Skip to main content

When do serial entrepreneurs found innovative ventures? Evidence from patent data

Abstract

Experienced entrepreneurs are typically considered to be wellsprings of both wealth creation and innovation. However, given that prior research has provided evidence of an inverse relationship between economic performance and innovation performance, innovation performance of experienced entrepreneurs requires greater scrutiny. In this study, we examine the question: under what conditions do serial entrepreneurs produce impactful innovations in their subsequent ventures? Using data on 334 VC-funded companies, our study suggests that the familiarity garnered by founders through their prior industry experience may limit the venture’s propensity to produce impactful innovation. Our findings contribute to the literature on serial entrepreneurship and innovation.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    We conceptualize innovation as “a new idea, which may be a recombination of old ideas, a scheme that challenges the present order, a formula, or a unique approach” (Van de Ven 1986: 591).

  2. 2.

    We study innovation by examining the patenting activity (inventions) of the firms in our sample. Although patents represent an intermediate innovation output, they have been found to be highly correlated with alternative measures of innovation performance (Hagedoorn and Cloodt 2003) and as such are considered reasonable proxies of firm innovation performance in high tech industries by scholars (Harhoff et al. 1999; Jaffe and Trajtenberg 2002).

  3. 3.

    The limited evidence on the implications of prior entrepreneurial experience on innovation performance has principally relied on self-reported survey data for measuring the innovativeness of the venture.

  4. 4.

    Firms were considered to have unreliable performance data when the outcome from the prior venture was not established prior to the founding of the later venture.

  5. 5.

    A firm is considered successful if either of the following events occurred: (i) the firm went public, or (ii) the firm was acquired in a deal whose purchase price was greater than the total amount of capital raised by the firm. Successful firms were coded as 1 and unsuccessful firms were coded as 0.

  6. 6.

    These consisted of indicators of the serial entrepreneurs’ human capital including education (type and number of educational degrees), inventor status (binary variable indicating whether or not the entrepreneur was an inventor), and work experience (type and number of years).

  7. 7.

    Functional categories included were finance and accounting, production and operations, technology development, marketing, and general management. Educational categories included were Ph.D., masters, undergraduate degree, and other.

  8. 8.

    The variables for the type of founder education were coded as binary variables while the variables for the number of prior experiences were coded as count variables.

  9. 9.

    Given the small size of this sample, we were unable to get the models to converge with all our control variables intact. Hence, we dropped the location and industry dummies to obtain the regression estimates for this model.

  10. 10.

    These results are available from the authors on request.

  11. 11.

    We thank an anonymous reviewer for this insight.

  12. 12.

    We thank an anonymous reviewer for this insight

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9157-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aggarwal, V. A., & Hsu, D. H. (2013). Entrepreneurial exits and innovation. Management Science, 60(4), 867–887. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahuja, G., & Lampert, M. C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90055-U.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aldrich, H. E., & Kenworthy, A. (1999). The accidental entrepreneur: Campbellian antinomies and organizational foundings. In J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor of Donald Campbell (pp. 19–33). London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76–88.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Amaral, A. M., Baptista, R., & Lima, F. (2011). Serial entrepreneurship: impact of human capital on time to re-entry. Small Business Economics, 37(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9232-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Arora, A., & Nandkumar, A. (2011). Cash-out or flameout! Opportunity cost and entrepreneurial strategy: theory, and evidence from the information security industry. Management Science, 57(10), 1844–1860. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Arts, S., & Veugelers, R. (2015). Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(6), 1215–1246. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtu029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Audia, P. G., & Goncalo, J. A. (2007). Past success and creativity over time: a study of inventors in the hard disk drive industry. Management Science, 53(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Austin, R. D., Devin, L., & Sullivan, E. E. (2012). Accidental innovation: supporting valuable unpredictability in the creative process. Organization Science, 23(5), 1505–1522. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: the importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331–1344. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Basu, S., Sahaym, A., Howard, M. D., & Boeker, W. (2015). Parent inheritance, founder expertise, and venture strategy: determinants of new venture knowledge impact. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(2), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Beckman, C., Eisenhardt, K., Kotha, S., Meyer, A., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012). Technology entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ben-David, J. (1960). Roles and innovations in medicine. American Journal of Sociology, 65(6), 557–568. https://doi.org/10.1086/222786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: a primitive theory of social structure (Vol. 7). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boyer, T., & Blazy, R. (2014). Born to be alive? The survival of innovative and non-innovative French micro-start-ups. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9522-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bryce, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2009). A general interindustry relatedness index. Management Science, 55(9), 1570–1585. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Buddelmeyer, H., Jensen, P. H., & Webster, E. (2010). Innovation and the determinants of company survival. Oxford Economic Papers, 62(2), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpp012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Carter, S., & Ram, M. (2003). Reassessing portfolio entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026115121083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chaplin, H. (2001). Lessons from the company makers. CNN Money, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2001/02/01/296242/index.htm. Accessed 4/14/2015.

  25. Chrysikou, E. G., & Weisberg, R. W. (2005). Following the wrong footsteps: fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem-solving task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1134.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Conti, R., Gambardella, A., & Mariani, M. (2013). Learning to be Edison: inventors, organizations, and breakthrough inventions. Organization Science, 25(3), 833–849. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpe.1997.409668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cooper, A. C., Folta, T. B., & Woo, C. (1995). Entrepreneurial information search. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00022-M.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Danneels, E. (2007). The process of technological competence leveraging. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 511–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2006). Does experience matter? The effect of founding team experience on the survival and sales of newly founded ventures. Strategic Organization, 4(3), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127006066596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dencker, J. C., & Gruber, M. (2015). The effects of opportunities and founder experience on new firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), 1035–1052. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i-113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Eesley, C. E., & Roberts, E. B. (2012). Are you experienced or are you talented?: When does innate talent versus experience explain entrepreneurial performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Eesley, C. E., Hsu, D. H., & Roberts, E. B. (2014). The contingent effects of top management teams on venture performance: aligning founding team composition with innovation strategy and commercialization environment. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1798–1817. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Eggers, J. P., & Song, L. (2015). Dealing with failure: serial entrepreneurs and the costs of changing industries between ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1785–1803. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Engel, D., & Keilbach, M. (2007). Firm-level implications of early stage venture capital investment — an empirical investigation. Journal of Empirical Finance, 14(2), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2006.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fallon, N. (2015). 13 secrets to success from serial entrepreneurs. Business News Daily, https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/8125-successful-serial-entrepreneurs.html. Accessed 5/9/2019.

  40. Franke, N., Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (2014). Integrating problem solvers from analogous markets in new product ideation. Management Science, 60(4), 1063–1081. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Galunic, D. C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 1193–1201. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(1998120)19:12<1193::AID-SMJ5>3.0.CO;2-F.

  42. Ghosh, A., Martin, X., Pennings, J. M., & Wezel, F. C. (2013). Ambition is nothing without focus: compensating for negative transfer of experience in R&D. Organization Science, 25(2), 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gilbert, B. A., Audretsch, D. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2004). The emergence of entrepreneurship policy. Small Business Economics, 22(3–4), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000022235.10739.a8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gompers, P., Kovner, A., Lerner, J., & Scharfstein, D. (2010). Performance persistence in entrepreneurship. Journal of Financial Economics, 96(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Graham, S. J., Merges, R. P., Samuelson, P., & Sichelman, T. (2009). High technology entrepreneurs and the patent system: results of the 2008 Berkeley patent survey. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24(4), 1255. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1429049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2008). Look before you leap: market opportunity identification in emerging technology firms. Management Science, 54(9), 1652–1665. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2013). Escaping the prior knowledge corridor: what shapes the number and variety of market opportunities identified before market entry of technology start-ups? Organization Science, 24(1), 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z.-L. (2016). Thinking about U: theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1177–1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00137-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hargadon, A. (2003). Retooling R&D: technology brokering and the pursuit of innovation. Ivey Bus J, 68(2), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465399558265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Helfat, C. E., & Lieberman, M. B. (2002). The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 725–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/11.4.725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hoetker, G., & Agarwal, R. (2007). Death hurts, but it isn’t fatal: the postexit diffusion of knowledge created by innovative companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Holbrook, D. (1995). Government support of the semiconductor industry: diverse approaches and information flows. Business and Economic History, 24(2), 133–165.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Holbrook, D., Cohen, W. M., Hounshell, D. A., & Klepper, S. (2000). The nature, sources, and consequences of firm differences in the early history of the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1017–1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1017::Aid-smj131>3.0.Co;2-g.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hsu, D. H. (2007). Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36(5), 722–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hyytinen, A., & Ilmakunnas, P. (2007). What distinguishes a serial entrepreneur? Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(5), 793–821. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hyytinen, A., Pajarinen, M., & Rouvinen, P. (2015). Does innovativeness reduce startup survival rates? Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). CEM: software for coarsened exact matching. Journal of Statistical Software, 30(13), 1–27 http://hdl.handle.net/10.18637/jss.v030.i09.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: a window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. S. (2000). Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: evidence from a survey of inventors. American Economic Review, 90(2), 215–218. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.2.215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kaplan, S. N., & Lerner, J. (2017). Venture capital data: opportunities and challenges. In J. Haltiwanger, E. Hurst, J. Miranda, & A. Schoar (Eds.), Measuring entrepreneurial businesses: current knowledge and challenges (Vol. 75). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Katona, G. (1940). Organizing and memorizing. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kennedy, P. (2008). A guide to econometrics (6th ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Knott, A. M., & Posen, H. E. (2005). Is failure good? Strategic Management Journal, 26(7), 617–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (2000). Assessing the contribution of venture capital to innovation. The Rand Journal of Economics, 31(4), 674–692. https://doi.org/10.2307/2696354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lafontaine, F., & Shaw, K. (2016). Serial entrepreneurship: learning by doing? Journal of Labor Economics, 34(S2), S217–S254. https://doi.org/10.1086/683820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Lilien, G. L., Morrison, P. D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M., & Hippel, E. v. (2002). Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Management Science, 48(8), 1042–1059. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1042.171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. March, J. G. (2011). The ambiguities of experience. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Marvel, M. R. (2012). Knowledge acquisition asymmetries and innovation radicalness. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(3), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2012.00362.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Menon, T., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science, 49(4), 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.497.14422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Merton, R. K., & Barber, E. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity: a study in sociological semantics and the sociology of science. Princeton University Press.

  81. Meyer, M. H., & Roberts, E. B. (1986). New product strategy in small technology-based firms: a pilot study. Management Science, 32(7), 806–821. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Pahnke, E. C., Katila, R., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Who takes you to the dance? How partners’ institutional logics influence innovation in young firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(4), 596–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839215592913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Paik, Y. (2014). Serial entrepreneurs and venture survival: evidence from US venture capital financed semiconductor firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(3), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Palepu, K. (1985). Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250060305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Parker, S. C. (2014). Who become serial and portfolio entrepreneurs? Small Business Economics, 43(4), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9576-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2014). Localized competition in the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Poetz, M., Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2014). Sometimes the best ideas come from outside your industry. Harvard Business Review Blog. Available from: https://hbr.org/2014/11/sometimes-the-best-ideas-come-from-outside-your-industry. Accessed on 20/6/19.

  89. Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Reid, G. C., & Smith, J. A. (2000). What makes a new business start-up successful? Small Business Economics, 14(3), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008168226739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Rosenberg, N. (1994). Exploring the black box: technology, economics, and history. Cambridge University Press.

  92. Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. (2003). Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751–766. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.6.751.16026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Sarasvathy, S. D., Menon, A. R., & Kuechle, G. (2013). Failing firms and successful entrepreneurs: serial entrepreneurship as a temporal portfolio. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9232-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Scherer, F. M., & Harhoff, D. (2000). Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy, 29(4), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00089-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.3.364.7731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614491.006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  100. Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. (1996). Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Stuart, T. E., & Sorenson, O. (2003). The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00098-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Toft-Kehler, R., Wennberg, K., & Kim, P. H. (2014). Practice makes perfect: entrepreneurial-experience curves and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Ucbasaran, D., Alsos, G. A., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2008a). Habitual entrepreneurs. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 4(4), 309–450. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2008b). Opportunity identification and pursuit: does an entrepreneur’s human capital matter? Small Business Economics, 30(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9020-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2009). The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Ucbasaran, D., Shepherd, D. A., Lockett, A., & Lyon, S. J. (2013). Life after business failure: the process and consequences of business failure for entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 39(1), 163–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (1998). Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: are they different? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(3), 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)90002-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2005a). Decisions, actions, and performance: do novice, serial, and portfolio entrepreneurs differ? Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00144.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2005b). Experience and cognition:do novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs differ? International Small Business Journal, 23(1), 72–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242605049104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Binks, M. (2005c). Novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneur behaviour and contributions. Small Business Economics, 25(2), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-003-6461-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Research notes and commentaries: knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Winter, S. G., Cattani, G., & Dorsch, A. (2007). The value of moderate obsession: insights from a new model of organizational search. Organization Science, 18(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Yunus, M. (2007). Nobel Prize Winner Muhammad Yunus. Youtube video, 38:30, posted by Calit2ube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvwllE33cy4. Accessed 5/19/2017.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments of the editor and an anonymous reviewer that substantially improved the article. We thank Dr. Warren Boeker, Dr. Suresh Kotha, Dr. Kevin Steensma, Dr. Arvin Sahaym, Dr. Thomas Allison, Dr. Benjamin Warnick, Dr. Terence Saldanha, Dr. Abhinav Gupta and Dr. Mike Wright for helpful comments and conversations on previous versions of this manuscript. We thank Dr. Sudipta Sinha for his help with developing the algorithm for disambiguating the patent data used in this study. We thank Dr. David Bryce and Dr. Sydney Winter for sharing the general interindustry relatedness index used in this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amrita Lahiri.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lahiri, A., Wadhwa, A. When do serial entrepreneurs found innovative ventures? Evidence from patent data. Small Bus Econ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00390-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Serial entrepreneurship
  • Impactful innovation
  • Founder experience
  • Spillovers

JEL classifications

  • L26
  • O31
  • O00
  • O32