Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

How young firms achieve growth: reconciling the roles of growth motivation and innovative activities

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Growth orientation is important for understanding why some young firms grow but not others, but research remains silent on the intermediary mechanisms mediating the growth orientation–firm growth relationship. We study 282 Swedish firms and show that various innovative activities mediate the growth orientation–firm growth relationship. These mediating innovative activities include informal activities and the launch of new products, but not formal R&D. Our findings offer a more complete explanation for how growth orientation translates into realized growth, serving to reconcile empirical inconsistencies about the relationship between innovation and young firm growth.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Defined as independent firms under 10 years of age (Yli-Renko et al. 2001), where independent signifies that they are not subsidiaries of other established firms.

References

  • Achtenhagen, L., Naldi, L., & Melin, L. (2010). Business growth—do practitioners and scholars really talk about the same thing? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 289–316. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00376.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402. doi:10.2307/3150783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(1), 359–372. doi:10.1037/h0043445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K., & Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization Science, 12(1), 54–74. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.1.54.10121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Coad, A., & Segarra, A. (2014a). Firm growth and innovation. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 743–749. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9560-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Segarra, A., & Turuel, M. (2014b). Why don’t all young firms invest in R&D? Small Business Economics, 43(4), 751–766. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9561-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baghana, R., & Mohnen, P. (2009). Effectiveness of R&D tax incentives in small and large enterprises in Québec. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 91–107. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9180-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010). Motivation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 1 (5th ed., pp. 268–316). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S., Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Swinging a double-edged sword: the effect of slack on entrepreneurial management and growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 537–554. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brattström, A., Löfsten, H., & Richtnér, A. (2012). Creativity, trust and systematic processes in product development. Research Policy, 41(4), 743–755. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. E., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). An operationalization of Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior’. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 953–968. doi:10.1002/smj.190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, E., & Kleinknecht, A. (1999). Innovative output, and a firm’s propensity to patent: an exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy, 28(6), 615–624. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00003-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassar, G. (2006). Entrepreneur opportunity costs and intended venture growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 610–632. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capasso, M., Treibich, T., & Verspagen, B. (2015). The medium-term effect of R&D on firm growth. Small Business Economics, 45, 39–62. doi:10.1007/s11187-015-9640-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities, venture strategies and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 331–349. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(94)90011-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, J. E. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6), 523–542. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00071-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A. (2010). Exploring the processes of firm growth: Evidence from a vector auto-regression. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), 1677–1703. doi:10.1093/icc/dtq018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., Frankish, J., Roberts, R. G., & Storey, D. J. (2013). Growth paths and survival chances: an application of Gambler’s ruin theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 615–632. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high tech sectors: a quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37, 633–648. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1996). Firm size and the nature of innovation in industries: the cases of product and process R&D. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(2), 232–243. doi:10.2307/2109925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995). Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(5), 374–391. doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1250374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlqvist, J., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2000). Initial conditions as predictors of new venture performance: a replication and extension of the Cooper et al. study. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/146324400363491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1991). Continued entrepreneurship: ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(6), 405–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Achtenhagen, L., & Naldi, L. (2010). Small firm growth. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 69–166. doi:10.1561/0300000029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daunfeldt, S.-O., & Elert, N. (2013). When is Gibrat’s law a law? Small Business Economics, 41(1), 133–147. doi:10.1007/s11187-011-9404-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, J. P. J. (2013). The decision to exploit opportunities for innovation: a study of high-tech small business owners. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 281–301. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00459.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 189–216. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00080-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2008). The effect of small business managers’ growth motivation on firm growth: a longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 437–457. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00235.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., McKelvie, A., & Wennberg, K. (2013). Untangling the relationships among growth, profit and survival in new firms. Technovation, 33(8–9), 276–291. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2013.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2010). The presence of something or the absence of nothing: Increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 668–689. doi:10.1177/1094428110380467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2013). Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 564–580. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, M. (2012). Quantile estimates of the impact of R&D intensity on firm performance. Small Business Economics, 39(1), 19–37. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9290-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freel, M., & Robson, P. (2004). Small firm innovation, growth and performance: evidence from Scotland and Northern England. International Small Business Journal, 22(6), 561–575. doi:10.1177/0266242604047410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, S., Lerner, J., & Stern, S. (2013). Digitization, innovation, and copyright: what is the agenda? Strategic Organization, 11(1), 110–121. doi:10.1177/1476127012460940.

    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. doi:10.1177/0149206306293860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Fifth ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, B. H., & Nickerson, J. A. (2003). Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 51–78. doi:10.1177/1476127003001001218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A.F., & Preacher, K.J. (2013). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/.

  • Hermans, J., Vanderstraeten, J., van Witteloostuijn, A., Dejardin, M., Ramdani, D., & Stam, E. (2015). Ambitious entrepreneurship: a review of growth aspirations, intentions and expectations. In J. Katz, A. C. Corbett, & A. McKelvie (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, Emergence & Growth, vol. 17 (pp. 127–160). Bingley, UK: Emerald. doi:10.1108/S1074-754020150000017011.

  • Hölzl, W. (2009). Is the R&D behavior of the fastest-growing SMEs different? Evidence from CIS III data for 16 countries. Small Business Economics, 33, 59–75. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9182-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson, S., Oskarsson, C., & Philipson, J. (1996). Indicators of technological activities—comparing educational, patent and R&D statistics in the case of Sweden. Research Policy, 25(4), 573–585. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(95)00855-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(2), 75–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., Chen, E. L., & Piezunka, H. (2012). All the right moves: how entrepreneurial firms compete effectively. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 116–132. doi:10.1002/sej.1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinknecht, A. (1987). Measuring R&D in small firms: how much are we missing? The Journal of Industrial Economics, 36(2), 253–256. doi:10.2307/2098417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinknecht, A., van Montfort, K., & Brouwer, E. (2002). The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11(2), 109–121. doi:10.1080/10438590210899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L. (1992). Growth aspirations among Norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), 209–222. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(92)90027-O.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L., & Bullvåg, E. (1996). Growth intentions and actual growth: The impact of entrepreneurial choice. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 4(1), 1–17. doi:10.1142/S0218495896000022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: a measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 467–477. doi:10.2307/3172691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koudstaal, M., Sloof, R., & van Praag, M. (2016). Risk, uncertainty, and entrepreneurship: evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment. Management Science, 62(10), 2897–2915. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: a review of the literature. Management Science, 47(1), 1–21. doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.1.1.10668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1123–1134. doi:10.2307/3069392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewoods Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9602161568.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P. (2000). Contrasts in multiple mediator models. In J. Rose, L. Chassin, C. C. Presson, & S. J. Sherman (Eds.), Multivariate applications in substance use research: New methods for new questions (pp. 141–160). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41(7), 1219–1239. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, P., Covin, J. G., Robinson, R. B., & Herron, L. (1994). The effects of industry growth and strategic breadth on new venture performance and strategy content. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 537–554. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvie, A. (2007). Innovation in New Firms: examining the role of knowledge and growth willingness. Doctoral dissertation. Sweden: Jönköping International Business School.

  • McKelvie, A., & Wiklund, J. (2010). Advancing firm growth research: a focus on growth mode instead of growth rate. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 261–288. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00375.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational market information processes: cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 318–335. doi:10.2307/3151984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2004). Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), 334–347. doi:10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00086.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, P. M., Serrasquiero, Z., & Leitao, J. (2012). Is there a linear relationship between R&D intensity and growth? Empirical evidence of non-high-tech vs. high-tech SME’s. Research Policy, 41, 36–53. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Argiles, R., Vivarelli, M., & Voigt, P. (2009). R&D in SMEs: a paradox? Small Business Economics, 33(1), 3–11. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9187-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1985). Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 7(1), 77–99. doi:10.1007/BF02020142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peneder, M. R. (2008). Firm entry and turnover: the nexus with profitability and growth. Small Business Economics, 30, 327–344. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9048-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piergiovanni, R., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (1997). From which source do small firms derive their innovative inputs? Some evidence from Italian industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 12(2), 243–258. doi:10.1023/A:1007781501147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, L. (2001). The firm as a dedicated hierarchy: a theory of the origins and growth of firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(3), 805–851. doi:10.1162/00335530152466241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riding, A., Orser, B. J., Spence, M., & Belanger, B. (2010). Financing new venture exporters. Small Business Economics, 38, 147–163. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9259-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper, S. (1999). Under-reporting of R&D in small firms: The impact on international R&D comparisons. Small Business Economics, 12(2), 131–135. doi:10.1023/A:1008024913420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441–457. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelsson, M., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 229–255. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9093-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santamaria, L., Nieto, L. J., & Barge-Gil, A. (2009). Beyond formal R&D: taking advantage of other sources of innovation in low- and medium-technology industries. Research Policy, 38(3), 507–517. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Lyman, K. (1990). Speeding products to market: waiting time to first product introduction in new firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 177–207. doi:10.2307/2393555.

  • Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2014). High-growth firms and innovation: an empirical analysis for Spanish firms. Small Business Economics, 43, 805–821. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9563-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33, 141–149. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9215-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2009). Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges? Appropriateness of knowledge accumulation across growth studies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 105–123. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00282.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. S., McKelvie, A., Ketchen, D. J., & Chandler, G. N. (2009). Firm and industry effects on firm performance: a generalization and extension for new ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(1), 47–65. doi:10.1002/sej.53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186. doi:10.2307/270922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, M., Wang, T., & Parry, M. E. (2010). Do market information processes improve new venture performance? Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 556–568. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E., & Wennberg, K. (2009). The roles of R&D in new firm growth. Small Business Economics, 33, 77–89. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9183-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, S. (2006). Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high-and low-technology regimes. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 687–703. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheul, I., & van Mil, L. (2011). What determines the growth ambition of Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 3(2), 183–207. doi:10.1504/IJEV.2011.039340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., & Lindqvist, G. (2010). The effect of clusters on the survival and performance of new firms. Small Business Economics, 34(3), 221–241. doi:10.1007/s11187-008-9123-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner, S., Praxedes, M., & Kim, H.-G. (2007). The reporting of nonresponse analyses in survey research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 287–295. doi:10.1177/1094428106292892.

    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, 27(3), 247–270. doi:10.1111/1540-8520.t01-1-00003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). Building an integrative model of small business growth. Small Business Economics, 32(4), 351–374. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9084-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized firms. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 1307–1314. doi:10.1002/smj.360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Where to from here? EO-as-experimentation, failure, and distribution of outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 925–946. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00454.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1967). Hierarchical control and optimum firm size. Journal of Political Economy, 75(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winters, R., & Stam, E. (2007). Beyond the firm: Innovation and networks of high technology SMEs. In J. M. Arauzo & M. Manjón (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, industrial location and economic growth (pp. 235–252). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C.-H., & Huang, C.-H. (2005). R&D, size and firm growth in Taiwan’s electronics industry. Small Business Economics, 25(5), 477–487. doi:10.1007/s11187-004-6487-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 587–613. doi:10.1002/smj.183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Bogner, W. C. (2000). Technology strategy and software new ventures’ performance: Exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 135–173. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00009-3.

    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. doi:10.1111/1540-8520.t01-2-00001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander McKelvie.

Appendices

Appendix A

ᅟ Probit model on answering to survey

Appendix B

ᅟ Items included as part of multi-item measures

Appendix C

ᅟ Additional statistics related to bootstrap mediation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McKelvie, A., Brattström, A. & Wennberg, K. How young firms achieve growth: reconciling the roles of growth motivation and innovative activities. Small Bus Econ 49, 273–293 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9847-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9847-9

Keywords

Navigation