Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innovation and Effectiveness of Co-Founded Ventures: A Process Model

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We propose a process model relating innovative climates to effectiveness in co-founded ventures. Specifically, we argue that co-founders’ inputs relate to venture effectiveness via processes of team member exchange (TMX), team learning, and collective efficacy.

Design/Methodology/Approach

To study a population that is difficult to access, we use a computerized simulation in which 202 individuals act as new venture co-founders.

Findings

Results of our research support the hypothesized input-process-outcome model such that the intra-team processes of TMX, team learning, and collective efficacy fully mediate the relationship between the input of co-founding team climate for innovation and the outcome of co-founded venture effectiveness.

Implications

This study advances theory regarding processes that link team climates for innovation to collective outcomes. While we focus on this relationship in co-founded ventures, our findings have implications for team-level innovation research by clarifying how innovation relates to effectiveness. Beyond advancing theory, knowledge of this relationship may be of benefit to practice by identifying mediating mechanisms that can be reinforced in training and used as indicators of venture success by potential investors. Further, we contribute to the understanding of an important but understudied population of co-founded ventures and answer calls to utilize simulations to address team-based organizational questions.

Originality/Value

Our study answers calls to both clarify the processes that relate innovative climates to business outcomes and utilize computer simulations in organizational research while also addressing an important population of co-founded ventures that lacks a significant body of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consistent with Salas et al. (1992) we define a team as “a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal/objective/mission, who have been assigned specific roles or functions to perform, and who have a limited life span of membership” (p. 4). This definition aligns with the notion of venture teams in the entrepreneurial context as defined by Watson et al. (1995) as “two or more individuals who jointly establish and actively participate in a business in which they have an equity (financial) interest” (p. 394). A point/counterpoint dialog between Williams (2010) and Moreland (2010) provides additional insight with respect to viewing dyads as teams.

References

  • Aime, F., Johnson, S., Ridge, J. W., & Hill, A. D. (2010). The routine may be stable but the advantage is not: Competitive implications of key employee mobility. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. Group learning in organizations. (2001). In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum: 369-412.

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, S. J., & Hird, A. (2009). Cognitive style and entrepreneurial drive of new and mature business owner–managers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(4), 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audia, P., Locke, E., & Smith, K. (2000). The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 837–853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A. (2007). Behavioral and cognitive factors in entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurs as the active element in new venture creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. T. (2009). Entrepreneurs’ social skills and new venture performance: Mediating mechanisms and cultural generality. Journal of Management, 35(1), 282–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J., Frese, M., & Baron, R. A. (2007). The psychology of entrepreneurship. Maywah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J., & Locke, E. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 587–598.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M., & Burton, M. D. (2008). Founding the future: Path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein (Ed.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group size and measures of group-level properties: An examination of eta-squared and ICC values. Journal of Management, 24, 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, C., Van Olffen, W., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2005). Team locus-of-control composition, leadership structure, information acquisition, and financial performance: A business simulation study. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 889–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., Van Praag, M., Thurik, R., & de Wit, G. (2004). The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of startups. Small Business Economics, 23(3), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, D., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the’ strength’ of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational knowledge and communities of practice. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakar, N. D., & Erturk, A. (2010). Comparing innovation capability of small and medium-sized enterprises: Examining the effects of organizational culture and empowerment. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(3), 325–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., & McClell, C. L. (1993). Follow-up extension of the interdisciplinary costs and benefits of enlarged jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castrogiovanni, G. J. (1996). Pre-startup planning and the survival of new small businesses: Theoretical linkages. Journal of Management, 22, 801–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chahine, S., Filatochev, I., & Zahra, S. A. (2011). Building perceived quality of founder-involved IPO firms: Founders’ effects on board selection and stock market performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2), 319–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G., Honig, B., & Wiklund, J. (2005). Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 705–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G. L., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549–556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Greene, P., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Thomas, B., & Wallace, J. (2005). A multilevel examination of the relationships among training outcomes, mediating regulatory processes, and adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 827–840.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chesney, A., & Locke, E. (1991). Relationships among goal difficulty, business strategies, and performance on a complex management simulation task. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 400–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeDreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeDreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2003). Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 24(12), 1165–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRue, D., Hollenbeck, J., Johnson, M., Ilgen, D., & Jundt, D. (2008). How different team downsizing approaches influence team-level adaptation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 182–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. (1962). Studies of interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6, 52–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13, 128–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, B. D., & Arthur, W. (2007). An examination of factors contributing to a reduction in subgroup differences on a constructed response paper–and–pencil test of scholastic achievement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 794–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., Carland, J. W., & Carland, J. C. (2000). Investigating the existence of the lead entrepreneur. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(4), 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15, 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Sleeth, R. G., & Siders, M. A. (1999). Organizing culture: Leader roles, behaviors, and reinforcement mechanisms. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(4), 545–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B. (2001). Me and us: Differential relationships among goal-setting training, efficacy and effectiveness at the individual and team level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 789–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Earley, P. C. (2007). Collective cognition in action: Accumulation, interaction, examination, and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32, 438–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2006). New venture growth: A review and extension. Journal of Management, 32, 926–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimeno, J., Folta, T., Cooper, A., & Woo, C. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 750–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Y. P. (2003). Toward a dynamic process model of staffing composition and subsidiary outcomes in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management, 29, 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819–832.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J., & Morris, C. (1975). Team tasks, team interaction process, and team performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32, 334–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). The interaction of social skill and organizational support on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 482–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From I-P-O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Isabella, L. A., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Top management team certainty—Environmental assessments, teamwork, and performance implications. Journal of Management, 20, 835–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jack, S., & Anderson, A. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 467–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2004). Corporate elites and corporate strategy: How demographic preferences and structural position shape the scope of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 507–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. K., Holladay, C. L., & Quinones, M. A. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior in performance evaluations: Distributive justice or injustice? Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(4), 409–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. D., Shull, A. S., & Wallace, J. C. (2010). Regulatory focus as mediator in goal orientation and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 751–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). New features in LISREL (Vol. 8). Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.

  • Joshi, A., Liao, H., & Roh, H. (2011). Bridging domains in workplace demography research: A review and reconceptualization. Journal of Management, 37, 521–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

  • Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 1–53). London: Wiley.

  • Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: A review and suggestions for developing the field. Journal of Management, 35, 600–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, E. B., DeChermont, K., West, M., Dawson, J. F., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). How innovation can alleviate negative consequences of demanding work contexts: The influence of climate for innovation on organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivimaki, M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A short version of the team climate inventory: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S., Gully, S., Brown, K., Salas, E., Smith, E., & Nason, E. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 1–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal of Management, 35, 634–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy–performance spirals: A multilevel Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G., & Baron, R. (2003). Person–entrepreneurship fit: Why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 281–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G., Baron, R., & Balkin, D. (2005). Are perseverance and self-efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs’ regretful thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2005, 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. R. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 97–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J., & Rapp, T. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 90–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 225–254). New York: Wiley.

  • Morel, L. A., & Krishnan, R. (1998). Training people to work in groups. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 37–60). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L. (2010). Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research, 41(2), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, M. S., Hattrup, K., Doverspike, D., & Cober, A. (2002). The validity of ‘mini’ simulations for Mexican retail salespeople. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(4), 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, M. R. (1977). Relational communication: Theory and research. Human Communication Research, 3, 372–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). The effects of critical team member assertiveness on team performance and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32, 575–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 387–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 561–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, M. W., & Buller, P. F. (2007). Searching for the legitimacy threshold. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 78–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Dickinson, T. D., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schminke, M. (1990). Computer-based job simulation: A complementary approach to organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4(3), 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group and Organization Management, 20, 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus approach to entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that entrepreneurs, investors, and policy makers live by. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. (2003). Venture creation and the enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29, 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. Chicago: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stajkovic, A., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 17–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tesluk, P., Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M. A., & Mathieu, J. E. (1997). Task and aggregation issues in analysis and assessment of team performance. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 197–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1986). The social pyschology of groups (pp. 100–125). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization: Stimulate diversity and create unity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37, 490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Isabella, L. A. (1989). Strategy, beliefs about the environment, and performance in a banking simulation. Journal of Management, 15, 617–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B., Mondore, S. P., & Finch, D. M. (2008). The interactive effects of litigation intentions and procedural justice climate on employee–employer litigation charges. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20, 313–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psychological empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability: A managerial perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 840–850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, J. C., Popp, E., & Mondore, S. (2006). Safety climate as a mediator between foundation climates and occupational accidents: A group-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 681–688.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., & Wu, L. (2012). Team member commitments and start-up competitiveness. Journal of Business Research, 65, 708–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, N. (2008). The founder’s dilemma. Harvard Business Review, 86(2), 102–109.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. E., Ponthieu, L. D., & Critelli, J. W. (1995). Team interpersonal process effectiveness in venture partnerships and its connection to perceived success. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. D. (2010). Dyads can be groups (and often are). Small Group Research, 41, 268–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, P. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ networks and the success of start-ups. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16, 391–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, J. A., & Pett, T. L. (2006). Small-firm performance: Modeling the role of product and process improvements. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 268–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & El-Hagrassey, G. M. (2002). Competitive analysis and new venture performance: Understanding the impact of strategic uncertainty and venture origin. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on micro-accidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 587–596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

    Aaron D. Hill, J. Craig Wallace & Tracy A. Suter

  2. College of Business and Behavioral Science, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

    Jason W. Ridge

  3. College of Business, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA

    Paul D. Johnson

  4. College of Business, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

    Jeffrey B. Paul

Authors
  1. Aaron D. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Craig Wallace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jason W. Ridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul D. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeffrey B. Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tracy A. Suter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron D. Hill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hill, A.D., Craig Wallace, J., Ridge, J.W. et al. Innovation and Effectiveness of Co-Founded Ventures: A Process Model. J Bus Psychol 29, 145–159 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9306-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9306-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation