Skip to main content

Entrepreneurial Orientation and Knowledge Transfer Effectiveness: The Effect of Organizational Commercial Slack

Abstract

The paper examines the role of organizational commercial slack (OCS) in mediating the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer (KT) in universities. The paper identifies two types of commercial slack in the university setting: financial and promotional. Four research hypotheses are proposed. Pooled data, that is, a combination of a questionnaire survey of 110 Taiwanese universities with a data set of university KT effectiveness from the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, are collected to test the aforementioned research hypotheses. The empirical results indicate that the EO of a university enables the university to provide appropriate OCS. Furthermore, the commercial slack of a university positively mediates the relationship between EO and KT effectiveness. The paper concludes that developing EO and OCS are crucial for improving the KT effectiveness of a university. Moreover, some managerial and policy implications for promoting EO and OCS in universities are suggested.

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

Fig. 1

References

  • Baron, Reuben, and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belenzon, Sharon, and Mark Schankerman. 2009. University knowledge transfer: Private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives. The Journal of Law and Economics 52: 111–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. Jay. 1981. On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review 6: 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. Jay, and Jitendra V. Singh. 1983. Organizational slack and political behavior among top management teams. Academy of Management Proceedings 1: 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldera, Aida, and Oliver Debande. 2010. Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy 39: 1160–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Yuan-Chieh, Ming-Huei Chen, Mingsu Hua, and Phil Y. Yang. 2006. Managing Academic Innovation in Taiwan: Towards a “Scientific-Economic” Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73: 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Yuan-Chieh, Phil Y. Yang, and Ming-Huei Chen. 2009. The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy 38: 936–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Yuan-Chieh, Phil Y. Yang, Ben R. Martin, Hui-Ru Chi, and Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin. 2016. Entrepreneurial universities and research ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis. Technovation 54: 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, Jeffrey G., and Dennis P. Slevin. 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal 10: 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, Jeffrey G., and Dennis P. Slevin. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16: 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabić, Marina. 2019. Entrepreneurial University in the European Union—EU in the EU. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 12: 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer 36: 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, Koenraad, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2005. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy 34: 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, Gregory G., and G. Tom Lumpkin. 2005. The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspective 19: 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry. 1983. Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva 21: 198–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry. 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy 27: 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feola, Rosangela, Roberto Parente, and Valentina Cucino. 2020. The Entrepreneurial University: How to Develop the Entrepreneurial Orientation of Academia. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 12: 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Joseph, and Jonathan Silberman. 2003. University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer 28: 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galán-Muros, Victoria, Peter van der Sijde, Peter Groenewegen, and Thomas Baaken. 2017. Nurture over nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business? Journal of Technology Transfer 42: 184–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuri, Paola, Federico Munari, Alessandra Scandura, and Laura Toschi. 2019. The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 138: 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47: 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, Joseph F., Bill Black, Barry Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, and Ronald L. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate data analysis, 6th ed. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, Joseph F., Jeffrey J. Risher, Marko Sarstedt, and Christian M. Ringle. 2019. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review 31: 2–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, Michael A., R. Duane Ireland, S. Michael Camp, and Donald L. Sexton. 2001. Strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal 22: 479–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horner, Sam, Dilani Jayawarna, Benito Giordano, and Oswald Jones. 2019. Strategic choice in universities: Managerial agency and effective technology transfer. Research Policy 48: 1297–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby, Jeffrey S., Douglas W. Naffziger, Donald F. Kuratko, and Ray V. Montagno. 1993. An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17: 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, Emily M., Sara Jansen Perry, and Steven C. Currall. 2011. Inside multi-disciplinary science and engineering research centers: The impact of organizational climate on invention disclosures and patents. Research Policy 40: 1226–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Xu, Heng Liu, Carl Fey, and Feifei Jiang. 2018. Entrepreneurial orientation, network resource acquisition, and firm performance: A network approach. Journal of Business Research 87: 46–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalar, Barbara, and Bostjan Antoncic. 2015. The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation 36: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keh, Hean Tat, Thi Tuyet Mai Nguyen, and Hwei Ping Ng. 2007. The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing information on the performance of SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing 22: 592–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, David A., Maribel Guerrero, and David Urbano. 2011. Making universities more entrepreneurial: Development of a model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L’administration 28: 302–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, David A. 2002. Creating entrepreneurial universities: A consideration. School of Management [Working paper]. University of Surrey.

  • Kollmann, Tobias, and Christoph Stöckmann. 2014. Filling the entrepreneurial orientation–performance gap: The mediating effects of exploratory and exploitative innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38: 1001–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lach, Saul, and Mark Schankerman. 2008. Incentives and invention in universities. The RAND Journal of Economics 39: 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, Albert N., and Donald S. Siegel. 2005. Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance 11: 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, Andy, and Mike Wright. 2005. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy 34: 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G.T., and G.G. Dess. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21: 135–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. Thomas, and Gregory G. Dess. 2001. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing 16: 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlin, Dan, and Scott W. Geiger. 2015. A reexamination of the organizational slack and innovation relationship. Journal of Business Research 68: 2683–2690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, Gideon D., Peter T. Gianiodis, Philip H. Phan, and David B. Balkin. 2004. Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer 29: 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishina, Yuri, Timothy G. Pollock, and Joseph F. Porac. 2004. Are more resources always better for growth? Resource stickiness in market and product expansion. Strategic Management Journal 25: 1179–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClure, Kevin R. 2016. Building the innovative and entrepreneurial university: An institutional case study of administrative academic capitalism. Journal of Higher Education 87: 516–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohria, Nitin, and Ranjay Gulati. 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal 39: 1245–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, Rory P., Thomas J. Allen, Arnaud Chevalier, and Frank Roche. 2005. Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy 34: 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy 42: 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon. Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riviezzo, Angelo, Francisco Liñán, and Maria Rosaria Napolitano. 2017. Assessing the entrepreneurial orientation of university departments. A comparative study between Italy and Spain. In Entrepreneurial universities, eds. M. Peris-Ortiz, J. A. Gómez, J. M. Merigo and C. Rueda-Armengot, 35–46. Cham: Springer.

  • Riviezzo, Angelo, Susana C. Santos, Francisco Liñán, Maria R. Napolitano, and Floriana Fusco. 2019. European universities seeking entrepreneurial paths: The moderating effect of contextual variables on the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 141: 232–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, Donald S., David Waldman, and Albert Link. 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy 32: 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, Donald S., and Mike Wright. 2015. Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink? British Journal of Management 26: 582–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, Michael E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology 13: 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, Anja, Bruno V.P. de la Potterie, and Joachim Henkel. 2014. Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer 39: 435–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teng, Bing-Sheng. 2007. Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-based approach toward competitive advantage. Journal of Management Studies 44: 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, Robert J.W. 2006. Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy 35: 1569–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todorovic, Zelimir William, Rod B. McNaughton, and Paul Guild. 2011. ENTRE-U: An entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation 31: 128–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbano, David, and Maribel Guerrero. 2013. Entrepreneurial universities: Socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European region. Economic Development Quarterly 27: 40–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Burgwal, Linda H. M., Ana Dias, and Eric Claassen. 2019. Incentives for knowledge valorisation: A European benchmark. Journal of Technology Transfer 44: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, Bart, Paolo Landoni, Julie Callaert, Bruno van Pottelsberghe, Eleftherios Sapsalis, and Koenraad Debackere. 2011. Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy 40: 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, Glenn B., Deepak Sirdeshmukh, and Zannie Giraud Voss. 2008. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal 51: 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Catherine L. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32: 635–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales, William J., Jeffrey G. Covin, and Erik Monsen. 2020. Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multilevel conceptualization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 14: 639–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, Johan, and Dean Shepherd. 2005. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing 20: 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Editor in Chief Peter Weingart and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the earlier manuscript. The support of data analysis from Dr. Hui-Ru Chi is greatly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tian Liang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Measurement model results
Table 7 Fornell-Larcker criterion

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, YC., Tsai-Lin, TF. & Liang, T. Entrepreneurial Orientation and Knowledge Transfer Effectiveness: The Effect of Organizational Commercial Slack. Minerva 60, 441–462 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09463-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09463-y

Keywords

  • Entrepreneurial orientation
  • Organizational commercial slack
  • Knowledge transfer effectiveness
  • University-industry relationship