Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In search of the profit-maximizing actor: motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs

The Journal of Technology Transfer volume 36, pages 340–352 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

Scholars have traditionally assumed the establishment and management of university spinoffs are guided by growth and the pursuit of profit. However, few studies have examined the motivations and post-establishment success definitions of entrepreneurs themselves. This paper seeks to contribute to our understanding of the mediating factors of academic entrepreneurship through an in-depth interview-based study of 74 nascent academic entrepreneurs. The results show that academic entrepreneurs define success in a number of complex, interrelated ways including technology diffusion, technology development, financial gain, public service and peer motivations, among others. Furthermore, a large percentage of the respondents have little immediate interest in growth and have instead established their firms to pursue other sources of development funding.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Notes

  1. Furthermore, a burgeoning literature investigates the specific contributions of universities to innovation through a wide range of activities, including patenting, licensing, incubator facilities, science parks, and the creation of new firms (Rothaermel et al. 2007; Phan and Siegel 2006).

References

  • Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., Braunerhjelm, P. & Carlsson, B. (2004). The missing link: The knowledge filter and endogenous growth. Discussion paper, London, Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) (2004/2005). Knowledge Spillover Theory.

  • Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., McCrimmon, K., Zietsma, C., & Oesch, J. (2000). Does money matter?: Wealth attainment as the motive for initiating growth-oriented technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 119–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation. American Economic Review, 86, 630–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., Keilbach, M., & Lehmann, E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. London: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. (1983). Toward operational models of entrepreneurship. In J. Ronen (Ed.), Entrepreneurship. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., Gilsing, V., & van der Steen, M. (2006). Determining factors of the effectiveness of IP-based spin-offs: Comparing the Netherlands and the U.S. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 545–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J. & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change and the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birley, S. & Westhead, P. (1994). A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm growth and size. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 7–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, D., & Hitchens, D. (1998). Campus Companies—U.K. and Ireland. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, D., & Hisrich, R. (1986). The female entrepreneur: A career development perspective. Academy of Management Review, 2, 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, C. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective, and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (Summer), 12, 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N., Gartner, W., Shaver, K., Shaver, K., & Gatewood, E. (2003). The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 13–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassar, G. (2007). Money, money, money: A longitudinal investigation of entrepreneur career reasons, growth preferences and achieved growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19.

  • Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The case of academic spinoff-off companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30(4), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, J. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationships between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 523–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Columbo, M., Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Dynamics of science-based entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. (1973). Technical entrepreneurship: What do we know? R&D Management, 3(2).

  • Cooper, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship: The past, the present, the future. In Z. Acs & D. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship (pp. 21–36). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corman, J., Perles, B., & Vancini, P. (1988). Motivational factors influencing high-technology entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, January.

  • Davidsson, P. (1989). Entrepreneurship—and after? A study of growth willingness in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructure for academic spin-off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 327–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friberg, M. (1976). Is the salary the only incentive for work? Sociologisk Forskning, 4, 52–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is the entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12, 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W., & Carter, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial behavior and firm organizing processes. In Z. Acs & D. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship (pp. 21–36). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatewood, E., Shaver, K., & Gartner, W. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 371–391.

    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 

  • Ginn, C., & Sexton, D. (1989). Growth: A vocational choice and psychological preference. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 9, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grillo, I., & Thurik, R. (2005). Strategies, uncertainty, and performance of small business startups. Small Business Economics, 15(3).

  • Gundry, L., & Welsch, H. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur: Growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J., Yarkin, K., Lightner, J., & Town, J. (1980). Unsolicited interpretation and recall and interpersonal events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 556–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. (2010). The open innovation imperative: Perspectives on success from faculty entrepreneurs. PhD dissertation, George Washington University.

  • Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based startups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, J., Van Gelderen, M., & Thurik, R. (2008). Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations, and their drivers. Small Business Economics, 31, 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Goe, W. R. (2003). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33(5), 691–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L. (1992). Growth aspirations among norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions, entrepreneurship status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21, 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck society scientists. Research Policy, 38, 947–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D., Hornsby, J. & Naffzinger, D. (1997). An examination of Owner’s goals in sustaining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, pp. 30–45 January, in Kuratko, D. & Hodgetts, R. Entrepreneurship: Theory, process & practice, 6th edn. South Western division, Thompson Learning, 2004.

  • Leitch, C., & Harrison, R. (2005). Maximizing the potential of university spin-outs: The development of second-order commercialization activities. R&D Management, 35(3), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., Siegel, D., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. (2000). The prime movers. New York: Amacom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Manigart, S., Meuleman, M., Desbrieres, P., & Landstrom, H. (2002). The syndication of venture capital investments. In W. D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, C. Mason, G. Meyer, H. Sapienza, & K. Shaver (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Waltham, MA: P&R Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies: Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. (2002). Invention, innovation and entrepreneurship: The commercialization of university research by inventor-founded firms. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

  • Lowe, R., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G., Phan, P., Balkin, D., & Gianiodis, P. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer 26(3), 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychology Review, July, 370–396.

  • Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2).

  • Monroy, T., & Folger, R. (1993). A typology of entrepreneurial styles: Beyond economic rationality. Journal of Private Enterprise, 9(2), 64–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D., & Buttner, E. (1997). Women entrepreneurs: Moving beyond the glass ceiling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M., Miyasaki, N., Watters, C., & Coombes, S. (2006). The dilemma of growth: Understanding venture size choices of women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 221–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, T., & Vissing-Jorgensen, A. (2002). The returns to entrepreneurial investment: A private equity premium puzzle. American Economic Review, 92(4), 745–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P. (1997). Spin-off enterprises, How French academics create high-tech companies: conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy, 24(1).

  • O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P., & Siegel, D. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, L. (Ed.). (2002). AUTM Licensing Survey: FY 2001. Northbrook, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitan, B. (1997). Fostering technical entrepreneurship in research communities: Granting scholarships to would-be entrepreneurs. Technovation, 17(6), 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P., Camp, S., Bygrave, W., Autio, E., & Ha, M. (2001). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 Summary Report. Kansas City: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. www.entreworld.org/gem2001 and www.gemsonsortium.org.

  • Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 691–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F., & Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkage. Research Policy, 34(3), 1076–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samson, K., & Gurdon, M. (1993). University scientists as entrepreneurs: A special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation, 13(2), 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheinburg, S., & MacMillan, I. (1988). An 11 Country study of motivations to start a business. In B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. McMullan, K. Vesper, & W. Wetzel Jr. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 669–687). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, D. (1989). Research on women-owned businessess: Current status and future directions. In O. Hangan, C. Rivchun, & D. Sexton (Eds.), Women-owned businesses (pp. 183–193). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., Kolvereid, L., & Westhead, P. (1991). An exploratory examination of the reasons leading to new firm foundations across country and gender. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 431–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., Locke, E., & Collins, C. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 257–279.

    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 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starr, J., & Yudkin, M. (1996). Women entrepreneurs: A review of current research. Wellesley, MA: Center for Research on Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D. (1994). Understanding small firms. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T., & Ding, W. (2006). The social structural determinants of academic entrepreneurship: An analysis of University Scientists’ participation in commercial Ventures. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tornatzky, L., Waugaman, P., Casson, L., Crowell, S., Spahr, C., & Wong, F. (1995). Benchmarking best practices for university-industry technology transfer: Working with start-up companies. A Report of the Southern Technology Council. Atlanta: Southern Technology Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

  • Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spin-out companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., & Delmar, F. (2003). What do they think and feel about growth? An expectancy-value approach to small business managers’ attitudes toward growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Spring, 247–270.

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Armstrong, J. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation for their financial support of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York Academy of Sciences, New York, NY, USA

    Christopher S. Hayter

Authors
  1. Christopher S. Hayter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher S. Hayter.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3 Summary of the entrepreneurial motivations literature
Full size table
Table 4 Summary of literature: definitions of spinoff success
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hayter, C.S. In search of the profit-maximizing actor: motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. J Technol Transf 36, 340–352 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9196-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9196-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

search

Navigation