is interdependent in the pursuit of common goals and venture success; who are accountable to the entrepreneurial team and for the venture; who are considered to be at the executive level with executive responsibility in the early phases of the venture, including founding and prestart up; and who are seen as a social entity by themselves and by others.

This definition emphasizes that interdependent tasks are coordinated in the pursuit of common goals, such as the creation of a new venture. This definition does not mean that tasks have to be performed by all team members (Katzenbach, 1997). It means that tasks can be performed by individuals in the ET, in sub-groups of the ET, with others outside the ET, or by the entire ET. These tasks should all contribute to the common goals of the ET and the future success of the venture. Thus, the tasks are interdependent. The definition suggests that the ET should be seen by themselves and by others as a social entity. The ET is not formed based on titles or otherwise, but is formed based on a shared commitment to each other as participants in the ET, to the ET as an entity, and to the venture and its performance. The definition has an inherent link between the ET, its shared commitment, and the performance of the venture. In other words, the shared commitment will show itself in the extent to which the ET accomplishes its goals, which constitutes the definition of team performance (Devine and Philips, 2001). Determinants of entrepreneurial team performance The entrepreneurial team interprets and responds to the external environment, as well as manages the venture internally (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Jackson, 1992; O’Reilly et al., 1993). Consequently, the ET has a dual and complex function. This complexity is furthered by the fact that venture creation is a novel and mostly unstructured task (Amason et al., 2006; Jackson, 1992; O’Reilly et al., 1993). Adding to this complexity is the lack of operating history and non-developed scanning capabilities, because there is no precedence to rely upon (Cooper et al., 1994). These aspects require that the ET needs heterogeneity in its human capital, e.g. experiences, knowledge, skills, and abilities, as well as homogeneity to be able to function together, to be effective in managing the venture and in responding to the external environment. Thus, and consistent with the heuristic model of team performance presented by Cohen and Bailey (1997), ET performance is contingent upon the external environment, ET composition, and ET processes; all of which will be considered subsequently. External environment The external environment has a direct influence on venture performance (Birley and Stockley, 2000). Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990) found that a venture’s present and founding environments had a significant influence on venture performance. They furthermore revealed that a growth market provides the combination of present market


515

MRN 32,6

516

size and rapid increases in demand that facilitates venture growth due to the abundance of resources that could be generated in this kind of environment. Notably, Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990) also discovered that the effects of the founding environment did not fade, but even grew over time. In addition to the direct effect the environment has on venture performance, it also affects venture performance indirectly via the ET (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). The type of external environment – stable or turbulent – influences venture performance indirectly through how the ET responds to the environment. In stable environments, a heterogeneous ET will experience lower venture performance as the need for communication is greater in a heterogeneous ET, and fast responses in the stable environment are essential (Murray, 1989). In turbulent environments, a heterogeneous ET will have superior performance because the heterogeneous ET makes more comprehensive decisions by considering more options for action (Glick et al., 1993). Essentially, it is how the ET responds to the environment that influences venture performance. This indirect influence of the environment on venture performance is further illustrated by Rumelt’s (1991) comment that venture performance is businesslevel specific, not industry-level specific. Thus, for the ET to be successful, in the novel and unstructured task of venture creation and in its dual and complex function (Cooper et al., 1994; Jackson, 1992; O’Reilly et al., 1993), a heterogenetic composition in terms of experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities is required. While the ET needs to be heterogeneous, it also needs to be homogeneous in terms of composition for it to function. Thus, heterogeneity and homogeneity of the ET affects how capable the ET is in responding to environment, which, in turn, influence venture performance. In short, the environment influences venture performance directly and indirectly through the composition of the ET (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990). Entrepreneurial team composition The ET composition is the second group of factors influencing team performance (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). It refers to the collective characteristics of its members (e.g. Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Levine and Moreland, 1990). Cooper and Daily (1997) suggest that an ET is most effective if the experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities of the ET are balanced. The situation facing the ET may be considered weak as venture creation is a novel and discontinuous action (Cooper et al., 1994; Jackson, 1992; O’Reilly et al., 1993). In situations that include novel problems, such as venture creation, or in a turbulent environment, heterogeneous team composition leads to superior team performance (Filley et al., 1976; Hambrick and Mason, 1984), whereas homogeneous teams are more efficient in dealing with routine tasks (Filley et al., 1976). This situational analysis illustrates that ET composition is an important predictor of ET and, in turn, venture performance (Ensley and Pearce, 2001; Francis and Sandberg, 2000; Hackman, 1987; Stewart, 2006). Individual differences form the basis for a heterogeneous ET. The individual differences used in entrepreneurship research, typically, consist of surface-level (or demographic) characteristics, such as tenure, age, functional experience, educational background, or race (e.g. Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Pelled et al., 1999). Even though surface-level characteristics are frequently used to assess ET heterogeneity, some surface-level characteristics do not have a significant positive association with ET or venture performance. For example, race has not been shown to have a significant impact of performance, but aspects related to race may limit the probability for a successful venture, such as a limited network in an entrepreneurial environment or in

an industry. Also, entrepreneurs having parents who were entrepreneurs has not been associated with successful ventures, but has been associated with ventures that experienced marginal survival (Cooper et al., 1994). Other surface-level characteristics with non-significant relationships with performance include: previous held management level of ET members, whether the ET member had experience in not-forprofit organizations or whether the ET member had not been in the labor force (Cooper et al., 1994). This leaves only two surface-level characteristics that have been shown to significantly influence ET and venture performance: educational background and experience, as well as industry and functional experience. Despite the fact that ET research has largely focused on surface-level characteristics, it is only part of ET heterogeneity. This situation is illustrated by research based on associating surface-level characteristics and organizational performance via unmeasured deep-level psychological constructs (e.g. cognitive style or risk aversion; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Hambrick and D’Aveni, 1992). This practice of assuming that surface-level characteristics are proxies for psychological constructs is unfortunate as research has shown that the effect of surface-level heterogeneity is reduced over time as the ET engages in problem solving and decision-making (e.g. Glick et al., 1993; Harrison et al., 1998, 2002). However, the effect of heterogeneity based on deep-level characteristics (e.g. personality, values, and attitudes) is sustainable (Harrison et al., 1998, 2002). Surface-level heterogeneity is independent of deep-level heterogeneity; thus, deep-level characteristics cannot be approximated from surface-level characteristics. Furthermore, scholars have suggested that deep-level characteristics have stronger effect on ET performance than surface-level characteristics (Harrison et al., 1998, 2002; Hollenbeck et al., 2004). The use of surface-level characteristics may have been based on ease of use and collection (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Carpenter et al., 2004; Hambrick, 1994). Thus, deep-level characteristics need to be examined separately when exploring the black box of the ET (Birley and Stockley, 2000). Over time, as the ET engages in problem-solving and decision-making, the effect of heterogenic surface-level characteristics decreases (Glick et al., 1993; Harrison et al., 1998, 2002). This effect may be beneficial to ET and venture performance as the ET develops and as tasks become routine, since routine tasks are usually handled more efficiently by a homogeneous ET. However, need for a heterogeneous ET may still exist as the heterogeneous ET makes more effective decisions because it considers more options in the decision-making process (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990). Thus, as time erases surface-level characteristics, the need for deep-level characteristics still exist. For that reason, changes in ET composition may be desired to maintain a balance between, both surface- and deep-level, heterogeneity and homogeneity for effective and efficient ET performance (Cooper and Daily, 1997). To maintain this balance between heterogeneity and homogeneity the ET may encounter two pitfalls – failure to consider the ET composition will change over time and lack of mechanisms to adjust the ET to maintain an appropriate level of heterogeneity and homogeneity in order to stimulate constructive conflict while still being able to function (Amason, 1996; Kamm and Nurick, 1993; Timmons and Spinelli, 1999). Entrepreneurial team processes The third group of factors influencing team performance is team processes. Cohen and Bailey (1997) observe that team processes include conflict and communication. Since power and politics are both important aspects of conflict and communication, they are


517

MRN 32,6

518

also considered in this section on ET processes. It should be noted that according to the team performance model (Cohen and Bailey, 1997), ET composition directly and indirectly influences ET performance, where the ET processes mediate the indirect relationship. Conflict. Both constructive and destructive conflicts arise from heterogeneity. This relationship implies that heterogeneity should be limited. However, homogeneity, based on both surface- and deep-level characteristics, has consequences that may impair the ET and ET and venture performance. Without (constructive) conflict, the ET may experience groupthink ( Janis, 1972). An ET that engages in groupthink unknowingly limits the range of options considered and limits information processing (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990). Despite this aversion of ET homogeneity, some homogeneity must exist for the ET to function. It is too much homogeneity that is the issue. On the other hand, heterogeneity leads to conflict – conflict takes time – making the ET slower and less efficient (Hambrick et al., 1996; O’Reilly et al., 1993). Yet, several researchers have emphasized that heterogeneity is vital to ET and venture performance (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Cooper and Daily, 1997; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Hambrick et al., 1996). Because through constructive conflict, the ET develops more comprehensive decisions based on richer information and different perspectives, gains a better understanding of the problems, and develops more options for action (Eisenhardt et al., 1997). This situation does require that destructive, or affective conflict (i.e. personal attacks), and politics are limited as these consume time making the ET less effective and efficient (Amason and Sapienza, 1997; Hambrick et al., 1996; Jehn, 1995; Pelled et al., 1999). Power and politics. Power is the capacity to influence others (Robbins and Judge, 2008). As such, power is a social process (Smith et al., 2006). It is an important factor in ET performance (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988; Finkelstein, 1992; Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993; Smith et al., 2006), which is contingent upon ET members use their power to influence the rest of the ET. Despite its importance, power has received limited attention by researchers (Finkelstein, 1992). For this reason and as situations characterized by uncertainty, especially where the work is interdependent in nature such a new venture creation, invite the use of power according to Thompson (1967), power has been included as an extension of the team process performance determinants considered by Cohen and Bailey (1997). While power influences ET performance (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988; Finkelstein, 1992; Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993; Smith et al., 2006), it should be noted that changes in the environment or in the venture’s development may require a re-distribution of power within the ET, whether permanently or temporarily. Unequal distribution of power enhances ET performance, if the power is shifted to the person who fit the situation facing the ET best (Finkelstein, 1992; Smith et al., 2006). Even though inequality of power is a reality of the ET (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988), power may not be allocated to the right person given the situation, which in turn, results in poorer venture performance (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988; Greve and Mitsuhashi, 2007; Smith et al., 2006). A shift in distribution of power within the ET may run contrary to the motivations of some members of the ET, who may desire power for the sake of power (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988; Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993; Timmons and Spinelli, 1999). These individuals will seek to concentrate power through the means of political behavior (i.e. restricting information; Pfeffer, 1981), where political behaviors are selfserving activities that are not required as part of one’s organizational role (Robbins and

Judge, 2008). As an individual pursues the political goal of achieving power by restricting information or intentionally misleading the ET, ET and venture performance will be negatively influenced (Pfeffer, 1981). Research also shows that dominant CEOs contribute to poor ET and venture performance (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988; Greve and Mitsuhashi, 2007; Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993; Smith et al., 2006). Thus, political behaviors within the ET reduce ET and venture performance; whereas ‘‘power distribution can be a strong indicator of firm performance’’ (Smith et al., 2006, p. 628). Communication. Conflict is not the cause of politics, but the concentration of power is (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988). Conflict over venture goals, or other important issues pertaining to the venture, provides the ET with opportunity to communicate ET member expectations, decide on common goals that all ET members will work for, establish a shared commitment, and make more comprehensive decision-making by considering more perceptions, information, and alternatives (Eisenhardt et al., 1997; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990). The frequency of communication can help an ET to reduce conflict (Vyakarnam and Handelberg, 2005). In this way, communication may enhance ET and venture performance (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Watson et al., 1995). Communication can be regarded as the heart of group behavior (Shaw, 1981). However, disagreement over important issues for the ET and the venture and, especially, lack of communication to resolve these issues within the ET may lead directly to lower venture performance (West and Meyer, 1998). Continued, rich communication such as face-to-face communication, leads to ET integration, more comprehensive decision-making, and facilitates coordination of interdependent tasks, which, in turn, results in better ET and venture performance (Glick et al., 1993; Hambrick, 1994). The need for communication to ‘‘iron out’’ differences in perspectives of the world (paradigms), interpretations, and expectations for the venture and ET participation depends on the degree of heterogeneity within the ET. For example, as the ET communicates and becomes a socially integrated unit that reacts faster and is more flexible, efficient, and effective the ET, through its developed problem solving skills and communicated aspirations, may allocate time and energy to where it will have the most impact (Smith et al., 2006). In short, communication may enhance ET and venture performance (Amason and Sapienza, 1997; Watson et al., 1995). Concluding comments This article contributes to the entrepreneurship and management research literature by firstly presenting a more comprehensive literature-driven definition of entrepreneurial teams. In developing the definition of the ET in response to an observation by Birley and Stockley (2000), it was our intention to provide a more adequate definition of the ET that will assist scholars in their future research on the ET. Secondly, to further stimulate additional research on the ET, the article illustrated how factors influence ET performance based on the heuristic team performance model presented by Cohen and Bailey (1997). This team performance model is based on three groups of factors influencing team performance – external environment, team composition, and team processes. Specifically, the external environment influences ET performance and, in turn, venture performance, through the ET composition. ET composition influences ET performance, both, directly and indirectly. In terms of ET processes, conflict, power and politics, and communication were considered. While the aim for defining the ET was to provide an adequate definition based on the entrepreneurial and organizational literatures, it is clear that consideration of


519

MRN 32,6

520

factors influencing ET performance was far from exhaustive. This is why the team performance model by Cohen and Bailey (1997) was used to guide consideration of the factors influencing ET performance. In developing this article, it was observed that additional research is needed on how the ET responds and adapts to the external environment (Boeker, 1997; Chandler et al., 2005). While the ET composition influences ET performance, directly and indirectly, it seems that limited additional research is needed regarding surface-level (i.e. demographic) composition. However, research on how deep-level (psychological) heterogeneity and homogeneity influence ET performance is needed to understand how and why the ET responds to the external environment in the context of new venture creation. Also, consideration of ET processes in this article was not exhaustive. While this presents a limitation of the present article, it also provides an avenue for future research i.e. how does debate (Carson et al., 2007) or shared leadership (Hmieleski and Ensley, 2007; Pearce et al., 2007) influence ET processes and performance? By addressing a limited number of ET processes, as well as illustrating the need for additional research on ET composition, this article shows there are amble and potential fruitful areas for future research on the ET fulfilling the aim of this article – to stimulate additional research on entrepreneurial teams. References Aldrich, H.E., Carter, N.M. and Ruef, M. (2002), ‘‘With very little help from their friends: gender and relational composition of startup teams’’, in Bygrave, W.D. (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 156-69. Amason, A. (1996), ‘‘Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-48. Amason, A.C. and Sapienza, H.J. (1997), ‘‘The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 495-517. Amason, A.C., Shrader, R.C. and Tompson, G.H. (2006), ‘‘Newness and novelty: relating top management team composition to new venture performance’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 125-48. Bantel, K. and Jackson, S. (1989), ‘‘Top management and innovation in banking: does the composition of the top team make a difference?’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 107-24. Barrick, M.R., Bradley, B.H. and Colbert, A.E. (2007), ‘‘The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 544-57. Baum, J.A.C. and Silverman, B.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, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 411-36. Birley, S. and Stockley, S. (2000), ‘‘Entrepreneurial teams and venture growth’’, in Sexton, D.L. (Ed.), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Blackwell Business, Oxford, pp. 287-307. Boeker, W. (1997), ‘‘Executive migration and strategic change: the effect of top manager movement on product-market entry’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 213-36. Carpenter, M.A., Gelekanycz, M.A. and Sanders, W.G. (2004), ‘‘Upper echelons research revisited: antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 749-78.

Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007), ‘‘Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1217-34. Chandler, G.N., Honig, B. and Wiklund, J. (2005), ‘‘Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 705-25. Chowdhury, S. (2005), ‘‘Demographic diversity for building and effective entrepreneurial team: is it important?’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 20, pp. 727-46. Clarkin, J.E. and Rosa, P.J. (2005), ‘‘Entrepreneurial teams within franchise firms’’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 303-34. Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), ‘‘What makes teams work: group effectiveness from the shop floor to the executive suite’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-90. Cooney, T.M. (2005), ‘‘What is an entrepreneurial team’’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 226-35. Cooper, A.C. and Bruno, A.V. (1977), ‘‘Success among high-technology firms’’, Business Horizons, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 16-22. Cooper, A.C. and Daily, C.M. (1997), ‘‘Entrepreneurial teams’’, in Sexton, D.L. and Smilor, R.W. (Eds), Entrepreneurship 2000, Upstart, Chicago, IL, pp. 127-50. Cooper, R.G., Gimeno-Gascon, F.J. and Woo, C.C. (1994), ‘‘Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 371-95. Devine, D.J. and Philips, J.L. (2001), ‘‘Do smarter teams do better: a meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance’’, Small Group Research, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 507-33. Eisenhardt, K.M. and Bourgeois, L.J. (1988), ‘‘Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: toward a midrange theory’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 737-70. Eisenhardt, K.M. and Schoonhoven, C.B. (1990), ‘‘Organizational growth – linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 504-29. Eisenhardt, K.M., Kahwajy, J.L. and Bourgeois, III, L.J. (1997), ‘‘How management teams can have a good fight’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 77-85. Ensley, M.D. and Pearce, C.L. (2001), ‘‘Shared cognition in top management teams – Implications for new venture performance’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 145-60. Filley, A.C., House, R.J. and Kerr, S. (1976), Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior, Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL. Finkelstein, S. (1992), ‘‘Power in top management teams: dimensions, measurement, and validation’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 505-38. Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D.C. (1990), ‘‘Top management team tenure and organizational outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 484-503. Foo, M.D., Sin, H.P. and Yiong, L.P. (2006), ‘‘Effects of team inputs and intrateam processes on perceptions of team viability and member satisfaction in nascent ventures’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 389-99. Francis, D.H. and Sandberg, W.R. (2000), ‘‘Friendship within entrepreneurial teams and its association with team and performance’’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 5-25. Glick, W.H., Miller, C.C. and Huber, G.P. (1993), ‘‘The impact of upper-echelon diversity on organizational performance’’, in Huber, G.P. and Glick, W.H. (Eds), Organizational Change


521

MRN 32,6

522

and Redesign: Ideas for Insights for Improving Performance, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Greve, H.R. and Mitsuhashi, H. (2007), ‘‘Power and glory: concentrated power in top management teams’’, Organization Studies, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1197-221. Hackman, J.R. (1987), ‘‘The design of work team’’, in Lorsh, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp. 315-42. Haleblian, J. and Finkelstein, S. (1993), ‘‘Top-management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: the moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 844-63. Hambrick, D.C. (1994), ‘‘Top management groups: a conceptual integration and reconsideration of the ‘team’ label’’, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 171-214. Hambrick, D.C. (2007), ‘‘Upper echelons theory: an update’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 334-43. Hambrick, D.C. and D’Aveni, R.A. (1992), ‘‘Top team deterioration as part of the downward spiral of large corporate bankruptcies’’, Management Science, Vol. 38 No. 10, pp. 1445-66. Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), ‘‘Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206. Hambrick, D.C., Cho, T.S. and Chen, M. (1996), ‘‘The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 659-84. Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), ‘‘Beyond rational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107. Harrison, D., Kenneth, A.P., Gavin, H.J. and Florey, A.T. (2002), ‘‘Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5. pp. 1029-45. Hmieleski, K.M. and Ensley, M.D. (2007), ‘‘A contextual examination of new venture performance: entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 865-89. Hollenbeck, J.R., Derue, D.S. and Guzzo, R. (2004), ‘‘Bridging the gap between I/O research and HR practice: improving team composition, team training, and team task design’’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 353-66. Jackson, S.E. (1992), ‘‘Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic issue processing’’, Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 8, pp. 345-82. Janis, I.L. (1972), Victims of Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Jehn, K.A. (1995), ‘‘A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-82. Kamm, J.B. and Nurick, A.J. (1993), ‘‘The stages of team venture formation: a decision-making model’’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 17-28. Kamm, J.B., Shuman, J.C., Seeger, J.A. and Nurick, A.J. (1990), ‘‘Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: a research agenda’’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 7-17. Katzenbach, J.R. (1997), ‘‘The myth of the top management team’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 82-91. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (2003), Teams – Der Schlu¨ssel zur Hochleistungsorganisation, Ueberreuther, Frankfurt, Wien.

Lechler, T. and Gemu¨nden, H.G. (2003), Gru¨nderteams – Chancen und Risiken fu¨r den Unternehmenserfolg, Physica, Heidelberg, New York, NY. Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. (1990), ‘‘Progress in small group research’’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 585-635. Mellewigt, T. and Spa¨th, J.F. (2002), ‘‘Entrepreneurial teams – a survey of German and US empirical studies’’, Zeitschrift fu¨r Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 72 No. 5, pp. 107-25. Murray, A.I. (1989), ‘‘Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, Special issue, pp. 125-41. O’Reilly, C.A., Snyder, R.C. and Boothe, J.N. (1993), ‘‘Effects of executive team demography on organizational change’’, in Huber, G.P. and Glick, W.H. (Eds), Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas for Insights for Improving Performance, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 147-75. Pearce, C.L., Conger, J.A. and Locke, E.A. (2007), ‘‘Shared leadership theory’’, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 281-8. Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), ‘‘Exploring the black box – an analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-28. Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in Organizations, Pitman, Marshfield, MA. Robbins, S.P. and Judge, J.A. (2008), Essentials of Organizational Behavior, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Ruef, M., Aldrich, H.E. and Carter, N.M. (2003), ‘‘The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs’’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 195-222. Rumelt, R.P. (1991), ‘‘How much does industry matter?’’ Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 167-85. Shaw, M.E. (1981), Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Shepherd, D.A. and Krueger, N.F. (2002), ‘‘An intentions-based model of entrepreneurial teams’ social cognition’’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 167-85. Smith, A., Houghton, S.M., Hood, J.N. and Ryman, J.A. (2006), ‘‘Power relationships among top managers: Does top management team power distribution matter for organizational performance?’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 622-9. Stewart, G.L. (2006), ‘‘A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 29-54. Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Timmons, J.A. and Spinelli, S. (1999), New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Vyakarnam, S. and Handelberg, J. (2005), ‘‘Four themes of the impact of management teams on organizational performance – implications for future research of entrepreneurial teams’’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 236-56. Vyakarnam, S., Jacobs, R. and Handelberg, J. (1999), ‘‘Exploring the formation of entrepreneurial teams: the key to rapid growth business’’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 153-65. Watson, W.E., Ponthieu, L.D. and Critelli, J.W. (1995), ‘‘Team interpersonal process effectiveness in venture partnerships and its connection to perceived success’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 393-411. West, G.P. and Meyer, G.D. (1998), ‘‘To agree or not to agree? Consensus and performance in new ventures’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 395-422.


523

MRN 32,6

524

West, P.G. (2007), ‘‘Collective cognition: when entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, make decisions’’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 77-102. About the authors Leon Schjoedt is Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at the College of Business, Illinois State University, USA, and during the summers at Thammasat University, Thailand. Dr Schjoedt’s research interests include the entrepreneur, entrepreneurial satisfaction, entrepreneurs’ work and family conflict, and entrepreneurial teams. His work has appeared in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of High Technology Management Research, and International HR Journal and been presented at Academy of Management, Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, USASBE and ICSB. He has taught at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark; Wake Forest University, University of Colorado at Boulder before. Leon Schjoedt is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Sascha Kraus is Research Professor at the University of Liechtenstein, Asc. Senior Researcher at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Austria and Associate Member at the Newcastle University’s Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology and Enterprise, UK. Before, he was Evald and Hilda Nissi Foundation International Fellow at the University of Vaasa, Finland and Substitute Professor at the Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Austria. Dr Kraus holds a doctorate and Master’s degrees in Business Administration from business schools in Germany, Austria, The Netherlands, and Australia. His main research interests are strategic management and entrepreneurship.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints