Exploring board formation and evolution of board composition in academic spin-offs
- 850 Downloads
An in-depth analysis of 11 cases is used to provide insight into the neglected area of the dynamics of boards in academic spin-offs. Drawing on stage-based, resource dependence, and social network theories, we explore board formation and changes in board composition occurring in Norwegian and US spin-offs. We find that these theories are important complements to earlier research on boards in technology-based new ventures. The process of board formation is mainly driven by social networks of the founders. Although we find differences in the initial board compositions in Norwegian and US spin-offs, there is convergence over time in subsequent board changes, which are mainly driven by the social networks of the board chair. Additions of key board members are associated with the progress of a spin-off developing from one stage to another. Several avenues for future research and implications are discussed.
KeywordsBoards of directors Academic spin-offs Stages Resources Social networks
JEL ClassificationM13 M10
The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful suggestions of the anonymous reviewers and would like to thank Andrew Nelson, SCANCOR, and IØT seminar participants for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
- Aldrich, H. E., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
- Arundel, A., & Bordoy, C. (2008). Developing internationally comparable indicators for the commercialization of publicly-funded research. UNUMERIT, Working Paper Series #2008-075.Google Scholar
- Baum, J. A. C., & 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, 19, 411–436. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00038-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Borch, O. J., & Huse, M. (1993). Informal strategic networks and the board of directors. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 23–26.Google Scholar
- Cooper, A. C., & Daily, C. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial teams. In D. Sexton & R. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000. Chicago: Upstart Publishing.Google Scholar
- Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2004). Context, behavior, and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance. International Studies of Management & Organization, 34(2), 11–36.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.Google Scholar
- Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: A theory of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510. doi: 10.1086/228311.
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2003). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organisations. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11(4), 79.Google Scholar
- Timmons, J. A., & Spinelli, S., Jr. (2004). New venture creation: entrepreneurship for the 21st century (6th ed.). Boston, Mass: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar