Advertisement

The relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation, Market Orientation and Performance in University Spin-Offs

  • Stefania MiglioriEmail author
  • Daniel Pittino
  • Augusta Consorti
  • Lorenzo Lucianetti
Article

Abstract

The paper aims to examine the relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO), Market Orientation (MO) and performance in University Spin-Offs (USOs). Initially, the paper, assesses the existence of a moderating effect of MO in the relationship between EO and performance, next, it analyses the mediation role of MO between EO and performance. To strengthen paper results, we test our hypotheses on a cross-sectional sample of 162 Italian USOs using both perceived and objective performance. Findings suggest that there is no synergistic effect of MO and EO as mutually independent constructs. Instead, our evidences support the idea that EO and MO in USOs occur within the same learning process. Both EO and MO support USO performance, but MO cannot occur without EO as an antecedent condition. At the same time, a significant portion of the EO contribution to performance occurs through MO.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial orientation Market orientation Performance University spin-offs 

References

  1. Abbate, T., & Cesaroni, F. (2017). The (needed?) market orientation of academic spin-off firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 21(4–5), 395–421.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.Google Scholar
  3. Atuahene-Gima, K., & Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization Science, 12(1), 54–74.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411–427.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2009). The complementary effects of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4), 443–464.Google Scholar
  6. Boso, M., Story, V. M., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 707–727.Google Scholar
  7. Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515–524.Google Scholar
  8. Cetindamar, D., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2009). Understanding technology management as a dynamic capability: a framework for technology management activities. Technovation, 29(4), 237–246.Google Scholar
  9. Cho, J. H., & Sohn, S. Y. (2016). Competing risk model for predicting stabilization period of university spin-off ventures. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0422-7.
  10. Choi, S. B., & Williams, C. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: mediating effects of technology and marketing action across industry types. Industry and Innovation, 23(8), 673–693.Google Scholar
  11. Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55–79.Google Scholar
  12. Clarysse, B., Wright, M. & Vendevelde, E. (2010). Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge and the growth of spin-off companies. Working paper, Universiteit Gent, december, 2010/693.Google Scholar
  13. Colombo, M. G., & Piva, E. (2012). Firms' genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: a comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups. Research Policy, 41(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
  14. Covin, J. G., Greem, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation–sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 57–81.Google Scholar
  15. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1998). Adherence to plans, risk taking, and environment as predictors of firm growth. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 9(2), 207–237.Google Scholar
  16. Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1–20.Google Scholar
  17. De Cleyn, S. H., Braet, J., & Klofsten, M. (2015). How human capital interacts with the early development of academic spin-offs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3), 599–621.Google Scholar
  18. Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructure for academic spin-off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 327–352.Google Scholar
  19. Delmar, F., Devidsson, P. & Gartner, W. (2003). Research on small firm growth: a review. Working Paper, Brisbane Graduate School of Business, Qeensland University of Technology.Google Scholar
  20. Deshpandè, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, J. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23–27.Google Scholar
  21. Dhewanto, W., & Sohal, A. S. (2015). The relationship between organisational orientation and research and development/technology commercialisation performance. R&D Management, 45(4), 339–360Google Scholar
  22. Dianez-Gonzalez, J. P., & Camelo-Ordaz, C. (2016). How management team composition affects academic spin-offs’ entrepreneurial orientation: the mediating role of conflict. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 530–557.Google Scholar
  23. Diánez-González, J. P., del Carmen Camelo-Ordaz, M., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2016). Management Teams’ Composition and Academic Spin-Offs’ Entrepreneurial Orientation: A Theoretical Approach. In Entrepreneurship-Practice-Oriented Perspectives. Intech.Google Scholar
  24. Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-off firms differ and does it matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 269–285.Google Scholar
  25. Ensley, M. D., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university based and independent start-up. Research Policy, 34(7), 1091–1105.Google Scholar
  26. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: the triple-helix of university industry- government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.Google Scholar
  27. Fontes, M. (2005). The process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge into economic value conducted by biotechnology spin-offs. Technovation, 25(4), 339–347.Google Scholar
  28. Goldstein, H. A. (2010). The "entrepreneurial turn" and regional economic development mission of universities. Annals of Regional Science, 44(1), 83–109.Google Scholar
  29. Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2003). Exploring the networking characteristics of new venture founding teams. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 329–341.Google Scholar
  30. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.Google Scholar
  31. Grinstein, A. (2008). The relationship between market orientation and alternative strategic orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 115–134.Google Scholar
  32. Gupta, A. K., Bhojwani, H. R., Koshal, R., & Koshal, M. (2000). Managing the process of market orientation by publicly funded laboratories: the case of CSIR, India. R&D Management, 30(4), 289–296.Google Scholar
  33. Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 30–45.Google Scholar
  34. Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1003–1015.Google Scholar
  35. Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 247–268.Google Scholar
  36. Hesse, N., & Sternberg, R. (2016). Alternative growth patterns of university spin-offs: why so many remain small? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0431-6.
  37. Iacobucci, D., & Micozzi, A. (2014). How to evaluate the impact of academic spin-offs on local development: an empirical analysis of the Italian case. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(3), 434–452.Google Scholar
  38. Jo, H., & Lee, J. (1996). The relationship between an entrepreneur's background and performance in new venture. Technovation, 16(4), 161–171.Google Scholar
  39. Kassicieh, S. (2011). Benefits from using surrogate entrepreneurs in technology commercialization. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 8(04), 521–534.Google Scholar
  40. Kim, J., & Wilemon, D. (2002). Focusing the fuzzy front–end in new product development. R&D Management, 32(4), 269–279.Google Scholar
  41. Kirwan, P., van der Sijde, P., & Groen, A. (2006). Assessing the needs of new technology based firms (NTBFs): An investigation among spin-off companies from six European Universities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(2), 173–187.Google Scholar
  42. Knockaert, M., Bjornali, E., & Erikson, T. (2015). Joining forces: Top management team and board chair characteristics as antecedents of board service involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(3), 420–435.Google Scholar
  43. Knockaert, M., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2011). The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition and performance. The case of science-based entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 777–803.Google Scholar
  44. Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct. Research proposition and managerial implication. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  45. Kollmann, T., & Stöckmann, C. (2014). Filling the entrepreneurial orientation–performance gap: The mediating effects of exploratory and exploitative innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1001–1026.Google Scholar
  46. Lawton, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1980). The impact of the marketing concept on new product planning. Journal of Marketing, 44(1), 19–25.Google Scholar
  47. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.Google Scholar
  48. Linton, J. D., & Walsh, S. T. (2008). Acceleration and extension of opportunity recognition for nanotechnologies and other emerging technologies. International Small Business Journal, 26(1), 83–99.Google Scholar
  49. Löfsten, H., & Löfsten, H. (2016). Organisational capabilities and the long-term survival of new technology-based firms. European Business Review, 28(3), 312–332.Google Scholar
  50. Lundqvist, M. A. (2014). The importance of surrogate entrepreneurship for incubated Swedish technology ventures. Technovation, 34(2), 93–100.Google Scholar
  51. Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Ozsomer, A. (2002). The Effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 18–32.Google Scholar
  52. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research–based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115.Google Scholar
  53. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.Google Scholar
  54. Morgan, T., Anokhin, S., Kretinin, A., & Frishammar, J. (2015). The dark side of entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation interplay: a new product development perspective. International Small Business Journal, 33(7), 731–751.Google Scholar
  55. Mowery, D., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B.N. & Ziedonis, A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: university industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1edn, Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
  56. Mu, J., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2011). Strategic orientations and new product commercialization: mediator, moderator, and interplay. R&D Management, 41(4), 337–359.Google Scholar
  57. Müller, B. (2006). Human capital and successful academic spin-off, ZEW- Discussion Papers.Google Scholar
  58. Müller, K. (2010). Academic spin-off's transfer speed. Analyzing the time from leaning university to venture. Research Policy, 39(2), 189–199.Google Scholar
  59. Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spin-off firms: lesson from ten years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 35(2), 67–80.Google Scholar
  60. Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of market orientation on business profittability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.Google Scholar
  61. Newbert, S., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Kirchhoff, B. A. (2008). Lookink beyond resources: exploring the importance of e entrepreneurship to firm level competitive advantage in technologically intensive industries. Technovation, 28(1), 6–19.Google Scholar
  62. Neves, M., & Franco, M. (2016). Academic spin-off creation: barriers and how to overcome them. R&D Management.  https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12231.
  63. Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  64. Ortìn-Ángel, P., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2014). University spin-offs vs other NTFBs: total factor productivity differences at outset and evolution. Technovation, 34(2), 101–112.Google Scholar
  65. Pérez, M. P., & Sànchez, A. M. (2003). The development of university spin-offs. Early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23(10), 823–831.Google Scholar
  66. Pirmay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–396.Google Scholar
  67. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.Google Scholar
  68. Ramaciotti, L., & Rizzo, U. (2015). The determinants of academic spin-off creation by Italian universities. R&D Management, 45(5), 501–514.Google Scholar
  69. Rasmussen, E. (2011). Understanding Academic entrepreneurship: Exploring the emergence of university spin-off ventures using process theories. International Small Business Journal, 29(5), 448–471.Google Scholar
  70. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1314–1345.Google Scholar
  71. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 43(1), 92–106.Google Scholar
  72. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.Google Scholar
  73. Renko, M., Carsrud, A., & Brannback, M. (2009). The effect of market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and technological capability on innovativeness: a study of young biotechnology ventures in the United States and in Scandinavia. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 331–369.Google Scholar
  74. Renko, M. (2006). Market orientation in markets for technology. Evidence from biotechnology ventures. Turku: Turun kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja.Google Scholar
  75. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the university linkage. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076–1090.Google Scholar
  76. Scholten, V., Omta, S. W. F., Kemp, R., & Elfring, T. (2015). Interaction effects of start-up team capabilities and bridging ties on early spin-off growth. Technovation, 45-46, 40–51.Google Scholar
  77. Schweitzer, F., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O. (2016). Beyond listening: the distinct effects of proactive versus responsive customer orientation on the reduction of uncertainties at the fuzzy front end of innovation. R&D Management.  https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12252.
  78. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.Google Scholar
  79. Siepel, J., Cowling, M., & Coad, A. (2017). Non-founder human capital and the long-run growth and survival of high-tech ventures. Technovation, 59, 34–43.Google Scholar
  80. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? International Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46–55.Google Scholar
  81. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1999). Market-oriented is more than being customer led. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1165–1168.Google Scholar
  82. Steffensen, M., Rogers, E. M., & Speakman, K. (1999). Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1), 93–111.Google Scholar
  83. Stephan, A. (2014). Are public research spin-offs more innovative? Small Business Economics, 43(2), 353–368.Google Scholar
  84. Tietz, R. (2013). Executive Teams in Research-based Spin-off Companies: An Empirical Analysis of Executive Team Characteristics, Strategy, and Performance. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  85. Tolstoy, D., & Agndal, H. (2010). Network resource combinations in the international venturing of small biotech firms. Technovation, 30(1), 24–36.Google Scholar
  86. Van der Stede, W. A., Young, S. M. & Xiaoling Chen, C. (2007). Doing management accounting survey research, in Chapman, C. S. and Hopwood, A. G. and Shields, M. D., (eds.) Handbook of management accounting research, (pp. 445–478), Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  87. Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & S'Jegers, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: an examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 249–271.Google Scholar
  88. Visintin, F., & Pittino, D. (2014). Founding team composition and early performance of university- based spin-off companies. Technovation, 34(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
  89. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the growth in university high-tech spin-out companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.Google Scholar
  90. Walsh, S. T., & Linton, J. D. (2011). The strategy-technology firm fit audit: a guide to opportunity assessment and selection. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 199–216.Google Scholar
  91. Walsh, S., Kirchhoff, B., & Newbert, S. (2002). Differetiating market strategies for disruptive technologies. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 49(4), 341–351.Google Scholar
  92. Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567.Google Scholar
  93. Weisenfeld-Schenk, U. (1994). Technology strategies and the Miles and Snow typology: a study of the biotechnology industries. R&D Management, 24(1), 057–064.Google Scholar
  94. Wennberg, K. J., Wiklund, J., & Wrigth, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: performance differences between university spinoff and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143.Google Scholar
  95. Woolley, J. L. (2017). Origins and Outcomes: The Roles of Spin-Off Founders and Intellectual Property in High-Technology Venture Outcomes. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(1), 64–90.Google Scholar
  96. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223.Google Scholar
  97. Würmseher, M. (2017). To each his own: Matching different entrepreneurial models to the academic scientist's individual needs. Technovation, 59, 1–17.Google Scholar
  98. Zahara, S., Van de Velde, E., & Larraneta, B. (2007). Knowledge conversion capabilities and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 569–608.Google Scholar
  99. Zaltman, G., Ducan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovation and organizations. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  100. Zhang, J. F. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: an exploratory analysis using venture capital data. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), 255–285.Google Scholar
  101. Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., Narayanan, J., Arvey, R. D., Chaturvedi, S., Avolio, B. J., Lichtenstein, P., & Larsson, G. (2009). The genetic basis of entrepreneurship: effects of gender and personality. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 93–107.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and Business Administration“G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-PescaraPescaraItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economics and StatisticsUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations